JMJ Marist Brothers

Notre dame of marbel university

Koronadal City

College of law

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW IIi COURSE OUTLINEii

(Bill of Rights & Applicable Jurisprudence)
2nd Semester, AY 2019-2020
Atty. Paisal Diaz Tanjili
Lecturer

I. Preliminary CONSIDERATIONS
A. Concept & Origin of the Bill of Rights, and the classification of rights in
general: Civil, Political, Social & Economic Rights
- Simon v. Comm., 1/5/94; RP v. Sandiganbayan, 7/21/03
B. Doctrine of Preferred Freedom (Hierarchy of Rights)
- PBM v. PBM, 51 SCRA 189 (1973); Victoriano v. ERWU, 9/12/74; In Re: Macasaet,
8/8/08; Chavez v. Gonzales, 2/15/08; Social Justice v. Atienza, Jr., 2/13/08; Newsounds v.
Dy, 4/2/09; Soriano v. Laguardia, 4/29/09
C. The Fundamental Powers of the State/Similarities, Differences & Limitations-
Planters v. Fertiphil, 3/14/08

II. FUNDAMENTAL POWERS OF THE STATE

A. POLICE POWER
 Definition, Scope & Basis, Characteristics, Main Actor- MMDA v. Bel-
Air, 3/27/00; RP v. Meralco, 11/15/02; Carlos v. DSWD, 6/29/07; White Light v.
City, 1/20/09; Fernando v. St. Scholastica, 3/12/13; Southern v. DSWD, 4/25/17
a. Tests of Police Power
 Laws- Balacuit vs. CFI, June 30, 1988; Del Rosario v. Bengzon, 180 SCRA 521
(1989); Planters v. Fertiphil, 3/14/08
 Zoning and Regulatory Ordinances- Ermita v. City Mayor, 20 SCRA 849
(1967); Cruz v. Paras, 123 SCRA 569 (1983); Velasco v. Villegas, 120 SCRA 568
(1983); Magtajas v. Pryce, 234 SCRA 255 (1994); Tano v. Socrates, 8/27/97; City v.
Judge, 4/12/05; Social Justice v. Atienza, Jr., 2/13/08; White Light v. City, 1/20/09;
Fernando v. St. Scholastica, 3/12/13
 Administrative Rules and Regulations- Mirasol v. DPWH, 6/8/06; PPA v.
Cipres, 7/14/05; Chavez v. Romulo, 6/9/04; Soriano v. Laguardia, 4/29/09; OSG v.
Ayala, 9/18/09; Lokin vs. COMELEC, 6/22/10; MERALCO v. Sps. Chua, 7/25/10;
Kulayan vs. Tan, 7/3/12 [overbreath/overstepping]

B. EMINENT DOMAIN
a. Definition-NPC vs. Co, February 10, 2009
 Who exercises the power?- City v. Chinese, 40 Phil 349 (1919); Moday v. CA, 268
SCRA 368 (1997); RP v. Salem, 6/23/00; Metropolitan v. J., 4/16/09; APO Fruits v.
CA, 12/4/09
 Constitutional limitation - Art. III, Sec. 9; Brgy v. CA, 3/22/07; NPC v. CO, 2/10/09
b. Distinguished from destruction due to necessity - Fernando v. St. Scholastica, 3/12/13
c. Social Discount as Eminent Domain-Manila v. DSWD, 12/3/13
d. Distinguished from state’s illegal possession.-Heirs v. City, 3/12/18
e. Objects of Expropriation- RP. v. PLDT, 26 SCRA 620 (1969); NPC v. Capin, 10/17/08;
Estate v. Llenado, 3/4/09; RP v. Mangotara, 7/7/10 [exception to private property
(NSC)]

1
f. Where Expropriation Suit & its peripherals is Filed - Brgy v. Heirs, 6/20/00; NHA v.
Heirs, 6/16/09
 Defendants in Expropriation Proceedings- RP v. Mangotara, 7/7/10 (Sec. 1, Rule
67, RRC; De Knecht v. CA, 352 Phil. 833, 852 (1998))
 Stages of an expropriation proceeding- Sps. Ortega v. City, 10/2/09; Sps. Abad v.
Fil-Homes, 11/24/10
 What rules will apply in expropriation proceeding-RP v. Gingoyan, 12/19/05 &
2/1/06 (RA 8974); RP v. CA, 8/14/09 [procedure dispensed]; Sps. Abad vs. Fil-
Homes, 11/24/10 [RA7160]; City v. Prieto, 7/8/19 [RA 7160 & RA 7279]
 Eminent Domain without expropriation proceeding-Forfom v. PNR, 12/10/08;
Iloilo v. Contreras-Besana, 2/25/10
e. Taking-Definition and scope
 Requisites of Taking- City v. Ericta, 122 SCRA 759 (1983); NPC v. CA, 3/11/96;
Dipidio v. Guzon, 485 SCRA 586 (2006); Land Bank v. Dumlao, 11/27/08;
Municipality v. Pathfinder, 6/29/16
 Deprivation of Use- People v. Fajardo, 104 Phil. 443 (1958); NAPOCOR v.
Gutierrez, 193 SCRA 1 (1991); NAPOCOR v. San Pedro, 9/26/06; PPI v.
COMELEC, 244 SCRA 272 (1995); OSG v. Ayala, 9/ 18/09
 Priority in Expropriation- Filstream v. CA, 284 SCRA 716 (1998); City v.
Francisco, 1/29/01; Lagcao v. Judge, 10/13/04 (RA No. 7279); JIL v. Mun., 8/ 9/05
(written Offer & 15% deposit-LGU)
f. Public use- Estate v. PEZA, 1/16/01; Reyes v. NHA, 395 SCRA 495 (2003); Heirs v.
Mactan, 466 SCRA 288 (2005); Masikip v. City, 479 SCRA 391 (2006); Asia’s v.
DOTC, 4/18/09; Mactan v. Tudtud, 11/14/08 [read also separate opinions]
 Government Withdrawal- NHA v. Heirs, 6/19/03; NPC v. CA, 8/12/04
 Recovery of Expropriated Land- ATO v. Gopuco, 6/30/05; RP v. Lim, 6/2/05;
Mactan v. Tudtud, 11/14/08; Forfom v. PNR, 12/10/08; Mactan-Cebu vs. Lozada,
2/25/10 [repurchase (just compensation paid-interest-cost of maintenance)]; except
Iloilo v. Contreras-Besana, 2/25/10 (non-payment of just compensation)
 Genuine Necessity- Mun. v. IAC, 157 SCRA 640 (1988); De Knecht v. Bautista, 100
SCRA 660 (1980); RP v. De Knecht, 2/12/90; Masikip v. City, 1/ 23/06; Mactan v.
Tudtud, 11/ 14/08 [read separate opinions]
g. Just Compensation
 Defined- Eslaban v. De Onorio, 6/28/01; NPC v. Purefoods, 9/12/08; NPC v. Capin,
12/17/08; Land Bank v. Dumlao, 11/27/08; NPC v. CO, 2/ 10/09; RP v. CA, 8/14/09;
Apo Fruits v. LBP, 10/12/10
 Determination of Just Compensation - EPZA v. Dulay, 149 SCRA 305 (1987);
NAPOCOR v. Lucman, 6/24/07; Forfom v. PNR, 12/10/08; LBP vs. Livioco,
9/22/10; LBP v. Sps. Umandap, 11/17/10 [SAC/DARAB]; NPC v. Spouses, 7/11/12;
NAPOCOR vs. Spouses, 1/30/13
 Legislative limit on Just Compensation: National v. Sps. Asoque, 9/14/16
 When Determined- Forfom v. PNR, 12/10/08; LBP v. Belista, 6/26/09; LBP v.
Livioco, 9/22/10; Iloilo v. Contreras-Besana, 2/25/10; National v. Oroville, 8/1/17
 Exceptions: National v. Heirs, 671 Phil. 569 (2011) & National v. Sps.
Saludares, 686 Phil. 967 (2012)
 Manner of Payment - Asso. v. DAR, 175 SCRA 343 (1989); DAR v. CA, 249 SCRA
149 (1995); Roxas v. CA, 12/17/99; LBP vs. Honeycombs, 7/29/12; Heirs vs. LBP,
7/1/13
 Trial with Commissioners- NAPOCOR v. Sps. De la Cruz, 2/2/07; Leca v. RP, 9/
27/06; RP v. CA, 8/14/09; Heirs of Vidad vs. LBP, 4/30/10
 Withdrawal pending appeal- LBP v. DARAB, 1/25/10 [Bond requirement]

2
  Legal Interest for Expropriation Cases- Apo vs. CA, 12/4/09; Apo Fruits vs. LBP,
10/12/10 [when computed-note Imperial Case (PD 27) & DAO No. 13, 12/31/06
(6%)]; Special Case of Interest- LBP vs. Rivera, 11/17/10 (taking before deposit);
Hernandez vs. Hernandez, 3/9/11 [6%/12%]; Secretary vs. Tecson, 4/21/15; National
v. Oroville, 8/1/17
 Exception to payment of Interest-LBP vs. Escandor, 10/11/10 (timely deposit),
except LBP vs. Rivera, 11/17/10
 Remedy for pending compensation- Ortega vs. City, 10/2/09
 Consequential Damages - Iloilo vs. Contreras-Besana, 2/25/10; except LBP vs.
Rivera, 11/17/10 (Cost of Suit); Iloilo vs. Contreras-Besana, 2/25/10 (6%-Actual or
compensatory, exemplary & Attorney’s Fees); Rep. vs. BPI, 9/11/13; National v.
Oroville, 8/1/17
h. Writ of Possession- City v. Serrano, 6/20/01; RP v. Gingoyon, 12/19/05
i. Expropriation of Utilities, Landed Estates and Municipal Property- Art. XII, Sec. 18;
Art. XIII, Sesc. 4 & 9; City v. NAWASA, 106 Phil. 114 (1959); Zamboanga v. City, 22
SCRA 1334 (1968); Forfom v. PNR, 12/10/08; Metropolitan v. J. King, 4/16/09
j. Judicial Review- De Knecht v. Bautista, 100 SCRA 660 (1980); Marinduque v. CA,
10/6/08

C. TAXATION
a. Definition, Nature, Purpose- CIR v. Algue, Inc., 158 SCRA 9 (1988); Commissioner v.
Makasiar, 177 SCRA 27 (1989); Planters v. Fertiphil, 3/14/08
b. Scope (The power to tax is the power to destroy)- Tridhana v. CTA, 6/20/16
c. Who exercises the power?- Art. VI Sec. 28, Art. XIV, Sec. 4 (3), Art. X, Sec. 5; Quezon v.
ABS-CBN, 10/6/08
d. Tax Exemptions- YMCA v. CIR, 33 Phil. 217 (1916); The Roman v. Prov., 51 Phil. 352
(1927); Reverend v. CIR, 14 SCRA 292 (1965); Province v. Hernando, 107 SCRA 104
(1981); Abra v. Aquino, 162 SCRA 106 (1988); American v. City, 101 Phil. 386 (1957);
Digital v. City, 12/11/08; Chavez v. PCGG, 12/ 9/98; City v. SMART, 2/27/09; SMART
v. City, 7/21/09; Jaka Investment v. CIR, 7/28/10 [Tax Refund]; South v. CIR, 2/16/11
[Tax Offsetting]; Angeles v. City, 6/27/12; Commissioner v. St. Luke, 9/ 26/12
e. Double Taxation- Punzalan v. Municipal, 95 Phil.46 (1954); City v. Coca-Cola, 8/
4/09; Swedish v. Treasurer, 7/3/13
f. License Fees- Physical v. Municipal, 8/ 30/57
g. Tax & religion- Peralta v. Postal, 12/4/18

III. FUNDAMENTAL SAFEGUARDS AGAINST THE STATE’S POWERS

A. DUE PROCESS- Art. III, Sec. I; Art. III. Sec. 14 (1)

a. Definition, Nature and Scope – Gov’t. v. Purganan, 9/24/02; Executive v. Southwing, 482
SCRA 673 (2006); Beltran vs. Sec., 476 SCRA 168 (2005)
b. Purpose of the guaranty
c. Meaning of Life, Liberty, Property, & Security- Secretary v. Manalo, 10/7/08; Reyes v. CA,
12/3/09
d. Substantive Due Process- Villegas v. Hu, 86 SCRA 275 (1978); Rubi v. Prov., 39 Phil. 660
(1919)
 Void for Vagueness/Overbreadth- Ople v. Torres, 292 SCRA 141 (1998); Estrada v.
Sandiganbayan, 11/19/01; David v. Arroyo, 5/3/06; Ong v. Sandiganbayan, 9/16/05; Sps.
Romualdez v. COMELEC, 4/30/08; People v. Siton, 9/18/09
e. Procedural Due Process
 Publication Requirement- Tanada v. Tuvera, 146 SCRA 446 (1986); PITC v. Angeles,
263 SCRA 421 (1996); RP v. Extelcom, 1/15/02; SEC v. PICOP, 9/26/08; Manila v.
Garcia, 10/2/17

3
  Impartial Court or Tribunal- Tanada v. PAEC, 141 SCRA 307 (1986);Tejano v.
Ombudsman, 6/30/05; Tabuena v. Sandiganbayan, 268 SCRA 332 (1997)
 Prejudicial Publicity- Webb v. De Leon, 247 SCRA 652 (1995); People v. Sanchez,
10/18/01; Standard v. Senate, 12/ 27/07
 Notice and Hearing- Summary v. Torcita, 330 SCRA 153 (2000); Sec. v. Lantion, 10/
17/00; People v. Estrada, 6/19/00; Lim v. CA, 8/ 12/02
 Opportunity to be Heard- Budiongan v. De la Cruz, 9/22/06; Roxas v. Vasquez, 6/21/01;
Marohombsar v. Judge, 1/ 22/04
 Exceptions to notice and hearing requirements- Philcomsat v. Alcuaz, 180 SCRA 218
(1989); Suntay v. People, 101 Phil. 833 (1957); De Bisschop v. Galang, 8 SCRA 244
(1963); Var v. Achacoso, 161 SCRA 232 (1988); BSP v. Antonio-Valenzuela, 10/2/09;
Learning Child v. Ayala, 7/7/10
f. Administrative Due Process- Ang Tibay v. CIR, 69 Phil. 635 (1940); Montemayor v.
Araneta, 77 SCRA 321 (1977); Meralco v. PSC, 11 SCRA 317 (1964); Ateneo v. CA, 145
SCRA 100 (1986); Alcuaz v. PSBA, 161 SCRA 7 (1988); Non v. Hon., 5/ 30/90; Dela Salle v.
CA, et. al., 12/ 17/07; Equitable v. RCBC, 12/18/08; Pontejos vs. Desierto, 7/ 7/09

B. EQUAL PROTECTION
a. Political, Economic and Social Equality- Art. XIII, Sec. 1 and 2 (social justice); Id., Sec. 3
(protection to labor); Art. XII, Sec. 10 (nationalization of business); Id., Sec. 2, par. 2
(reservation of marine resources); Art. III, Sec. 11 (free access to the courts); Art. VIII, Sec.
5(5) (legal aid to poor); Art. IX-C, Sec. 10 (protection of candidates); Art. II, Sec. 26 (public
service); Art. II, Sec. 14 (equality of women and men); Dycaico v. SSS, 476 SCRA 538
(2005); Mirasol v. DPWH, 490 SCRA 318 (2006); Pimentel III vs. COMELEC, 3/13/08;
League vs. COMELEC, 12/21/09; Ang Ladlad vs. COMELEC, 4/ 8/10
b. Sexual Discrimination- Philippine v. Drilon, 163 SCRA 386 (1988); Ang Ladlad v.
COMELEC, 4/ 8/10
c. Administration of Justice/Access to Courts- People v. Hernandez, 99 Phil. 515 (1956);
Chavez v. PCGG, 12/9/98; Nunez v. Sandiganbayan, 111 SCRA 433 (1982); Martinez v.
Mendoza, 332 SCRA 694 (2000); Duncan v. Glaxo, 438 SCRA 343 (2004); Gallardo v.
People, 4/ 21/05
d. Public Policy- CBEA v. BSP, 12/15/04; PNB v. Palma, 8/9/05; Unido v. COMELEC, 104
SCRA 17 (1981); PJA v. Prado, 227 SCRA 703 (1993); Olivarez v. Sandiganbayan, 248
SCRA 700 (1995); Tiu v. CA, 1/20/99; Coconut v. Torres, 7/29/05; ISAE v. Quisumbing,
6/1/00; PHILRECA v. DILG, 6/10/03; Beltran v. Sec., 11/25/05; COMELEC vs. Cruz,
11/20/09

C. THE NON-IMPAIRMENT CLAUSE-Art. III, Sec. 10

a. Purpose; When impairment occurs; When allowed- Harrison v. Navarro, 331 SCRA 202
(2000); SMGMC v. Balite, 380 SCRA 145 (2002); RP v. RMDC, 426 SCRA 517 (2004);
Beltran v. Sec., 476 SCRA 168 (2005); Oroport v. Phividec, 7/28/08; Banat v. COMELEC, 8/
7/09
 Emergency Powers- Rutter vs. Esteban, 93 Phil. 68 (1953)
 Zoning and Regulatory Ordinances- Villanueva v. Castaneda, 154 SCRA 142 (1987);
Sangalang v. IAC, 168 SCRA 634 (1988); Ortigas v. CA, 12/4/00; Learning v. Ayala,
7/7/10
 Administrative Regulations- Tiro v. Hontanosas, 125 SCRA 697 (1983); Provincial v.
DOLE, 7/17/18 (boundary System); Philippine v. COMELEC, 10/3/17(firearms); Nueva
v. ERC, 2/3/16 (system loss rates); PT&T v. Smart, 11/9/16 (interconnection agreement)
 Rental Laws- Caleon v. Agus, 207 SCRA 748 (1992)
 Liabilities under Rehabilitation proceedings: La Savoie v. Buenavista, 6/19/19
 Tax Exemptions- Meralco v. Province, 306 SCRA 750 (1999)
 Redemption- Goldenway vs. Equitable, 3/13/13

4
D. ARRESTS, SEARCHES AND SEIZURES-Art. III, Sec. 2 and 3
a. Purpose and Importance of the guaranty- Alvero v. Dizon, 76 Phil 637 (1946); David v.
Macapagal, 5/3/06
b. To Whom Directed- People v. Andre Marti, 193 SCRA 57 (1991)
c. Who May Invoke the Right & when?- Bache v. Ruiz, 37 SCRA 323 (1971); Stonehill v.
Diokno, 20 SCRA 383 (1967); Esquillo v. People, 8/25/10
d. Conditions for a valid search warrant
 Application for search warrant & the rules on actual search- Rule 126, 2000 Revised
Rules on Criminal Procedure; Administrative Matter No. 99-10-09-SC; Quinicot v.
People, 6/22/09; Panuncio v. People, 7/17/09; Sps. Marimla v. People, 10/16/09; People v.
Castillo, Sr., 11/7/16; Tomas v. CIDG, 11/9/16; In Re: Report, 9/5/17
 Search warrant & Writ of Amparo- Secretary v. Manalo, October 7, 2008
 Existence of Probable Cause- Burgos v. Chief, 133 SCRA 800 (1984); People v. Chua,
308 SCRA 432 (1999); People v. Molina, 2/19/01; Coca-Cola v. Gomez, 11/14/08
 Partially Valid Warrant- People v. Salanguit, 4/18/01; Microsoft v. Maxicorp., 9/ 13/04
 Personal determination by judge- Sta. Rosa v. Fiscal, 153 SCRA 367 (1987); Paderanga
vs. Drilon, 4/19/91; Pita v. CA, 178 SCRA 362 (1989); Abdula v. Guiani, 326 SCRA 1
(2000); People v. Mamaril, 1/22/04
 Examination of witnesses- Pasion v. Locsin, 65 Phil 68 (1938); Yee Sue Kuy vs. Almeda,
70 Phil. 141, (1940); Alvarez v. CFI, 64 Phil. 33 (1937); Mata v. Bayona , 128 SCRA 388
(1984); Coca-Cola v. Gomez, 11/14/08
 Particularity of Description- Olaes v. People, 155 SCRA 486 (1987); Prudente v. Judge,
180 SCRA 69 (1989); Chia v. COC, 177 SCRA 755 (1989); 20th Century v. CA, 164
SCRA 655 (1988); People v. Choi, 8/3/06; PICOP v. Asuncion, 307 SCRA 253 (1999);
Yousef v. CA, 9/4/01; People v. Francisco, 387 SCRA 569 (2002); Coca-Cola v. Gomez,
11/14/08; People v. Nuñez, 6/30/09; People v. Pastrana, 2/21/18; Dimal v. People, 4/18/18
 One Warrant One Particular Offense: People v. Pastrana, 2/21/18
e. Objects of Seizure - Rule 126, Sec. 3, 2000 Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure- Unilab v.
Isip, 6/28/05; People v. Nuñez, 6/30/09
f. Warrantless searches
 Valid Waiver/Consented- People v. Correa, 285 SCRA 679 (1998); People v. Barros, 231
SCRA 557 (1994); Veroy v. Layague, 210 SCRA 97 (1992); People v. Damasco, 212
SCRA 457 (1992); Lopez v. COC, 68 SCRA 320 (1975); People v. Compacion, 361 SCRA
540 (2001); Caballes v. CA, 1/5/02; People v. Asis, et. al., 10/15/02; People v. Tudtud,
9/26/03; In Re: Morales, 11/19/08; Dela Cruz v. People, 1/11/16
 Incident to lawful arrest- Rule 126, Sec. 13, 2000 Rules of Crim. Procedure; People v.
Che, 328 SCRA 592 (2000); People v. Estrella, 1/21/03; People v. Libnao, 1/20/03; People
v. Tin Won Chua, 405 SCRA 280 (2003); Ambait vs. CA, 4/30/08; People vs. Agulay,
9/26/08; Ching vs. People, 10/ 17/08; Valeroso vs. CA, 9/3/09
 Plain view doctrine- People v. Valdez, 9/ 25/00; People v. Compacion, 7/20/01; People v.
Go, 411 SCRA 81 (2003); People v. Huang, 9/29/04; Ambait vs. CA, 4/30/08; Revaldo vs.
People, 4/16/09; Esquillo v. People, 8/25/10; Domingo v. People, 3/13/19
 Enforcement of fishing, customs and immigration laws- Roldan v. Area, 65 SCRA 320
(1975); People v. Gatward, 267 SCRA 785 (1997); Bureau v. Ogario, 329 SCRA 289
(2000); People v. Johnson, 12/18/00; People v. Suzuki, 10/23/03; Salvador v. People, 463
SCRA 489 (2005); Boac v. People, 11/7/08
 “Stop and frisk”- People v. Solayao, 262 SCRA 255 (1996); Manalili v. CA, 10/ 7/97;
People v. Montilla, 285 SCRA 703 (1998); People vs. Quebral, 11/27/09; Esquillo vs.
People, 8/25/10; Veridiano v. People, 6/7/17; People v. Cristobal, 6/10/19
 Search of moving vehicles- Papa v. Mago, 22 SCRA 857 (1968); People v. CFI, 101
SCRA 86 (1980); People v. Gonzales, 365 SCRA 17 (2001); Rieta v. People, 436 SCRA
237 (2004); Salvador v. People, 7/15/05; Galvante vs. Casimiro, 4/22/08

5
  Emergency circumstances/Exigency- People v. De Gracia 233 SCRA 716 (1994)
 Checkpoints- Gen. v. Valmonte, 5/24/90; Aniag v. COMELEC, 237 SCRA 424 (1994);
People v. Escano, 323 SCRA 754 (2000); People v. Vinecario, 1/20/04; Veridiano v.
People, 6/7/17 [elements]
 Inspection of buildings -Camara v. Mun., 387 U. S. 523 (1967); People v. Agulay,
9/26/08; Galvante v. Casimiro, 4/22/08
 Ports- People v. Johnson, 348 SCRA 527 (2000); People v. Canton, 394 SCRA 478
(2002); Dela Cruz v. People, 1/11/16
 Jail Safety- People v. Conde, 356 SCRA 415 (2001)
 Private Persons- People v. Bongcarawan, 384 SCRA 525 (2002)
 Public & Private Employment- Pollo v. Constantino-David, 10/18/11
g. Warrantless arrests- Rule 113, Sec. 5, 2000 RRCP; Art. 125, RPC; People v. Bolasa, 321
SCRA 459 (1999); Posadas v. Ombudsman, 341 SCRA 388 (2000); People v. Cubcubin, 360
SCRA 690 (2001); People v. Kimura, 428 SCRA 51 (2004); People v. Ara, 12/23/09
 Rebellion as Continuing Offense- Umil v. Ramos, 202 SCRA 251 (1991)
 Committed in the Presence of Police Officers- People v. Sucro, 195 SCRA 388 (1991);
People v. Go, 3/14/01; People vs. Bohol, 7/28/08; Abelita III v. Doria, 8/14/09
 Personal Knowledge of the Offense- People v. Gerente, 219 SCRA 756 (1993); People v.
Sinoc, 275 SCRA 357 (1997); People v. Baula, 11/15/00; People v. Cubcubin, 7/10/01;
People v. Siton, 9/18/09; Abelita III v. Doria, 8/14/09; Pestillos v. Generoso, 11/10/14
[personal knowledge of circumstances]
 Crime has just been committed- Pestillos v. Generoso, 11/10/14
 Time of Arrest- People v. Rodriguez, 205 SCRA 791 (1992); Go v. CA, 206 SCRA 586
(1992); People v. Calimlim, 8/30/01
 Marked Money- People v. Enrile, 222 SCRA 586 (1993); People v. Concepcion, 6/27/08;
Cruz vs. People, 2/6/09; People v. Tion, 12/16/09
 Lack of Urgency- People v. Pasudag, 5/4/01; People v. Aminnudin, 163 SCRA 402
(1988); Pestillos vs. Generoso, 11/10/14
 Effect of Bail- Rule 114, Section 26, 2000 RR Criminal Procedure
 Effect of Entry of Plea- People v. Plana, 11/27/01
 Validity of Conviction- People v. Conde, 4/10/01

E. PRIVACY OF COMMUNICATION & CORRESPONDENCE

- Sec 3 (1), Article III, 1987 Constitution
- Allied Laws: R.A. No. 4200 (Anti-Wire Tapping Law) (1965); Sections 8-10, RA No. 9372 [Anti-
Terrorism Law of 2007]; RA No. 1405 [Bank Secrecy Law]; Section 27, RA 9372; Section 11, RA 9160
[Anti-Money Laundering Law]; Sec. 6 (f), RA No. 8424 [Tax Reform Act of 1997, as amended]; Sec.
26, RA No. 7653 [New Central Bank Act, as amended]; Sec. 8, RA 6426 [Foreign Currency Deposit];
Sec. 55.4, RA 8721 [Banking Regulations Law of 2000]; Art. 290, 291, 292, Revised Penal Code; RA
No. 10173 [Data Privacy Act of 2012]
- Cases: Gaanan v. IAC, 145 SCRA 113 (1986); Ramirez v. CA, 9/28/95; Salcedo-Ortanez v. CA, 235
SCRA 111 (1994); Marquez v. Desierto, 6/27/01; In Re: Alejano, 468 SCRA 188 (2005); KMU v.
Director, 487 SCRA 623 (2006); In Re: Sabio, 504 SCRA 704 (2006); Chavez v. Gonzales, 2/15/08;
In Re: Morales, 11/19/08; Garcilliano v. House, 12/23/08; Pollo v. Constantino-David, 10/18/11
[private & Public Employment Inspection]; Disini v. Sec., 2/28/14[Traffic Information]; Spouses
Hing v. Choachuy, 6/26/13 [CCTV]

a. Privileged Communications- In Re Laureta, 148 SCRA 382 (1987); People v. Albofera, 152
SCRA 123 (1987); Zulueta v. CA, 253 SCRA 699 (1996); Deano v. Godinez, 12 SCRA 483
(1964); Waterhouse v. NLRC, 10/16/97; Saberon v. Larong, 8/11/08; Tulfo v. People, 9/16/08;
Villanueva v. Phil., 5/15/09; Yuchengco v. Manila, 11/25/09 [qualified/absolute privileged

6
 communication v. private individual]; Neri v. Senate 549 SCRA 77 [2008] & 564 SCRA 52
[2008]; Palad v. Solis, 10/2/16
b. Exclusionary Rule- Art. III, Sec. 3(2)- People v. Aruta, 4/3/98; People v. Rondero, 12/9/99
c. Liability for damages- Aberca v. Ver, 160 SCRA 590 (1988)

E. RIGHTS OF PERSONS UNDER CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION

Art. III, Sec. 12; R.A. 7438; Section 7, 2000 RRCP; Section 21, 22, 23, & 24, RA 9372 [Human
Security Act] & IRRR, 12/10/2010; Miranda v. Arizona , 384 US , 436 (1966)
a. When Right Attaches- People v. Endino, 352 SCRA 307 (2001); People v. Taboga, 376 SCRA
505 (2002); BPI v. Casa Montessori, 430 SCRA 261 (2004); People v. Ting Lan Uy, 475
SCRA 248 (2005); People v. Malngan, 503 SCRA 204 (2006); Aquino v. Paiste,6/25/08;
People v. Lauga, 3/15/10 (CVO/Bantay Bayan); People v. Cachuela, 6/10/13 [NBI]; Mesina v.
People, 6/17/15
 Right to be “Informed”- People v. Casimiro, 383 SCRA 390 (2002); People v. Sayaboc,
419 SCRA 659 (2004); People v. Bagnate, 428 SCRA 633 (2004); People v. Concepcion,
6/27/08
b. Custodial Investigation- People v. Lugod, 2/21/01; People v. Del Rosario, 4/14/99; People v.
Mahinay, 302 SCRA 455 (1999); Aquino v. Paiste, 6/25/08; Mesina vs. People, 6/17/15
c. Administrative Investigations- People v. Judge Ayson, 175 SCRA 216 (1989); OCA v.
Sumilang, 271 SCRA 316 (1997); People v. Uy, 11/17/05; Perez v. People, 2/12/08; Ampong v.
CSC, 8/26/08; Tanenggee v. People, 6/26/13
d. Investigations in Aid of Legislation-Philcomsat vs. Senate, 6/9/12
e. Police Lineup- Gamboa v. Cruz, 162 SCRA 642 (1988); People v. Piedad, 12/5/02; People v.
Lara, 8/13/12
f. Cases before January 17, 1973 not applicable - Magtoto v. Manguera, 63 SCRA 4 (1975)
g. Rule under the 1973 Constitution (Voluntary, knowing & intelligent waiver) - People v.
Caguioa, 95 SCRA 2 (1980); People v. Tampus, 90 SCRA 624 (1980); People v. Sayaboc,
1/15/04
h. The Galit Rule- People v. Galit, 135 SCRA 465 (1985)
i. Rule under the 1987 Constitution
 Requirement of Competent & Independent Counsel- People v. Bandula, 232 SCRA 566
(1994); People v. Quidato, 10/1/98; People v. Labtan, 12/8/99; People v. Samus, 9/17/02;
People v. Tomaquin, 7/23/04; People v. Reyes, 3/17/09; People v. Maliao, 7/31/09;
Lumanog vs. People, 9/7/10 [effective & vigilant]
 Counsel of Choice- People v. Porio, 376 SCRA 598 (2002); People v. Morial, 363 SCRA
96 (2001); People v. Gallardo, 1/25/00; People v. Barasina, 229 SCRA 450 (1994);
People v. Reyes, 3/17/09
 Counsel’s presence required in entire proceedings - People v. Morial, 8/15/01; Aquino v.
Paiste, 6/25/08; Lu manog v. People, 9/7/10 [effective & vigilant-not proven]
 Seized Articles [Memorandum Receipt]- People v. Castro. 274 SCRA 115 (1997); People
v. Wong Chuen Ming, 256 SCRA 182 (1996); Marcelo v. Sandiganbayan, 302 SCRA 102
(1999); People v. Macabalang, 11/27/06; Evangelista v. People, 5/5/10 [Customs
Declaration Form]
 Confession to Newsmen- People v. Andan. 269 SCRA 95 (1997); People v. Endino,
2/20/01; People v. Ordono, 6/29,/00; People v. Guillermo, 1/20/04
 Other Confessions - People v. Malngan, 9/26/06; People v. Gomez, 270 SCRA 432 (1997);
People v. Lugod, 2/21/01; People v. Gil, 10/15/08; People v. Villarino, 3/5/10 & People v.
Lauga, 3/15/10 (CVO/Bantay Bayan) [Spontaneous Confession to policemen- not by
questioning]; Lumanog v. People, 9/7/10 [Only if taken there and used as basis for
conviction]
 Re-enactment- People v. Luvendino, 211 SCRA 36 (1992)
j. Waiver of Rights- Santos v. Sandiganbayan, 347 SCRA 386 (2000); People v. Mendoza, 365
SCRA 289 (2001); People v. Gonzales, 382 SCRA 714 (2002)

7
k. Exclusionary Rule-Art. III, Sec. 12 (3)
 The Doctrine & exemptions- Marcelo v. Sandiganbayan, 302 SCRA 102 (1999); People v.
Janson, 400 SCRA 584 (2003); Aquino v. Paiste, 6/25/08; People v. Maliao, 7/31/09

F. RIGHT TO BAIL
Art. III, Sec. 13
a. Bail Defined- Rule 114, Section 1, 2000 Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure
b. Kinds of Bail-Rule 114, Sections 10, 11, 14 & 15, 2000 Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure;
RA No. 10389 "Recognizance Act of 2013", 3/14/13
c. When right may be invoked- Herras v. Rovira, 75 Phil. 634 (1945); People v. San Diego, 26
SCRA 522 (1968); Cortes v. Judge, 9/10/97; Lavides v. CA, 2/1/00; Government v. Judge
Purganan, 12/17/02; Rodriguez v. Presiding, 483 SCRA 290 (2006); People v. Fitzgerald,
505 SCRA 573 (2006)
d. Procedure for bail- Paderanga v. CA, 8/28/95 (Constructive Custody); Go v. Bongolan,
7/26/99; People v. Gako, 12/15/00; Barbero v. Dumlao, 6/19/08
e. Bail and Habeas Corpus- Enrile v. Salazar, 186 SCRA 217 (1990); People v. Judge Donato,
198 SCRA 130 (1991); Go, Sr. v. Ramos, 9/4/09
f. Bail on appeal- People v. Fortes, 223 SCRA 619 (1993); Mangudadatu v. CA, 2/23/00; Obosa
v. CA, 1/16/97; People v. Plaza, 10/2/09
g. Standards for fixing bail- Rule 114, Sec. 9, 2000 Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure-
Almeda v. Villaluz, 66 SCRA 38 (1975); Yap v. CA, 6/6/01; Cabañero v. Cañon, 9/20/01;
Victory v. Belosillo, 425 SCRA 79 (2004) [Gross Ignorance of Law]
h. Bail and Extradition/Deportation- Government v. Olalia, 4/19/07; Go, Sr. v. Ramos, 9/4/09
i. Bail and the Right to Travel Abroad/change of abode- Manotoc v. CA, 142 SCRA 149
(1986); Garcia v. Sandiganbayan, 10/17/18

G. RIGHTS OF AN ACCUSED -Art. III, Sec. 14

a. Due Process- People v. Macarang, 424 SCRA 18 (2004)
b. Presumption of Innocence- Mupas v. People, 2/6/08
 Proof beyond reasonable doubt- De Guzman v. People, 7/24/19
 Presumption of Guilt- Dumlao v. COMELEC, 95 SCRA 392 (1980); In Re Quires,
5/4/06; Pil-ey v. People, 7/9/07; In Re Angeles, 1/31/08; Napoles v. Sandiganbayan,
11/7/17
 Applicability to Juridical Persons- Feeder v. CA, 5/31/91
 Official Duty- People v. Obmiranis, 12/16/08; People v. Naelga, 9/11/09; People v.
Hilario, 1/11/18
 Equipoise Rule- Amanquiton v. People, 8/14/09; Angeles v. People, 10/12/16; People v.
Floresta, 6/17/19
c. Right to be heard personally or by counsel:
Importance of Counsel- People v. Nadera, 324 SCRA 490 (2000); People v. Liwanag,
363 SCRA 62 (2001); People v. Larranaga, 421 SCRA 530 (2004); Callangan v. People,
493 SCRA 269 (2006)
 Improvident Plea of guilt- People v. Magsi, 124 SCRA 69 (1983); People v. Murillo,
7/14/04; People v. Talusan, 7/14/09; People v. Gamboa, 10/1/13
 Right to Lawyer of Choice- Libuit v. People, 9/13/05; People v. Reyes, 3/17/09
 Deprivation of Right to be Heard- Parada v. Veneracion, 269 SCRA 371 (1997);
Moslares v. CA, 291 SCRA 440 (1998)
d. Right to be informed of nature and cause of accusation- People v. Estrada, 4/2/09; Rule 116,
RRCP
 Lack of Arraignment- Sps. Romualdez v. COMELEC, 4/30/08; People v. Alcalde,
5/29/02; People v. Dy, 1/29/02
 Sufficiency of the Information- People v. Ostia, 2/26/03; People v. Cachapero,
5/20/04; People v. Nazareno, 4/9/08; People v. Estrada, 4/2/09

8
 e. Right to speedy, impartial and public trial
 Speedy, Public & Impartial Trial- People v. Rivera, 7/31/01; Domondon v.
Sandiganbayan, 11/29/05; RE: Request, 365 SCRA 67 (2001); People v.
Cabalquinto, 502 SCRA 419 (2006); Dela Cuesta v. Sandiganbayan, 12/19/13
f. Right to confront witnesses- US v. Javier, 37 Phil. 449 (1918); Equitable vs. RCBC, 12/18/08
g. Right to secure attendance of witnesses- People v. De Luna, 174 SCRA 204 (1989); People v.
Dela cruz, 12/16/08
h. Right to be present during trial & Trial in absentia- Rule 115, Sec. 1 (c); People v. CA,
9/27/06; People v. de Grano, 6/5/09
i. Waiver of Rights- People v. Mendoza, 365 SCRA 289 (2001); People v. Gonzales, 382 SCRA
714 (2002)
j. When presence of the accused is a duty- People vs. de Grano, 6/5/09
 Arraignment and plea- Rule 116, Sec. 1 (b)
 During trial for identification- People v. Salas, 143 SCRA 163 (1986)
 Promulgation of Sentence- Rule 120, Sec. 6; Exception: Light offenses

H. PRIVILEGE AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION-Art. III, Sec. 17

a. Scope: compulsory testimonial incrimination- People v. Rondero, 12/9/99; People v.
Gallarde, 325 SCRA 835 (2000); People v. Yatar, 428 SCRA 504 (2004); PNB v.
Raymundo, 12/7/16; OCA v. Yu, 3/14/17
b. In what proceedings available- Pascual v. BME, 28 SCRA 344 (1969); Galman v. Pamaran,
138 SCRA 274 (1985); In Re Sabio, 504 SCRA 704 (2006)
c. Use Immunity v. Transactional Immunity.- Art. XIII, Sec. 18 (8); R.A. No. 1379, Sec. 8;
Galman v. Pamaran, 138 SCRA 274 (1985); Tanchanco v. Sandiganbayan, 11/25/05;
Pontejos v. Desierto, 7/7/09; Disini v. Sandiganbayan, 6/22/10; CIR Vs. Gonzales, 10/13/10
d. Exclusionary rule- Art. III, Sec. 12 (3)
e. Effect of denial of privilege by court- Chavez v. CA, 24 SCRA 663 (1968)

I. RIGHT TO SPEEDY DISPOSITION OF CASES

Art. III, Sec. 16; Art. VIII, Sec. 15; Art. VII, Sec. 18, par. 3; Art. IX, A, Sec. 7; Tatad v.
Sandiganbayan, 159 SCRA 70 (1988); Dansal v. Fernandez, 327 SCRA 145 (2000); Licaros
v. Sandiganbayan, 11/22/01; Dimayacyac v. Judge, 5/28/04; Ombudsman v. Jurado, 8/6/08;
Tan vs. People, 4/21/09; Phil. v. Rep., 1/24/12; Dela Cuesta v. Sandiganbayan, 12/19/13;
Cagang v. Sandiganbayan, 7/31/18; Revuelta v. People, 6/10/19

J. PUNISHMENTS
a. Excessive fines/cruel, degrading and inhuman punishments- Section 19, Article III; People v.
Dacuycuy, 173 SCRA 90 (1989); People v. Temporada, 12/17/08
b. Death penalty- Echegaray v. Sec., 1/29/99; People v. Garchitorena, 8/28/09
c. Imprisonment for political beliefs & aspirations-Art. III, Sec. 18(1)
d. Involuntary servitude-Art. III, Sec. 18(2); Allied v. NLRC, 7/12/96; Victory v. Race,
3/28/07; BPI v. BPI Employees, 8/10/10 (absorption of employees in merger); Phil v. Unocal,
7/28/16; Ka v. Colorite, 7/5/17
e. Imprisonment for debt-Art. III, Sec. 20; People v. Nitafan, 207 SCRA 726 (1992); In Re:
Vergara, 4/30/03; Sps. Yap v. First, 9/29/09; LBP v. Perez, 6/13/12; Yang v. People, 8/14/13
f. Ex post facto laws and bills of attainder-Art III, Sec. 22; Virata v. Sandiganbayan,
10/15/91; Chavez v. COMELEC, 437 SCRA 415 (2004); Presidential v. Desierto, 3/14/08;
Nasi-Villar v. People, 11/14/08; COMELEC v. Cruz, 11/20/09; Heirs v. Chan, 2/23/11;
Estrada v. Sandiganbayan, 7/17/18; San v. Commissioner, 7/23/18
g. Double Jeopardy- Art. III, Sec. 21; Rule 117, Sec. 7 & Rule 120, Sec. 5, 2000 Revised Rules of
Criminal Procedure
 Coverage of Protection: Macapagal-Arroyo v. People, 4/18/17

9
  Elements- People v. Obsania, 23 SCRA 1249 (1968); Garcia v. Sandiganbayan,
10/12/09; Braza vs. Sandiganbayan, 2/20/13 (same offence)
 1st Jeopardy validly Attached- Zapatos v. People, 411 SCRA 148 (2003); Vincoy v.
CA, 432 SCRA 36 (2004); Lasoy v. Zenerosa, 455 SCRA 360 (2005); Javier v.
Sandiganbayan, 9/11/09; Braza v. Sandiganbayan, 2/20/13 (conditional
arraignment); People v. Sandiganbayan, 12/5/18; Rural v. Canicon, 7/27/18; OCA v.
Salvador, 7/2/19
 1st Jeopardy validly Terminated- People v. Magat, 332 SCRA 517 (2000); People v.
Vera, 382 SCRA 542 (2001); Yuchengco v. CA, 376 SCRA 532 (2002); Phil. Rabbit
v. People, 427 SCRA 456 [2004]; Tan v. People, April 21, 2009; Baños v. Pedro,
4/22/09 [prov. dismissal]; Villareal vs. People, 2/1/12 (abuse of discretion); People v.
Atienza, 6/18/12 (Demurer to Evidence); People v. CA, 7/25/12 (mistrial); PNB v.
Soriano, 10/3/12 (valid dismissal); People v. Sandiganbayan, 6/19/19 [void
judgment]; Sec. 8, Rule 117 [prov. dismissal] & Secs. 17 & 18, Rule 119, RRCP
[discharge of an co-accused]
 Tests
 Same Offense Test- Melo v. People, 85 Phil. 766 (1950); People v. City, 121 SCRA 67
(1983); People v. Vergara, 221 SCRA 560 (1993); People v. Saley, 291 SCRA 715
(1998); Garcia v. Sandiganbayan, 10/12/09; Castro v. People, 7/23/08
 Same Act Test- People v. Relova, 148 SCRA 292 (1987); People v. Abay, 2/24/09
 Exceptions: David v. Marquez, 6/5/17; People v. Ting, 12/5/18
h. Double Jeopardy in Military Court Proceedings- Cruz v. Enrile, 160 SCRA 702 (1988); Tan
v. Barrios, 10/18/90; Garcia v. Executive, 7/30/12
i. Double Jeopardy in violation of Right to Speedy Trial- Que v. Cosico, 177 SCRA 410 (1989);
Caes v. IAC, 179 SCRA 54 (1989)
j. Double Jeopardy in Administrative Proceedings- Icasiano v. Sandiganbayan, 209 SCRA
377(1992); Vincoy v. CA, 7/14/04; People v. Larannaga, 7/21/05; Cayao-Lasam v. Sps.
Ramolete, 12/18/08
k. Double Jeopardy & Plea of Guilt to Lesser Offense- People v. Judge, 210 SCRA 246 (1992)
l. Double Jeopardy in Disbarment Cases-Villatula v. Tabalingcos, 7/10/12

K. PRIVILEGE OF THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS-Art. III, Sec. 15; Art. VII, Sec. 18
a. WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS:
a) Nature/Object-Mangila v. Pangilinan, 7/17/13
b) Cases- Villavicencio v. Lukban, 39 Phil 778 (1919); Moncupa v. Ponce, 141 SCRA 223
(1986); Lansang v. Garcia, 42 SCRA 448 (1971); Chavez v. CA, 24 SCRA 663 (1968);
Gumabon vs. Dir., 37 SCRA 420 (1971); In re Abadilla, 156 SCRA 92 (1987); Norberto
Feria v. CA, et al. 2/15/00; Illusorio v. Bildner, 5/12/00; In Re: Army, 8/31/07; Go v.
Ramos, 9/4/09; Agcaoili, Jr. v. Farińas, 7/3/18
b. WRIT OF AMPARO- AM No. 07-9-12-SC, 10/24/07; Secretary v. Manalo, 10/7/08; Reyes v.
CA, 12/3/09; Razon vs. Tagitis, 12/3/09; Saez v. Macapagal, 9/25/12; RP v. Cayanan, 11/7/17;
Callo v. Morente, 9/19/17; Agcaoili, Jr. v. Farińas, 7/3/18
c. WRIT OF HABEAS DATA- AM No. 08-1-16-SC, Feb. 2, 2008; Tapuz v. Del Rosario,
6/17/08; Castillo v. Cruz, 11/25/09; Gamboa v. Chan, 7/24/12; Saez v. Macapagal, 9/25/12;
Bautista v. Dannug, 1/23/18
d. WRIT OF KALIKASAN-A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC, 4/13/10; Arigo v. Swift, 9/16/14; Paje vs.
Casińo, 2/3/15; Resident v. Reyes, 4/21/15; LNL v. Agham, 4/12/16; Segovia v. Climate, 3/7/17;
Osmeńa v. Garganera, 3/20/18

L. FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION
Art. III, Sec. 4 & 18 (1)
a. Purpose- US v. Bustos, 37 Phil. 731 (1918); Burgos v. Chief, 133 SCRA 800 (1984)

10
 b. Forms of Restrictions- ABS-CBN v. COMELEC, 323 SCRA 811 (2000); SWS v.
COMELEC, 5/5/01; PJI v. Theonen, 477 SCRA 482 (2005); Chavez v. Gonzales, 2/15/08;
Tordesillas v. Puno, 2/1/18
 Tests of Restrictions: Balancing of Interest Test; Dangerous Tendency Test; Clear and
Present Danger Test- Zaldivar v. Sandiganbayan, 170 SCRA 1 (1989); Sanidad v.
COMELEC, 1/29/90; Miriam v. CA, 12/15/00; ABS-CBN v. COMELEC, 1/28/00
c. Freedom of Expression, Libel and National Security- Espuelas v. People, 90 Phil. 524 (1951);
Elizalde v. CFI 116 SCRA 93 (1982); Lopez v. CA, 34 SCRA 116 (1970); PJI v. Thoenen, 477
SCRA 482 [2005]; Borjal v. C.A., 301 SCRA 1(1999); Baguio v. CA, 11/25/04; Fortun vs.
Quinsayas, 2/13/13
d. Freedom of Expression and the Administration of Justice- Cabansag v. Fernandez, 102 Phil.
152; People v. Alarcon, 69 Phil. 265 (1939); In Re: Tulfo, 4/17/90; Nestle v. Sanchez, 154
SCRA 542 (1987); In Re: Jurado, 7/12/90; In Re: Macasaet, 8/8/08; Garcia v. Manrique,
10/10/12; Fortun v. Quinsayas, 2/13/13; Rodriquez-Manhan v. Flores, 11/13/13; Tordesillas v.
Puno, 2/1/18
e. Freedom of Expression, Movie Censorship, Obscenity and the Right to Privacy- Lagunzad
v. Sotto 92 SCRA 476 (1979); Ayer v. Judge, 160 SCRA 861 (1988); Iglesia v. CA, 259 SCRA
529 (1996); KMU v. Dir. Gen., 4/19/06; MTRCB v. ABS-CBN, 1/17/05; Fernando v. CA,
12/6/06; Palad v. Solis, 10/2/16; Tulfo vs. People, 9/16/08
f. Radio Broadcasts- E Broadcasting Corp. (DYRE) v. Dans, 137 SCRA 247 (1985); Chavez v.
Gonzales, 2/15/08
g. Freedom of Expression & Electoral Exercise-Diocese v. COMELEC, 1/21/15

M. FREEDOM OF ASSEMBLY
Sec. 4, Art. III; BP Blg. 880 (Public Assembly Act); J.B.L. v. Bagatsing, 125 SCRA 553
(1983);; Malabanan v. Ramento, 129 SCRA 359 (1984); Arreza v. GAUF, 137 SCRA 94
(1985); Nestle v. Sanchez, 154 SCRA 542 (1987); Dela Cruz v. CA, 305 SCRA 303 (1999);
Acosta v. CA, 6/28/00; Bayan v. Ermita, 4/25/06; Quezon v. DepEd, 2/23/16

N. FREEDOM /RIGHT TO INFORMATION

Art. III, Sec. 7; Section 5 (e), R.A. No. 6713 & Section 6, Rule VI, IRR of R.A. No. 6713; EO No. 02,
July 23, 2016; RA No. 10173 [Data Privacy Act of 2012]
a. Right to Inquire/Right to copy- Initiatives v. Psalm, 10/9/12
b. Legal Compulsion to Access- Belgica v. Honorable, 11/19/13
c. Motive immaterial- RE: Request for copy of 2008 SALNs, 6/13/12
d. Excepted access- Chavez v. PCGG, 12/9/98; Sereno v. Committee, 2/1/16; DFA v. BCA, 7/26/16;
Sec. 3, Rule IV, IRR R.A. No. 6713
e. Other cases: Tanada v. Tuvera; Valmonte v. Belmonte, 170 SCRA 256 (1989); Legaspi v. CSC,
150 SCRA 530 (1987); Garcia v. BOI, 177 SCRA 374 (1989); Vda. De Urbano v. GSIS, 367
SCRA 672 (2001); Senate v. Ermita, 488 SCRA 1 (2006); Hilado v. Reyes, 496 SCRA 282
(2006); Bantay v. COMELEC, 5/4/07; Akbayan v. Aquino, 7/16/08; IDEALS v. PSALM,
10/9/12; Privatization v. Strategic, 6/13/13 [violation of the right as tool of another wrongdoing]

f. FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION
Art. III, Sec. 8; Art. IX B, Sec. 2 (5); Art. XIII, Sec. 3, par.2; Occena v. COMELEC, 127 SCRA
404 (1985); In re Edillon, 84 SCRA (1979); Sta. Clara v. Gason, 374 SCRA 399 (2002);
PADCOM v. Ortigas, 382 SCRA 222 (2002); Ang Ladlad vs. COMELEC, 4/8/10; NUBE v.
PEA, 8/12/13; Quezon v. DepEd, 2/23/16; Rubio v. Basada, 12/6/17; Cezar v. Bel-Air,
11/21/18; Slord v. Noya, 2/4/19

g. FREEDOM OF RELIGION-Art. III, Sec. 5

a. Non-establishment Clause- Ang Ladlad v. COMELEC, 4/8/10
 Operation of Sectarian schools- Art. XIV, Sec. 4(2)

11
  Religions instruction in Public schools- Art. XIV, Sec. 3(3); Civil Code, Art. 359(1)
 Anti- evolution laws- Epperson v. Arkansas, 33 U. S. 27 (1968)
 Prayer and Bible reading in public schools- Engel v. Vitale, 370 U. S. 421 (1962);
Abington Schools District v. Schempp, 374 U. S. 203 (1973)
 Tax exemption- Art. VI, Sec. 28 (3)
 Public aid to religion- Art. VI, Sec. 29 (2); Aglipay v. Ruiz, 64 Phil. 201 (1937);
Islamic Da’wah Council v. Exec. Sec., 7/9/03; Peralta v. Postal, 12/4/18
 Intramural religious disputes & Court’s Jurisdiction- Fonacier v. CA, 96 Phil. 417
(1955); Austria v. NLRC, 312 SCRA 410 (1999); Taruc v. Dela Cruz, 453 SCRA 123
(2005); UCCP vs. BUCCP, 6/20/12
 Immorality & Religion- Advincula v. Advincula 7/12/19 (Leonen, J. concurring
opinion)
b. Free Exercise Clause- Ang Mga Kaanib v. Iglesia, 372 SCRA 172 (2001)
 Flag salute- Ebralinag v. Division Superintendent, 3/1/93
 Freedom to propagate religious doctrines- American v. City , 181 Phil. 386 (1957);
Soriano v. Laguardia, 3/15/10
 Exemption from Union shop- Victoriano v. ERW Union, 59 SCRA 54 (1974)
 Religion & social legislation- Roman v. Secretary, 12/21/07
 Immorality, crime & Religious freedom- Estrada v. Escritor, 6/22/06; Nollora v.
People, 9/7/11; Advincula v. Advincula 7/12/19 (Leonen, J. concurring opinion)
 Public Service & Religious Freedom- In Re: Request, 12/14/05; In Re: Valenciano,
3/7/17
 DQ for local government officials- Pamil v. Teleron, 86 SCRA 413 (1978)
 Religion and Academic Freedom- Valmores v. Achacoso, 7/19/17
 Registration & Name-Ang mga Kaanib vs. Iglesia ng Dios, 12/12/01
c. Religious Test- Torcaso v. Watkins 367 U.S. 488 (1961); Ang Ladlad v. COMELEC,
4/8/10; Municipality v. Balindong, 1/11/17

h. LIBERTY OF ABODE AND TRAVEL

a. Art. III, Sec. 6
b. Allied laws: RA No. 9372 [Human Security Act]; RA No. 8239 [Philippine Passport Act];
RA 9208 [Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act]; RA No. 8042 [Migrant Workers & Overseas
Filipinos Act]; RA No. 9262 [VAWC Act]; RA No. 8043 [Inter-Country Adoption Act]
c. Cases: Salonga v. Hermosa, 97 SCRA 121 (1989); Manotok v. CA. 142 SCRA 149 (1986);
Marcos v. Manglapus, 177 SCRA 668 (1989); Silverio v. CA, 4/8/91; Yap, Jr. v. CA, 358
SCRA 564 (2001); Mirasol v. DPWH, 490 SCRA 318 (2006); Reyes v. CA, 12/3/09; Leave
Division vs. Heusdens, 12/13/11; Del Rosario vs. Pascua, 2/27/12; Samahan vs. Quezon City,
8/8/17; Genuino vs. De Lima, 4/17/18; Zabal v. Duterte2/12/19

i
Subject to change/further revision
ii
As of November 23, 2019

12