Anda di halaman 1dari 36


I. Rights-Based Discourse
Norms, Rights and the Place of Judicial Power
A. General
Art. VIII, 1. The judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in such lower courts as may be established by law.
Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally
demandable and enforceable, and to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government.

Art. VIII, 2. The Congress shall have the power to define, prescribe, and apportion the jurisdiction of the various courts but may not
deprive the Supreme Court of its jurisdiction over cases enumerated in Section 5 hereof.
No law shall be passed reorganizing the Judiciary when it undermines the security of tenure of its Members.

Art. VIII, 4(2) All cases involving the constitutionality of a treaty, international or executive agreement, or law, which shall be heard
by the Supreme Court en banc, and all other cases which under the Rules of Court are required to be heard en banc, including those
involving the constitutionality, application, or operation of presidential decrees, proclamations, orders, instructions, ordinances, and
other regulations, shall be decided with the concurrence of a majority of the Members who actually took part in the deliberations on
the issues in the case and voted thereon.

Art. VIII, 5(2) Review, revise, reverse, modify, or affirm on appeal or certiorari, as the law or the Rules of Court may provide, final
judgments and orders of lower courts in: (a) All cases in which the constitutionality or validity of any treaty, international or executive
agreement, law, presidential decree, proclamation, order, instruction, ordinance, or regulation is in question.
Garcia v. BOI Right to Information; Access to public records; exceptionTrade and
industrial secrets

Bataan Petrochemical Corp. decided to transfer its proposed

refinery operations to Batangas. BOI approved despite objections of
local government officials. SC reversed BOIs decision.
Pursuant to Art. VIII, 1, it is the duty of the court to address the
controversy. It may substitute its discretion and judgment to that of
BOI and the investors.
Dissent: The court should not delve on matters beyond its
Oposa v. Factoran The SC affirmed the standing of minors, represented by their parents, to
challenge the validity of logging concessions on the basis of the concept of
intergenerational responsibility for and right to a balanced and healthful
ecology guaranteed by Art. II, 16.

Does not involve a political question but an issue of enforcing a right vis--vis
policy formulated. Nevertheless, political question is no longer
insurmountable in view of Art. VIII, 1(2).
Kilosbayan v. Morato In Kilosbayan v. Guingona, Jr., the SC affirmed the right of petitioners to
challenge the validity of the lotto contract of the PCSO with the Phil. Gaming
Mgt., Corp. on the argument that the case was of transcendental importance.
This case reverses this decision on the ground that the petitioner had no
substantial interest in the contract being challenged.

Justice Felicianos guide in determining cases of transcendental

a) the character of the funds involved
b) presence of a disregard of law prohibiting an agency from
doing certain actions
c) lack of party w/ a more direct & specific interest
d) wide impact or application

A partys standing in court is a procedural technicality which may be set aside

by the Court in view of the importance of the issues involved. Thus, where
the issues raised by petitioners are of paramount public interest or of
transcendental importance, the Court may brush aside the procedural barrier.
Taada v. Angara Senates concurrence in WTO

Judicial power is not impaired because rules of procedure under TRIPS are
not incongruent to our own system.

Wenky Yang & Zhai Garcia | A2013 | Consti 2 | Prof Harry Roque | Page 1 of 31
Santiago v. Bautista Parent of 6th grader is appealing the Committee on the Rating of
Students for Honors awarding of 3rd honors to his son

"Judicial Power"
the authority to determine the rights of persons or property by
arbitrating between adversaries in specific controversies at the
instance of a party thereto;
the authority exercised by that department of government
which is charged with the declaration of what the law is and its
construction so far as it is written law;
the authority or power vested in the judges or in the courts;
the authority vested in some court, officer, or persons to hear
and determine when the rights of persons or property or the
propriety of doing an act is the subject matter of adjudication;
the power belonging to or emanating from a judge as such;
the power conferred upon a public officer, involving the
exercise of judgment and discretion in the determination of
questions of right in specific cases affecting the interest of
persons or property, as distinguished from ministerial power or
authority to carry out the mandates of judicial power or the law;
the power exercised by courts in hearing and determining
cases before them, or some matter incidental thereto, and of
which they have jurisdiction; the power of a court to decide and
pronounce a judgment;
the power which adjudicates upon and protects the right and
interests of individual citizens, and to that end construes and
applies the law.

"Judicial power" implies the construction of laws and the adjudication

of legal rights. It includes the power to hear and determine but not
everyone who may hear and determine has judicial power. The term
"judicial power" does not necessarily include the power to hear and
determine a matter that is not in the nature of a suit or action between
the parties.'
People v. Ferrer Freedom of associationThe right to associate is not absolute

RA 1700 which declared the Communist Party of the Philippines a clear and
present danger to Philippine security, and thus prohibited membership in
such organization, was contended to be a bill of attainder. Although the law
mentions the CPP in particular, its purpose is not to define a crime but only to
lay a basis or to justify the legislative determination that membership in such
organization is a crime because of the clear and present danger to national

Fernando, dissenting. A taint of invalidity is seen even in the title of the Act,
which state the specific name of an organization and create a presumption of
Director of Prisons v. Ang Chio Kho Ang Chio Kho was previously convicted of various crimes but was
given conditional pardon, the condition being he will leave the
Philippines and never return
Under a different name, he arrived at MIA en route to Honolulu
about 7 years later. He was convinced by some friends to stay
longer and sought an extension of his stay from Immigration.
His identity was discovered and he was recommitted to prison.
The CA, in affirming the TCs denial of Ang Chio Khos petition for
writ of habeas corpus, recommended that he be allowed to leave the
country, SolGen asked the SC to delete that recommendation

The Chief Executive himself can determine if the conditions of a pardon were
violated, a prerogative w/c the Courts may not interfere with, however
erroneous the finding may be. It is not for any occupant of any court to play
the role of adviser to the President as this will constitute an infringement on
the separation of powers.
Ex Post Facto Laws

Wenky Yang & Zhai Garcia | A2013 | Consti 2 | Prof Harry Roque | Page 2 of 31
Art. III, 22. No ex post facto law or bill of attainder shall be enacted.

Wenky Yang & Zhai Garcia | A2013 | Consti 2 | Prof Harry Roque | Page 3 of 31
B. Case or Controversy Requirements: Elements
Muskrat v. US Under the US Consti the exercise of judicial power is limited to cases and
controversies. A case or controversy, in order that the judicial power of the
US may be exercise thereon, implies the existence of present or possible
adverse parties whose contentions are submitted to the court for
adjudication. In this action, the US is made defendant but it has no adverse
interest against them thus, there is no justiciable case or controversy.
PACU v. Secretary PACU did not show any injury that they suffered or will be suffering through
the implementation of the law. In fact, PACU members have successfully
operated schools even in the presence of the Act.

Where the petitioning private schools are actually operating by virtue of

permits issued to them by the Secretary of Education under Act No. 2706,
who is not shown to have threatened to revoke their permits, there is no
justiciable controversy that would authorize the courts to pass upon the
constitutionality of said Act.
Gonzales v. Hechanova The status of petitioner, as a planter with a rice land of substantial proportion,
entitled him to a chance to sell to the Government the rice; it (the Govt) now
seeks to buy abroad and, as a taxpayer affected by the purchase of the
commodity effected with public funds mainly raised by taxation, gives said
petitioner sufficient interest to file the instant petition seeking to restrain the
allegedly unlawful disbursement of public funds to import rice from abroad.
Gonzales v. Marcos A suit filed a taxpayer questioning the validity of an Executive Order creating
a trust, the funds of which came from donations and contributions and not
from taxation, fails to satisfy the elemental requisite for a taxpayer's suit.
People v. Vera The person who impugns the validity of a statute must have a personal and
substantial interest in the case such that he has sustained, or will sustain,
direct injury as a result of its enforcement. It goes without saying that if Act
No. 4221 really violates the Constitution, the People of the Philippines, in
whose name the present action is brought, has a substantial interest in
having it set aside. Of greater import than the damage caused by the illegal
expenditure of public funds is the mortal wound inflicted upon the
fundamental law by the enforcement of an invalid statute. Hence, the well-
settled rule that the state can challenge the validity of its own laws.
Flast v. Cohen In ruling on standing, it is both appropriate and necessary to look to the
substantive issues to determine whether there is a logical nexus between the
status asserted and the claim sought to be adjudicated. Such inquiries into
the nexus between the status asserted by the litigant and the claim he
presents are essential to assure that he is a proper and appropriate party to
invoke federal judicial power.

2 Aspects of Logical Nexus:

1. The taxpayer must establish a logical link between the status and
the type of legislature enactment attacked
2. The taxpayer must establish a nexus between the status and the
precise nature of the constitutional infringement alleged.
Sierra Club v. Morton Petitioner did no allege that the challenged skiing development
would affect the club or its members in their activities or that they
used Mineral King, but maintained that the project would adversely
change the areas aesthetics and ecology.

A person has standing to seek judicial review only if he can show that
he himself has suffered or will suffer injury, whether economic or
US v. SCRAP Appellees pleadings sufficiently alleged that they were adversely affected
or aggrieved to withstand a motion to dismiss on the ground of lack of
standing to sue.
Steffel v. Thompson Petitioner handed out bills in a Shopping Center protesting
American involvement in Vietnam & left when the authorities
threatened to arrest them. They again handbilled and left but a
companion decided to stay and was arrested. (Freedom of
expression issue: distribution w/in a private property)
There is an actual controversy even though Steffel had not been
arrested yet or even if there was no complaint filed against him yet.

Wenky Yang & Zhai Garcia | A2013 | Consti 2 | Prof Harry Roque | Page 4 of 31
Steffel would be arrested if he continued handbilling. In these
circumstances, it isnt necessary that petitioner first expose himself
to actual arrest or prosecution to be entitled to challenge a statute
that he claims deters the exercise of his constitutional rights.

Wenky Yang & Zhai Garcia | A2013 | Consti 2 | Prof Harry Roque | Page 5 of 31
Francisco v. HREP Locus standi or legal standing or has been defined as a personal and
substantial interest in the case such that the party has sustained or will
sustain direct injury as a result of the governmental act that is being
challenged. The gist of the question of standing is whether a party
alleges such personal stake in the outcome of the controversy as to
assure that concrete adverseness which sharpens the presentation of
issues upon which the court depends for illumination of difficult
constitutional questions.

Difference bet rule on real-party-interest and rule on standing: former is a

concept of civil procedure while the latter has constitutional
underpinnings. Standing restrictions require a partial consideration of
the merits, as well as broader policy concerns relating to the proper
role of the judiciary in certain areas.

When suing as a citizen: interest of the petitioners must be direct and

personal; he must show that he sustained or is in imminent danger of
sustaining some direct injury as a result of the enforcement of any
govtal act; party should appear to have been or is about to be denied
some right or privilege to which he is lawfully entitled or that he is
about to be subjected to some burdens or penalties by reason of the
statute or act complained of.

As a taxpayer: where there is a claim that public funds are illegally

disbursed, or that public money is being deflected to any improper
purpose, or that there is a waste of public funds through the
enforcement of an invalid or unconstitutional law, a party is allowed to
sue. He should prove that he has sufficient interest and that he would
sustain direct injury as a result.

As a legislator: he is allowed to sue to question the validity of any official

action which he claims infringes his prerogatives as a legislator.

As an association: while an association has legal personality to

represent its members, the mere invocation by the IBP or any member
of the legal profession of the duty to preserve the rule of law and
nothing more, although true, does not suffice to clothe it with legal
standing bec its interest is too general. However, the Court chooses to
relax the rules on standing bec of advanced constitutional issues raised
in the petitions.

In the case of class suits: persons intervening must be sufficiently

numerous to fully protect the interests of all concerned to enable the
court to deal properly with all interests involved in the suit bec a
judgment in a class suit , whether favorable or not, is binding on all
members of the class WON they were before the court.

In the case of transcendental importance: J. Felicianos instructive

B. The character of the funds or
other assets involved in the
C. The presence of a clear case
of disregard of a
constitutional or statutory
prohibition by the public
respondent agency or
instrumentality of the govt
D. The lack of any other party
with a more direct and
specific interest in raising the
questions being raised
Sanlakas v. Exec Sec Standing as a legislator: To the extent the powers of Congress are impaired,
so is the power of each member thereof, since his office confers a right to
participate in the exercise of the powers of that institution. An act of the
Executive which injures the institution of Congress causes a derivative but
Wenky Yang & Zhai Garcia | A2013 | Consti 2 | Prof Harry Roque | Page 6 of 31
nonetheless substantial injury, which can be questioned by a member of
Congress. In such a case, any member of Congress can have a resort to the
Tan v. Macapagal Petitioners should not feel discriminated against just because in Gonzales vs.
Commission on Elections, a member of the Philippine Bar, now Delegate
Ramon Gonzales, was allowed to prosecute his action for prohibition
instituted by him as a taxpayer. Petitioners have no cause for legitimate
resentment as such suit could be distinguished from the present. Petitioner
Gonzales in accordance with the controlling doctrine had the good sense to
wait before the submission to the electorate of certain proposed amendments
to the Constitution. It was only then that the matter was ripe for adjudication.
Prior to that stage the judiciary had to keep its hands off.
Poe v. Ullman The statutes in question had been enacted in 1879 and that no one ever had
been prosecuted thereunder x x x and that the information against them had
been dismissed after the State Supreme Court had sustained the legislation
in 1940 on an appeal from a demurrer to the information.

The appeals are dismissed, because the records in these cases do not
present controversies justifying the adjudication of a constitutional issue.
US v. Richardson Respondents claim that w/o detailed info on the CIAs expenditures he
cannot properly follow legislative or executive action and thereby fulfill his
obligations as a voter is a generalized grievance insufficient under
Frothingham or Flast to show that he has sustained or is immediately in
danger of sustaining a direct injury as the result of such action.
De Funis v. Odegaard Because petitioner will complete law school at the end of the term for which
he has register regardless of any decision this Court might reach on the
merits, the Court cannot consider the substantive constitutional issues, and
the case is moot because of the simple fact the petitioner is in his final term
and the schools fixed policy to permit him to complete the term.

Wenky Yang & Zhai Garcia | A2013 | Consti 2 | Prof Harry Roque | Page 7 of 31
I. Due Process Clause
Art. III, 1. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty of property without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the
equal protection of the laws.
A. Procedural Due Process
Banco Espaol-Filipino v. Palanca Procedural due process has its application in judicial proceedings, civil or
criminal. It requires judgment to be rendered after lawful hearing, and judge
must clearly explain its factual and legal bases.


a) An impartial court or tribunal clothed with judicial power to hear and
determine the matter before it.
b) Jurisdiction must be lawfully acquired over the person of the
defendant and over the property subject matter of the proceeding
c) The defendant must be given an opportunity to be heard
d) Judgment must be rendered upon lawful hearing and must clearly
explain its factual and legal bases.
a) Right to hearing includes right to present own case and submit
evidence in support thereof
b) Tribunal must consider the evidence presented.
c) Decision rendered must have a basis
d) Evidence which supports the finding or conclusion is substantial
e) Decision must be based on evidence presented at the hearing, or at
least contained in the record and disclosed to the parties affected.
f) Tribunal or body or any of its judges must act on its or his own
independent consideration of the law and facts of the controversy
g) The tribunal should, in all controversial questions, render its decision
in such a manner that he parties to the proceeding can know the
various issues involved, and the reasons for the decision rendered.
PHILCOMSAT v. Alcuaz While respondents may fix a temporary rate pending final determination of
the application of petitioner, such rate-fixing order, temporary though it may
be, is not exempt from the statutory procedural requirements of notice
and hearing, as well as the requirement of reasonableness. Assuming that
such power is vested in NTC, it may not exercise the same in an arbitrary
and confiscatory manner. Categorizing such an order as temporary in nature
does not perforce entail the applicability of a different rule of statutory
procedure than would otherwise be applied to any other order on the same
matter unless otherwise provided by the applicable law.
Ateneo de Manila v. CA No denial of due process where all requirements of administrative due
process were met by the school and the student given the opportunity to be
heard.Juan Ramon himself appeared before the Board of Discipline. He
admitted the slapping incident, then begged to be excused so he could catch
the boat for Bacolod City. Juan Ramon, therefore, was given notice of the
proceedings; he actually appeared to present his side; the investigating board
acted fairly and objectively; and all requisites of administrative due process
were met.
Alcuaz v. PSBA It is beyond dispute that a student once admitted by the school is considered
enrolled for one semester. It is provided in Paragraph 137 Manual of
Regulations for Private Schools, that when a college student registers in a
school, it is understood that he is enrolling for the entire semester. Likewise,
it is provided in the Manual that the "written contracts" required for college
teachers are for "one semester." It is thus evident that after the close of the
first semester, the PSBA-QC no longer has any existing contract either with
the students or with the intervening teachers. Such being the case, the
charge of denial of due process is untenable.
Non v. Judge Dames The minimum standards laid down by the Court to meet the demands of
procedural due process are:
(1) the students must be informed in writing of the nature and cause of any
accusation against them;
(2) they shall have the right to answer the charges against them, with the
assistance of counsel, if desired:
(3) they shall be informed of the evidence against them;
(4) they shall have the right to adduce evidence in their own behalf; and
(5) the evidence must be duly considered by the investigating committee or
official designated by the school authorities to hear and decide the case

Wenky Yang & Zhai Garcia | A2013 | Consti 2 | Prof Harry Roque | Page 8 of 31
Contracts between school and students not ordinary; It is impressed with
public interest.

A school cannot refuse to enroll a student on the simple ground that his
contract expires every end of a semester.
Reyes v. CA While the University Council can ratify the acts of the Faculty on admission
requirements, this must be done within a reasonable time.

Sir Roque: You cannot admit the UPCM on a probationary status and allow
the students to graduate and then say that the students were not qualified to
be admitted to begin with.
Goldberg v. Kelly W/N a State that terminates public assistance payments to a particular
recipient w/o affording him the opportunity for an evidentiary hearing prior to
termination denies the recipient procedural due process
HELD: Yes. Welfare benefits are a matter of statutory entitlement for persons
qualified to receive them and procedural due process is applicable to their
Pre-termination Evidentiary Hearing Requisites
1) Recipient must be provided w/ timely and adequate notice detailing
the reason for termination, and an effective opportunity to defend his
own arguments and evidence orally before the decision maker
2) Recipient must be allowed to retain an attorney if he so desires
3) Decision maker should state the reasons for his determination and
indicate the evidence he relied on, no need to file full opinion
4) Decision maker must be impartial
Bell v. Burson W/N an administrative hearing conducted prior to suspension that excludes
consideration of the motorists fault or liability for the accident violates
procedural due process.
HELD: Yes. Before the State may deprive an individual of his license and
registration, it must provide a procedure for determining the question whether
there is a reasonable possibility of a judgment being rendered against him as
a result of the accident.
UP v. Hon. Ligot-Telan University rules do not require the attendance in BOR meetings of individuals
whose cases are included as items on the agenda of the Board.

In any event, it is gross error to equate due process in the instant case with
the sending of notice of the March 29, 1993 BOR meeting to respondent.
University rules do not require the attendance in BOR meetings of individuals
whose cases are included as items on the agenda of the Board. This is not
exclusive of students whose disciplinary cases have been appealed to the
Board of Regents as the final review body. At no time did respondent
complain of lack of notice given to him to attend any of the regular and
special BOR meetings where his case was up for deliberation.
DBP v. NLRC DBP cannot rightfully contend that it was deprived of due process. It was
given the opportunity to be heard and to present is evidence.
Estrada v. Sandiganbayan A statute or act may be said to be vague when it lacks comprehensible
standards that men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its
meaning and differ in its application. In such instance, the statute is
repugnant to the Constitution in two (2) respects it violates due process for
failure to accord persons, especially the parties targeted by it, fair notice of
what conduct to avoid; and, it leaves law enforcers unbridled discretion in
carrying out its provisions and becomes an arbitrary flexing of the
Government muscle. But the doctrine does not apply as against legislations
that are merely couched in imprecise language but which nonetheless specify
a standard though defectively phrased; or to those that are apparently
ambiguous yet fairly applicable to certain types of activities. The first may be
"saved" by proper construction, while no challenge may be mounted as
against the second whenever directed against such activities. With more
reason, the doctrine cannot be invoked where the assailed statute is clear
and free from ambiguity, as in this case.
B. Old Substantive Due Process
Calder v. Bull The Court rejected an attack on a Connecticut legislative act setting aside a
probate court decree which had refused to approve a will. The legislation
required a new hearing; and at that second hearing, the will was approved.
The challenge to the legislative act came from the heirs who would have
taken the property if the will had been ineffective. The Court rejected their
claim that the ex post facto clause barred the Connecticut act: that clause
Wenky Yang & Zhai Garcia | A2013 | Consti 2 | Prof Harry Roque | Page 9 of 31
was construed as being limited to criminal legislation.
Lochner v. New York The general right to make a contract in relation to his business is part of the
liberty protected by the 14th Amendment, and this includes the right to
purchase and sell labor, except as controlled by the State in the legitimate
exercise of its police power. There is no reasonable ground, on the score of
health, for interfering with the liberty of the person or the right of free contract,
by determining the hours of labor, in the occupation of a baker. It is not a
legitimate exercise of the police power of the State, but an unreasonable,
unnecessary and arbitrary interference with the right and liberty of the
individual to contract.
People v. Pomar The manager of La Compana General de Tabacos de Filipinas
refused to pay Macaria Fajardo her regular wages corresponding to
her 60-day pregnancy leave, despite her demands.
Prosecuting attorney filed a complaint.
W/N Art. 3071 is a reasonable and lawful exercise of police power.
HELD: No. Art. 3071 is unconstitutional because it violates the right
to contract ones affairs w/c is a part of liberty of the individual that is
protected by the due process of law clause of the constitution.
NDC and AGRIX v. Phil. Veterans Private property cannot simply be taken by law from one person and given to
another without compensation and any known public purpose. This is plain
arbitrariness and is not permitted under the Constitution.

While it is true that the police power is superior to the impairment clause, the
principle will apply only where the contract is so related to the public welfare
that it will be considered congenitally susceptible to change by the legislature
in the interest of the greater number.
People v. Nazario VOID FOR VAGUENESS DOCTRINE: An accused is denied the right to be
informed of the charge against him and to DUE PROCESS where the statute
itself is couched in such INDEFINITE LANGUAGE that its not possible for
men of ordinary intelligence to determine therefrom what acts/omissions are
Balacuit v. CFI Ordinance No. 640 penalized anyone who sold admission tickets to
any movie or other public exhibitions requiring children bet. 7-12 y/0
to pay in full.
Petitioners attack its constitutionality on the grounds that it is ultra
vires and an invalid exercise of police power.
HELD: Ordinance No. 640 invades the personal and property rights
of petitioners for being unreasonable and an undue restraint of
trade. It is unconstitutional and therefore, null and void.
Agustin v. EDU LOI No. 229 requiring the installation of early warning devices to
vehicles is not repugnant to the due process clause.
Justice Laurel identified POLICE POWER with state authority to
enact legislation that may interfere with personal liberty or property
in order to promote the general welfare.
C. New Substantive Due Process
Olmstead v. US W/N the use in evidence of private telephone conversations, intercepted by
mean of wiretapping violated the 4th and 5th amendment.
HELD: No. The principle of liberal construction applied to the Amendment to
effect its purpose in the interest of liberty, will not justify enlarging it beyond
the possible practical meaning of persons, houses, papers, and effects, or
so applying searches and seizures as to forbid hearing or sight.
Skinner v. Oklahoma W/N the operation of vasectomy could be performed on petitioner without
detriment to his general health. Held: State violated the equal protection
Griswold v. Connecticut Law forbidding use of contraceptives unconstitutionally intrudes up on the
right of marital privacy, which is guaranteed by the penumbra of rights
embodied in the Constitution.
Eisenstadt v. Baird The statute, by providing dissimilar treatment or married and unmarried
persons who were similarly situated, violated the equal protection clause of
the 14th Amendment
Roe v. Wade Pre-natal right is not within the states interest. The interest of the state kicks
in only upon birth. State criminal abortion laws violate the Due Process
Clause of the 14th Amendment, w/c protects against state action the right to
privacy, including a womans qualified right to terminate her pregnancy.

Sir Roque: Privacy entails decisions regarding ones body and a decision to
Wenky Yang & Zhai Garcia | A2013 | Consti 2 | Prof Harry Roque | Page 10 of 31
be married. The primary consideration is on the right of the mother. Certain
decisions can be made by only pregnant women themselves.
Bowers v. Hardwick W/N the Constitution confers a fundamental right upon homosexuals to
engage in sodomy. HELD: NO. An anti-sodomy law was validated on the
basis of a) historical indifference towards homosexuality, and b) immorality.
Lawrence v. Texas Overturned Bowers. Liberty gives substantial protection to adult persons in
deciding how to conduct their private lives in matters pertaining to sex. At the
heart of liberty is the right to define ones own concept of existence, of
meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life. Bowers
continuance as precedent demeans the lives of homosexual persons.
Silverio v. Republic May a person successfully petition for a change of name and sex appearing
in the birth certificate to reflect the result of a sex reassignment surgery?
HELD: NO. The State has an interest in the names borne by individuals and
entities for purposes of identification. A change of name is a privilege, not a
right. Rather than avoiding confusion, changing petitioners first name for his
declared purpose may only create grave complications in the civil registry
and the public interest.
Board of Education v. Earls Student Activities Drug Testing Policy is a reasonable means of furthering the
School Districts important interest in preventing and deterring drug use
among its schoolchildren.
a. Reasonableness in public school context, a search may be
reasonable when supported by special needs beyond the normal
need for law enforcement.
b. Students affected by this Policy have a limited expectation of
c. The invasion of students privacy is not significant, given the
minimally intrusive nature of the sample collection and the limited
uses to which the test results are put.
d. The Policy effectively serves the SDs interest in protecting its
students safety and health
Ople v. Torres AO 308, adoption of a national computerized identification reference system
intrudes on our citizenrys protected zone of privacy. Assuming, arguendo,
that A.O. No. 308 need not be the subject of a law, still it cannot pass
constitutional muster as an administrative legislation because facially it
violates the right to privacy. The essence of privacy is the "right to be let
Duncan Assoc. v. Glaxo Welcome Policy of pharmaceutical companies prohibiting marriage of employee to
competitor is constitutional, valid exercise of management prerogative.
White Light Corporation v. City of Manila Manila ordinance prohibiting wash up rates and short time admission by
motels held as an unconstitutional exercise of police power.

TEST OF A VALID ORDINANCE (Substantive Requirements):

1. Must not contravene the constitution or any statute
2. Must not be unfair or oppressive
3. Must not be partial or discriminatory
4. Must not prohibit but may regulate trade
5. Must be general and consistent with public policy
6. Must not be unreasonable
D. Protected Interests in Property
Mere Regulation under the Due Process Clause v. Taking of Property via the Power of Eminent Domain
Churchill v. Rafferty Unsightly advertisements or signs, signboards, or billboards which are
offensive to the sight, are not disassociated from the general welfare of the
public. It interferes with the proper enjoyment of outdoor life by the general
public. This justifies their suppression or regulation to the extent that they
interfere with the right of the public.
US v. Toribio The legislative determination of what is a proper exercise of its police power
is not final or conclusive, but is subject to the supervision of the courts

Laws which interfere w/ life, liberty or property satisfy substantive due

process when there is:
1. Lawful object interests of the public in general require the
intervention of the State, and
2. Lawful means means employed are reasonably necessary for the
accomplishment of the purpose and not unduly oppressive on
People v. Fajardo A Municipal Ordinance is unreasonable and oppressive if it operates to
permanently deprive appellants of the right to use their own property; it then
Wenky Yang & Zhai Garcia | A2013 | Consti 2 | Prof Harry Roque | Page 11 of 31
oversteps the bounds of police power without just compensation. The State,
under guise of police power, may not permanently divest owners of the
beneficial use of their property and practically confiscate them solely to
preserve or assure the aesthetic appearance of the community.
Ynot v. IAC Due process of law simply states that it is part of the sporting idea of fair
play to hear the other side before an opinion is formed or a decision is
made by those who sit in judgment.

Exceptions to Due Process

The conclusive presumption, bars the admission of contrary
evidence as long as such presumption is based on human
experience or there is a rational connection between the fact proved
and the fact ultimately presumed therefrom.
There are instances when the need for expeditious action will
justify omission of these requisites, as in the summary abatement of
a nuisance per se, like a mad dog on the loose, which may be killed
on sight because of the immediate danger it poses to the safety
and lives of the people.
Pornographic materials, contaminated meat and narcotic drugs are
inherently pernicious and may be summarily destroyed.
The passport of a person sought for a criminal offense may be
cancelled without hearing, to compel his return to the country he has
Filthy restaurants may be summarily padlocked in the interest of
the public health and bawdy houses to protect the public morals.
US v. Causby Flights of aircraft over private land which are so low and frequent as to be a
direct and immediate interference with the enjoyment and use of the land are
as much an appropriation of the use of the land as a more conventional entry
upon it.
Republic v. PLDT Where the Republic may not compel the PLDT to celebrate a contract with it,
the Republic may, in the exercise of the sovereign power of eminent domain,
require the telephone company to permit interconnection of the government
telephone system and that of the PLDT, as the needs of the government
service may require, subject to the payment of just compensation to be
determined by the court.
Republic v. Castellvi Requisites for taking under Power of Eminent Domain
a. The expropriator must enter a private property
b. Entry must be for more than a momentary period
c. Entry must be under warrant or color of legal authority
d. Property must be devoted to public use or otherwise informally
appropriated or injuriously affected
e. Utilization of the property must be in such a way as to oust the
owner and deprive him of beneficial enjoyment of the property
Bel-Air Association v. IAC Unlike the power of eminent domain, police power is exercised without
provisions for just compensation. When any property is condemned or seized
by competent authority in the interest of health, safety or security, the owner
thereof shall not be entitled to compensation, unless he can show that such
condemnation or seizure is unjustified.
Ortigas v. Feati The Police power is superior to contractual stipulations between parties on
the use of lands sold by subdivisions even if said conditions are annotated on
the Torrens Title.

In every contract, there is an implied reservation that it is subject to the police

power of the State.
EPZA v. Dulay Determination of Just Compensation is Judicial Function:
The PDs merely serve as a guide or a factor for the courts in determining
amount of just compensation. The courts have the power and authority to
determine just compensation, independent of what the decrees state, and
thus may appoint commissioners to help in determining just compensation.
NPC v. CA To determine due compensation for lands appropriated by the
Government, the basis should be the price or value at the time it
was taken from the owner and appropriated by the Government.
The nature of the land at the time of the taking by the Government is
the principal criterion for awarding compensation to the landowner.
Takings under Eminent Domain v. Takings under the Social Justice Clause
De Knecht v. Bautista Choice of Property to be Expropriated is Subject to Judicial Review as

Wenky Yang & Zhai Garcia | A2013 | Consti 2 | Prof Harry Roque | Page 12 of 31
to Reasonableness:
The RP can take private property upon payment of just compensation.
However, private property to be taken cannot be chosen arbitrarily and
capriciously, as the landowner is entitled to due process. The DPH
originally established the extension in Cuneta Ave., and it is assumed that
they made extensive studies regarding it. The change from Cuneta Ave. to
Fernando Rein-Del Pan Sts. Cannot be justified on the ground of social
impact, as the properties to be affected along Cuneta Avenue are mostly
Republic v. De Knecht Expropriation of lands by the government may be undertaken not only be
voluntary negotiation with the land owners, but also by taking appropriate
court action or by legislation. BP 340 superseded the final and executor
decision of the SC in De Knecht v. Bautista.
Manotok v. NHA Tambunting Estate and Estero Sunog-Apog expropriation; PDs dispense w/
due process in exercise of Eminent Domain, unconstitutional.

Hearing: What the due process clause requires is that the landowner must
be given reasonable opportunity to be heard and to present his claim or
defense. Although due process does not always necessarily demand that a
proceeding be had before a court of law, it still mandates some form of
proceeding wherein notice and reasonable opportunity to be heard are given
to the owner to protect his property rights. Although there are exceptional
situations when in the exercise of the power of eminent domain, the
requirement does not need judicial process, when it is alleged that the
landowners right to due process of law has been violated in the taking of his
property, the courts can probe and check on the alleged violation.
Ermita-Malate Hotel and Motel Operators Police power is the inherent and plenary power of the State which enables it
Association, Inc. v. Mayor of Manila to prohibit all that is hurtful to the comfort, safety and welfare of society.
Art. III, 1. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the
equal protection of the laws.

Art. III, 4. No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, and of the press, or the right of the people
peaceably to assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances.
Association of Small Landowners v. Secretary of Agrarian reform is an exercise of the police power of the State through
Agrarian Reform eminent domain as it is a means to regulate private property.
Sumulong v. Guerrero Scope of Judicial Review in Expropriation Proceedings: In this case the
Court held that socialized housing falls under the scope of public use, and is
therefore a valid basis for expropriation. However, pursuant to EPZA v.
Dulay, just compensation is not met in these PDs, remanded to lower court.
City Government v. Judge Ericta An ordinance of QC requiring memorial park operators to set aside at least
6% of their cemetery for charity burial of deceased persons is not a valid
exercise of police power, and one that constitute taking of property without
just compensation.
Luz Farms v. Secretary CARL in including private agricultural lands, devoted to commercial
livestock, poultry and swine raising in the definition of commercial farms is
Cariday v. CA Court ruled in favor of Forbes Park.

Dissent The real purpose of Forbes Park is to maintain the high value of the
properties in their area. If the purpose is against overcrowding, how is the
employment of a battalion of household help not overcrowding?
Carlos Superdrug Corp. v. DSWD The Senior Citizens Act (the new one) gave tax deductions instead of tax
credits (peso-per-peso claim from the government) vis--vis the 20%
discount given to senior citizens. Therefore, under this new system, the
business establishment also shares the burden from the discounts.
Pilipino Banana Growers and Exporters An ordinance banned the use of aerial spraying for bananas. The
Association v. City of Davao association filed suit challenging the validity of the law.
The means is not proportionately reasonable since the ordinance
gave them only 3 months to shift to ground spraying (w/c takes 3
years) thus their interests will be prejudiced. The parties did not
agree on the effects of this practice thus wasnt use as a basis for
the decision.
The ordinance bans all chemicals & substances thus there is no
reasonable distinction made on the hazards or benefits of the
method. The 30-meter buffer zone required for plantations doesnt
qualify the size of land.
Sir Roque:
Wenky Yang & Zhai Garcia | A2013 | Consti 2 | Prof Harry Roque | Page 13 of 31
Issue number 1 Is it a valid exercise of police power (no)
Issue number 2 The time frame is confiscatory. Buffer zone requirement is
a substantial taking of the property.

Wenky Yang & Zhai Garcia | A2013 | Consti 2 | Prof Harry Roque | Page 14 of 31
II. Equal Protection Clause
Art. III, 1. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the
equal protection of the laws.

Art. II, 14. The State recognizes the role of women in nation-building, and shall ensure the fundamental equality before the law of
women and men.

Art. II, 22. The State recognizes and promotes the rights of indigenous cultural communities within the framework of national unity
and development

Art. XII, 14.2. The practice of all professions in the Philippines shall be limited to Filipino citizens, save in cases prescribed by law.
Ormoc Sugar Company, Inc. v. Treasurer of An ordinance was declared void because it taxes only centrifugal sugar
Ormoc City produced and exported by the Ormoc Sugar Company and none other, such
that if a new sugar central is established in Ormoc, it would not be
subject to the ordinance
Dumlao v. COMELEC Disqualification from running in the same elective office, from which he
retired, of a retired elective provincial/municipal official who has received
payment of retirement benefits and who shall have been 65 y/o at the
commencement of the term of office to which he seeks to be elected is valid.
People v. Cayat Requisites of Valid Classification:
a. It must rest on substantial distinctions;
b. It must be germane to the purpose of the law;
c. It must not be limited to existing conditions only;
d. It must apply equally to all members of the same class.
Ichong v. Hernandez Definition of Equal Protection of the Laws
Equal protection requires that all persons or things similarly situated
should be treated alike, both as to rights conferred and
responsibilities imposed.
Similar subjects, in other words, should not be treated differently so
as to give undue favor to some and unjustly discriminate against
The guarantee means that no person or class of persons shall be
denied the same protection of laws which is enjoyed by other
persons or other classes in like circumstances.

GR: A legislative act may not validly classify the citizens of the State on the
basis of their origin, race or parentage.
EXP: The Court upheld the Retail Trade Nationalization Law despite the
objection that it violated the EP clause, because there exist real and actual,
positive and fundamental differences between an alien and a national.
International School Alliance v. Quisumbing Employees should be given equal pay for work of equal value.
Tecson v. COMELEC Where jurisprudence regarded an illegitimate child as taking after the
citizenship of its mother, it did so for the benefit the child. It was to ensure a
Filipino nationality for the illegitimate child of an alien father in line with the
assumption that the mother had custody, would exercise parental authority
and had the duty to support her illegitimate child. It was to help the child, not
to prejudice or discriminate against him.

The fact of the matter perhaps the most significant consideration is that
the 1935 Constitution, the fundamental law prevailing on the day, month and
year of birth of respondent FPJ, can never be more explicit than it is.
Providing neither conditions nor distinctions, the Constitution states that
among the citizens of the Philippines are those whose fathers are citizens of
the Philippines. There utterly is no cogent justification to prescribe
conditions or distinctions where there clearly are none provided.
Korematsu v. US An American with Japanese descent was convicted for staying in a
militarized area covered in the Exlclusion Order in 1944. The Exclusion
Order was issued in view of the war and the disloyalty of these people to
the United States .
The Court ruled that there was an overriding state interest against
espionage and against sabotage. They are being detained not because
they are Japanese but because there was a strong military objective of
minimizing the aiding and abetting of the enemies.
Dissent The exclusion order should not have extended the war powers.
[insert quotable quote]

Wenky Yang & Zhai Garcia | A2013 | Consti 2 | Prof Harry Roque | Page 15 of 31
Sir Roque: Only 2 years ago, it was only then when the Court reversed the
ruling in this case not because it was reversed per se but because of a
belated realization that the exclusion should not have been done.
Plessy v. Ferguson Plessy v. Ferguson
Plessy was 7/8 Caucasian and 1/8 Black but he was asked to transfer to
a separate train coach for blacks and when he refused to do so, he was
even led out to a train.
The Court was not prepared to view against Plessy because, according
to them, commingling of white and blacks will only happen if the
sentiment of people will be favorable to it. Legislature will not permit the
eradication of social instincts. Equality before the Law does not eradicate
distinctions based on skin color.
Dissent Our constitution is color-blind, and neither knows nor tolerates
classes among citizens. In respect of civil rights, all citizens are equal before
the law.
Univ. of California v. Bakke The medical school had a special admission policy which gave members
of minorities and disadvantaged sectors are given plus points in their
admissions in order to promote diversity. Students applying in the
regular track are judged purely based on GPA. Bakke is alleging that
there is reverse-discrimination against Caucasians.
Not all race-based classifications are unconstitutional. The schools
policy was not an affirmative action move but was supposed to provide
diversity in the medical profession in order to produce professionals
willing to treat ethnic minorities or marginalized people. Affirmative
action per se was not struck down in this case.
Any classification based on race is suspect but the court recognizes that
not all race-based distinctions are unconstitutional especially if there is
an overriding state interest (in the exercise of polic power). But the court
did not see any relation between the purpose of the University to the
admission of more members of the minority/disadvantaged sectors.
Sir Roque: The University should not have stated their diversity theory.
They should have said that minorities are more deprived of being admitted to
or obtaining med-graduate school education.
Gratz v. Bollinger/Grutter v. Bollinger 1. Gratz v. Bollinger
2 applications were rejected because the College of Lit, Sci, and Arts
adopted an affirmative action policy. Points were given to each student
and members of disadvantage sectors or minority groups get to have
+20 points. Thus, a huge number of Caucasians were disqualified. The
University argued that they had a different policy from UCal-Davis
because they didnt have an individualized system (quota-system) thus
there was no automatic acceptance.
This was invalidated because

2. Grutter v. Bollinger
The admissions policy is similar to the LSA only that there was no
automatic plus points. The purpose of the law school was to diversity
the studentry and the legal profession. The key is diversity and not
mathematical advantage. There was no race-based preference but it
promoted diversity which they deem important in the law profession.

Sir Roque: The Undergrad of UMichigan abolished the automatic addition of

20-points and now adopts the law school standards. Race alone should not
be a basis of distinction. Diversity can be achieved if additional benefits is
bestowed on minority groups. Bush argued against the UMichigan policy as
a form of reversed discrimination. Police power cant be invoked because
these cases merely talk about admission to state universities. There was
less reliance on academic freedom.
Bradwell v. Illinois A Vermont-native turned Illinois-resident applied to become a member of
the bar. She possessed all requisite applications but she was not
admitted to the practice because she was female.
A married woman can neither bind herself to contracts between
attorneys and their clients. Their timidity and coyness precludes them
from properly discharging the duties of a lawyer.
Concurring It is Gods command for females to remain discharging the
functions of a wife and a mother.
Goesart v. Cleary This involved a policy against women bartenders except wives or

Wenky Yang & Zhai Garcia | A2013 | Consti 2 | Prof Harry Roque | Page 16 of 31
daughters of male owners of licensed liquor establishments.
The state had a reason behind the distinction due primarily to the
oversight that male owners can offer. The fact that women may now
have achieved the virtues that men have long claimed as their
prerogatives and now indulge in vices that men have long, does not
preclude the states form drawing a sharp line between the sexes The
Constitution does not require legislatures to reflect sociological insight, or
shifting social standards, any more than it requires them to keep abreast
of the latest scientific standards.
Dissent there was sexual discrimination between male owners and female
Geduldig v. Aiello Aiello challenges a employment disability program because it denied
medical bills claims for normal delivery.
The court ruled in favor of the State since the compelling interest of
maintaining of a self-sustaining funding program for the greater number
of people outweighed the individual claims of women who underwent
normal delivery
Dissent: the law discriminates between sexes since it excludes temporary
disabilities unique to females and those unique to males
Mississippi Univ. School for Women v. Hogan Hogan was denied admission to the nursing program of MUW because
they maintain a single-sex admissions policy, believed to be better than
a co-ed system. Hogan challenges such policy on the basis of
discrimination between sexes, that it furthers a notion of the nursing
profession being for females only, and basically because it is
inconvenient for him to travel to the nearest co-ed school.
The court ruled in favor of Hogan by invalidating the purpose of MUW
w/c is to provide a sound environment for the education of women in the
field of nursing. The court disproved the studies presented by MUW that
the presence of males affected the performance of the females and the
teaching styles.
2 state analysis of the court: State interest and reasonable means
Dissent: The court invalidated a program of the state w/c provides choice for
women. This is the only all-girls school in the state and there are other co-ed
schools out there where Hogan could have applied.
Michael M. v. Superior Court Michael was caught by the authorities for violating a law which prohibits
illegal sex committed w/ a girl below 18 y/o. The law was made in order
to deter young individuals from teenage sex in order to lessen the
burdens of unwanted teenage pregnancies. It primarily holds only males
liable for violations of said law because girls are the ones who get
pregnant and shares the most burden of the consequences of the act.
The relevant issue is WON the law is drawn as precisely as it might have
been but WON the line chosen by the lawmakers is within constitutional
limitations. A gender-neutral statute would frustrate the States interest.
Gender-based classifications are not inherently suspect so as to be
subject to the Strict scrutiny test but will be upheld if they bear a fair
and substantial relationship to legitimate state ends. Minimum rationality
test applies.
Dissent: The law merely addresses half of the issue of the consequences of
an act that may be consensually committed by 2 individuals.
Personnel Administrator v. Feeney Personnel Admin v. Feeney
Feeney challenges a policy of the state w/c prefers veterans in civil
service positions as it allegedly results in the discrimination against
women applicants who have otherwise scored high in the admissions
The policy of the state here is to distinguish between veterans and non-
veterans. Clearly there are more male non-veterans that are affected by
this statute, so why fret? Feeney failed to show that a purpose to
discriminate was embedded in the minds of the lawmakers.
When a distinction drawn by a statute is not a pretext for gender
discrimination and the law does not reflect a purpose to discriminate then
it is constitutional
Dissent: the lawmakers couldnt have unseen the possible
disproportionate impact of the law on females. In the field of civil
service, women have always been considered only for low-grade clerical
and secretarial jobs
Sir Roque: a) Is there an important state interest
Wenky Yang & Zhai Garcia | A2013 | Consti 2 | Prof Harry Roque | Page 17 of 31
Yick Wo v. Hopkins A California statute prohibits the running of laundry establishments w/o a
permit from the board of supervisors, unless these establishments are in
brick/stone buildings. It also requires a permit for the erection of
scaffoldings on the roof of buildings. Yick Wo and Wo Lee were arrested
and detained because their laundries were in a building made of wood).
The contention of these Chinese people is that the law is void on its face,
if not, then it becomes void because of the way that it is executed,
particularly referring to the fact that the requests of the owners of 80 non-
Chinese laundry establishments in wooden building were allowed and
those owned by Chinese werent.
The court struck down the law since it does not provide a sufficient
standard to guide the board of supervisors as they deny or grant consent
to these establishments.
Though the law itself be fair on its face and impartial in appearance, yet,
if it is applied and administered by public authority with an evil eye and
an unequal hand, so as practically to make unjust and illegal
discriminations between persons in similar circumstances, material to
their rights, the denial of equal justice is still w/in the prohibition of the
this action or non-action may proceed from enmity or prejudice, from
partisan zeal or animosity, from favoritism and other improper influences and
motives easy of concealment and difficult to be detected and exposed, it
becomes unnecessary to suggest or to comment upon the injustice capable
of being brought under cover of such power, for that becomes apparent to
every one who gives to the subject a moments consideration.
Fragante v. City and County of Honolulu A Filipino challenges his disqualification for a clerkship post in the City
and County of Honolulu as being discrimination based on race when in
fact he had aced the exams for civil service. The County contends that
Fragante was rejected for the position because he had a pronounced
Filipino accent w/c would be detrimental in view of his job specifications.
Disparate treatment theory an employer is alleged to have treated a
person less favorably than others because of the persons race;
elements a) identifiable national origin, b) qualified for a job for w/c the
employer was seeking applicants, c) that he was rejected despite his
qualifications, d) position remained open and the employer continued to
seek applicants from persons of complainants qualifications.
The purpose of the state in choosing the other 2 qualified applicants over him
is that his accent bars efficient social service because the job specifications
of the position requires intensive communication w/ disgruntled clients. The
interviewers as well as the lower court found it hard to understand him. The
court found no hint of a mixed motive on the part of the State in disqualifying
Board of Directors v. Rotary Club Rotary Intl terminated Rotary Club of Duartes membership because it
admitted women in their roster.
Court: The Unruh Act does not violate EPC. The relationship among the
members does not warrant protection. It also does not violate the right
of expressive association of Rotary Club as they failed to demonstrate
that the admission of women will affect their expressive activities.
Boy Scouts of America v. Dale Dales appointment as Assistant Scout Master because of his sexual
orientation. BSA maintains that homosexuality is against its expressive
association rights and that homosexuals go against the Boy Scout Oath to
keep themselves morally straight.
Goodridge v. Dept of Public Health Director of Health denied the application of homosexual couples for
marriage licenses.
Applied the rational basis & struck down the law allowing only heterosexuals
couples to get marriage licenses because the rationale of the law is to create
an optimum environment for child-rearing.

Wenky Yang & Zhai Garcia | A2013 | Consti 2 | Prof Harry Roque | Page 18 of 31
III. Freedom of Expression
Art. III, 4. No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press, or the right of the people
peaceably to assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances.
A. Protected Speech
Prior Restraint
Near v. Minnesota When prior restraint is allowed:
1. When a nation is at war, many things that might be said in time of
peace are such a hindrance to its effort that their utterance will not
be endured so long as men fight and that no court could regard
them as protected by any constitutional right
2. Actual obstruction to the governments recruiting service or the
publication of the sailing dates of transports or the number and
location of troops
3. Obscene publications
4. Incitements to acts of violence and the overthrow by force of orderly
New York Times v. US Any system of prior restraints of expression comes to the Court bearing a
heavy presumption against its constitutionality, giving the government a
heavy burden to show justification for the imposition of such restraint
Freedman v. Maryland Maryland Statute violated the constitutional guaranty of freedom of
expression because under the statute
1. Upon the censors disapproval of the film, the exhibitor must assume
the burden of instituting judicial proceedings and of persuading the
courts that the film is protected expression,
2. Once the censor has acted against a film, exhibition is prohibited
pending judicial review, however protracted, and
3. No assurance of prompt judicial determination is afforded.
Pharmaceutical and Health Association of the DOH issued RIRR to the Milk Code prohibiting ads on milk substitutes
Philippines v. DOH Secretary Milk Code has a provision on an Inter-Agency Committee w/c filters

Puno, CJ, Concurring. The advertising and promotion of breast milk

substitutes properly falls within the ambit of the term commercial speech
that is, speech that proposes an economic transaction. This is a separate
category of speech which is not accorded the same level of protection as that
given to other constitutionally guaranteed forms of expression but is
nonetheless entitled to protection.
Chavez v. Gonzales Airing of Hello Garci tapes subject to warnings
The warnings were content-based prior restraint & they sent a chilling
effect to the media

PRIOR RESTRAINT refers to official governmental restrictions on the press

or other forms of expression in advance of actual publication or
dissemination. Freedom from prior restraint is largely freedom from
government censorship of publications, whatever the form of censorship, and
regardless of whether it is wielded by the executive, legislative or judicial
branch of the government. Thus, it precludes governmental acts that required
approval of a proposal to publish; licensing or permits as prerequisites to
publication including the payment of license taxes for the privilege to publish;
and even injunctions against publication. Even the closure of the business
and printing offices of certain newspapers, resulting in the discontinuation of
their printing and publication, are deemed as previous restraint or censorship.
Any law or official that requires some form of permission to be had before
publication can be made, commits an infringement of the constitutional right,
and remedy can be had at the courts.

3 Tests on Restraints on Freedom of Speech and Expression:

(a) the dangerous tendency doctrine which permits limitations on speech
once a rational connection has been established between the speech
restrained and the danger contemplated;
(b) the balancing of interests tests, used as a standard when courts need
to balance conflicting social values and individual interests, and requires a
conscious and detailed consideration of the interplay of interests observable
in a given situation of type of situation; and
(c) the clear and present danger rule which rests on the premise that

Wenky Yang & Zhai Garcia | A2013 | Consti 2 | Prof Harry Roque | Page 19 of 31
speech may be restrained because there is substantial danger that the
speech will likely lead to an evil the government has a right to prevent. This
rule requires that the evil consequences sought to be prevented must be
substantive, "extremely serious and the degree of imminence extremely

Philippine jurisprudence, even as early as the period under the 1935

Constitution, has recognized four aspects of freedom of the press. These are
(1) freedom from prior restraint;
(2) freedom from punishment subsequent to publication;
(3) freedom of access to information; and
(4) freedom of circulation

A distinction has to be made whether the restraint is

(1) a content-neutral regulation, i.e., merely concerned with the incidents of
the speech, or one that merely controls the time, place or manner, and under
well defined standards; or
(2) a content-based restraint or censorship, i.e., the restriction is based on
the subject matter of the utterance or speech.
When the prior restraint partakes of a content-neutral regulation, it is
subjected to an intermediate review. A content-based regulation, however,
bears a heavy presumption of invalidity and is measured against the clear
and present danger rule. The latter will pass constitutional muster only if
justified by a compelling reason, and the restrictions imposed are neither
overbroad nor vague.

When the speech restraints take the form of a content-neutral regulation, only
a substantial governmental interest is required for its validity. Because
regulations of this type are not designed to suppress any particular message,
they are not subject to the strictest form of judicial scrutiny but an
intermediate approachsomewhere between the mere rationality that is
required of any other law and the compelling interest standard applied to
content-based restrictions. The test is called intermediate because the Court
will not merely rubberstamp the validity of a law but also require that the
restrictions be narrowly-tailored to promote an important or significant
governmental interest that is unrelated to the suppression of expression. The
intermediate approach has been formulated in this manner:

A governmental regulation is sufficiently justified if it is within the

constitutional power of the Government, if it furthers an important or
substantial governmental interest; if the governmental interest is unrelated to
the suppression of free expression; and if the incident restriction on alleged
[freedom of speech & expression] is no greater than is essential to the
furtherance of that interest.

On the other hand, a governmental action that restricts freedom of speech or

of the press based on content is given the strictest scrutiny in light of its
inherent and invasive impact. Only when the challenged act has overcome
the clear and present danger rule will it pass constitutional muster, with the
government having the burden of overcoming the presumed

Unless the government can overthrow this presumption, the content-based

restraint will be struck down.

With respect to content-based restrictions, the government must also show

the type of harm the speech sought to be restrained would bring about
especially the gravity and the imminence of the threatened harm otherwise
the prior restraint will be invalid. Prior restraint on speech based on its
content cannot be justified by hypothetical fears, "but only by showing a
substantive and imminent evil that has taken the life of a reality already on
ground." As formulated, "the question in every case is whether the words
used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a
clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that
Congress has a right to prevent. It is a question of proximity and degree."

The regulation which restricts the speech content must also serve an
Wenky Yang & Zhai Garcia | A2013 | Consti 2 | Prof Harry Roque | Page 20 of 31
important or substantial government interest, which is unrelated to the
suppression of free expression.

Also, the incidental restriction on speech must be no greater than what is

essential to the furtherance of that interest. A restriction that is so broad that
it encompasses more than what is required to satisfy the governmental
interest will be invalidated. The regulation, therefore, must be reasonable and
narrowly drawn to fit the regulatory purpose, with the least restrictive means
Request for Live Radio-TV Coverage of the Trial KBP et al requested for live TV Coverage, the case being a matter of
in the Sandiganbayan of the Plunder Cases public interest
against Former Pres. Estrada The right of the accused outweighed the right to information & the liberty
of the press
Live TV coverage may be prohibited since the right of the accused must
prevail over the right of the public to information and freedom of the press.
Subsequent Punishment
People v. Perez Criticism, no matter how severe, on the Executive, the Legislature, and the
Judiciary, is within the range of liberty of speech, unless the intention and
effect be seditious.

Dangerous Tendency Test
It is sufficient if the natural tendency and the probable effect of the
utterance ere to bring about the substantive evil that the legislative
body seeks to prevent.
It asks whether the gravity of the evil, discounted by its improbability, justifies
such an invasion of free speech as is necessary to avoid the danger.
Petitioners, leaders of the Communist Party in this country, were indicted in a
federal district court under 3 of the Smith Act for willfully and knowingly
1) To organize as the Communist Party a group of persons to teach
and advocate the overthrow and destruction of the Government of
the US by force and violence, and
2) Knowingly and willfully to advocate and teach the duty and necessity
of overthrowing and destroying the Govt of the US by force and

An attempt to overthrow the Govt by force is a sufficient evil for Congress to

prevent. It is the existence of the conspiracy which creates the danger.
Abrams v. US All are indispensable to the uninhibited, robust and wide-open debate in the
free marketplace of ideas
Eastern Broadcasting v. Dans Arbitrary closure of a radio station is an unconstitutional prior restraint.

Freedom of expression and radio broadcasts

The following guidelines must be observed:
1. The cardinal primary requirements in administrative proceedings as
laid down in Ang Tibay v. CIR should be followed before a broadcast
station may be closed;
2. Though all forms of communication are entitled to the broad
protection of the freedom of expression, the freedom of television
and radio broadcasting is somewhat lesser in scope than the
freedom accorded to newspapers and print media.
3. The government has a right to be protected against broadcasts
which incite listeners to violently overthrow it
Speech Plus: Symbolic Speech
US v. OBrien When speech and non-speech elements are combined in the same course
of conduct, a sufficiently important governmental interest in regulating the
non-speech element can justify incidental limitations on free speech.
[Also applied in SWS v. COMELEC] A governmental regulation is sufficiently
justified if:
a. It is within the constitutional power of the government
b. It furthers an important or substantial governmental interest
unrelated to the suppression of free expression
c. The incidental restriction on alleged freedom is no greater than is
essential to the furtherance of that interest
Tinker v. Des Moines School District Wearing black armbands in protest of Vietnam war, 3 public school pupils
Wenky Yang & Zhai Garcia | A2013 | Consti 2 | Prof Harry Roque | Page 21 of 31
suspended from school.

A prohibition against expression of opinion, without any evidence that the rule
is necessary to avoid substantial interference with school discipline or the
rights of others, is not permissible under the 1st and 14th Amendments.
Assembly and Petition
Primicias v. Fugoso CONTENT-NEUTRAL RESTRICTIONS: Freedom of Assembly
The rights to freedom of speech and to peaceably assemble and petition the
govt for redress of grievance are fundamental personal rights of the people
guaranteed by the constitutions of democratic countries. City or town
mayors are not conferred the power to refuse to grant the permit, but
only the discretion in issuing the permit to determine or specify the
streets or public places where the parade may pass or the meeting may be
Navarro v. Villegas Petitioners are questioning the Mayors approval of petition to
conduct a rally in Plaza Miranda w/ condition that the venue be
transferred to the sunken gardens of Manila. SC Affirmed Mayor.
PBM Employees v. PBM The right to assembly and petition prevails over economic rights Although
the Bill of Rights also protects property rights, the primacy of human rights
over property rights is recognized. In the hierarchy of civil liberties, the rights
of free expression and of assembly occupy a preferred position. The
superiority of these freedoms over property rights is underscored by the fact
that a mere reasonable or rational relation between the means employed by
the law and its object or purpose-that the law is neither arbitrary nor
discriminatory nor oppressive-would suffice to validate a law which restricts
or impairs property rights. But a constitutional or valid infringement of human
rights require a more stringent criterion, namely existence of a grave and
immediate danger of a substantive evil which the State has the right to
Dusit Hotel v. NLRC The act of the Union was not merely an expression of their grievance or
displeasure but, indeed, a calibrated and calculated act designed to inflict
serious damage to the Hotels finances or its reputation. Thus, we hold that
the Unions concerted violation of the Hotels Grooming Standards which
resulted in the temporary cessation and disruption of the Hotels operations is
an unprotected act and should be considered as an illegal strike.
JBL Reyes v. Bagatsing Guidelines for issuance of permits (now BP 880):
1. Any group which applies must do so within a sufficient time so the
authority can have time to act;
2. If a disagreement arises over a denial of a permit, the applicant can
question the denial in the lower court, which can try questions of fact
and law; and
3. Appeal can be made to the SC on an expedited procedure

The sole justification for a limitation on the exercise of this right, so

fundamental to the maintenance of democratic institutions, is the danger, of a
character both grave and imminent, of a serious evil to public safety, public
morals, public health, or any other legitimate public interest.


The Court held here that freedom of speech and freedom to peaceable
assemble is entitled to be accorded utmost deference and respect, and
cannot be limited or denied unless there is showing of a clear and
present danger of a substantive evil that the State has a right to
prevent. For the constitutional right to be invoked, riotous conduct, injury to
property, and acts of vandalism must be avoided. Furthermore, absent any
clear and present danger of a substantive evil, peaceable assembly in
public places like streets or parks cannot be denied, unless there is
showing of a clear and present danger of a substantive evil.
Bayan v. Ermita The CPR, insofar as it would purport to differ from or be in lieu of
maximum tolerance, is NULL and VOID
CPR serves no valid purpose if it means the same thing as
maximum tolerance and is illegal if it means something else.
Accordingly, what is to be followed is and should be mandated by
the law itself, namely maximum tolerance
According to SolGen Nachura, he is aware of only ONE declared
freedom park Fuente Osmea in Cebu City. Without such

Wenky Yang & Zhai Garcia | A2013 | Consti 2 | Prof Harry Roque | Page 22 of 31
alternative forum, to deny the permit would in effect be to deny the
CPR has no place in our legal firmament and must be struck down
as a darkness that shrouds freedom.

Wenky Yang & Zhai Garcia | A2013 | Consti 2 | Prof Harry Roque | Page 23 of 31
Malabanan v. Ramento Permissible Limitations on Student Demonstrations within School
Students enjoy the rights of free speech and peaceable
assembly within the school
School authorities may require that a permit be secured before
any assembly may be held within the school
School official cannot deny a permit except when there is a
showing of a clear and present danger of a substantive evil that
it has a right to prevent.
The permit granted may impose conditions as to the time and
place of the assembly in order to avoid the disruption of normal
school activities
The students responsible may be punished for violating the
terms of the permit if such violation results in the commission
of acts that would constitute a substantive evil, i.e., material
and substantial disruption of academic and non-academic
The penalty imposed must be proportionate to the offense
Free Speech and Suffrage
Gonzales v. COMELEC [The clear and present danger] rule requires that the danger created must
not only be clear and present but also traceable to the ideas expressed
[Balancing of Interest test] The test applied when two legitimate values not
involving national security crimes compete.
When a particular conduct is regulated in the interest of public order,
and the regulation results in an indirect, conditional and partial
abridgement of speech, the duty of the courts is to determine which
of the two conflicting interests demands greater protection.
The court must undertake the delicate and difficult task of weighing
the circumstances and appraising the substantiality of the reasons
advanced in support of the regulation of the free enjoyment of rights

Example of Constitutional Prior Restraint

Law which prohibits, except during the prescribed election period, the making
of speeches, announcements or commentaries for or against the election of
any candidate for office.
Sanidad v. COMELEC Example of Unconstitutional Prior Restraint
COMELEC prohibition against radio commentators or newspaper columnists
from commenting on the issues involved in a scheduled plebiscite
National Press Club v. COMELEC Example of Constitutional Prior Restraint
Prohibition on any person making use of the media to sell or to give free of
charge print space or air time for campaign or other political purposes except
to the COMELEC. Ratio: Police power of the State to regulate media for
purpose of ensuring equal opportunity, time and space for political
Adiong v. COMELEC Example of Unconstitutional Prior Restraint
COMELEC resolution prohibiting the posting of decals and stickers in mobile
units like cars and other moving vehicles
ABS-CBN v. COMELEC True, the government has a stake in protecting the fundamental right to
vote by providing voting places that are safe and accessible. It has the duty
to secure the secrecy of the ballot and to preserve the sanctity and the
integrity of the electoral process. However, in order to justify a restriction of
the people's freedoms of speech and of the press, the state's responsibility of
ensuring orderly voting must far outweigh them.
These freedoms have additional importance, because exit polls generate
important research data which may be used to study influencing factors and
trends in voting behavior. An absolute prohibition would thus be
unreasonably restrictive, because it effectively prevents the use of exit poll
data not only for election-day projections, but also for long-term research.
Use of Private Property as a Forum for Others Speech
Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins Mall owners have opened their establishment for public use, therefore, they
are stopped from using the defense of right o own private property.
B. Unprotected Speech
Defamatory Speech
Policarpio v. Manila Times Pub. Co., Inc. PCAC Raps L. Policarpio on Fraud
Wenky Yang & Zhai Garcia | A2013 | Consti 2 | Prof Harry Roque | Page 24 of 31
Libel; Publication containing derogatory information; Requirements for
publication to enjoy immunity.To enjoy immunity, a publication containing
derogatory information must be not only true, but, also, fair, and it must be
made in good faith and without any comments or remarks

Pertains to qualifiedly privileged communication (fair and true reporting of

an official proceeding; legal moral or social duty): the burden is shifted on the
prosecution to prove malice-in-fact, which the defense can overcome by
proving the truth of the defamatory statement and good motive.
Lopez v. CA An action for libel would lie arising from a publication in a weekly magazine of
the plaintiffs photograph as being responsible for the hoax of the year, even
though the publisher made a correction of their mistake immediately upon
discovery thereof.

Dissenting. For liability in damages to arise from an alleged libelous

publication, without offending press freedom, there is need to prove that the
publication was made with actual malicethat is, with the knowledge of its
falsity or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.
New York Times v. Sullivan An elected official brought sought claiming libel by an advertisement in the
petitioners newspaper. HELD: A State cannot award damages to a public
official for defamatory falsehood relating to his official conduct unless he
proves actual malicethat the statement was made w/ knowledge of its
falsity or w/ reckless disregard of whether it was true or false. The evidence
was constitutionally insufficient to support award of damages to respondent
since it was proved that the ad actually related to respondent.
Rosenbloom v. Metromedia Radio station broadcast reports not mentioning petitioners name but using
terms as smut literature racket and girlie-book peddlers. HELD: No
damages because malice was not proved by private person because subject
matter is of public interest. In the absence of actual malice, the news media is
given a privilege to report and comment upon the official actions of public
servants in full detail, w/o sparing from public view the reputation or privacy of
an individual involved in or affected by any official action.
Ayer Production v. Capulong PUBLIC FIGURE a person who, by his accomplishments, fame, or mode of
living, or by adopting a profession or calling which gives the public a
legitimate interest in his doings, his affairs, and his character, has become a
public personage.

A public figure cannot successfully allege privacy.

TC issued a write of prelim. inj. against petitioners ordering them to desist

from producing the movie The Four-day Revolution, a docu-drama of EDSA
I. on the ground that it violated the right to privacy of Juan Ponce Enrile who
was featured in the documentary.
HELD: 1) Freedom of speech and expression includes freedom of film and
produce motion pictures and to exhibit them. The fact that such film prod. Is a
commercial activity is not a disqualification for availing of freedom of speech
and expression.
2) The right to privacy cannot be involved to resist publication and
dissemination of matter of public interest.
3) The intrusion is no more than necessary to keep the film a truthful
historical account. Enrile is a public figure because of his participation as a
principal actor in the culminating events of the revolution.
4) There must be no knowing or reckless disregard of truth in depicting the
participation of Enrile in ESDA I. Also, there must be no presentation of his
private life and no revelation of intimate or embarrassing personal facts.
Soliven v. Makasiar President Aquino filed a complaint for libel against the publisher and
columnist of the PhilStar, with regard to a statement in Beltrans forum saying
that the President hid under her bed during a coup attempt. HELD: As
regards the contention of Beltran that he could not be held liable for libel
because of the privileged character of the publication, the Court is not a
trier of facts and that such defense is best left to the trial court to
appreciate after receiving the evidence of the parties.

W/N President can file suit for libel? Yes. There is nothing in our laws that
would prevent the Pres. From waiving the privilege of immunity from suit.
US v. Bustos While indeed, the news item subject of the present case might have ruffled
Wenky Yang & Zhai Garcia | A2013 | Consti 2 | Prof Harry Roque | Page 25 of 31
the sensitivities of plaintiff, this Court however believes that the alleged
defamatory articles falls within the purview of a qualifiedly privileged matter,
and that therefore, it cannot be presumed to be malicious, The onus of
proving malice is accordingly shifted to the plaintiff, that is , that he
must prove that the defendants were actuated by ill-will in what they
caused to be printed and published, with a design to carelessly or
wantonly injure the plaintiff.

Exceptions to Subsequent Restraint

Criticism of official conduct is given the widest latitude. The people have a
right to scrutinize and comment or condemn the conduct of their chosen
representatives in the government. As long as their comments are made in
GOOD FAITH and WITH JUSTIFIABLE ENDS, they are insulated from
prosecution or damage suits for defamation even if such views are found to
be inaccurate or erroneous. A public officer must not be too thin-skinned with
reference to comment upon his official acts.
Fighting Words Offensive Words
Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire Chaplinsky was denouncing all religion as a racket.
Right of free speech is not absolute at all times under all circumstances.
There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the
prevention and punishment of which has never been thought to raise any
Constitutional problem. These include:
1. The Lewd and obscene
2. The profane
3. The libelous
4. The insulting or fighting words
FIGHTING WORDS those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend
to incite an immediate breach of the peace.
Cohen v. California Fuck the Draft jacket.
Absent a more particularized and compelling reason for its actions, the State
may not, consistently with the 1st and 14th Amendments, make the simple
public display of this single four-letter expletive a criminal offense.
Roth v. US 2 statutes (California & California) prohibiting the mailing of obscene
materials were challenged for violating the freedom of expression
Definition of obscene material that w/c deals w/ sex in a manner
appealing to prurient interest
Prurient interest shameful or morbid interest in nudity, sex, or
Test of obscenity whether to the average person, applying contemporary
community standards, the dominant theme of the material taken as a whole
appeals to prurient interest
Miller v. California Test of Obscenity:
1. Whether the average person, applying contemporary community
standards, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to
the prurient interest.
2. Whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way,
sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable law.
3. Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic,
political or scientific value.
Gonzales v. Kalaw Katigbak Gonzales was the producer of the movie Kapit sa Patalim w/c the Board of
Review for Motion Pictures and Televisions classified as fit For Adults Only.
HELD: The power of the Board is limited to the classification of films. For
freedom of expression is the rule and restrictions the exception. Censorship
is allowable only under the clearest proof of a clear and present danger
of a substantive evil to public safety, morals, health or any other legit
public interest. 1) There should be no doubt what is feared may be
traced to the expression complained of. 2) Also, there must be
reasonable apprehension about its imminence. It does not suffice that
the danger is only probable.
Pita v. CA Example of Valid Subsequent Restraints
Obscenity. The determination of what is obscene is a judicial function.
Pitas Pinoy Playboy Mags were seized & disposed off by the Anti-smut
team of Bagatsing for being obscene.
The determination of obscenity must not be left to the local government
units or law enforcers.

Wenky Yang & Zhai Garcia | A2013 | Consti 2 | Prof Harry Roque | Page 26 of 31
Procedure for seizure of allegedly obscene materials
a. apply for a search warrant, the burden to show the
existence of grave & imminent danger that would justify
adverse action lies on the authorities
b. there must be an objective and convincing proof of the
existence of such clear & present danger.
c. must be resolved on a case-to-case basis
d. there must be a finding of a probable cause
e. a case must e filed based on Art. 201
f. there must be a system of appeals
Defenses possible:
a. Art 32, NCC
b. Art 129 & Art 130, RPC
Reno v. ACLU Congress enacted the Communications Decency Act w/c penalizes the
knowing transmission and knowing display of obscene materials to
persons under 18 in the internet.
The CDA was struck down for being overbroad as it prohibits
transmission of messages even to consenting adults, that the safeguards
in the law are too burdensome for companies and thus burdens them,
and that it is a content-based regulation w/c doesnt survive strict
Sir: Miller operates on the usage of the public mailing system, using
taxpayers money. This would mean that the platform intended to be a
source of unrestricted information w/c doesnt cost taxpayers money to
maintain, the Court would lean towards freedom of expression.
Ashcroft v. ACLU Congress, after the Reno case, enacted the COPA w/c narrowed down
the CDA into messages for commercial purposes and harmful to
minors, as well as to the World Wide Web only.
The Miller test was applied, particularly the application of community
standards. COPA wasnt overbroad as it limits the scope as compared to

Wenky Yang & Zhai Garcia | A2013 | Consti 2 | Prof Harry Roque | Page 27 of 31
IV. Church and State: The Wall of Separation
Art. II, 6. The separation of church and State shall be inviolable.

Art. III, 5. No law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The free exercise of
religious profession and worship, without discrimination or preference, shall forever be allowed. No religious test shall be required for
the exercise of civil and political rights.

Art. VI, 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 or 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.

A. Establishment Clause
Aglipay v. Ruiz W/N postage stamps depicting Philippines as the site of a significant religious
event (which promote a Catholic event) is constitutional. HELD: Yes, benefit
to religious sect incidental to promotion of Philippines as a tourist destination.
Garces v. Estenzo W/N Barangay resolutions regarding barrio fiesta honoring a patron saint is
constitutional. HELD: Yes, Traditions w/c used to be purely religious but have
now acquired secular character are permissible.
Lemon v. Kurtzman W/N financial aid subsidizing parochial schools is constitutional. HELD: No, it
creates excessive government entanglement because program will require
continuous monitoring of schools to ensure they meet the requirement that
only secular programs are subsidized.
For State financial subsidy for parochial schools to be allowable, government
aid MUST
1) have a secular legislative purpose;
2) have a primary effect that neither advances nor inhibits religion;
3) not require excessive entanglement with recipient institutions.
Board of Education v. Allen W/N lending program of books to students in parochial schools is
constitutional. HELD: Yes, benefit redounds to students and parents not to
any particular sect.
County of Allegheny v. ACLU The [non-establishment] clause prohibits excessive government
in relation to Lynch v. Donnely entanglement with, endorsement or disapproval of religion
County of Allegheny v. ACLU W/N display of crche and menorah in public building is constitutional. HELD:
No for crche: prominent setting sends unmistakable message that govt
supports Christianity. Yes for menorah: its setting combined with a Christmas
tree has a secular dimension, a recognized tradition
Lynch v. Donnely W/N crche is constitutional. HELD: Yes, it is displayed in a secular manner,
merely depicts the origins of the holiday. The Constitution mandates
accommodation and not merely tolerance. Instead of an absolutist approach,
court inquires if the law or conduct has a secular purpose.
Epperson v. Arkansas W/N law prohibiting the teaching of evolution in schools is constitutional.
HELDL No, State may not require schools to tailor their teaching in
accordance with the principles or prohibitions of any religious sects.
Abington School District v. Schempp SC disallowed the reading of a passage from the bible without comment in
public schools as contrary to the Non- Establishment clause.
W/N bible reading at the opening of school day is constitutional. HELD: No,
the exercise is religious in character. May not prefer belief over non-belief.
Engel v. Vitale SC disallowed the conducting of an non-denominational prayer before the
start of classes in public schools as violative of the Non- Establishment
Tilton v. Richardson W/N law granting financial support for expansion of educational facilities in
parochial schools is constitutional. HELD: Yes, secular purpose facilities to
be used for secular activities. Since no constant monitoring there is also no
excessive entanglement (unlike Lemon.)
Brother Mike Velarde v. SJS The Social Justice Society, in a petition for declaratory relief, sought an
interpretation of the Constitutional provisions on the Freedom of Religion
and Separation of Church and State in line with the acts of religious
leaders endorsing a candidate for an elective office or in urging or
requiring the members of his flock to vote for a specified candidate.
The Court allowed Oral Arguments on the merits of the case but the suit
suffered a TKO as it appeared that it merely asked the Court for an
advisory opinion, a rendition of w/c the Court isnt empowered to do.

Wenky Yang & Zhai Garcia | A2013 | Consti 2 | Prof Harry Roque | Page 28 of 31
Newdow v. US W/N Pledge of Allegiance containing the word God is constitutional.
HELD: No, mandatory recitation in school would tend to discriminate
against students who are atheists
Glassroth v. Moore W/N granite monument of 10 Commandments in front of courthouse is
constitutional. HELD: No, display is unmistakably non-secular. Nothing in its
setting de-emphasizes its religious nature, engenders in viewers a sense that
Christianity is endorsed by the govt.
Martin v. Corporation of the Presiding Bishop W/N zoning law giving exemption to religious sect is constitutional. HELD:
Yes, court may not determine whether architectural features are necessary
for a particular religion, e.g. steeple pointing upwards into heaven for
B. Free Exercise Clause
American Bible Society v. City The power to tax the exercise of the privilege is the power to control or
suppress its enjoyment. Those who can tax the exercise of religious
practice can make its exercise so costly as to deprive it of the
resources necessary for its maintenance.
Gerona v. Secretary of Education Students, members of the JW, were expelled from a public school as
they refused to salute the flag, contrary to RA 1265 and DO 8. They
reasoned that this is against their religion, citing a verse in their version
of Exodus.
There was no compulsion involved in the enforcement of the flag salute. The
pledge is completely secular. The flag is not an image, but a symbol of the
country, therefore saluting is not a religious ceremony. The implementation of
the law and order enforce a non-discriminatory regulation. The Court said
that exempting the JWs due to religious belief will disrupt school discipline &
demoralize the greater student population.
Ebralinag v. Division Superintendent Conscientious Objectors cannot be compelled to salute the flag. The idea
that one may be compelled to salute the flag, sing the national anthem, and
recite the patriotic pledge, during a flag ceremony on pain of being dismissed
from one's job or of being expelled from school, is alien to the conscience of
the present generation of Filipinos who cut their teeth on the Bill of Rights w/c
guarantees their rights to free speech and the free exercise of religious
profession and worship.
The existence of a grave and present danger of a character both
grave and imminent, of a serious evil to public safety, public morals,
public health or any other legitimate interest, that the state has a
right to prevent.
Anucension v. NLU The CBA contained a closed-shop policy. Members of the INC were ordered
not to join or withdraw membership from labor unions therefore they resigned
from the union. The legitimate bargaining unit urged the company to consider
the resignation of those INC members as a ground for dismissal/suspension.
HELD: They cannot be dismissed, RA 3350 giving exemption to religious
sects to closed-shop policy is constitutional.
Iglesia ni Cristo v. CA INCs show was given an X rating by the Board because their episodes
contained direct attacks against other religions.
The action of the Board did not survive the Clear & Present Danger test
Prior restraint on speech, including religious speech, cannot be justified by
hypothetical fears but only by the showing of a substantive and imminent evil
which has taken the life of a reality already on ground.
Pamil v. Teleron For lack of votes, law disqualifying religious leaders from public office is held
valid. As per free exercise clause, it is invalid for it requires a religious test for
McDaniel v. Paty qualification.
In the same year, the US Supreme Court declared a similar law to be
violative of the free exercise clause.
German v. Barangan The right to act according to ones belief may be regulated by police power
measures (subject to Clear and Present Danger Test). The Security of
presidential family and their guests supersedes that of peoples religious
freedom to attend a mass at St. Jude in Malacaang.
Cantwell v. Connecticut A State statute which forbids any person to solicit money or valuables for any
alleged religious cause, unless a certificate therefor shall first have been
procured from a designated official, who is required to determine whether
such cause is a religious one and who may withhold his approval if he
determines that it is not, is a previous restraint upon the free exercise of
religion and a deprivation of liberty without due process of law.

Wenky Yang & Zhai Garcia | A2013 | Consti 2 | Prof Harry Roque | Page 29 of 31
Commonwealth v. Twitchell Parents convicted of involuntary manslaughter for the death of their child
after the parents relied on spiritual treatment for a bowel condition.
Remanded for new trial.
1) The parents duty to seek medical attention for their child could
support a conviction for involuntary manslaughter if the parents
wantonly or recklessly violated that duty;
2) The statute providing that spiritual treatment may be enough to
prevent a finding of neglect did not bar a prosecution for involuntary
3) The parents were entitled to assert an affirmative defense that they
reasonably relied on the Atty. Generals opinion about whether the
statute provided a defense;
4) The failure to allow the parents to present the affirmative defense
was reversible error, even though they had not requested a jury
instruction on the subject.
Clay v. US CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTOR TEST deployed in granting exemption from
mandatory exercises, e.g. military service; flag salute
To Apply the Test:
1. Conscientiously opposed to war in any form.
2. Opposition is based upon religious training and belief.
3. Objection is sincere.
Estrada v. Escritor COMPELLING STATE INTEREST TEST (from a benevolent neutrality
Although the morality contemplated by law is secular, benevolent
neutrality could allow for accommodation of morality based on
religion, provided it does not offend compelling state interests.
To Apply the Test:
1. Determine sincerity and centrality of claimed religious belief and
2. Compelling state interest to override religious belief and practice.
3. The means adopted in pursuing its interest is the least restrictive to
religious freedom.
C. Unusual Religious Beliefs and Practices
Wisconsin v. Yoder May the Amish refuse to comply with compulsory education laws? YES. The
States interest in universal education is not totally free from a balancing
process when it impinges on other fundamental rights, such as those
specifically protected by the Free Exercise Clause and the traditional interest
of parents with respect to the religious upbringing of their children.
US v. Ballard Men may believe what they cannot prove. Courts may not inquire into the
veracity of the subject of belief but only in the sincerity of the belief.
US v. Seeger Pertains to 2 requirement to conscientious objector test
Meaning of religious training and belief: W/N it is sincere and meaningful and
occupies a place in the life of its possessor parallel to that filled by the
orthodox belief in God. Expands the meaning of religion to cover not just
recognized sects but also personal beliefs akin to traditional religion.

Wenky Yang & Zhai Garcia | A2013 | Consti 2 | Prof Harry Roque | Page 30 of 31
V. Academic Freedom
Art. XIV, 1. The State shall protect and promote the right of all citizens to quality education at all levels and shall take appropriate
steps to make such education accessible to all.

Art. XIV, 5(2). Academic freedom shall be enjoyed in all institutions of higher learning.
To determine for itself on academic grounds:
1) who may teach,
2) what may be taught,
3) how it shall be taught, and
4) who may be admitted to study.
Isabelo v. Perpetual Help Academic freedom has never been meant to be an unabridged license. It is a
privilege that assumes a correlative duty to exercise it responsibly.
UP v. CA Tasaday Hoax perpetrated by Elizalde. UP contents that the Statements of
Bailen and Salazar are protected by the mantle of the institutional academic
freedom of UP and are therefore privileged communication which cannot give
rise to any cause of action for damages. TKO. Intervention must fail due to
lack of cause of action.
DECS v. San Diego W/N a person who has 3x failed the NMAT is entitled to take it again. While
his persistence is noteworthy, to say the least, it is certainly misplaced, like a
hopeless love. A person cannot insist on being a physician if he will be a
menace to his patients.
Tablarin v. Gutierrez NMAT is reasonably related to the securing of the ultimate end of legislation
and regulation: the protection of the public from the potentially deadly effects
of incompetence and ignorance in those who would undertake to treat our
bodies and minds for disease or trauma.

Wenky Yang & Zhai Garcia | A2013 | Consti 2 | Prof Harry Roque | Page 31 of 31
VI. Protected Interests in Liberty
A. Non-Impairment of Obligations of Contracts
Art. III, 10. No law impairing the obligations of contracts shall be passed

Art. 1306. CC. The contracting parties may establish such stipulations, clauses, terms and conditions as they may deem convenient,
provided they are not contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order, or public policy.
Home Builders and Loan Assoc. v. Blaisdell Due Great Depression, extension of right to redeem mortgaged property up
to 2 years. Constitutional

Economic conditions may arise in which a temporary restraint of

enforcement of contracts will be consistent with the spirit and purpose of the
contract clause, and thus be within the range of the reserved power of the
State to protect the vital interest of the community.

Allowable Impairment
1) The impairment should only refer to the remedy and not to a
substantive right;
2) The protective power of the state, the police power, may only be
invoked and justified by an emergency, temporary in nature, and
can only be exercised upon reasonable conditions in order that it
may not infringe the constitutional provision against impairment of
3) Change made shouldnt be burdened w/ such restrictions as to
make the remedy hardly worth pursuing
4) That the laws altering existing contracts will constitute an
impairment of the contract clause of the Consti only if they are
unreasonable in the light of the circumstances occasioning their
Rutter v. Esteban Debt moratorium of 8 years unconstitutional. Purpose of RA 342 was to
afford prewar debtors an opportunity to rehabilitate themselves by giving
them reasonable time to pay their pre-existing war debts to prevent them
from being victimized by their creditors  but countrys condition has
changed for the better, thus purpose of the law is gone.
Juarez v. CA Sublease w/o written consent of owner or lessor is ground for
judicial ejectment.
The impairment clause is now no longer inviolate.
As long as the contract affects public welfare 1 way or another so
as to require State interference, police power must be asserted.
Caleon v. Agus Devt Sublease of improvements on a parcel of land is sublease of land.
Social Justice cannot be invoked to trample on the rights of
property owners, who under our Constitution and laws are also
entitled o protection. The SJ consecrated in our Consti was no
intended to take away rights from a person and give them to
another who is not entitled thereto.
B. Involuntary Servitude
Art. III, 18(2). No involuntary servitude in any form shall exist except as a punishment for a crime whereof the party shall have been
duly convicted.
Rubi v. Provincial Board Mangyans were resettled. They contend that they have been subjected to
involuntary servitude. Slavery and involuntary servitude, together with their
corollary, peonage, all denote a condition of enforced, compulsory service
of one to another. It is not involuntary servitude because it will redound to
the benefit of the Mangyans not to anybody else.
Kaisahan v. Gotamco GR: No involuntary servitude shall exist.
EXPN: Return to work order to industries affected with public interest
C. Imprisonment for Non-Payment of Debt
Art. III, 20. No person shall be imprisoned for debt or non-payment of a poll tax.
Lozano v. Martinez BP 22. Checks are not mere contracts, they are substitutes for money.
While debtor cannot be imprisoned for failure to pay his debt, he can be
validly punished in a criminal action if he contracted his debt through fraud.
D. Right Against Self-incrimination
Art. III., 17. No person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.
US v. Navarro A481 RPC provided a penalty for a private person who detained
another. In relation to this, A483 laid down a higher penalty for 1
who after having detained another, refused to divulge info
regarding the detainees whereabouts.

Wenky Yang & Zhai Garcia | A2013 | Consti 2 | Prof Harry Roque | Page 32 of 31
Said to be violative of the Self-Incrimination consti guarantee
SC: it is. as the person accused, in order to free himself of the
higher penalty under A483 must confess to the crime penalized in
A481. If he remained silent, he would be convicted under A483.
Its the duty of the prosecution to produce evidence to convict 1 of
a crime. The accused cant be called to assist in the production of
evidence. Neither should his silence lower the bar on the
presumption of innocence
Villaflor v. Summers The accused can be compelled to show her body for physical investigation to
see if she is pregnant by an adulterous relation
Beltran v. Samson The privilege [against self-incrimination] covers handwriting in connection
with a prosecution for falsification, for this involves the use of the mental
Cabal v. Kapunan At the outset, it is not disputed that the accused in a criminal case may
refuse, not only to answer incriminatory questions, but, also, to take the
witness stand.

Forfeiture under Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act has been held,
however, to partake of the nature of a penalty. As a consequence,
proceedings for forfeiture of property are deemed criminal or penal. Hence,
the exemption of defendants in criminal case from the obligation to be
witnesses against themselves is applicable thereto.
Republic v. Sandiganbayan Imelda Marcos, et al claim that forfeiture proceedings are criminal in nature,
thus they must be afforded all the rights of an accused. But SC said such
proceedings are actions in rem and therefore civil in nature.
PNB v. Gancayco W/N a bank can be compelled to disclose the records of accounts of a
depositor who is under investigation for unexplained wealth.

RA 1405 provides that bank deposits are absolutely confidential but admits
of 4 cases when the disclosure is allowed:
1) Upon written permission of the depositor;
2) In cases of impeachment;
3) Upon order of a competent court in cases of bribery or
dereliction of duty of public officials;
4) In cases where the money deposited is the subject of the litigation.
Bengzon v. Senate Blue Ribbon Committee The petitioners' contention that the questioned investigation would compel
them to reveal their defense in the cases now pending against them in the
Sandiganbayan is untenable. They know or should know that they cannot be
compelled to answer incriminating questions. The case of Chavez v. Court of
Appeals, 24 SCRA 663, where we held that an accused may refuse at the
outset to take the stand on the ground that the questions to be put by the
prosecutor will tend to incriminate him is, of course, not applicable to them.
They are not facing criminal charges before the Blue Ribbon Committee. Like
any ordinary witness, they can invoke the right against self-incrimination only
when and as the incriminating question is propounded.
Galman v. Pamaran The privilege [against self-incrimination] extended to a fact-finding
investigation by an ad hoc body. A person can be compelled to testify
provided he is given immunity co-extensive with the privilege against self-

Use immunity prohibits use of a witness compelled testimony and its fruits
in any manner in connection with the criminal prosecution of the witness. On
the other hand transactional immunity grants immunity to witness from
prosecution for an offense to which his compelled testimony relates.
Miranda v. Arizona Any person under custody or police investigation has the right to be informed
of the following rights:
1. Right to remain silent
2. Right to be reminded that if he waives his right to remain silent,
anything he says can and will be used against him
3. Right to counsel before and during interrogation
4. Right to be reminded that if he cannot afford counsel, then one will
be provided for him by the state
5. Even if the person consents to answer questions without the
assistance of counsel, the moment he asks for a lawyer at any point
in the investigation, the interrogation must ceases until an attorney
is present
6. If the foregoing protections and warnings are not demonstrated
Wenky Yang & Zhai Garcia | A2013 | Consti 2 | Prof Harry Roque | Page 33 of 31
during the trial to have been observed by the prosecution, no
evidence obtained as a result of the interrogation can be used
against him

Wenky Yang & Zhai Garcia | A2013 | Consti 2 | Prof Harry Roque | Page 34 of 31
E. Unlawful Search and Seizure
Mapp v. Ohio All evidence obtained by searches and seizures in violation of the
Constitution is inadmissible in a criminal trial.
Stonehill v. Diokno Protection from unreasonable S & S is a personal right and may be invoked
or waived by the person directly affected.

General Warrants should be eliminated. To uphold the validity of such would

be to wipe out completely one of the most fundamental rights guaranteed in
our Constitution, for it would place the sanctity of the domicile and the privacy
of communication and correspondence at the mercy, caprice or passion of
peace officers.

Vis--vis juridical persons

Wenky Yang & Zhai Garcia | A2013 | Consti 2 | Prof Harry Roque | Page 35 of 31
VII. Scope of Constitutional Protection
A. Who are entitled to Constitutional
Citizenship and Alienage
Board of Commissioners (CID) v. Dela Rosa, et Deportation Cases
al Detention pursuant to violation of immigration law is valid, writ of habeas
Qua Chee Gan v. Deportation Board corpus will not lie.
Harvey v. Defensor-Santiago But detention for 4 years is unconstitutional (Mejoff v. Dir. of Prisons)
Yu v. Defensor-Santiago
Juridical Persons
Central Bank v. Morfe Artificial persons are entitled to the guaranty but they may be required to
open their books of accounts for examination by the State in the exercise of
the police power or the power of taxation. Their premises may not be
searched not may their papers and effects be seized except by virtue of a
valid warrant.
B. Who are Subject to Constitutional
State Action Requirement
People v. Marti Protection from unreasonable S & S as a personal right is directed against
the government and its agencies  cannot extend over acts committed by
private individuals .

The constitutional proscription against unlawful S & S therefore applies as a

restraint directed only against the govt and its agencies tasked w/ the
enforcement of the law. Thus, it could only be invoked against the State to
whom the restraint against arbitrary and unreasonable exercise of power is
imposed. It the search is made at the behest or initiation of the proprietor of a
private establishment for its own and private purposes, as in the case at bar,
and w/o the intervention of police authorities, the right against unreasonable
S & S cannot be invoked for only the act of private individuals, not law
enforcers, is involved. In sum, the protection against unreasonable S & S
cannot be extended to acts committed by private individuals so as to bring it
w/in the ambit of alleged unlawful intrusion by the govt.

Wenky Yang & Zhai Garcia | A2013 | Consti 2 | Prof Harry Roque | Page 36 of 31