COLLEGE OF LAW
Constitutional Law II
THE BILL OF RIGHTS
Second Semester January 2017
Atty. Victoria V. Loanzon
Course Objectives: At the end of the course, the students will be able:
1. To have an appreciation of the relationship of the state and its people.
2. To understand the concept of due process and its application.
3. To know the history of the Bill of Rights and how the Constitution protects the people
against possible abuses of the government.
4. To understand the inherent powers of government and the interplay of such powers in the
enshrined powers of the people under the Bill of Rights.
5. To appreciate the constitutionally protected rights of the people as the Supreme Court
applies and interprets such rights in assigned cases.
1"|"P a g e "
The Bill of Rights serves -
(1) To preserve democratic ideals.
(2) To safeguard fundamental rights.
(3) To promote the happiness of an individual.
General Rule: The Bill of Rights cannot be invoked against acts of private
individuals. The equal protection erects no shield against private conduct, however
discriminatory or wrongful. [Yrasuegui v. PAL (2008)]
Exception to the Rule: The Bill of Rights was invoked and applied by the Court
against a private party. (Zulueta v. C.A. , 1996)
Judicial Standards of Review under the Bill of Rights
1. RATIONAL BASIS TEST: This test is applicable for economic, property, commercial
legislation. [White Light Corporation v. City of Manila (2009)]
2. STRICT SCRUTINY TEST: This requires the government to show an overriding or
compelling government interest so great that it justifies the limitation of fundamental
constitutional rights. The courts make the decision of whether or not the purpose of the
law makes the classification necessary.
3. INTERMEDIATE SCRUTINY TEST: A third standard, denominated as heightened or
immediate scrutiny, was later adopted by the U.S. Supreme Court for evaluating
classifications based on gender and legitimacy. While the test may have first been
articulated in equal protection analysis, it has in the United States since been applied in all
substantive due process cases as well. [White Light Corporation v. City of Manila (2009)]
VOID-FOR-VAGUENESS DOCTRINE AND OVERBREADTH DOCTRINE
VOID FOR VAGUENESS: An act is vague when it lacks comprehensible standards that men of
common intelligence must necessarily guess at its common meaning and differ as to its
application.
On the question of the constitutionality of the Anti-Terrorism Law and the creation of
the Anti-Terrorism Council: A statute establishing a criminal offense must define the
offense with sufficient definiteness that persons of ordinary intelligence can understand what
conduct is prohibited by the statute. 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. The statute is repugnant to the Constitution in two
respects:
(1) It violates due process for failure to accord persons, especially the parties targeted by it,
fair notice of what conduct to avoid;
(2) It leaves law enforcers an unbridled discretion in carrying out its provisions and becomes
an arbitrary flexing of the Government muscle. [Southern Hemisphere v. Anti-Terrorism
Council (2010)]
On the question of the constitutionality of the Plunder Law: “[This doctrine] can only be
invoked against that species of legislation that is utterly vague on its face, i.e., that which
cannot be clarified either by a saving clause or by construction. The test in determining
whether a criminal statute is void for uncertainty is whether the language conveys a
sufficiently definite warning as to the proscribed conduct. It must be stressed, however, that
the vagueness doctrine merely requires a reasonable degree of certainty for the statute to be
upheld – not absolute precision or mathematical exactitude.” [Estrada v. Sandiganbayad]
OVERBREADTH DOCTRINE
The overbreadth doctrine decrees that "a governmental purpose may not be achieved by
means which sweep unnecessarily broadly and thereby invade the area of protected
freedoms." [Southern Hemisphere, supra]
!
2"|"P a g e "
General Rule: Void-for-vagueness and overbreadth doctrines are inapplicable to penal
statutes. By their very nature penal statutes have a general in terrorem effect which are
intended to discourage citizens from committing the prohibited acts.
Exception: Said doctrines apply to penal statutes when
(1) The statute is challenged as applied; or
(2) The statute involves free speech. (Rationale: Statute may be facially challenged in order
to counter the “chilling effect” of the same.) [Disini v. Sec. of Justice (2014), on the
constitutionality of the Cybercrime Law]
1. Hermano Oil Manufacturing & Sugar Corporation v. Toll Regulatory Board, 742
SCRA 395, G.R. No. 167290 November 26, 2014: In Mirasol v. Department of Public
Works and Highways, 490 SCRA 318 (2006), the Court has further noted that: A toll way is
not an ordinary road. As a facility designed to promote the fastest access to certain
destinations, its use, operation, and maintenance require close regulation. Public interest and
safety require the imposition of certain restrictions on toll ways that do not apply to ordinary
roads. As a special kind of road, it is but reasonable that not all forms of transport could use
it. (Bersamin, J.)
2. Carlos!Superdrug!Corp.!v.!Department!of!Social!Welfare!and!Development
(DSWD), 526 SCRA 130 (2007): validity of the Senior Citizen’s Act
3. Fernando!v.!St.!Scholastica’s!College, 693 SCRA 141 (2013): the LGU cannot compel or
impose restrictions of the property rights of private persons under the guise of exercise of
police powers.
4. Aquino!v.!Municipality!of!Malay,!Aklan, 737 SCRA 145 (2014): a Mayor may exercise
adjudicatory powers and order demolition of a structure which contravenes an ordinance in
his jurisdiction.
5. Ferrer,!Jr.!v.!Bautista, 760 SCRA 652 (2015): the Constitution allows local governments to
raise their own sources of revenue but the provision of a public service is not subject to any
form of tax imposition; taxes on idle lands and socialized housing are valid but tax on
garbage collection is invalid.
6. Philippine!Health!Care!Providers,!Inc.!v.!Commissioner!of!Internal!Revenue,!
600 SCRA 413 (2009): payment of documentary taxes and VAT by way of deficiency
assessment by the BIR; contracts of HMO are not subject to DST and VAT.
7. National!Power!Corporation!v.!City!of!Cabanatuan, 737 SCRA 305 (2014): assessment of
franchise tax on NAPOCOR; NAPOCOR is liable to pay franchise tax to the LGU
8. People!v.!Marti, 193 SCRA 57 (1991): the right against illegal search and seizure cannot be
invoked against a private person
9. Nursery Care Corporation vs. Acevedo, 731 SCRA 280, G.R. No. 180651 July 30,
2014: There is double taxation when the same taxpayer is taxed twice when he should be
taxed only once for the same purpose by the same taxing authority within the same
jurisdiction during the same taxing period, and the taxes are of the same kind or character.
(Bersamin, J.)
D.! The Three Great Powers of Government: Police Power, Power to Tax, Power to
Expropriate as limitations to enjoyment of rights
Read annotations found in political/ constitutional law books written by C.J.
Justice Enrique Fernando, Fr. Jaoquin Bernas S.J., Justice Isagani Cruz and
Professor Rene B. Gorospe
1. Police Power
Definition: Police power is the inherent and plenary power of the state which enables it to
prohibit all that is hurtful to the comfort, safety and welfare of society. “Police power […]
has been properly characterized as the most essential, insistent, and the least limitable of
3"|"P a g e "
powers, extending as it does to all the great public needs.” [Ermita-Malate Hotel and
Motel Operators Association, Inc. v. Mayor of Manila (1967)]
“Police power, while incapable of an exact definition, has been purposely veiled
general terms to underscore its comprehensiveness to meet all exigencies and provide
enough room for an efficient and flexible response as the conditions warrant.” [White
Light Corporation v. City of Manila (2009)]
Scope and Limitations: “The police power of the State […] is a power coextensive with self-
protection, and is [aptly] termed the 'law of overruling necessity.'” [Rubi v. Provincial Board
(1919)]
The state, in order to promote the general welfare, may interfere with personal liberty, with
property, and with business and occupations. Persons may be subjected to all kinds of
restraints and burdens, in order to secure the general comfort, health and prosperity of the
state and to this fundamental aim of our Government, the rights of the individual are
subordinated.” [Ortigas and Co., Limited Partnership v. Feati Bank and Trust Co. (1979)]
Tests for Validity of Exercise of Police Power
(1) Lawful Subject
(2) Lawful Means
History of Police Power, Dissenting Opinion of Chief Justice Puno in
Lim v. Pacquing, 240 SCRA 649: Former Chief Justice Puno in his Dissenting Opinion in
this 1995 case said that the exercise of police power is not without limit. He said that while it
is the “prerogative of the State to promote the general welfare of the people thru the use of
police power; on the opposite end is the right of an entity to have its property protected
against unreasonable impairment by the State. Courts accord the State wide latitude in the
exercise of its police power to bring about the greatest good of the greatest number. But
when its purpose is putrefied by private interest, the use of police power becomes a farce and
must be struck down just as every arbitrary exercise of government power should be stamped
out.”
When exercise of police power may be questioned
MMDA v. Bel-Air Village Assn. 328 SCRA 836: Where is there is no explicit grant of power,
a government agency cannot exercise police power. The Court said: “Clearly, the MMDA
is not a political unit of government. The power delegated to the MMDA is that given to the
Metro Manila Council to promulgate administrative rules and regulations in the
implementation of the MMDA’s functions. There is no grant of authority to enact
ordinances and regulations for the general welfare of the inhabitants of the metropolis.”-p
3. Power of Taxation
Definition: Taxation is the power by which the State raises to defray the necessary expenses
of the Government. It is the enforced proportional contributions from persons and
property, levied by the State by virtue of its sovereignty, for the support of the government
and for all public needs.
Under the lifeblood theory, taxes are imposed -
(1) To raise revenue
(2) As a tool for regulation
(3) To serve as protection of state’s interest/power to keep alive
Scope and Limitations
(1) Power to tax exists for the general welfare; should be exercised only for a public purpose.
(2) Imposition might be justified as for public purpose even if the immediate beneficiaries are
private individuals.
(3) Tax should not be confiscatory: If a tax measure is so unconscionable as to amount to
confiscation of property, the Court will invalidate it. But invalidating a tax measure must
be exercised with utmost caution, otherwise, the State’s power to legislate for the public
welfare might be seriously curtailed.
(4) Uniformity of taxation
General Rule: The power to tax operates with the same force and effect in every place
where the subject of it is found. This is known as geographical uniformity.
Exception: The rule on uniformity does not prohibit classification for purposes of taxation,
provided the requisites for valid classification are met. [Ormoc Sugar v. Treasurer of
Ormoc (1968)]
(5) Taxes must be equitable
%As a general rule, taxes should be apportioned among the people according to their
ability to pay.
Claim for Tax Exemptions
General Rule: Tax exemptions are frowned upon. Therefore, no law granting any tax
exemption shall be passed without the concurrence of a majority of all the Members of
Congress [Sec. 28 (4), Art. VI]
6"|"P a g e "
There is no vested right in a tax exemption [.] Being a mere statutory privilege, a tax
exemption may be modified or withdrawn at will by the granting authority. [Republic v.
Caguioa (2009)]
Exemptions may either be constitutional or statutory.
Constitutional exemptions [Sec. 28(3), Art. VI]
Requisites: Actual, Direct and Exclusive Use by the following:
(a) Educational institutions
(b)Charitable institutions
(c) Religious organizations
If statutory, it has to have been passed by majority of all the members of Congress. [Sec.
28 (4), Art. VI]
Case:
Com. of Internal Revenue v. S. C. Johnson & Son, Inc., 309 SCRA 87. In negotiating tax
treaties, the underlying rationale for reducing the tax rate is that the Philippines will give up
a part of the tax in the expectation that the tax given up for this particular investment is not
taxed by the other country.
In order to eliminate double taxation, a tax treaty resorts to several methods. First, it sets
out the respective rights to tax of the state of source or situs and of the state of residence
with regard to certain classes of income or capital.
The second method for the elimination of double taxation applies whenever the state of
source is given a full or limited right to tax together with the state of residence. In this case,
the treaties make it incumbent upon the state of residence to allow relief in order to avoid
double taxation.
E. Who are protected by the rights: all citizens, natural-born and naturalized citizens;
aliens within the jurisdiction of the Philippines; both natural and juridical persons
Review Article IV, Citizenship, Constitution
Board of Medicine v. Ota, 558 SCRA 234(2008), See Art. XII. Sec. 14, para 2: reciprocity
Poe-Llmanzares v. COMELEC(2016): a foundling is a natural-born citizen
II. Citizenship
A. People
1. Different meanings of words “people”:
“People” as inhabitants, Art.XIII, Sec. 1; Art. III, Sec. 2
Qua Chee Gan v. Deportation Board, 9 SCRA 27 (1963): The state has the right to exclude
aliens in its territory. The President of the Philippines is given the discretion to deport aliens
who are considered “undesirable.”
“People” as citizens, Preamble, Art.II, Sections 1 and 4; Art. III, Sec. 7
“People” as source of sovereignty, Art. VII, Sec. 4
7"|"P a g e "
Public Officers who must be natural born citizens: (Please commit to memory.)
President and Vice President, Art. VII, Sec. 2
Members of Congress, Art. VI, Sections 3 and 6
Justices of the Supreme Court and lower collegiate courts, Art. VIII, Sec. 7 (1)
Ombudsman and his deputies, Art. XI, Sec. 8
Members of the Constitutional Commission, Art. IX, B, Sec. 1 (1); C, Sec. (1); and
D, Sec. 1(1)
Members of the Central Monetary Authority, Art. XII, Sec. 20
Members of Commission on Human Rights Art. XIII, Sec. 17 (2)
Former natural born citizens as transferees of private lands, Art. XII, Sec. 8
Naturalized citizens under Com. Act No. 473
Who are qualified to be naturalized? Sec. 2
When is the 10-year residence requirement reduced to 5 years? Sec. 3
Who are disqualified to be naturalized? Sec. 4
Declaration of Intention, Sec. 5
Procedure, Sections 7-8
When decision is executed, Sec. 1
Effect on wife and minor children, Sec. 15
Denaturalization, Sec. 18
Citizenship by legislative act
Loss and Reacquisition of Citizenship. Art. IV, Sec. 3, Sec. 2
Dual Citizenship: R.A. No. 9139 – The Administrative Naturalization Law of 2000
R.A. No. 9225 – Citizenship Retention and Reacquisition Act of 2003
Right of Suffrage, Article V
R. A. No. 9189 – Overseas Voting Law
Nicolas- Lewis v. COMELEC , 497 SCRA 649: Overseas Filipinos qualified to vote under
the R.A. No. 9189 need not have one –year actual physical residence in the Philippines
to exercise their right of suffrage.
A. Right to Life
Republic v. Kagandahan, 565 SCRA 72 (2008)
Gamboa v. P/SSupt. Chan, et al., G.R. No. 193636, July 24, 2012
Imbong v. Ochoa, G.R. No. 204819, April 8, 2014
8"|"P a g e "
(1) There shall be a law prescribed in harmony with the general powers of the legislative
department of the Government;
(2) This law shall be reasonable in its operation;
(3) It shall be enforced according to the regular methods of procedure prescribed; and
(4) It shall be applicable alike to all the citizens of the state or to all of a class. [Rubi v.
Provincial Board of Mindoro (1919)]
SCOPE OF DUE PROCESS
Procedural Due Process
Procedural due process is that aspect of due process which serves as a restriction on actions
of judicial and quasi-judicial agencies of the government. It refers to the method or manner
by which a law is enforced.
Substantive Due Process
Substantive due process, asks whether the government has an adequate reason for taking
away a person’s life, liberty, or property. [City of Manila v. Laguio (2005)]
Publication of laws is part of substantive due process. It is a rule of law that before a person
may be bound by law, he must be officially and specifically informed of its contents. For the
publication requirement, “laws” refer to all statutes, including those of local application and
private laws. This does not cover internal regulations issued by administrative agencies,
which are governed by the Local Government Code. Publication must be full, or there is none
at all. [Tañada v. Tuvera (1986)]
RELATIVITY OF DUE PROCESS
Not all situations calling for procedural safeguards call for the same kind of procedure. This
requires a reasonable degree of flexibility in the applying procedural due process. This does
not apply to substantive due process. [Secretary of Justice v. Lantion (2000)]
A determination of the precise nature of the government function involved as well as of the
private interest that has been affected by governmental action must be considered in
determining the application of the rules of procedure. [Cafeteria & Restaurant Workers
Union v. McElroy (1961].
To say that the concept of due process is flexible does not mean that judges are at large to
apply it to any and all relationships. Its flexibility is in its scope once it has been determined
that some process is due; it is a recognition that not all situations calling for procedural
safeguards call for the same kind of procedure. [Morrissey v. Brewer (1972)]
1. Notice of rules by publication as a prerequisite/ Notice to Party
Tanada v. Tuvera, 136 SCRA 27(Decision); 146 SCRA 446 (Resolution)
Hon. Corona v. United Harbor Pilots, G.R. No. 111953 December 12, 1997
2. Procedural Due Process
a. Due process in administrative proceedings
Requisites: Mayor Abraham Tolentino v. COMELEC, et al., G.R. Nos. 187958,
187961 and 187962, April 7, 2010, Pay attention to the cardinal rules of due process
in administrative proceedings.
SPO 1 Acuzar v. Jorolan and Hon. Apresa, PLEB, G.R. No. 177878, April 7, 2010
Dr, Fernando A. Melendres, Executive Director of Lung Center of the Philippines v.
Presidential Anti- Graft Commission, et al. . G.R. No. 163859, August 15, 2012
Effect of waiver/estoppel: The Heirs of Jolly Bugarin v. Republic, G.R. No. 174431,
August 6, 2012
Right to Counsel:
Carbonel v. CSC, G.R. No. 187689, September 7, 2010
b. Due process in judicial proceedings: Velasco v. Sandiganbayan and the People of
the Philippines, G. R. No. 169253, February 20, 2013
9"|"P a g e "
c. Due process in academic and disciplinary proceedings: Spouses Go and Minor
Chester Go v. Colegio de San de Letran, et al., G.R. No. 169391, October 10, 2012
Instances when no notice and hearing are required
Arroyo v. Rosal Homeowners Association, Inc., G.R. No. 175155, Oct. 22, 2012
Vivas, on his behalf and on behalf of the shareholders of EUROCREDIT Community
Bank v. The Monetary Board of the BSP and PDIC, G.R. No. 191424, August 7, 2013
Effect when due process is not observed: Winston F. Garcia v. Molina and Velasco,
G.R. No. 157383, August 10, 2010
Right to Counsel: Lumiqued v. Exevea, 282 SCRA 125 (1997)
Instances when no notice and hearing are required
Anillo v. Commission on the Settlement of Land Problems, 534 SCRA 228(2007)
Pagayanan R. Hadji-Sirad v. Civil Service Commission, G.R. No. 182267, Aug.28,
2009
11"|"P a g e "
A. FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION (SPEECH AND THE PRESS)
1. Definition (Section 4, Article III, Constitution)
NATURE AND SCOPE OF THE RIGHT: The primacy and high esteem accorded
freedom of expression is a fundamental postulate of our constitutional system. This right was
elevated to constitutional status […] reflecting our own lesson of history, both political and
legal, that freedom of speech is an indispensable condition for nearly every other form of
freedom.
The scope of freedom of expression is so broad that it extends protection to nearly all forms
of communication. It protects speech, print and assembly regarding secular as well as
political causes, and is not confined to any particular field of human interest. The protection
covers myriad matters of public interest or concern embracing all issues, about which
information is needed or appropriate, so as to enable members of society to cope with the
exigencies of their period. [Chavez v. Gonzales (2008)]
2. Bases for Protection: Promotion of Truth, Enhance Principles of Democracy, Expression
of Self- Fulfillment of Citizens
Speech, expression, and press include:
(1) Written or spoken words (recorded or not)
(2) Symbolic speech (e.g. wearing armbands as symbol of protest)
(3) Movies and other literary works
12"|"P a g e "
Tests applied to Freedom of Speech:
DANGEROUS TENDENCY TEST: If the words uttered create a dangerous tendency of an evil
which the State has the right to prevent, then such words are punishable. [Cabansag v.
Fernandez (1957)]
CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER TEST: This rule requires that “the danger created must not only
be clear and present but also traceable to the ideas expressed”. [Gonzales v. COMELEC
(1969)]
BALANCING OF INTEREST TEST: 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. [American Communications Assoc. v. Douds, 339 US 282]
B. RIGHT TO INFORMATION
1. Right to Information, Article III, Section 7, Constitution
The constitutional right to information includes official information on on-going negotiations
before a final contract. The information, however, must constitute definite propositions by the
government, and should not cover recognized exceptions. [Chavez v. Philippine Estate
Authority (2002)]
Diplomatic secrets (Diplomatic Negotiations Privilege): Secrecy of negotiations with foreign
countries is not violative of the right to information. Diplomacy has a confidential nature.
While the full text [of the JPEPA] may not be kept perpetually confidential, it is in line with
the public interest that the offers exchanged during negotiations continue to be privileged
information. Furthermore, the information sought includes documents produced and
communicated by a party external to the Philippine government. However, such privilege is
merely presumptive, and will not apply to all cases. [Akbayan v. Aquino (2008)]
THE FOLLOWING ARE COVERED BY THE EXCEPTIONS:
1.!Privileged information rooted in separation of powers
2.!Information of military and diplomatic secrets (Neri v. Various Committees of the
Senate)
3.!Information affecting national and economic security
4.!Information on investigations of crimes by law enforcers before prosecution [Chavez v.
PEA and Amari, supra]
5.!Trade secrets and banking transactions [Chavez v. PCGG (1998)]
6.!Offers exchanged during diplomatic negotiations [Akbayan v. Aquino (2008)]
7.! Other confidential matters (i.e. RA 6713, closed door Cabinet meetings, executive
sessions, or internal deliberations in the Supreme Court) [Re:!Request!for!Copy!of!2008!
Statement!of!Assets,!Liabilities!and!Net!Worth![SALN]!and!Personal!Data!Sheet!or!
14"|"P a g e "
Curriculum!Vitae!of!the!Justice!of!the!Supreme!Court!and!Officers!and!Employees!of!the!
Judiciary, 672!SCRA 27 (2012)]!
Cases:
1. Chavez!v.!Presidential!Commission!on!Good!Government,!299 SCRA 744 (1998)
2. Re:!Request!for!Copy!of!2008!Statement!of!Assets,!Liabilities!and!Net!Worth!
[SALN]!and!Personal!Data!Sheet!or!Curriculum!Vitae!of!the!Justice!of!
the!Supreme!Court!and!Officers!and!Employees!of!the!Judiciary, 672 SCRA 27 (2012)
2. Access to Public Records / Transparency in the Government, Article II, Section 28,
Constitution
3. Limitations
Cases:
Senate of the Philippines v. Ermita, 488 SCRA 1 (2006)
Neri v. Senate Committees 549 SCRA 77 (2008)
Antolin v. Abelardo R. Domondon, et al., G.R. No. 165036. July 5, 2010
D. RIGHT OF ASSOCIATION
1. Right to Strike and the Right to Unionize, Article III, Section 8, Constitution
Scope: The right is recognized as belonging to people whether employed or unemployed, and
whether employed in the government or in the private sector. The right includes the right to
form labor unions, societies or associations not contrary to law.
Case:
In!Re:!Atty.!Marcial!A.!Edillon, 84 SCRA 556 (1978): compulsory membership in the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines
2. Right of Private Sector Employees and Government Employees, Article III, Section 8,
Constitution
Case:
Victoriano v. Elizalde Rope Workers Union, Inc. (1974)
E. FREEDOM OF RELIGION
1. Separation of Church and State, Article II, Section 6, Constitution
CONCEPT: The clause prohibits excessive government entanglement with, endorsement or
disapproval of religion. [Victoriano v. Elizalde Rope Workers Union (1974)]
2. Non Establishment of Religion Clause/ Free Exercise Clause/No Religious Test, Art.III,
Sec.5, Constitution
TESTS ON FREEDOM OF RELIGION:
(1). CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER
(2). BENEVOLENT NEUTRALITY-COMPELLING STATE INTEREST
(3). CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTOR
3. Separation of Powers, Article VI, Sec.5 (2), and Article IX C, Section 2(5), Constitution
BASIS
“[T]he principle of separation of Church and State is based on mutual respect. Generally, the
State cannot meddle in the internal affairs of the church, much less question its faith and
dogmas or dictate upon it. It cannot favor one religion and discriminate against another. On
15"|"P a g e "
the other hand, the church cannot impose its beliefs and convictions on the State and the rest
of the citizenry. It cannot demand that the nation follow its beliefs, even if it sincerely
believes that they are good for the country.” [Imbong v. Ochoa (2014)]
Relevant provisions of the Constitution on the separation of the church and the state:
(1) Art. II, Sec. 6: “The separation of Church and State shall be inviolable.”
(2) Art. IX-C, Sec. 2(5): “Religious denominations and sects shall not be registered [as
political parties].”
(3) Art. VI, Sec. 5(2): “For three consecutive terms after the ratification of this Constitution,
one-half of the seats allocated to party-list representatives shall be filled, as provided by law,
by selection or election from […] sectors as may be provided by law, except the religious
sector.”
(4) Art. VI, Sec. 29(2): “No public money or property shall be appropriated, applied, paid, or
employed, directly or indirectly, for the use, benefit, or support of any sect, church,
denomination, sectarian institution, or system of religion, or of any priest, preacher, minister,
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.”
4. Two Aspects of Freedom of Religion: Freedom to Believe and Freedom to Act on One’s
Beliefs
CASES:
1. Ang Ladlad LGBT Party v. Commission on Elections, 618 SCRA 32 (2010)
2. Estrada v. Escritor, 408 SCRA 1 (2003) 492 SCRA 1 (2006)
3.Taruc v. De La Cruz, 453 SCRA 123 (2005)
4. Imbong v. Ochoa (constitutionality of the RH Bill): Read only the portion on conscientious
objector in relation to freedom of religion
F. Academic Freedom
The right to academic freedom may only be invoked only against the state. All private
educational institutions may prescribe its own requirements to maintain the standard of
quality of academic quality.
Case: PTA of St. Mathew Christian Academy et al., v. Metrobank, G.R. No. 176518, March 2,
2010)
V. PHYSICAL LIBERTY: LIBERTY OF ABODE AND FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT
FREEDOM TO BE SECURE IN ONE’S PERSON, HOME AND POSSESSION
A. FREEDOM OF ABODE, FREEDOM TO CHANGE ABODE AND RIGHT TO
TRAVEL
1. Constitutional Guarantee under Section 6, Article III, Constitution
Freedom of movement includes two rights:
1)! Liberty of abode
2)! Liberty of travel
LIMITATIONS: In certain instances both the liberty of abode and right to travel may
be impaired.
Case: OCA v. Judge Ignacio B. Macarine, A.M. No. MTJ-10-1770, July 18, 2012
In interest of national security, public safety or public health and as may be provided by law,
both the freedom of abode and right to travel may be restricted.
Case: Gudani v. Senga, 498 SCRA 671 (2006)
The executive of a municipality does not have the right to force citizens of the Philippine
Islands to change their domicile from one locality to another. [Villavicencio vs. Lukban
(1919)]
The liberty to travel may be withheld upon order of the courts through the issuance of Hold
Departure Orders.
16"|"P a g e "
Case: Fr. Roberto P. Reyes v. Sec. Gonzales, G. R. No. 182161, December 31, 2009