MANUEL L.

QUEZON UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE OF LAW

PROFESSOR: Atty. Reynaldo G. Lopez / SY 2021-2022, 2nd semester

COURSE TITLE: CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2
SUBJECT CODE: CON 122-2
COURSE CREDIT: 3 units
PRE-REQUISITE: None

COURSE DESCRIPTION:

This 3-unit course is a comprehensive study of the liberty of a person guaranteed by the 1987
Philippine Constitution and those rights in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of the United
Nations. Under the Constitution, it includes civil and political rights under the Bill of Rights under
Article III, and social, economic and cultural rights under Articles XIII and XIV. It touches certain
generally accepted principles of international law on human rights which include the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPPR), International Covenant on Social, Economic and
Cultural Rights (ICSECR), and other treaties ratified by the Philippines. The course presents the
various doctrines and principles used as standards to balance the exercise of the inherent powers of
the State vis-à-vis the constitutionally guaranteed rights.

METHODOLOGY:

The class will be conducted mainly through recitations, quizzes and examinations.
Occasionally, the professor will lecture on general constitutional principles and State policies, recent
jurisprudence, social issues and current trends.

To enhance class participation, the Socratic, perceptorial, facilitator and assimilation

methods of learning shall be applied. These are all designed to increase the student’s knowledge in
constitutional law and increase the proficiency in research and analytical reasoning; as well as their
interest in advocacy and people empowerment.

Landmark and recent cases on constitutional law have been selected for assignment and
discussion to increase the student’s proficiency in applying the laws in pertinent situations.

In view of the restrictions on face-to-face classes, both professor and students must adapt
under a blended learning and innovative teaching method. In this connection, the use of online
learning, shall be the mode of instruction to adapt to the current situation, until a more favorable
mode/setting permits. Recitations, quizzes and examinations shall be conducted using available
internet platforms in real time. Occasionally, and during unexpected class suspensions, the class may
be conducted with asynchronous sessions by recording and uploading audio/video lectures, together
with other learning materials, that may be accessed by students at any time to cope-up with the
situation. Online discussion boards, group chats, emails and other means may be utilized by the
professor and class beadle to post and submit questions for clarification regarding class activities and
topic discussions.

COURSE REQUIREMENTS:

Readings and Assignments. You are expected to be familiar with the assigned readings on a
week-to-week basis and must be prepared to participate actively in class discussions. Supplementary
readings and assignments will be given every now and then to update and augment the schedule of
Topics and Readings and to ensure a better understanding of a specific topic.

Recitation. You will be called to recite or lead the discussion of a scheduled topic during the
term. You are expected to demonstrate during recitation both knowledge of the assigned readings
and ability to express yourself convincingly.

Mid-term/Final Examinations. You will be given two major examinations in this course.
Both will allow you to display your knowledge and familiarity to think critically and logically.

GRADING SYSTEM:

Your grade in this course will be determined on the basis of class standing (30%) which
includes quizzes and recitations, the preliminary examination (30%), and the final examination
(40%).
REFERENCE BOOKS:

1. Nachura, Antonio, E.B.. Outline Reviewer in Political Law (2015) Quezon City: VP Graphic Arts,
Inc.

2. Bernas, Joaquin G., The 1987 Philippine Constitution, A Comprehensive Reviewer, (latest edition)
Quezon City: Rex.

3. De Leon, Hector., Philippine Constitutional Law: Principles and Cases, Volume 1 (2003) Manila:
Rex Bookstore.

4. Suarez, Rolando A., Political Law Reviewer (2018) Manila: Rex Bookstore.

5. Villareal, Edgardo M., Political and Constitutional Law For Students, Barristers and Lawyers
(2017): Rex.

6. Petralba, Pepita Jane A., Hornbook on International and Philippine Human Rights Laws (2013)
Manila: Rex Bookstore.

7. Bacungan, Froilan M., Universal Human Rights: A Reality in the Constitution of the Philippines
(2012) Quezon City: University of the Philippines College of Law.

COURSE OUTLINE:

I. Kinds and Heirarchy of Rights

A. Natural, Constitutional, Statutory Rights

B. Civil, Political, Economic, Social, Cultural Rights
C. 3 Generations of Rights – Reference: See Hornbook on International Law
and Philippine Human Rights Laws by Petralba, p. 13.
D. Life, Liberty (Pursuit of happiness), Property Rights

Case: Republic v Cagandahan, GR 166676 12 Sep 2008

II. Fundamental powers of the State

A. Inherent powers: Police Power, Eminent Domain, Taxation

B. Similarities and differences
C. Who exercises the power?

III. Due Process, Article III, Section 1

A. Relativity of due process

B. Judicial standards of review

1. Reasonable / Rational connection test

2. Clear and present danger test
3. Dangerous tendency test

Cases:
- PBM Employees Org. v PBM, GR L-31195, 5 Jun 1973
- Ermita- Malate Hotel and Motel Operatots v City Mayor,GR L-24693, 23 Oct 1967
- Cruz v Paras, GR L-42571-72, 25 Jul 1983
- City of Manila v Judge Laguio, GR 118127, 12 Apr 2005
- White Light v City of Manila, GR 122846, 20 Jan 2009

4. Balancing of Interest test

C. Two Aspects of Due Process:

1. Substantive due process

Cases:
- Tanada v Tuvera, GR L-63915, 29 Dec 1986
- GMA v MTRCB, GR 148579, 5 Feb 2007
 - Knights of Rizal v DMCI Homes, Inc., GR 213948, 25 Apr 2017
- Evasco v Montanez, GR 199172, 21 Feb 2018
- Mayor Fernando v St. Scholastica’s College, GR 16107, 12 May 2013
- Mosqueda v Pilipino Banana Growers and Exporters Association, GR 189185, 16
Aug 2016

2. Procedural Due Process

Cases:
- Nestle Philipiines, Inc., v Puedan, GR 220617, 30 Jan 2017
- Turks Shawarma Company v Pajaton, GR 207156, 16 Jan 2017
- Estate of F.E. Marcos v Republic, GR 213227, 18 Jan 2017
- Lagon v Velasco, GR 208424, 14 Feb 2018
- Republic v Sereno, GR 237428, Resolution for M.R., 19 Jun 2018
- Borlongan v BDO, GR 217617; GR 218590, 5 Apr 2017
- AllIance for the Family Foundation Phil., Inc., v Garin, Resolution on Partial
M.R., GR 217872; Gr 221866, 26 Apr 2017
- Government of the U.S.A. v Purganan, GR 148571, 24 Sep 2002

D. Constitutional and statutory due process

Case: Agabon v NLRC, GR 158693, 17 Nov 17 2004

IV. Equal Protection, Article III, Section 1

A. Concept
B. Requisites for valid classification
C. Judicial standards of review

1. Rational basis test

2. Intermediate scrutiny test
3. Strict scrutiny test

Cases:
- PASEI v Drilon, GR 81958 30 Jun 1988
- People v Hernandez, GR L-6025, 30 May 1964
- Nunez v Sandiganbayan, GR L-50581-50617 30 Jan 1982
- Abubakar v People, GR 202408; 202409, 27 Jun 2018
- Gallardo v People, GR 142030, 21 Apr 2005
- Tiu v CA, GR 127410, 20 Jan 1999
- ISAE v Quisumbing, GR 128845, 1 Jun 2000
- Telebap and GMA v Comelec, GR 132922, 21 Apr 1998
- Serrano v Gallant Maritime Services, Inc., GR 167614, 24 Mar 2009
- Garcia v Drilon, GR 179267, 25 Jun 2013

V. Police Power

A. Concept, application and limits

B. Requisites for valid exercise

Cases:
- Southern Luzon Drug Corp. v DSWD, GR 199669, 25 Apr 2017
- Carlos Superdrug Corp. v DSWD, GR 16694, 29 Jun 29 2007
- Manila Memorial Park v DSWD, GR 175356, 3 Dec 2013
- Drugstore Asso. of the Phil. v National Council on Disability Affairs, GR 194561,
14 Sep 2016

C. Delegation to Administrative bodies, Local government units

Cases:
- Social Justice Society v Atienza, Jr., GR 156052, 7 Mar 2007
- Meralco v Sps. Ramos, GR 195145, 10 Feb 2016
- MMDA v Viron, GR 170656 15 Aug 2007
- Association of Medical Clinic for Overseas Workers, Inc. v GCC Approved Medical
Center Association, GR 207132, 6 Dec 2016
- St. Luke’s Medical Center Employees Asso. v NLRC, GR 162053, 7 Mar 2007
VI. Eminent Domain Power, Article III, Section 9; Article XII, Section 18 (Compare to Art XII,
Sec 17)

A. Definition, Concept
B. Requisites for valid exercise

1. Taking

a. What constitutes taking; Types

Cases:
- Republic v Vda. De Castelvi, GR L-20620, 15 Aug 1974
- City of Manila v Laguio, GR 118127, 12 Apr 2005 (Possessory v Regulatory taking)
- RP (Napocor) v Heirs of Borbon, CA, GR 165354, 12 Jan 2015

b. Deprivation of Use

Cases:
- Republic v Sps. Llamas (Illegal Taking of Subdivision Roads), GR 194190, 25 Jan 2017
- Bartolata v Republic, GR 223534, 7 Jun 2017
- Napocor v Gutierrez, GR L-60077, 18 Jan 1991
- PPI v Comelec, GR L-11994, 22 May 1995

2. Private Property

- Distinguish; Property of public dominion, Property for public use, patrimonial

property, property of private ownership Art. 420-425, New Civil Code

Cases:
- City of Baguio v Nawasa, GR L-12032, 31 Aug 1959
- Zamboanga del Norte v City of Zamboanga, GR L-24440, 28 Mar 1968

3. For Public Use

Cases:
- Manosca v CA, GR 106440, 29 Jan 1996
- Mactan-Cebu Int’l Airport Authority v CA, GR 139495, 27 Nov 2000 (Right to repurchase/
re-acquire the property)
- Mactan-Cebu Int’l Airport v Lozada, GR 176625, 25 Feb 2010, (Change of public purpose)

4. Payment of Just Compensation

Cases:
- Republic v Macabagdal, GR 227215, 30 Jan 2018 (definition)
- Napocor v Sps. Chiong, GR 152436, 20 Jun 20 2003 (Consequential damage and benefit)
- EPZA v Dulay, GR L-59603, 29 Apr 1987 (who determines?)
- Heirs of Feliciano, Jr. v Land Bank, GR 215290, 11 Jan 2017 (DAR formula)
- Esteban v De Onorio, GR 146062, 28 Jun 28 2001 (when determined?)
- City of Cebu v Sps. Dedamo, GR 142971, 7 May 7 2002 (time of taking)
- Asso. of Small Landowners v DAR, GR 78742, 14 Jul 1989 (form/manner of payment)
- Meralco v Pineda, GR L-59791, 13 Feb 1992, (Trial with Commissioners),
- NPC v Henson,), GR 129998, 29 Dec 1998, (Report of Commissioners)
- Sec. of DPWH and Engr. Contreras v Sps Tecson, GR 179334, 21 Apr 2015 (Delay in
payment; Legal Rate of Interest)
- Republic v Lim, GR 161656, 29 Jun 29 2005, (Right to Recover)
- Napocor v Heirs of Sangkay, GR 165828, 24 Aug 24 2011 (Inverse Condemnation)

C. Delegation to Administrative Bodies, Local Government Units, and Private Corporations

1. Genuine Necessity of Taking

- RA 7279 (Urban Devt. and Housing Act of 1992), Secs. 9-10

- RA 6657 (Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law), Secs 4 & 9, art. XIII
- RA 7160 (Local Govt. Code of 1991), Sec. 19, Art. 32-42 IRR of LGC

Cases:
- Filstream International v CA, GR 125218, 23 Jan 1998
- Jesus is Lord Christian School Foundation v Mun. of Pasig, GR 152230, 4 Aug 2005
VII. Taxation Power

A. Definition, Nature, Purpose, Scope

B. Requisites for valid exercise, Art. VI, Sec 28; Art. XIV, Sec. 4 (3); LGU; Art. X, Sec 5

Cases:
-CIR v Algue, GR L-28896, 17 Feb 1998, (lifeblood of government)
- City of Pasig & Crispina Salumbre v Meralco, GR 181710, 7 Mar 2018

C. Tax Exemptions

Case: CIR v DLSU, GR 196596, 9 Nov 2016

D. Double Taxation

Case: City of Manila v Cosmos Bottling Company Corp. v GR 196681, 27 Jun 2018

E. License Fees v Tax

Case: Physical Therapy Org. v Municipal Board, GR 10448, 30 Aug 1957

VIII. Right against unreasonable searches and seizures (Right to be let alone), Article III, Section 2

A. Concept

1. Zones of Privacy - Constitutional guarantee

a. Right against unreasonable searches and seizures

b. Right to privacy of communication and correspondence

2. Categories of privacy

a. Decisional privacy
b. Informational privacy

i. Two aspects:

1.1. right not to have information disclosed

2.2. right to live freely without surveillance and intrusion

ii. Two-fold tests in determining entitlement to the right

1.1. subjective test (legitimate expectation of privacy)

2.2. objective test (society accepts expectation as reasonable)

3. To whom directed

Case: People v Andre Marti, GR 81561, 18 Jan 1991

4. Who may invoke the right?

Cases:
- Bache and Co. (Phil.) Inc., v Judge Ruiz, GR L-32409, 27 Feb 1971
- Stonehill v Diokno, GR L-19550, 19 Jun 19 1967

B. Requisites for a valid warrant

1. Probable cause

Cases:
- Burgos v Chief of Staff, GR L-64261, 26 Dec 26, 1984
- AAA v Carbonell, GR 171465, 8 Jun 2007
- People and Pastrana v Abad, GR 196025, 21 Feb 2018

2. Issued personally by a judge

 Cases:
- Soliven v Judge Makasiar, GR 82585, 14 Nov 1988
- Pita v CA, GR 80806, 5 Oct 1989

3. Examination under oath or affirmation

Cases:
- Pasion Vda.De Gracia v Locsin, GR L-45950, 20 Jun 1938
- Mata v Bayona, GR 50720, 26 Mar 1984

4. Particular description of persons, things and places

Cases:
- Del Castillo v People, GR 185128, 30 Jan 2012
- People v Salanguit, GR 133254-55, 19 Apr 2001
- Dimal and Castillo, v People, GR 216922, 18 Apr 2018

C. Warrantless arrests, Rules of Court, Rule 113, Section 5

1. in flagranti delicto

Cases:
- People v Sucro, GR 93239, 18 Mar 1991
- People v Go, GR 116001, 14 Mar 2001
- Reyes v People, GR 229380, 6 Jun 2018
- Umil v Ramos, GR 81567, 9 July 1990 (on rebellion)
- Luz v People, GR 197788, 29 Feb 29 2012 (penalty of fine, not imprisonment)
- Villamor v People, GR 200396, 22 Mar 22 2017

2. hot pursuit

Cases:
- People v Gerente, GR 95847-48, 10 Mar 1993
- People v Cubcubin, GR 136267, 10 Jul 2001

- Time of arrest

Cases:
- People v Rodrigueza, GR 95902, 4 Feb 1992
- Go v CA, GR 101837, 11 Feb 1992

- Lack of Urgency

Cases:
- People v Pasudag, GR 128822, 4 May 2001
- People v Aminnudin, GR 74869, 6 Jul 1988

3. fugitive from justice

D. Administrative arrests

F. Warrantless searches

1. Consent or waiver

Cases:
- People v Omaweng, GR 99050, 7 Sep 1992
- Veroy v Layague, GR L-95630, 18 Jun 1992
- People v Damaso, GR 93516, 12 Aug 1992

2. Search incident to lawful arrest

Cases:
- People v Kalubiran, GR 84079, 6 May 1991
- Espano v CA, GR 120431, 1 Apr 1998
- People v Tangliben, GR L-63630, 6 Apr 1990
- Picardal v People, GR 235749, 19 Jun 2019
 3. Moving vehicle

Cases:
- People v Mago, GR L-27360, 28 Feb 1968
- Asuncion v CA, GR 125959, 1 Feb 1999

4. Emergency circumstances

Case: People v Degracia, GR 102009, 6 Jul 1994

G. Incidents that may lead to warrantless search

1. plain view

Cases:
- People v Musa, GR 96177, 27 Jan 1993
- Padilla v CA, GR 121917, 12 Mar 1997
- People v Pasudag, GR 128822, 4May 2000
- People v Valdez, GR 129296, 25 Sep 2000
- People v Compacion, GR 124442, 20 Jul 2001

2. checkpoint (visual search vs extensive search)

Cases:
- Caballes v CA, GR 136292, 15 Jan 2002
- People v Libnnao, GR 136860, 20 Jan 2003

3. stop and frisk

Cases:
- Terry v Ohio, 392 US 1, (1968)
- Posadas v CA, GR 89139, 2 Aug 1990
- Manalili v CA, GR 113447, 9 Oct 1997
- People v Solayao, GR 119220, 20 Sep 1996
- People v Comprado, GR 213325, 4 Apr 2018 (waiver of illegal arrest, not
waiver of illegal search and seizure)

H. Reasonable searches

1. airports
2, seaports
3. public land transportation terminals,
4. shopping malls, hotels, resorts and other public places

Cases:
- People v Johnson, GR 138881, 18 Dec 2000 (airport)
- Libo-on Dela Cruz v People, GR 209387, 11 Jan 2016 (seaport)
- People v Breis, GR 205823, 17 Aug 2015 (bus)
- Saluday v People, GR 215305, 3 Apr 2018 (bus terminal)

I. Drug, alcohol and blood tests

Cases:
- Social Justice Society v Dangerous Drugs Board, GR157870, 3 Non 2008
- Lucas v Lucas, GR 190710, 6 Jun 2011
- Jaime Dela Cruz v People, GR 200748, 23 Jul 2014 (Extortion)

J. Exclusionary rule

1. RA 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act)

Case: People v Dumagoy, GR 216753, 7 Feb 018 (buy-bust operation)

2. RA 10640 (Amending RA 9165)

- Chain of Custody: Requirements; Effects; Sec 21, RA 9165

 Cases:
- People v Garry dela Cruz, GR 205821, 1 Oct 2014
- People v Gayoso, GR 206590, 27 Mar 2017
- People v Villanueva, 13 Mar 2017
- Dabon v. People, GR 208775, 22 Jan 2018
- People v Crispo, GR 230065, 14 Mar 2018
- People v Que, GR 212994, 31 Jan 2018
- People v Sipin, GR 224290, 11 Jun 2018
- People v Teng Moner y Adam, 5 Mar 2018 (Chain of Custody of Evidence)

IX. Privacy of communication and correspondence, Article III, Section 3

A. Private and public communications

1. Privileged Communication

Cases:
- Waterous Drug Corp. v NLRC, GR 113271, 16 Oct 1997
- Zulueta v CA, 253, GR 107383, 20 Feb 1996

B. Intrusion; when allowed

1. RA 4200 (1965) – Anti-Wiretapping Law

Case: Salcedo-Ortanez v CA, GR 110662, 4 Aug 1994

2. RA 10173 (2012) – Data Privacy Act (Protecting personal information and

communications systems in government and private sectors

Cases:
- Katz v US, 389 US 347 (1967)
- Pollo v Constantino-David, GR 181881, 18 Oct 2011
- Republic v Bolante, GR 186717; GR 190357, 17 Apr 2017

3. RA 10175, Cybercrime Law

Case: Disini v Secretary of Justice, GR 203335, 11 Feb 2014

C. Writ of habeas data

Cases:
- Vivares v St. Theresa’s College, GR 202666, 29 Sep 2014
- Lee v Ilagan, GR 203254, 8 Oct 2014
- Ople v Torres, GR 127685, 23 Jul 1998
- KMU v Director-General, NEDA, GR 167798, 19 Apr 2006

D. Exclusionary rule

X. Freedom of speech, expression, Article III, Section 4

A. Concept, purpose and scope, Schools of Thought

1. Prior restraint (censorship)

2. Fear of subsequent punishment

Cases:
- Babst v NIB, GR L-62992, 28 Sep 1984

B. Tests for valid restraint

1. Dangerous Tendency Test

2. Clear and Present Danger Test
3. Balancing of Interest Test

Case: Disini v Secretary of Justice, GR 203335, 11 Feb 2014, supra.

C. Regulations: Content-based vs content-neutral

1. Tests:
- O’Brien Test: US v O’Brien, 391 US 367 (1968)
- Intermediate Scrutiny Test
- Strict Scrutiny

2. Applications

Cases
- Osmena v Comelec, GR 132231, 31 Mar 1998

D. Facial challenges: Void-for-vagueness and Overbreadth doctrines

Cases:
- Southern Hemisphere Engagement Network, Inc. v Anti-Terrorism Council, GR
178552 5 Oct 2010
- Estrada v Sandigabnayan, GR 148560, 19 Nov 2001
- Disini v Secretary of Justice, GR 203335, 11 Feb 2014, supra.

E. State regulations of different types of media

1. Print media

Cases:
- New York Times v Sullivan, 376 US 254 (1964)

2. Photos, pictures, paintings, sculptures

Cases:
- People v Go Pin, GR L-7491, 8 Aug 1955
- People v Kottinger, GR L-20569, 29Oct 1923

3. Movies and television

- PD 1986 – MTRCB

Cases:
-MTRCB v ABS-CBN and Loren Legadra, GR 155282, 17 Jan 2005
(Newsreel)
- Gonzalez v Kalaw Katigbak, GR 69500, 22 Jul 1985

4. Radio

Cases:
- Bartnicki v Vopper, 532 US 514 (2001)
- Eastern Broadcsting Corp. (DYRE) v Dans, GR L-59329, 19 Jul 1985

5. Live shows, theatrical performances

Case: People v Padan y Alova, GR L-7295, 28 Jun 1957

6. Optical media, video, internet

- RA 9239 – Optical Media Act of 2003 (Video Regulatory Board)

- RA 10175, Cybercrime Law

Case: Disini v Secretary of Justice, GR 203335, 11 Feb 2014, supra.

The Fifth Estate

F. Kinds of speeches

1. Core speeches (political, social religious) vs Commercial speeches (Advertiesment

of goods and services)

Cases:
- Diocese of Bacolod v Comelec, GR 205728, 21 Jan 2015
 - Pharmaceutical and Health Care Association of the Philippines vs.
Secretary of Health Duque, GR 173034, 9 Oct 2007
- Disini v Secretary of Justice, GR 203335, 11 Feb 2014, supra.

2. Freedom of the press: 4 Aspects

a. Freedom from prior restraint

b. Freedom from subsequent punishment
c. freedom of access to information
d. Freedom of circulation

- Disini v Secretary of Justice, GR 203335, 11 Feb 2014, supra.

3. Peaceful Assembly and Petition of Redress of Grievances

- BP 880 - Public Assembly Act

- Heckler’s Veto (Terminiello v Chicago (1949)

Cases:
- Primicias vs. Mayor Fugoso, GR L-1800, 27 Jan 1948
- Navarro vs. Mayor Villegas, GR 31687, 26 Feb 1970
- Ignacio vs. Mayor Ela, GR L-6858, 31 May 1956
- J.B.L Reyes v Bagatsing, GR L-65366, 9 Nov 1983
- David v Macapagal-Arroyo, GR 171396, 3 May 2006
- Bayan v Ermita, GR 169838, 25 Apr 2006

4. Unprotected speeches

a. alarming and scandalous

b. inciting to sedition, rebellion

Cases:
- Espuelas vs. People, GR. L-2990, 17 Dec 1957
- Corro vs. Lising GR 69899, 15 Jul 1985

c. libel, slander and other forms of defamation, blackmail

Cases:
- Belen v People, GR 21120, 13 Feb 2017
- Lopez v CA, GR L-2654, 31 Jul 1970
- Borjal v CA, GR 126466, 14 Jan 1999
- Disini v Secretary of Justice, GR 203335, 11 Feb 2014, supra.

d. fighting words, hate words

e. obscenity

- Standards / Tests:

- (Regina vs) Hicklin test / Isolated Passage test; English case)

- Roth Test / Dominant Theme Test / Average Person Test /
Contemporary Community Standard Test / Social
Redeeming Value Test (Roth v US, 354 US 476, 1957).
- Relative Obscenity Test / Average Person “Child” Test

Cases:
- Soriano v Laguardia, GR 164785, 29 Apr 2009; GR 165636, 15
Mar 2010
- Federal Communications Commission (FCC) vs. Pacifica
Foundation, (438 US 726, 1978).
- Pita v CA, GR 80806, 5 Oct 1989

5. Limitations on free speech

a. Intellectual property right

- RA 8293 - Intellectual Property Code (1997)

 - Textbook Printing Law and International Treaties on Copyright
- copyright, fair use and decompilation
- infringement, plagiarism

b. Fair administration of justice

- contempt / subjudice

Cases:
- Roque v Chief of Staff, GR 214986, 15 Feb 2017

c. Fair conduct of elections

- RA 9006 - Fair Election Act (2001)

- Conducting surveys and exit polls

Cases:
- SWS v Comelec, GR 147571, 5 May 2001
-GMA Network v Comelec, GR 205257, 2 Sep 2014
- I-UTAK v Comelec, GR 206020, 14 Apr 2015

d. National security (see also Inciting to Rebellion and Sedition, supra.)

- RA 53, as amended by RA 1477 – Shield Law

Case: In re: Parazo, GR 082027, 3 Dec 1948

e. Academic Freedom (Student Rights vs. School Rules and Regulations)

Cases:
- CoTeSCUP v Secretary of Education, GR 216930, 9 Oct 2018 (K-12)
- Pimentel v Legal Education Board, GR 230642 / GR 242954, 10 Sep 2019
(Philsat)

f. offending the religious feelings

Case: Celdran v People, GR 220127, 21 Mar 2018

g. Freedom of Speech and Expression vs Right to Privacy

Cases:
- Lagunzad v Sotto, GR L-32066, 6 Aug 1979
- Ayer v Judge Capulong, GR 82380, 29 Apr 1988 (public figure)

XI. Freedom of Religion, Article III, Section 5;

A. Free Exercise Clause (Conscientious objector / Benevolent Neutrality doctrine)

Cases:
- Victoriano v Elizalde Rope Workers Union, GR L-25246, 12 Sep 1994
- Ebralinag v Division Superintendent of Cebu, GR, 95770, 29 Dec 1995
- Estrada vs Escritor, A.M. P-02-1651, 22 Jun 2006; (formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 00-1021-P, 4
Aug 2003)
- Request of Muslim Employees in the different courts in Iligan City, A.M. 02-2-10-SC, 14
Dec 2005 (Re: Office Hours)
- Imbong v Ochoa, GR 204819, 8 Apr 2014

B. Non- Establishment Clause; exceptions; Article VI, Section 28 (3); Article VI Section 1
(2); Article XIV, Section (3)

Cases:
- Aglipay v Ruiz, GR L-45459, 13 Mar, 1937
- Peralta v Philpost, GR 223395, 4 Dec 2018
- Engel v Vitale, 370 US 421 (1962)
- Abington Schools District v Schempp, 374 US 203 (1973)
- Stone v Graham, 449 US 39 (1980)
- Wallace v Jaffree, 472 US 38 (1985)
 - Letter of Atty. Valenciano, , A.M. 10-4-19-SC, 7 Mar 2017 (accommodation vs
establishment)

C. Allowable vs non-allowable government aid; Requisites

Case: Lemon v Kurtzman, 403 US 602 (1971) (Lemon Test)

D. Separation of Church and State

Cases:
- Fonacier v CA, GR L-5917, 28 Jan 1955
- Garces vs. Estenzo, GR L-53487. 25 May 1981
- Ang Ladlad v Comelec, GR190582, 8 Apr 2010
- Republic v Manalo, GR 221029, 24 Apr 2018
- Municipality of Tangkal v Balindon, GR 193340, 11 Jan 2017

XII. Liberty of Abode / Right to Travel, Article III, Section 6

Cases:
- Silverio v CA, GR 94282, 8 Apr 1991
- Manotoc v CA, GR L-62100, 30 May 1986
- Genuino v De Lima, GR 197930; Arroyo v De Lima, GR 199034, Arrroyo v De Lima, GR
199046, 17 Apr 2018
- Office of the Court Administrator v Judge Macarine, A.M. No. MTJ-10-1770, 18 Jul 2012
- SPARK v QC, Navotas, Manila, GR GR 225442, 8 Aug 2017 (Curfew on Minors)

XIII. Right to Information, Article III, Section 7

- Executive Order No. 2, 23 Jul 2016, Requiring Government Offices under the Executive
Branch to Prepare Their Own People’s Freedom of Information Manual

Cases:
- Initiatives for Dialogues and Empowerment through Alternative Legal Services (IDEALS)
Public Sector Assets and Liabilities Management Corporation (PSALM),
GR 192088, 9 Oct 2012
- Bantay Republic Act No. 7941 (BA-RA) v COMELEC, GR 177271, 4 May 2007

XIV. Right to Association, Article III, Section 8

Cases:
- In Re; Edillon, A.M. No 1928, 3 Aug 1978

XV. Right to Property in Eminent Domain Cases, Article III, Section 9, supra.

XVI. Non-Impairment of Contract, Article III, Section 10

A. Purpose; When impairment occurs: When allowed

Case: Clemens v Nolting, GR L-17959, 24 Jan 1922

B. Law and Contract; Reservation Clause

Cases:
- Home Building and Loan Association vs Blaisdell, 290 US 398 (1934) (Emergency Powers)
- Rutter v Esteban, GR L-3708, 18 May 1953
- Philippine Vetrans Bank Employees Union v Philippine Vetrans Bank, GR 67125, 24 Aug
1990 (Contract vs. Police Power)
- West River Bridge Company v Dix, 47 US 507 (1848) (Contract vs. Eminent Domain)
- La Insular v Machuca, GR 13307, 3 Feb 1919 (Contract vs. Taxation)
- Meralco v Laguna, GR 131359, 5 May 1999 (Contract vs. Franchise)
XVII. Access to Courts, Article III, Section 11

Case: In Re: Exemption from Legal and Filing Fees of the Good Shepherd Foundation, Inc.,
A.M. 09-6-9- SC, Aug 19, 2009

XVIII. Rights of Persons under Custodial Investigation, Article III, Section 12

A. Miranda Doctrine

Case: Miranda v Arizona, `384 US 436 (1966)

B. Custodial Investigation

RA 7438 – Act Defining Certain Rights of Persons Arrested, Detained or under

Custodial Investigation, as well as Duties of the Arresting, Detaining,
Arresting and Investigating Officers

Cases:
- People v Lugod, GR 136253, 21 Feb 2001
- People v Del Rosario, GR 127755, 14 Apr 1999 (“invitation”)

C. Administrative Investigations

Cases:
- Ladiana v People, GR 144293, 24 Dec 2002
- People v Espanola, (GR 119308, 18 Apr 1997)
-People v Judge Ayson, GR 85215, 7 Jul 1989

D. Ways of Identifying Suspects

1. Mug shot
2. Show-up
3. Line-up

CASE: People v Ganih, GR 185388, 16 Jun 2010

E. Right to Independent and Competent Counsel of Choice

Cases:
- People v Paris and Fernandez, GR 281130, 14 Feb 2018
- People v Malngan, GR, 170470, 26 Sep 2006
- People v Tomaquin, GR 133188, 23 Jul 2004
- People v Rapeza, GR 169431, 3 Apr 2007
- People v Ordono and Medina, GR132154, 29 Jun 2000

F. Extrajudicial Confessions

Cases:
- People v Andan, GR 116437, 3 Mar 1987 (Confession to Newsmen)
- People v Lauga, GR 186228, 15 Mar 2010 (Confession to civic watch groups)
- People v Gomez, GR 101817, 26 Mar 1997 (admission obtained abroad)
- People v Luvendino, GR L-69971, 3 Jul 1992 ( re-enactment)

G. Fruit of the poisonous tree

Cases:
-Ho Wai Pang v People, GR 176229, 19 Oct 2011
- People vs. Wong Chuen Ming, GR 112801-11, 12 Apr 1996

XIX. Right to Bail, Article III, Section 13

A. Purpose; Standards for fixing Bail

Case: Enrile v Sandiganbayan, GR 213847, 12 Jul 2016

B. Bail in Administrative Proceedings

 C. Determination of guilt: Bail Hearing vs. Trial Proper

Cases:
- Serapio vs. Sandiganbayan, GR 148468, 28 Jan 2003
- Napoles v Sandiganbayan, GR 224162, 6 Feb 2018

D. Bail; where filed, Sec.17(a), Rule 114, Rules of Court

Case: Altobano-Ruiz v Pichay, A.M. MTJ-17-1893, 19 Feb 2018

XX. Due Process in Criminal Proceedings, Article III, Section 14

A. Right to presumption of innocence

Cases:
- Coronel v People, GR 214536, 13 Mar 2017
- People v Macapundag, GR 225965, 13 Mar 2017
- People v Amarela, GR 225642-43, 17 Jan 2018
- Corpuz v People, GR 74259, 14 Feb 2019 (Equipoise Rule)

B. Right to be heard by himself and counsel

Case: Delgado vs. CA, GR L-46392, 10 Nov 1986

C. Right to be informed of the nature and cause of accusation

Cases:
- People v Amoc, GR 216937, 5 Jun 2017
- People v Galicia, GR 218402, 14 Feb 2018
- People v Dagsa, GR 219889, 29 Jan 2018
- Ricalde v People, GR 211002, 21 Jan 2015 (Variance Doctrine, Rule 120, Section 5, RC)

D. Right to speedy, impartial and public trial

RA 8493 – Speedy Trial Act of 1998

Case:
- Office of the Court Administrator v Judge Dumayas, A.M. RTJ-15-2435, 6 Mar 2018

E. Right to confront witness face to face

F. Right to compulsory process to secure attendance of witnesses and production of

evidence

G. Promulgation in Absentia

- Rule 120, Section 6, Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure

Cases:
- Jaylo v Sandiganbayan, GR 183152, 21 Jan 2015
- Javier v Gonzales, GR 193150, 23 Jan 2017

XXI. Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus, Article III, Section 15

Distinguished from other writs

Cases:
- Osorio v Navera, GR 223272, 26 Feb 2018
- Secretary of National Defense v Manalo, GR 180906, 7 Oct 2008

XXII. Right to Speedy Disposition of Cases, Article III, Section 16

Cases:
- Cagang v Sandiganbayan, GR 206438 / 206458 / 20141-42, 31 Jul 2018
- Republic vs. Sandiganbayan and Roman, GR 231144, 19 Feb 2020
XXIII. Right against Self Incrimination, Article III, Section 17

A. Purpose, Scope

Cases;
- Beltran v Samson, GR 32025, 23 Sep 1929
- Bermudez v Castillo, Prec. Rec. 714-A, 26 Jul 1937
- Marcelo vs. Sandiganbayan, (GR 109242, 26 Jan 1999)

B. Immunity Statutes

1. Use Immunity
2. Transactional Immunity

- RA 1379, Section 8, 9

XXIV. Political Belief, Article III, Section 18 (1) / Right against Involuntary Servitude, Article III,
Section 18 (2)

Case: Imbong v Ochoa, GR 204819, 8 Apr 2014, supra.

XXV. Right against Excessive Fines, Cruel, Degrading and Inhuman Punishment, Article III, Section
19

RA 9745 – Anti Torture Act: Act Penalizing Torture and other Cruel, inhuman and
Degrading Punishment and Prescribing Penalties therefore

Sec. 12, RA 9745, Right to Physical and Psychological Examination

Case: Maturan v COMELEC, GR 227155, 28 Mar 2017

XXVI. Non-Imprisonment for Non-Payment of Debt or Poll Tax, Article III, Section 20

Case: Lozano v Martinez, GR L-63419, 18 Dec 1986

XXVII. Right against Double Jeopardy, Article III, Section 21

Cases:
- Melo v People, GR L-3580, 22 Mar 1950
- Ivler v Modesto-San Pedro, GR 172716, 17 Nov 2010
- Javier v Gonzalez, GR 193150, 23 Jan 23,2017 (Case dismissed on grave abuse of
discretion)
- People v Domingo, GR 204895, 21 Mar 2018 (effect of denial to speedy trial)

XXVIII. Right against Ex Post Facto Law, / Bill of Attainder, Article III, Section 22

Cases:
- Salvador v Mapa, GR 135080, 28 Nov 2007
- Valeroso v People, GR 164816, 22 Feb 2008
- People v Mejares, GR 225735, 10 Jan 10 2018
- Bureau of Customs Employees Association (BOCEA) v Teves, GR 181704, 6 Dec 2011

NOTE: The global pandemic affected the entire educational system. Until we return to pre-
quarantine normal, the school calendar might be adjusted from time to time, depending on the
pandemic policies of the University and the College of Law. Please be constantly updated and
informed of University and School announcements, the Legal Education Board (LEB) guidelines,
City ordinances, and Inter-Agency Task Force (IATF) for the Management of Emerging Infectious
Diseases rules and regulations.
 SCHEDULE OF TOPICS FOR DISCUSSION

WEEK TOPICS

1 Discussion of Class Rules and Requirements; Introduction of the Subject

2 I. Kinds and Heirarchy of Rights

II. Fundamental powers of the State

3 III. Due Process, Article III, Section 1

4 IV. Equal Protection, Article III, Section 1

5 V. Police Power

6 VI. Eminent Domain

7 VII. Taxation

8 VIII - Right against Unreasonable Search and Seizure

9 Midterm Examination

10 IX – Privacy of Communication and Correspondence

11 X – Freedom of Speech, Expression, Press, Assembly (Asynchronous/Notes)

12 XI – Freedom of Religion

13 XII – Liberty of Abode / Right to Travel

XIII – Right to Information
XIV – Right to Association
XVI – Non-Impairment of Contract

14 XVII – Access to Courts

XVIII – Rights of Persons under Custodial Investigation
XIX – Right to Bail

15 XX – Due Process in Criminal Proceedings

XXI – Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus
XXII – Right to Speedy Disposition of Cases
XXIII – Right against Self-Incrimination

16 XXIV – Political Belief / Right against Involuntary Servitude

XXV – Right against Excessive Fines, Cruel, Degrading, Inhuman Punishment
XXVI – Non-Imprisonment for Payment of Debt
XXVII – Right against Double Jeopardy
XXVIII – Right against Ex Post Facto Law / Bill of Attainder

17 Final Examination

GUIDELINES IN THE CONDUCT OF ONLINE CLASSES

1. BE ON TIME. This one should be standard and self-explanatory. When you dial in late, it will
cause unnecessary inconvenience with the host.
 2. Ensure your internet connectivity works correctly. You don't want to have a delay in attending
an online class because your Internet connection is slow. It might cause you to be late.

3. Wear class-appropriate clothing. While it might be convenient and tempting to attend online
classes in your favorite pajamas all day, WEAR appropriate attire. You don't have to wear
anything fancy, but choose something that would be appropriate if the class were face-to-face.

4. Your video camera must always be on. Position the camera correctly. You do not want to be
in an online class where you end up people looking at your nostrils or seeing the side of their face.
Make sure you position your camera in a way that looks natural and allows you to look at the
camera naturally. Position yourself at an eye level to the camera, and try to position yourself so
that it shows midsection up.

5. Look into the camera. A common mistake is looking at the video feed instead of the camera
when speaking to a remote participant. While it may seem like the right thing to do, it actually
makes it appear as if you're looking off and not paying attention. This will make you come across
as more aloof and less professional. Looking into the camera lens is the equivalent of maintaining
eye contact, so practice doing so until you're comfortable with it.

6. Have the proper light condition. Proper lighting conditions have an enormous effect on the
video quality that you send. Make sure that there is enough light in the room you're in so that your
video isn't grainy and unwatchable. Improper lighting might make you look like a cartoon/ghost.

7. Mute yourself when not speaking. Even though you may not be speaking and think you're being
quiet, most microphones can pick up minor background noises, like coughs, sneezes, or typing.
These sounds can easily distract other video conferencing participants and potentially even cause
annoyance. Make it a practice (out of common courtesy to your colleagues) to mute yourself
whenever you're not talking. There will be a time to ask questions. We’ll call it the Question Hour.
If you want to speak, use “raise hand” option, then unmute the microphone once recognized.

8. Pay attention. Stop texting, checking your phone, emails, or working on your PowerPoint
presentation during an online class. While multi-tasking is encouraged, it will make you look rude
to your classmates and professor.

9. Excuse yourself when you are to temporarily be off camera. Much like in a face-to-face
classroom set-up, excuse yourself if you have to be temporarily off camera the camera. State your
reason for being off, give the approximate time you will be off, and once permission is secured,
turn off the camera while you are away. Once you have come back, turn on the camera and let the
professor know that you are back, either through audio or the built-in chat service.

10. There will be a break to relax our eyes and minds, as well as recharge or fix our gadgets and
internet connections. During the break, click “Stop Video” and “Mute” Be sure to re-join the
group after the break and “Start Video” again.

*This 2022 course outline / syllabus for Constitutional / Political Law Review is prepared by
Professor Atty. Reynaldo Lopez. Personal authorization for use must first be requested and secured.
Email me at constiexams@gmail.com. Thanks 

“Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no
court can save it; no constitution, no law, no court can even do much to help it.”
- Judge Learned Hand

Postscript: “Lawyers should specialize in Constitutional Law, it is the fundamental law of the land.
Thus, all laws must be in accordance with the Constitution. Being experts in Constitutional Law
enable lawyers to be effective law practitioners, law professors, and public officials, such as
President, lawmakers and members of the Judiciary. Usually, Constitutionalists are Consultants of
these high-ranking officials. Needless to state. Lawyers who are experts in Constitutional Law have
edge over other members of the legal profession.”

Angelina Sandoval Gutierrez

Associate Justice
Supreme Court of the Philippines