Constitutional Law 104 Mosqueda vs. Filipino Banana Exporters, G.R. No.
189185, August
Prepared by Ken Patrick C. Du
Article III. Bill of Rights / Constitution of Liberty
Section 1, Art. III: No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or
property without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied
equal protection of the laws.
Question: Is Section 1, Article III, the embodiment of the entire bill of
rights? – Yes.
What is the “hierarchy of rights” under Sec. 1, Art. III?
 Hierarchy of Rights
 Life (Sec. 4, Art. III)
o Section 19. Re-imposition of death penalty.
o Section 21. Double jeopardy.
o Section 22. Ex post facto law and bills of attainder.
 Liberty (The rest of civil liberties)
o The rest of the Bill of Rights.
o Sections 2 to 8
o Section 11-22
 Property
o Section 2. To be secure in their houses, papers and
effects.
o Section 9. Taking of property for public use.
o Section 10. Non-impairment of the obligations of
contracts.
Protected Properties
Vested intangible property rights covered under constitutional
protection on the right to property, which must be:
 Present, absolute and unconditional.
 Perfect or fixed.
 Irrefutable.
Police Power
What is police power?
 Vested in Congress of the Philippines.
 The power of the state to prohibit all that is hurtful to the
comfort, safety and welfare of society.
 Its scope expands and contracts with changing needs.
Is there a general presumption of constitutionality of police power
measures?
 Police power measures are presumed constitutional and the
judiciary should not lightly set aside legislation when there
is no clear invasion of personal or property rights under the
guise of police power.
 But his general presumption of constitutionality applies only
to Congress and not to LGU’s.
Regulation vs. Taking
 Laws: If regulation is the principal intent and the taking is
incidental, resolve in favor of police power. Examples:
CARL, Seniors Citizen Discount.
 Ordinances: If it involves regulation and at the same time a
compensable taking, resolve as an exercise of inferior
domain.
States vs. Citizens
 The Bill of Rights is meant to protect ordinary citizens
against arbitrary government action, but not from acts
committed by private individuals or entities. In the latter
case, the specific statutes that provide reliefs from such
private acts apply.
Constitutional Law Story
 The story of constitutional jurisprudence is the story of
great minds striving to strike a balance between
governmental power and personal freedom.
16, 2016
Is Davao City Ordinance No. 0309-07 unconstitutional for
being unreasonable, oppressive, and an invalid exercise of
police power?
YES. THE ORDINANCE DOES NOT REST ON SUBSTANTIAL
DISTINCTION. THE OCCURRENCE OF PESTICIDE DRIFT IS NOT
LIMITED TO AERIAL SPRAYING BUT RESULTS FROM THE
CONDUCT OF ANY MODE OF PESTICIDE APPLICATION LIKE
TRUCK-MOUNTED BOOM SPRAYING, ETC.
Knights of Rizal vs. DMCI Homes Inc., G.R. No. 213948, April 25, 2017
Is Torre de Manila a nuisance per se that deserves to be
summarily abated even without judicial proceedings?
NO. TORRE DE MANILA PROJECT CANNOT BE CONSIDERED
AS A DIRECT MENACE TO PUBLIC HEALTH OR SAFETY.”
DMCI HAS COMPLIED WITH HEALTH AND SAFETY
STANDARDS SET BY LAW.
Evasco vs. Montañez, G.R. No.199172, Feb. 21, 2018
Is Ordinance No. 092-2000 a valid exercise of police power?
YES. ORDINANCE NO. 092-2000, WHICH REGULATES THE
CONSTRUCTION AND INSTALLATION OF BUILDING AND
OTHER STRUCTURES SUCH AS BILLBOARDS WITHIN DAVAO
CITY, IS AN EXERCISE OF POLICE POWER. IN LOCAL AFFAIRS,
ACTS OF LOCAL OFFICIALS MUST BE UPHELD WHEN IT IS
CLEAR THAT THESE WERE PERFORMED SQUARELY WITHIN
THE STATUTORY AUTHORITY GRANTED TO THEM AND IN
THE EXERCISE OF THEIR SOUND DISCRETION.
Maynilad vs. DENR, G.R. No. 206823, August 6, 2019
What is the Public Trust Doctrine?
“PARTIES WHO ACQUIRED RIGHTS IN TRUST PROPERTY
ONLY HOLD THESE RIGHTS SUBJECT TO THE TRUST AND,
THEREFORE, COULD ASSERT NO VESTED RIGHT TO USE
THOSE RIGHTS IN A MANNER HARMFUL TO THE TRUST.”
THE DOCTRINE FURTHER HOLDS THAT CERTAIN NATURAL
RESOURCES BELONG TO ALL AND CANNOT BE PRIVATELY
OWNED OR CONTROLLED BECAUSE OF THEIR INHERENT
IMPORTANCE TO EACH INDIVIDUAL AND SOCIETY AS A
WHOLE
Is the Clean Water Act a valid exercise of police power?
YES. VIA LEGISLATIVE ACT OF POLICE POWER, THE
ENACTMENT OF THE CLEAN WATER ACT THRUSTS THE
OBLIGATION ONTO THE WATER CONCESSIONAIRES TO
PROVIDE FOR A PROPER SEWERAGE AND SEPTAGE SYSTEM
THAT COMPLIES WITH ENVIRONMENTAL AND HEALTH
STANDARDS TO PROTECT PRESENT AND FUTURE
GENERATIONS.
Due Process
Question: Can a person be deprived of his life, liberty or property, if
with due process and equal protection of the law? - Yes.
What is substantive due process?
 Substantive due process refers to the intrinsic validity of the
law that interferes with the rights of a person to his life,
liberty or property.
Is publication and clarity of laws a requirement of due process?
 Yes. Substantive due process requires that those who must
obey a command must first know the command. Thus, a law
has to be published to be effective.
What is procedural due process?
 The essence of procedural due process is distilled in the
immortal cry of Themistocles to Alcibiades: “Strike – but
hear me first.”
  There must be a court or tribunal clothed with judicial
power to hear and determine a case.
 Jurisdiction must be lawfully acquired over the person of
the defendant or over the property.
 The defendant must be given an opportunity to be heard.
 Judgment must be rendered upon a lawful hearing.
What is administrative due process?
 The right to a hearing.
 The tribunal considers the evidence presented.
 The tribunal must act on its own independent consideration
of the facts and law of the case.
 The decision must be based on substantial evidence
presented at the hearing.
 The decision shows the issues involved and the reason for
the decision.
When are laws deemed arbitrary?
 If its imposition is in pursuance of the interest of a
particular class, as distinguished from the interest of the
general public; or
 If the means used in achieving the purpose are not
reasonably necessary to its accomplishment.
Substantive Due Process Cases
CoTesCUP vs. Sec. of Education, G.R. No. 216930, etc., Oct. 09,
2018
Is the K to 12 law (R.A. No. 10533) violative of substantive
due process?
NO. THE ASSAILED LAW'S DECLARATION OF POLICY ITSELF
REVEALS THAT, CONTRARY TO THE CLAIMS
OFPETITIONERS, THE OBJECTIVES OF THE LAW SERVE THE
INTEREST OF THE PUBLIC AND NOT ONLY OF A
PARTICULAR CLASS. ALL STUDENTS ARE INTENDED TO
BENEFIT FROM THE LAW.
Zabal vs. Duterte. G.R. No. 238467, February 12, 2019
Did Proclamation No. 475, which temporarily closed
Boracay, impinge on petitioners’ right to due process
when their right to work and earn a living was taken away
from them?
No. One cannot be deprived of the right to work and the
right to make a living because these rights are property
rights, the arbitrary and unwarranted deprivation of
which normally constitutes an actionable wrong. When
the conditions so demand as determined by the
legislature, property rights must bow to the primacy of
police power because property rights, though sheltered
by due process, must yield to general welfare. In any case,
petitioners, particularly Zabal and Jacosalem, cannot be
said to have already acquired vested rights to their
sources of income in Boracay.
Procedural Due Process Cases
Lagon vs. Velasco, G.R. No. 208424, Feb. 14, 2018
Whether or not Section 2 of the Judicial Affidavit Rule,
which requires a defendant to adduce his testimony and
that of his witnesses by judicial affidavits, is violative of
procedural due process?
NO. IN ISSUING THE ASSAILED ORDER, JUDGE VELASCO WAS
ACTUALLY ENFORCING THE JUDICIAL AFFIDAVIT RULE,
PROMULGATED BY THE COURT. THERE IS NOTHING IN THE
PROVISIONS OF THE JUDICIAL AFFIDAVIT RULE, WHICH
PROHIBITS A DEFENDANT FROM FILING A DEMURRER TO
EVIDENCE, IF HE TRULY BELIEVES THAT THE EVIDENCE
ADDUCED BY THE PLAINTIFF IS INSUFFICIENT. BESIDES, IN
THE RESOLUTION OF THE DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE, ONLY
THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED BY THE PLAINTIFF SHALL BE
CONSIDERED AND WEIGHED BY THE COURT.
Republic vs. Sereno, G.R. No. 237428, May 11, 2018
Did the non-inhibition of six (6) justices deprive Sereno of a
hearing before an impartial and disinterested tribunal?
NO. MERE IMPUTATION OF BIAS OR PARTIALITY IS NOT
ENOUGH GROUND FOR INHIBITION, ESPECIALLY WHEN THE
CHARGE IS WITHOUT BASIS. ACTS OR CONDUCT CLEARLY
INDICATIVE OF ARBITRARINESS OR PREJUDICE HAS TO BE
SHOWN. VERILY, FOR BIAS AND PREJUDICE TO BE
CONSIDERED SUFFICIENT JUSTIFICATION FOR THE
INHIBITION OF A MEMBER OF THIS COURT, MERE
SUSPICION IS NOT ENOUGH.
Palacios vs. People, G.R. No. 240676, March 18, 2019
Did the denial of petitioner’s motion for reinvestigation
violate procedural due process?
YES. UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, IT WAS INCUMBENT
UPON RESPONDENT TO SHOW THAT PETITIONER HAD BEEN
DULY NOTIFIED OF THE PROCEEDINGS AND THAT, DESPITE
NOTICE, HE STILL FAILED TO APPEAR OR PARTICIPATE
THEREAT. IN THE ABSENCE OF SUCH PROOF, THE COURT
THEREFORE FINDS THAT PETITIONER HAD NOT BEEN GIVEN
AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD.
Maynilad vs. DENR, G.R. No. 206823, August 6, 2019
Was Maynilad denied due process when SENR imposed a
fine without a valid complaint?
NO. PETITIONERS WERE NOTIFIED OF THE CHARGES
AGAINST THEM, WERE GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE
HEARD DURING A TECHNICAL CONFERENCE AND WERE
INFORMED OF THE PENLTY FOR POSSIBLE VIOLATIONS OF
THE CLEAN WATER ACT.IN ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS,
THE FILING OF CHARGES AND GIVING REASONABLE
OPPORTUNITY FOR THE PERSON SO CHARGED TO ANSWER
THE ACCUSATIONS AGAINST HIM CONSTITUTE THE
MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS OF DUE PROCESS.
Aguirre vs. Nieto , G.R. No. 220224, August 28, 2019
Was the petitioner afforded due process?
NO. THERE ARE NO REGISTRY RETURN RECEIPTS OF THE
NOTICES OF HEARING AND DECISION SENT TO PETITIONER.
IF IT WERE INDEED SENT PROPERLY TO PETITIONER, ALL THE
REGISTRY RETURN RECEIPTS SHOULD HAVE BEEN
ACCORDINGLY DOCUMENTED IN THE RECORDS OFTHE CSC
REGION V.
Equal Protection Clause
Equal Protection
 The Equal protection of the law is a guarantee that persons
under like circumstances and falling within the same class
are treated alike, in terms of privileges conferred and
liabilities enforced.
I RECORD 577
 The equal protection clause if both a prohibition on the
state from institutionalizing inequality and a command for
the state to take positive measures to eradicate
inequalities.
Basis for valid classification
 Alienage insofar as the Filipino-first policy is concerned.
 Territorial differences insofar as laws of local application.
 Electoral Process
 Criminal Process
 Land Reform
 Women and Minors
The equal protection clause is not violated by a legislation based on
reasonable classification.
 Must rest on substantial distinctions
 Must be germane to the purpose of the law
  Must not be limited to existing conditions only
 Must apply equally to all members of the same class
People vs. Amarela, G.R. No. 225642-43, Jan. 17, 2018
Is the “women’s honor” doctrine (Maria Clara doctrine) a
travesty of justice as it puts the accused in an unfair
disadvantage?
Yes,we simply cannot be stuck to the Maria Clara
stereotype of a demure and reserved Filipino woman. We,
should stay away from such mindset and accept the
realities of a woman's dynamic role in society today.In
this way, we can evaluate the testimony of a private
complainant of rape without gender bias or cultural
misconception. It is important to weed out these
unnecessary notions because an accused may be
convicted solely on the testimony of the victim, provided
of course, that the testimony is credible, natural,
convincing, and consistent with human nature and the
normal course of things. Thus, in order for us to affirm a
conviction for rape, we must believe beyond reasonable
doubt the version of events narrated by the victim.
CoTesCUP vs. Sec. of Education,
G.R. No. 216930, Oct. 09, 2018
Is the K to 12 law (R.A. No. 10533) violative of the equal
protection of the laws?
No. The equal protection clause is directed principally
against undue favor and individual or class privilege. It is
not intended to prohibit legislation which is limited to the
object to which it is directed or by the territory in which it
is to operate. It does not require absolute equality, but
merely that all persons be treated alike under like
conditions both as to privileges conferred and liabilities
imposed.
Void-for-Vague and Overbroad
Vague
 A statute or act suffers from the defect of vagueness when
it lacks comprehensible standards that men of common
intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ
as to its application.
A vague statute is unconstitutional as:
 It violates due process for failure to accord persons,
especially the parties targeted by it, fair notice of the
conduct to avoid; and,
 It leaves law enforcers unbridled discretion in carrying out
its provisions and becomes an arbitrary flexing of the Gov’t
muscle
Overboard
 A statute or an act is overbroad if its governmental purpose
may be achieved only by means that unnecessarily sweep
its subject broadly, thereby invading the area of protected
freedoms.
Facial Challenge
 Facial challenge or on “its face” challenge is an attack on
the constitutionality of a law by 3rd parties, not necessarily
parties-in-interest.
 The rule established in our jurisdiction is, only statutes on
free speech, religious freedom, and other fundamental
rights may be facially challenged. Under no case may
ordinary penal statutes be subjected to a facial challenge.
Lagman vs. Medialdea, G.R. No. 231658, July 4, 2017
What is the “void-for-vagueness” doctrine and where is it
applicable?
A statute or act suffers from the defect of vagueness
when it lacks comprehensible standards that men of
common intelligence must necessarily guess at its
meaning and differ as to its application.The vagueness
doctrine has a special application only to free-speech
cases.
Whether or not Proclamation No. 216 is vague and thus
void because of (a) its inclusion of "other rebel groups";
and (b) the absence of any guideline specifying its actual
operational parameters within the entire Mindanao
region?
THE TERM “OTHER REBEL GROUPS” IN PROCLAMATION
NO. 216 IS NOT AT ALL VAGUE WHEN VIEWED IN THE
CONTEXT OF THE WORDS THAT ACCOMPANY IT. LACK OF
GUIDELINES/OPERATIONAL PARAMETERS DOES
NOTMAKE PROCLAMATION NO. 216 VAGUE.
OPERATIONAL GUIDELINES WILL SERVE ONLY AS MERE
TOOLS FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE
PROCLAMATION. THE VAGUENESS DOCTRINE HAS A
SPECIAL APPLICATION ONLY TO FREE-SPEECH CASES.
CLEARLY, FACIAL REVIEW OF PROCLAMATION NO. 216 ON
THE GROUNDS OF VAGUENESS IS UNWARRANTED.
PROCLAMATION NO. 216 DOES NOT REGULATE SPEECH,
RELIGIOUS FREEDOM, AND OTHER FUNDAMENTAL
RIGHTS THAT MAY BE FACIALLY CHALLENGED.
SPARK vs. Quezon City, etc., G.R. No. 225442. Aug.8, 2017
Are the Curfew Ordinances void-for-being vague?
NO. WHILE THE CURFEW ORDINANCES DO NOT
EXPLICITLY STATE THE PARAMETERS IN IDENTIFYING
SUSPECTED CURFEW JUVENILE VIOLATORS, LAW
ENFORCEMENT AGENTS ARE STILL BOUND TO FOLLOW
THE PRESCRIBED MEASURES FOUND IN R.A. NO. 9344
WHEN IMPLEMENTING THE ORDINANCES.
Did the Curfew Ordinances passed the first and second
prong of strict scrutiny test?
ALL THREE CURFEW ORDINANCES HAVE PASSED THE
FIRST PRONG OF THE STRICT SCRUTINY TEST – THAT IS,
THAT THE STATE HAS SUFFICIENTLY SHOWN A
COMPELLING INTEREST TO PROMOTE JUVENILE SAFETY
AND PREVENT JUVENILE CRIME IN THE CONCERNED
LOCALITIES.BUT ONLY THE QUEZON CITY ORDINANCE HAS
PASSED THE SECOND PRONG OF THE STRICT SCRUTINY
TEST, AS IT IS THE ONLY ISSUANCE OUT OF THE THREE
WHICH PROVIDES FOR THE LEAST RESTRICTIVE MEANS TO
ACHIEVE THIS INTEREST.
Sessions vs. Dimaya, SCOTUS No. 15–1498, Oct. 2, 2017
Is the Immigration and Nationality Act, insofar as defining
“crime of violence, void for being vague?
YES. While Dimaya’s appeal was pending in the Ninth
Circuit, this Court held that a similar re¬sidual clause in
the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA)—defining “violent
felony” as any felony that “otherwise involves conduct
that presents a serious potential risk of physical injury to
another,” was unconstitutionally “void for vagueness”
under the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.