Introduction to Law and the Legal Profession
QUISUMBING 333 SCRA 13
Ghenalynne DJ. Santos, LPT. JD.
POLITICAL LAW
Political law is a branch of public law which deals with
the organization and operations of the governmental
organs of the state and defines the relations of the state
with the inhabitants of its territory. (People of the
Philippines v. Perfecto, 43 Phil. 88, 1922.)
Scope of Political Law
The entire field of political law may be subdivided into:
➔ The law of public administration
➔ Constitutional law
➔ Administrative law
➔ The law on public corporations
Constitutional Law
It designates the law embodied in the Constitution and
the legal principle growing out of the interpretation and
application of its provisions by the courts in specific
cases. It is the study of the maintenance of the proper
balance between the authority as represented by the 3
inherent powers of the state and the liberty and as
represented by the Bill of Rights.
The 1987 COnstitution tooke effect on Februrary 2,
1987, the date of its ratification in the plebiscite held on
the same date, and not the date its ratification was
proclaimed - De Leon v. Esguerra No. L-78059, August
31, 1987.
Parts of the Constitution
1. Constitution of Government
2. Constitution of Sovereignty
3. Constitution of Liberty
Constitution of Government
Established the structure of the government, its branches
and their operation
Constitution of Sovereignty
Provides how the constitution maybe changed
Constitution of Liberty
States the fundamental rights of the people - Lambing
vs. Comelec, October 25, 2006
Due process and equal protection clause of the
Constitution
Article III Section 1 of the 1987 Philippine
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.
CASE N O. 1 : G .R. NO. 128845
INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL ALLIANCE
EDUCATORS V. QUISUMBING 333 SCRA 13
INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL ALLIANCE
EDUCATORS V.
G.R. NO. 128845 JUNE 1, 2 000
FACTS
The School hires both foreign and local teachers as
members of its faculty, classifying the same into two: (1)
foreign-hires and (2) local-hires.
In which, the School grants foreign-hirs certain benefits
not accorded loca-hirs including housing, transportation,
shipping costs, taxes, home leave travel allowance and a
salary rate %25 more than local hirs based on
“significant economic disadvantages”
The labor union and hte collective bargaining
representative of all faculty members of the School,
contested the difference in salary rates between foreign
and loca hirs. The Union claims that the point-of-hire
classification employed by the School is discriminatory
to FIlipinos and that the grant of higher salaris to
foreign-hires consitutes racial discrimination.
ISSUE: Whether or not the Union can involve the equal
protection clause to justify its claim of parity?
RULING
Yes. The Labor Code’s and the Constitution’s provision
impregnably institutionalize in this jurisdiction the long
honored legal truism of “equal pay for equal work”.
Persons of equal qualifications, skill, effort and
responsibility, under similar conditions, should be paid
similar salaries.
Test of reasonableness of the law
The test of reasonableness of a law is the appropriateness
or adequacy under all circumstances of the means
adopted to carry out its purpose into effect. Judged by
this test, disputed legislation, which is not merely
reasonable but actually necessary, must be considered
not to have infringed the constitutional limitations of
reasonableness.
The frames of the Constitution could not have intended
to impose the constitutional restrictions of due process
on the attainment of such a noble motive as freedom
from economic control and domination, through the
exercise of the police power. The fathers of the
Constitution must have given to the legislature full
authority and power to enact legislation that would
promoted the supreme happiness of the people, their
freedom and liberty.
Search Warrant
RULE 126

Validity of Search Warrant
PART 2.
Privacy of Communication and Correspondence
Article III OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS, SECTION 3
par. 1
Section 3. (1) The privacy of communication and
correspondence shall be inviolable except upon lawful
order of the court, or when public safety or order
requires otherwise, as prescribed by law.
(2) Any evidence obtained in violation of this or the
preceding section shall be inadmissible for any purpose
in any proceeding
ZULUETA VS. CA
Ponente: MENDOZA, J.
Decision Date: 1996-02-20
GR Number: G.R. No. 107383
Summary: Cecilia Zulueta broke into her husband’s
office and obtained his alleged private correspondence
with his paramours. What happened next will shock you!
RTC, CA, and SC all rendered the evidence as
inadmissible.
The Law insures absolute freedom of communication
between the spouses by making it privileged.
Neither husband nor wife may testify for or against the
other without the consent of the affected spouse while
the marriage subsists.
Neither may be examined without the consent of the
other as to any communication received in confidence by
one against the other
ONLY EXCEPTION
The only exception to the provision in the constitution is
if there is a lawful order from a court or when public
safety or order requires otherwise as provide by law.
(Sec.3, Par.1, Art. III, 1987 Constitution) Any violation
of this provision renders the evidence obtained
inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding. (Sec.3,
Par.2, Art. III,1987 Constitution)
The law ensures absolute freedom of communication
between the spouses by making it privileged. Neither
husband nor wife may testify for or against the other
without consent of the affected spouse while the
marriage subsists. (Sec.22, Rule130, Rules of Court).
Neither maybe examined without the consent of the
Other ,as to any communication received in confidence
by one from the other during the marriage, save for
specified exceptions. (Sec.24, Rule 130, Rules of Court)
Freedom of Expression Article III of the Bill of Rights,
Section 4 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution Section 4.
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 grievances.
Miriam College Foundation, Inc. v CA 348 SCRA
265 December 15, 2000
THE MEMBERS OF THE EDITORIAL BOARD OF
THE MIRIAM COLLEGE FOUNDATION ’S SCHOOL
PAPER WERE SUBJECTED TO DISCIPLINARY
SANCTION BY THE COLLEGE DISCIP LINE
COMMITTEE AFTER LETTERS OF COMPLAINT
WE'RE FILED BEFORE THE BOARD FOLLOWING
THE PUBLICATION OF THE SCHOOL PAPER THAT
CONTAINS OBSCENE, VULGAR , AND SEXUALLY
EXPLICI T CONTENTS .
Prior to the disciplinary sanction to the defendants, they
were required to submit a written statement to answer
the complaints against them to the Discipline Committee
but the defendants, instead of doing so wrote to the
Committee to transfer the case to the DECS which they
alleged to have the jurisdiction over the issue
ISSUE
WHETHER OR NOT THE DISCIPLINE BOARD OF
MIRIAM COLLEGE HAS JURISDICTION OVER
THEDEFENDANTS.
The court resolved the issue before it by looking through
the power of DECS and the Disciplinary Committee in
imposing sanctions upon the defendants.
Section 5 (2), Article XIV of the Constitution guarantees
all institutions of higher learning academic freedom
Institutional academic freedom includes the right of the
school or college to decide for itself, its aims and
objectives, and how best to attain them free from outside
coercion or interference save possibly when the
overriding public welfare calls for some restraint. Such
duty gives the institution the right to discipline its
students and inculcate upon them good values, ideals and
attitude.
The right of students to free speech in school is not
always absolute.
The court upheld the right of students for the freedom of
expression, but it does not rule out disciplinary actions
of the school on the conduct of their students.
ZALDIVAR V. SANDIGANBAYAN
Freedom of speech and of expression, like all
constitutional freedoms, is not absolute and that freedom
of expression needs on occasion to be adjusted to and
accommodated with the requirements of equally
important public interest. One of these fundamental
public interests is the maintenance of the integrity and
orderly functioning of the administration of justice.
There is no antimony between free expression and the
integrity of the system of administering justice. For the
protection and maintenance of freedom of expression
itself can be secured only within the context of a
functioning and orderly system of dispensing justice,
within the context, in other words, of viable independent
institutions for delivery of justice which are accepted by
the general community. An issue of balancing the role of
the media vis-a-vis judicial independence.

The Court has used two formulas to balance the

constitutional guarantee of free speech and of the press
and judicial independence.

Two theoretical formulas had been devised in the

determination of conflicting rights of similar import in
an attempt to draw the proper constitutional boundary
between freedom of expression and independence of the
judiciary.

The first, as interpreted in a number of cases, means that

the evil consequence of the comment or utterance must
be “extremely serious and the degree of imminence
extremely high” before the utterance can be punished.
The danger to be guarded against is the “substantive
evil” sought to be prevented. And this evil is primarily
the “disorderly and unfair administration of justice.”
This test establishes a definite rule in constitutional law.
It provides the criterion as to what words may be
published. Under this rule, the advocacy of ideas cannot
constitutionally be abridged unless there is a clear and
present danger that such advocacy will harm the
administration of justice.

The “dangerous tendency” rule, on the other hand, has

been adopted in cases where extreme difficulty is
confronted in determining where the freedom of
expression ends and the right of courts to protect their
independence begins. There must be a remedy to
borderline cases and the basic principle of this rule lies
in that the freedom of speech and of the press, as well as
the right to petition for redress of grievance, while
guaranteed by the constitution, are not absolute.

They are subject to restrictions and limitations, one of

them being the protection of the courts against contempt.

(Gilbert vs. Minnesota, 254 U.S. 325)