CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 REVIEWER
ARTICLE III – BILL OF RIGHTS
Democracy - the preservation and enhancement of the dignity and worth of
the human personality is the central core as well as the cardinal article of
faith of our civilization
Bill of Rights is designed to preserve the ideals of liberty, equality and
security "against the assaults of opportunism, the expediency of the passing
hour, the erosion of small encroachments, and the scorn and derision of
those who have no patience with general principles."
POLICE POWER
- State authority to enact legislation that may interfere with
personal liberty or property in order to promote the general
welfare.
- (1) an imposition of restraint upon liberty or property
- (2) in order to foster the common good. It is not capable of an
exact definition but has been, purposely, veiled in general terms
to underscore its all-comprehensive embrace
- authorized in the Constitution in the interest of national economic
survival
SCOPE:
- Co-extensive with self-protection and survival, and as such it is the
most positive and active of all governmental processes, the most
essential, insistent and illimitable.
- Almost boundless, just as the fields of public interest and public
welfare have become almost all-embracing and have transcended
human foresight.
State can deprive persons of life, liberty and property, provided there is due
process of law; and persons may be classified into classes and groups,
provided everyone is given the equal protection of the law.
power is validly exercised if:
(a) the interests of the public generally, as distinguished from those of a
particular class, require the interference of the State, and
(b) the means employed are reasonably necessary to the attainment of the
object sought to be accomplished and not unduly oppressive upon
individuals
EMINENT DOMAIN
Essential requisites must concur before an LGU can exercise the power of
eminent domain:
1. An ordinance is enacted by the local legislative council authorizing the
local chief executive, in behalf of the LGU, to exercise the power of eminent
domain or pursue expropriation proceedings over a particular private
property.
2. The power of eminent domain is exercised for public use, purpose or
welfare, or for the benefit of the poor and the landless.
3. There is payment of just compensation, as required under Section 9,
Article III of the Constitution, and other pertinent laws.
4. A valid and definite offer has been previously made to the owner of the
property sought to be expropriated, but said offer was not accepted.
TAXATION:
Sources of power to tax of LGUs:
MORALES, GENIE C.
The 1987 Constitution, Article X, Section 5
Section 5. Each local government unit shall have the power to create its own
sources of revenues and to levy taxes, fees and charges subject to such
guidelines and limitations as the Congress may provide, consistent with the
basic policy of local autonomy. Such taxes, fees, and charges shall accrue
exclusively to the local governments.
Local Government Code, Section 129
Section 129. Power to Create Sources of Revenue. - Each local government
unit shall exercise its power to create its own sources of revenue and to levy
taxes, fees, and charges subject to the provisions herein, consistent with the
basic policy of local autonomy. Such taxes, fees, and charges shall accrue
exclusively to the local government units.
It has been held that "where there is neither a grant nor a prohibition by
statute, the tax power must be deemed to exist although Congress may
provide statutory limitations and guidelines. The basic rationale for the
current rule is to safeguard the viability and self-sufficiency of local
government units by directly granting them general and broad tax powers.
[Manila Electric Co. vs. Province of Laguna, G.R. No. 131359, May 5, 1999]
Fundamental principles governing local taxation
1. Taxation shall be uniform in each local government unit;
2. Taxes, fees, charges and other impositions shall:
a) be equitable and based as far as practicable on the taxpayer's
ability to pay;
b) be levied and collected only for public purposes;
c) not be unjust, excessive, oppressive, or confiscatory;
d) not be contrary to law, public policy, national economic policy,
or in the restraint of trade;
3. The collection of local taxes, fees, charges and other impositions shall in no
case be Let to any private person;
4. The revenue collected shall Inure solely to the benefit of the local
government unit levying the tax, fee, charge or other imposition unless
otherwise specifically provided herein; and,
5. Each local government unit shall, as far as practicable, evolve a Progressive
system of taxation. [Sec. 130, Local Government Code]
Equality and uniformity in local taxation means that all taxable articles or
kinds of property of the same class shall be taxed at the same rate within the
territorial jurisdiction of the taxing authority or local government unit and
not necessarily in comparison with other units although belonging to the
same political subdivision. In fine, uniformity is required only within the
geographical limits of the taxing authority. [Punzalan v. City of Manila, G.R.
No. L-4817, May 26, 1954]
A city can validly tax the sales to customers outside the city as long as the
orders were booked and paid for in the company's branch office in the city. A
different interpretation would defeat the tax ordinance in question or
encourage tax evasion by simply arranging for the delivery at the outskirts of
the city. [Philippine Match Company v. City of Cebu, G.R. No. L-30745 January
18, 1978]
Power to Adjust Local Tax Rate
Local government units are authorized to adjust the tax rates as prescribed
herein not oftener than once every 5 years, and in no case shall such
adjustment exceed 10% of the rates fixed under the Local Government Code.
[Sec. 191, Local Government Code]
Power to Grant Local Exemptions
Local government units, may through ordinances duly approved, grant tax
exemptions, incentives or reliefs under such terms and conditions, as they
may deem necessary. [Sec. 192, Local Government Code]
1|P a g e
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 REVIEWER
Tax exemptions shall be conferred through the issuance of a non-
transferable tax exemption certificate.
The power to grant tax exemptions, tax incentives and tax reliefs shall not
apply to regulatory fees which are levied under the police power of the local
government unit.
Guidelines for the Granting of Tax Exemptions, Tax Incentives and Tax Reliefs
[Art. 282 [B], Rules and Regulations Implementing theLocal Government
Code]
1. On the grant of tax exemptions or tax reliefs:
a.the same may be granted in cases of natural calamities, civil disturbance,
general failure of crops, or adverse economic conditions such as substantial
decrease in prices or agricultural or agri-based products.
b.The grant shall be through an ordinance.
c.Any exemption or relief granted to a type or kind of business shall apply to
all business similarly situated.
d.The same shall take effect only during the next calendar year for a period
not exceeding 12 months as may be provided by the ordinance.
e.In the case of shared revenue, the exemption or relief shall only extend to
the LGU granting such exemption or relief.
2.On the grant of tax incentives
a.The same shall be granted only to new investments in the locality and the
ordinance shall prescribe the terms and conditions therefore.
b.The grant shall be for a definite period of not exceeding 1 calendar year.
c.The grant shall be by ordinance passed prior to the 1st day of January of
any year.
d.Any grant to a type or kind of business shall apply to all businesses similarly
situated.
I. Introduction: the Fundamental Powers of the State and the
protection of individual rights.
The fundamental powers of the state
Civil and political rights
Economic and social rights
Philippine Blooming Mills Employees’ Organization v. Philippine
Blooming Mills Co., Inc., 51 SCRA 189
Simon v. Commission on Human Rights, et al., 229 SCRA 117
II. Police Power, Due Process and Equal Protection Clause
Art. III, Section I
MMDA v. Viron Transportation, G.R. No. 170656, 15 August 2007
DUE PROCESS
Procedural Due Process
A. Publication Requirement
Tanada v. Tuvera, 146 SCRA 446 (1986)
PITC v. Angeles, 263 SCRA 421 (1996)
Republic v. Extelcom, G.R. 147096, January 15, 2002
B. Judicial Proceedings
MORALES, GENIE C.
Banco Espanol v. Palanca, 37 Phil. 921
Judicial due process had been met. The requisites are;
1. There must be an impartial court or tribunal clothed with judicial
power to hear and decide the matter before it.
2. Jurisdiction must be lawfully acquired over the person of
thedefendant or over the property subject of the proceedings.
3. The defendant must be given the opportunity to be heard.
4. Judgment must be rendered only after lawful hearing.
Galvez v. Court of Appeals, 237 SCRA 685
The rule therefore in this jurisdiction is that once a complaint or information
is filed in Court any disposition of the case as to its dismissal or the conviction
or acquittal of the accused rests in the sound discretion of the Court.
State Prosecutors v. Muros, 236 SCRA 505
For the court to take judicial notice, three material requisites should be
present:
(1) the matter must be one of common and general knowledge;
(2) it must be well and authoritatively settled and not doubtful or uncertain;
(3) it must be known to be within the limits of the jurisdiction of the court.
Carvajal v. Court of Appeals, 280 SCRA 351
The essence of due process is the opportunity to be heard. It is the denial of
this opportunity that is repugnant to due process.
Webb v. De Leon, 247 SCRA 652
In satisfying himself of the existence of probable cause for the issuance of a
warrant of arrest, the judge is not required to personally examine the
complainant and his witnesses. Following established doctrine and
procedure, he shall:
(1) personally evaluate the report and the documents submitted by the fiscal
regarding the existence of probable cause and, on the basis thereof, issue a
warrant; or
(2) if on the basis thereof he finds no probable cause, he may disregard the
fiscal's report and require the submission of supporting affidavits of
witnesses to aid him in arriving at a conclusions as to the existence of
probable cause.
People v. Teehankee, 249 SCRA 54
In resolving the admissibility of and relying on out-of-court identification of
suspects, courts have adopted the totality of circumstances test where they
consider the following factors:
(1) the witness' opportunity to view the criminal at the time of the crime;
(2) the witness' degree of attention at that time;
(3) the accuracy of any prior description given by the witness;
(4) the level of certainty demonstrated by the witness at the identification;
(5) the length of time between the crime and the identification; and,
(6) the suggestiveness of the identification procedure. 
C. Administrative and Quasi-Judicial Proceedings
HIERARCHY OF EVIDENTIARY VALUES
a). Proof beyond reasonable doubt
b). Clear and convincing proof
c). Preponderance of Evidence
d). Substantial evidence
2|P a g e
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 REVIEWER
2. a). Conclusive- overwhelming or incontrovertible
b). Prima Facie- that which suffices until rebutted
c). Probable Cause- as that required for filing of an Information in Court
or for the issuance of a warrant of arrest
Ang Tibay v. CIR 69 Phil. 635
a. The first of these rights is the right to a hearing, which includes the right of
the party interested or affected to present his own case and submit evidence
in support thereof.
b. Not only must the party be given an opportunity to present his case and to
adduce evidence tending to establish the rights which he asserts but the
tribunal must consider the evidence presented.  short-cut to the legal process.
c. While the duty to deliberate does not impose the obligation to decide
right, it does imply a necessity which cannot be disregarded, namely, that of
having something to support it is a nullity, a place when directly attached.
d. Not only must there be some evidence to support a finding or conclusion
but the evidence must be "substantial."  inadmissible in evidence; at the very least, it has no probative value.
e. The decision must be rendered on the evidence presented at the hearing,
or at least contained in the record and disclosed to the parties affected.  The procedural due process required by a given set of circumstances "must
f. The Court of Industrial Relations or any of its judges, therefore, must act on
its or his own independent consideration of the law and facts of the
controversy, and not simply accept the views of a subordinate in arriving at a
decision. It may be that the volume of work is such that it is literally Relations
personally to decide all controversies coming before them. In the United
States the difficulty is solved with the enactment of statutory authority
authorizing examiners or other subordinates to render final decision, with
the right to appeal to board or commission, but in our case there is no such
statutory authority.
g. The Court of Industrial Relations should, in all controversial questions,
render its decision in such a manner that the parties to the proceeding can
know the various issues involved, and the reasons for the decision rendered.
Substantial Evidence It means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind
accept as adequate to support a conclusion.
Office of the Court Administrator v. Pascual 259 SCRA 604
The Rules, even in an administrative cases, demand that, if the respondent
judge should be disciplined for grave misconduct or any graver offense, the
evidence against him should be competent and should be derived from direct
knowledge. The Judiciary to which respondent belongs demands no less.
Before any of its members could be faulted, it should be only after due
investigation and after presentation of competent evidence, especially since
the charge is penal in character.
Valenzuela v. Bellosillo 322 SCRA 536
The complainant’s failure to present his principal witness, in the absence of
other evidence to prove his charges was fatal and said Affidavit cannot be
given credence and is inadmissible without the said affiant being placed on
the witness stand.
Limiqued v. Exevea 282 SCRA 125
In administrative proceedings, the essence of due process is simply the
opportunity to explain one’s side. Whatever irregularity attended the
proceedings conducted by the committee was cured by Lumiqued’s appeal
and his subsequent filing of motions for reconsideration.
Fabella v. CA 282 SCRA 256
In administrative proceedings, due process has been recognized to include
the following:
MORALES, GENIE C.
(1) the right to actual or constructive notice of the institution of proceedings
which may affect a respondent’s legal rights;
(2) a real opportunity to be heard personally or with the assistance of
counsel, to present witnesses and evidence in one’s favor, and to defend
one’s rights;
(3) a tribunal vested with competent jurisdiction and so constituted as to
afford a person charged administratively a reasonable guarantee of honesty
as well as impartiality; and
(4) a finding by said tribunal which is supported by substantial evidence
submitted for consideration during the hearing or contained in the records or
made known to the parties affected.
Summary Dismissal v. Torcita 330 SCRA 153
The absence of specification of the offense for which he was eventually
found guilty is not a proper observance of due process. There can be no
Office of the Ombudsman v. Coronel 493 SCRA 392
In administrative cases, a finding of guilt must be supported by substantial
evidence. In the present case, an unauthenticated photocopy of an alleged
receipt does not constitute substantial evidence to show that respondent is
guilty of dishonesty. In fact, absent any authentication, the photocopy is
Sec. of Justice v. Lantion 343 SCRA 377
begin with a determination of the precise nature of the government function
involved as well as the private interest that has been affected by
governmental action." The concept of due process is flexible for "not all
situations calling for procedural safeguards call for the same kind of
procedure."
Government of the United States v. Purganan, GR 148571, Sept. 24, 2002
5 POSTULATES OF EXTRADITION
1. Extradition = cooperation with other states to suppress criminals
2. Requesting State will accord due process (Accept and Trust)
3. Sui Generis = in a class by itself (summary in nature)
4. Compliance = Good Faith, implementation to serve natural interest
5. Flight Risk = will undergo proceedings to other state; remain in the
requested state
The constitutional right to bail flows from the presumption of innocence in
favor of every accused who should not be subjected to the loss of freedom as
hereafter he would be entitled to acquittal, unless his guilt be proved beyond
reasonable doubt. It follows that the constitutional provision on bail will not
apply toa case like extradition, where the presumption of innocence is not at
issue.
C. Academic Discipline
Guzman v. NU 142 SCRA 699
1. the students must be informed in writing of the nature and cause
of any accusation against them;
2. they shag have the right to answer the charges against them, with
the assistance of counsel, if desired;
3. they shall be informed of the evidence against them;
4. they shall have the right to adduce evidence in their own behalf;
and
5. the evidence must be duly considered by the investigating
committee or official designated by the school authorities to hear and decide
the case.
Alcuaz v. PSBA 161 SCRA 7
A student once admitted by the school is considered enrolled for one
semester, It is provided in Paragraph 137 Manual of Regulations for Private
Schools, that when a college student registers in a school, it is understood
that he is enrolling for the entire semester. Likewise, it is provided in the
Manual that the “written contracts” required for college teachers are for
“one semester.” It is thus evident that after the close of the first semester,
the PSBA-QC no longer has any existing contract either with the students or
3|P a g e
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 REVIEWER
with the intervening teachers. Such being the case, the charge of denial of
due process is untenable.
Non v. Judge Dames 185 SCRA 523
The protection to the cognate rights of speech and assembly guaranteed by
the Constitution is similarly available to students is well-settled in our
jurisdiction. However there are limitations. The permissible limitation on
Student Exercise of Constitutional Rights within the school presupposes that
conduct by the student, in class or out of it, which for any reason whether it
stems from time, place, or type of behavior should not materially disrupt
classwork or must not involve substantial disorder or invasion of the rights of
others
D. Deportation Proceedings
Lao Gi v. CA 180 SCRA 756
1. No alien shall be deported without being informed of the specific
grounds for deportation nor without being given a hearing under
rules of procedure to be prescribed by the Commissioner of
Immigration.
2. The acts or omissions that they are charged of must be in ordinary
language for the person to be informed and for the CID to make a
proper judgment.
3. The warrants of arrest must be in accordance with the rules on
criminal procedure.
Domingo v. Sheer, 421 SCRA 468
E. Fixing of Rates and Regulation of Profession
Philcomsat v. Alcuaz 180 SCRA 218
The Supreme Court Said that it is clear that with regard to rate-fixing,
respondent has no authority to make such order without first giving
petitioner a hearing, whether the order be temporary or permanent. In the
Case at bar the NTC didn’t scheduled hearing nor it did give any notice to the
petitioner.
Globe Telecom v. NTC 435 SCRA 110
The Court is convinced that prior to the promulgation of the assailed
Order Globe was never notified that its authority to operate SMS was put in
issue. There is an established procedure within NTC that provides for the
steps that should be undertaken before an entity such as Globe could be
subjected to a disciplinary measure.  To justify the state in the exercise of its sovereign police power it must
Corona v. UHPAP 283 SCRA 31
THE SUPREME COURT SAID THAT IN ORDER TO FALL WITHIN THE AEGIS OF
THIS PROVISION, TWO CONDITIONS MUST CONCUR, NAMELY, THAT THERE IS
A DEPRIVATION AND THAT SUCH DEPRIVATION IS DONE WITHOUT PROPER
OBSERVANCE OF DUE PROCESS. AS A GENERAL RULE, NOTICE AND HEARING,
AS THE FUNDAMENTAL REQUIREMENTS OF PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS, ARE
ESSENTIAL ONLY WHEN AN ADMINISTRATIVE BODY EXERCISES ITS QUASI-
JUDICIAL FUNCTION. IN THE PERFORMANCE OF ITS EXECUTIVE OR
LEGISLATIVE FUNCTIONS, SUCH AS ISSUING RULES AND REGULATIONS, AN
ADMINISTRATIVE BODY NEED NOT COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF
NOTICE AND HEARING.
F. Closure Proceedings
CB v. CA 220 SCRA 536
The law is explicit as to the conditions prerequisite to the action of the
Monetary Board to forbid the institution to do business in the Philippines and
to appoint a receiver to immediately take charge of the bank's assets and
liabilities. They are:
(a) an examination made by the examining department of the Central Bank;
(b) report by said department to the Monetary Board; and
(c) prima facie showing that its continuance in the business would involve
probable loss to its depositors or creditors.
Rural Bank v. CA 162 SCRA 288
MORALES, GENIE C.
Stated otherwise, due process does not necessarily require a prior hearing; a
hearing or an opportunity to be heard may be subsequent to the closure.
One can just imagine the dire consequences of a prior hearing: bank runs
would be the order of the day, resulting in panic and hysteria. In the process,
fortunes may be wiped out, and disillusionment will run the gamut of the
entire banking community.
Phil. Merchants v. CA GR 112844 June 2, 1995
It should also be noted that petitioner herein repeatedly sought
reconsideration of the various orders of respondent DECS and its motions
were duly considered by respondent DECS to the extent of allowing and
granting its request for re-inspection of its premises. In connection
therewith, it has been ruled that the opportunity to be heard is the essence
of procedural due process and that any defect is cured by the filing of a
motion for reconsideration
G. Termination Proceedings
Agabon v. NLRC, G.R. No. 158693, 17 November 2004
(1) the dismissal is for a just cause under Article 282 of the Labor Code, for an
authorized cause under Article 283, or for health reasons under Article 284,
and due process was observed;
(2) the dismissal is without just or authorized cause but due process was
observed;
(3) the dismissal is without just or authorized cause and there was no due
process; and
(4) the dismissal is for just or authorized cause but due process was not
observed.
Jaka Food Processing v. Pacot, G.R. No. 151378, 28 March 2005
If the dismissal is based on a just cause under Article 282 but the employer
failed to comply with the notice requirement, the sanction to be imposed
upon him should be tempered because the dismissal process was, in effect,
initiated by an act imputable to the employee; and if the dismissal is based
on an authorized cause under Article 283 but the employer failed to comply
with the notice requirement, the sanction should be stiffer because the
dismissal process was initiated by the employer’s exercise of his
management prerogative.
Substantive Due Process
United States v. Toribio 15 Phil. 85
appear (1) that the interest of the general public requires it and
(2) that the means are reasonably necessary for the accomplishment of the
purpose, and not unduly oppressive upon individuals.
People v. Fajardo 104 SCRA 443
The ordinance is unreasonable and oppressive, in that it operates to
permanently deprive appellants of the right to use their own property;
hence, it oversteps the bounds of police power, and amounts to a taking of
appellant’s property without just compensation
Rubi vs. Prov. Board of Mindoro, 39 Phil. 660 (1919)
“Liberty regulated by law": Implied in the term is restraint by law for the
good of the individual and for the greater good of the peace and order of
society and the general well-being. No man can do exactly as he pleases.
Ermita-Manila Hotel 7 Motel Operator v. City of Manila 20 SCRA 849
The precise reason why the ordinance was enacted was to curb down
prostitution in the city which is reason enough and cannot be defeated by
mere singling out of the provisions of the said ordinance alleged to be vague.
Ynot v. ICA 148 SCRA 659
The challenged measure was an invalid exercise of police power because
the method to confiscate carabaos was oppressive.
Due process was violated because the owner was denied the right to be
heard or his defense and punished immediately.
4|P a g e
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 REVIEWER
NDCNA v. PVB 192 SCRA 257
A legislative act based on the police power requires the concurrence of a
lawful subject and a lawful method. In more familiar words, a) the interests
of the public generally, as distinguished from those of a particular class,
should justify the interference of the state; and b) the means employed are
reasonably necessary for the accomplishment of the purpose and not unduly
oppressive upon individuals.
Agustin v. Edu 88 SCRA 195
The objective is public safety. The Vienna convention on road rights and PD
207 both recommended enforcement for installation of ewd’s. Bother
possess relevance in applying rules with the declaration of principles in the
Constitution.
Maranaw Hotel v. NLRC 238 SCRA 190
In the absence then of an order for the issuance of a writ of
execution on the reinstatement aspect of the decision of the Labor Arbiter,
the petitioner was under no legal obligation to admit back to work the
private respondent under the terms and conditions prevailing prior to her
dismissal or, at the petitioner's option, to merely reinstate her in the payroll.
Magtajas v. Pryce Properties 234 SCRA 255
An ordinance must conform to the following substantive requirements:
1) It must not contravene the constitution or any statute.
2) It must not be unfair or oppressive.
3) It must not be partial or discriminatory.
4) It must not prohibit but may regulate trade.
5) It must be general and consistent with public policy.
6) It must not be unreasonable.
Dans v. People 285 SCRA 504
The announced purpose for which Republic Act (No.) 3019 was enacted,
which is the repression of certain acts of public officers and private persons
constituting graft or corrupt practices or which may lead thereto.  Note that
the law does not merely contemplate repression of acts that are unlawful or
corrupt per se, but even of those that may lead to or result in graft and
corruption.  Thus, to require for conviction under the Anti-Graft and Corrupt
Practices Act that the validity of the contract or transaction be first proved
would be to enervate, if not defeat, the intention of the Act.
Ople v. Torres 293 SCRA 141
Right to privacy is a fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution,
hence, it is the burden of government to show that A.O. No. 308 is justified
by some compelling state interest and that it is narrowly drawn.   health, morals, peace, education, good order or safety and general welfare of
The reasonableness of a person's expectation of privacy depends on a two-
part test:
(1) whether by his conduct, the individual has exhibited an
expectation of privacy; and
(2) whether this expectation is one that society recognizes as
reasonable.
Corona v. UHPAP 283 SCRA 31
In essence, procedural due process "refers to the method or manner by
which the law is enforced," while substantive due process "requires that the
law itself, not merely the procedures by which the law would be enforced, is
fair, reasonable, and just."
People v. De la Piedra 350 SCRA 163
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 as to its application."
It 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 the conduct to avoid; and
(2) it leaves law enforcers unbridled discretion in carrying out its provisions
and become an arbitrary flexing of the Government muscle.
MORALES, GENIE C.
Estrada v. Sandiganbayan, GR 148560, Nov. 19, 2001
"...the doctrines of strict scrutiny, overbreadth, and vagueness are analytical
tools developed for testing "on their faces" statutes in free speech cases or,
as they are called in American law, First Amendment cases.  Criminal statutes
on the other hand cannot be a party to such a rule.
"One to whom application of a statute is constitutional will not be heard to
attack the statute on the ground that impliedly it might also be taken as
applying to other persons or other situations in which its application might
be unconstitutional"
ABAKADA v. Ermita, 469 SCRA 1
In addition, the power of the State to make reasonable and natural
classifications for the purposes of taxation has long been established. 
Whether it relates to the subject of taxation, the kind of property, the rates
to be levied, or the amounts to be raised, the methods of assessment,
valuation and collection, the State’s power is entitled to presumption of
validity.  As a rule, the judiciary will not interfere with such power absent a
clear showing of unreasonableness, discrimination, or arbitrariness.
GSIS v. Montescarlos, 434 SCRA 441
Police power does not rely upon the existence of definitive studies to support
its use. Indeed, no requirement exists that the exercise of police power must
first be conclusively justified by research. The yardstick has always been
simply whether the government’s act is reasonable and not oppressive. The
use of "reason" in this sense is simply meant to guard against arbitrary and
capricious government action. Scientific certainty and conclusiveness, though
desirable, may not be demanded in every situation. Otherwise, no
government will be able to act in situations demanding the exercise of its
residual powers because it will be tied up conducting studies.
Esponcilla v. Bagong Tanyag – 529 SCRA 654
The record shows that the petitioners were given more sufficient notice and
opportunity to be heard before they were removed from the list of
prospective beneficiaries and that even after they were delisted, they were
given a new deadline for them to submit requirements and were sent notices
informing them of the consequences of noncompliance.
BF v. City Mayor – 515 SCRA 1
That while non-impairment of contracts is constitutionally guaranteed, the
rule is not absolute, since it has to be reconciled with the legitimate exercise
of police power, i.e., "the power to prescribe regulations to promote the
the people." Invariably described as "the most essential, insistent, and
illimitable of powers" and "in a sense, the greatest and most powerful
attribute of government," the exercise of the power may be judicially
inquired into and corrected only if it is capricious, whimsical, unjust or
unreasonable, there having been a denial of due process or a violation of any
other applicable constitutional guarantee.
Carlos v. DSWD – 526 SCRA 130
While the Constitution protects property rights, petitioners must accept the
realities of business and the State, in the exercise of police power, can
intervene in the operations of a business which may result in an impairment
of property rights in the process.
Perez v. LPG – 531 SCRA 431
For an administrative regulation, to have the force of penal law, the following
must concur:
1.) the violation of the administrative regulation must be made a crime by
the delegating statute itself; and
2.) the penalty for such violation must be provided by the statute itself.
Pollo v. David-Constantino
5|P a g e
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 REVIEWER
In O’Connor the Court recognized that “special needs” authorize warrantless
searches involving public employees for work-related reasons. The Court
thus laid down a balancing test under which government interests are
weighed against the employee’s reasonable expectation of privacy. This
reasonableness test implicates neither probable cause nor the warrant
requirement, which are related to law enforcement.
People v. Ventura
The State may prescribe such regulations as in its judgment will secure or
tend to secure the general welfare of the people, to protect them against the
consequences of ignorance and incapacity as well as of deception and fraud.
Southern Hemisphere Engagement Network, Inc. v. Anti-Terrorism Council
The doctrine of vagueness and the doctrine of overbreadth do not operate
on the same plane.
i. A statute or acts suffers from the defect of vagueness when:
1. It lacks comprehensible standards that men of common
intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to
its application.
It is repugnant to the Constitution in 2 ways:
a. Violates due process for failure to accord fair notice of conduct
to avoid
b. Leaves law enforcers unbridled discretion in carrying out its
provisions and becomes an arbitrary flexing of the Government
muscle.
ii. The overbreadth doctrine decrees that a governmental purpose to
control or prevent activities constitutionally subject to state regulations
may not be achieved by means, which sweep unnecessarily broadly and
thereby invade the area of protected freedoms.
EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAW
People v. Cayat, 68 Phil. 12
Requisites of Valid Classification
(1) must rest on substantial distinctions;
(2) must be germane to the purposes of the law;
(3) must not be limited to existing conditions only; and
(4) must apply equally to all members of the same class.
Ichong v. Hernandez, 101 Phil. 1155
the law does not violate the equal protection clause of the Constitution
because sufficient grounds exist for the distinction between alien and citizen
in the exercise of the occupation regulated, nor the due process of law
clause, because the law is prospective in operation and recognizes the
privilege of aliens already engaged in the occupation and reasonably protects
their privilege. The wisdom and efficacy of the law to carry out its objectives
appear to us to be plainly evident — as a matter of fact it seems not only
appropriate but actually necessary — and that in any case such matter falls
within the prerogative of the Legislature, with whose power and discretion
the Judicial department of the Government may not interfere.
People of the Philippines vs Jose Vera
There is violation of the equal protection clause. Under Act 4221, provinces
were given the option to apply the law by simply providing for a probation
officer. So if a province decides not to install a probation officer, then the
accused within said province will be unduly deprived of the provisions of the
Probation Law.
Villegas v. Hiu Chiong Tsai Pao Ho, 86 SCRA 270
The Ordinance was declared invalid as it is arbitrary, oppressive and
unreasonable, being applied only to aliens who are thus deprived of their
rights to life, liberty and property and therefore violates the due process and
equal protection clauses of the Constitution.
Dumlao v. COMELEC, 96 SCRA 392
The constitutional guarantee of equal protection of the laws is subject to
rational classification. If the groupings are based on reasonable and real
differentiations, one class can be treated and regulated differently from
MORALES, GENIE C.
another class. For purposes of public service, employees 65 years of age,
have been validly classified differently from younger employees. Employees
attaining that age are subject to compulsory retirement, while those of
younger ages are not so compulsorily retirable.
Ormoc Sugar Central v. Ormoc City, L-23794, Feb. 17, 1968
Equal protection clause applies only to persons or things identically situated
and does not bar a reasonable classification of the subject of legislation, and
a classification is reasonable where
1) it is based upon substantial distinctions;
2) these are germane to the purpose of the law
3) the classification applies not only to present conditions, but also to future
conditions substantially identical to those present; and
4) the classification applies only to those who belong to the same class.
A perusal of the requisites shows that the questioned ordinance does not
meet them, for it taxes only centrifugal sugar produced and exported by the
Ormoc Sugar Company, Inc. and none other. The taxing ordinance should not
be singular and exclusive as to exclude any subsequently established sugar
central for the coverage of the tax. 
Basco v. PAGCOR, 197 SCRA 52
Equal protection clause of the Constitution does not preclude classification of
individuals who may be accorded different treatment under the law,
provided it is not unreasonable or arbitrary. The clause does not prohibit the
legislature from establishing classes of individuals or objects upon which
different rules shall operate.
Binay v. Domingo, 201 SCRA 508
There is no violation of the equal protection clause in classifying paupers as
subject of legislation. Paupers may be reasonably classified. Different groups
may receive varying treatment. Precious to the hearts of our legislators,
down to our local councilors, is the welfare of the paupers. Thus, statutes
have been passed giving rights and benefits to the disabled, emancipating
the tenant-farmer from the bondage of the soil, housing the urban poor, etc.
NPC v. De Guzman, 229 SCRA 801
The distinction is relevant for the purpose of the statute, which is to enable the
local police force to plan for their retirement which would be earlier than
usual because of the new law.
Himagan v. People, 237 SCRA 538
The reason why members of the PNP are treated differently from the other
classes of persons charged criminally or administratively insofar as the
application of the rule on preventive suspension is concerned is that
policemen carry weapons and the badge of the law which can be used to
harass or intimidate witnesses against them, as succinctly brought out in the
legislative discussions.
Tablarin v. Gutierrez, 152 SCRA 730
Lim v. Pacquing, 240 SCRA 649
The well-settled rule is that the State cannot be put in estoppel by the
mistakes or errors, if any, of its officials or agents.
Philippine Judges Association v. Prado, 227 SCRA 703
The withdrawal of the franking privileges was indeed discriminatory. If the
problem of the respondents is the loss of revenues from the franking
privilege, the remedy is to withdraw it altogether from all agencies of
government, including those who do not need it. The problem is not solved
by retaining it for some and withdrawing it from others, especially where
there is no substantial distinction between those favoured, which may or
may not need it at all, and the Judiciary, which definitely needs it. The
problem is not solved by violating the Constitution. The classification was not
based on substantial distinctions.
Sison v. Ancheta, 130 SCRA 654
Also, the rule of uniformity does not call for perfect uniformity or perfect
equality, because this is hardly unattainable." When the problem of
classification became of issue, the Court said: "Equality and uniformity in
taxation means that all taxable articles or kinds of property of the same class
shall be taxed the same rate. The taxing power has the authority to make
6|P a g e
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 REVIEWER MORALES, GENIE C.

reasonable and natural classifications for purposes of taxation..." As provided Bache and Co. v. Ruiz, 37 SCRA 323 (1971)
by this Court, where "the differentiation" complained of "conforms to the Stonehill v. Diokno, 20 SCRA 383 (1967)
practical dictates of justice and equity" it "is not discriminatory within the
meaning of this clause and is therefore uniform." E. Conditions for a valid warrant

Nolasco v. COMELEC, 275 SCRA 762 Existence of Probable Cause

Alvarez v. CFI, 64 Phil. 33

Telebap v. COMELEC, 289 SCRA 337
Tiu v. CA, 301 SCRA 278
Lacson v. Executive Secretary, 301 SCRA 298
Soriano v. CA, GR 123936, March 4, 1999
Loong v. COMELEC, 305 SCRA 832
International School v. Quisumbing, 333 SCRA 13
The State shall "ensure equal work opportunities regardless of sex, race or
creed." It would be an affront to both the spirit and letter of these provisions
if the State, in spite of its primordial obligation to promote and ensure equal
employment opportunities, closes its eyes to unequal and discriminatory
terms and conditions of employment
De Guzman v. COMELEC, GR 129118, July 19, 2000
The singling out of election officers in order to "ensure the impartiality of
election officials by preventing them from developing familiarity with the
people of their place of assignment" does not violate the equal protection
clause of the Constitution.
Dimaporo v. HRET , GR 158359, Mar. 23, 2004
Dimayuga v. OMB 495 SCRA 461
Burgos v. Chief of Staff, 133 SCRA 800 (1984)
Roberts v. CA, 254 SCRA 307
People v. Chua Ho San, 308 SCRA 432) (1999)
People v. Molina, G.R. No. 133917, February 19, 2001
Partially Valid Warrant
People v. Salanguit, G.R. 133254, April 18, 2001
Microsoft Corp. v. Maxicorp., G.R. 140946, September 13,
2004
Personal determination by judge
Soliven v. Makasiar, 167 SCRA 394 (1988)
Lim v. Felix, G.R. No. 94054-7, February 19, 1991
Paderanga v. Drilon, G.R. 96080, April 19, 1991
Abdula v. Guiani. 326 SCRA 1 (2000)
People v. Mamaril, G.R. 147607, January 22, 2004
People v. de los Reyes, 441 SCRA 305
Examination of witnesses
Pasion Vda. De Garcia v. Locsin, 65 Phil 68 (1938)
Yee Sue Kuy v. Almeda, 70 Phil. 141, (1940)
Alvarez v. CFI, 64 Phil. 33 (1937)
Mata v. Bayona , 128 SCRA 388 (1984)

Central Bank Employees Assoc. v. B Particularity of description

SP, G.R. No. 148208, Dec. 15, 2004 Olaes v. People, 155 SCRA 486 (1987)
Prudente v. Judge Dayrit, 180 SCRA 69 (1989)
Coconut Oil Refiners v. Torres, G.R. 132527, July 29, 2005 Chia v. Coll. of Customs, 177 SCRA 755 (1989)
It is well-settled that the equal-protection guarantee does not require 20th Century Fox Film Corp. v. CA, 164 SCRA 655 (1988)
territorial uniformity of laws. As long as there are actual and material People v. Choi, G.R. No. 152950, August 3, 2006
differences between territories, there is no violation of the constitutional Nolasco v. Cruz Pano, 132 SCRA 152 (1985)
clause. PICOP v. Asuncion, 307 SCRA 253) (1999)
Yousef Al Ghoul v. CA, GR No.126859, September 4, 2001
Beltran v. Secretary of Health, G.R. No. 133640, 25 November 2005 Del Rosario v. People, G.R. No. 142295, May 31, 2001.
BAT v. Camacho, G.R. No. 163583, 20 August 2008 People v. Francisco, GR 129035, Apr. 22, 2002
Plessy v. Fergusun, 163 US 537
Craig v. Boren, 429 US 190 Objects of Seizure
Brown v. Secretary of Education, 347 US 483; 349 US 294
Unilab v. Isip, G.R. No. 163858, June 28, 2005
Katz v. United States, 389 US 347
III. Arrests, Search and Seizure
F. Valid Warrantless searches
Art. III, Secs. 2 and 3(2)
Valid Waiver
A. When is a search a “search”?
Lopez v. Comm. Of Customs, 68 SCRA 320 (1975)
Valmonte v. General de Villa, 178 SCRA 211 and 185 SCRA People v. Ramos, G.R. 85401-02, June 4, 1990
665 Veroy v. Layague, 210 SCRA 97 (1992)
Guazon v. De Villa, 181 SCRA 623 People v. Damaso, 212 SCRA 457 (1992)
People v. Evaristo, G.R. No. 93828, December 11, 1992
B. Purpose and Importance of the guaranty People v. Omaweng, 213 SCRA 462 (1992)
People v. Barros, 231 SCRA 557 (1994)
Alvero v. Dizon, 76 Phil 637 (1946) People v. Correa, 285 SCRA 679 (1998)
Caballes v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 136292, January 5,
C. To Whom Directed 2002
People v. Asis, et. al., G.R. No. 142531, October 15, 2002
People vs. Andre Marti, 193 SCRA 57 (1991) People v. Tudtud, et. al., G.R. No. 144037, September 26,
2003
D. Who May Invoke the Right?
Incident to lawful arrest
7|P a g e
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 REVIEWER
People v. de la Cruz, G.R. 83988, April 18, 1990
People v. Tangliben, 184 SCRA 220 (1990)
People v. Kalubiran, 196 SCRA 645 (1991)
People v. Malmstedt, 198 SCRA 401 (1991)
Espano v. Court of Appeals, 288 SCRA 558 (1998)
People v. Che Chun Ting, 328 SCRA 592 (2000)
People v. Estrella, G.R. Nos. 138539-40, January 21, 2003
People v. Libnao, et al., G.R. No. 136860, January 20, 2003
Plain view doctrine
People v. Musa, 217 SCRA 597 (1993)
Padilla v. CA, 269 SCRA 402 (1997)
People v. Valdez, G.R. No. 129296, September 25, 2000
People v. Compacion, G.R. No. 124442, July 20, 2001
People v. Huang Zhen Hua, G.R. 139301, September 29,
2004
Veronia School District. 47 J v. ACTON, June 26, 1995
People v. Huang, 439 SCRA 350
Unilab v. Isip, 461 SCRA 574
Enforcement of fishing, customs and immigration laws
Roldan v. Area, 65 SCRA 320 (1975)
People v. Gatward, 267 SCRA 785 (1997)
People v. Johnson, G.R. No. 138881, December 18, 2000
People v. Canton, GR 148825, Dec. 27, 2002
People vs. Suzuki, G.R. No. 120670, October 23, 2003
“Stop and frisk”
Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1
People v. Solayao, 262 SCRA 255 (1996)
Manalili v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 113447, October 7,
1997
Malacat v. Court of Appeals, 283 SCRA 159 (1997)
Search of moving vehicles
Papa v. Mago, 22 SCRA 857 (1968)
People v. CFI of Rizal, 101 SCRA 86 (1980)
People v. Lo Ho Wing, G.R. No. 88017, January 21, 1991
Salvador v. People, G.R. No. 146706, July 15, 2005
Emergency circumstances
People v. De Gracia 233 SCRA 716 (1994)
Checkpoints
Gen. De Villa v. Valmonte G.R. No. 83988, May 24, 1990
Aniag v. Comelec, 237 SCRA 424 (1994)
People v. Usana, 323 SCRA 754 (2000)
People v. Vinecario, G.R. No. 141137, January 20, 2004
G. Valid Warrantless arrests
Rebellion as Continuing Offense
Umil v. Ramos, G. R. 81567, July 9, 1990
Committed in the Presence of Police Officers
People v. dela Cruz, 184 SCRA 416 (1990)
People v. Sucro, 195 SCRA 388 (1991)
People v. Mengote, G.R. No. 87059, June 22, 1992
People v. Luisito Go, G.R. No. 116001, March 14, 2001
Larranaga v. CA, 281 SCRA 254
People v. Bongalon, 374 SCRA 289 (consent, in flagrante,
waiver)
MORALES, GENIE C.
People v. Recepcion, GR 141923, Nov. 13, 2002 (hot pursuit,
waiver of illegality)
Personal Knowledge of the Offense
People v. Bagista, G.R. no. 86218, September 18, 1992
People vs. Gerente, 219 SCRA 756 (1993)
Padilla v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 121917, March 12,
1997.
People v. Sinoc, 275 SCRA 357 (1997)
People v. Baula, G.R. No. 132671, November 15, 2000
People v. Cubcubin, G.R. No. 136267, July 10, 2001
Time of Arrest
People vs. Rodrigueza, 205 SCRA 791 (1992)
Go vs. Court of Appeals, 206 SCRA 586 (1992)
People v. Calimlim, G.R. No. 123980, August 30, 2001
People v. Vinalon, GR 135542, July 28, 2002
People v. Mendez, GR 147671, Nov. 21, 2002
Marked Money
People vs. Enrile, 222 SCRA 586 (1993)
Lack of Urgency
People v. Pasudag, G.R. No. 128822, May 4, 2001
People vs. Aminnudin, 163 SCRA 402 (1988)
IV. Privacy of Communication and Correspondence
Art. III, Sec. 3(1)
Gaanan vs. IAC, 145 SCRA 113 (1986)
Ramirez vs. CA, G.R. No. 93833, September 28, 1995
Alejano v. Cabuay, G.R. No. 160792, August 25, 2005
Exclusionary Rule
Art. III, Sec. 3(2)
In Re Laureta, 148 SCRA 382 (1987)
Gutang v. People, GR 135406, July 11, 2000
KMU v. Dir. - Gen. of NEDA, 487 SCRA 623
V. Freedom of Speech and Assembly
Art. III, Sec. 4
Prior Restraint
Near v. Minnesota, 238 US 697
Freedman v. Maryland, 380 US 51
New York Times Co. v. US, 403 US 713
Alexander v. US - 113 S. Ct. 2766, 125 L. Ed. 2d. 441
INC v. CA, GR 119673 July 26, 1996
David v. Arroyo, 489 SCRA 160
Subsequent punishment
People v. Perez, 45 Phil. 599
Dennis v. US, 341 US 494
Gonzales v. COMELEC, 27 SCRA 835
Eastern Broadcasting v. Dans, Jr., 137 SCRA 628
Ayer Prod. PTY. LTD. v. Judge Capulong, 160 SCRA 865
Roxas v. De Zuzuarregui, 527 SCRA 446
United States v. O’Brien, 391 US 367
Speech and the Electoral Process
8|P a g e
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 REVIEWER MORALES, GENIE C.

Sanidad v. COMELEC, 181 SCRA 529 Victoriano v. Elizalde, 59 SCRA 94

National Press Club v. COMELEC, 207 SCRA 1 Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 US 296
Adiong v. COMELEC, March 31, 1992 US. v. Ballard, 322 US 78
Osmeña v. COMELEC, 288 SCRA 447 American Bible Society v. City of Manila, 104 Phil. 386
ABS CBN v. COMELEC, 323 SCRA 811 Ebralinag v. Division Superintendent, 219 SCRA 256 and December
SWS v. COMELEC, GR 147571, May 5, 2001 29, 1995
Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 US 205
Commercial Speech Pamil v. Teleron, 86 SCRA 413
McDaniel v. Paty, 435 US 618
Rubin v. Coors Brewing, 131 L. Ed. 2d 532 (1995) Goldman v. Weinberger, 54 LW 4298
Virginia State Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Lee v. Weisman, U.S. No. 90-1014 June 24, 1992
Council, Inc., 425 US 748 Church of the Lukumi v. City of Hialeach - No. 91-948 June 11,
Pharmaceutical and Health Care Association v. Duque, G.R. No. 1993
173034, 9 October 2007. Lamb’s Chapel v. School District, No. 91-2024 June 7, 1993
INC v. CA, 259 SCRA 529
Unprotected Speech Estrada v. Escritor, AM P-02-1651, August 4, 2003 and 429 SCRA 1
In re Request Muslim Employees, 477 SCRA 648
Libel
VII. Liberty of abode and of travel
Policarpio v. Manila Times, 5 SCRA 148
Lopez v. CA - 34 SCRA 116 Art III, Sec. 6
New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 US 254
Rosenbloom v. Metromedia, Inc., 403 US 29 Marcos v. Manglapus, 177 SCRA 668
Gertz v. Robert Welch, 418 US 323 Santiago v. Vasquez, 217 SCRA 633
Hustler v. Magazine, 485 US 46 Yap v. C.A., G.R. No. 141529, June 6, 2001
In Re Jurado, 243 SCRA 299
Borjal v. CA, GR 126466 January 14, 1999 VIII. Information and access to official records
Arafiles v. Philippine Journalists, Inc., 426 SCRA 336
Baguio Midland Courier v. CA, 444 SCRA 38 Art III, Sec. 7.

Obscenity Legaspi v. CSC, 150 SCRA 530

Valmonte v. Belmonte, Jr., 170 SCRA 256
Miller v. California, 413 US 15 Aquino-Sarmiento v. Morato, 203 SCRA 515
Gonzales v. Kalaw-Katigbak, 137 SCRA 717 Chavez v. PCGG, GR 130716 December 9, 1988
Pita v. CA, 178 SCRA 362 Neri v. Senate, GR 180643, March 25, 2008-09-23 and MR
Barnes v. Glen Theater, 498 US 439 Akbayan v. Aquino, GR 170516, July 16, 2008
F.C.C. v. Pacifica Foundation, 438 US 726
Renton v. Playtime Theater, 475 US 41 IX. Right to Form Associations
Bethel School Dist. v. Fraser, 478 US 675
Hazelwood School Dist. v. KUHLMEIER, 484 US 260 Art. III, Sec. 8.
Fernando v. CA, 510 SCRA 351
Loving v. Virginia, 388 US 1
Assembly and petition SSS Employees v. CA, 175 SCRA 686
Manila Public School Teachers v. Laguio, Jr., 200 SCRA 323
Navarro v. Villegas, 31 SCRA 73 UPCSU v. Laguesma, 288 SCRA 15
PBM Employees v. PBM, 51 SCRA 189
JBL Reyes v. Mayor Bagatsing, 125 SCRA 553 X. Expropriation
Malabanan v. Ramento, 129 SCRA 359
Bayan v. Ermita, GR 169838, April 29, 2006 Art. III, Sec. 9

VI. Freedom of Religion Exercise of Power

Art. III, Sec. 5 City of Manila vs. Chinese Cemetery of Manila, 40 Phil 349 (1919)
Moday v. Court of Appeals, 268 SCRA 368 (1997)
Non-establishment of region
Taking
Aglipay v. Ruiz, 64 Phil. 201
Garces v. Estenzo, 104 SCRA 510 Republic vs. Castelvi, 58 SCRA 336 (1974)
School District v. Schempp, 10 L 2d 844 City Govt. of Quezon City vs. Ericta, 122 SCRA 759 (1983)
Everson v. Board of Education, 330 US 1 Napocor v. Jocson – 206 SCRA 520
Board of Education v. Allen, 392 US 236 Napocor v. San Pedro, G.R. 170945, September 26, 2006
Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 US 602 U.S. v. Causby, 328 U.S. 256 (1946)
Tilton v. Richardson, 403 US 672
Country of Allegheny v. American Civil Liberties Union, 57 LW 504 Public use
Zobrest v. Catalina, No. 92-94 June 18, 1993
Capitol Square Review Board v. Pinette & Ku Klux Klan – U.S. No. Heirs of Juancho Ardona vs. Reyes, 125 SCRA 220 (1983)
94-780 June 29, 1995 Sumulong vs. Guerrero, 154 SCRA 461 (1987)
Islamic Da’wah v. Executive Secretary, GR 153888, July 9, 2003 Province of Camarines Sur vs. CA, 222 SCRA 170 (1993)
Taruc v. de la Cruz, 453 SCRA 123 Manosca v. Court of Appeals, 252 SCRA 412 (1996)
Estate of Jimenez v. PEZA, G.R. No. 137285, January 16, 2001
Free exercise of religion Reyes v. NHA, GR 147511, Jan. 20, 2003
Didipio v. Earth Savers v. Gozun 485 SCRA 586
9|P a g e
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 REVIEWER
Barangay v. Court of Appeals, 518 SCRA 649
Manapat v. Court of Appeals, 536 SCRA 32
Just Compensation
City of Manila v. Estrada - 25 PHIL. 208
Manila Railroad v, Paredes - 31 PHIL. 118
Municipality of Daet v. CA - 129 SCRA 665
EPZA v. Dulay - 149 SCRA 305
Maddumba v. GSIS - 182 SCRA 281
Meralco v. Pineda – 206 SCRA 196
NPC v. CA – 254 SCRA 577
Ansaldo vs. Tantuico, G.R. 50147 August 3, 1990
NAPOCOR v. Tiangco, G.R. No. 170846, February 6, 2007
Wycoco v. Judge Caspillo, G.R. No. 146733, January 13, 2004
Mactan v. Urgello – 520 SCRA 515
Judicial Review
De Knecht v. Bautista - 100 SCRA 660
Manotoc v. NHA - 150 SCRA 89
Republic v. De Knecht - 182 SCRA 141
Militante v. CA, GR 107040, Apr. 12, 2000
Expropriation of Utilities, Landed Estates and Municipal Property
Art. XII, Sec. 18
Art. XIII, Sec. 4
Art. XIII, Sec. 9
City of Baguio vs. Nawasa, 106 Phil. 114 (1959)
Zamboanga del Norte vs. City of Zamboanga, 22 SCRA 1334 (1968)
XI. Contract Clause
Art. III, Sec. 10
Rutter vs. Esteban, 93 Phil. 68 (1953)
Ortigas & Co. v. CA, G.R. No. 126102, December 4, 2000
Tiro vs. Hontanosas, 125 SCRA 697 (1983)
Presley v. Bel-Air Village Association, 201 SCRA 13
Caleon vs. Agus Development Corp., 207 SCRA 748 (1992)
Meralco v. Province of Laguna, 306 SCRA 750 (1999)
XII. Custodial Investigation
Art. III, Sec. 12
Miranda vs. Arizona , 384 US , 436 (1966)
Custodial Investigation
People v. Lugod, G.R. 136253, February 21, 2001
People v. Del Rosario G.R. 127755, April 14, 1999
People v. Bolanos, 211 SCRA 262 (1992)
People v. Mahinay, 302 SCRA 455 (1999)
Administrative Investigations
People vs. Judge Ayson, 175 SCRA 216 (1989)
Office of the Court Administrator v. Sumilang, 271 SCRA 316
(1997)
People v. Uy, G.R. No. 157399, November 17, 2005
Police Lineup
Gamboa vs.Cruz, 162 SCRA 642 (1988)
People v. Escordial, G.R. 138934, January 16, 2002
People vs. Piedad, et al., G.R. No. 131923, December 5, 2002
Cases before January 17, 1973 not applicable
Magtoto vs.Manguera, 63 SCRA 4 (1975)
MORALES, GENIE C.
Requirement of Competent & Independent Counsel
People vs. Bandula, 232 SCRA 566 (1994)
People v. Quidato, G.R. 117401, October 1, 1998
People v. Januario. 267 SCRA 608 (1997)
People v. Labtan, GR. No. 12793, December 8, 1999
People vs. Samus, G.R. 135957-58, September 17, 2002
People v. Tomaquin, G.R. No. 133138, July 23, 2004
People v. Bagnate, G.R. No. 133685-86 May 20, 2004
Counsel of Choice
People vs. Gallardo, G.R. No. 113684, Jan. 25, 2000
People vs. Barasina, 229 SCRA 450 (1994)
Counsel’s presence required in entire proceedings
People v. Morial, G.R. 129295, August 15, 2001
Confession to Newsmen
People v. Andan. 269 SCRA 95 (1997)
People v. Endino, G.R. 133026, February 20, 2001
People vs. Ordono, G.R. No. 132154, June 29, 2000
People vs. Guillermo, GR. No. 147786, January 20, 2004
Other Confessions
People v. Malngan, G.R. No. 170470, September 26, 2006
People v. Gomez, 270 SCRA 432 (1997)
Illinois v. Perkins, 496 U.S. 292 (1990)
People v. Lugod, G.R. 136253, February 21, 2001
Re-enactment
People v. Luvendino, 211 SCRA 36 (1992)
XIII. Right to Bail
Art. III, Sec. 13
Bail Defined
Rule 114, Section 1, ROC
Kinds of Bail
Rule 114, Sections 10, 11, 14 & 15
When right may be invoked
Herras Teehankee vs. Rovira, 75 Phil. 634 (1945)
People vs. San Diego, 26 SCRA 522 (1968)
Cortes v. Judge Catral, A.M. No. RTJ-97-1387, September 10, 1997
Lavides v. CA, G.R. No. 129670. February 1, 2000
Government v. Judge Puruganan, G.R. 148571, December 17,
2002
Procedure for bail
Paderanga v. Drilon, 247 SCRA 741, (1995).
Go v. Bongolan. A.M. 99-1464, July 26, 1999
People v. Gako, G.R. 135045, December 15, 2000
Bail on appeal
People vs. Fortes, 223 SCRA 619 (1993)
Maguddatu v. CA, G.R. No. 139599. February 23, 2000
Obosa v. Court of Appeals, G.R. 114350, January 16, 1997
10 | P a g e
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 REVIEWER
Standards for fixing bail
Rule 114, Sec. 9
Villasenor vs. Abano, 21 SCRA 312 (1967)
De la Camara vs. Enage, 41 SCRA 1 (1971)
Almeda vs. Villaluz, 66 SCRA 38 (1975)
Yap v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 141529, June 6, 2001
Cabañero v. Cañon, A.M. No. MTJ-01-369, September 20, 2001
Victory Liner v. Belosillo, G.r. 425 SCRA 79 (2004)
XIV. Rights of the Accused
Art. III, Sec. 14
a. Presumption of Innocence
Proof beyond reasonable doubt
People vs. Dramayo, 42 SCRA 59 (1971)
Presumption of Guilt
Dumlao vs. Comelec, 95 SCRA 392 (1980)
People vs. Mingoa, 92 Phil. 857 (1953)
Applicability to Juridical Persons
Feeder Int’l Line vs. CA CR 94262 May 31, 1991
b. Right to be heard personally or by counsel
Importance of Counsel
People vs. Holgado, 85 Phil. 752 (1950)
Delgado vs. CA, 145 SCRA 357 (1986)
Improvident Plea of guilt
People vs. Baluyot, 75 SCRA 148 (1977)
Right to Lawyer of Choice
Libuit v. People, G.R. No. 154363, September 13, 2005
Deprivation of Right to be Heard
Moslares v. CA, 291 SCRA 440 (1998)
c. Right to be informed of nature and cause of accusation
Lack of Arraignment
People v. Dy, G.R. 115236, January 29, 2002
Sufficiency of the Information
People v. Valdesancho, G.R. 137051, May 30, 2001
People v. Alcaide, G.R. Nos. 139225-28, May 29, 2002
People vs. Ostia, G.R. No. 131804, February 26, 2003
People v. Cachapero, G.R. No. 153008, May 20, 2004
d. Right to speedy, impartial and public trial
Speedy trial
Conde vs. Rivera, 45 Phil. 650 (1924)
Dacanay vs. People, 240 SCRA 490 (1995)
Public trial
Garcia vs. Domingo, 52 SCRA 143 (1970)
MORALES, GENIE C.
Impartial trial
Soriano vs Angeles, G.R. No. 109920. August 31, 2000
e. Right to confront witnesses
U.S. v. Javier, 37 Phil. 449 (1918)
f. Right to secure attendance of witnesses
People vs. De Luna, 174 SCRA 204 (1989)
g. Right to be present during trial
Trial in absentia
Rule 115, Sec. 1 (c)
People vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 140285,
September 27, 2006
When presence of the accused is a duty:
Arraignment and plea
Rule 116, Sec. 1 (b)
During trial for identification
Aquino vs. Military Commission No. 63
SCRA 546 (1975)
People vs. Salas, 143 SCRA 163 (1986)
Promulgation of sentence
Rule 120, Sec. 6
Exception: Light offenses
XV. Right to Speedy Disposition of Cases
Art. III, Sec. 16
Duterte v. Sandiganbayan, 289 SCRA 721 (1998)
Tatad vs. Sandiganbayan ; 159 SCRA 70 (1988)
XVI. Privilege against Self-Incrimination
Art. III, Sec. 17
Compulsory testimonial incrimination
United States vs. Tan Teh, 23 Phil. 145 (1912)
United States vs. Ong Siu Hong, 36 Phil. 735 (1917)
People vs. Otadura, 86 Phil. 244 (1950)
Villaflor vs. Summers, 41 Phil. 62 (1920)
Bermudez vs. Castillo, 64 Phil. 485 (1937)
Beltran v. Samson, 53 Phil. 570 (1929)
People vs. Tranca, 235 SCRA 455 (1994)
People v. Rondero, GR. No. 125687, December 9, 1999
People vs. Gallarde, G.R. No. 133025. February 17, 2000.
In what proceedings available
Pascual vs. Board of Medical Examiners, 28 SCRA 344 (1969)
Galman vs. Pamaran, 138 SCRA 274 (1985)
XVII. Involuntary servitude
Art. III, Sec. 18
Aclaracion vs. Gatmaitan, 64 SCRA 131 (1979)
XVIII. Imprisonment for debt
Art. III, Sec. 20
11 | P a g e
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 REVIEWER MORALES, GENIE C.

Frivaldo v. COMELEC - 174 SCRA 245

Sura vs. Martin, 26 SCRA 286 (1969) Frivaldo v. COMELEC – 257 SCRA 727
People vs. Nitafan, 207 SCRA 726 (1992) Labo, Jr, v. COMELEC - 176 SCRA 1
In Re: Habeas Corpus of Benjamin Vergara, G.R. No. 154037. April Labo, Jr, v. COMELEC – 211 SCRA 297
30, 2003 Aznar v. Osmena - 185 SCRA 703
Mercado v. Manzano – GR 135083 May 26, 1999
XIX. Double Jeopardy
II. Section 2
Art. III, Sec. 21
Bengson v. HRET, G.R. No. 142840, May 7, 2001
Elements
III. Section 5
People vs. Obsania, 23 SCRA 1249 (1968)
AASJS-Calilung v. Datumanong, G.R. No. 160869, May 11, 2007
Subsequent prosecution barred; Exceptions
ARTICLE V - SUFFRAGE
Melo vs. People, 85 Phil. 766 (1959)
PSB v. Bermoy, G.R. No. 151912, September 26, 2005 ARTICLE XIII - SOCIAL JUSTICE AND HUMAN RIGHTS
Heirs of Rillorta vs. Firme, 157 SCRA 518 (1988)
People vs. Judge Vergara, 221 SCRA 560 (1993) Section 17 (4)
Tupaz v. Ulep, GR. No. 127777, October 1, 1999
Argel v. Judge Pascua, A.M. No. RTJ-94-1131, August 20, 2001 Budget

Jurisdiction of Courts CHR Employees v. CHR 496 SCRA 226

People v. Bocar, 138 SCRA 166 (1985) SECTION 18.

Galman vs Sandiganbayan, 144 SCRA 43 (1986)
People vs. Grospe, 157 SCRA 154 (1988) Powers of the Commission on Human Rights
People vs. Judge Santiago, 174 SCRA 143 (1989)
Carino v. CHR - 204 SCRA 483 (no adjudicating power, no
Identity of Acts contempt)
EPZA V. CHR, et. al. – 208 SCRA 125 (no injunctive power)
People vs. Relova, 148 SCRA 292 (1987) Simon v. CHR – 229 SCRA 117 (no injunctive power)

Identity of Offenses ARTICLE XIV - EDUCATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, ARTS CULTURE AND
SPORTS
People vs. City Court, 154 SCRA 175 (1987)
Nierras vs. Dacuycuy, 181 SCRA 1 (1990) SECTION 5.

Plea of Guilt to Lesser Offense Academic freedom of “institutions of higher learning"

People vs. Judge Villarama, 210 SCRA 246 (1992) Garcia v. Faculty Admission, 68 SCRA 277
BME v. Judge Alfonso - 176 SCRA 304
XX. Ex post facto laws and bills of attainder Lupangco v. CA - 160 SCRA 848
University of San Carlos v. CA - 166 SCRA 570
Art III, Sec. 22 Capitol Medical Center v CA - 178 SCRA 493
Reyes v. CA – 194 SCRA 402
Kay Villegas Kami, 35 SCRA 429 (1970) Tan v. CA – 199 SCRA 212
People vs. Ferrer, 48 SCRA 382 (1972)
Wright vs. CA, 235 SCRA 341 (1994)

ARTICLE IV - CITIZENSHIP

I. In general

Art IV, Sec. 1

Valles v. COMELEC, GR 137000, August 9, 2000

Ong Chia v. Republic, GR 127240, March 27, 2000

Children of Filipino fathers or mothers

Gatchalian v. Board of Commissioners – 197 SCRA 853

Tecson v. Comelec, 423 SCRA 277

Paragraph (3)

Co. v. Electoral Tribunal - 199 SCRA 692

Loss of citizenship

12 | P a g e