Consti 2 Jamon

1
CONSTITUTIONAL
LAW II
Atty. Butch Jamon
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. PLACE OF JUDICIAL POWER....................................................................2
A. In General......................................................................................................2
Cases:.............................................................................................................................4
B. Case or Controversy Requirement: Elements.................................................7
Requisites for the exercise of judicial review................................................................8
Cases:.............................................................................................................................9
II. DUE PROCESS CLAUSE...........................................................................13

A. Procedural Due Process...............................................................................14
B. Old Substantive Due Process.......................................................................14
C. “New” Substantive Due Process..................................................................14
D. Protected Interests in Property.....................................................................14
Cases............................................................................................................................15
III. EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE.............................................................27
Block 1 SY 15-16 Dane & TTL [Constitutional Law II - Jamon]

2
Requisites for valid classification................................................................................27

Standards of Judicial Review......................................................................................28
Cases............................................................................................................................29
IV. FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION..................................................................36

WHY THE SAFEGUARD?........................................................................................36
A. Protected Speech..........................................................................................36
B. Unprotected Speech.....................................................................................37
Cases............................................................................................................................38
V. CHURCH AND STATE: THE WALL OF SEPARATION......................51

A. Establishment Clause...................................................................................51
B. Free Exercise Clause....................................................................................51
C. Unusual Religious Beliefs and Practices......................................................51
Cases............................................................................................................................52
VI. Unlawful Searches and Seizures.................................................................60

Cases............................................................................................................................60
VII. ACADEMIC FREEDOM..........................................................................62

Cases............................................................................................................................63
VIII. PROTECTED INTERESTS IN LIBERTY..............................................64

A. Non-Impairment of Obligations of Contracts...............................................64
B. Involuntary Servitude...................................................................................64
C. Imprisonment for Non-Payment of Debt......................................................64
D. Right Against Self-incrimination.................................................................64
CaseS...........................................................................................................................65
IX. SCOPE OF CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION....................................66

A. Who are entitled to Constitutional Protection..............................................66
Juridical Persons..........................................................................................................66
B. Who are subject to Constitutional Prohibitions............................................66
State Action Requirement............................................................................................66
I. PLACE OF JUDICIAL POWER * concept of judicial power is found in the second paragraph.
* The qualifications of Supreme Court judges are not subject to change
but the qualifications of lower courts may be. There really has to be a
A. In General duty to settle actual controversies.
{Const. Art. VIII, sec 1}
The judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in such lower courts as may be {Const. Art. VIII, sec 2}
established by law. The Congress shall have the power to define, prescribe, and apportion the jurisdiction of the
various courts but may not deprive the Supreme Court of its jurisdiction over cases
enumerated in Section 5 hereof.
Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual controversies involving
rights which are legally demandable and enforceable, and to determine whether or not there
has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of No law shall be passed reorganizing the Judiciary when it undermines the security of tenure of
any branch or instrumentality of the Government. its Members.

3
Judicial Power Judicial Review

{Const. Art. VIII, sec 4(2)} Supreme Court & Lower courts
All cases involving the constitutionality of a treaty, international or executive agreement, or
law, which shall be heard by the Supreme Court en banc, and all other cases which under the Definition
Rules of Court are required to be heard en banc, including those involving the
constitutionality, application, or operation of presidential decrees, proclamations, orders, Duty to settle actual controversies involving Power of the courts to test the validity of
instructions, ordinances, and other regulations, shall be decided with the concurrence of a rights which are legally demandable and executive and legislative acts in light of
majority of the Members who actually took part in the deliberations on the issues in the case enforceable, and to determine whether or not their conformity with the Constitution
and voted thereon. there has been a grave abuse of discretion [Angara v. Electoral Commission
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the (1936)]
part of any branch or instrumentality of the
{Const. Art. VIII, sec 5(2)} Government [Art. VIII,Sec. 1, par. 2]
Review, revise, reverse, modify, or affirm on appeal or certiorari, as the law or the Rules of
Court may provide, final judgments and orders of lower courts in: Requisites for exercise
(a) All cases in which the constitutionality or validity of any Jurisdiction – Power to decide and hear a case (1) Actual case or controversy
treaty, international or executive agreement, law, and execute a decision thereof (2) Locus Standi
presidential decree, proclamation, order, instruction, (3) Question raised at the earliest
ordinance, or regulation is in question. opportunity
(b) All cases involving the legality of any tax, impost, (4) Lis mota of the case
assessment, or toll, or any penalty imposed in relation
thereto.
(c) All cases in which the jurisdiction of any lower court is in
issue.
(d) All criminal cases in which the penalty imposed is reclusion
perpetua or higher.
(e) All cases in which only an error or question of law is
involved.
* The power to exercise review power is not limited to the Supreme Court because it is also
vested in such lower courts.
* If no more expeditious remedy after Motion for Reconsideration (Rule 65 – certiorari), go to
the Supreme Court.
Note: If the SC gravely abuses its discretion, the other branches of government may invoke
the separation of checks and balances
The Bill of Rights should be balanced with the power of the government.
o Bill of Rights > Power of Government = anarchy
o Power of Government > Bill of Rights = autocracy
The government cannot invoke the Bill of Rights for their interest (a limitation) because it is
for the people.
Judicial Power Judicial Review

Where vested

4
CASES:
Case Facts & Ruling Doctrine Related cases
Facts & Ruling Doctrine Related cases
Antecedent fact : Congress enacted a law that gave original jurisdiction to the SC of
mandamus.
A mandamus was filed by Marbury, with the Supreme Court, against Madison Landmark case in the US, where the
MARBURY v exercise judicial review powers are
compelling the latter to deliver his appointment commission. Marbury was appointed by
MADISON then President Adam, as a justice of peace. All the papers and proceedings have been defined.
Keywords: midnight complied with, it’s just the delivery of the commission finalizing his appointment that
appointments, sawi si was in issue. The new president, Thomas Jefferson, refused to honor the commissions, as they If two laws conflict with each other, the
kuya sa gabi were invalid having been delivered after Adam's term. Court must decide on the operation of each.
JUDICIAL POWER
The Constitution is the law of the land and
[will come out in the test HELD: The petition was denied. Congress enacted the Judiciary Act of 1789, which mandates all other laws are subservient to it.
In Marbury, two conflicting
that the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction over writs of mandamus. This is contrary to
he says] laws were in issue – the
Article III of the Constitution states it does not have original jurisdiction, merely appellate
constitution and and act by
jurisdiction over mandamus cases. The constitution prevails, making the act invalid for violating
Congress.
the constitution, thus dismissing the petition.
Angara filed a writ of prohibition against the Electoral Commission from taking cognizance of In Angara, two conflicting
the protest filed by Ynsua. Angara, Ynsua, Castillo and Mayor were candidates for the position agencies were involved.
of member of the National Assembly for the first district of Tayabas. Two different bodies
(ElecComm and HRET) issued two different resolutions regarding election contests. Issue is Both cases show that the SC
which body ought to give the deadline for the contests. has judicial powers to
SC is the only constitutional mechanism adjudicate actual and
HELD: ElecComm has the mandate from the Consitution. The SC is the only constitutional devised to finally resolve conflicts and appropriate cases and
ANGARA v ELEC mechanism devised to finally resolve conflicts and allocate constitutional boundaries. Judicial allocate constitutional boundaries. controversies, aligning such
COMM supremacy also dictates that SC, in exercising judicial review, has the power to adjudicate actual with the principles laid
Keyword: angara ng and appropriate cases and controversies in order to see that no one branch or agency of the However, acts of any other constitutional down in the Constitution.
buhay ni mayor government transcends the Constitution. The SC has jurisdiction over the Electoral Commission bodies, or other co-equal branch of
and the subject matter of the present controversy for the purpose of determining the character, government can only be tried by the SC
scope and extent of the constitutional grant to the Electoral Commission being the sole judge of when there is evidence of GADELEJ
all contests relating to the election, returns and qualifications of members of the National
Assembly
* similar to issue in Onsiako-Reyes case [sir mentioned this would come out in the exam]
A proclamation reserved a parcel of land of public domain in Bataan for “industrial estate GADELEJ clothing SC with
purposes” for Petrochemical Industrial Zone under the ownership of the Philippine National Oil Jurisdiction:
Company. BOI approved the transfer of Petrochem to Batangas as per the wishes of their
investors. Issue is WON BOI committed GAD when they approved such transfer. SC has the power to invalidate acts of
tribunals/ other branches of government
GARCIA v BOI
HELD: YES. The board cannot just arbitrarily allow the decision, regarding the use and when they have acted in grave abuse of
Keywords: B-BOYZ, oil utilization of public resources, be left to the “whims and wants” of the investors. discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction.
Dissent [sir’s comment also]: GAD on the part of SC. The Board of Investments are supposed
to be a group of specialized body on economics or politics and the SC is not one that is
knowledgeable about those subjects. Why should they replace the findings of the BOI
OPOSA v FACTORAN The petitioners sought to enjoin the respondent Secretary of DENR from approving and wanting Standing:
Keywords: oposa sila sa to cancel all existing Timber License Agreements. They also asserted the rights of their SC allowed inter-generational representation
putol trees generation and the unborn to a balanced and healthful ecology and that the matter is of judicial of generations yet unborn as valid
notice.
Political vs. Judicial question:
HELD: The TLA’s involve a judicial question. What is principally involved is the enforcement P refers to questions on policy and wisdom
of a right versus policies already formulated and expressed in legislation. The second half of Sec of an act as opposed to J, which deals with

5
enforceable/impaired rights
1 Art. VIII of 1987 consitution expanded SC’s jurisdiction to review the discretion of political When whoever enacts a law or policy is
departments when GADELEJ is alleged. found to have done so with GADELEJ, a
political question becomes justiciable.
Manila Prince Hotel, in a bid against Renong Berhad (a Malaysian firm), to acquire 51% of the
CONSTITUTIONAL
MANILA PRINCE v shares of the Manila Hotel Corporation, which owns the Manila Hotel, invoked the Filipino First
SUPREMACY
GSIS policy found in Section 10 of Article XII of the Constitution of the Philippines. Since GSIS
SC is the arbiter on how a constitutional Related to Marbury v
refused to accept its bid security to match the bid of the Malaysian group, MPH came to the
Keywords: feeling prince Supreme Court on prohibition & mandamus. Issue WON the provision is self-executory.
provision would be interpreted Madison: both referred to
si manila prince, spoiled the supremacy of the
brat, Filipino first Constitution over all other
HELD: NO. SC is arbiter on how a constitutional provision is to be interpreted. Supreme Court
laws or proclamations.
decided in favor of MPH in pursuant of the Filipino First Policy found in the Constitution.
Guingona:
Kilosbayan wanted to prohibit the implementation of a Contract of Lease executed by PCSO and
PGMC. PCSO issued a request for proposal of the contract and PGMC submitted its bid for
evaluation. Kilosbayan sent an open letter to President ramos opposing the on-line lottery
system but it still pushed through. Petitioners contend that an analysis of the contract shows that Standing:
it is PGMC that is the actual lotto operation and not PCSO. On the other hand, respondents A party’s standing is a procedural
claim that it does not violate the Constitution. technicality that can be relaxed in view of Related to Garcia, Oposa on
KILOSBAYAN v transcendental importance to the public of GADELEJ.
GUINGONA / HELD: A party’s standing is a procedural technicality that can be relaxed in view of the issues involved. The ramifications of all three refers to acts of
KILOSBAYAN v transcendental importance to the public of the issues involved. The ramifications of such issues such issues affect the social, economic, and agencies not found in the
affect the social, economic, and moral well-being of the people. moral well-being of the people. constitution
MORATO Requires partial consideration of the merits
Keywords: kilos ng kilos, Morato: of the case in view of its constitutional and STANDING: clothes SC
maligalig kilosbayan PCSO and PGMC signed an Equipment Lease Agreement for online lottery. Kilosbayan public policy underpinnings [Morato] with authority to exercise
PCSO contracts contended that the amended ELA was null and void for being the same with the old lease May be brushed aside by the court as a mere Judicial powers
contract. Respondents claim that it is a different lease contract and that the agreement did not procedural technicality in view of
have to be submitted for public hearng because it fell within the exceptions under EO 301 transcendental importance of the issues
questioning petitioner’s standing. involved [Guingona]
HELD: They do not have standing nor substantial interest to make them a real party because
there is no constitutional question involved. There is no proof that public funds are being spent.
What is essentially being questioned is a private contract.
Navarro, then Secretary of the Department of Trade and Industry, signed the Uruguay Round
Final Act, which stipulates that the Philippines agree to submit World Trade Organization
TANADA v ANGARA Agreement. On December 14, 1994, Resolution no. 97 was adopted by the Philippine Senate to
Keywords: WTO ratify the WTO Agreement. Petitioners filed a petition, seeking to nullify the ratification on the Related to Oposo on
agreement. agreement, viewing it as one that limits, restricts, and impairs Philippine economic sovereignty GADELEJ: When GAD is
Grave abuse of discretion:
Mapapagiwanan sa gara and takes for granted the Filipino First Policy making the Philippines not have a self-reliant alleged, SC is given
When acts are done within the ambit of the
economy as per the 1987 Constitution. jurisdiction to try the case
ng buhay if Phils did not department/agencies prerogative, SC cannot
but does not automatically
participate exercise judicial power. To do so would
HELD: Where an action of the legislative branch is alleged to have infringed the Constitution, it mean that the
amount to GAD on the part of the SC
becomes not only the right but in fact that duty of the judiciary to settle the dispute. The agency/legislative acted in
[will come out in the test Constitution did not intend to place the Philippines in isolation so it needs foreign investments, GAD.
he says] even though there is a bias towards Filipinos. Since it was already passed in Congress, it cannot
be now a political question. The senate voting to give its consent to the agreement is a legitimate
exercise of its sovereign duty and power.
SANTIAGO v The petitioner Teodoro Santiago Jr. is a sixth grader at Sero Elementary School scheduled to
BAUTISTA graduate on May 21, 1965 with third honors. Three days before graduation, he and his parents
Keywords: Grade 6, 3rd sought to invalidate the final list of honor students in the Grade 6 for school year 1964-1965 as
the respondents had prejudiced him, and violated the Service Manual for Teachers of the Bureau
honor LOL of Public Schools which provides the committee to select the honor students should be
composed of all teachers in Grade 6 and 5, principals and supervisors merely passed the

6
complaint around and that the 1 st placer was tutored by a Grade 6 teacher during summer. The
injunction was denied as graduation was the next day. Respondents moved to dismiss the case
on the basis that action for certiorari was improper as question became academic on May 24,
1965. It was granted.
HELD: There was no actual controversy. The Committee for Rating Honor Students is neither
judicial nor quasi-judicial body. It is necessary that there be a law that gives rise to some
specific rights of persons or property under which adverse claims are made and brought to
tribunal with competent authority. There is no law for such nor did petitioner present pertinent
provisions of the Manual which was violated by the Committee. Thus, the judiciary has no
power to rescind the award of the board of judges.

Alexander Bickel, The Supreme Court 1960 Term
B. Case or Controversy Requirement: Elements Foreword: The Passive Virtues, 75 HARV. L. REV 40
This means that there must be a genuine conflict of legal rights and interests which can be
resolved through judicial determination.
(1961)
Problem is the 15 members of the SC has the power to declare
unconstitutional the acts passed by over 300 members of Congress, elected by
Requisites for justiciability needs to be met [standing, ripeness, actual case and controversy, the people nonetheless. So why are we giving them that much power? This is
mootness] termed by Bickel to be “Counter-majoritarian” – the argument that judicial
review is illegitimate because it allows unelected judges to overrule the
The judiciary will not interfere with its co-equal branches when: lawmaking of elected representatives, thus undermining the will of the majority.
1. There is no showing of grave abuse of discretion
2. The issue is a political question. SIR’S OPINION: SC should adapt the power of self-restraint. They should adapt the virtues
of being passive, giving the presumption of regularity on the laws
Guidelines for determining whether a question is political or not [from Estrada v Desierto
citing Baker v Carr]: Excerpt from the article justifying judicial review being under attack by the counter-
1. There is a textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of majoritarian argument:
the issue to a political department; “It is the Court's function of declaring principled goals that the rule of the neutral principles
2. Lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards for would excise. More, it would require the Court to validate with overtones of principle most of
resolving it; what the political institutions do merely on grounds of expediency. Like Judge Hand, Mr.
3. The impossibility of deciding without an initial policy Wechsler appears to depreciate the function of the judges as "teachers to the citizenry." “
determination of a kind clearly for non-judicial discretion;
4. Impossibility of a court’s undertaking independent resolution
without expressing lack of the respect due coordinate branches
of government; STANDING
5. An unusual need for unquestioning adherence to a political
decision already made;
6. Potentiality of embarrassment from multifarious Legal Standing Locus Standi
pronouncements by various departments on one question Vests jurisdiction to a court over a case.
[note: there must be standing for a case to be tried]
Justiciable Question Political Question
Concept in Constitutional Law Concept in Remedial Law
Relate primarily to enforceable and Relates usually to a political issue
Does not inflict direct damage to parties, but calls You have to show that you really have a
dependable rights
for more than just a generalized grievance. right that was injured and damaged caused
Triable by courts Not triable for violation of co-equal branches of gov-
Until and unless such actual or threatened injury is established, the petitioners will not be
ernment
clothed with legal personality to raise constitutional questions
Talks of legality of an act/measure Talks of wisdom behind the laws of legislative, and
policies of the executive [exception to the rule on standing: issues of transcendental importance]
Refers to: (1) matters to be exercised by the people in

their primary political capacity; or (2) those specifi- Special Rules on Standing:
cally delegated to some other department or particular
office of the government, with discretionary power to Taxpayer (1) Appropriation; (2) Disbursement
act.
(1) Direct injury, (2) Public right; OR Art. VII, Sec. 18 (on the
Citizen sufficiency of the factual basis for martial law or suspension of the
privilege of the writ of Habeas Corpus)
Voter Right of suffrage is involved

(1) Authorized; (2) Affects legislative prerogatives (i.e. a derivative  Decision on the constitutional question must be
Legislator
suit) determinative of the case itself. The reason for this is the
(1) Litigants must have injury-in-fact; (2) Litigants must have close doctrine of separation of powers which requires that due
Third-Party relation to the third-party; and respect be given to the co-equal branches, and because of
Standing (3) There is an existing hindrance to the third party’s ability to the grave consequences of a declaration of
protect its own interest. [White Light v. City of Manila (2009)] unconstitutionality.
RIPENESS & MOOTNESS:

Ripeness of the controversy: The issue must be raised not too early that it is
conjectural or anticipatory, nor too late that it becomes moot.
Ripeness: the controversy must be actual and ‘ripe’ for adjudication. If what’s being contested
has not been promulgated, or having been promulgated, has yet to pose any danger or injury to
people, then it is not ripe for adjudication
Mootness: When an act or promulgation have seized to have any legal effect, ruling on such
would not resolve any controversy and is done merely for academic purposes.
General Rule: Courts will not decide questions that have become moot and academic.
Exception: Courts will still decide if:

(a) There is a grave violation of the Constitution;
(b) The situation is of exceptional character and paramount public interest is in-
volved; [transcendental importance]
(c) [Symbolic Function] The constitutional issue raised requires formulation of con-
trolling principles to guide the bench, the bar and the public; and
(d) The case is capable of repetition yet evading review.
REQUISITES FOR THE EXERCISE OF JUDICIAL

REVIEW
1. Actual case and controversy calling for the exercise of judicial
power:
 means that the case or controversy is appropriate for
determination. [includes concepts of ripeness and
mootness check explanation above]
2. Standing: [check explanation above]
3. Question of constitutionality raised at the earliest possible
opportunity:
 The reckoning point is the first competent court. The
question must be raised at the first court with judicial
review powers. Reason for this is to prevent the defense of
unconstitutionality as an after thought to an earlier
defense that may have failed
4. The issue of the constitutionality is the very lis mota of the case:

CASES:
Actual case and controversy
Standing
The PACU assailed the constitutionality of Act no. 2706 because they regulate the ownership
of private schools in the country. These laws provide that a permit should first be obtained
PACU v SEC of from the Secretary of Education before any person may be permitted to operate a private General rule on standing:
school. SolGen contends that petitioners have no legal standing because all of them have Not falling within any of the exception on
EDCUATION
permits to operate. standing, without the showing of injury
Keywords: PACyU di ka from a law/regulation, the complainanant
affected HELD: PACU did not show that it suffered any injury from the exercise of such powers cannot be said to have standing
granted to the Secretary of Education. Mere apprehension that he might revoke the permits is
not a justiciable controversy.
Hechanova authorized the importation of foreign rice to be purchased. Gonzales, a rice

planter, contended that RA 3452 prohibits importation of rice so they are acting without
GONZALES v Taxpayer standing: in questioning the
jurisdiction. Respondents contend that he does not have sufficient interest. Taxpayer standing:
executive agreements, standing as a
HECHANOVA In Hechanova, since the executive
taxpayer would prosper because in doing
Keywords: Rice HELD: Gonzales is entitled a chance to sell to the government the rice it now seeks to buy
such, the executive might be unlawfully
essentially uses public funds (tax
agreement abroad. The price of commodity would be affected with public funds and petitioner, being a payer’s money) to implement
disbursing public funds.
taxpayer, has sufficient personality to seek judicial assistance to restrain what he thinks is an projects for the people, taxpayer
attempt to unlawfully disburse said funds. standing is allowed
In Marcos, the funds being

Gonzales questioned the validity of EO 30 creating the CCP. The Board of Trustees accepted questioned came from private
GONZALES v donations from private sectors and President Johnson even gave money as war damage funds. donations and not from tax payer’s
The trial judge dismissed the petition as funds came from contributions and donations, not money. The nature of the funds
MARCOS Taxpayer standing: Donations does not
being so, being a tax payer does
tax. It was also alleged that the EO is encroaching on the legislative department.
Keywords: ARHT dami fall within the definition of “public funds”
not have any bearing.
alam donations HELD: The petitioner does not have the capacity to question the EO as funds held by CCP
came from donations and not tax.
Unjieng was convicted of criminal charges and he filed an application for probation under Act
no. 4221 but the Fiscal denied granting the probation for being in violation of equal
protection. Vera concluded that Unjieng is innocent but denied petition for probation. People
is claiming that Vera does not have power to place accused under probation because Section 1
The Government of the Philippines is a
PEOPLE v VERA of the Act applies only to provincial and not chartered cities like Manila. Vera claims that
proper party when questioning the
Keywords: sabog judge petition does not state sufficient facts.
validity of its own laws.
HELD: The People of the Philippines is a proper party in the proceedings because if the Act
really violates the Constitution, they have a substantial interest in having it set aside as there
will be damage caused by illegal expenditure of public funds.
FLAST v COHEN Taxpayer standing: pre-supposed allocated Gonzales v Hechanova & Gonzales
Keywords: flast reading, Flast objected to federal expenditures destined for sectarian religious schools under the funds from the government are from the v Marcos: check above
books for religious Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, asserting that it is in violation of the Free taxes paid by taxpayers
Exercise Clause. A three judge panel ruled that appellants lacked standing to maintain the STANDARD FOR TAX PAYER SUIT: In Flast’s case, since an act was
schools action as they must allege a particularized injury. [two nexus] passed appropriating money to a

HELD: Taxpayers have a standing to challenge congressional action when they allege a link
between their taxpayer status and the challenged enactment. Taxpayer status is not an absolute must demonstrate a personal stake in the
project or event, there Is a strong
bar to Article III standing requirements. They must demonstrate a personal stake in the outcome
presumption that what they are
outcome. Standing should be limited when taxpayers can only show incidental expenditures limited when they can show incidental
using are taxpayer’s money.
of funds. In the case at bar, they have alleged that tax money is being spent in violation of a expenditures of funds
specific constitutional protection.
Taxpayer standing:
The HoR adopted a resolution which directed the Committee on Justice to conduct an “any impending transmittal to the Senate of
investigation on the manner of expenditures by the Chief Justice through JDF. Estrada filed the Articles of impeachment and the
an impeachment case against Chief Justice Davide. Fuentebella filed second impeachment ensuing trial of the Chief Justice will
case founded on alleged results of legislative inquiry. Petitioner Francisco alleges that he has necessarily involve public funds.”
a duty as member of IBP to stop unconstitutional impeachment.
FRANCISCO v HOR Being a legislator:
Keywords: wHORe lang HELD: Legal standing is granted to all petitioners except Vallejo, who failed to allege interest “allowed to sue to question the validity of
mag file ng impeachment in the case. Because of the importance of the issue, the Court relaxed the strict rules of court any official action which (is claimed) to
Standing: can be relaxed if issue is
complaint, 2x within a to accommodate the filing of the complaint. infringe (their) prerogative as legislators.”
of transcendental importance.
year The first complaint was filed by Estrada and a second complaint was filed by Fuentabella.
[will come out in the test The Supreme Court defined the word “initiate”. To the association and members of the legal
The House has his own rules on impeachment and on the meaning of “initiate” – if there are profession:
he says]
2/3 votes of members of House that may have endorsed impeachment complaint, it has been as they advanced constitutional issues
“initiated”. which deserve the attention of the Supreme
If justice committee has opposed the filing of an impeachment complaint and upon appeal, it Court in view of their seriousness, novelty
is reversed by the floor then it is “initiated” (pinag-aralan). and weight as precedents (though their mere
The Supreme Court ruled that the rules of the House are unconstitutional invocation does not suffice alone to clothe
them with standing)
Ripeness
Petitioners are questioning the validity of an agreement expanding the power and authority of
Constitutional Commission. They wanted to oppose the proposal to have a change of
government.
TAN v MACAPAGAL Timing of the filing of the petition affects
HELD: There was still no injury at that point. Only after it has made concrete what it intends
Keywords: tantanan ako whether or not it’s justiciable or not.
to submit for ratification may the appropriate case be instituted. The Judiciary must leave the
macapagal ng effectivity Constitutional Commission free to fulfill its responsibility.
There’s no actual controversy when an act
at injury is not effective yet
Justice Laurel: Locus standi refers to a personal injury sustained by the complainant but in
Constitutional law, it is harder to apply because it involves a public right and not a civil right.
Public standing has a broader application than locus standi.
POE v ULLMAN A penal statute that has not been enforced is

Keywords: juskoPOE, The Connecticut Supreme Court of Errors construed a state penal statute as prohibiting the not ripe for judicial review.
buntis nalaglag use of contraceptive devices and the giving of medical advice on their use. Appellants
included a couple who had several pregnancies result with severely abnormal progeny which
makukulong pa died shortly after birth, a couple whose wife had experienced a severely traumatic pregnancy
and their physician, who believes the safest course of treatment for the couples includes using
contraceptive devices.
HELD: A penal statute that has not been enforced is not ripe for judicial review. Connecticut
has never attempted to fully prosecute any case under the statute. Because of this, not only
have the Appellants not suffered injury in fact from the statute, but there is no evidence that
they would be prosecuted for acting in violation of the statute.

Richardson sued Congress, hoping to compel release of detailed funding records of CIA
funding. He based his standing to sue on his status as a United States taxpayer. District Court
dismissed the case for lack of standing based on Flast v Cohen but CA said there was
sufficient standing.
US v RICHARDSON HELD: The party must show that he has sustained or is immediately in danger of sustaining
* this case is more on standing than ripeness Nexus ruling in flast stated here
Keywords: CIA no basis some direct injury as the result of the enforcement of the statute, and not merely that he
suffers in some indefinite way in common with people generally. He makes no claim that
appropriated funds are being spent in violation of a specific constitutional limitation upon the
taxing and spending power. There is also no logical nexus between the asserted status of
taxpayer and the claimed failure of the Congress to require the Executive to supply a more
detailed report of the expenditures of that agency.
Mootness
PGMA declared a state of rebellion, ordering the AFP and PNP to suppress that rebellion in
LACSON v PEREZ the NCR. Four petitions were filed contending that her state of rebellion was used to justify
Subsequent events to the filing of a petition
the warrantless arrests. Before the SC could act on the legality of the declaration, PGMA
Keywords: angrymob lifted her declaration.
may leave the same moot, it being that the
sugod kay ate glo very issue has seized to exist
HELD: The lifting of the declaration rendered it moot.
AFP entered into a mutiny into Oakwood Premiere Hotels, asking for the resignation of the
Chief of PNP, PGMA and Secretary of Defense. PGMA declared a state of rebellion, ordering
Perfect illustration of issues that
the AFP and PNP to suppress that rebellion.
are moot but are capable of
Exception to mootness: If an issue is
repetition yet evading review
HELD: It was lifted so the case became moot but the SC said that it will decide on cases, capable of repetition yet evading review.
SANLAKAS v EXEC otherwise moot, if it is capable of repetition yet evading review. There is no power to declare
SEC a state of rebellion in the Executive, but Congress. If the same act, which was previously ruled
Keywords: oakwood to be moot, happens again, then the court
mutiny [below will come out in the test he says] has the power to rule on the same, even
Capable of repetition yet evading review → You cannot declare a state of rebellion when moot, for the reason that the same
because it has no legal consequences. At most, it describes the objective reality that there is might happen again, still evading review
no state of rebellion.
Art. VII, Section 18: The Executive can declare a state of emergency, suppress lawless
rebellion and suspension of writ of habeas corpus.
DE FUNIS v When the original controversy has

ODEGAARD De Funis sued members of the Board of Regents for discrimination against him on account of disappeared prior to development of the
Keywords: de mafunis his race in violation of equal protection. He was then admitted to the law school but during his suit, it is deemed moot.
second year, the Washington Supreme Court reversed the judgment and held that the
funis issue sa law school admissions policy was not unconstitutional. The Supreme Court of the United States granted
admission De Funis’ petition for a writ of certiorari and stayed the judgment of the Supreme Court of
Washington pending final disposition of the case. The case came before the Supreme Court of
the United States for a full hearing when De Funis was in his final year of law school.
Although the law school assured that it would allow De Funis to graduate regardless of the
Court’s decision, both parties contended that mootness did not exist to block formal
adjudication of the matter.
HELD: The court held that when the original controversy has disappeared prior to

development of the suit, it is deemed moot. The case neither constituted voluntary cessation
(because the plaintiff was now in his final quarter so school couldn't do anything) nor was it
capable of repetition, yet evading review.
Dissent: the issue may not be capable of repetition in De Funis’ case, but it may happen again
to other people, the court should have ruled on the matter.

Artificial persons are covered by the protection but only insofar as their property is concerned
[Smith Bell and Co. v. Natividad, 40 Phil. 163]
II. DUE PROCESS CLAUSE
The guarantee extends to aliens and includes the means of livelihood. [Villegas v. HiuChiong,
86 SCRA 275]
{Const. Art III, sec. 1}
No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall The due process clause has to do with the legislation enacted in pursuance of the police
any person be denied the equal protection of the laws. power. xxx The guaranty of due process, as has often been held, demands only that the law
shall not be unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious, and that the means selected shall have a real
Const. Art. III, Sec. 9 and substantial relation to the subject sought to be attained. [Ichong v. Hernandez (1957)]
Noted exceptions to due process

In General
(1) The conclusive presumption, bars the admission of contrary evidence as
Due process of law simply states that “[i]t is part of the sporting idea of fair play to hear "the
other side" before an opinion is formed or a decision is made by those who sit in judgment.” long as such presumption is based on human experience or there is a ra-
[Ynot v. IAC (1987)] tional connection between the fact proved and the fact ultimately pre-
sumed there from.
It covers any governmental action which constitutes a deprivation of some person's life, (2) There are instances when the need for expeditious action will justify
liberty, or property. omission of these requisites—e.g. in the summary abatement of a nui-
sance per se, like a mad dog on the loose, which may be killed on sight
Definition
because of the immediate danger it poses to the safety and lives of the
Due process furnishes a standard to which the governmental action should conform in order
that deprivation of life, liberty or property, in each appropriate case, be valid. xxx It is people.
responsiveness to the supremacy of reason, obedience to the dictates of justice. Negatively pit, (3) Pornographic materials, contaminated meat and narcotic drugs are inher-
arbitrariness is ruled out and unfairness avoided. xxx Correctly it has been identified as ently pernicious and may be summarily destroyed.
freedom from arbitrariness. It is the embodiment of the sporting idea of fair play. [Ichong v. (4) The passport of a person sought for a criminal offense may be cancelled
Hernandez (1957)] without hearing, to compel his return to the country he has fled.
(5) Filthy restaurants may be summarily padlocked in the interest of the
A law hears before it condemns, which proceeds upon inquiry and renders judgment only after
trial. [Darthmouth College v. Woodward, 4 Wheaton 518] public health and bawdy houses to protect the public morals. [Ynot v.
IAC (1987)]
Life is also the right to a good life. [Bernas] It includes the right of an individual to his body
in its completeness, free from dismemberment, and extends to the use of God-given faculties In such instances, previous judicial hearing may be omitted without violation of due
which make life enjoyable. [Malcolm] process in view of: 1) the nature of the property involved; or 2) the urgency of the need to
protect the general welfare from a clear and present danger.
Liberty “includes the right to exist and the right to be free from arbitrary personal restraint or
servitude. [It] includes the right of the citizen to be free to use his faculties in all lawful
ways[.]” [Rubi v. Provincial Board]
A. Procedural Due Process
Property is anything that can come under the right of ownership and be the subject of The aspect of due process which serves as a restriction on actions of judicial and quasi-
contract. It represents more than the things a person owns; it includes the right to secure, use judicial agencies of the government. It refers to the method or manner by which a law is
and dispose of them. [Torraco v. Thompson, 263 US 197] enforced.
Scope and limitations Concerned with government action on established process when it makes intrusion into the
Universal in application to all persons without regard to any difference in race, color or private sphere.
nationality.
SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS:

Substantive due process, asks whether the government has an adequate reason for taking away
a person’s life, liberty, or property.
In other words, substantive due process looks to whether there is a sufficient justification for
the government’s action.
Substantive due process is an aspect of due process which serves as a restriction on the law-
making and rule-making power of the government.
The law itself, not merely the procedures by which the law would be enforced, should be fair,
reasonable, and just.
It guarantees against the arbitrary power even when exercised according to

proper forms and procedure.
Requisites:
Due process of law means simply that
(a) There shall be a law prescribed in harmony with the general powers of the
legislative department of the Government;
(b) This law shall be reasonable in its operation;
(c) It shall be enforced according to the regular methods of procedure pre -
scribed; and
(d) It shall be applicable alike to all the citizens of the state or to all of a class.
B. Old Substantive Due Process: Protection for Property
Interests
C. “New” Substantive Due Process: Protection for Liberty

Interest in Privacy
Warren and Brandeis, The Right to Privacy, 4 Harv. L.
Rev. 193 (1890)
Cortes, I, Constitutional Foundations of Privacy , in
EMERGING TRENDS IN LAW, 1-70 (1983)
D. Protected Interests in Property

“Mere Regulation” under the Due Process Clause versus
“Taking of Property via the Power of Eminent Domain

CASES
Case Facts & Ruling Doctrine Related cases
Due Process
Procedural Dude Process
Engracio Palanca, a Chinese man, mortgaged three parcels of land to Banco Espanol, but Essential Requirements of Procedural
moved away and never came back again. The bank instituted an action to foreclose the Due Process:
property. Since Palanca was a non-resident, it was necessary for him to be given notice 1. there must be a court clothed with ju-
BANCO ESPANOL v through publication and court directed clerk of court to send him notice through mail. dicial power to hear and determine
PALANCA Notice is an essential element of
the matter before it
due process, otherwise the Court
Keywords: banco vs HELD: There was no denial of due process as there was proper service of summons through 2. jurisdiction must be lawfully ac-
publication (in rem) even though there was no actual notice. will not acquire jurisdiction and its
invisible chinese quired over the person or property of
judgment will not bind the
[will come out in the test the defendant
defendant.
he says]  The problem is if publication is sufficient notice? There is truly no due process if 3. the defendant must be given an op-
you didn't notify. portunity to be heard
 Even if there is already execution, the execution of the decision is invalid because 4. judgment must be heard upon lawful
of lack of jurisdiction and lack of due process. hearing
Essential Requirements of Administra-

tive Due Process:
1. right to a hearing which includes
the right of party affected to
present his own case and submit
evidence in support
2. the tribunal must consider evi-
Toribio owns and operates Ang Tibay which laid off members of the National Labor Union
dence presented
ANG TIBAY v CIR because of the shortage of leather soles. The NLU aver that it was a scheme to systematically
3. necessity for the court to have evi-
Keywords: ang tibay ng terminate employees and that he is guilty of unfair labor practice. The NLU filed a motion
dence presented
for new trial.
leather soles 4. such evidence must be substantial
[will come out in the test 5. decision must be rendered on the
HELD: The newly discovered evidence obtained by NLU were inaccessible to them during
he says] evidence presented at the hearing
trial with CIR and these attached documents are important theat their admission would
and disclosed to parties
necessarily mean modification of rendered judgement.
6. court must act on its own consider-
ation of the law and facts of a con-
troversy
7. courts should render decision in a
way that parties can know all perti-
nent issues and reasons for deci-
sions.
ATENEO v CA Being given notice and opportunity to be
Siopao pa po A waitress in Cervini Cafeteria charged Ramon Guanzon for unbecoming conduct as he hit heard is enough to satisfy the due process
her when she told him that the siopao would take longer to heat. Juan was dismissed from requirement.
Ateneo after an investigation was conducted. His parents filed a complaint for damages
against Ateneo because their kid was expelled without a fair trial in violation of his right to
due process. Ateneo justified his dismissal on the ground that they have sole prerogative to
drop a student found to be undesirable in order to preserve and maintain its integrity. CFI
ordered Ateneo to pay damages but CA set aside the decision.
HELD: Guanzon was given notice of the proceedings, and even presented his side so all
requisites of administrative due process were met. He was already 18 and chose not to
inform his parents even though he was asked to seek advice from them. His conduct also

constituted grounds for dismissal.
Petitioners were not allowed to re-enroll to school for participating in student mass actions.
They filed a petition seeking their readmission to the school but trial court dismissed it as the
NON v JUDGE petitioners were able to air out their grievances. In their enrollment form, it says that the
Even when there is a valid claim of a right
college reserves the right to deny admission of students whose conduct discredits with the
DAMES to be exercised, if the adverse party is not
efficient operation of the college.
Keywords: non- given due process, it would make the act
reenrollment for you invalid
HELD: Excluding students because of failing grades when the cause of the action taken
against them undeniably related to possible breaches of discipline is a denial of due process.
They were dismissed outright.
The appellees were receiving financial aid under the assisted Aid to Families with Dependent
Children program or under New York Home Relief Program, and they alleged that city
officials administering these programs terminated or about to terminate such aid without
prior notice and pre-termination hearing. After suit was filed, New York City Department
GOLDBERG v KELLY provided for the recipient to challenge the termination of benefits within 7 days and a pre-
Keywords: Financial aid termination hearing.
coz gold LOL
HELD: Only a pre-termination hearing provides the recipient with procedural due process.
The interest of the eligible recipient in uninterrupted receipt of public assistance coupled
with the State’s interest that payments not be erroneously terminated clearly outweighs the
State’s interest to prevent administrative and fiscal burdens.
The UP Administration implemented the socialized scheme of tuition fee payments through
the Socialized Tuition Fee and Assistance Program (STFAP) wherein applicants need to state
their family’s annual income. Nadal did not declare his car nor his mother’s income. UP
UP v LIGOT charged him before Disciplinary Board which expelled him. Nadal filed with RTC for
injunction on the basis that he was not afforded due process.
Keywords: STFAP, hugot
ng UP HELD: Through the power to impose disciplinary sanctions, an educational institution is able
to exercise its academic freedom to suspend and refuse admission to a student who has
subverted its authority in the implementation of the STFAP. Such rules are incident to the
very object of incorporation and indispensable to the successful management of the college.
Lirag Textile Mills terminated the service of its employees on the ground of retrenchment,
resulting in the laying off of 180 employees. One of the employees filed for illegal dismissal.
NLRC, on behalf of employees, filed a complaint asking for separation pay. A writ of
execution was issued and DBP extra-judicially foreclosed the mortgaged properties for
DBP v NLRC LIRAG’s failure to pay. LAND filed a motion of garnishment but Labor Arbiter ordered Being given opportunity to be heard and
Keywords: land for DBP impleaded in interest of due process and ordered DBP to remit to NLRC the proceeds. present evidence contesting allegations
wages?? satisfies due process
HELD: DBP cannot rightfully contend that it was deprived of due process because it was
given the opportunity to be heard and present evidence. Property was mortgaged and
antedated the law on unpaid wages so it was secured way before the law was passed. Thus,
unpaid wages cannot be taken from DBP.
ESTRADA v Estrada questioned the constitutionality of the law as it dispenses with reasonable doubt, If the law is vague, there is no due process because you will not know what is
SANDIGANBAYAN abolishes the element of mens rea and violates rights to due process and to be informed of sanctioned.
the accusation against him.

[below is included in the test he said]
In a criminal prosecution for plunder, as in all other crimes, the accused always has in
his favor the presumption of innocence. This standard gives life to the Due Process
Clause which protects the accused against conviction except upon proof beyond
reasonable doubt of every fact necessary to constitute the crime with which he is
charged.
Difference between mala in se and mala prohibita in this case:

HELD: If the law is vague, you will not know why you are being prosecuted but in this case, Plunder is a malum in se, requiring proof of criminal intent. Precisely because the
it is not necessary to prove every act done in furtherance of the scheme. What is required to constitutive crimes are mala in se, the element of mens rea must be proven in a
be proved is the element of mens rea. The reasonable standard gives life to the due process prosecution for plunder. It is noteworthy that the amended information alleges that the
Keywords: paninidigan ni clause. crime of plunder was committed “willfully, unlawfully and criminally.” It thus alleges
guilty knowledge on the part of petitioner.
erap sa mens rea
 Plunder: Holding a position of influence in the government that allows you to
[will come out in the test amass at least 50,000. You cannot amass such great wealth unless you have that The fact that the acts enumerated in Section 1(d) of R.A. 7080 were made criminal by
he says] position. special law does not necessarily make the same mala prohibita where criminal intent is
o Estrada alleged that he did not steal because the 6 million was borrowed from not essential, although the term refers generally to acts made criminal by special laws.
GSIS and SSS as investment, and sold for 100. He says that he did not steal but For there is a marked difference between the two.
merely earned it.
There is a distinction between crimes which are mala in se, or wrongful from their
nature, such as theft, rape, homicide, etc., and those that are mala prohibita,or wrong
merely because prohibited by statute, such as illegal possession of firearms.
Crimes mala in se are those so serious in their effects on society as to call for almost
unanimous condemnation of its members; while crimes mala prohibita are violations of
mere rules of convenience designed to secure a more orderly regulation of the affairs of
society.
Old Substantive Due Process: Protection for Property Interests
The Bakeshop Act prohibited bakery employees from working for more than 10 hours per
day. Lochner violated Section 10, Article 8 for permitting an employee to work in his bakery
for more than that time. He filed a petition, contending that it violated his freedom to make a
LOCHNER v NEW contract in relation to his business under the due process clause. The limit of the police power was exceeded
YORK as there was no reasonable ground for
Keywords: lochner the HELD: A law that affects freedom of contract is unconstitutional if it is not reasonably interfering with the right of free contract by
baker related to a legitimate purpose of protecting public health. The limit of the police power was determining a baker’s labor laws.
exceeded as there was no reasonable ground for interfering with the right of free contract by
determining a baker’s labor laws. The limitation on labor laws has no direct relation to the
health of the employee as to justify the law as a health law.
AGRIX executed a REM over land to Philippine Veternans Bank but later became bankrupt.
Marcos issued PD 1717 which created a law to exempt the property of AGRIX from
mortgage foreclosure. Veterans took measures to extra-judicially foreclose the three Private property cannot simply be taken by
NDC and AGRIX v PHIL properties RTC ruled in favor of Veterans on the ground that decree is a violation of due law from one person and given to another
process as creditors were not consulted in public hearings before the law was enacted. without compensation
VETERANS
Keywords: condonation of HELD: The creation of New Agrix violated the prohibition of the Batasang Pambansa which Exercise of police power is wrong in this
debt na hindi tama shall not provide for the formation of private corporations unless these are owned or case because it unduly prejudices third
controlled by the government. Private property cannot simply be taken by law from one parties rather than favor the interest of most
person and given to another without compensation. The right to property owing to creditors
of Agrix are dissolved without regard to private interest violated.

Petitioners assailed the validity of an ordinance passed by the Municipal Board of Butuan
which penalizes any person who would requires children aged 7-12 to pay in full for being in
violation of due process for undue restraint of trade. The trial court and CA ruled that the
BALACUIT v CFI ordinance was valid.
In order for an ordinance to be valid, its
Keywords: balacuit sa
HELD: Ordinance invades the personal and property rights of petitioners as it is an unlawful purpose must have been addressed with
bulsa na magulang manood curtailment of the personal and property rights of citizens. The right of the owner to fix a reasonable means.
ng movie price at which his property shall be used is an inherent attribute of the property itself and
within the protection of due process. The purpose of the ordinance was to ease the burden of
parents but at the cost of the business which are made to bear the cost of savings and penalize
failure to comply.
New Substantive Due Process: Protection for Liberty Interest in Privacy
Petitioners violated the National Prohibition Act by unlawfully possessing liquor. There were
three telephone wires that were wiretapped by officers who listened to the conversations.
Petitioners contend that government’s wire-tapping constituted unreasonable search and
seizure while the government contends that the 4 th Amendment does not include telephone
Right to be let alone doctrine limits the
OLMSTEAD v US conversations.
powers and authority of the state to intrude
Keywords: wiretapping in the people’s private lives
DISSENT OF BRANDEIS: Right to privacy should be most protected. The very essence of
constitutional liberty and security apply to all invasions on the part of the government on the
privacies of life. Every governmental intrusion upon the privacy of the individual must be
deemed a violation of the 4th Amendment.
From Skinner up til Bowers, cases

A habitual criminal is a person who has been convicted two or more times for crimes dealt with the right to pro-create, a
involving moral turpitude. By Oklahoma’s Criminal Sterilization Act, a habitual criminal is fundamental right given by the
rendered sexually sterile as long as sterilization is without detriment to the general health, constitution.
while crimes involving embezzlement is immune. The petitioner was arrested for taking
chickens and for robbery with firearms twice, being convicted of the second robbery that the Griswold: Marital privacy is a
SKINNER v Act was passed. The Supreme Court of Oklahoma affirmed the operation of vasectomy. Fundamental right > state interests thing
OKLAHOMA Right to procreate is a fundamental right,
Keywords: skin off LOL HELD: There is no showing that the petitioner’s offspring would commit the same offenses and the state in trying to achieve eugenics Eisenstadt: Having sex is one’s
sterilization that his father would make. Procreation is fundamental to the very existence and survival of and sterilizing criminals do not align. own private act
the race such that any individual whom the Act touches is deprived of a basic liberty.
Roe: If I get preggers cause I had
Crimes involving moral turpitude is anything that is wrong, not statutory or mala prohibitum sex, I also have the right to abort
but mala in se. Anything that your conscience says is wrong involves a crime of moral the same
turpitude.
Bowers: there’s no procreation
because sex between two men will
Griswold and Buxton were prosecuted as accessories for giving information, instruction and never produce an offspring
GRISWOLD v medical advice to married persons by way of contraception. They appealed that the accessory
Penumbra of the rights to privacy implied
CONNECTICUT statute violated the 14th amendment. RULING IN LAURENCE:
in and from different statutes in the
El gamma penumbra of The right mention above was
constitution.
rights HELD: The law forbidding contraception violates the right to marital privacy thus is expanded to go beyond merely
unconstitutional. The association of marriage is a privacy right older than the Bill of Rights. having the right to procreate, but
the right to be let alone. That

William Baird was convicted under Massachusetts Law for exhibiting contraceptive articles
and for giving vaginal foam to single persons as the law makes it a felony for anyone to give
a drug away for the prevention of conception except if they are a registered physician
EISENSTADT v BAIRD administering or prescribing it for married persons.
The purpose of the enactment was not
Keywords: baird from HELD: The dissimilar treatment of similarly situated married persons and unmarried persons
achieved by limiting the law to just married
giving vaginal foam couples
under the Massachusetts law violates the equal protection clause. The prohibition on
contraception does not prevent married persons from engaging in illicit sexual relations with
unmarried persons. It the purpose was for health reasons, it would be overbroad with respect
to married and discriminate against the unmarried.
Jane Roe, a pregnant woman, wanted to abort her child but could not since her life was not
threatened as the Texas Penal Code makes it a crime to procure an abortion or to attempt one
except if it is to save the life of the mother. The District Court held that abortion laws were
void for infringing on the 9th and 14th Amendment.
ROE v WADE HELD: The due process clause protects the right to privacy, including a woman’s right to Abortion is part of a person’s prerogative to
terminate her pregnancy against state action, however, it is not absolute. Though a state the right to pro-create.
cannot completely deny a woman the right to terminate her pregnancy, it has legitimate
interests in protecting both the pregnant woman’s health and the potentiality of human life at
governmental intrusions are
various stages of pregnancy. The first 3 months is a matter of right that you can abort. In the
limited whenever fundamental
first trimester, you need the consent of the Supreme Court while you cannot abort your child
rights are concerned
in the last trimester.
The ruling in Laurence widen the
coverage to essentially saying that
Hardwick was charged with violating the Georgia statute criminalizing homosexual sodomy
what people do in their homes,
BOWERS v HARDWICK in the bedroom of his home. He was charged with littering and not sodomy.
their bedroom more specifically
There’s no constitutional right to commit
Keywords: Hard. Wick. HELD: The act of consensual sodomy is not prohibited under the fundamental right to sodomy.
cannot be regulated by laws.
HE HE HE sodomy privacy or any right protected under the Constitution. There is no precedent to support his
constitutional right to commit sodomy. The sodomy law was still considered valid.
Responding to a reported weapons disturbance in a private residence, Houston police entered

into Laurence’s apartment and saw him having consensual homosexual sex with Garner.
Whomever a person decides to engage with
LAURENCE v TEXAS
HELD: Whomever a person decides to engage with in sex cannot be intruded by the in sex cannot be intruded by the
Gay sex okay government. The aim of the sodomy law is to protect the minors and victims from such acts, government.
not to prosecute homosexual acts. Whatever two consenting adults do in the privacy of his
home has nothing to do with the government.

The Tecumseh School District adopted the Student Activities Drug Testing Policy which
required all middle and high school students to consent to urinalysis testing for drugs in order
to participate in any extra-curricular activity of a competitive nature. Earls and James alleged
that said policy violates the Fourth Amendment as they were not even in a competitive
activity. District Court ruled in favor of the school but CA reversed it as school failed to
BOARD OF EDUC v demonstrate an identifiable drug problem.
EARLS
The school has loco parentis or the right to
Keyword: extracurricular HELD: The school has loco parentis or the right to regulate activities in schools. The
regulate activities in schools.
non-athelic, assuming si schoolchildren were voluntarily participating in the activities, the urinalysis was
teh insufficiently intrusive and the results sufficiently private as well as that concerns about
student drug use were sufficiently immediate enough to hold the policy constitutional.
DISSENT: The policy testing all students who engage in extra-curricular activities
violates equal protection by being too broad for not distinguishing between extra-curricular
activities that may pose health and safety risks and those activities that do not
Fidel Ramos issued AO 308 for the adoption of a National Computerized Identification
Reference System. Blas Ople filed a petition assailing the constitutionality of the Order on
the grounds that it is a usurpation on the power of the Congress to make laws as it is not a
mere administrative order but a law, and intrudes into the citizen’s privacy. Lack of standards in obtaining data from
OPLE v TORRES
people can amount to an intrusion to their
Keywords: national ID HELD: It was unconstitutional because the scope of AO 308 is broad and vague so it will put privacy
people’s rights to privacy in clear and present danger if implemented. It also lacks proper
safeguards for protecting the information that will be gathered from people through people’s
biometrics, and thus may interfere with individual’s liberty as the government will be able to
track them down
Gloria Arroyo issued EO 420 which sought to unify an ID system among government
agencies. Petitioners allege that the EO is unconstitutional for it infringes upon the right to
privacy as it allows access to personal data without the owner’s consent and without proper
KMU v NEDA safeguards. A creation of a system organizing
Keywords: streamlining information already disclosed does not
government ID’s HELD: The data collected would only be limited to only 14 specific data and the ID card amount to an intrusion to privacy
itself will only show 8 specific data which are routine data. Furthermore, the EO applies only
to governmental entities that already maintain ID systems and it is just to help the system be
more efficient
Tecson was hired by Glaxo Wellcome and was made to sign a contract of employment which
stipulates that he needs to inform them of any relationship with a rival company so as not to
have conflict of interest. He fell in love with a person from a rival company but love
DUNCAN ASSOC v prevailed. He was asked to resign or his wife to resign and he kept asking for time, but was
not able to solve it. The company then transferred him to another area. Tecson filed but CA Due process was not violated because he
GLAXO WELCOME
held the policy as a valid exercise of management prerogatives. was given opportunities to be heard and/or
Keywords: love and other remedy the situation
drugs HELD: Trade secret is a property right and it is the right of Glaxo under their management
prerogatives to protect the same. There was also no absolute prohibition against relationships
between its employees and those of competitor companies but just wanted to avoid conflict
of interest.
Protected interest in Property

Mere regulation vs. Taking
Regulation Taking
No compensation given, 'cause deprivation is of a nuisance, disturbance to the public There is compensation because the property will be used for public benefit
Churchill and Tait were in billboard advertising. Their billboards were said to be offensive to Regulation
CHURCHILL v the sight so the Collector of Internal Revenue, by virtue of Section 100 (b) of Act no. 2339, An Act of the Legislature which is
had it removed. obviously and undoubtedly foreign to any
RAFFERTY
of the purposes of the police power and
Take it to church kasi HELD: The billboard was a nuisance as it is an obstruction of the sight of the general public. interferes with the ordinary enjoyment of
bawal billboard mo Nuisance can be destroyed by the police power of the State for the welfare of the general property would, without doubt, be held to
public be invalid.
The respondent was charged with violation of Section 30 and 33 of Act no. 1147 for
slaughtering a carabao for human consumption without a permit. He contends that the act
constitutes a taking of property for public use (eminent domain) without compensation. Regulation
US v TORIBIO The state had an interest in the protection of
Slaughter in the hauz HELD: The law is a legitimate exercise of police power. Carabaos are vested with public cows because it was used as a means to
interest as they are fundamental for the production of crops thus, the prohibition, so long as people’s livelihood
they are fit for agricultural purposes, is a necessary limitation on private ownership for the
protection of the community.
The municipal council passed Ordinance 7 providing that “any person who will construct or
repair a building should first obtain a permit from the mayor and violation of such shall make
him liable to pay a fine if the building destroys the view of the Public Plaza, it shall be
removed. Four years after, Fajardo filed a written request to the mayor for a permit to build a
PEOPLE v FAJARDO building beside their gasoline station but the mayor refused. Amounted to taking
Bitch don’t kill my vibe – The absolute prohibition on the land made
said the beautiful park, HELD: It is oppressive in the sense that it permanently deprives the latter of the right to use the “regulation” taking.
their own property thus overstepping the bounds of police power and amounts to a taking of
property without just compensation. It cannot permanently divest owners of the beneficial
use of their property and practically confiscate them solely to preserve the aesthetic
appearance of the community.
Petitioners' 6 carabaos were confiscated by the police for having been transported from
Masbate to Iloilo in violation of EO 626-A. He brought an action for replevin, challenging
the constitutionality of the EO. The trial court sustained the confiscation of the animals and
YNOT v CA declined to rule on the validity of the law on the ground that it lacked authority to do so. Its Amounted to taking
y-not transport caraboas? decision was affirmed by the IAC. Cannot complete deprive a person of his
[to be read as “why not”] property without due process
HELD: The confiscation was really valid but the method used was not proper for the purpose
of the law which was to protect the carabao. Even though the movement of the carabao was
prohibited, such prohibition would not lessen the slaughter or theft of carabaos.

Respondent owned a parcel of land of which there was a chicken farm, and it was beside an
airport. Four motored bombers of the US Government make loud noises and have bright Amounted to taking
lights which caused the chickens to commit suicide. If no such taking actually happened but the
US v CAUSBY
acts of the state deprived the people the use
Chicken suicide HELD: It can be said that there was taking in the form of partial taking as it depreciated the of their property, and it was found that the
property and the obstruction of the enjoyment of the owners. The space that directly is above public benefitted, then it’s taking
the poultry farm may be still owned by the landowner, to a certain degree
The Bureau of Telecommunications set up its own government system by renting the trunk
lines of PDLT and their agreement prohibits the public use of the service to private parties
but in 1948, it extended to the general public. However, PLDT says that it is taking.
Taking
HELD: While the parties may not be coerced to enter into a contract where no agreement is
REPUBLIC v PLDT Properties can be expropriated but not
had between them as to the principal terms and conditions of the contract, the Republic may,
Phone lines forced to enter into an “agreement”
in the power of eminent domain, require the telephone company to permit interconnection of
effecting the same
the government telephone system and PLDT. The beneficiary of the interconnecting services
would be the users of both telephone systems so that condemnation would be for public use.
Thus, the government has the right to compel PLDT to interconnect lines in the exercise of
police power.
The Philippine Air Force occupied the land of Castellvi, the judicial administrator of Alfonso
Castellvi, by virtue of a contract of lease. Before the expiration of the contract, the Republic
wanted to renew but Castellvi intended to subdivide it for sale to the general public. AFP Elements of Taking for Eminent Domain:
filed expropriation proceedings and was placed in possession of the lands. The Republic 1. Expropriator must enter private property
alleged that the fair market value of the lands was not more than 2000 per hectare when AFP 2. Entrance into private property must be for more than a momentary period
first had the taking of the property so their lands are residential with a fair market value of 3. Entry intro property should be under warrant of legal authority
REPUBLIC v CASTELVI not less than 15 sq/m. 4. Property must be devoted to public use or informally appropriated
Airforce 5. Utilization of property for public use must be in such a way as to deprive the
HELD: The taking of the Castellvi property for the purposes of eminent domain cannot be owners of the enjoyment of the property
considered to have taken place in 1947 when the Republic commenced to occupy property as
lessee. #2 and #5 were lacking as Castellvi and AFP entered into a contract of lease that was When the owner is deprived of the use of your property, then that is when
renewable from year to year and that she still remained as owner of the land and paid “taking” happens.
monthly rentals.
Ayala Corporation executed a deed of donation which covered Jupiter and Orbit Street to
vehicular traffic. The Mayor of Makati opened these streets to ease traffic. Petitioners
contend that they own the streets and should not be deprived of due process.
Regulation
BEL-AIR v IAC
There was not taking. They still own the
Gate sirain HELD: The opening of these streets does not amount to deprivation of property without due
land, it was just being utilized by the city
process of law without just compensation as there was no taking of property involved. The
purpose of opening the same was to ease traffic in Makati. The duty of local executives is to
take care of the needs of the greater number at the expense of the minority.

The President issued Proclamation 1811 which reserved a land for EPZA. San Diego, which
were the registered owners of the land, claim that these lands were expropriated to the
government without them reaching an agreement as to compensation.
JUST COMPENSATION is the
EPZA v DULAY HELD: Congress cannot provide for the amount of just compensation because it is within the
equivalent for the value of the property at
Port bayad functions of the Supreme Court. There should be a hearing in the court to make a
the time of its taking
justification why a certain property should be expropriated. Furthermore, tax declarations
presented by the petitioner as basis for just compensation is below the acquisition cost of
present owners would be confiscatory. Congress expropriated for the property with the
amount already provided for just compensation, which is WRONG.
NPC entered into negotiations with the spouses for the purchase of land for the construction
of an access road to its Angat River Hydroelectric Project. The issue to be addressed is only
NPC v CA the compensation which trial court put at 3.75 but CA said 7 sq/m.
Reckoning period is the time of taking for
Bayad ko bakit mo computation of just compensation
tinaasan HELD: The basis for just compensation should be the price at the time it was taken from the
owner and appropriated to the government. The just compensation should be 3.75 because
the construction of the access already commenced and that benefited the people.
Taking under Eminent Domain v Taking under Social Justice Clause

DE KNECHT v
BAUTISTA
REPUBLIC v DE
KNECHT
Petitioners are the owners of two large estates known as the Tambunting Estate and Sunog-
Apog in Tondo, Manila, both of which were declared expropriated in two decrees issued by
President Marcos, PD 1669 and PD 1670. The petitioners contend that the decrees violate
their constitutional right to due process and equal protection since by their mere passage their
properties were automatically expropriated and they were immediately deprived of the
ownership and possession thereof without being given the chance to oppose such
expropriation. The government on the other hand contends that the power of eminent domain
is inherent in the State and when the legislature or the President through his law-making
powers exercises this power, the public use and public necessity of the expropriation and the
fixing of the just compensation become political in nature and the courts must respect the EMINENT DOMAIN
decision. Taking invalid because the law that said so
MANOTOK v NHAf provided for an absolute prohibition to
HELD: The challenged decrees are unfair in the procedures adopted and the powers given to contest the amount of compensation.
the NHA. The Tambunting subdivision is summarily proclaimed a blighted area and directly ^^ a violation of due process
expropriated by decree without the slightest semblance of a hearing or any proceeding
whatsoever. The expropriation is instant and automatic to take effect immediately upon the
signing of the decree. No deposit before the taking is required. There is not provision for any
interest to be paid upon unpaid installments. Not only are the owners given absolutely no
opportunity to contest the expropriation, or question the amount of payments fixed by the
decree, but the decision of the NHA are expressly declared beyond judicial review. PD 1669
and 1670 are declared unconstitutional. Such singling out of properties does not foreclose
judicial scrutiny as to whether such expropriation by legislative act transgresses the due
process and equal protection and just compensation guarantees of the Constitution

Petitioners filed a petition for prohibition against Ordinance 4670 contending that the
ordinance was beyond the powers of the Municipal Board of Manila to regulate due to the
fact that hotels were not part of its regulatory powers. They were a violation of due process EMINENT DOMAIN
ERMITA MALATE because the hotels would be open for inspection from city authorities, a prohibition on age It was a valid exercise of eminent domain.
HOTEL v CITY OF and they cannot lease any room more than twice within 24 hours, violating such would cause Liberty is understood to be regulated by law
MANILA automatic cancellation of hotel licenses. for the good of the individual and peace and
order of society
HELD: It was a valid exercise of eminent domain. Liberty is understood to be regulated by
law for the good of the individual and peace and order of society
Article XIII of the Constitution on Social Justice and Human Rights includes a call for the
adoption by the State of an agrarian reform program. The Association of Small Landowners
in the Philippines, Inc. sought exception from the land distribution scheme provided for in
R.A. 6657, as their lands were less than 7 hectares. In another case, Nicolas Manaay
questioned the validity of the agrarian reform laws (PD 27, EO 228, and 229) on the ground
that these laws already valuated their lands for the agrarian reform program and that the
specific amount must be determined by the Department of Agrarian Reform despite the fact
ASSOC OF SMALL that it should be determined by the courts.
SOCIAL JUSTICE
LANDOWNERS v SEC HELD: The Comprehensive Agrarian Reform is not violative of due process. It is true that
AGRARIAN REFORM the determination of just compensation is a power lodged in the courts. However, there is no
law which prohibits administrative bodies like the DAR from determining just compensation.
In fact, just compensation can be that amount agreed upon by the landowner and the
government – even without judicial intervention so long as both parties agree. What is
contemplated by law however is that, the just compensation determined by an administrative
body is merely preliminary. If the landowner does not agree with the finding of just
compensation by an administrative body, then it can go to court and the determination of the
latter shall be the final determination
The President approved RA 6657 which includes the raising of livestock, swine and poultry
in the CARP. The petitioners question their inclusion in the Agrarian Reform law as they
were working in the business of raising livestock, swine and poultry.
LUZ FARMS v SEC HELD: The livestock is excluded in the concept of “agriculture” so it cannot be expropriated
per the Agrarian Reform Law. The transcripts of the Constitutional Commission of 1986
show that it was never the intention of the framers of the Constitution to include the livestock
and poultry industry in the Agrarian program
CARIDAY v CA
[dissent will come out in Forbes Park Association is a non-profit corporation whose members are bound by the rules
the test he says] and regulations stipulated in the Deed of Restrictions. Cariday Investment Corporation is the
owner of a residential building in the Forbes Park Subdivision. Cariday decided to construct
a one-storey residence with the interior that can be occupied by two occupants, leasing it to
one lessor and another to Proctor and Gamble.
HELD: The purpose of the restriction is to avoid overcrowding both in the houses and
subdivision which would result In pressure upon common facilities and accelerate the
deterioration of roads.
DISSENT: It would not lead to overcrowding and the millions of properties of single-storey
residences would make the spending more. We have to curb the lifestyle of the rich people in

Forbes against ostentatious of wealth.

[will come out in the test he says]
III. EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE There are at least three standards of judicial review over equal protection cases.
FIRST, old equal protection doctrine, which applies the rational basis test. Under this test, the
{Consti. Art. III, Sec. 1} Court will uphold a classification, if it bears a rational relationship to an end of government,
which is not prohibited by the Constitution.
No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall
any person be denied the equal protection of the laws. SECOND, new equal protection doctrine, which applies the strict scrutiny test. The Court will
require the government to show that it is pursuing a compelling or overriding end, of which
Sir: There’s no such thing as absolute equality. As long as there is equality among equals an the Court reserves for itself the right to make an independent determination of whether the
act/restriction/policy regarding a certain class is valid. classification is necessary to promote that compelling interest.
two categories of civil liberties cases:
“Equal protection requires that all persons or things similarly situated should be treated alike, (a) when the governmental act classifies people in terms of their ability to
both as to rights conferred and responsibilities imposed. Similar subjects should not be treated exercise a fundamental right; and
differently, so as to give undue favor to some and unjustly discriminate against others. (b) when the government classification distinguishes between persons, in
terms of any right, upon some “suspect” basis, such as race, national
REQUISITES FOR VALID CLASSIFICATION origin, or alienage.
(a) It must rest on substantial distinctions which make real differences;
THIRD, newer equal protection doctrine called two-tiered level of review, and applies the
(b) It must be germane to the purpose of the law;
intensified means test. The first tier consists of the rational relationship test, and the second
(c) It must not be limited to existing conditions only. tier consists of the strict scrutiny test. Strict judicial scrutiny is applied when legislation
(d) Apply equally to all members of the same class. impinges on fundamental rights, or implicates suspect classes, and legislation is upheld
only if it is precisely tailored to further a compelling governmental interest.
{Consti. Art. II, Sec. 14} It becomes important to determine whether a given right is “fundamental” and whether a
given class is “suspect”. Fundamental rights include rights to marriage and procreation,
(1) No person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense without due voting, fair administration and justice, and other constitutional rights. Suspect classes include
process of law. race or national origin, religion and alienage.
(2) In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is The Philippine Court has applied the rational relationship test to equal protection cases, more
proved, and shall enjoy the right to be heard by himself and counsel, to be informed of the notably to cases involving alienage which is apparently considered a relevant status because
nature and cause of the accusation against him, to have a speedy, impartial, and public trial, to of constitutional differences in the treatment of aliens and citizens.
meet the witnesses face to face, and to have compulsory process to secure the attendance of
witnesses and the production of evidence in his behalf. However, after arraignment, trial may In the Philippines, the equal protection clause, phrased as it is after the American model, may
proceed notwithstanding the absence of the accused: Provided, that he has been duly notified pose problems of legislative and administrative classifications of the extent of the
and his failure to appear is unjustifiable. compatibility of political liberty and economic equality.
In the resolution of these problems, the "new" equal protection could prove to be a useful and
{Consti. Art. II, Sec 22} equitable technique of judicial analysis, in the hands of a Supreme Court sentient to the
No ex post facto law or bill of attainder shall be enacted. continuing need to prevent invidious discrimination against disadvantaged victims of
legislative classification or in the exercise of certain fundamental rights by the Filipino people,
as a justice constituency.
Defensor-Santiago, The New Equal Protection, 58 Phil. *see table -> for summary. The whole thing is basically the standards of judicial review
L. J. 1
(March 1993)

For Sir: Santiago’s point is that the modern context of equal protection, the court goes beyond
merely scrutinizing whether the law adheres to the Constitution but rather see whether it really
serves its intended purpose.
STANDARDS OF JUDICIAL REVIEW
Level of Scrutiny Classification Made Requisites for Validity
Rational Basis Classifications, in general Test of valid classification
Substantial distinction;
Germane to the purpose of the law;
Not limited to existing conditions only;
Must apply equally to all within the class
Intermediate/ Gender, illegitimacy Substantial government interest
Heightened Availability of less restrictive means
Scrutiny
Strict Scrutiny Affects fundamental rights; or Compelling state interest
suspect classification Absence of less restrictive means
Suspect classification:
PHL: A class given special
protection by the Constitution
US: Race

CASES
Congress passed RA 1180 which was to prevent persons who are not citizens of PH from having
a stranglehold upon people’s economic life. Inchong contended that the Act denies alien
residents of their liberty and property without due process and equal protection.
ICHONG v Equality among equals
HELD: Equal protection clause does not demand absolute equality among residents but requires
HERNANDEZ For as long as classification is based on Persons belonging in the
that all persons should be treated alike. The difference in status between citizens and aliens
[inicha business ni constitutes a basis for reasonable classification in the exercise of police power. The law does not sufficient grounds, it is constitutional same category should be
ichong] violate the equal protection clause of the Constitution because sufficient grounds exist for the treated alike
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.
President Roosevelt issued an executive order authorizing military authorities to prescribe

military areas. The Japanese-Americans, although of American citizenship, were required to be
placed in a military reservation. Korematsu, an American citizen of Japanese descent, refused to
KOREMATSU v US leave his home so he was imprisoned. Compelling state interest is an example of a
sufficient reason
HELD: The purpose the order was to prevent espionage and sabotage as the US was still in a
time of war so the order was upheld as not being violative of the EPC.
A Louisiana statute required separate railway cars for blacks and whites and it authorized the
railway authorities to make the person move to the seat he is supposed to be in or imprison him.
PLESSY v FERGUSON Plessy who was of mixed blood, took a seat in the car designated for whites and refused to move Separate but equal
[ain’t no one whiter than to the car reserved for blacks. He challenged the statute for being in violation of EPC. If segregation and separation would still Race being the lone factor in
Fergie. Separate train yield “substantially equal” treatment, it is favoring someone is
HELD: The law is within constitutional boundaries, basing it on the separate but equal doctrine. valid.
cars] unconstitutional
The separate facilities for blacks and whites satisfied the EPC. In the decision of the Court, they
contended that segregation does not in itself constitute unlawful discrimination.
African American minors had been denied admittance to certain public schools based on laws
allowing public education to be segregated by race, arguing that such segregation violates the
Equal Protection Clause. They were denied relief based on the precedent set by Plessy v.
Ferguson, which established the “separate but equal” doctrine that stated separate facilities for
BROWN v BOE the races was constitutional as long as the facilities were “substantially equal.”
[dark brown students
DENIED] HELD: It reserved the decision of Plessy v Ferguson about the “separate but equal” doctrine as a
violation of EPC. The segregation of public education based on race instilled a sense of
inferiority that had a detrimental effect on the education and personal growth of African-
American children.
UNIV of CALI v
BAKKE Allan Bakke, a thirty-five-year-old white man, had twice applied for admission to the University
[magBAKKE ka na lang, of California Medical School at Davis. He was rejected both times. The school reserved sixteen
places in each entering class of one hundred for "qualified" minorities, as part of the university's

affirmative action program, in an effort to redress longstanding, unfair minority exclusions from
the medical profession. Bakke's qualifications (college GPA and test scores) exceeded those of
any of the minority students admitted in the two years Bakke's applications were rejected. Bakke
contended, first in the California courts, then in the Supreme Court, that he was excluded from
admission solely on the basis of race.
wag na med] The school created a quota for certain groups of minorities so the only qualification for them to
be accepted is the color of their skin.
HELD: The school used a racial quota in the admission policy. That qualification is a violation
of the EPC. Aside from the color of your skin, there should be other factors other than the color
of the skin. Color should not be the lone decisive factor in admission to a school.
The University of Michigan receives a high volume of applicants each year to its College of
Literature, Science and the Arts. To help with admission decisions, the University implements a
point system. A student that is an underrepresented group automatically receives 20 points
towards his of her over all score. The groups of students typically come from African-American,
GRATZ v BOLLINGER Hispanic, and Native American backgrounds. A student with extraordinary artistic talent only
[GRATZi not – why receives 5 points under the admission system. A group of white students, that were determined
score? This ain’t a boll qualified by the University, were denied admission.
game] HELD: The policy was treated as valid because it merely promoted diversity in the school so it
was valid. An admission system that grants points for certain characteristics such as race is not
an individual assessment.
Myra Bradwell was a nice lady who applied for a license to practice law. She accompanied her
petititon with the all the requirements needed and on due examination was found to possess the
requisite qualification to obtain a license. The Supreme Court of Illinois denied her application
on the ground that the practice of law is a privilege and said that “God designed the sexes to
occupy different spheres of action and that it belonged to men to make, apply and execute the
laws.” Bradwell questioned the ruling: Can a female citizen, DULY qualified in respect of age,
character and learning be given a license to practice The type of scrutiny that
BRADWELL v will be given to a
ILLINOIS HELD: Original Constitution: 'The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all privileges and classification is dependent
[Bradwell not well immunities of citizens in the several States.' Under this provision each State could determine for on which type it is. Check
enough for law] itself what the privileges and immunities of its citizens should be. A citizen emigrating from one the table for standards of
State to another carried with him, not the privileges and immunities he enjoyed in his native judicial review
State, but was entitled, in the State of his adoption, to such privileges and immunities as were
enjoyed by the class of citizens to which he belonged by the laws of such adopted State. But the
fourteenth amendment executes itself in every State of the Union. Whatever are the privileges
and immunities of a citizen in one State, such citizen, emigrating, carries them with him into any
other State of the Union.
GOESART v CLEARLY
[can’t see clearly after There was a Michigan statute that required all bartenders to hold licenses in cities with
going to a bar] populations greater than 50,000 wherein women could not be issued a license unless she was
“the wife or daughter of the male owner” of a liquor establishment. The petitioners challenged
the law on the ground that it violated the EPC. A three-judge panel of the District Court of
Michigan rejected their claim.

HELD: The statute was upheld as the Court looked into the social and moral implications if
women were allowed to become owners of liquor establishments or become barmaids.
DISSENT: It is discriminating
What was assailed was a provision in an insurance contract. California operated a disability
insurance system that supplemented workers compensation, which provided for payments for
disabilities not covered by workers compensation BUT excluded pregnancy related conditions.
GEDULDIG v AIELLO HELD: Provision is constitutional. California could constitutionally choose which disabilities to
[AIEEEEEEO, insure. The excluded conditions do not affect women alone, but both men and women with the
PREGGOO] savings given by the program
DISSENT: the exclusion discriminates against women. “singling out for less favorable treatment
a gender-linked disability peculiar to women, thus creating a double standard.”
Joe Hogan, a dude, is a registered nurse but does not hold a degree in nursing. He applied for
admission to the School of Nursing in the Mississippi University for Women, an all-girls school.
Although he was otherwise qualified, he was denied admission solely because he was a dude,
but was told he would still take nursing classes, he just cannot enroll for credit. The school and
MISSISSIPPI UNIV lower court maintained that in keeping the institution exclusively for girls, they are merely
SCHOOL for WOMEN v exercising the State’s legitimate interest in providing the greatest practical range of educational
HOGAN opportunities for its female students.
[all girls school. Hogan.]
HELD: The Supreme Court found the policy unconstitutional. The University failed to
substantially support the allegation that the women will be disturbed if a dude would study there.
The school even propagated the discrimination that nursing is for women.
Michael M raped a 16 y/o girl. He was charged for violating the California Statutory Rape Law,
which defines unlawful sexual intercourse as “an act of sexual intercourse accomplished with a
female ”an act of sexual intercourse accomplished with a female not the wife of the perpetrator,
MICHAEL M v where the female is under the age of 18. He challenged the statute for being violative of Equal
SUPERIOR COURT Protection Clause since it unlawfully discriminates on the basis of gender.
[Michael learns to rock… Minority a valid classification
back and forth… on a HELD: The statute intends to equalize, not discriminate against men. The Court considered the
kid] suffering of the women, which is more burdensome, compared to men in rape cases. But the
main justification is that the legislature sought to prevent illegitimate teenage pregnancies. The
Court held that the statute is justified related to the state’s objectives.
PERSONNEL [will come out in the test he says]

ADMINISTRATOR v Feeny is a female who had been applying for higher paying jobs under the civil service. Even 4 elements of valid distinction
FEENEY though she passed the exams with high marks, veterans have been favored over her. There is a [classification]:
Massachusetts legislation that provides that qualified veterans should be preferred over non- 1. substantial distinction
[Pinersonal si Feeney sa veterans. The statute grants an absolute lifetime preference to veterans by requiring that “any 2. germane to the purpose of the law
trabaho] person male or female, including a nurse” qualifying for a civil service position, who was 3. must not be limited to existing
honorably discharged from the US Armed Forces after at least 9- days of active service, at least conditions
one day in wartime, must be considered for appointment to a civil service position ahead of any 4. must apply equally to all members of

qualified non-veterans.
HELD: the classification “veteran” is a gender-neutral concept, so the system does on

discriminate women. The case is unusual in that it involves a law that by design is not neutral.
This is just an example of a well-accepted form of benefit given to people who have sacrificed a the same class
lot in the service for the country. Since the purpose of the statute is to benefit veterans, then the
obvious consequence is that non-veterans would be disadvantaged; but if everyone agrees that
the distinction is a valid kind of policy, then there is no problem. It all boils down to seeing
whether the purpose of the law is valid.
An ordinance was passed in California regulating the laundry business and prescribing certain
limits as a precaution to prevent accident cases of fires. Only Yick Wo was imprisoned for
failing to pay the fine for violating the ordinance. The Board of Supervisors then denied licenses
to operate laundries to Yick Wo, along with 200 other Chinese operators. The Board, however,
granted licenses to non-Chinese operators who were similarly situated as the Chinese.
YICK WO v HOPKINS HELD: The Chinese were discriminated because they monololized the laundry business. But
[WO-ah dur. Laundries] that aside, the ordinance violated the equal protection clause. It was evident that the Board’s
granting ordinances were discriminating through race. The Chinese are also protected by the
constitution as they fall under the US’s jurisdiction Even thoough the Chinese laundry owners
were not American citizens, they were still entitled to equal protection under the 14 th
Amendment. The intention of the ordinance was to reduce to risk of fire but the Court noted that
only Chinese laundries were affected. The Court concluded that the statute was intended to
reduce Chinese laundries rather than the risk of fire.
Fragante, aged 60, immigrated from the Philippines to Hawaii. He applied as an entry level CSC Requirements to be considered a prima facie
job, entailing tasks, which includes providing routine information to the public over the case of discrimination on the basis of
telephone and at an information counter. He took the test for the position and even got the national origin:
highest score among 700+ takers. When he was interviewed, as part of the selection process, the
FRAGANTE v CITY OF supervisors stressed that the ability to speak clearly was one of the most important skills needed 1. identifiable national origin
HONOLULU for the position. But due to Fragante’s Filipino accent, both interviewers had a difficult time 2. qualified for a job that the employers
[Fragments lang natira. understanding him, eventually giving him a negative recommendation. From #1 he was dropped were seeking
to #3 and the job was given to the top two applicants. Fragante alleged that he was discriminated 3. that he was rejected despite his
No job] on the basis of his national origin. qualification
the position remained open and the
HELD: The SC found that there was no discrimination. The job was imbued with public interest employer continued to seek applicants from
and language was essential to the job. the persons of complaint’s qualification
New Equal Protection

INTERNATIONAL Sir: they should have considered the
SCHOOL ALLIANCE v The International School Alliance hires both foreign and local teachers as members of its faculty dislocation factor for those leaving their
QUISUMBING and classifies them into two-categories, either as a local-fire or as a foreign hire. The School countries to stay in the Philippines. A
grants foreign-hires certain benefits not accorded to local hires. Moreover, foreign-hires receive premium must be given somehow
[internationals > local] 25% higher salary compared to the local-hires. A collective bargaining agreement began
negotiations which contested the difference in salary rates between foreign and local-hires,
eventually causing a deadlock. DOLE broke the deadlock by ruling in favor of the school saying
that the equal protection clause is not violated by legislation or private covenants based on
reasonable classification. They found a substantial distinction between foreign-hires and local-
hires, concluding that the reason for favoring them is to attract them to join the faculty of the
School.

HELD: The policy is discriminatory and violates the EPC. There is no evidence in a difference
of workload nor performance, so the presumption is that all the employees are performing at
equal levels.
Rotary International is a nonprofit corporation composed of local Rotary Clubs. Its members are
all men. Although women are permitted to attend meetings, give speeches, receive awards, and
form auxiliary organizations, the Rotary constitution excludes women from membership. The
Rotary Club of Duarte admitted 3 women to active membership, International notified Duarte
that admitting women members is contrary to the Rotary constitution. After an internal hearing,
the women, together with Duarte’s charter, were removed. They filed a complaint alleging that
BoD v ROTARY CLUB the termination violated the Unruh Civil Rights Act, which entitles all persons, regardless of sex,
[Bad ng BoD. sexist] to full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, and services in all business
establishments in the State. Rotary is saying they have a right to reject women and it is protected
by the First Amendment
HELD: The Unruh does not violate the right of expressive association of the Rotary Club. They
failed to show that the admission of women will affect their expressive activities
James Dale was a brilliant member of the Boy Scouts. After coming out as gay, his membership
was revoked.
HELD: Applying New Jersey's public accommodations law to require the Boy Scouts to readmit
BOY SCOUTS of Dale violates the Boy Scouts' First Amendment right of expressive association. Homosexual
AMERICA v DALE conduct is against what Boy Scouts want to instill as the purpose of organization is to foster
“clean” and “morally straight” membership.
[gay scouts of america]
DISSENT: By allowing petitioner to revoke the respondent's membership, the Supreme Court
was allowing the organization to prevail over the anti-discrimination laws of the state (Justice
Stevens).
Massachusetts Department of Public Health denied 7 marriage licenses for same sex couples on
GOODRIDGE v DEPT
the ground that the state does not recognize same-sex marriage.
OF PUBLIC HEALTH
HELD: same sex couples have marital rights.
OBERGEFELL v
HODGES The petitioners are 14 same-sex couples and two men whose same-sex partners are already
[ober sila. Lgbt fell deceased. They claim that the respondents violate the Fourteenth Amendment by denying them
the right to marry or to have their marriages lawfully performed in another State. The
inlove] respondents, on the other hand, are state officials responsible for enforcing the laws in question.
They believe that legalizing same-sex marriage would demean a timeless institution if the
concept and lawful status of marriage were extended to two persons of the same sex. The Court
of Appeals held that a State has no constitutional obligation to license same-sex marriages or to
recognize same-sex marriages performed out of State.
HELD: The Fourteenth Amendment requires a State to license a marriage between two people
of the same sex and to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their

marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-State. The goal of the Constitution is to
constantly break barriers in identifying and protecting the fundamental rights. The right to
personal choice regarding marriage is inherent in the concept of individual autonomy. The right
to marry is fundamental because it supports a two-person union and it safeguards children and
families, drawing from related rights like procreation and education. Therefore, the Court has
long held the right to marry is protected by the Constitution as it is considered to be a
fundamental right.
Richard Loving (a caucasian male) and Mildred Jeter (a Negro woman)

left their home state of Virginia and went to the District of Columbia to
get married. Shortly after their marriage they returned to Virginia and
settled in Caroline County. The grand jury charged the couple of
violating Virginia’s ban on interracial marriages. After they pled guilty
to said charges they were both sentenced to one year in jail but a judge The freedom to marry resides within the
LOVING v VIRGINIA
suspended their sentence for 25 years on the condition that both prevent individual and any statute or law limiting
themselves to returning to Virginia together for the same amount of this freedom based on racial classification
[love knows no color] alone is in violation of the 14th Amendment
years. The Lovings left but continued to pursue the cases and all the of the US
courts up to the Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia affirmed the
decisions. The Courts argued that the Tenth Amendment left marriage
HELD: The state must regulate marriage within the limits set upon them by the Fourteenth
Amendment. “The clear and central purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was to eliminate all
official state sources of invidious racial discrimination in the States.”
FPJ's citizenship was being assailed because his mother was an American citizen but his father is
Filipino.
TECSON v COMELEC
[TECka FPJ, citizenship] HELD: Filipino, if paternity is clear, because of jus sanguinis, which makes no distinction
between legitimate and illegitimate children. It would make a distinction between legitimate and
illegitimate child so the Court upheld the candidacy of FPJ.

Doctrine of “Compelling-State Interest Test”
This basically means that the State has an interest, which is so important that is outweighs
IV. FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION individual rights. The reason here is so great that it justifies the limitation of fundamental
constitutional rights. There is compelling state interest when the state has a compelling
reason/interest to reach into such legislation infringing into the private domain, and that there
{Const. Art. III, Sec. 4} is no other alternative to achieve it.
No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press, or the
right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for redress of 3. “SPEECH PLUS”: SYMBOLIC SPEECH
grievances. Symbolic speech is a form of speech – nonverbal gestures and actions – that expresses or
communicates an idea or emotion [legal-dictionary.com]. This type of speech is also protected
WHY THE SAFEGUARD? under the freedom of expression.
Freedom of expression is a fundamental foundation of our constitutional system. This was a
right elevated to constitutional status reflecting our own lesson of history… that freedom of Examples:
speech is an indispensable condition for nearly every other form of freedom. It assures the Burning a draft card/flag, wearing armbands, picketing
broadest possible exercise of free speech and free press inasmuch as the constitution’s basic
guarantee of freedom to advocate ideas is not confined to ideas of the majority only – 4. ASSEMBLY AND PETITION
specially in a democratic republican country. [Chavez v Gonzales] The right to freedom of speech and to peaceably assemble, and petition the government for
redress of grievances are fundamental personal rights of the people guaranteed by the
A. Protected Speech contitutions of democratic countries. [Primacias v Fugoso] Peaceable assembly in public
places like streets or parks cannot be denied. [JBL Reyes v Bagatsing]
1. PRIOR RESTRAINT
Does not concern public lives of persons. Just public issues and publications Right to Assembly
A right on the part of citizens to meet peaceably for consultation in respect to public affairs.
This refers to official governmental restrictions on the press and other forms of expression IN
ADVANCE of actual publication or dissemination. They carry a heavy presumption of Right to Petition
unconstitutionality. [Newsounds Broadcasting Network v. Dy] Any person or group of persons can apply, without fear of penalty, to the appropriate branch
or office of the government for redress or grievances
Censorship is a form of prior restraint. Censorship conditions the exercise of freedom of
expression upon the prior approval of the government. The censor serves as the arbiter for The right to assembly and petition prevails over economic rights.
people, usually applying his own subjective standards in determining what is good and what is
not.
5. FREE SPEECH AND SUFFRAGE
People can support whom they like, this is part of freedom of speech. Clear and present
2. SUBSEQUENT PUNISHMENT danger should be applied, wherein the expression is traceable to the ideas expressed. In some
Freedom of speech includes freedom after speech. Without this assurance, the citizen would cases, like Gonzales v COMELEC, Balancing of interest test is also applied. This test is
hesitate to speak for fear he might be provoking the vengeance of the those he criticized [the applied when two legitimate values not involving national security crims compete.
chilling effect]. If criticism is not to be conditioned on the government’s consent, then neither
should it be subject to the government’s subsequent chastisement.
6. USE OF PRIVATE PROPERTY AS A FORUM FOR
Doctrine of “Clear and Present Danger test”
OTHERS’ SPEECH
The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are
A privately owned shopping center, to which the public is invited might restrict expressive
of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about
activities of its goers – regulate manners that will minimize any interference with its
substantive evlis that Congress has a right to prevent. [Schneck v. US] This requires that the
commercial functions. So long as the people using the place as a forum for speech are orderly
evil consequences sought to be prevented must be “extremely serious and the degree of
and does not cause disturbance or harm, their expression is allowed.
imminence [likelihood of it happening] is extremely high” [American Bible Society v City of
Manila]

B. Unprotected Speech
Slander or libel, lewd and obscene speech, as well as “fighting words” are not entitled to
constitutional protection and may be penalized. These are the acts being subjected to
subsequent punishment.
1. DEFAMATORY SPEECH
Defamatory speech is either written (Libel) or stated (Slander) malicious statements that
damages the good reputation of someone. Defamatory speech in media is regulated by the
constitution.
*for rules and good law regarding defamatory speech, see cases below. Take note of the
differences between those of private vs. governmental speech, and whether the offended party
is a public figure/official or not.
2. “FIGHTING WORDS”, OFFENSIVE WORDS

The right of free speech is not absolute. Limitations include lewd and obscene, the profane,
the libelous, and the insulting or “fighting” words.
Fighting words are such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of
such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is
clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality. [Chaplinsky v New
Hampshire]
These are words that inflict harm or injury, or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace;
intent and circumstances should be taken into account
3. OBSCENITY
These are offensive or disgusting by accepted standards of morality and decency. It offends
moral principles and repugnant.
*for rules and good law regarding obscene speech, see cases below. Take note of the Miller
Test on how to determine obscenity.
4. “DEFAMATION AND DISCRIMINATION” IN C.

MACKINNON, ONLY WORDS
In C.Mackinnon’s article “Only Words”, she distinguishes between expression that are
defamatory against those which are discriminatory. Defamatory speech focuses on the
contents of the expression – if the expression does not offend in anyway, it cannot be deemed
as defamatory. However, expressions such as pornography are discriminatory even though
they are not defamatory. The effects of discriminatory expression go beyond words.
Pornography may be considered as a valid expression only in words, but its effects cannot be
discounted.

Clear and Present Danger Rule Dangerous Tendency Rule
the evil consequence of the comment or If the words uttered create a dangerous
utterance must be extremely serious and the tendency which the state has a right to prevent,
degree of imminence extremely high before then such words are punishable.”
the utterance can be punished
The danger to be guarded against is the It is sufficient that such acts be advocated in
'substantive evil' sought to be prevented general terms and if the natural tendency and
probable effect of the utterance be to bring
about the substantive evil which the legislative
body seeks to prevent.
It provides the criterion as to what words may
be publicly established.

CASES
Prior Restraint
Jay Near together with a former mayor, Howard Guilford, began publishing in The Saturday
Press articles that attacked local officials, members of other press companies, the Jewish Race,
the members of the Grand Jury of Hennepin County, and focusing mainly on the incumbent
mayor and Chief of Police. Under Minnesota Public Nuisance Law of 1925, the County
Attorney of Hennepin County brought an action to enjoin the publication of what they described
as a " maliciThe articles charged in substance that a Jewish gangster was in control of gambling,
bootlegging and racketeering in Minneapolis, and that law enforcing officers and agencies were
not energetically performing their duties. The chages against the Chief of Police were gross
neglect of duty, illicit relations with gangsters, and with participation in graft.ous, scandalous
NEAR v MINNESOTA and defamatory newspaper, magazine and periodical. Near challenged the constitutionality of
the Public Nuisance law alleging that their right to free speech and freedom of the press was
[MIN SObra ng protected by the US and Minnesota Constitutions
allegations sa gang]
HELD: It is unconstitutional for violating the liberty of the press safeguarded by the due process
clause of the 14th Amendment. Such freedom is essential to the nature of a free state. The liberty
of the press is not an absolute right and the State may punish its abuse. But the prior restraint on
publication is the very thing that the 1st amendment of the Constitution is trying to protect. The
statute is directed not only at the circulation of scandalous material itself, but at the continued
publication of it by newspapers and periodicals, which by their very nature create public
scandal. To forbid what right a freeman has to lay his sentiments is to destroy the freedom of the
press, but if he publishes what is improper, or illegal, he must take the consequence of his own
temerity.
In 1971, the US had been in an ongoing war with Vietnam for almost 6 years. The New York
Clear and present danger here. Lagi excuse
Times and Washington Posts had obtained a copy of documents known as “The Pentagon
“threat to national security”
Papers”. The US Espionage Act was the cited law for trying to enjoin the publications from
NY TIMES v US publishing said articles alleging that the information being published "could be used to the
DISSENT: Executive also had to be given
injury of the United State or advantage of the foreign nation. These Papers were illegally copied
[war TIMES, espionage. and then leaked to the press.
broader authority. Only those who view the
Pentagon papers] First Amendment as an absolute in all
circumstances—a view I respect, but reject
HELD: Members of the majority, held that the 1st Amendment is absolute. Although the justices
—can find such cases as these to be simple
thought that the New York Times had probably gone too far in publishing the Pentagon Papers,
or easy
they found nothing in the law to prevent the newspaper from doing so.
FREEDMAN v
MARYLAND Ronald Freedman challenged the constitutionality of a Maryland Motion Picture State that Subsequent punishment na lang dito.
[FREE and MAN to requires films to be submitted to a board of censors before being exhibited. The board could
disapprove films that were obscene, debased or corrupted morals, or tended to incite crime. AYER v Capulong take note
show films.] Freedman was convicted on the basis of that statute after exhibiting the film “Revenge at Schnek v US for clear and present danger
Daybreak” at his Baltimore theatre without submitting the picture to the State Board of Censors ruling
as required. The State itself concedes that the picture does not violate the statutory standards and
would have received a license if it were properly submitted. Freedman further argued that the
statute is a prior restraint because, in the context of the remainder of the statute, it presents a
danger of unduly suppressing protected expression.
HELD: The Court established three guidelines as adequate safeguards to protect against the
"undue inhibition of protected expression." These guidelines are to: (1) place the burden of

proving the film is unprotected expression on the censors, (2) require judicial determination to
impose a valid determination, and (3) require prompt determination "within a specified time
period.
Subsequent Punishment
Isaac Perez happened to meet Fortunato Loduvico and engaged in a discussion regarding the
administration of Governor-General Wood which resulted in Perez shouting a number of times:
"The Filipinos, like myself, must use bolos for cutting off Wood's head for having recommended
a bad thing for the Filipinos, for he has killed our independence”. Perez was charged in the CFI
with a violation of Article 256 of the Penal Code having to do with contempt of ministers of the
Crown or other person in authority.
PEOPLE v PEREZ HELD: The law infringed in this instance is not Article 256 of the Penal Code but rather a
portion of the Treason and Sedition Law. Perez has uttered seditious words. The attack on the
Governor-General went beyond the protection of Free Speech. There is a seditius tendency in
the words used by Perez, which could easily produce disaffection among the people and a state
of feeling incompatible with a disposition to remain loyal to the Government, which includes
obedience to the laws. Criticism, no matter how severe, on the Executive, the Legislature, and
the Judiciary, is within the range of liberty of speech, unless the intention and effect is seditious.
The Smith Act made it a criminal offense for a person to knowingly or willfully advocate the
overthrowing of any government in the United States by force or to attempt to commit or
conspire to commit the crime the same. It was clear from the record that the leaders of the
Communist Party intended to initiate a revolution when the opportunity came. The
constitutionality of the statute under which the Petitioners were convicted was challenged.
DENNIS v US
[DEiNS na to the US HELD: The overthrow of the Government by force is certainly a substantial enough interest for Protected speech: enumerate here
gov’t] the Government to limit speech. Obviously, “clear and present danger” does not mean the
government may not act until the coup has been plotted and on is the verge of being executed.
DISSENT (Hugo Black): While it is true that unfettered communication of ideas does entail
danger, the benefits in the eyes of the Founders of this Nation, derived from free expression
were worth the risk.
Russians held a rally against the US government at the time of war. Abrams and others were
Russian immigrants, self-proclaimed revolutionists and anarchists who wrote and distributed In a time of war
thousands of circulars advocating a general strike and appealing to workers in ammunitions
factories to stop the production of weapons to be used against Russian revolutionaries. They OLIVER WENDEL HOLMES: we should
ABRAMIS v US were convicted under the 1918 amendments to the Espionage Act that prohibited the curtailment let the flow of ideas flow. Ideas have no
of production of materials necessary to the prosecution of war against Germany with intent to danger right away, but when overt acts have
[ABRA, MIS, kalma sa hinder its prosecution. been committed, only then can they be
h8 of US] curbed
HELD: The plain purpose of Defendants’ propaganda was to excite, at the supreme crisis of war,
disaffection, sedition, riots and as they hoped, revolution in this country for the purpose of Clear and present danger: ALWAYS left at
embarrassing and if possible defeating the military plans of the Government in Europe. the discretion of law
Therefore, the First Amendment of the Constitution does not protect their speech.
EASTERN
BROADCASTING v This petition was filed to compel the respondents to allow the reopening of Radio Station DYRE
DANS which had been summarily closed on grounds of national security. The petitioner contended that

it was denied due process when it was closed on the mere allegation that the radio station was
used to incite people to sedition. The respondents' general charge of "inciting people to commit
acts of sedition" arose from the petitioner's shift towards what it stated was the coverage of
public events and the airing of programs geared towards public affairs.
HELD: All forms of communication are entitled to the broad protection of the freedom of
expression clause. Necessarily, however, the freedom of television and radio broadcasting is
somewhat lesser in scope than the freedom accorded to newspaper and print media. Yet the
freedom to comment on public affairs is essential to the vitality of a representative democracy.
The cardinal primary requirements in administrative proceedings laid down by this Court in
AngTibay v. Court of Industrial Relations) should be followed before a broadcast station may be
closed or its operations curtailed.
“Speech Plus”: Symbolic Speech
O’Brien test to determine

whether a statute is content-
based or content-neutral:
In 1948, the United States instituted a peace-time draft with the Universal Military Training and 1. regulation is within
Service Act, which required all male American citizens to register with a local draft board upon the constitutional
reaching the age of 18. O’Brien burned his selective service registration certificate (draft card) power of the
at a Boston courthouse and was convicted of violating a federal statute making it a crime to government
mutilate the certificate. The Defendant appealed, noting that his act was “symbolic speech” and 2. it furthers an
should fall under the protection of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. important or
substantial interest
HELD: The regulation must 1) be within the constitutional power of the government to enact, 2) Bill of Rights is for an individual. NOT for 3. the government
US v O’BRIEN further an important or substantial government interest, 3) that interest must be unrelated to the the government. The latter always has power interest is unrelated to
[OOH BUURN iyon suppression of speech (or "content neutral", as later cases have phrased it), and 4) prohibit no do destroy an individual and it is the bill of the suppression of
draft card] more speech than is essential to further that interest. The Court ruled that the 1965 Amendment rights that limits said power. In sir’s free expression; and
satisfied this test. The Supreme Court found that the governmental interest in preserving opinion, only individuals may 4. the incidental
selective service registration cards outweighed Defendant’s interest in making his symbolic restriction on alleged
speech and that Congress had a legitimate and substantial interest in preventing the destruction First Amendment
of these cards. freedoms is no greater
than is essential to the
DISSENT: The asserted government interest was only valid when the nation was in a state of furtherance of that
war as declared by Congress (which had not been the case since World War II) interest
If the regulation fails the

third prong, it is content-
based regulation.
TINKER v DES
MOINES SCHOOL The petitioners decided to wear black armbands to their schools in protest of the Vietnam War
DISTRICT and supporting the Christmas Truce called for by Senator Robert F. Kennedy. The principals of
the Des Moines schools learned of the plan and met on December 14 to create a policy that
[MOIN is the right to stated that school children wearing an armband would be asked to remove it immediately.
wear armbands] Violating students would be suspended and allowed to return to school after agreeing to comply
with the policy. The participants decided to violate this policy.
HELD: The actions of the Tinkers in wearing armbands did not cause disruption and held that
their activity represented constitutionally protected symbolic speech. The wearing of the
armband was singled out of all other symbolic speech engaged in by the student body. Student
speech may be regulated when such speech would materially and substantially interfere with the

discipline and operation of a school.
DISSENT: Tinkers' behavior was indeed disruptive.
Asembly and Petition
The leaders of the Union decided to stage a mass demonstration at Malacang in protest against
alleged abuses of the Pasig police. PBMEO confirmed the planned demonstration and stated that
the demonstration cannot be cancelled because it has already been agreed upon but Management
PBM EMPLOYEES v Conflict is between human or political right
informed them that the demonstration is an inalienable right guaranteed by the Constitution. The
PBM and economic right. WHICH PREVAILS???
company warned that workers who belonged to first and regular shifts who did not report to
work the following morning shall be dismissed in violation of existing CBA. Petitioners claim
Political (right to assembly and petition) >
Will come out in the test that they did not violate as they have proper notice of mass demonstration. CIR found PBMEO
property (economy)
he says guilty so petitioners filed with CIR a petition for relief from CIR dismissal order.
Right to life liberty and property -> property
HELD: The demonstration was an exercise of their freedom of expression as it was against the
[Rallying responsibly] is last. Liberty prevails over property
abuses of Pasig policemen, not against their employer. The rights of free expression, free
assembly and petition are not only civil rights but also political rights essential to man's
enjoyment of his life, to his happiness and to his full and complete fulfillment.
The petitioner requested for a permit to hold a peaceful public meeting however the respondent
refused to issue such permit because he found reasonable ground to believe that similar speeches
will be delivered tending to undermine the faith of the people in the government. Respondent
based refusal on Revised Ordinances of 1927.
There’s no legal basis for the denial. Fear of
PRIMICIAS v FUGOSO
serious injury cannot alone justify
HELD: Freedom of speech, free assembly and petition are fundamental personal rights of the
suppression of freedom of expression
people recognized and guaranteed by the constitution but these are not absolute. The assembly is
lawful and cannot be struck down. Fear of serious injury alone cannot justify suppression of free
speech and assembly. There must be reasonable ground to believe that evil to be prevented is a
serious one.
The petitioner, acting in behalf of the Movement of a Democratic Philippines, wrote a letter to
respondent Mayor of Manila applying to hold a rally at Plaza Miranda. Respondent denied on
the grounds that they have temporarily adopted the policy of not issuing any permit for the use
NAVARRO v of Plaza Miranda for rallies or demonstrations during weekdays and suggested they just rally in The Mayor possesses reasonable discretion
VILLEGAS the Sunken Garden. Petitioner contested denial that it violates his right to peaceful assembly. to determine public places to be used for
[plaza Miranda denied] rally
HELD: The free assembly and petition are not absolute as it is subject to regulation under police
power. It must be exercised in subordination to the general comfort and convenience and in
consonance with peace and good order. Court believed there was a clear and present danger.
JBL REYES v
BAGATSING Petitioner sought a permit from the City of Manila to hold a peaceful march and rally starting Guidelines for issuance of permit:
[Luneta to Embassy] from Luneta to the gates of United States Embassy. Respondent suggested that a permit may be 1. applicants should inform the authority
issued if it is to be held at the Rizal Coliseum or any other enclosed area where the safety of the of the date, public place, and time of
participants themselves and the general public may be ensured. Justice Aquino dissented that the assembly
rally is violative of Ordinance No. 7295 of the City of Manila prohibiting the holding of rallies 2. If at a private place, the consent of the
within a radius of five hundred feet from any foreign mission. owner or that entitled to its legal
possession is required
HELD: With regard to the ordinance, there was no showing that there was violation and even if 3. The clear and present danger test must
it could be shown that such a condition is satisfied it does not follow that respondent could be applied

4. If authority believes there is clear and
present danger, the applicants must be
heard on the matter
5. The decision must be transmitted to
legally act the way he did. the applicants at the earliest
opportunity
6. Applicants have recourse to the proper
judicial authority
Petitioners were officers of the Supreme Student Council of respondent University. They sought
and were granted by the school authorities a permit to hold a meeting from 8:00 A.M. to 12:00
P.M. They held a general assembly at the second floor lobby instead of the one written in the
permit. They discussed, in vehement language, their opposition to proposed merger of the
MALABANAN v Institute of Animal Science with Institute of Agriculture. They were informed that they were
under preventive suspension for their failure to explain the holding of an illegal assembly.
RAMENTO
Sir: very liberal decision
[Palaban na mga HELD: The rights to peaceable assembly and free speech are guaranteed to students of
estudyante] educational institutions. The peaceable character of an assembly could be lost, however, by an
advocacy of disorder under the name of dissent, whatever grievances that may be aired being
susceptible to correction through the ways of the law. If the assembly is to be held in school
premises, permit must be sought from its school authorities, who are devoid of the power to
deny such request arbitrarily or unreasonably.
Free Speech and Suffrage
RA 4880 prohibited the early nomination of candidates and limited the period of election
campaigns. Petitioner Cabigao was an incumbent councilor in the 4th District of Manila and the
Nacionalista Party official candidate for VM of Manila while Gonzales is a registered voter in
Manila. There was the further allegation that the nomination of acandidate and the fixing of
period of election campaign are matters of political expediency and convenience which only
political parties can regulate by and among themselves through self-restraint or mutual
GONZALES v understanding or agreement and that the regulation and limitation of these political matters
invoking the police power, in the absence of clear and present danger to the state, would render
COMELEC Kailangan ng 2/3 votes to declare a law
the constitutional rights of petitioners meaningless and without effect. Respondents contend that
[early list of nomination the act was based on the police power of the state.
unconstitutional
of candidates]
HELD: The prohibition of any speeches, announcements or commentaries, or the holding of
interviews for or against the election of any party or candidate for public office and the
prohibition of the publication or distribution of campaign literature or materials, against
the solicitation of votes whether directly or indirectly, or the undertaking of any campaign
literature or propaganda for or against any candidate or party is repugnant to a constitutional
command.
Marcos issued PD No. 991 calling for a national referendum on 16 Oct 1976 for the Citizens
Assemblies to resolve the issues of martial law, the interim assembly, its replacement, the
SANIDAD v COMELEC
powers of such replacement, the period of its existence, the length of the period for the exercise
by the President of his present powers. He issued another decree, PD 1031 providing for the
manner of voting and canvass of votes in “barangays”
NATIONAL PRESS
CLUB v COMELEC Petitioners in these cases consist of representatives of the mass media, which are prevented from

selling or donating space and time for political advertisements. Petitioners maintain that the
prohibition imposed by Section 11 (b) amounts to censorship, because it selects and singles out
for suppression and repression with criminal sanctions, only publications of a particular
content, namely, media-based election or political propaganda during the election period of
1992.
[no donation of airtime
for political shit] HELD: The Court considers that Section 11 (b) has not gone outside the permissible bounds of
supervision or regulation of media operations during election periods. It is limited in the
duration of its applicability and enforceability. The limiting impact of Section 11 (b) upon the
right to free speech of the candidates themselves is not unduly repressive or unreasonable
COMELEC promulgated Resolution No. 2347. Section 15(a) of the resolution provides a list of
election propaganda prohibiting the posting of decals and stickers in mobile units like cars and
other moving vehicles.
ADIONG v COMELEC
HELD: The prohibition unduly infringes on the citizen’s fundamental right of free speech
[car decals] enshrined in the Constitution (Sec. 4, Article III). Significantly, the freedom of expression
curtailed by the questioned prohibition is not so much that of the candidate or the political party.
The regulation strikes at the freedom of an individual to express his preference and, by
displaying it on his car, to convince others to agree with him
Use of Private Proper
PruneYard has a policy not to permit any visitor or tenant to engage in any publicly expressive
activity, including the circulation of petitions, which is not directly related to its commercial
purposes. Respondents set up a table in a corner of the courtyard and distributed pamphlets in
support for their opposition to a United Nations resolution against Zionism. Respondents seek
to enjoin Appellants from denying them access to the property to circulate their petitions.
PRUNEYARD Although Pruneyard is a private mall, it
SHOPPING CENTER v HELD: The requirement that appellants permit the students to exercise their protected rights of assumed the character of a public forum
ROBINS free expression and to petition on shopping center property clearly does not amount to an because it has opened its establishment for
[pamphlets vs Zionism] unconstitutional infringement of appellants’ property rights under the taking clause. The public use
shopping center may restrict expressive activity by adopting time, place, and manner regulations
that will minimize any interference with its commercial functions. Petitioners have failed to
show that the right to exclude others is so essential to the use or economic value of their
property that the state-authorized limitation of it amounted to a taking.
Unprotected Speech
Defamatory Speech
POLICARPIO v The way the information is
MANILA TIMES Policarpio filed charges against Herminia Reyes causing the latter to be separated from service. “even if it’s true, it must be fair” ->> presented to the public is
[malversation is bad] Reyes filed complaint against Policarpio for malversation of public funds and estafa thru given weight, EVEN IF the
falsification of public documents so Policarpio filed for libel to Manila Times for publishing two Elements of libel: information might be true.
libelous articles, which tended to dishonor and discredit Reyes. 1. Defamatory imputation [damaging
the good reputation of someone] If the way you said it is to
HELD: Newspapers must enjoy a certain degree of discretion in determining the manner in 2. Malice malign the reputation of the
which a given event should be presented to the public but to enjoy immunity, a publication 3. Publication other, it becomes libelous
containing derogatory information must be not only true, but, also, fair, and it must be made in 4. Person defamed/maligned must be
good faith and without any comments or remarks. In the case at bar, the Aug 11 article presented identifiable
her in a worse predicament than that in which she, in fact was.
*note that it must be directed to a person

Fidel Cruz, sanitary inspector assigned to Babuyan islands, sent distress signals to US Airforce
planes which forwarded such message to Manila. Using the radio set Cruz reported to the
authorities in Manila that the locals were living in terror due to a series of killings committed on
the island since Christmas of 1955. Philippine defense forces led by Major Encarnacion
discovered that Cruz fabricated the story because he wanted transportation back home. This
Week Magazine of the Manila Chronicle made reference to Cruz but photos used were of a
different person, a businessman. The company published statements correcting their misprint
and explained that confusion and error happened due to the rush to meet the Jan 13th issue’s
LOPEZ v CA deadline. Cruz sued for libel.
[LOLpez. Fake distress
signal. Wrong person HELD: Mistake is no excuse to absolve publishers because libel is harmful on its face by the
with same name] fact that it exposes the injured party to more than trivial ridicule, whether it is fact or opinion is
irrelevant. Libel cannot be used to curtail press freedom however it also can not claim any
talismanic immunity form constitutional limitations. So long as it was done in good faith, the
press should have the legal right to have and express their opinions on legal questions. To deny
them that right would be to infringe upon freedom of the press.
DISSENT: Manila Chronicle should be absolved because there was no evidence of actual
malice, the article does not ascribe anything immoral or any moral turpitude and the negligence
performed by Manila Chronicle should be considered “excusable negligence”
The respondent sued New York Times for printing an advertisement about the civil rights
movement in the south that defamed him, the Commissioner of Montgomery. He claimed that it
PUBLIC OFFICER
NEW YORK TIMES v referred to him indirectly.
Distinction between public officials and Covers false accusations
SULLIVAN HELD: The constitutional guarantees require a federal rule that prohibits a public official from
private individuals even if what you said was
[police maltreatment] false.
recovering damages for a defamatory falsehood relating to his official conduct unless he proves
Difference in applying malice
that the statement was made with actual malice – that is, with knowledge that it was false or with
reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.
Petitioner was a distributor of nudist magazines in the Philadelphia metropolitan area.

Respondent Metromedia’radio station, which broadcast news reports every half hour, broadcast
news stories of petitioner Rosenbloom’s arrest for possession of obscene literature and the police
ROSENBLOOM v seizure of "obscene books”. These latter stories did not mention petitioner Rosenbloom’s name,
but used the terms "smut literature racket" and "girlie-book peddlers." Following petitioner's
METROMEDIA
acquittal of criminal obscenity charges, he filed this action seeking damages under PRIVATE INDIVIDUAL
[iba pala nag bloom. Pennsylvania's libel law.
*wink wink*]
HELD: There is no libel unless there is malice. Malice must be proven in matters involving
either public figures or private individuals
AYER PRODUCTION v
CAPULONG Petitioner McElroy and his movie production wanted to make a movie out of the EDSA
[Si Enrile pikon. Movie Revolution. Enrile declared that he will not approve the use, appropriation, reproduction and/or
exhibition of his name, or picture, or that of any member of his family in any cinema or
rights] television production, film or other medium. Petitioners acceded to this demand and the name of
Enrile was deleted from the movie script. However, Enrile filed a complaint invoking his right
to privacy.

HELD: Freedom of speech and of expression includes the freedom to film and produce motion
pictures and exhibit such motion pictures in theaters or to diffuse them through television. The
projected motion picture was as yet uncompleted and hence not exhibited to any audience.
Neither private respondent nor the respondent trial Judge knew what the completed film would
precisely look like. There was, in other words, no "clear and present danger" of any violation of
any right to privacy. Subject matter is one of public interest and concern.
Soliven broadcasted the statement that President Aquino hid under her bed during a coup d' etat.
SOLIVEN v The President sued for libel. Soliven claimed that he can't be sued because the President was
MAKASIAR immune from suit.
[nakakaASIAR, di kasya
sa ilalim ng bed] HELD: Beltran died and the case was not adjudicated but Soliven should have been acquitted.
The words he used were obviously a figure of speech
Islamic Da'wah Council of the Philippines filed in the RTC a complaint for damages in their
own behalf and as aclass suit in behalf of the Muslim members nationwide against MVRS
Publications, Inc.,arising from an article published in the 1 August 1992 issue of Bulgar, a daily
tabloid. According to them, the libelous statement was insulting and damaging to Muslims
because it referred to them as “pig worshippers” but MVRS Publications claimed that the article
did not mention respondents as the object of the article and it was merely an expression of belief
or opinion.
HELD: Declarations made about a large class of people cannot be interpreted to advert to an Elements of libel:
MVRS v ISLAMIC identified or identifiable individual. Absent circumstances specifically pointing or alluding to a 1. directed to a person
accusation is not directed to an individaual
DA’WAH COUNCIL particular member of a class, no member of such class has a right of action without at all 2. element of malice
impairing the equally demanding right of free speech and expression, as well as of the press. 3. made in public
The fact that the language is offensive to the plaintiff does not make it actionable by itself.
Declarations made about a large class of people cannot be interpreted to advert to an identified
or identifiable individual. Absent circumstances specifically pointing or alluding to a particular
member of a class, no member of such class has a right of action without at all impairing the
equally demanding right of free speech and expression, as well as of the press .There was no
fairly identifiable person who was allegedly injured by the Bulgar article. Since the persons
allegedly defamed could not be identifiable, private respondents have no individual causes of
action; hence, they cannot sue for a class allegedly disparaged.
accusation is not directed to an individual.

Citizens of the Province of Pampanga prepared and signed a petition to the Executive Secretary
charging Punslan, justice of the peace, with malfeasance in office and asked for his removal.
Doctrine of privilege:
After filing a motion for new trial, the judge of first instance ordered the suppression of the
The people have the right to scrutinize,
charges and acquitted the justice of the peace of the same. Criminal action was then begun
US v BUSTOS comment, or condemn the conduct of their
against the petitioners, now become the defendants, charging that portions of the petition
public officials as long as their comments
[Bustos ni Justice sa presented to the Executive Secretary were libelous. The trial court found thirty-two of the
are made in good faith and with justifiable
Scalpel part of the decision
pampanga] defendants guilty and sentenced each of them to pay a nominal fine.
ends; they are insulated from prosecution or
damage suits for defamation even if such
HELD: Express malice was not proved by the prosecution. Good faith surrounded the action of
views are found to be inaccurate or
the petitioners. Their ends and motives were justifiable. The guaranties of a free speech and a
erroneous; the burden of proving malice is
free press include the right to criticize judicial conduct.
shifted to the plaintiff
“Fighting Words”, Offensive Words
CHAPLINSKY v NEW Fighting words walang

“Lewd and obscene, the proface, the
libelous, and the insulting or “fighting”
words – those which, by their very utterance,
Chaplinsky was convicted under a State statute for calling a City Marshal a “God damned inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate
HAMPSHIRE racketeer” and a “damned fascist” in a public place. breach of the peace. It has been well
[will come out in the test observed that such utterances are no artistic value, walang
he said] HELD: “Fighting words” are not entitled to protection under the First Amendment of the United essential part of any exposition of ideas, and exposition of ideas
[goddamn racketeer] States Constitution. Such words are of such little expositional or social value that any benefit are of such slight social value as a step to
they might produce is far outweighed by their costs on social interests in order and morality truth that any benefit may be derived from
them is clearly outweighed by the social
interest in order and morality.”
“we cannot indulge the facile assumption

A 19-year-old department store worker expressed his opposition to the Vietnam War by wearing that one can forbid particular words without
COHEN v a jacket emblazoned with "FUCK THE DRAFT. STOP THE WAR". Cohen was charged under also running a substantial risk of suppressing
CALIFORNIA a California statute that prohibits maliciously and willfully disturbing the peace and quiet of any ideas in the process. Indeed, governments
[will come out in the test neighborhood or person by offensive conduct. might soon seize upon the censorship of
he says] particular words as a convenient guise for
[Cohen touch this. FUCK HELD: The expletive was not directed toward anyone. There was no evidence that people in banning the expression of unpopular
THE DRAFT!] substantial numbers would be provoked into some kind of physical action by the words on his views… to discern little social benefit that
jacket. The Court protected two elements of speech: emotive and cognitive. might result from running the risk of
opening the door to such grave results”
Obscenity
The United States passed a law that prohibited the mailing of “lewd, obscene, or lascivious
book, pamphlet, picture or other publication of an indecent character”. Roth conducted a
business in New York in the publication and sale of books, photographs and magazines to be
used to solicit sales. He was convicted of violating the statute because he mailed sexually
explicit advertisements and a book to requesters.
ROTH v US
HELD: The First Amendment was not intended to protect every utterance or form of expression,
[mailed sexually explicit such as materials that were "utterly without redeeming social importance." The test to determine
ads] obscenity was that the material must provide no literary or social value and it must have a
tendency to excite lustful thoughts.
DISSENT: The tests by which these convictions were obtained require only the arousing of
sexual thoughts. Any test that turns on what is offensive to the community's standards is too
destructive of freedom of expression to be squared with the First Amendment.
Miller was convicted under the California Penal Code for mailing advertisements for books and Miller obscenity test. Material is obscene
a film that contained adult material. Miller appealed to Appellate Division of Superior Court, when:
arguing that the jury instructions did not use the standard set in Memoirs v. Massachusetts which 1. The average person, applying
MILLER v said that in order to be judged obscene, materials must be “utterly without redeeming social contemporary community standards
CALIFORNIA value.” He argued that a national standard for obscenity could be applied. would find that the work, taken as a
[mailed ads with adult whole, appeals to prurient interests;
material] HELD: If a state law that regulates obscene material is thus limited, as written or construed, 2. The work depicts or describes in a
First Amendment constitutional values are adequately protected by the ultimate power of patently offensive way, sexual
appellate courts to conduct an independent review of constitutional claims when necessary. conduct specifically defined by the
applicable state law;
DISSENT: To send men to jail for violating standards that they cannot understand due to 3. The work, taken as a whole, lacks

serious literary, artistic, political, or
vagueness, denies them of due process. The statute is unconstitutional.
scientific value.
Antonio Gonzales, president of Malaya Films, claimed that his film Kapit sa Patalim, was rated
for adults only by a subcommittee of the movie review board together with the required cuts and
scene deletions.He justified that these requirements were without basis and were restrains on
artistic expression. Upon appeal to SC, the Board claimed that the deletions were removed and
GONZALES v KALAW the requirement to submit the master negative was taken out but the film was still rated for
adults only.
KATIGBAK
[sibak. Kapit sa patalim HELD: Press freedom may be identified with the liberty to discuss publicly and truthfully any
movie] matter of public concern without censorship or punishment. Movies are within the constitutional
protection of freedom of expression, so that censorship is presumed to be valid as constituting
prior restraint. The only case when the Board of Censors can order a deletion is when there is a
clear and present danger of a substantive evil against national security or public morals or other
public interest.
Pita procedure on sexually explicit

expression when authorities seek to seize
materials for being obscene:
1. Authorities myst apply for a search
warrant
2. They must convince the judge that
the materials to be seized are
Special Anti-Narcotics Group, and the Manila Police, seized and confiscated from dealers along
obscene, and pose a clear and present
Manila sidewalks, magazines believed to be obscene and burned them. One of the publications
danger
was Pinoy Playboy published by Leo Pita. Mayor Bagatsing admitted the confiscation and
3. The judge must determine whether or
burning of obscence reading materials but admitted that these were surrendered by the stall
PITA v CA not the materials are obscene, to be
owners and the establishments were not raided.
resolved on a case-to-case basis and
through the judge’s discretion.
HELD: If they are not exactly used for art’s sake, but for commercial purposes, they are not
4. If, in the court’s opinion, probable
entitled to constitutional protection. The courts must intervene in the determination whether a
cause exits, it may issue the search
material is obscene; it cannot be left to the discretion of the police. There must always be a court
warrant
order.
5. Authorities may sue under Art. 201
of the PRC
6. Any conviction is subject to appeal.
The appellate court may assess
whether or not the properties seized
are indeed obscene
“Defamation and Discimination” in C. MacKinnon, ONLY WORDS
Two provisions of the Communications Decency Act sought to protect minors from harmful
material on the internet. It criminalized the act “knowing transmission of indecent images to
those under 18” was assailed on the grounds that the word “indecent” was too vague.
RENO v ACLU
HELD: CDA is unconstitutional for failing to provide definitions of “indecent” and “patently
offensive”. It was struck down for over breath. The prohibition of messages even between
consenting adults. The safeguards in the law are too burdensome for companies.

After the Reno case, Congress enacted Child Online Protection Act, which narrowed down the
CDA into messages for “commercial purposes” and “harmful to minors” as well as to the World
Wide Web only as opposed to covering all modes of communication. This was assailed on the
ground that it created an effective ban on the constitutionally protected speech by and to adults.
ASHCROFT v ACLU
HELD: The “community standards” is applicable to the internet and the web. Community
standards need not be defined by reference to a precise geographic area. The value of work as
adjudged using community standards does not vary based on the degree of local acceptance it
has won.

could allow for accommodation of morality provided it does not offend compelling state
interests [Estrada v Escritor]
V. CHURCH AND STATE: THE WALL OF SEPARATION
Doctrine of Conscientious Objector (CO)
A person may refuse to render a service or do something on the grounds of moral principle or
{Const. Art. II, Sec. 6} religious belief. A CO is exempt from compliance with mandates of a law. Being compelled
The separation of Church and State shall be inviolable. to act contrary to his religious belief and conviction would amount to a violation of “the
principle of non-coercion” enshrined along side the right to free exercise of religion. [Imbong
v Ochoa] So long as there is no compelling state interest, which would limit the free exercise
{Const. Art. III, Sec. 4} of COs they can freely do whatever it is they want to do. [keep in mind clear and present
No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press, or the danger test]
right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for redress of
grievances. To be considered a CO, the act being defended by it must adhere to this criteria:
a) There must be a belief in something, occupying a central place in the
{Consti. Art. VI, Sec. 29(2)} believer’s life
No public money or property shall be appropriated, applied, paid, or employed, directly or b) Belief must involve a moral code transcending individual self
indirectly, for the use, benefit, or support of any sect, church, denomination, sectarian c) Demonstrable sincerity in the said belief. [the courts cannot inquire into
institution, or system of religion, or of any priest, preacher, minister, other religious teacher, its truth or reasonableness]
or dignitary as such, except when such priest, preacher, minister, or dignitary is assigned to d) There must be associational ties with the act and belief [Estrada v
the armed forces, or to any penal institution, or government orphanage or leprosarium. Escritor]
Religion is a reference to one’s views of his relations to his Creator and to the obligations
they impose of reverence for his being and character and of obedience to his will [David v C. Unusual Religious Beliefs and Practices
Beason]. This is expanded to non-theistic beliefs such as Buddhism or Taoism.
A. Establishment Clause
This clause does not call for absolute separation of church and state but only prohibit
excessive government entanglement with, endorsement or disapproval of religion.
The limited entanglement of government and the religious sect includes tax exemptions,
operation of sectarian schools, religious instruction in public schools and limited public aid to
religion.
* take note of the Lemon Test enumerated below
B. Free Exercise Clause

This clause affords absolute protection for individual convictions. However, freedom to act
on these convictions is subject to
Benevolent Neutrality Doctrine

This is also called the doctrine of accommodation, which allows the government to take
religion into account when creating government policies to allow people to exercise their
religion without hindrance. It protects religious realities, tradition and established practice
with a flexible reading of the principle of separation of church and state. Benevolent neutrality

CASES
Establishment
- the law favors a particular sect resulting in the prejudice of another sect.
THERE IS NO VIOLATION. Since there

was a map of the Philippines there, they
were just promoting the country world wide.
To commemorating the 33rd international Eucharistic Congress, the BSP issued postage stamps.
It has a secular purpose of increasing
AGLIPAY v RUIZ HELD: There was no violation of the establishment clause. However, the stamp really favors the tourism
Roman Catholic Church. What they just want to say is that they are trying to promote the
Philippines around the world. Sir: Stamp would obviously use government
funds to make and distribute the stamps. It
cannot be denied drawing of the stamp here
shows that it is a roman catholic church.
Resolution no. 5 authorizing the revival of the socio. This resolution involved the purchase of a
wooden image and construction of benches for the fiesta (image of San Vicente Ferrer). Mass
was held. The priest refused to return the wooden image thus the barangay came to the SC with
GARCES v ESTENZO the contention that they are the rightful owners of the image.
HELD: The image was funded by private entities. Unless they donate the image to the church,
its ownership belongs to them
LEMON TEST WILL

COME OUT IN THE
TEST:
There was a law providing for financial aid subsidizing parochial schools. The aid was to be If yes to all the questions
given to teachers who were not teaching religion subjects Petitioners contend that the said law LANDMARK CASE FOR SEPARATION below, then the statute is
violates the establishment clause. The law was defended claiming that its purpose was to save OF CHURCH AND STATE constitutional:
the crisis in public schools and to aid the private schools. 1. Does the statute have
LEMON v KURTZMAN 1. PURPOSE: Giving salaries to teachers a secular legislative
[will come out of the test HELD: The law was declared unconstitutional. The restrictions and surveillance necessary to [as aid] in religious schools BUT does purpose.
he says] ensure that teachers play a strictly non-ideological role and the state supervision of nonpublic not handle courses or subjects on 2. Does its primary
school accounting procedures required to establish the cost of secular as distinguished from religion. effect neither advance
religious education resulted to excessive government entanglement between the state and nor inhibit religion?
religion 3. Does the statute not
foster an excessive
entanglement with
religion
BOARD OF Pinapahiram books BUT

EDUCATION v ALLEN The Education Law of New York contains a provision, which requires all local school boards to NOT EXCLUSIVELY TO
purchase textbooks and lend those textbooks free of charge to all students in grade 7 through 12. RELIGIOUS SCHOOLS,
The classification of students included those attending in private parochial schools. The incidental lang sila. Walang
provision is being assailed for being violative of the Non-Establishment Clause of the pinaboran
Constitution.
HELD: The non-establishment clause does not prevent state from extending benefit of laws to

all citizens regardless of religion. The express purpose of the assailed law is furtherance of
educational opportunities for the young, merely making available to all children the benefits of a
general program to lend schoolbooks for free. Ownership remains with the state, so no funds or
books are furnished to parochial schools.
Respondents alleged that the display of a creche and a Chanukah menorah in government
buildings by petitioners violated the Establishment Clause. They contended that the displays had
the effect of endorsing religion.
COUNTY OF
ALLEGHENY v ACLU HELD: The petitioners sent an unmistakable message that it supported and promoted the
Christian praise to God that was the creche's religious message, and held that the display of the
creche was unconstitutional. The display of the menorah in its particular setting was a visual
symbol for a holiday with a secular dimension
Christmas display was put up in a park located in the city’s shopping district. The display
includes, in addition to such objects as Santa Clause house and all other typical Christmas
decors, a banner that reads “SEASONS GREETINGS”, a crèche, which has been a part of this
annual display for 40 years or more.
LYNCH v DONNELY HELD: The crèche is constitutional. The opinions states that the inclusion of the crèche in the
display was not “an advancement or endorsement of religion” but the opinion offers no
discernible measure for distinguishing between permissible and impermissible endorsements. It
was observed that any benefit the government gave to religions from the display of crèche was
no more than “indirect, remote, and incidental, promotion” without saying how or why. The
Lemon test was applied. It merely depicts the origins of holiday.
There was a law that was passed prohibiting teachers from teaching human evolution. Epperson,
a public school teacher, sued claiming the law violated her First Amendment right to free speech
EPPERSON v as well as the Establishment Clause.
ARKANSAS
HELD: It was not valid. The use of state power to prohibit the teaching of material objectionable
to a particular sect amounted to an unconstitutional Establishment of religion.
School required students to read Bible parable at the opening of each school day. The school
district sought to enjoin enforcement of the statute. The district court ruled that the statute
violated the First Amendment, even after the statute had been amended to permit a student to
SCHOOL DISTRICT v excuse himself.
SCHEMPP
HELD: It was invalid and unconstitutional because such opening exercises were religious
ceremonies. Compulsory Bible readings were clearly religious exercises that violated the
concept of strict neutrality.
ENGEL v VITALE
Public schools were required to voluntrarily conduct prayer at the start of each class. This was
an attempt to defuse politically potent issue by taking it out of the hands of local communities.

HELD: It was invalid and unconstitutional because New York approved religion. The provision
allowing students to absent themselves from this activity did not make the law constitutional
because the purpose of the First Amendment was to prevent government interference with
religion.
Ohio started up a Pilot Project Scholarship Program aimed at any family in an Ohio school
district which was under federal control owing to a court decree. Cleveland City School District
had a dismal performance compared to others. This program specifically provides aid in terms of
education. They sought to invalidate the program on the basis of the violation of the
establishment clause. Take note of all the
ZELMAN v SIMMONS-
differences. They vary but
HARRIS justification is the same.
HELD: A school voucher program which allows parents to send their children to a private
school is not in violation of the Establishment Clause, where the vast majority of participating
private schools are affiliated to religious groups. Ohio does not coerce or promote the parents to
send children to religious schools.
The Higher Education Facilities Act of 1963 provides grants for college and university academic
facilities, excluding those used for sectarian instruction, religious worship or those primarily
used in connection with any part of the program of a school or department of divinity. There was
a law that was passed for the strong demand for the college and facilities.
TILTON v
RICHARDSON HELD: The law was valid. The appellants were unable to identify any coercion directed at the
practice or exercise of their religious beliefs. The court concluded that the Act did not violate the
religion clauses except for the provision which states the 20-year limitation on the religious use
restrictions
SJS filed a petition for declaratory relief before RTC against Velarde for the interpretation of
constitutional provisions on the separation of state and church and the constitutionality of acts of
religious leaders endorsing a candidate for an elective office.
VELARDE v SJS
HELD: SJS has failed to convince the Court that there are enough factual and legal basis to
resolve the paramount issue. It is not legally possible for the Court to take upon the merits the
paramount question involving a constitutional principle
The professor in UP Law was a Born-Again Christian. An atheist questioned his praying before
the class starts.
Saying a prayer before class in a public
ARIAS v UP BOARD HELD: The RTC said that saying a prayer before class in a public school is unconstitutional. institution [UP] is a violation of the
OF REGENTS The decision was appealed to the Court of Appeals. BUT NO UPDATE ON THE CASE. constitution
Sir: Since UP is a government school, it is unconstitutional.
Free Exercise Clause

AMERICAN BIBLE *remember ADE: absolutely, directly,
SOCIETY v CITY American Bible Society has been distributing and selling bibles and/or gospel portions exclusively used for religious/educational
throughout the Philippines and translating the same into several Philippine dialect. City purposes not subject to tax
Treasurer of Manila informed American Bible Society that it was violating several Ordinances

for operating without the necessary permit and license, thereby requiring the corporation to
secure the permit and license fees. To avoid closing of its business, American Bible Society paid
the City of Manila its permit and license fees under protest. American Bible filed a complaint,
questioning the constitutionality of Ordinances 2529 and 3000 as they are not required to pay
any license fee.
HELD: They cannot be taxed because it is part of their religious freedom . Applying the said
provision would impair their exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship as well
as its rights of dissemination of religious beliefs.
Petitioners belong to the Jehovah’s Witness whose children were expelled from their schools
when they refused to salute, sing the anthem, and recite the pledge during the conduct of flag
ceremony, in violation of Department Order No. 8 issued by DECS pursuant to RA 1265 which
called for the manner of conduct during a flag ceremony. RTC said that DO 8 is invalid and
GERONA v SEC OF contrary to the Bill of Rights.
EDUCATION
HELD: RA 1265 is valid. The flag is not an image but a symbol of the Republic of the
Philippines, an emblem of national sovereignty, of national unity and cohesion and of freedom
and liberty which it and the Constitution guarantee and protect. The flag is utterly devoid of any
religious significance. Saluting the flag consequently does not involve any religious ceremony
Similar facts in the previous case: students members of Jehovah’s Witness were expelled from Two-fold aspect of religious freedom
public school for refusing to salute the flag. Freedom to believe – absolute, as long as it’s
EBRALINAG v
confined to the realm of thought.
DIVISION HELD: The Supreme Court in Gerona failed to apply the clear and present danger rule. They Freedom to act on one’s belief – subject to
SUPERINTENDENT established the freedom to believe. Love for country does not simply mean standing and saluting regulation, so that it cannot prejudice the
the flag. The students cannot be compelled to salute the flag. rights of others.
Reverend Father Gonzaga was elected to the position of municipal mayor of Albuquerque,
Bohol. Petitioner, who was an opposing candidate, filed a petition for quo warranto on the basis
that under the Administrative Code that there shall not be elected or appointed to a municipal
office ecclesiastics, soldiers in active service, persons receiving salaries from provincial or
national funds. The respondent judge ruled against him, stating that the Election Code of 1971
PAMIL v TELERON impliedly repealed the provision.
HELD: The challenged Administrative Code provision, certainly insofar as it declares ineligible
ecclesiastics to any elective or appointive office, is, on its face, inconsistent with the religious
freedom guaranteed by the Constitution. To so exclude them is to impose a religious test. Article
3, Section 5, 1935 Constitution
MCDANIEL v PATY
Tennessee passed a statute prohibiting leaders of religious sectors to run from public office.
McDaniel, a minister, filed to run to become delegate to the State’s 1977 limited constitutional
convention. The Chancery Court held that the said section of the statute violated the First and
Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution.
HELD: The statute was unconstitutional because it conditions his right to the free exercise of his
religion on the surrender of his right to seek office. The law that prohibits you from running is

unconstitutional. This violates the free exercise clause.
Petitioners composed of about 50 people converged at JP Laurel St. in Manila for the purpose of
hearing mass at the St. Jude Chapel, which adjoin the Malacanan ground on the same street.
They started marching with raised clenched fists while shouting anti-government invectives.
They were then barred by the Mayor upon orders from proceeding any further. Despite pleas,
GERMAN v they were not allowed in the church
BARANGAN
HELD: The restriction was valid. There was a clear and present danger – what they were doing
constituted a threat to the security of the President. While it is beyond debate that every citizen
has the undeniable and inviolable right to religious freedom, the exercise thereof, and of all
fundamental rights for that matter, must be done in good faith.
Jesse Cantwell, walked along Cassius Street in New Haven, Connecticut with two family
members who were Jehovah's Witnesses. It was a Roman Catholic neighborhood. They carried
religious materials with them, including pamphlets, books, and records. They also had a portable
record player, which played an anti-Catholic message called “Enemies.” Jesse Cantwell stopped
two Catholic men on the street. The men agreed to listen to the record, but reacted angrily when
they heard it. They said they were tempted to hit him and told him to leave. Thereafter, the
CANTWELL v Cantwells were arrested for solicitation without a permit and for inciting a breach of the peace.
CONNECTICUT
HELD: While it is obvious that the principles of freedom of speech and religion do not sanction
incitement to riot or violence, it is equally obvious that a State may not unduly suppress free
communication of views under the guise of maintaining desirable conditions. There was no
evidence of assaultive behavior or threatening of bodily harm, no truculent bearing, no profane,
abusive, indecent remarks directed to the person of the hearer. Thus, it cannot be said that
Cantwell’s actions resulted in a breach of the peace or an incitement to a breach
An Act was passed requiring teachers and students to recite a pledge in accordance to religious
beliefs. The pledge contained the phrase “one nation under God”.
NEWDOW v US
CONGRESS HELD: The mandatory recitation in school would tend to discriminate against atheist students.
The Lemon test was applied and it failed. The endorsement test was applied – it failed. The
coercion test was applied – it failed.
The INC prohibited any of their members from joining any outside association or organization.
There was a Collective Bargaining Agreement between Hacienda Luisita and the United Luisita
Workers that did not include the members of the INC at the time of the agreement. The CBA
states that all employees would be required to join the Union and must stay in the Union to be
able to retain employment. An Act was assailed for containing a provision saying that members In case of conflict between union
of religious sects that prohibit affiliation may not be laid off, simply on the grounds of their non- membership (part of property rights) and
ANUCENSION v NLU religious belief, it is the religious freedom
affiliation with any worker’s union.
that prevails
HELD: The Act was constitutional. The government should not be precluded from pursuing
valid objectives, secular in character, even if the incidental result would be favorable to a
religious sect.

The INC had a show. This show was given an X rating by the MTRCB because their episodes
contained direct attacks against other religions.
IGLESIA NI CRISTO v Sir: You cannot suppress the freedom of
CA HELD: Prohibiting of screening of the show suppresses petitioner’s freedom of speech and religion no matter how annoying it can be
interferes with its right to free exrcise of religion.
The Twitchwells were the parents of a seriously ill two and a half y/o child who was afflicted
with a disease, which could have been easilty cured by surgery. Instead of having their child
undergo surgery, they relied on healing by spiritual treatment. This resulted in the death of their
child. They were charged with indirect manslaughter due to their wanton, reckless conduct
COMMONWEALTH v
TWITCHELL HELD: The case was remanded to answer some questions of fact. The parents are entitled to
assert an affirmative defense if it is proved that they reasonably relied on the Atty. Gen.’s
opinion about whether the statute providing that spiritual treatment may be enough to prevent a
finding of neglect providing a defense.
The court held that in resolving claims

involving religious freedom:
BENEVOLENT NEUTRALITY or
accommodation, mandatory or permissive, is
the spirit, intent, and framework underlying
Estrada filed a complain against court interpreter Escritor for living with a man not her husband the religion clauses
and having a child with him despite of her still being married to another man. Escritor is a In deciding a plea of exemption based on the
member of Jehovah’s Witness and claimed that the conjugal arrangement was in conformity Free Exercise Clause, COMPELLING
ESTRADA v with their religious beliefs. STATE INTEREST TEST must be applied
ESCRITOR In the 2003 case, the court could not rule on
HELD: Pursuant to the free exercise clause of the Constitution, the law recognizes actions, whether Escritor should be administratively
which are in accordance to religious beliefs. The court recognizes that state-interests must be liable since the State was given the
upheld in order that freedoms – including religious freedom – may be enjoyed. opportunity to adduce evidence that it has a
more compelling interest to defeat the claim
of the respondent to religious freedom.
The 2003 case was remanded to the OCA

and for the OSG to intervene
Unusual Religious Beliefs and Practices
Members of the Old Order of Amish religion were convicted of violating Wisconsin’s
compulsory school-attendance law by declining to send their children to public or private school
after they had graduated from the eighth grade. They justified their act saying that they sincerely
believed that attending highschool was contrary to the Amish Religion.
WISCONSIN v YODER HELD: Court ruled in favor of the Amish. The state’s interest in universal education is not
absolutely free from balancing process when it impinges on other fundamental rights. In the case
at bar, freedom of religion prevail over state’s interest. What they did is actually allowed by a
law. The traditional interest of parents with respect to the religious upbringing of their children
is protected under the free exercise clause.

Respondents were convicted of conspiracy and use of mails to defraud. Their scheme involved
the use of religious doctrines and beliefs, which were alleged to be false. They claimed that they
had supernatural powers to heal the sick and diseased.
US v BALLARD HELD: Their belief is valid. Although their religion seems incredible to most, it is not the role of
a jury to determine its veracity. The lower court needs to determine if the defendants honestly
believed in good faith. If they did, they should be acquitted. The Courts may not inquire into the
veracity of the subject of belief but only in the sincerity of the belief.
This involved 3 cases of asking for exemption claims of conscientious objectors under the
Universal Military Training and Service Act. A provision therein exempts from combatant
service in the armed forces those who are conscientiously opposed to participation in war by
reason of their “religious training and belief”
US v SEEGER
HELD: proof of being a conscientious objector would be decided upon if it can be shown that
the person alleging it possess a sincere and meaningful belief occupying in his life, a place
parallel to that filled by God. The Court expanded the meaning of religion to cover not just
recognized sects but also personal belief system based on philosophy readings, or based on an
analogy to God.
HE IS MUHAMMAD ALI.
Ali refused to be drafted to fight in the Vietnam War, claiming that he is a conscientious
CASSIUS CLAY v US objector. His claim was rejected by the Board w/o giving him a reason why. Conscientious objector
an individual who has claimed the right to
[will come out of the test
HELD: HE WAS NOT DRAFTED. WENT ON BOXING. 3 tests must be satisfied to qualify as refuse to perform military service on the
he said] grounds of freedom of thought, conscience,
a conscientious objector. 1) that he is conscientiously opposed to war in any form. 2) that this
opposition is based upon religious training and belief 3) that this objection is sincere. Since the and/or religion
Board gave no reason for denying his claim, it is unknown which ground he did not pass.

VI. UNLAWFUL SEARCHES AND SEIZURES
{Consti. Art. III, Sec. 2}

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no search
warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may
produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.
CASES
There was a celebration of the 20 th anniversary of EDSA. Arroyo proclaimed PD 1017as there Powers of the President: calling out powers,
were allegations of ousting Gloria. There were warrantless arrests and seizures on the basis of Martial Law, emergency powers, and
the proclamation. David was conducting a rally that was considered anti-Arroyo and was residual powers
arrested. The Daily Tribune was also closed down. The lawmakers based the arrest on the  The residual powers are not
proclamation. explicitly mentioned in the
Constitution but this is an
DAVID v HELD: There was insufficient reason to arrest David. There should have been a warrant for the example of the President having
MACAPAGAL Daily Tribune and should be done in the daytime and with witness unlike what happened which such to ensure that the laws are
such arrest happened at 1 am in the morning. All the items seized are inadmissible in evidence. being respected.
 With the declaration of the state of national emergency, it is the Congress who has the  This is an attempt of Arroyo to
power to do such and only by law authorize the President. invoke emergency powers
 Article VII, Section 17. The President shall have control of all the executive departments,
bureaus, and offices. He shall ensure that the laws be faithfully executed.
Acting out on suspicion that Katz was out on gambling dealings, he was convicted of illegal
transmission of information based on recordings gathered against him from calls in a telephone
booth. The police claimed that the conversation in the booth is public so people can invade the
KATZ v US privacy.
HELD: The one being protected is the person himself so he did not waive any privacy right. The
seizure of Katz based on the conversations heard in the public telephone booth is inadmissible
The counter-intelligence of Manila found information that a shipment would be under-valued so

they set up a checkpoint. They entered the checkpoint and Papa and other police seized the
items. The owner of the shipment claimed that tehre was unreasonable search and seizure
PAPA vMAGO because there was no warrant. As for Papa, he contended that B of Customs has jurisdiction, not
the court.
HELD: Given the nature of a moving vehicle, there is no need to secure a search warrant for
suspected illegal goods as the vehicle would have already left the premises
The accused assured Anita Reyes that the packages were only containing cigarettes so they did
not check it anymore. The boxes were inspected again and there was a foul order to be reported
to the NBI – t was dried marijuana leaves contained in cellophane wrappers.
PEOPLE v MARTI
HELD: The protection is against the government and the one who opened the boxes was a
private individual

Diokno made possible search warrants against Stonehill due to alleged violations of the Internal
Revenue Code. Stonehill contended that the warrants were invalid because they were general
warrants.
HELD: No warrants shall issue but upon probable cause and that it should particularly discuss
STONEHILL v what needs to be seized. None of requirements has been complied. A “violation of Central Bank
DIOKNO Laws, Tariff and Customs Laws, Internal Revenue (Code) and Revised Penal Code” was written
so no specific offense/ acts has been alleged thus no probable cause.
DISSENT: Petitioners have standing to quash warrants regardless whether it was directed
against residences or corporations as long as these effects were held by them under personal
control. As it is a fruit of a poisonous tree, it gives them standing
There was a detective who saw the person who was suspicious and did a body-search. He saw
weapons and arrested the accused.
TERRY v OHIO HELD: The Supreme Court held that there was an exception to the unreasonable search and
seizures rule when the policeman has a reasonable suspicion to seize the gun and arrest the
person if a crime would hapen. If the police were not allowed to do such, it would allow
criminals to just go about their way
There was a gunban because there would be elections. A congressman ordered Aniag to return
the guns back to their house. While driving, he entered a checkpoint where the police saw the
briefcase with the gun.
ANIAG v COMELEC
HELD: With checkpoints, what is in plain view should be searched and seized. If they want to
arrest the petitioner, they should secure a warrant first

VII. ACADEMIC FREEDOM
Background reading: Byrne: Academic Freedom: A

“Special Concern” of the First Amendment, 99 Yale L.J.
25 (1989)
{Consti. Art. XIV, Sec 1}

The State shall protect and promote the right of all citizens to quality education at all levels,
and shall take appropriate steps to make such education accessible to all.
{Consti. Art. XIV, Sec 5(5)}

The State shall assign the highest budgetary priority to education and ensure that teaching will
attract and retain its rightful share of the best available talents through adequate remuneration
and other means of job satisfaction and fulfillment.
There are four essential freedoms of any institution for higher learning: WHO-WHAT-HOW-
WHO – who may teach, what may be taught, how it shall be taught, who may be admitted to
study. [Garcia v Faculty Admission Committee]
Intitutional academic freedom includes the right of the school or college to decide for itself, its
aims and objectives, and how to best attain them – establishing academic and disciplinary
standards – free from outside coercion or interference except for compelling state reasons.
[covers who-what-how elements] The right to discipline students falls under the “what ”
element.

CASES

Impairment is anything that diminishes the efficacy of the contract [Clements v Nolting].
The non-impairment clause is a limit on legislative power.
VIII. PROTECTED INTERESTS IN LIBERTY *side note: this is kind of stupid, because jurisprudence dictates that, for compelling state
interest, contracts may be impaired by law -___-
Affirmative Action Policy refers to the policy giving preferential treatment in hiring and
giving education to marginalized groups to help them reach equal status with mainstream B. Involuntary Servitude
groups. This is a policy favoring those who tend to suffer from discrimination, especially in
relation to employment or education – a positive discrimination.
{Const. Art. III, Sec. 18(2)}
This is applied in both instances of employment or education. [In our system, this is applied No involuntary servitude in any form shall exist except as a punishment for a crime whereof
mostly in policies made in the Mnidanao region] the party shall have been duly convicted.
A. Non-Impairment of Obligations of Contracts Involuntary servitude is a condition of enforced, compulsory service of one to another –
forcing another to do something against their will.
Background reading: Padilla IV-A CIVIL LAW 11-42
(1988)(discussion of Art. 1306)
AUTONOMY OF WILL. this is obli we should know this by now. LOL exception: C. Imprisonment for Non-Payment of Debt
Moratorium laws
{CONST. art. III, sec. 20}

{Const. Art. III, Sec. 10} No person shall be imprisoned for debt or non-payment of a poll tax.
No law impairing the obligation of contracts shall be passed.
How is BP22 [bouncing checks law] constitutional?
{Civil Code. Art. 1306} BP 22 punishes the issuance of a bad check, which injures public policy. Unlike an issuance
The contracting parties may establish such stipulations, clauses, terms and conditions as they of a bad check with intent to defraud in estafa, which, in its nature malum in se, BP 22 is
may deem convenient, provided they are not contrary to law, morals, good customs, public malum prohibita.
order, or public policy.
D. Right Against Self-incrimination
A law which changes the terms of a legal contract between parties, either in the time or mode Every accused/witness has rights protected under the Constitution. Safeguarding one’s right
of performance, or imposes new conditions or authorizes something different from that against self-incrimination furthers this.
provided in the contract is a law which impairs the obligation of a contract and is therefore
null and void. Only applies to compulsory testimonial, and does not apply to material objects [Villafor v
Summers; People v Vallejo]

CASES

[below were not discussed by sir – not included in the test – so not expounded on. saying lang
effort. CHAR.]
IX. SCOPE OF CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION
A. Who are entitled to Constitutional Protection
Citizenship and Alienage

Board of Commissioners (CID) v. Dela Rosa et. al., 197
SCRA 853
Qua Chee Gan v. Deportation Board, 9 SCRA 27
Harvey v. Defensor-Santiago, 162 SCRA 840
Yu v. Defensor-Santiago, 169 SCRA 364
Labo v. COMELEC, 176 SCRA 1
Aznar v. COMELEC, 185 SCRA 703
JURIDICAL PERSONS
Stonehill v. Diokno, supra
Central Bank v. Morfe, 20 SCRA 507
B. Who are subject to Constitutional Prohibitions
STATE ACTION REQUIREMENT

People v. Marti, 193 SCRA 57
Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins, supra
Borjal v. Court of Appeals, 301 SCRA 1, 23, G.R. No.
126466, Jan. 14, 1999

Consti 2 Jamon

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Consti 2 Jamon

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Consti 2 Jamon

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1

II. DUE PROCESS CLAUSE...........................................................................13

III. EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE.............................................................27

Block 1 SY 15-16 Dane & TTL [Constitutional Law II - Jamon]

Requisites for valid classification................................................................................27

IV. FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION..................................................................36

V. CHURCH AND STATE: THE WALL OF SEPARATION......................51

VI. Unlawful Searches and Seizures.................................................................60

VII. ACADEMIC FREEDOM..........................................................................62

VIII. PROTECTED INTERESTS IN LIBERTY..............................................64

IX. SCOPE OF CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION....................................66

Block 1 SY 15-16 Dane & TTL [Constitutional Law II - Jamon]

Judicial Power Judicial Review

Judicial Power Judicial Review

Block 1 SY 15-16 Dane & TTL [Constitutional Law II - Jamon]

Block 1 SY 15-16 Dane & TTL [Constitutional Law II - Jamon]

Block 1 SY 15-16 Dane & TTL [Constitutional Law II - Jamon]

Block 1 SY 15-16 Dane & TTL [Constitutional Law II - Jamon]

Refers to: (1) matters to be exercised by the people in

Block 1 SY 15-16 Dane & TTL [Constitutional Law II - Jamon]

RIPENESS & MOOTNESS:

Exception: Courts will still decide if:

REQUISITES FOR THE EXERCISE OF JUDICIAL

Block 1 SY 15-16 Dane & TTL [Constitutional Law II - Jamon]

Hechanova authorized the importation of foreign rice to be purchased. Gonzales, a rice

In Marcos, the funds being

Block 1 SY 15-16 Dane & TTL [Constitutional Law II - Jamon]

POE v ULLMAN A penal statute that has not been enforced is

Block 1 SY 15-16 Dane & TTL [Constitutional Law II - Jamon]

DE FUNIS v When the original controversy has

Block 1 SY 15-16 Dane & TTL [Constitutional Law II - Jamon]

Block 1 SY 15-16 Dane & TTL [Constitutional Law II - Jamon]

Noted exceptions to due process

Block 1 SY 15-16 Dane & TTL [Constitutional Law II - Jamon]

It guarantees against the arbitrary power even when exercised according to

C. “New” Substantive Due Process: Protection for Liberty

D. Protected Interests in Property

Block 1 SY 15-16 Dane & TTL [Constitutional Law II - Jamon]

Essential Requirements of Administra-

Block 1 SY 15-16 Dane & TTL [Constitutional Law II - Jamon]

Block 1 SY 15-16 Dane & TTL [Constitutional Law II - Jamon]

Difference between mala in se and mala prohibita in this case:

Old Substantive Due Process: Protection for Property Interests

Block 1 SY 15-16 Dane & TTL [Constitutional Law II - Jamon]

New Substantive Due Process: Protection for Liberty Interest in Privacy

From Skinner up til Bowers, cases

Block 1 SY 15-16 Dane & TTL [Constitutional Law II - Jamon]

Responding to a reported weapons disturbance in a private residence, Houston police entered

Block 1 SY 15-16 Dane & TTL [Constitutional Law II - Jamon]

Protected interest in Property

Block 1 SY 15-16 Dane & TTL [Constitutional Law II - Jamon]

Block 1 SY 15-16 Dane & TTL [Constitutional Law II - Jamon]

Block 1 SY 15-16 Dane & TTL [Constitutional Law II - Jamon]

Taking under Eminent Domain v Taking under Social Justice Clause

Block 1 SY 15-16 Dane & TTL [Constitutional Law II - Jamon]

Block 1 SY 15-16 Dane & TTL [Constitutional Law II - Jamon]

Block 1 SY 15-16 Dane & TTL [Constitutional Law II - Jamon]

Block 1 SY 15-16 Dane & TTL [Constitutional Law II - Jamon]