Soriano vs. Laguardia Ichong vs.

Hernandez

Dumlao vs. COMELEC

People vs. Cayat

Ormoc Sugar Central vs. Ormoc City

Philippine Judges Association vs. Prado

Brown vs. Board of Education

Brown vs. Board of Education MR

Tecson vs. COMELEC

Biraogo vs. Truth Commission

Serrano vs. Gallant Maritime Services

Abakada Guro Party List vs. Purisima COMELEC vs. Cruz Quinto vs. COMELEC League of Cities of the Philippines vs. COMELEC

Equal protection pertains to the equality among the equals. It means that persons of the same circumstances must be treated privileges and liabilities. Equality among the equals. If there is a valid classification, and the ones included in that classification are treated alike, then, t violation of the equal protection clause.

A valid classification is not violative of the equal protection clause. What is prohibited is an unreasonable and arbitrary qualific

The case provided the 4 requisites of a valid qualification. First, there must be a substantial distinction. Second, it must be ger purpose of the law. Third, it must not be limited to existing conditions only. Lastly, it must be applied equally to all members o

Thecase also enumerated the four requisites of a reasonable classification. 1. Substantial distinction 2. Germane to the Purpos 3. Not limited to existing conditions 4. Apply equally to all members of the class

The case emphasized the need for substantial distinction. Mere superficial distinction would not suffice.

Equality is more than equality on tangible things.

Equality is more than equality on tangible things.

The case mentioned that real difference is not the basis for compliance with the equal protection clause. Real difference, with rationality is still a violation of the equal protection clause.

The case states that equal protection does not pertain to the universal application of laws. Rather, it pertains to equal applica to a reasonably classified group.

In this case, the court mentioned the tests to be applied in knowing if there was a violation of the equal protection clause. In t basis test, there will bo no violation of the equal protection clause if the questioned classification has rational relation to a leg interest. In Intermediate Scrutiny Test, there must be important state interest and the classification must be substantially rela interest. In the Strict Scrutiny Test, there must be a compelling interest to classify and the classification is the least restrictive Rational Basis is usually applied to lower level rights. Strict Scrutiny is applied if a fundamental right is being affected or a a pe special protection has been prejudiced. In the Philippines, labor has a special protection. Hence, it must be proven that there state interest to classify and the classification is the least intrusive means.

The case further bolstered the equality among the equal doctrine. It also enumerated the four requisites of a reasonable class Substantial distinction 2. Germane to the purpose of the law 3. Not limited to existing conditions 4. Equally applied to all the m the same class

Soriano's situation was so different with the INC leaders. Hence, he cannot level himself to them. Here, the aliens were classified differently by limiting their participation in the market. The justification is their different allegiance from that of a Filipino. In the given case, Dumlao is questioning the law which prescribes a new qualification for candidates for local positions. Under such law, retirees who less than 65 years of age and who had received retirement pay are not allowed to run. Normall, this is not a valid classification as age does not mattter in public service and not all retire at 65. However, since there was a 65-year old official who, after retiring, exuded extreme tiredness who thereafter declared tht he cannot anymore work. Hence, there is a justification for the classification. In this case, Cayat was a member of a non-Christian tribe established under Act 1639. Under such law, they are prohibited from receiving, buying or possessing wine,liquor and similar products other than their native wine on which they have grown accustomed to even before Act 1639. There is a substantial distinction- the degree of civilization. It is germane to the purpose of the law as the purpose is to promote peace and order. It is not limited to existing conditions as the classification will exist as long as the conditions exist. It is also equally applied to all members of the class.

In the case at bar, Ormoc City passed Ordinance 4 charging export tax against Ormoc Sugar Company Inc. The authority of the city to levy such tax was upheld by virtue of Act 2264 which replaced the old law which prohibited the levying of such taxes, licenses and fees by the locality. The court also said that the ordinance is violative of the equal protection clause as it is limited to existing conditions only. While Ormoc Sugar Company was the only manufacturer of centrifugal sugar milled then, future manufacturers may exist thereafter. Hence, the law which singularizes Ormoc Sugar Company is limited to existing conditions. RA 7354, being implemented by the Philippine Postal Corporation, removed the franking privelegs of several departments including the Judiciary, and retained those of the President, Vice President, Senators, Representatives, former President, Wives of Former Presidents and general public who wants to file charges against public official. The reason for the denial of the same privilege to the Judiciary was that the Judiciary utilizes mailing the most and hence, cause more losses to the government. The court said that this is a superficial, not a substantial distinction. The proper remedy would be to remove the franking privilege of all! In this case, a race-based educational system wherein the whites and the blacks are mandated to attend on different schools was declared to be unconstitutional for violation of the equal protection clause. Segragation itself is inherently unequal and hence, even if we equalize the tangible things like the facilities, the flaw would not be solved. The segregation itself would be tantamount to denial of opportunity to the children to have good education since their motivation to study will decrease due to sense of inferiority. These days, education is so crucial.

The case was about the transition period for the implementation of the Brown vs. Board of Education decision.

This case is about the issue on FPJ's qualification to run as President in the 2004 elections. The first level of analysis here pertains to his citizenship based on the Jus Sanguinis principle. In the case, it was proven that since his grandfather, Lorenzo, was born in 1870 when we were still under Spain, and that his death certificate alleges that he resided in Pangasinan while he was still living, it would be reasonable to conclude that he was also born in Pangasinan and hence, was covered by the mass naturalization, which made him a Filipino, which thereafter resulted to Allan Poe being a Filipino as well. Hence, FPJ must be a Filipino. The contention that he was an illegitimate son of Allan Poe, the latter then married to Paulita Gomez when FPJ's mother, Bessie Kellie was impregnated, will not survive as the legitimacy and illegitimacy in civil law and political law are different. Hence, proving legitimacy for non-civil purpose requires not the proof of filiation provided in the Family Code, but mere Rules of Evidence. Hence, the declaration of Pedigree done by the sister of Bessie Kellie attesting that FPJ was recognized by Allan would suffice. The last contention that illegitimate child would not get the citizenship of the father will also not survive for being violative of equal protection. It must be noted that the jurisprudential basis of this argument in Paa vs. Chan was a mere obiter dictum and hence, not binding. Otherwise, it would have created a classification of 2: legitimate against illegitimate to public office and illegitimate of the father vs. illegitimate of the mother. There might be a real difference, but it lacks rationality as there is really no reason to bar candidates from running just because of the illicit relations of one's parents in the past. In this case, PTC was given to power to investigate graft and corrupt practices of the previous administration, particularly the Arroyo administration. This is violative of due process as it singles out the Arroyo administration. While there is clause there allowing the PTC to investigate previous administrations as well, this will not suffice as there is no guarantee that they would actually be investigating it.

In the case, there were several classifications. First is the OFW with employment contracts of less than one year vis--vis those with more than one year. Second is OFWs with employment contract of more than one year. Third is OFW vis--vis Local Workers. As to the first one, OFWs with an employment contract of less than a year will receive pay for the unexpired portion of the contract whereas those who have more than a year will receive 3month pay for every year of service. Th second one means that if the unexpired portion of those with an employment contract of more than a year exceeds a year, they will be entitled to a 3-month pay for every year of service, but those with less than a year unexpired portion will be entitled to the unexpired portion. The third one means local workers are always entitled to the unexpired portion while OFWs are not. While the state interest here is to protect the placement agency and thereafter, benefit the OFWs in the long run by limiting the former's monetary liability, it was not shown that it was compelling. More so, it was not the least restrictive way as there are already rules and regulations existing that serve to achieve these goals. In this case, RA 9335 establishes the reward system for BIR and BOC officials where any excess on their revenue targets will be collected and distributed on a later date, depending on their proportionate contribution. The primary issue is the validity of creating a classification for BIR and BOC officials. The court ruled that there was a valid classification. First, it is substantially different from the other government agency for they are actually income-generating and may even impose taxes.

Case Title

Katz vs. US

Terry vs. Ohio

Nala vs. Barroso

Alvarez vs. CFI

Bache and Co. vs. Ruiz

Stonehill vs. Diokno

Burgos Sr. vs. Chief of Staff

Roan vs. Gonzales

Nolasco vs. Pano

Nolasco vs. Pano MR

People vs. Aminnudin People vs. Burgos

Chimel vs. California

Manalili vs. Court of Appeals

Malacat vs. Court of Appeals

People vs. Mago

Aniag vs. COMELEC Valmonte vs. De Villa

Valmonte vs. De Villa MR

In Re Umil vs. Ramos People vs. Mengote

People vs. Manlulu

Doctrine

The right against unreasonable searches and seizures applies to persons. Hence, the previous ruling in the US jurisprudence th be an actual physical trespass has already been abandoned upon the enactment of the Fourth Amendement.

Protective stop and frisk is allowed. The purpose of which is to ensure that officers, in interrogating, are protected from any p weapon that the one being interrogated possesses. However, there is no fix rule for this. It must always be based on the circu the extent of frisking the officer involved has effected. This is different from investigative stop and frisk (actual search and seiz requires existence of probable cause. Here, suspicion coupled with common sense will suffice.

The case enumerated the 5 requisites of a valid search warrant, specifically: 1. Probable cause 2. Personally determined by the examination of complainant or witnesses under oath or affirmation 4. The complainant or witness must testify using facts per to them 5. The warrant must specify the persons or things to be searched or seized. It also states that while th warrant must mention the name, a descriptio personae would suffice. As to the second requisite, in order for the personal determination of probable cause to be complied with, it is necessary that does an extensive inquiry- not a pro forma examination or routine.

Also, in order for the fourth requirement to be complied with, there must be personal knowledge and not merely hearsay. If t personal knowledge that a person has been doing something illegal, then the warrant is void. Personal belief is not personal k Hence, there must be facts supporting the belief to make it a knowldege.

The case also clarifies the plain view doctrine. True, anything seized under this must be valid. But in order for the doctrine to a must have been a lawful search first- whatever that was found in plain view, although nit stated in the warrant, which are illeg be seized. The case defines what a search warrant is. A search warrant is an order coming from a judge directing a police officer to searc person for the purpose of bringing it before the court.

Also, the case clarifies the "oath" requirement which was not mentioned in the Nala case. According to this case,oath is neces to convince the judge to issue a search warrant. The oath must be an attestation that the person has personal knowledge of t we would be disclosing.

The attestation of the complainant will normally suffice if the testimony itself is strong. But if the judge is skeptical, he may re affidavits of new witnesses. Hence, the "other witnesses" is not really required, Only if the judge is not persuaded by the com the "other witnesses" become necessary,

General description of the things or items to be seized is allowed because if otherwise, warrants will be very difficult to be issu The search warrant cannot be issued for the sole purpose of fishing of evidence. Personal Examination means more than just hearing the examination done by another. The judge must at least ask questions inquiry) to comply with the constitutional mandate of personal examination. The search warrant must be for one specific offense, following the Stonehill doctrine.

The items must be particularly described to avoid general warrants. Descriptio personae would only be allowed if it falls to an following cases: 1. General but must be as specific as possible 2. description results to a conclusion of fact or 3. Direct relation charged (hence, presupposes existence of evidence that had supported the offense charged, making the "to be seized" items Juridical persons may invoke right against unreasonable searches and seizures.

The right to question the reasonableness of the search and seizure belongs to the person injured. Hence, if the searched prem seized property belong to a corporation, then, its stockholders, officers and board members may not question the search and

General warants are not favored. The constitution as well as the rules mandate "particularity." Only in three cases would gene acceptable. Also, particularity pertains not just to particularity of the things or persons to be seized, but also to the offense ch rationale is that there must be probable cause. Without a specific offense, the judge could not have examined the existence o cause. Probable cause precedes the issuance of the search warrant- hence, no fishing of evidence. Exclusionary Rule The objects that must be seized need not be owned by the person to whom the search warrant has been issued. The objects of the search warrant must be personal properties. The case reiterated the necessity of particularity in search warrants. Particularity pertains not only to the specification of item specification of the crime committed as well. Searching Questions was defined. Searching questions are those questions outside the affidavit of the complainant or the witn beyond a pro forma examination or a routine check.

The case also enumerated the situations in which a search may be made without a search warrant. This is when it is incident t arrest (is this the frisk) or when there is a lawful warrantless arrest. The other exceptions are moving vehicle, plain view, custo consented search, emergency cases etcetera, as enumerated in the other cases. Consented search encompasses an intelligent waiver.

The case provides for the exception to the exclusionary rule. It states that if for public interest, the evidence seized out of an i may still be used as evidence. Note that the search was validated not because the search warrant was validated for it was not it was an incident to a lawful arrest. This is to be determined by the balancing of interest rule. Would the right of the person s more important than public interest? Hence, the case emphasizes that there is no fix rule on searches and seizure at least as f admissibility is concerned. It is flexible. Th search warrant was void for being general. But since the search was made few minu arrest, the court deemed it as an incident to a lawful arrest which as a rule, is exempted from the search warrant requirement

In relation to this, the court also held that the search was incident to a lawful arrest, it being not too far-fetched from the actu matter of 30 minutes I think). So originally, the search was invalid for the general search warrant. But due to it being an incide arrest, the search was validated and the evidence became admissible.

The majority decision in the Nolasco vs. Pano case was reversed, saying that to expand the application of the incidental search render the constitutional protection futile. Hence, the exception to the warrant requirement must be strictly construed.

As a consequence, the evidence obtained became inadmissible, in accordance with the strict imposition of the exclusionary ru The case emphasizes the importance of a search warrant. Only under exceptional circumstances would the search be valid de of a warrant of arrest. Anything obtained in violation of this is inadmissible in evidence. The first situation of a lawful warrantless arrest has been clarified. In order for this t be appreciated, th person so arresting mu personal knowledge of the commission of the offense. Hearsay cannot be the basis for the warrantless arrest.

The second situation of a warrantless arrest has also been discussed. Under this, there must be an actual crime first. Without crime, then, there can be no hot pursuit. The rationale is that only the identity of the perpetrator is to be identified as the Rul "connection between the crime and the person to whom the crime was being attributed." The case also mentioned one of the golden rules in searches and seizures- if the arrest is not valid, anything which happens in it is likewise invalid. Also, there was no haste in arresting without a warrant. They could have secured a warrant first. The rule and searches and seizure is also related to self-incrimination. If the waiver is not intelligent, it might result to self-incr which is also prohibited in the Constitution.

One of the exceptions to the search warrant requirement is a search incident to a lawful arrest. However, the court said that t strictly construed, it being a mere exception to the general rule. The rationale behind the stop and frisk and searches incident arrest is the same. What is being prevented here is the harm the arresting officer might sustain, or the duestruction of eviden

Hence, the search incident to a lawful arrest must be limited to the person or to the things he may access while the arrest was

Thus case discusses the concept of stop-and-frisk. Under this, a police officer may stop a person on a street when, in light of h as a policeman, he thinks that a person is acting suspiciously. In this case, the poilceman must introduce himself as such (part reasonable) make reasonable inquiries and search the person for the sole purpose of dismarming a person who might be dang moment. Hence, this is based on mere suspicion. The search must be limited to outer clothing or to the suspicious person has control of from which he may get the weapon.

The case also enumerated the other instances in which a search warrant may be dispensed with. However in those circumstan exception of search incident to a lawful arrest I think) there must be a probable cause and not a mere suspicion.

The case differentiated search incidental to a lawful arrest from stop and frisk. In the former, there must first be a lawful arres or warrantless), the search being intended for self-protection, seize fruits of the crime within the premises, prevent the escap more. In stop and frisk, the re is no need for a lawful arrest first as mere suspicion will suffice, and the object must be for the s public and self-protection. Suspicion however must not be groundless. The circumstances must warrant the suspicion.

In case of customs search, there is no need for a search warrant as the Code itself, a special law, provides the Bureau of Custo exclusive power to effect searches on imported goods and other movable properties. Exception to this is when the imported g already inside the dwelling of a person, in which case, normal rules on searches and seizures apply.

Also, the case provides the rule on moving vehicles. In this case, search warrant may also be dispensed with due to practicality

The case states that a search made out of a valid checkpoint must be limited to a visual search only. Extensive search can only there is probable cause, or the search is supported by a search warrant. Even in case of suspicion, extensive search is not allow visual search is permissible.

The right against unreasonable searches and seizures is a purely personal right. Hence, one cannot file a case in behalf of anot Also, the reasonableness depends upon the circumstances of the case. Without alleging what circumstances warrant the unre the search and seizure made pursuant to a valid checkpoint is presumed valid. In addition, the case states that checkpoints are not illegal per se. The case clarified that not all checkpoints are legal. It always depends on the surrounding circumstances. As a rule, the search merely visual. Anything beyond that makes the search illegal even if the checkpoint was legal.

More so, even if the search was made without warrant as it was via checkpoint (directed against everybody, hence, search wa be issued), it is not violative of the Constitution as visual search is technically, not the search referred to in the Constitution. R Constitution refers to an extensive search. Extensive search in case of search made via checkpoint will only be justified if there cause. If there is, then there is no violation of the constitution as it falls under one of the exceptions. The probable cause required in moving vehicles is lower than that required in dwelling and other fixed areas. The case provided another exception to the warrant rule. For exigent and emergency cases such as those involving the surviva government, warrants may be dispensed with. The case presented several examples of in flagrante delicto cases (quota na ako!) The case discusses in flagrante delicto and hot pursuit.

In in flagrante delicto, the police officer must be present when the crime was committed, was about to be committed, or then committed. In hot pursuit, there must be an actual crime committed, only the identity of the perpetrator is in question. The case further discusses in flagrante delicto. Here, the police officer must have personal knowledge, not personal collection Further, the arrest and the crime committed must be simultaneous.