CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2

Chapters 1-4
Case Doctrine
In Re Appointments
of Valenzuela and
Vallarta
- Valenzuela Case
- Appointing power in judiciary vs. Ban 2 months before election.. BAN APPLIES
De Castro v JBC - reversed ruling in Valenzuela case
- ban applies only to executive appointments
Manila Prince v GSIS - Doctrine of Constitutional Supremacy
- Presumption of self-executing provisions of constitution
Civil Liberties Union
v Exec Sec
- Construction based on Framer's intent.
- Sec. 13, Art. VII - Pres, VP, etc. can't hold other positions
EXCEPTION:
a. Granted by const ie. DOJ ->exofficio JBC
b. Allowed by law (main contention of petitioner)
c. Allowed by primary function ie. VP -> cabinet
Sumulong v
COMELEC
- Discretionary powers of constitutional body
- SC can't intervene if no clear illegality/GAD
Bayan v Zamora - VFA under Sec. 25, Art. XVIII or Sec. 21, Art. VII (power of pres to make treaty)
- Ans: Former because more clear on bases, foreign troops, etc
Paras v COMELEC "Every statue must be interpreted with reference to its context and must be considered
together and kept subservient to its general intent."
Ordillo v COMELEC "Language of constitution, as much as possible should be understood in the sense that is
has in common use and that the words used in consti provisions are to be given their
ordinary meaning. EXC: technical terms
--- region - composed of provinceS, cities ....
Imbong v COMELEC - CONSTITUENT v LEGISLATIVE POWER
While the authority to call ConCon is vested exclusively in Congress acting as Constituent
Assembly, the power to enact implementing details are matters within the competence of
Congress in the exercise of its legislative power.
Tolentino v
COMELEC
- DOCTRINE OF PROPER SUBMISSION
The use of the word election in the singular meant the entire Constitution must be
submitted for ratification at one plebiscite only. Submission for ratification of piece-meal
amendment was disallowed since the people had, at that time, no idea yet what the rest of
the revised Constitution would be.
Javellana v Exec Sec - JUDICIAL REVIEW OF AMENDMENTS
Issue on whether or not the new Constitution proposed by the 1971 ConCon has been
ratified in accordance with the provisions of Article 15 of the 1935 Constitution is a
proper subject of judicial inquiry.
Sanidad v COMELEC - POWER TO PROPOSE AMENDMENTS
-Section 15 of the Transitory Provisions
If the President has been legitimately discharging legislative powers of Interim (National
Assembly) (which was never convened), there is no reason why we cannot validly
discharge the functions of the Assembly to propose amendments to the Constitution,
which is but adjunct, though peculiar, to its gross legislative power.
Lambino v COMELEC -PEOPLES INITIATIVE APPLIES TO AMENDMENT, NOT REVISION
A peoples initiative to change the Constitution applies only to an amendment of the
Constitution and not to its revision. Article 17, Section 2 of the Constitution provides:
Amendments to this Constitution may likewise be directly proposed by the people
through Initiative.
Santiago v COMELEC -PEOPLES INITIATIVE TO PROPOSE AMENDMENTS
RA 6735 is inadequate to cover initiative on amendments to the Constitution. If Congress
intended the Act to provide for implementation of initiative on amendments to the
Constitution, it could have provided for a substitute therefor.
Occena v COMELEC -PLEBISCITE SIMULTANEOUS WITH LOCAL ELECTION
BP 54, regarding proposed amendment of Section 7, Article 10 of the 1973 Constitution is
valid. Plebiscite may be held on the same day as regular elections.

Chapter 4: The Fundamental Powers of the State
POLICE POWER Power of the state to regulate
liberty and property for the promotion of general
welfare.
EMINENT DOMAIN enables the state to forcibly
acquire private property, upon payment of just
compensation, for some intended public use.
TAXATION The state is able to demand from the
members of the society their proportionate
share/contribution in the maintenance of the
government.
SIMILARITIES:
1) Inherent in the state
2) Indispensable the state cannot continue or
be effective unless it is able to exercise them
3) They are method by which the state
interferes with private rights
4) Presuppose an equivalent compensation for
the private rights interfered with
5) Exercised primarily by the legislative
DIFFERENCES:
1) POLICE POWER: regulates liberty and
property
EMINENT DOMAIN: property rights only
2) POLICE & TAXATION: exercised only by the
government
EMINENT DOMAIN: exercised too by some
private entities
3) PROPERTY IN EXERCISED OF:
a. POLICE POWER- destroyed because it
is noxious/intended for noxious
purposes
b. EMINENT & TAXATION intended for
public use. Wholesome purpose
4) COMPENSATION OF THE PERSON
SUBJECTED TO:
a. POLICE POWER intangible and
altruistic feeling that he has
contributed to the general welfare
b. OTHER POWERS more concrete
CHAPTER 5: POLICE POWER
Power of promoting the public welfare by
restraining and regulating the use of liberty
and property. Professor Freund
Regulates not only the property but, the
liberty of private persons and virtually all the
people.
CHARACTERISTICS
Most pervasive
Least limitable
Most demanding

- Practically, every person does or owns comes
under the police power.
- The persons acts and acquisitions are
hemmed in by the police power
- Salus populi est suprema lex Sic litere tuo ut
alienum non laedas call for subordination
of individual benefit to the interest of greater
number.
- Police power may not be bargained away
through the medium of contract or even a
treaty. The impairment clause must yield to
the police power whenever the contract deals
with a subject affecting the public welfare.
- Legislature cannot bargain away the police
power of the state
- No legislature can curtail the power of its
successors to make such laws as they may
deem proper in matter of police.
- Police power is DYNAMIC, not static, must
move with the moving society.
- Exercised again and again, as often as it is
necessary for the protection or the promotion
of public welfare.
- Old notion may become outmoded even as
new ideas are born, expanding or constricting
the limits of the police power.
- May sometimes use taxing power as an
implement for the attainment of a legitimate
police objective
- Power of eminent domain could also be used
as an implement of the police power.
EXERCISE OF THE POLICE POWER
- Exercised by: President, admin. Boards, law
making bodies, barangay.
- MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT authorized to
enact such ordinances and regulations
- Lies in the DISCRETION of legislative dept.
- No mandamus available to coerce the
exercise of the police power
- COURTS are POWERLESS to intervene and
compel more decisive action.
- Ascertainment of facts upon which the police
power is to be based is likewise legislative
prerogative.
TEST OF POLICE POWER
- If the measures chosen are intrinsically
invalid, courts have the right and the
obligation to declare them so.
TEST TO DETERMINE THE VALIDITY OF POLICE
MEASURE
1) LAWFUL SUBJECT The interest of the public
generally
2) LAWFUL MEANS The means employed are
reasonably necessary for the accomplishment
of the purpose.
LAWFUL SUBJECT
- That the activity or property sought to be
regulated affects the public welfare. If it does,
the enjoyment of private rights may be
subordinated to the interests of the greater
number. welfare of the people is the
supreme law
LAWFUL MEANS
- The lawful objective must be pursued
through a lawful method; that is, both the end
and the means must be legitimate.
- The means employed for the accomplishment
of the police objective must pass the test of
reasonableness or conform to the safeguards
embodied in the Bill of RIGHTS.
- Failing this, the law will be annulled for
violation of the 2
nd
requirement.

Cases POLICE POWER
Lutz vs. Araneta:
Legitimate exercise of police power- imposition of a
special tax on sugar producers

Tio vs. Videogram Regulatory board
Video Regulatory Board- 1. to regulate the video
industry; 2.to prevent piracy, flagrant violation of
intellectual property rights and the proliferation of
pornographic videotapes

ASLP vs. Secretary of Agrarian Reform
The carrying out of the regulation under CARP
becomes necessary to deprive owners of whatever
lands they may own in excess of the maximum area
allowed, there is definitely a taking under the power
of eminent domain for which payment of just
compensation is imperative. The taking contemplated
is not a mere limitation of the use of the land. What is
required is the surrender of the title and the physical
possession of said excess and all beneficial rights
accruing to the owner in favour of the farmer. A
statute may be sustained under the police power only
if there is concurrence of the lawful subject and the
method.

Taxicab Operators of Metro Manila vs. Board of
Transportation
Phasing out taxicabs more than 6 yrs. old- to protect
the riding public and promote their comfort and
convenience

Bautista vs. Junio
Prohibition of heavy and extra-heavy vehicles from
using public streets on weekends and legal holidays-
to conserve energy

Velasco vs. Villegas
Prohibition of barber shop operators from rendering
massage services in a separate room- to prevent
immorality and enable the authorities to properly
assess license fees.

Lozano vs. Martinez
BP22- to preserve the integrity of the banking system

DECS vs. San Diego
It is not enough to simply invoke the right to quality
education as a guaranty of the Constitution; one must
show that he is entitled to it because of his
preparation and promise.

Sangalang vs. IAC:
Opening of two erstwhile private roads in Bel Air
Village- to prevent traffic decongestion and for public
convenience

Del Rosario vs. Bengzon:
Generics Act - To promote and require the use of
generic products

TeleBAP vs. COMELEC
A franchise is merely a privilege; Sec. 29 of BP Blg.
881- valid

Ople vs. Torres:
National Computerized Identification Reference
System- unconstitutional; it pressures the people to
surrender their privacy by giving information about
themselves on the pretext that it will facilitate the
delivery of basic services.

Ynot vs. IAC
The prohibition of the interprovincial transport of
carabaos cannot prevent the indiscriminate slaughter
because they can be killed anywhere.

City Govt. of QC vs. Ericta
"Ordinance Regulating The Establishment,
Maintenance And Operation Of Private Memorial
Type Cemetery Or Burial Ground Within The
Jurisdiction Of Quezon City And Providing Penalties
For The Violation Thereof" ection 9 cannot be
justified under the power granted to Quezon City to
tax, fix the license fee, and regulate such other
business, trades, and occupation as may be
established or practiced in the City.
Inchong vs. Hernandez
Even the law infringers upon a certain treaty, the
treaty is always subject to qualification or
amendment by a subsequent law and the same may
never curtail or restrict the scope of the police power
of the State.

PRC vs. De Guzman
Persons who desire to engage in the learned
professions requiring scientific or technical
knowledge may be required to take an examination
as a prerequisite to engaging in their chosen careers.

Chavez vs. Romulo
Police power, as an inherent attribute of sovereignty,
is the power to prescribe regulations to promote the
health, morals, peace, education, good order, or
safety, and the general welfare of the people. To
determine the validity of a police measure, two
questions must be asked: (1) Does the interest of the
public in general, as distinguished from those of a
particular class, require the exercise of police power?
and (2) Are the means employed reasonably
necessary for the accomplishment of the purpose and
not unduly oppressive upon individuals?

MMDA vs. Garin
Rep. Act No. 7924 does not grant the MMDA with
police power, let alone legislative power, and that all
its functions are administrative in nature.


Carlos vs. DSWD
When the conditions so demand as determined by
the legislature, property rights must bow to the
primacy of police power because property rights,
though sheltered by due process, must yield to
general welfare.

LIM vs. Pacquing
Revoking All Powers and Authority of Local
Government(s) To Grant Franchise, License or Permit
And Regulate Wagers Or Betting By The Public On
Horse And Dog Races, Jai-Alai Or Basque Pelota, And
Other Forms Of Gambling

Phil. Press Institute vs. COMELEC
Comelec promulgated Resolution No.
2772directing newspapers to provide free Comelec
space of not less than one-half page for the common
use of political parties and
candidates. Unconstitutional. The taking of private
property for public use is authorized by the
constitution, but not without payment of just
compensation.

Cruz vs. Paras
Police power is granted to municipal corporations in
general terms as follows: "General power of council
to enact ordinances and make regulations. - The
municipal council shall enact such ordinances and
make such regulations, not repugnant to law, as may
be necessary to carry into effect and discharge the
powers and duties conferred upon it by law and such
as shall seem necessary and proper to provide for the
health and safety, promote the prosperity, improve
the morals, peace, good order, comfort, and
convenience of the municipality and the inhabitants
thereof, and for the protection of property therein.

Manila vs. Laguio
There is a clear invasion of personal or property
rights, personal in the case of those individuals
desirous of owning, operating and patronizing those
motels and property in terms of the investments
made and the salaries to be paid to those therein
employed. If the City of Manila so desires to put an
end to prostitution, fornication and other social ills,
itcan instead impose reasonable regulations such as
daily inspections of the establishments for any
violation of theconditions of their licenses or permits;
it may exercise its authority to suspend or revoke
their licenses for these violations;and it may even
impose increased license fees. In other words, there
are other means to reasonably accomplish the
desired end.

Solicitor General vs. MMA
PD 1605 does not allow either the removal of license
plates or the confiscation of drivers licenses for
traffic violations committed in Metropolitan Manila.
There is nothing in the decree authorizing the MMA
to impose such sanctions. Thus Local political
subdivisions are able to legislate only by virtue of a
valid delegation of legislative power from the
national legislature (except only that the power to
create their own sources of revenue and to levy taxes
is conferred by the Constitution itself). They are
mere agents vested with what is called the power of
subordinate legislation

CHAPTER 6: EMINENT DOMAIN
- Where private property is needed for
conversion to some public use. Government
should offer to buy it.
- If owner is willing: They can agree on the
price and the conditions.
- VOLUNTARY TRANSACTION WITHOUT THE
NECESSITY OF JUDICIAL ACTION:
o IF OWNER IS UNWILLING: necessary
for government to use its coercive
authority by eminent domain upon
payment of JUST COMPENSATION
- POWER EXPROPRIATION
- Highest and most exact idea of property
remaining in the government nature of
COMPULSORY SALE TO THE STATE
- Being inherent, power of Eminent Domain
does not need to be specifically conferred by
the constitution but Art. III, Section.9
provides that: Private property shall not be
taken for public use with just compensation
- Art.3 Sec.9 should be strictly interpreted
against the expropriation and liberally in
favour of the property owner

WHO MAY EXERCISE
- Lodged primarily in the national legislature.
- May be delegated to the government entities
even to private corporations/quasi-public
THE FF. MAY EXERCISE THE POWER OF
EXPROPRIATION:
1) Congress
2) President of the Philippines
3) Various local legislative body
4) Certain public corp. (Land authority, National
Housing Authority)
DESTRUCTION FROM NECESSITY
EMINENT DOMAIN DESTRUCTION FROM
NECESSITY
May validly taken even
by private individual
From rights of necessity
under laws of society itself
From public right /
arises from
Right to self defense or
self-preservation
Private right vested to
even individual
No need for just
compensation

NECESSITY OF EXERCISE
- Question of necessity/ wisdom are essentially
political when decided by national legislature
and usually not subject to judicial review
- National legislature can decide alone in its
discretion
- Rule that the power of eminent domain
should be interpreted liberally in favour of
the private property owner
PRIVATE PROPERTY
- Anything that can come under the dominion
of man is subject to expropriation. This
include real and personal, tangible and
intangible properties
- EXCEPTION: money and choses in action
CHOSE IN ACTION a personal right not reduced
into possession but recoverable by a suit at law,
right to receive
- Property already devoted to public use is still
subject to expropriation
TAKING
- Imports a physical dispossession of the
owner
- Depriving owner of all beneficial use and
enjoyment of his property
1) May include trespass without actual
eviction
2) Material impairment of the value of
the property
3) Prevention of the ordinary uses for
which the property was intended
- Not every taking is compensable, as it may be
justified under the police power
- DAMNUM ABSQUE INJURIA - There are cases
that a valid exercise of the police power
aimed at improving the general welfare and
whatever damages are sustained by the
property owners are regarded as merely
incidental to a proper exertion of such power
REQUISITES OF TAKING IN EMINENT DOMAIN (Rep.
vs. Castellvi)
1) The expropriation must enter a private
property
2) Entry must be for more than a momentary
period
3) Entry must be under warrant / color of legal
authority
4) Property be devoted to public use otherwise
informally appropriated or injuriously
affected.
5) Utilization of the property for public use must
be in such a way as to pust the owner and
deprive him of beneficial enjoyment of the
property
PUBLIC USE
- Any use directly available to the general
public as a matter of right and not merely
forbearance/accommodation
- The important thing is that any member of
the general public, as such, can demand the
right to use the converted property for his
direct and personal convenience
JUST COMPENSATION
- Full and fair equivalent of the property taken
from the private owner by the expropriator.
- Intended to INDEMNIFY owner for the loss he
has sustained
- The compensation to be just, must be fair not
only to the owner but also to the
expropriation
TO ASCERTAIN JUST COMPENSATION
1) Court determines actual/basic value of
property
2) Owners consequential damages
3) Basic/market value of the property
FACTORS TO BE CONSIDERED IN ARRIVING AT THE
FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY
1) Cost of acquisition
2) Current value of property
3) Actual/ potential use
4) Particular case of lands, size, shape, location
and tax declaration
CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES Consist of injuries
directly caused on the residue of the private property
taken by reason of the expropriation
JUST COMPENSATION FOR PROPERTY UNDER
EXPROPRIATION SHOULD BE:
1) Either the sworn valuation made by the
owner
2) Official assessment thereof, whichever was
lower.
Cases EMINENT DOMAIN
Republic vs. La Orden de PP. Benedictos de
Filipinas
The president of the Philippines ordered that
expropriation of a portion of the property of the
defendant along Mendiola Street for the extension of
Azcarraga Street. SC: Private property may be
expropriated for public use and upon payment of just
compensation; condemnation of property is justified
only if it is for the public good and there is genuine
necessity therefore of a public character. Courts have
power to inquire legality of the rights to E. domain
and WON there is genuine necessity.

Lagcao vs. Labra
The ordinance is violative of the petitioners right to
due process since petitioners had already obtained a
favorable judgment of eviction against the illegal
occupants of their property. The judgment in this
ejectment case had, in fact, already attained finality,
with a writ of execution and an order of demolition.
But Mayor Garcia requested the trial court to
suspend the demolition on the pretext that the City
was still searching for a relocation site for the
squatters. However, instead of looking for a
relocation site during the suspension period, the city
council suddenly enacted Ordinance No. 1843 for the
expropriation of petitioners' lot. It was trickery and
bad faith, pure and simple.

City of Manila vs. Chinese Community of Manila
City of Manila, prayed for the expropriation of a
portion private cemetery for the conversion into an
extension of Rizal Avenue and claims that it is
necessary that such public improvement be made in
the said portion of the private cemetery and that the
said lands are within their jurisdiction. Private
property devoted for public use is still subject to
expropriation, provided this is done directly by the
national legislature or under a specific grant of
authority to the delegate. In addition, there must be a
necessity for the expropriation. Evidence shows that
there is no proof of the need of converting the
cemetery.

Republic vs. PLDT
In the exercise of the sovereign power of eminent
domain, the Republic may require the telephone
company to permit interconnection as the needs of
the government service may require, subject to the
payment of just compensation. The use of lines and
services to allow inter-service connection between
the both telephone systems, through expropriation
can be a subject to an easement of right of way.


Ayala de Roxas vs. City of Manila
There must be a just compensation for the imposition
of ones property

People vs. Fajardo
A just compensation must be given to the owner
affected with the ordinance prohibiting the
construction of the building which would destroy the
view of the public plaza.

NAPOCOR vs. Aguirre-Paderanga
A right-of-way easement falls within the ambit of the
term expropriation.

Republic vs. Castellvi:
The just compensation shall commence during the
actual occupancy and deprivation which was in 1959;
mere notice of the intention to expropriate a
particular property does not bind its owner and
inhibit him from disposing of it or otherwise dealing
with it.

Requisites of Taking in Eminent Domain
1. The expropriator must enter a
private property.
2. The entry must be for more than
a momentary period.
3. The entry must be under warrant
or color of legal authority.
4. The property must be devoted to
public use or otherwise
informally appropriated or
injuriously affected.
5. The utilization of the property for
public use must be in such a way
as to oust the owner and deprive
him of beneficial enjoyment of
the property.

Reyes vs. NHA
The public use is synonymous with public
interest, public benefit, public welfare, and
public convenience. The act of NHA in entering a
contract with a real estate developer for the
construction of low cost housing cannot be taken to
mean as a deviation from the stated public purpose of
their taking.


Province of Camarines Sur v. CA
If it is for public purpose, expropriation can take
place.

Eslaban vs. De Onorio
PD NO. 1529 provides that the owner is required to
recognize in favor of the governmentthe easement of
a public highway, way, private way established by
law, or any government canalwhere the certificate of
title does not state that the boundaries thereof have
been pre-determined.In the case at bar, the irrigation
canal was constructed on Oct 1981 after the property
had beenregistered in May of 1976. In this
case, prior expropriation proceedings must be
filed and justcompensation shall be paid to the
owner before the land could be taken for public use.

Commissioner of Public Highways vs. Burgos
Article 1250 of the NCC provides that the value of
currency at the time of the establishment of the
obligation shall be the basis of payment which would
be the value of peso at the time of taking of the
property when the obligation of the government to
pay arises. It is only when there is an agreement that
the inflation will make the value of currency at the
time of payment, not at the time of the establishment,
the basis for payment.

EPZA vs. Dulay
The court simply state the lower value of the
property as declared either by the owner or the
assessor; courts still have the power and authority to
determine just compensation, independent of what is
stated by the decree and to this effect, to appoint
commissioners for such purpose.

Asso. Of Small Landowners Vs. Sec. Of DAR
Revolutionary expropriation; the contention and the
manner of the just compensation provided in Sec. 18
of the CARP Law is not violative of the Constititution;
the invalidation of said section will result in the
nullification of the entire program.



CHAPTER 7: TAXATION
TAXES
- Enforced proportional contributions from
persons and property, levied by the state by
virtue of its sovereignty, for the support of
government and for all public needs
IMPORTANCE OF TAXATION
- Unavoidable obligation of the government to
protect the people and extend them benefits
in the form of public projects and services
- Duty imposed by the mere fact of his
MEMBERSHIP in the body politic and his
enjoyment of the benefits available from such
membership
- TAXES- To raise revenue
- LICENSES Regulatory purposes
SCOPE
- All income earned in the taxing state.
- Citizens or aliens
- Immovable and tangible
- Personal properties found in its territory,
tangible personal property owned by persons
domiciled thereon
The power to tax includes the power to destroy
CJ Marshall US SC
EXERCISE
- Vested on national legislature exercised by
the local legislative bodies
- Pursuant to direct authority conferred by Art.
X, Sec.5 of the constitution each local
government unit shall have the power to
create its own sources of revenue and to levy
taxes subject to such guidelines and
limitations as the congress.
DUE PROCESS AND TAXATION
- Taxation is subject to the requirements of due
process. Not allowed if they are confiscatory
except where they are intended precisely for
destruction as an instrument of the police
power
EQUAL PROTECTION AND TAXATION
The rule of taxation shall be uniform and equitable
UNIFORMITY - Persons/ things belonging to the same
class shall be taxed at the same rate.
EQUALITY - Tax shall be strictly proportional to the
relative value of the property. Requires a valid
classification in the selection of the objects of
taxation
EQUITABLE - Taxes should be apportioned among
the people according to their capacity to pay.
DOUBLE TAXATION
- There is no provision in the constitution
specifically prohibiting double taxation
- There is a double taxation when additional
taxes are laid on the same subject by the same
taxing jurisdiction during the same taxing
period and for the same purpose
PUBLIC PURPOSE
- It is necessary to show that the proceeds are
devoted to a public purpose
- All of which inure to the direct benefit and
enjoyment of people
TAX EXEMPTIONS
- Either constitutional or statutory
- Granted religious and charitable institution
because they give considerable assistance to
the state.
- Granted under discretion of legislature.
Cases TAXATION

Punzalan vs. Municipal Board of Manila
If imposed by different jurisdictions such as national
government and the other by the city government,
there is no double taxation; no violation of the equal
protection clause- practitioners in Manila has a more
lucrative income.

Lladoc vs. CIR
gift tax- an excise tax imposed on the transfer of
property by way of gift inter vivos, the imposition of
which on property used exclusively for religious
purposes does not constitute an impairment of the
Constitution.

MCIAA vs. Marcos
With the repealing clause of RA 7160 the tax
exemption provided. All general and special in the
charter of the MCIAA has been expressly repeated. It
state laws, acts, City Charters, decrees, executive
orders, proclamations and administrative
regulations, or part of parts thereof which are
inconsistent with any of the provisions of the Code
are hereby repeated or modified accordingly.
Therefore the SC affirmed the decision and order of
the RTC and herein petitioner has to pay the assessed
realty tax of its properties effective January 1, 1992
up to the present.

Gerochi vs. DOE
Petitioners contest the constitutionality of the EPIRA,
stating that the imposition of the universal charge on
all end-users is oppressive and confiscatory and
amounts to taxation without representation for not
giving the consumers a chance to be heard and be
represented. If generation of revenue is the primary
purpose and regulation is merely incidental, the
imposition is a tax; but if regulation is the primary
purpose, the fact that revenue is incidentally raised
does not make the imposition a tax.

MIAA vs. CA
The airport lands and buildings of MIAA are exempt
from real estate tax imposed by local governments.
Sec. 243(a) of the LGC exempts from real estate tax
any real property owned by the Republic of the
Philippines. This exemption should be read in
relation with Sec. 133(o) of the LGC, which provides
that the exercise of the taxing powers of local
governments shall not extend to the levy of taxes,
fees or charges of any kind on the National
Government, its agencies and instrumentalities.

Association of Small Land Owners cs. Sec. DAR
The CARP Law, for its part, conditions the transfer of
possession and ownership of the land to the
government on receipt by the landowner of the
corresponding payment or the deposit by the DAR of
the compensation in cash or LBP bonds with an
accessible bank. Until then, title also remains with the
landowner. No outright change of ownership is
contemplated either.

Chapter 8: Due Process of Law
(sec.1,art. 3:"no person shall be deprive of liberty or
property without due process of law")
A. Origin : by the 39th chapter of magna carta wrung
by the barons from king john, the despot promised
that"no man shall be taken or imprisoned or
outlawed,or in any manner destroyed;nor shall we go
upon him, nor send upon him,but by the lawful
judgement of his peers or by the law of the land.
B. Definition: "A law which hears before it condemns,
which proceeds upon inquiry and renders judgement
only after trial". "Responsiveness to the supremacy of
reason, obedience to the dictates of justice"(ermita-
malate hotel and motel operations association V. city
of manila). "The embodiment of the sporting idea of
fair play(frankfurter,Mr.justice holmes and supreme
court)
C. Who are protected : Universal in application to all
persons,without regard to any difference in race,
color or nationality. Artificial persons are covered by
the protection but only as their property is
concerned(smith bell & co. V. Natividad) the
guarantee extends to aliens and includes the means
of livelihood(villegas V. Hiu chiong)
D. Meaning of life, liberty and property.
a. Life inlcudes the right of an individual to his
body in its completeness free from dismemberment,
and extends to the use of god given faculties which
make life enjoyable
b. Liberty includes "The right to exist and the
right to be free from arbitrary personal restraint or
servitude. Also the right of the citizens to be free to
use his faculties in all lawful ways.(Rubi vs provincial
board of mindoro)
C. Property is anything that can come
undernthe right of ownership and be the subject of
contract. It represents more than the things a person
owns; also the right to secure,use and dispose of
them
C.1. Public office is not a property, but
one unlawfully ousted from it institute an
action to recover the same, flowing from the
de jure officer's office(nunez vs averia).
Indeed, the court has recognized that while
public office is not a property to which one
may acquire a vested right, it is nevertheless a
protected right(bince vs. commission on
elections)
C.2 a mining license that contravenes
a mandatory provision of law under which it
is granted void. being a mere privilege does
not vest absolute rights in the holder,thus
without offending the due process and the
impairment clause of the constitution,it can
be revoked by the state in the public
interest(republic vs rosemoor mining vs dev.
Corporation.) mere priviledges, such as the
license to operate a cockpit,are not property
rights and are revocable at will(pedro vs
provincial board of rizal)
C.3 the mandatory suspension from
office of a public official pending criminal
prosecution for violation of ra 3019 cannot
amount to deprivation of property without
due process of law (Libanan vs Sandigan
bayan)
(deloso vs. sandiganbayan)The complaint alleged
that Amor Deloso taking advantage of his public and
official position, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously give unwarranted benefits
to Daniel Ferrer thru manifest partiality and evident
bad faith, The order of suspension does not have a
definite period so that the petitioner may be
suspended for the rest of his term of office unless his
case is terminated sooner.
E) aspects of due process
-Substantive: serves as a restriction on
government's law and rule making powers.
Requisites:
1.interest of public,in general as
distinguished from those of a particular class,
require the intervention of the state.
2.the means employed are reasonably
necessary for the accomplishment of the
purpose and not duly oppresive. (kwong sing
vs. city of manila,) an ordinance requiring all
laundry establishments to issue their receipts
in english and spanish was held valid.
( Yu eng cong Vs. Trinidad), the court
declared as un constitutional a law
prohibiting traders from keeping their books
of account in a language other than
english,spanish or any local dialect.
(gsis vs montesclaros), sc declared as
invalid sec 18 pd 1146 which provides that
the surviving spouse has no right to
survivorship pension benefits if the surviving
spouse contracted marriage with the
petitioner within 3yrs before the pensioner
qualified for the pension.
-Procedural: serves as a restriction on
actions of judicial and quasi-judicial agencies of
government.
Requisites:
1. Impartial court or tribunal clothed
with judicial power to hear and determine the
matter.
(javier vs comelec) there was a denial of due
process when commissioner opinion,who was
formerly a law partner of
respondent,obstainately insisted in
participating in the case thus denying the
petitioner "the cold neutrality of an impartial
judge"
(galman vs. sandiganbayan) the court held
that the people was denied due process which
requires an impartial tribunal and an nbiased
prosecution.
2. Jurisdiction must be lawfully
acquired over the person of the defendant
and over the property which is the subject
matter of the proceedings.
(de los santos vs. nlrc) while jurisdiction over
the person of the defendant can be acquired
by volountary appearance before the
court,which includes submission of pleadings
in compliance with the order of the court or
tribunal.
3.defendant must be given the
oppurtunity to be heared.
(lim vs CA) SC said that the closure of bistro
violated the due process clause.instead of
arbitrarily closing down the establishment's
bussines operations,mayor lim should have
given bistro an oppotunity to rebut the
allegations that it violated the conditions of
its license.
(david vs aquilizan) The SC ruled in favor of
David. A decision rendered without a hearing
is null and void and may be attacked directly
or collaterally. The decision is null and void
for want of due process.
(mariveles shipyard vs. CA)not all cases
require a trial-type hearing. Due process in
labor cases before a labor arbiter is satisfied
when the parties are given the oppurtunity to
submit their position papers to which they
are supposed to atached all the supporting
documents as evidence that would support
their respective claims.
4.judgement must be rendered upon
lawful hearing.
This is necessary because otherwise
the right toma hearing would be rendered
meaningless. Relate this to art. 8 sec.14"no
decision shall be rendered by any court
without expressing therein clearly and
distinctly the facts and the law on which itnis
based.
F. Publication.
In (tanada vs tuvera) the court held that
publication is imperative to the validity of
laws,presidential decrees and executive
orders,administrative rules and reg. and is
indespensible part of due process.

G. Administrative due process
In (ang tibay vs cir) the court enumerated the
requisites of administrative due process, as follows:
(1)right to a hearing,includes right to present
ones case and submit evidence thereof
(2)tribunal must consider evidence presented
(3)the decision must have something to
support itself
(4)evidence must be substantial
(5)the decision must be rendered on the
evidence presented at the hearing
(6)tribunal must act on its own independent
consideration of the facts and the law of the
controversy
(7)the board or body should in all
controversial questions, render its decision in such a
manner the parties will know the issues involved and
the reasons for the decision.
-due process in quasi-judicial proceedings before the
comelec requires notice and hearing. The
proclamation of a winning candidate cannot be
annulled if he has not been notified of any motion to
set aside his proclamation.
(namil vs comelec) the comelec issued the questioned
order annulling the proclamation on the basis of
private respondent s allegations and the
recommendation of the law department, without
giving notice to the candidate proclaimed. Thus, the
comelec order was declared void.
Chapter 9: Equal Protection of the Laws
(sec. 1,art. 3:" xxx nor shall any person Be denied the
equal protection of the laws")
A. Meaning; persons protected.
-all persons or things similarly situated
should be treated alike, both as to rights conferred
and responsibilities imposed. Natural and juridical
persons are entitled to this guarantee. But with
respect to artificial persons, they enjoy the protection
only insofar as their property is concerned.
B. scope of equality
1)economic. (ichong vs hernandez) the court
upheld the validity of the retail trade nationalization
law despite the objection that it violated the equal
protection clause,because there exist real and actual,
positive and fundamental differences bet. An alien
and a national.
2)political
(a)the constitution as a general rule
places the civil rights of the aliens on an equal
footing with those of citizens but their
political do not enjoy the same. In (ceniza vs.
comelec) the law excluding residents of
mandaue city from voting for provincial
officials was justified as a "matter of
legislative discretion" and that equal
protection would be violated only if groups
within the city were allowed to vote while
others were not.
(b)in the criminal process,sec.11,art
3,insures free access to courts. In (Nunez vs
Sandiganbayan) the constitutional mandate
for the creation of a special court to hear
offenses committed by public officers was the
authority to make a distinction between
prosecution for dishonesty in public service
and prosecution for crimes not connected
with public office.
3) Social: (art. 13,sec. 1)
C. Valid classification
1)substantial distinction-Make real
differences.
(dumlao vs comelec)court upheld the validity
of a law disqualifying from runnning for the
same office from which he retired,any retired
elective provincial or municipal official who
has received of payment of retirement
benefits and who shall have been 65yrs of
age.
(ichong vs hernandez) court upheld the
validity of retailntrade nationalization law
despite the objection thatnit violated the
equal protection clause, because there exist
real and actual, positive and fundamental
diferences between an alien and a national.
(international school alliance of educators vs.
quisimbing) it was held that there was no
reasonable distinction between the services
rendered by "foreign hires" and "local hires".
2)germane to the purpose of the law. The
distinctions which are the bases for the classification
should have a reasonable relation to the purpose of
the law.
3) Not limited to existing conditions only.
4) Must apply equally to all members of the
same class.
(villegas vs. hui choing) the ordinance
imposinga work permit fee of P50 upon all
aliens desirous of obtaining employment in
the city of manila was declared
unconstitutional,because the fee was
unreasonblenand excessive,and it failed to
consider valid substantial differences in
situation among individual aliens who were
required to pay it.
Chapter 10: Searches and Seizures
Section 2, Article III: 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 a judge, after
examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, particularly
describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Topic Case Doctrine
Scope of the protection Moncada v Peoples Court Artificial persons are also entitled to the guarantee,
although they may be required to open their books of
accounts for examination by the State in the exercise of
police and taxing powers.
Stonehill v Diokno Right to search and seizures is personal; it may be
invoked only by the person entitled to it.
Lopez v Commisioner of
Customs
Such right may be waived, either impliedly or expressly
People v Damaso The waiver of such right must be made by the person
whose right is invaded, not by one who is not duly
authorized to effect such waiver.
The right is directed inly
against the Government
and its agencies tasked
with the enforcement of
the law.
Waterous Drug
Corporation v NLRC
The Bill of Rights does not protect citizens from
unreasonable searches and seizures by private
individuals
Valmonte v De Villa What constitutes a reasonable and unreasonable search
and seizure in any particular case is purely a juridical
question, determinable from a consideration of the
circumstances involved.
Requisite of a valid
warrant:
A. PROBABLE CAUSE
Alvarez v CFI Such facts and circumstances antecedent to the issuance
of the warrant that in themselves are sufficient to
induce a cautious man to rely on them and act in
pursuance thereof
Burgos v Chief of Staff Such facts and circumstances which would lead a
reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an
offense has been committed and that the objects sought
in connection with the offense are in the place sought to
be searched.
Must refer to one specific
offense
People v Salanguit Where a search warrant was issued for the seizure of
shabu and drug paraphernaliz, but probable cause was
found to exist only with respect to the shabu, the
warrant cannot be invalidated in toto; it is still valid
with respect to the shabu
B. DETERMINED
PERSONALLY BY THE
JUDGE
People v Inting The determination of the probable cause is the function
of the judge; and only the judge and judge alone makes
this determination.
Soliven v Makasiar For the issuance of a warrant of arrest, it is sufficient
that the judge personally determine the existence of
probable cause. It is not necessary that he should
personally examine the complainant and his witnesses.
Collector of Customs v
Villaluz
The power is derived by the judge directly from the self-
executing provisions of Art III, Section 2 of the
Constitution and therefore may not be limited, much
less withdrawn by the legislature.
Morano v Vivo Orders of arrest may be issued by administrative
authorities, but only for the purpose of carrying out a
final finding of a violation of law, but not for the sole
purpose of investigation or prosecution.
Only a judge may validly Salazar v Achacoso Art 38 of the Labor Code which grants the Secretary of
issue a warrant of arrest
or a search warrant upon
fulfillment of certain
constitutional
requirements
Labor and Employment the authority to issue orders of
arrest, search and seizure, was declared
unconstitutional.
C. AFTER EXAMINATION,
UNDER OATH OR
AFFIRMATION, OF THE
COMPLAINANT AND THE
WITNESSES HE MAY
PRODUCE
Mata v Bayona Mere affidavits of the complainant and his witnesses
were not enough to sustain the issuance of a search
warrant.
Alvarez v CFI Reliable information was held insufficient, as the
evidence offered by the complainant and his witnesses
shoud be based on their own personal knowledge and
not on mere information or belief.
D. PARTICULARITY OF
DESCRIPTION
Pangandaman v Casar Warrants issued against 50 John Does none of whom
the witnesses could identify, were considered in the
nature of general warrants, and thus voided.
People v Tee The particularity of description is for the a) ready
identification of person to be arrested, and b)
prevention of unreasonable searching time.
Properties subject to seizure (Rule 126, Section 2, Rules of Court)
1. Property subject of the offense;
2. Property stolen or embezzled and other proceeds or fruits of the offense; and
3. Propoerty used or intended to be used as the means of committing an offense.
Where the search and seizure made only for the purpose of obtaining evidence to be used against the accused,
warrant is unlawful as it would violate the constitutional right against selfincrimination.
~Where the accused did not raise the question of inadmissibility of the evidence, such omission constituted a
waiver of the protection granted by the section, and the illegally seized evidence could then be admitted against
him.
Admissibility of Illegally
Seized Evidence
Exclusionary Rule the
fruit of a poisoned tree
shall be inadmissible for
any purpose in any
proceeding (Article III,
Section 3 (2))
People v Salazar Even if the accused were illegally arrested, such arrest
does not invest eye-witness accounts with
constitutional infirmity as fruits of a poisonous tree;
thus, where the conviction could be secured on the
strength of testimonial evidence given in open court, the
illegality of the arrest cannot be invoked to reverse the
conviction.
Alih v Castro The items seized, having been the fruits of a poisonous
tree were held inadmissible as evidence in any
proceedings against the petitioners. But said evidence
should remain in custodia legis.
Warrantless Arrests:
1.When the person to be
arrested has committed, is
actually commiting, or is
attempting to commit an
offense in his presence
People v Sucro When a police officer sees the offense, although at a
distance, or hears the disturbances created thereby, and
proceeds at once to the scene thereof, he may effect an
arrest without a warrant. The offense is deemed
committed in the presence or within the view of the
officer.
People v Molina To constitute a valid in flagrante delicto, reliable
information alone absent any overt act indicative of a
felonious enterprise in the presence and within the view
of the arresting officer is not sufficient to constitute
probable cause to justify the arrest. It is necessary that
a) the person must execute an overt act, and b) it is
done within the view of the arresting officer.
Warrantless Arrests:
2.When there is a
probable cause to believe,
based on his personal
knowledge of the facts or
of other circumstances,
that the person to be
arrested has committed
the offense
Go v CA Six days after the shooting, as the petitioner presented
himself, the police detained him because he was
positively identified by an eyewitness as the gunman
who shot Maguan. It was held that there was no valid
arrest. It cannot be consiered as within the meaning of
the offense had just been committed, neither did the
policemen have personal knowledge of facts that Go
shot Maguan.
People v Gerente Where the policemen saw the victim dead at the
hospital and when they inspected the crime scene, the
found the isntruments of death and the eyewitnesses
reported the happening and identified Gerente, the
warrantless arrest of Gerente only three hours after the
killing was valid, since the policemen had personal
knowledge of the violent death of the victim and of the
facts that Gerente was one of those whol killed the
victim.
Robin Padilla v CA There was a valid arrest, as there was neither
supervening event nor a considerable lapse of time
between the hit-and-run and the apprehension. The
policeman thereafter saw the vehicle, its plate umber,
the dented hood and railings thereof, which formed part
of their personal knowledge that his vehicle was the one
involved in the incident.
Warrantless Arrests:
3.When the person to be
arrested is a prisoner

Warrantless Searches:
1.When the right is
voluntarily waived
People v Omaweng The accused, driving a vehicle, was stopped at a
checkpoint, and when the vehicle was inspected, the
soldiers asked permission to see the contents of the bag.
The accused consented, and upon inspection, it was
found to contain marijuana.
People v Canton Pursuant to RA 6235 (Anti-Hijacking Law), passengers
waive their rights to be inspected for airline security.
Warrantless Searches:
2.When there is a valid
reason to stop-and-frisk
Manalili v CA Stop-and-frisk the vernacular designation of the
right of a police officer to stop a citizen on the street,
interrogate him and pat him for weapons whenever he
observes unusual conduct which leads him to conclude
that criminal activity may ba afoot.
Requisites of a valid Stop- People v Sy Chua Two elements must concur: a) the person to be arrested
and-Frisk must execute an overt act indicating that he has just
committed, is actually cimmitting, or is attempting to
commit a crime; and b) such overt act is done in the
presence or within the view of the arresting officer.
Malacat v CA There was no valid search because there was nothing in
the behavior or conduct of the petitioner which could
have elicited even more suspicion other than that his
eyes were moving fast. There was no reasonable ground
to believe that the petitioner was with a deadly weapon.
Warrantless Searches:
3.Where the search and
seizure is an incident to a
lawful arrest
People v Malmstedt Where soldiers, manning a checkpoint, noticed a bulge
on the accuseds waist, and the pouch bag was found to
contain hashish, the search was deemed valid as an
incident to a lawful arrest and there was sufficient
probable cause for the said officers to believe that the
accused was then and there committing a crime.
People v Musa In a buy-bust operation, the law enforcement agents
may seize the marked money found on the person of the
pusher immediately after the arrest even without a
search warrant.
People v Sucro A warrantless search and seizure can be made without
necessarily being preceded by an arrest provided that
the said searched is effected on the basis of a probable
cause.
People v Chua Ho San While a contemporaneous search of a person arrested
may be effected for dangerous weapons used in the
commission of the crime, and which search may extend
to the area within his immediate control where he
might gain possession of a weapon or evidence he can
destroy, a valid arrest must precede a search. The
process cannot be reversed, since there was no valid
arrest that could justify the search.
Espano v CA Where the accused was frisked and arrested in the
street for possession of 2 bags of marijuana, and when
asked if he had more answered that he had more at his
house, the search conducted in the house and the
consequent seizure was held invalid, because the house
was no longer within the reach and control of the
accused.
Pita v CA The respondents had not shown the required proof to
justify a ban and to warrant confiscation of the
magazines; they were not possessed of a lawful court
order fnding such to be pornographic and authorizing
them to carry out a search and seizure. To justify a
warrantless search as an incident to a lawful arrest, the
arrest must be on account of a crime having been
committed.
Warrantless Searches:
4.Searches of Vessels and
Roldan v Arca A fishing vessel found to be violating fishery laws may
be seized without a warrant because a) they are usually
Aircraft equipped with powerful motors that enable them to
elude pursuit, and b) the seizure would be an incident to
a lawful arrest.
Warrantless Searches:
5.Searches of Moving
Vehicles
People v CFI of Rizal Automobiles may be searched only at borders or
constructive borders, and the warrantless search of
vehicles made within the interior of territory is justifies
only if there is probable cause.
Valmonte v De Villa Checkpoints enable the NCRDC to pursue its mission
of establishing effective territorial defense and
maintaining peace and order for the benefit of the
public.
People v Escano An extensive serach is allowed only if officers have
probable cause to believe before the search.
Caballes v CA In the exceptional events, what constitutes a reasonable
search or seizure is purely a judicial question,
determinable from the uniqueness of the circumstances
involved, including the purpose, thepresence of
probable cause, the manner in which it was made, the
place or thing searched and the character of the things
procured.
People v Libnao Warrantless searches of moving vehicles are limited to
routine checks where the examination of the vehicle is
limited to visual inspection. When a vehicle is stopped
and subjected to an extensive search, such would be
constitutional if made upon probable cause.
Warrantless Searches:
6.Inspection of buildings
and other premises for the
enforcement of fire,
sanitary and building
regulations

Warrantless Seaches:
7.Where prohibited
articles are in plain view
People v Salanguit In the course of the search, they found the shabu first
and then came upon an article wrapped in newspaper
which turned out to be marijuana. On whether the
marijuana can be validly seized, it was held that once
the valid portion of the search warrant was executed,
the plain view doctine can no longer provide any basis
for admitting the other items subsequently found.
People v Musa The plain view doctrine may not be used to launch
unbridled searches and indiscriminate seizures, nor to
extend to a general exploratory search made solely to
find evidence of defendants guilt
People v Figueroa While serving a warrant of arrest, the seizure of the
firearm and ammunition was held lawful, because the
objects seized were in plain view of the officer who had
the right to be in the place where he was.
Warrantless Searches:
Those under exigent and

emergency circumstances
Privacy of Communication and Correspondence
~The basic provision on Searches and Seizures was originally interpreted as applicable only to the unlawful taking
of TANGIBLE objects
Article III, Section 3 (1) The privacy of communication and correspondence shall be inviolable upon lawful order
of the court or when public safety or orders requires otherwise as provided by law.
~Thie provision covers with its protection even intangible things.
Ramirez v CA RA 4200 (Anti-Wire-tapping Act) clearly and
unequivocally makes it illegal for any person to secretly
record such communications by means of tape
recorders.
Gaanan v IAC A telephone extension was not among the devices
covered by RA 4200.
Zulueta v CA The right may be invoked against the wife who went to
the clinic of her husband and there took documents
consisting of private communication between her
husband and his alleged paramour.

Chapter 11: Liberty of Abode and Travel
ART III Section 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.
PURPOSE:
To further emphasize the individuals liberty
as safeguarded in general terms by the due process
clause. Liberty under this clause includes the right to
choose ones residence, to leave it whenever he
pleases, and to travel wherever he wills.
LIMITATIONS:
It can be limited upon lawful order of the
court and the right to travel by the requirements of
national security, public safety or public health as
may be provided by law.
RUBI v. PROV. Board of MINDORO
Respondents were justified in requiring the
members of certain non-Christian tribes to
reside in reservation, for their better
education, advancement and protection.

VILLAVICENCIO v. LUKBAN
The mayor of metro manila was not sustained
by the SC when he deported some 170
women of ill-repute to Davao, for the
admittedly commendable purpose of ridding
the city of serious moral health problems.
SALONGA V. HERMOSA
It is now required to avoid abuse, particularly
by petty administrators with less that proper
regard for the Constitution, that the
ascertainment of the grounds for the
exception should be made by the executive
officers only AS PROVIDED BY LAW.
MARCOS v. MANGLAPUS
SC sustained the refusal of the government to
allow the petitioners return, on the ground
that it would endanger national security. The
majority of the SC held that there was
sufficient basis for apprehension, as against
the minoritys contention that the former
President was, like any other citizen, entitled
to come back to his own country.


Chapter 12: Freedom of Religion
ART III Section 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.
ART II sec 6- The separation of church
and state in inviolable.
Art VI sec 28 (3)- Charitable
institutions, churches and parsonages
or convents appurtenant thereto,
mosques, non-profit cemeteries, and
all lands, buildings, and
improvements, actually, directly, and
exclusively used for religious,
charitable, or educational purposes
shall be exempt from taxation.
ART VI sec 29 (2) No public money or
property shall be appropriated,
applied, paid, or employed, directly or
indirectly, for the use, benefit, or
support of any sect, church,
denomination, sectarian institution,
or system of religion, or of any priest,
preacher, minister, or other religious
teacher, or dignitary as such, except
when such priest, preacher, minister,
or dignitary is assigned to the armed
forces, or to any penal institution, or
government orphanage or
leprosarium.
Everson v. Board of Education
The establishment clause simply means that
the state cannot set-up a church; nor pass ;
laws which aid religion, aid all religion, or
prefer one religion over the other nor force
nor influence a person to go to or remain
away from church against his will or force
him to profess a belief in any religion; that the
state cannot punish persons for entertaining
or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs,
for church attendance or non attendance; that
no tax in any amount, large or small, can be
levied to support any religious activity or
institution whatever they may be called or
whatever form they may adopt to teach or
practice religion; that the state cannot openly
participate or secretly participate in the
affairs of any religious organization or group
or vice versa.
Engel vs. Vitale
The Court ruled that government-written
prayers were not to be recited in public
schools and were an unconstitutional
violation of the Establishment Clause. It then
stated that school's prayer is a religious
activity by the very nature of it being a
prayer, and that prescribing such a religious
activity for school children violates the
Establishment Clause. The program, created
by government officials to promote a
religious belief, was therefore constitutionally
impermissible.
The Court rejected the defendant's arguments
that people are not asked to respect any
specific established religion; and that the
prayer is voluntary. The Court held that the
mere promotion of a religion is sufficient to
establish a violation, even if that promotion is
not coercive. The Court further held that the
fact that the prayer is vaguely worded enough
not to promote any particular religion is not a
sufficient defense, as it still promotes a family
of religions (those that recognize "Almighty
God"), which still violates the Establishment
Clause.
School District of Abington Township v. Schempp
The Supreme Court struck down a
Pennsylvania statute that required that
at least ten verses from the Holy Bible
be read daily, without comment, in all
public schools of the state. The
requirement was held to be a religious
exercise that violated the establishment
clause.

Tudor v. Board of education
Gideon society, a religious group engaged
in the distribution of free copies of the
Bible, enlisted the services of public
school teachers to distribute the request
forms among the students, collected them
after they had been accomplished by the
students parents, returned them to the
Society, later received the copies
requested and then delivered the same to
the students.
The US SC declared that the teachers,
employing government time, were
participating in religious activities as they
were an essential cog in the machinery of
distribution if the Bibles.
GARCES V. ESTENZO
It was Held that there was no
violation of the Constitution where it
was shown that the money used by a
barangay council for the purchase of a
religious image was raised by it from
private contributions and did not
constitute public funds.
RELIGIOUS PROFESSION AND WORSHIP
FREEDOM TO BELIEVE or To
DISBELIEVE (absolute) In the Mind,
cannot be subject to the law.
FREEDOM TO ACT ON ONES OWN
BELIEF(limited by the Gov)-
externalizes the beliefs in acts or
omissions that affect the public.
OVERT
AMERICAN BIBLE SOCIETY v. CITY OF MANILA
The constitutional guaranty of the free
exercise and enjoyment of religious
profession and worship carries with it the
right to disseminate religious information.
Any restraints of such right can only be
justified like other restraints of freedom of
expression on the grounds that there is a
clear and present danger of any substantive
evil which the State has the right to prevent"It
may be true that in the case at bar the price
asked for the bibles and other religious
pamphlets was in some instances a little bit
higher than the actual cost of the same but
this cannot mean that appellant was engaged
in the business or occupation of selling said
"merchandise" for profit. For this reason We
believe that the provisions of City of Manila
Ordinance No. 2529, as amended, cannot be
applied to appellant, for in doing so it would
impair its free exercise and enjoyment of its
religious profession and worship as well as its
rights of dissemination of religious beliefs.
GERONA V. SEC. of EDUCATION where the flag
ceremony was sustained as a valid exercise of Police
Power aimed at inculcating the virtue of patriotism in
the students (this was reversed later on)
EBRALINAG V. THE DIVISION SUPERINTENDENT OF
SCHOOLS OF CEBU
Which upheld the religious freedom of the
petitioners (members of Jehovas Witnesses.
Who believed that they should not salute the
flag because it was in their view and Image
which the Bible prohibits them from
rendering obeisance.
GERMAN V. BARANGAN
Where some 50 persons who were walking to
St. Jude church to pray for an end to
violence were barred by the military and
warned against a similar march later. They
went to the SC to protest the prohibition but
their petition was denied. SC recognizing
their freedom of religion, nevertheless
stressed that it was subject to regulation.
Noting that they wore yellow T-Shirts and
chanted anti-administration invectives during
their march. The court held that they were
not sincere in the profession of religious
liberty and were using it to express their
opposition in the government. Even assuming
their good faith, there was still the necessity
of protecting MALACANANG which was near
the church, in case the march went out of
hand.
RELIGIOUS TEST
IN RE SUMMERS
denied him admission due to his
conscientious objector status. Article 12 of
the Illinois constitution required citizens to
serve in the state militia in time of war, and
all lawyers admitted to the bar were required
to uphold the state constitution. The US SC
asserted that the Illinois Supreme Court had
not discriminated against Summers on the
basis of his religion, but rather on his ability
to uphold the Illinois Constitution's
requirement that he serve in the militia:
It is said that the action of the Supreme Court
of Illinois is contrary to the principles of that
portion of the First Amendment which
guarantees the free exercise of religion. Of
course, under our Constitutional system, men
could not be excluded from the practice of
law, or indeed from following any other
calling, simply because they belong to any of
our religious groups, whether Protestant,
Catholic, Quaker, or Jewish, assuming it
conceivable that any state of the Union would
draw such a religious line. We cannot say that
any such purpose to discriminate motivated
the action of the Illinois Supreme Court.

PEOPLE v ZOSA
An attempt to avoid military duties on the
ground among others if conscientious
scruples was brushed aside by the Supreme
Court. The basis of the decision is ART II sec 4
of the Constitution. The prime duty of the
Government is to serve and protect the
people. The Government may call upon the
people to defend the State and, in the
fulfillment thereof, all citizens may be
required, under conditions provided by law,
to render personal, military or civil service.

Chapter 13: Freedom of Expression
TOPICS CASE TITLES PRINCIPLES/DOCTRINES
FREEDOM OF SPEECH
Freedom of
Censorship
Butler v. Michigan In this case, the lower court declared that no book shall be
allowed for distribution unless it shall first have been declared
by the authorities as proper for minors, in the interest of their
morals. The law was struck down by the US Supreme Court
because it duly restricted the reading tastes of adults.
Kinsley Books v. Brown
Grosjean v. American Press
Co.
There need not be total suppression; even restriction of
circulation constitutes censorship
Iglesia ni Cristo v. CA Even as the SC upheld the authority of the Board of Review for
Motion Pictures and Television to review the petitioners
television program, it hels that the Board acted with grave
abuse of discretion when it gave an X-rating: to the TV
program on the ground of attacks against another religion.
Such classification if justified only if there is a showing that the
television program would create a clear and present danger of
an evil which the State was the right to prevent.
Viva Productions v. CA and
Hubert Webb
SC invalidated the orders issued by the lower courts
restraining the public exhibition of the movie The Jessica
Alfaro Story
ABS-CBN Broadcasting
Corporation v. COMELEC
SC declared that there is no law prohibiting the holding and
the reporting of exit polls. The freedom of speech and of the
press should all the more be upheld when ehat is sought to be
curtailed is the dissemination of information meant to add
meaning to the equally vital right of suffrage
Santiago v. Far East
Broadcasting

Mutuc v. COMELEC COMELEC prohibition against the use of taped jingles in the
mobile units used in the campaign was held to be
unconstitutional as it was in the nature of censorship
National Press Club v.
COMELEC
SC upheld the validity of Sec 11(b) of RA 6646 which
prohibited any person making use of the media to sell or to
give free of charge print space or airtime for campaign or
other political purposes except to the COMELEC.
Osmena v. COMELEC SC reaffirmed the validity of Sec 11(b) of RA 6646 as a
legitimate exercise of the police power of the State to regulate
media communication and information for the purpose of
ensuring equal opportunity
Adiong v. COMELEC COMELECs resolution prohibiting the posting of decals and
swstickers in mobile units like cars and other moving vehicles
was declared unconstitutional for infringement of the freedom
of expression The restriction was held to be so broad as to
include even the citizens privately owned vehicles, equivalent
to deprivation of property without due process of law
Freedom from
Punishment

Clear and Present
Danger Rule
Gonzales v. COMELEC The Court said that the term clear seems to point to a casual
connection with the danger of substantive evil arising from
the utterance questioned; while present refers to the time
element, identified with imminent and immediate danger
Reyes v. Bagatsing SC declare that the denial of a permit to hold a public rally was
invalid as there was no showing of the probability of a clear ad
present danger that might arise as a result of the metting
Dangerous
Tendency
Doctrine
Cabansag v. Fernandez If the words uttered create a dangerous tendency of an evil
which the State has the right to prevent, then such words are
punishable. It is sufficient if the natural tendency and the
probable effect of the utterance were to bring about the
substantive evil that the legislative body seeks to prevent.
Balance-of-
Interest Test
American Communications
Association v. Douds
When particular conduct is regulated I the interest of public
order, and the regulation results in an indirect, conditional,
partial abridgment of speech, the duty of the courts is to
determine which of the two conflicting interests demands the
greater protection under the particular circumstances
presented.
Criticism of
Official Conduct
US v. Bustos Sc ruled that the individual is given the widest latitude in
criticism of official conduct. The court compared criticism to a
scalpel that relieves the abscesses of officialdom
Rosenbloom v. Metromedia
Lagunzad v. Sotto Vda. De
Gonzales
Court granted the petition to retrain the public exhibition of
the movie Moises Padilla Story because t contained
fictionalized embellishments
Ayer Productions Pty. Ltd.
V. Judge Capulong
Tribunal upheld the primacy of freedom of expression over
Enriles right to privacy because the latter was a public figure
and a public figures right to privacy is narrower than that of
an ordinary citizen. Beside, the movie A Dangerous Life
would not have been historically faithful without including
therein the participation of Enrile in the EDSA Revolution.
People v. Alarcon It was held that newspaper publications tending to impede,
obstruct, embarrass or influence the courts in administering
justice in a pending suit or proceeding constitutes criminal
contemt which is summarily punished by the courts.
In Re Sotto A senator was punished for contempt for having attacked a
decision of the SC which he called incompetent and narrow-
minded, and announcing he would file a bill for reorganization
In Re Laureta A lawyer was held in contempt and suspended from the
practice of law for writing individual letters to the members of
the SC division that decided a case against his client,
arrogantly questioning their decision and threatening an
expose if the same was not reconsidered in his favor
In Re Tulfo Tulfos Sangkatutak nab obo column was held to be
contumacious. Freedom of press is subordinated to the
decision in e authority, integrity and independence of the
judiciary and the prper administration of justice.
In Re Jurado The Court sad that a publication that tends to impede,
embarrass or obstruct the court and constitutes a clear and
present danger to the administration of justice is not
protected by the guaranties of press freedom and is
punishable by contempt
Zaldivar v. Sandiganbayan
Art and Obscenity US v. Kottinger SC acquitted accused who was charges of having offered for
sale pictures of half-cad members of non-Christian tribes,
holding that he had only presented them in their native attire
People v. Go Pin Accused was convicted for exhibiting nude pictures and
paintings, notwithstanding his claim that he had done so in the
interest of art. The SC, noting that he had charged admission
fees to the exhibition, held that his purpose was commercial,
not merely artisitic
Miller v. California Tests of obscenity:
1. Whether the average person, applying contemporary
community standards, would find that the work, taken
as a whole, appears to the prurient interest
2. Whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently
offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by
the applicable law
3. Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious
literary, artistic, political or scientific value.
Gonzales v. Katigbak Petitioner questioned the classification of the movie as For
Adults Only. Petition was dismissed because the Board did
not commit any grave abuse of discretion
RIGHT TO ASSEMBLY
Assembly and
Petition

De la Cruz v. Ela SC said that by staging their mass protest on regular school
days, abandoning their classes and refusing to go back even
after they were ordered to do so, the teachers committed acts
prejudicial to the best interest of the service
Test of Lawful
Assembly

Malabanan v. Ramento Sc emphasized that the students did not shed the
constitutional rights to free speech at the schoolhouse gate
and permitted the students to re-enroll and finish their studies
Villar v. Technological
Institute of the Philippines
While the SC upheld the academic freedom of institutions of
higher learning, which includes the right to set academic
standards to determine under what circumstance failing
grades suffice for the expulsion of the students, it was held
that this right cannot be utilized to discriminate against those
who exercise their constitutional rights to peaceful assembly
and free speech.
Aquino v. Bagatsing
PBM Employees
Association v. PBM
The Court ruled that thr right to free assembly and petition
prevails over economic rightd
ACCESS TO INFORMATION
Chavez v. PCGG The Court directed disclosure of the information sought but
noted that the right to information was subject to certain
recognized restrictions, such as:
1. National security matters and intelligence information
2. Trade secrets and banking transactions
3. Criminal matters
4. Other confidential matters
Echegaray v. Sec. of Justice SC held that making the Lethal Injection Manual inaccessible
to the convict was unconstitutional and saw no reason why he
could not obtain a copy should he so desire. It was declared
that the contents of the manual were matters of public
concern which the public may want to know
Tanada v. Tuvera The Court ordered the publication of all laws and other
measures having the force and effect of law.

Chapter 14: Non- Impairment Clause
- No Law impairing the obligation of contracts
shall be passed
- To safeguard the integrity of valid contractual
agreements against unwanted interference by
the state
- Rule: Should be respected by the legislature
and tampered with by subsequent laws that
will change the intention of the parties or
modify their rights and obligations
Contract
- Lawful agreement on property or property
rights, whether real or personal, tangible or
intangible.
- Agreement nay be executed or executory.
- Parties may be private persons only, natural
or artificial, or private persons on the one
hand and government or its agencies on the
other hand.
- Does not cover licenses.
- Public Office is not a property right, it cannot
be subject of a contract between the
incumbent and the government.
Law
- Statutes enacted by the legislature, executive
orders and administrative regulations
promulgated under a valid ordinances passed
by the local legislative bodies.
- To impair, the law must retroact as to affect
existing contracts concluded before its
enactment
Obligation
- The tie that binds the parties to each other
- Obligation of a contract is the law or duty
which binds the parties to perform their
undertaking or agreement according to its
term ad interest.

Impairment
- Anything that diminishes the efficacy of the
contract
Limitations
- A contract valid at the time of its execution
may be legally modified or even completely
invalidated by subsequent law. If exercised by
Police power, it will prevail the contract.
- Into each contract are read in the provisions
of existing laws, and always a reservation of
the police power as long as the agreement
deals with a matter affecting public welfare.
Chapter 15: Ex Post Facto Law
- No ex post facto law or bill of attainder shall
be enacted
- Equivalent if the impairment clause in
criminal matters is the prohibition against the
passage of the ex post facto law.
- A law can never be considered ex post facto
law as long as it operates prospectively since
its structures would cover only committed
after and not before its enactment.
- One that would make a previous act criminal
although it was not at the time it was
committed.
Kinds of Ex Post Facto Law
1. Every law that makes criminal an act before
the passage of the law.
2. Every law aggravates a crime or makes it
great that it was when committed.
3. Every Law that changes the punishment and
inflicts a greater punishment than the law
annexed to the crime when committed.
4. Every law that alters the legal rules of
evidence and receives less or different
testimony that the law required at the time
and the commission of the offense, in order to
convict the offender.
5. Every law which assuming to regulate civil
rights and remanding only, in effect imposes a
penalty or the deprivation of a right for
something which when done was lawful
6. Every law which deprives a persons accused
or crime of some lawful protection to which
they have become entitled, such as the
protection of a former conviction or acquittal
or of a proclamation of amnesty.
Characteristics
- Refer to Criminal matters
- Retroactive in its application
- Prejudice to the accused
Bill of Attainder
- Legislative act that inflicts punishment
without trial, its essences being that
substitution of legislative trial and for a
judicial determination of guilt.
Chapter 16: Non-Imprisonment for Debt
- No person shall be imprisoned for debt or
non-payment of poll tax
Debt - Any civil obligation arising from contracts,
expressed or implied.
o Debts obtained through fraud since
no distinction is made in the
constitution.
Poll Tax - Specific tax fixed sum levied upon every
person belonging to a certain class without regard to
his property or occupation.
Chapter 17: Involuntary Servitude
- The condition of one who is compelled by
force and against by his will, to do labor for
another whether he is paid or not.
- Slavery- that civil relation in which one man
has absolute power over his life, fortune and
liberty of another.
- Peonage- condition of enforced servitude by
which the servitor is restrained of his liberty
and compelled to labor in liquidation of some
debt and obligation, real or pretendal, against
his will.


Exceptions
- Punishment for a crime where the party shall
have been duly convicted.
- A person may not as a rule to be compelled to
accept a public appointive office, he may not
refuse to do so if the position is intended to
for the defense of the state. Article III, Sec. 4
Chapter 18: Writ of Habeas Corpus
- Writ of Liberty
- To test the validity of a persons detention. If
he is restrained of his liberty, he or someone
acting on his behalf may file a petition for
Habeas Corpus to secure his release.
Whom Available?
- A prisoner may secure his release if he was
convicted by a court without jurisdiction or
where his sentence has become invalid.
- If has been held that where the decision is
tainted with only errors of law, a petition of
Habeas Corpus will not lie
- Unlawful denial of Bail
Procedure
1. File Habeas corpus and the courts find the
petition in proper form
2. It will issue the writ as a matter of course
oredering the production of the person
allegedly detatined and requiring respondedt
to justify detention.
o Only where the return of the
respondent shows that the person in
custody is being for a:
Crime mentioned in the
proclamation suspending the
privilege of the Habeas Corpus
IN a place where it us effective
will the court dismiss the
petition
Grounds for suspension
- President is entrusted the power to suspend
the privilege of the writ.
- Article VII, Sec. 18
- Supreme court decidedly gas the power to
annul the suspension of the privilege of the
writ if the same is not based on either of the
two grounds enumerated in the constitution,
invasion or rebellion, when public safety
requires it.
Chapter 19: Speedy Disposition of Cases
- Justice delayed is justice denied
- Section 16 of the Bill of Rights All persons
shall have the right to a speedy disposition of
their cases before all judicial, quasi judicial or
administrative bodies
Chapter 20: Rights of the Accused
Rights of the Accused
1) Right to Criminal Due Process
2) Right Against Self-incrimination
3) Right to Custodial Investigation
4) Right to Bail
5) Presumption of Innocence
6) Right to be Heard
7) Nature and Cause of Accusation
8) Speedy, Impartial and Public Trial
9) The Right of Confrontation
10) Compulsory Process
Right to Criminal Due Process (Sec. 14 (1))
No person shall be held to answer for a
criminal offense without due process of law.
Art. 3 Sec (1) Due process in general
(substantive and procedural etc.)
Scope of Section 14(1) criminal cases and
procedural requirements
e.g.: Denial of right to preliminary investigation
= denial of due process
Basic ingredient of criminal due process is a
trial conducted in accordance with the
rudiments of fair play.
** A mistrial may be declared if it is shown that
the proceedings were held under such
circumstances as would prevent the accused
from freely making his defense or the judge
from freely arriving at his decision.
Right Against Self-Incrimination (Sec. 17)
No person shall be compelled to be a witness
against himself.
Purpose: Humanitarian and Practical Reasons
a) Humanitarian because it is intended to
prevent the State, with all its coercive
powers, from extracting from the suspect
testimony that may convict him.
b) Practical because a person subjected to
such compulsion is likely to perjure
himself for his own protection

- May be availed by: 1) Accused
- 2) any witness whom incriminating
question is
Addressed
Scope: a) As long as question will tend to
incriminate, the witness is entitled to the privilege.
Provided that question is relevant or allowed even if
answer may tend to embarrass him or subject him
to civil liability.
b) Testimonial compulsion
c) Protection from having accused
furnish own specimen of handwriting
When: a) Ordinary witness when incriminating
question is asked
b) Accused can refuse to take stand as
witness for the prosecution
Waiver: Right against self-incrimination may be
waived 1) directly 2) by failure to invoke it provided
that it is Certain, Unequivocal and Intelligent.
Right to Custodial Investigation (Sec. 12)
Custodial investigation any questioning initiated by
law enforcement officers after a person has been
taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his
freedom of action in any significant way.
- Shall include practice of issuing an
invitation to a person who is
investigated in connection with an
offense he is suspected to have
committed (RA 7438)
Admissions of accused during custodial
investigation are inadmissible (P v. Ramos)
Requisites for extrajudicial confession to be
admissible: 1) voluntary 2) with assistance of counsel
3) in writing 4) express
Miranda v. Arizona (MIRANDA WARNING)
Prior to any questioning, person must be
warned that he has right to remain silent, that
any statement he does make may be used as
an evidence against him, and that he has a
right to the presence of an attorney.
Right to Bail (Sec 13)
Who may avail? All persons except those charged
with offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua when
evidence of guilt is strong.
Only detention prisoners may petition for
bail. Purpose: secure provisional release

Rule 114 Rules of Court: any person ion
custody who is not yet charged in court may
apply for bail with any court in the province,
city or municipality where he is held.
Presumption of Innocence (Sec. 14 (a))
Accusation not synonymous with guilt.
Conviction will depend not on weakness of defense
but on strength of prosecution.
Maybe overcome by contrary presumptions based
on experience of human conduct.
Right to be Heard
And shall enjoy the right to be heard by
himself and his counsel
Already implicit in due process
A) Assistance of Counsel
- Begins from the time a person is taken
into custody and placed under
investigation for commission of a
crime.
- Accused is entitled to be heard in
defence not only by himself but also
with assistance of counsel
Nature and Cause of Accusation
- To be informed of the nature and
cause of accusation against him.
Necessary to be able to prepare for defense.
Acts or complaints of constituting the offense
must be stated in ordinary and concise
language without repetition.
o Exc: Void-for-vagueness rule
- When statute itself is couched in such
indefinite language that it is not
possible for men of ordinary
intelligence to determine therefrom
what acts or omissions are punished.
The description and not the designation of
the offense is controlling.
Charge is communicated during arraignment.
Speedy, Impartial and Public Trial
Impartial no less than the cold neutrality of an
impartial judge. Judges must not only be impartial
but must also appear to be impartial.
Public necessary to prevent abuses that may be
done by the court to the prejudice of defendant.
- People have a right to attend
proceedings EXC: courts may bar
attendance of audience (e.g. Rape)
Speedy free from vexacious, capricious and
oppressive delays
In connection with Sec. 16
Trial in Absentia
Requisites: 1) accused already arraigned
2) he has been duly notified of trial
3) failure to appear is justified
Right of Confrontation
To meet the witness face to face
Right to confrontation intends to secure the
accused in the right to be tried so far as facts
provable by witnesses are concerned, by only
such witnesses as meet him face to face at the
trial, who give their testimony in his presence
and give to the accused opportunity of cross-
examination.
Justification: normally, there is less
propensity to lie on the part of a witness
when actually confronted by the accused than
when the testimony is given behind his back.
Compulsory Process
- and to have compulsory process to
secure the attendance of witnesses
and the production of evidence in his
behalf.

Accused entitled to issuance of subpoena and
subpoena duces tecum for the purpose of
compelling the attendance of witnesses and
the production of evidence he may need for
his defence.
Failure to obey : punishable as contempt of
court or person summoned maybe arrested.
Prohibited punishments:
Section 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 substandard or inadequate
penal facilities under subhuman conditions shall be
dealt with by law.
Luisiana v Resweber (Unforeseeable accident)
- Mechanical failure in the electric chair
prevented the execution of the petitioner and
another execution was scheduled by the
warden
- Petitioner claimed that he was being
subjected to cruel and unusual punishment as
he would again undergo psychological strain.
- US supreme court denied his plea ruling that
there was no purpose to inflict unnecessary
mpain nor any unnecessary pain involved in
the proposed execution. The situation of the
unfortunate victim of this accident is just as
though he had suffered the identical amount
of mental anguish and physical pain in any
other occurrence.
*R.A no 7659 => death sentenced not allowed =>
except heinous crimes
*All death sentences pending on Feb. 2, 1989 were
automatically reduced to reclusion perpetua.
Echegaray v Secretary of Justice/People v Tongko
- All punishments are cruel but the cruelty against
which the constitution protects a convicted man is
cruelty inherent in the method of punishment
People v Dionisio - To come under the ban, the
punishment must be flagrantly and plainly
oppressive, wholly disproportionate to the nature of
the offense as to shock the moral sense of the
community.
Generic Acts case:
- Penal sanctions are indispensable if the law is
to be obeyed. They are the teeth of the law,
without them the law would be toothless.
- As judges have the prerogatives in imposing
fines, it is still subject to the provisions of the
law, as well as the wealth and capacity of the
convict.

People v Dela Cruz
- Penalty of five years imprisonment and a fine
of 5k pesos.
- Crime of profiteering
- Penalty sustained by SC
- Offense was hurtful to the consuming public
and national economy


Double Jeopardy
Section 21. No person shall be twice put 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.
People v Ylgan - Without the safeguard this article
establishes in favor of the accused, his fortune, safety
and peace of mind would be entirely at the mercy of
the complaining witness, who might repeat his
accusation as often as dismissed by the court and
whenever he might see fit, subject to no other
limitation or restriction than his own will and
pleasure.

Requisites of Double Jeopardy
1. A valid complaint or information
2. Filed before a competent court
3. To which the defendant had pleaded
4. Of which he had been previously acquitted or
convicted or which was dismissed or
otherwise terminated without his express
consent.

Supporting Facts:
1. Complaint or information
- A prosecution based on an invalid
complaint or information cannot lead to a
valid judgment and hence will not place the
accused under jeopardy.
- Original information defective =>
dismissed on motion of the accused => may
be validly renewed
But if dismissed without the express
consent of the accused => will constitute
double jeopardy
2. Competent court
- A court without jurisdiction cannot
render a valid judgment hence a person
charged before IT cannot plead double
jeopardy when tried anew for the same
offense by a competent court.
- Court martial and civil court have
concurrent jurisdiction => decision by one
court will bar the other court from
prosecution for the same offense.
3. Valid Plea
- A defendant is never placed under
jeopardy until after he shall have pleaded to
the charge against him during arraignment.
4. Termination of the case

People v Pilpa - Oral manisfestation at the hearing
made by the counsel of the accused that he had no
objection to the dismissal of the case was equivalent
to a declaration of conformity to its dismissal or to an
EXPRESS CONSENT TO ITS TERMINATION within the
meaning of Section 9 of Rule 117.
General Rule: acquittal of accused bars appeal
Exceptions:
1. Appeal of prosecution
- The prosecution can appeal where the
accused is deemed to have waived or is
stopped from invoking his right against
double jeopardy.
People v Obsania - The application of the sister
doctrines of waiver and stopped requires two
sine qua non conditions first, the dismissal must
be sought or induced by the defendant personally
or through his counsel; and second, such
dismissal must not be on the merits not
necessarily amount to acquittal.
*but the defense of double jeopardy will be available
to the accused where the dismissal of the prosecution
against him even with his express consent was based
on insufficiency of evidence of the prosecution, or
denial of his right to a speedy trial. (these dismissals
are considered acquittal)
2. Crimes covered
If the requisites of double jeopardy are
present, the accused may not be prosecuted
anew for the original offense charged, or for
any attempt to commit the same or
frustration thereof, or for any offense which
necessarily includes or necessarily included
in the offense charged in the original
complaint or information.
The effect of prosecuting first the lesser
offense where a larger offense has been
committed and could be prosecuted
would be to split the larger offense into
its lesser parts, thus bringing the man into
jeopardy for each of such parts.

a. Doctrine of supervening event.
The accused may be prosecuted for
another offense if a subsequent
development changes the character of the
first indictment under which he may have
already been charged or convicted.
Peole v Adil - Accused was first prosecuted
for slight physical injuries, but after he had
pleaded not guilty, the charge was changed to
serious physical injuries when it appeared
that the wounds had left a permanent scar. SC
held that there was no double jeopardy as the
deformity did not exist and could not have
been apprehended at the time the first
information was filed.
b. Inseparable offense
Where one offense is inseparable from
another and proceeds from the same act
they cannot be the subject of separate
prosecutions.
Chapter 21: Free Access to Courts
Chapter 22: Citizenship
Citizenship membership in the political economy
with all its concomitant rights and responsibilities.
Exclusive rights enjoys by a citizen:
a.) Right to vote
b.) To run for public office
c.) To exploit natural resources
d.) To operate public utilities
e.) To administer educational institutions
f.) To manage the mass media
*all constitutional offices are open only to natural-
born citizens and barred to the naturalized Filipino.
*Most common method of acquisition of citizenship is
by birth.
Birth:
Jus sanguinis (basis of the Philippine Citizenship)
-citizenship is by virtue of blood relationship
Jus soli - By virtue of the place of birth
Citizen of the Philippines:
1.) Those who are citizens of the Philippines at
the time of the adoption of this Constitution.
2.) Those whose fathers or mothers are citizens
of the Philippines.
3.) Those born before January 17, 1973 of
Filipino mothers, who elect citizenship upon
attaining the age of majority.
4.) Those who are naturalized in accordance
with law.

Supporting Facts:
1.) 1935 Constitution
2.) Children of Filipino Parents
- The child is considered a natural born
Filipino citizens provided either his
parents is a Filipino citizen.
- The citizenship of the mother will also
confer natural-born citizenship upon the
child WITHOUT the necessity of election
as before upon attaining his majority age.
3.) Election of Philippine Citizenship
- The right of election permitted under the
present constitution was available only to
those born to Filipino mothers under the
1935 Constitution who had that character
not been changed, would have been able
to elect citizenship upon attaining
majority age. (In 1935 Constitution, only
children born to Filipino fathers were
granted natural-born citizenship)
- The right of election is available ONLY if
the child was born before the 1973
Constitution took effect. ( cannot be
claimed by the offspring under the new
constitution)
- This right can be exercised ordinarily only
within 3 years from attainment of the
majority age of 18 or only up to January
17, 1994.
4.) Naturalization
- A process by which a foreigner acquires
voluntarily or by operation of law the
citizenship of another state.
- May be direct or derivative:
a.) Direct naturalization may be effect by:
1. Individual proceedings (judicial)
2. Special act of the legislature
(foreigners rendered some
notable services)
3. Collective change of nationality
(cession/subjugation)
4. Adoption of orphan minor
b.) Derivative Naturalization is conferred
on:
1. The wife of the naturalize
husband
2. The minor children of the
naturalized parent.
3. Alien woman upon marriage to a
national.
Usually made subject to stringent
restrictions and conditions

Steps for naturalization:
1. At least one year BEFORE his petition for
naturalization the applicant shall file with the
OSG a declaration of his intention to be a
citizen.
- Purposes are to enable government to
make initial investigation into his
circumstances; to determine his fitness
for the Philippine citizenship; to test his
sincerity.
2. Filing of petition for naturalization with the
RTC of province or city where the petitioner
resided for at least one year.
Petition must state the following
a. Name/names of petitioner
b. His various places of
residence on the Phil.
c. Date of his arrival
d. Occupation
e. Date and place of birth
f. Names and personal
circumstances of his wife and
children (if any)
Plus the allegations that he possess the qualifications
and none of the disqualification.
3. Upon receipt of petition, the clerk of court
shall publish the same in the Official gazette
and in one newspaper of general circulation
in the province or city ONCE a week for
THREE consecutive weeks and to post notices
and hearing.
- Jurisdictional and non-observance =>
proceedings null and void.
4. At least six months after the last publication,
but not within 30 days before any election,
hearing shall begin. The petitioner shall
establish all the allegations of the petitions to
be corroborated by at least two credible
witnesses.

Qualifications:
1. Must not be less than 18 years of age (at the
time of hearing)
2. Must have resided in the Philippines for a
CONTINUOUS period of not less than 10
years.
3. Must be of good moral character and believe
in the principles underlying the Constitution.
4. Must own real estate in the Phil. Worth not
less than five thousand PESOS OR must have
some know lucrative trade, profession or
lawful cooperation.
5. Must be able to speak and write English or
Spanish AND any of the principal Phil.
Languages.
6. He must have enrolled his minor children of
school age in any public school or private
school recognized by the Office or Private
Education in the Philippines during the entire
period of residency required of him.
*these qualifications must be possessed at the time
he applies for naturalization.
10 years residency requirement may be reduced
to 5 years if: (Special Qualification)
1. Honorable held office under the Govt of the
Phils.
2. Established a new industry or introduced a
useful invention.
3. Married to a Filipino woman.
4. Engaged as teacher. (public school or private
school recognized by the OPE)
5. Having been born in the Philippines

Disqualifications:
1. Opposed to organized government (even
affiliation)
2. Defending or teaching the necessity or
propriety of violence, personal assault, or
assassination for the success and
predominance of their ideas.
3. Polygamist or believes in it.
4. Convicted of crimes involving moral
turpitude.
5. Suffering from mental alienation or incurable
contagious diseases.
6. Have not mingled socially with the Filipinos
OR have not evinced a sincere desire to learn
and embrace the customs, traditions and
ideals of the Phil.
7. Subjects of nations with whom the Phil. Is at
war (during such period)
8. Subjects of foreign country who does not
grant Filipinos the right to become
naturalized.
*decision shall become final after 30 days from notice
*shall become executor after a period of 2 years
(probation)
*following the 2 year probation, applicant may apply
for administration of the oath of citizenship.
Effects of Naturalization
1.) Shall confer all the rights of a Philippine
Citizen (except those reserved by the Consti.
To natural-natural born)
2.) Shall also vest upon his wife IF she might
herself be lawfully naturalized.
3.) Minor children born in the Philippines shall
also be considered citizens
If born outside => residing here at
the time of naturalization of
parent => citizen
If born outside => before parents
naturalization => citizen during
minority UNLESS resides
permanently
If born outside => after parents
naturalization => citizen
PROVIDED he registers as such
before any Phil. Consulate within
1 year after attaining majority age
and takes the oath of allegiance.

Revocation
May be revoked if:
1. Certificate of naturalization was obtained
fraudulently.
2. Established his permanent residence abroad
within 5 years after naturalization
3. Petition was based on invalid declaration of
intention.
4. His minor children failed to comply with the
educational requirement through his fault or
neglect.
5. He allowed himself to be used as a dummy in
violation of our naturalization law.

Mixed Marriages
Article IV Section 4
Citizens of the Philippines who marry aliens
shall retain their Philippine citizenship, unless by
their act or omission they are deemed, under the law,
to have renounced it.
Section 15 of CA 473 (alien woman Filipino man)
Any woman who is now or may hereafter be
married to a citizen of the Philippines, and who might
herself be lawfully naturalized shall be deemed a
citizen of the Phil.
Alien woman must not be laboring
under any of the disqualification
No need to file judicial action
Administrative proceedings
before immigration authorities
SUFFICIENT

Loss and Reacquisition
CA 63 (may be lost)
1. Naturalization in foreign country
2. Express renunciation of citizenship
3. Subscribing to an oath of allegiance to
support the constitution or laws of a foreign
country upon attaining 18 years and up.
PROVIDED Phil is not at war with ANY
country.
4. Rendering service to or accepting commission
in the armed forces of a foreign country.
Provided the following are not present:
a. The RP has a defense/offense pact of
alliance with said foreign country
b. Said foreign country maintains armed
forces in the Phil. Territory with the
consent of the RP.
presence of this two will not make
the citizen lost his citizenship.
5. Cancellation of the certificate of
naturalization
6. Having been declared a deserter of the Phil.
Armed forces in time of war (subject to
pardon, amnesty)
7. In case of woman (alam niyo nay un :D)

May be acquired:
1. Naturalization
2. Repartriation
3. Direct act of congress

Natural-born Citizens:
Natural-born citizens are those who are
citizens of the Philippines from birth without having
to perform any act to acquire or perfect their
Philippine citizenship.. Those who elect Philippine
Citizenship in accordance with Par. 3, Section 1
hereof shall be deemed natural-born citizens.

Dual allegiance
Mercado v Manzano
- Manzano was elected as vice mayor of
Makati City
- Local Government code does not allow
election of person with dual citizenship
- Manzano was born in US of Filipino
parents (jus sanguinis and jus soli)
- Manzano after attaining the age of majority
voted in the 1992, 1995 and 1998
elections, thereby effectively electing
Philippine Citizenship.
- He was qualified to be elected.