Consti2 Reviewer

!"#$%&%'%&"#()*+(,*--.
*/0(#*1(#2()(#2(#3*

CasLro, uelfln, MagbaLo, Mohammadsall, ngo, 8osales, velasco. 4 56789*4 &
!:;<=-=>=-:;?+*+?@*--*
56789*ABC-B@BA*
/B?;*A?>+*1?;D?+?;D?;*
l. 8lghLs-8ased ulscourse: norms, 8lghLs and Lhe lace of !udlclal ower !
a. Ceneral !
b. Case or ConLroversy 8equlremenL: LlemenLs "
!"#$%&$'( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( #(
)&*+$+,,( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( $
-.."$+,,( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( $
ll. uue rocess Clause !%
a. rocedural uue rocess !%
b. Cld SubsLanLlve uue rocess !&
c. new SubsLanLlve uue rocess !"
d. roLecLed lnLeresLs ln roperLy !'
-+/+(0)+'12#"&.$3(1$%+/("4+(51+(6/.7+,,(82#1,+(9,(0:#;&$'3(.<(6/.*+/"=(9&#("4+(6.>+/(.<(?@&$+$"(5.@#&$( ( ( !'(
0:#;&$',3(1$%+/(?@&$+$"(5.@#&$(9,(0:#;&$',3(1$%+/("4+(!.7&#2(A1,"&7+(82#1,+( ( ( ( ( ( ( (((
lll. Lqual roLecLlon Clause ()
lv. lreedom of Lxpresslon * * * * * * &!
a. roLecLed Speech &!
6/&./()+,"/#&$"( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( &!*
!1B,+C1+$"(61$&,4@+$"( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( &(*
0!*++74(621,3D(!=@B.2&7(!*++74( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( &&*
E,,+@B2=(#$%(6+"&"&.$( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( &"*
F/++(!*++74(#$%(!1<</#'+( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( &#*
G,+(.<(6/&9#"+(6/.*+/"=(#,(#(F./1@(<./(."4+/,H(!*++74( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( &)*
b. unproLecLed Speech &+
5+<#@#"./=(!*++74( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( &+*
0F&'4"&$'(I./%,J3(K<<+$,&9+(I./%,(( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( &'*
KB,7+$&"=( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( &'*
v. Church and SLaLe: 1he Wall of SeparaLlon "%
a. LsLabllshmenL Clause "%
b. lree Lxerclse Clause "(
c. unusual 8ellglous 8ellefs and racLlces ""
vl. Academlc lreedom "#
vll. roLecLed lnLeresLs ln LlberLy "'
a. non-lmpalrmenL of CbllgaLlons of ConLracLs "'
b. lnvolunLary ServlLude "$
c. lmprlsonmenL for non-aymenL of uebL "$
d. 8lghL AgalnsL Self-lncrlmlnaLlon "$
!"#$%&%'%&"#()*+(,*--.*/0(#*1(#2()(#2(#3*

!"#$%&'()*+,-.'(/"01"$&'(/&2"33"4#"+-'(50&'(6&#"+*#'(7*+"#8&9(4(56789*4(&&(
*9 L.+"A,=+(H*"%82(".4(H*-Q=%*( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( #!(
7:::9 H8&I*(&,(!&.#$-$=$-&."+(?%&$*8$-&.( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( #((
"9 N2&("%*(*.$-$+*4($&(!&.#$-$=$-&."+(?%&$*8$-&.( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( #((
8&"&L+$,4&*(#$%(E2&+$#'+( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( #(*
A1/&%&7#2(6+/,.$,( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( #&*
19 N2&("%*(#=1R*8$($&(!&.#$-$=$-&."+(?%&2-1-$-&.#( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( #&(
!"#"+(E7"&.$()+C1&/+@+$"( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( #&*
*
:$E(F*=(#'(E/"&712#"&$'("4+(8.@*2+"+(64&2&**&$+()&'4"(".(6/&9#7=(&$(8.$,"&"1"&.$#2(#$%(8&9&2(M#>D(E(:/&B1"+(".(84&+<(A1,"&7+(F+/$#$%.(#$%(A1,"&7+(8#/*&.( ( #"*
)".0*%&=#()%=0#(O8$(&,(STTS'(O%$-8+*(:::( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( #)*
Const|tut|ona| Law II: Dean anga|angan.

CasLro, uelfln, MagbaLo, Mohammadsall, ngo, 8osales, velasco. | 82014 | 1

|. kIGn1S-8ASLD DISCCUkSL: NCkMS, kIGn1S, AND 1nL LACL CI IUDICIAL CWLk

CounLer-ma[orlLarlan dlfflculLy"
o allow unelecLed [udges Lo overLurn declslons made by democraLlcally-
elecLed branches of governmenL
o allow unaccounLable courLs Lo supplanL democraLlc wlll"
o lnsulaLe [udges from Lhe pressures of pollLlcs
o goal: Lranscend pollLlcs
o experLlse/Lralnlng ! mandaLe ! leglLlmacy ! separaLlon of powers
o only some Lhlngs musL be lnsulaLed ! 8lCP1S
o expands Lhe scope of [udlclal revlew, reduces Lhe scope of pollLlcs
Lwo noLlons abouL Lhe place of consLlLuLlonal law
o consLlLuLlonal democracy
" Lhe consLlLuLlon ls meanL Lo conLaln or Lame Lhe popular pollLlcal
energy"
" Lhe consLlLuLlon ls hlgher law, superlor law
" Lhe consLlLuLlon musL sLand above pollLlcs
" a romanLlc vlew," lnherlLed by Lhe hlllpplnes
o popullsL democracy
" Lhe goal of Lhe consLlLuLlon ls Lo nurLure, galvanlze, and release
pollLlcal energy
" Lhe consLlLuLlon belongs Lo Lhe Lrue soverelgn, Lhe people
" Lhe consLlLuLlon serves Lo promoLe ma[orlLy rule
anLl-popullsL crlLlque of democracy
o courLs are:
" reasonable, lnformed, clear-headed, eLc.
o people are:
" emoLlonal, lgnoranL, fuzzy-mlnded, uneducaLed, eLc.
popullsL crlLlque of consLlLuLlonallsm
o lnflaLlon of consLlLuLlonal law" - clalms LhaL lL ls hlgher, beLLer Lhan
ordlnary law
o dlsdaln for Lhe pollLlcal energy of Lhe people"
o feLlshlsm of Lhe consLlLuLlon"
hlllpplne conLexL: 1987 ConsLlLuLlon
o dellberaLely, consclously counLer-ma[orlLarlan
o codlflcaLlon of popullsL agenda ln Lhe ConsLlLuLlon

A. Ceneral
1987 Const|tut|on, Art|c|e VIII - 1he Iud|c|ary
5ectloo 1. 1he [udlclal power shall be vesLed ln one Supreme CourL and ln such lower courLs as may be
esLabllshed by law.
!udlclal power lncludes Lhe duLy of Lhe courLs of [usLlce Lo seLLle acLual conLroversles lnvolvlng rlghLs
whlch are legally demandable and enforceable, and Lo deLermlne wheLher or noL Lhere has been a grave
abuse of dlscreLlon amounLlng Lo lack or excess of [urlsdlcLlon on Lhe parL of any branch or lnsLrumenLallLy
of Lhe governmenL.
5ectloo 2. 1he Congress shall have Lhe power Lo deflne, prescrlbe, and apporLlon Lhe [urlsdlcLlon of Lhe
varlous courLs buL may noL deprlve Lhe Supreme CourL of lLs [urlsdlcLlon over cases enumeraLed ln SecLlon
3 hereof.
no law shall be passed reorganlzlng Lhe !udlclary when lL undermlnes Lhe securlLy of Lenure of lLs
Members.
5ectloo 4(2). All cases lnvolvlng Lhe consLlLuLlonallLy of a LreaLy, lnLernaLlonal or execuLlve agreemenL, or
law, whlch shall be heard by Lhe Supreme coott eo booc, and all oLher cases whlch under Lhe 8ules of
CourL are requlred Lo be heard eo booc, lncludlng Lhose lnvolvlng Lhe consLlLuLlonallLy, appllcaLlon, or
operaLlon of presldenLlal decrees, proclamaLlons, orders, lnsLrucLlons, ordlnances, and oLher regulaLlons,
shall be declded wlLh Lhe concurrence of a ma[orlLy of Lhe Members who acLually Look parL ln Lhe
dellberaLlons on Lhe lssues ln Lhe case and voLed Lhereon.
5ectloo 5. 1he Supreme CourL shall have Lhe followlng powers:
(2) 8evlew, revlse, reverse, modlfy, or afflrm on appeal or cettlototl, as Lhe law or Lhe 8ules of CourL may
provlde, flnal [udgmenLs and orders of lower courLs ln:
(a) All cases ln whlch Lhe consLlLuLlonallLy or valldlLy of any LreaLy, lnLernaLlonal or execuLlve agreemenL,
law, presldenLlal decree, proclamaLlon, order, lnsLrucLlon, ordlnance, or regulaLlon ls ln quesLlon.

Garc|a v. 8oard of lnvesLmenLs (1990)
eLlLloner Cong. Lnrlque Carcla seeks Lo seL aslde Lhe declslon of Lhe 8oard of
lnvesLmenLs (8Cl) approvlng Lhe Lransfer of Lhe slLe of Lhe proposed peLro-chemlcal
planL from 8aLaan Lo 8aLangas and Lhe shlfL of feedsLock for Lhe planL from naphLha
only Lo naphLha and/or llquefled peLroleum gas.
Cotlettez It., I. held LhaL Lhere ls an acLual conLroversy before Lhe CourL, and Lhus lL
has a consLlLuLlonal duLy Lo sLep lnLo lL. 1he 8Cl commlLLed a grave abuse of
dlscreLlon ln approvlng Lhe Lransfer of Lhe planL and auLhorlzlng Lhe change of
feedsLock for Lhe maln reason LhaL Lhe flnal say ls ln Lhe lnvesLor, Lo Lhe deLrlmenL of
our naLlonal economlc and paLrlmonlal lnLeresLs, as safeguarded by Lhe ConsLlLuLlon
and oLher laws.
Ctlo-Apoloo, I., Jlsseot, says LhaL Lhe maLLer of chooslng an approprlaLe slLe for Lhe
pro[ecL ls a pollLlcal and economlc declslon, whlch only Lhe execuLlve branch, as
lmplemenLor of pollcy formulaLed by Lhe leglslaLure, ls empowered Lo make. 1he
[udgmenL of Lhe 8Cl on a maLLer wlLhln lLs experLlse cannoL be subsLlLuLed by one
crafLed by Lhe CourL. CtooteJ.
closs ootes


Iostlce Cotlettez otqoes oo ptoqmotlc qtoooJs, bow Joes be moke tbem
leqol otqomeots? ne bos oo bockqtoooJ oo ecooomlcs, yet mokes socb
otqomeots.

Cposa v. lacLoran (1993)
eLlLloner mlnors, clalmlng Lo represenL Lhelr generaLlon and generaLlons yeL unborn,
seek Lo compel Lhe respondenL uLn8 SecreLary Lo cancel all Llmber llcense
agreemenLs ln Lhe counLry, and Lo prevenL Lhe appllcaLlon, processlng, and renewal
of new 1LAs.
uovlJe, It., I. held LhaL peLlLloners had a cause of acLlon, premlsed on a speclflc legal
rlghL, Lhe rlghL Lo a balanced and healLhful ecology as lncorporaLed ln Lhe
ConsLlLuLlon. (ArL. ll Sec. 16) 1he rlghL Lo a balanced and healLhful ecology carrles
wlLh lL Lhe correlaLlve duLy Lo refraln from lmpalrlng Lhe envlronmenL. 1he denlal or
vlolaLlon of LhaL rlghL by Lhe oLher (here, Lhe uLn8) who has Lhe correlaLlve duLy or
obllgaLlon Lo respecL or proLecL Lhe same glves rlse Lo a cause of acLlon. WhaL ls
lnvolved here ls Lhe enforcemenL of a rlghL vls-a-vls pollcles already formulaLed and
expressed ln leglslaLlon. Lven lf Lhe maLLer were a pollLlcal quesLlon, lL ls no longer
an lnsurmounLable barrler Lo Lhe exerclse of [udlclal power, already expanded under
Lhe 1987 ConsLlLuLlon (.Lo deLermlne wheLher or noL Lhere has been a grave abuse
of dlscreLlon amounLlng Lo a lack or excess of [urlsdlcLlon.any branch or
lnsLrumenLallLy of Lhe governmenL")
lellclooo, I. sepotote oploloo, says LhaL Lhe rlghL Lo a balanced and healLhful ecology
may be fundamenLal, buL lL ls noL speclflc, all Lhe laws clLed by Lhe CourL Lo show Lhe
exlsLence of a cause of acLlon appear Lo be formulaLlons of pollcy as general and as
absLracL as Lhe sLaLemenLs of baslc pollcy ln ArL. ll of Lhe ConsLlLuLlon. 1he approach
of comblnlng Lhe subsLanLlve sLandards of Lhe ConsLlLuLlon wlLh Lhe remedy soughL
by Lhe plalnLlffs would hurl Lhe Supreme CourL lnLo soclal and economlc pollcy-
maklng. 1he CourL ls noL prepared Lo underLake Lhls Lask because of lLs lack of speclal
Lechnlcal compeLence, experlence, and professlonal quallflcaLlon ln Lhe area of
envlronmenLal proLecLlon and managemenL. CtooteJ.
closs ootes
1be tlqbts lovokeJ by petltlooets (bolooceJ ooJ beoltbfol ecoloqy, beoltb) ote
lo Att. ll, oot Att. lll
o socb tlqbts ote exptesseJ lo Jltectlve clooses - tbey bove to wolt fot
lmplemeotloq leqlslotloo.
8ot tbe coott solJ tbot tbe tlqbts ote octloooble
o ueoo. lf yoo coll lt o tlqbt, tbeo lt sboll be tteoteJ os socb, wbetevet lt
ls locoteJ

Man||a r|nce note| v. CSlS (1997)
eLlLloner Manlla rlnce PoLel seeks Lo prevenL respondenL CSlS from awardlng 31
of Lhe shares of Manlla PoLel Lo 8enong 8erhad, a Malayslan flrm, and Lo compel
respondenL Lo award such shares Lo peLlLloner (upon maLchlng 8enong 8erhad's bld.
8elloslllo, I., held LhaL ArL. xll, Sec. 10 (2) of Lhe ConsLlLuLlon, whlch mandaLes LhaL ln
Lhe granL of rlghLs, prlvlleges, and concesslons coverlng naLlonal economy and
paLrlmony, Lhe SLaLe shall glve preference Lo quallfled llllplnos", ls a self-execuLlng
provlslon. lL ls a mandaLory, poslLlve command whlch ls compleLe ln lLself, and from
lLs very words does noL requlre any leglslaLlon Lo puL lL ln operaLlon and ls pet se
[udlclally enforceable. lf Lhere ls no sLaLuLe especlally enacLed Lo enforce such
consLlLuLlonal rlghL, such rlghL enforces lLself. Where Lhere ls a rlghL, Lhere ls a
remedy. ln lLs plaln meanlng, Lhe Lerm paLrlmony perLalns Lo herlLage, when Lhe
ConsLlLuLlon speaks of naLlonal paLrlmony, lL refers noL only Lo Lhe naLural resources
of Lhe hlllpplnes buL also Lo Lhe culLural herlLage of Lhe llllplnos. Manlla PoLel has
become a landmark, a llvlng LesLlmonlal of hlllpplne herlLage, parL of our naLlonal
economy and paLrlmony. CtooteJ.
closs ootes
I. looos Jlsseot - tbe coostltotloool ptovlsloo (Att \ll, 5ec 10 (2)) ls oot self-
execotloq
o oollke lo Oposo
o lmplemeotloq leqlslotloo ls oecessoty
1bete ls o ptoblem of joJqmeot
o tbe coott lotetfetes oqolo wltb pollcy Jetetmlootloo by oootbet oqeocy
of tbe qovetomeot

kllosbayan v. Morato (1993)
eLlLloners kllosbayan, lnc., and oLhers seek Lo have Lhe LqulpmenL Lease AgreemenL
(LLA) beLween Lhe hlllpplne CharlLy SweepsLakes Cfflce (CSC) and Lhe hlllpplne
Camlng ManagemenL Corp. (CMC) declared lnvalld, on Lhe ground LhaL lL ls
subsLanLlally Lhe same as Lhe ConLracL of Lease prevlously lnvalldaLed by Lhe CourL (ln
kllosboyoo v. Coloqooo).
MeoJozo, I., held LhaL peLlLloners have no sLandlng Lo flle Lhe presenL case. 1he
deLermlnaLlon LhaL peLlLloners had sLandlng ln kllosboyoo v. Coloqooo does noL
preclude Lhe deLermlnaLlon of Lhelr sLandlng ln Lhe presenL case. noL only ls
peLlLloners' sLandlng a legal lssue LhaL may be deLermlned agaln ln Lhls case, buL lL ls
noL even Lhe lssue here, sLandlng ls a concepL ln consLlLuLlonal law, and here no
consLlLuLlonal quesLlon ls acLually lnvolved. 1he lssue ln Lhls case ls wheLher
peLlLloners are Lhe real parLles ln lnLeresL". 1he quesLlon ln sLandlng ls wheLher such
parLles have alleged such a personal sLake ln Lhe ouLcome of Lhe conLroversy as Lo


assure LhaL concreLe adverseness whlch sharpens Lhe presenLaLlon of lssues upon
whlch Lhe courL so largely depends for lllumlnaLlon of dlfflculL consLlLuLlonal
quesLlons." 1he lnLeresL of Lhe person assalllng Lhe consLlLuLlonallLy of a sLaLuLe
musL be dlrecL and personal. lL musL appear LhaL Lhe person complalnlng has been
or ls abouL Lo be denled some rlghL or prlvllege Lo whlch he ls lawfully enLlLled or LhaL
he ls abouL Lo be sub[ecLed Lo some burdens or penalLles by reason of Lhe sLaLuLe
complalned of." eLlLloners here do noL show whaL parLlcularlzed lnLeresL Lhey have
ln brlnglng Lhls sulL. 1hough Lhe presenL acLlon lnvolves a conLracL made by a
governmenL corporaLlon, Lhere ls no allegaLlon LhaL publlc funds are belng mlsspenL
as Lo make Lhls acLlon a publlc one and [usLlfy relaxaLlon of Lhe requlremenL LhaL an
acLlon musL be prosecuLed ln Lhe name of Lhe real parLy ln lnLeresL. 1he quesLlon as
Lo real parLy ln lnLeresL" ls wheLher he ls Lhe parLy who would be beneflLed or
ln[ured by Lhe [udgmenL, or Lhe parLy enLlLled Lo Lhe avalls of Lhe sulL." eLlLloners
lnvoke several provlslons ln ArL. ll of Lhe ConsLlLuLlon, buL Lhese, however, are noL
self execuLlng provlslons, Lhe dlsregard of whlch can glve rlse Lo a cause of acLlon ln
Lhe courLs. 1hey do noL embody [udlclally enforceable consLlLuLlonal rlghLs buL
guldellnes for leglslaLlon. 1hough consLlLuLlonal pollcles are lnvoked, Lhls case
baslcally lnvokes quesLlons of conLracL law. ln acLlon for annulmenL of conLracLs,
such as here, Lhe real parLles are Lhose who are parLles Lo Lhe agreemenL or are
bound elLher prlnclpally or subsldlarlly or are pre[udlced ln Lhelr rlghLs wlLh respecL Lo
one of Lhe conLracLlng parLles. Pere, peLlLloners are noL parLles Lo Lhe conLracL, nor
has Lhere been any showlng LhaL Lhey would be pre[udlced by Lhe enforcemenL of Lhe
conLracL. eLlLloners have no legal rlghL whlch has been vlolaLed or whlch may be
enforced. ueoleJ.
closs ootes
petltlooets lovoke tbe qooJ motols clooses lo Att ll
o coott. tbese ote oot self-lmplemeotloq, leqlslotloo ls oecessoty
wbeo ote socb ptovlsloos lo tbe coostltotloo self-execotloq, wbeo ote tbey
oot?
o JepeoJs oo tbe level of qeoetollty, bteoJtb

1anada v. Angara (1997)
eLlLloners assall Lhe World 1rade CrganlzaLlon AgreemenL for vlolaLlng Lhe
consLlLuLlonal mandaLe Lo develop a self-rellanL and lndependenL naLlonal economy
effecLlvely conLrolled by llllplnos.Lo glve preference Lo quallfled llllplnos.Lo
promoLe Lhe preferenLlal use of llllplno labor, domesLlc maLerlals, and locally
produced goods." 1hey seek Lo nulllfy Lhe concurrence of Lhe SenaLe ln Lhe
raLlflcaLlon of Lhe resldenL of Lhe W1C AgreemenL and Lo prevenL lLs
lmplemenLaLlon and enforcemenL.
looqoolboo, I., held LhaL Lhere ls a conLroversy whlch falls wlLhln Lhe [urlsdlcLlon of
Lhe CourL. 1he ConsLlLuLlon enables Lhe CourL Lo deLermlne wheLher or noL Lhere
has been grave abuse of dlscreLlon amounLlng Lo lack or excess of [urlsdlcLlon on Lhe
parL of any branch or lnsLrumenLallLy of governmenL". 1he 8ules of CourL also granL
Lhe CourL power Lo revlew acLs of leglslaLlve and execuLlve offlclals by a peLlLlon for
cerLlorarl. Powever, Lhe CourL wlll noL revlew Lhe wlsdom of Lhe declslon of Lhe
resldenL and Lhe SenaLe ln enllsLlng Lhe counLry lnLo Lhe W1C, or pass upon Lhe
merlLs of Lrade llberallzaLlon as a pollcy espoused by sald lnLernaLlonal body. nelLher
wlll lL rule on Lhe proprleLy of Lhe governmenL's economlc pollcy of
reduclng/removlng Larlffs, Laxes, subsldles, quanLlLaLlve resLrlcLlons, and oLher
lmporL/Lrade barrlers. lL wlll only deLermlne wheLher or noL Lhere had been a grave
abuse of dlscreLlon amounLlng Lo lack or excess of [urlsdlcLlon on Lhe parL of Lhe
SenaLe ln raLlfylng Lhe W1C AgreemenL and lLs Lhree annexes. ulsmlsseJ.
closs ootes
tbe ptotectloolst clooses ote oot self-lmplemeotloq
o tbe totlflcotloo of tbe 5eoote coostltotes tbe lmplemeototloo oecessoty
cootts ote oot sopposeJ to step lo pollcy Jetetmlootloo by oootbet btoocb of
qovetomeot!

SanLlago v. 8aut|sta (1970)
eLlLloner 1eodoro SanLlago seeks Lo seL aslde Lhe holdlng of Lhe lower courL LhaL hls
peLlLlon sLaLes no cause of acLlon on Lhe ground LhaL Lhere was no grave abuse of
dlscreLlon on Lhe parL of Lhe Leachers who consLlLuLed Lhe commlLLee on Lhe raLlngs
of sLudenLs for honor."
8otteJo, I., held LhaL Lhe CourL has no power Lo revlew Lhe acLlons of Lhe commlLLee,
as lL ls noL Lhe Lrlbunal, board, or offlcer exerclslng [udlclal funcLlons agalnsL whlch
an acLlon for cettlototl may lle." 1he so-called commlLLee on Lhe raLlng of sLudenLs
for honor exerclsed nelLher [udlclal nor quasl-[udlclal funcLlons. lL ls necessary LhaL
Lhere be a law LhaL glves rlse Lo some speclflc rlghLs of persons or properLy under
whlch adverse clalms Lo such rlghLs are made, and Lhe conLroversy ensulng Lherefrom
ls broughL, ln Lurn, before Lhe Lrlbunal, board, or offlcer cloLhed wlLh Lhe power and
auLhorlLy Lo deLermlne whaL LhaL law ls and Lhereupon ad[udlcaLe Lhe respecLlve
rlghLs of Lhe conLendlng parLles. lL ls Lhe naLure of Lhe acL Lo be performed, raLher
Lhan of Lhe offlce or body, LhaL deLermlnes wheLher or noL lL ls Lhe dlscharge of a
[udlclal or quasl-[udlclal funcLlon. ueoleJ.

eop|e v. lerrer (1972)
uefendanL lerrer assalls Lhe consLlLuLlonallLy of Lhe AnLl-Subverslon AcL, asserLlng
LhaL lL ls a blll of aLLalnder, whlch ls prohlblLed by Lhe ConsLlLuLlon.


costto, I., held LhaL Lhe AnLl-Subverslon AcL ls noL a blll of aLLalnder. A blll of
aLLalnder ls a leglslaLlve acL whlch lnfllcLs punlshmenL wlLhouL Lrlal, lLs essence ls Lhe
subsLlLuLlon of leglslaLlve acL for a [udlclal deLermlnaLlon of gullL. 1he slngllng ouL of
a deflnlLe class, Lhe lmposlLlon of a burden on lL, and a leglslaLlve lnLenL, sufflce Lo
sLlgmaLlze a sLaLuLe as a blll of aLLalnder. 1he AcL does noL speclfy Lhe CommunlsL
arLy of Lhe hlllpplnes or lLs members for Lhe purpose of punlshmenL. WhaL lL does
ls slmply Lo declare Lhe arLy Lo be an organlzed consplracy for Lhe overLhrow of Lhe
governmenL, used solely for deflnlLlonal purposes, Lhe AcL applles noL only Lhe arLy
buL also Lo any oLher organlzaLlon havlng Lhe same purpose. lLs focus ls noL on
lndlvlduals buL on conducL. lL ls only when a sLaLuLe applles elLher Lo named
lndlvlduals or Lo easlly ascerLalnable members of a group ln such a way as Lo lnfllcL
punlshmenL on Lhem wlLhouL a [udlclal Lrlal does lL become a blll of aLLalnder. lL musL
also apply reLroacLlvely and reach pasL conducL - an ex post focto law - and Lhe
penalLles lmposed musL be lnescapable. kemooJeJ.

ulrecLor of rlsons v. Ang Cho k|o (1970)
eLlLloner ulrecLor of rlsons, Lhrough Lhe SollclLor-Ceneral, seeks Lo sLrlke ouL Lhe
porLlon ln Lhe declslon of Lhe CourL of Appeals whlch recommends Lo Lhe LxecuLlve
SecreLary LhaL respondenL Ang Cho klo be allowed Lo leave Lhe counLry ln Lhe flrsL
avallable LransporLaLlon abroad."
2olJlvot, I., held LhaL Lhe CourL of Appeals erred ln maklng such recommendaLlon ln
lLs ma[orlLy oplnlon. 1he case before Lhe CA was for bobeos cotpos, and lL was only
supposed Lo resolve Lhe quesLlon of wheLher Lhe CourL of llrsL lnsLance had rlghLfully
dlsmlssed Lhe peLlLlon of Ang Cho klo for habeas corpus, and noL Lo revlew any
senLence lmposed. 1he recommlLmenL Lo prlson of Ang Cho klo was done ln Lhe
exerclse by Lhe resldenL of Lhe hlllpplnes of execuLlve power, as Lhe former had
vlolaLed Lhe Lerms of hls condlLlonal pardon, and Lhe courLs should noL lnLerfere wlLh
Lhe exerclse of LhaL power. 1he maLLer of wheLher an allen who vlolaLed Lhe laws ln
Lhls counLry may remaln or be deporLed ls a pollLlcal quesLlon LhaL should be lefL
enLlrely Lo Lhe Chlef LxecuLlve Lo declde. lL ls noL wlLhln Lhe provlnce of Lhe [udlclary
Lo express an oplnlon, or a suggesLlon, LhaL would reflecL on Lhe wlsdom or proprleLy
of Lhe acLlon of Lhe Chlef LxecuLlve on maLLers purely pollLlcal ln naLure. 1he declslon
of a courL should conLaln only oplnlon LhaL ls relevanL Lo Lhe quesLlon LhaL ls before
Lhe courL for declslon, courLs are noL concerned wlLh Lhe wlsdom or morallLy of laws,
buL only ln Lhe lnLerpreLaLlon and appllcaLlon of Lhe law. ueoleJ.
closs ootes
tbe cA olteoJy moJe o leqol ooolysls, oow lt mokes o motol otqomeot/pleo
o wbot ls wtooq wltb tbls?
" cootts ote sopposeJ to qlve bloJloq, mooJototy otJets - occotJloq
to coses ot coottovetsles - oot tecommeoJotloos, soqqestloos, pleos

!.M. 1uason & Co., lnc. v. 1he Land 1enure Adm|n|strat|on (1970)
eLlLloner-appellee !.M. 1uason & Co., lnc. seeks Lo nulllfy a leglslaLlve acL (8A 2616)
dlrecLlng Lhe exproprlaLlon of Lhe 1aLalon LsLaLe, Cuezon ClLy, as lL amounLs Lo a
denlal of due process for belng dlrecLed solely aL peLlLloner and solely exproprlaLlng
peLlLloner's land. 8espondenL-appellanL seek Lo reverse Lhe [udgmenL of Lhe lower
courL declarlng 8A 2616 unconsLlLuLlonal, on procedural and [urlsdlcLlonal grounds,
and LhaL Lhe quesLloned 8A ls wlLhln Lhe power of Lhe leglslaLure Lo enacL.
letoooJo, I., held LhaL Lhe lower courL could rule on Lhe consLlLuLlonallLy of Lhe
quesLloned leglslaLlve acL, as lL was ln Lhe exerclse of Lhe power of [udlclal revlew.
1hls power, granLed by Lhe ConsLlLuLlon, may be exerclsed when Lhe parLy adversely
affecLed by elLher a leglslaLlve or execuLlve acL flles Lhe approprlaLe sulL Lo LesL lLs
valldlLy. 1he acLlon flled by peLlLloner ln Lhe lower courL was relled upon preclsely Lo
resLraln Lhe enforcemenL of whaL ls alleged Lo be an unconsLlLuLlonal sLaLuLe. Also,
Lhe quesLloned sLaLuLe ls noL unconsLlLuLlonal as lL was wlLhln Lhe consLlLuLlonal
power of Congress Lo auLhorlze Lhe exproprlaLlon of lands. Looklng aL Lhe LexL of Lhe
ConsLlLuLlon, Lhe hlsLory of Lhe provlslon, and conLemporaneous undersLandlng, lL ls
clear LhaL lL ls lefL Lo Lhe leglslaLlve wlll Lo deLermlne whaL lands may be exproprlaLed
so Lhey could be subdlvlded for resale Lo Lhose ln need of Lhem. When such auLhorlLy
may be exerclsed ls purely for Congress Lo declde, lLs dlscreLlon on Lhe maLLer ls noL
Lo be lnLerfered wlLh. Powever, Lhere need be no fear LhaL such granL of power Lo
exproprlaLe ls unllmlLed, Lhe land Laken should be for publlc use, and [usL
compensaLlon should be pald. 1here ls no flxed llne of demarcaLlon beLween whaL
can be Laken and whaL cannoL, each case musL be [udged accordlng Lo lLs pecullar
clrcumsLances. Congress was moved Lo acL ln vlew of whaL lL consldered a serlous
soclal and economlc problem. 1he soluLlon lL found Lo correcL Lhe slLuaLlon was
exproprlaLlon of Lhe sald land. ueoleJ.

1987 Const|tut|on, Art|c|e III - 8||| of k|ghts
5ectloo 22. no ex posL facLo law or blll of aLLalnder shall be enacLed.

8. Case or ConLroversy 8equlremenL: LlemenLs

docLrlnal rules are ways by whlch one can express normaLlve" values
expanded deflnlLlon of [udlclal power ln Lhe 1987 ConsLlLuLlon (ArL. vlll, Sec.
1)
o LradlLlonal deflnlLlon - ArL vlll, Sec. 1, 1
sL
paragraph

CasLro, uelfln, MagbaLo, Mohammadsall, ngo, 8osales, velasco. | 82014 | S

o dlfference wlLh 8ule 63, 8ules of CourL
" Lhe expanded deflnlLlon of [udlclal power enables Lhe courLs Lo look
lnLo Lhe exerclse of dlscreLlon of Lhe pollLlcal branches and
lnsLrumenLallLles of governmenL for grave abuse of dlscreLlon
amounLlng Lo lack or excess of [urlsdlcLlon
" ln 8ule 63, only of [udlclal and quasl-[udlclal bodles
" crlLlclzed - governmenL by Lhe [udlclary
case or conLroversy
o courLs can evade [udgmenL on prudenLlal" grounds buL wlll cover Lhe
evaslon on [urlsdlcLlonal" grounds
Pohfeldlan plalnLlff - LradlLlonal/conservaLlve undersLandlng on sLandlng
o musL have concreLe and subsLanLlal sLake ln Lhe ouLcome of Lhe
conLroversy, musL have suffered dlrecL ln[ury, musL have lnLeresL LhaL
would be advanced by llLlgaLlon
o however, many cases are broughL Lo courL by people who have no dlrecL
lnLeresL ln Lhe conLroversy ! non-Pohfeldlan plalnLlff
llve case or conLroversy
o rlpeness
" case noL yeL [usLlclable
" noL sufflclenLly concreLe Lo be suscepLlble of ad[udlcaLlon
o mooLness
" no llve case
" capable of repeLlLlon buL evadlng revlew - CourL may acL
# lf mooLness ls consLanLly applled, Lhe lssue wlll never be
resolved
" class acLlon - CourL may acL

5tooJloq
MuskraL v. Un|ted States (1911)
eLlLloners, on Lhelr own behalf and on behalf of all Cherokee clLlzens affecLed
Lhereby, assall Lhe consLlLuLlonallLy of acLs of Congress subsequenL Lo Lhe 1902 acL of
Congress whlch provlded for alloLmenL of Cherokee lands. Congress, Lhrough a
leglslaLlve acL, granLed [urlsdlcLlon Lo Lhe CourL of Clalms, wlLh rlghL of appeal
Lo/revlew by Lhe lederal Supreme CourL, Lo hear, deLermlne, and ad[udlcaLe Lhe sulLs
flled agalnsL Lhe unlLed SLaLes as parLy defendanL.
uoy, I., held LhaL Lhe Supreme CourL of Lhe unlLed SLaLes may noL Lake cognlzance of
Lhese sulLs, as Congress does noL have Lhe power Lo enlarge Lhe orlglnal [urlsdlcLlon
of Lhe Supreme CourL beyond Lhe cases speclfled ln Lhe lederal ConsLlLuLlon.
!udlclal power ls Lhe power of a courL Lo declde and pronounce a [udgmenL and
carry lL lnLo effecL beLween persons and parLles who brlng a case before lL for
declslon." 1he exerclse of [udlclal power ls llmlLed Lo cases" and conLroversles."
1he Lerm lmplles Lhe exlsLence of presenL or posslble adverse parLles whose
conLenLlons are submlLLed Lo Lhe courL for ad[udlcaLlon. Pere, Lhe aLLempL Lo obLaln
a [udlclal declaraLlon of Lhe valldlLy of Lhe acL of Congress ls noL presenLed ln a case"
or conLroversy." 1he uS ls made a defendanL Lo Lhls acLlon, buL lL has no lnLeresL
adverse Lo Lhe clalmanLs. 1he whole purpose of Lhe law ls Lo deLermlne Lhe
consLlLuLlonal valldlLy of Lhls class of leglslaLlon, ln a sulL noL arlslng beLween parLles
concernlng a properLy rlghL necessarlly lnvolved ln Lhe declslon ln quesLlon, and
concernlng whlch Lhe only [udgmenL requlred ls Lo seLLle Lhe doubLful characLer of
Lhe leglslaLlon ln quesLlon. 1he [udgmenL could noL be execuLed, and amounLs ln facL
Lo no more Lhan an expresslon of oplnlon upon Lhe valldlLy of Lhe acLs ln quesLlon - ln
essence glvlng an oplnlon ln Lhe naLure of advlce concernlng leglslaLlve acLlon, a
funcLlon never conferred upon Lhe CourL by Lhe ConsLlLuLlon.

hlllpplne AssoclaLlon of Colleges and unlverslLles (ACu), eLc. v. Secretary of
Lducat|on (1933)
eLlLlonlng colleges and unlverslLles seek Lo have AcL no. 2706 be declared
unconsLlLuLlonal for deprlvlng owners of schools and colleges of llberLy and properLy
wlLhouL due process, and for conferrlng on Lhe Sec. of LducaLlon unllmlLed dlscreLlon
Lo prescrlbe rules and sLandards, because of Lhe requlremenL LhaL a permlL musL flrsL
be obLalned from Lhe Sec. of Lduc. before a prlvaLe school may be opened.
8eoqzoo, I., held LhaL peLlLloners have no sLandlng Lo flle sulL, because all of Lhem
have permlLs Lo operaLe and are acLually operaLlng by vlrLue of Lhelr permlLs, and
Lhey do noL asserL LhaL Lhelr permlLs are belng LhreaLened Lo be revoked. Mere
apprehenslon LhaL Lhe SecreLary of LducaLlon mlghL wlLhdraw Lhelr permlLs does noL
consLlLuLe a [usLlclable conLroversy. 1he law was enacLed ln Lhe exerclse of Lhe pollce
power Lo ensure LhaL educaLlonal lnsLlLuLlons do noL funcLlon merely as money-
maklng devlces, and Lo ensure LhaL such lnsLlLuLlons maLch up Lo proper sLandards.
1he ConsLlLuLlon lLself mandaLes LhaL all educaLlonal lnsLlLuLlons shall be under Lhe
supervlslon and sub[ecL Lo regulaLlon by Lhe SLaLe. 1he power Lo regulaLe
esLabllshmenLs and buslness occupaLlons lmplles Lhe power Lo requlre a llcense or
permlL. 1he ueparLmenL of LducaLlon may flx Lhe sLandards Lo ensure adequaLe and
efflclenL lnsLrucLlon, due Lo lLs experLlse and experlence on Lhe maLLer.

Gonza|es v. Pechanova (1963)
eLlLloner 8amon Conzales assalls Lhe acLs of respondenLs, whlch are supposedly ln
excess of [urlsdlcLlon, because 8A 3432 expllclLly prohlblLs Lhe lmporLaLlon of rlce and
corn by Lhe 8lce and Corn AdmlnlsLraLlon or any oLher governmenL agency.


8espondenLs malnLaln LhaL Lhe sLaLus of peLlLloner as a rlce planLer does noL glve hlm
sufflclenL lnLeresL Lo flle Lhe peLlLlon.
coocepcloo, I., held LhaL peLlLloner had sLandlng Lo sue. Aslde from Lhe prohlblLlon of
Lhe lmporLaLlon of rlce and corn ln 8A 3432, SecLlon 1 Lhereof also declares LhaL Lhe
pollcy of Lhe CovernmenL ls Lo engage ln Lhe purchase of Lhese baslc foods dlrecLly
from Lhose LenanLs, farmers, growers, producers, and landowners ln Lhe hlls. who
wlsh Lo dlspose of Lhelr producLs aL a prlce LhaL wlll afford Lhem a falr and [usL reLurn
for Lhelr caplLal and labor lnvesLmenL. eLlLloner, as a planLer wlLh rlce land of
subsLanLlal proporLlon, ls enLlLled Lo a chance Lo sell hls produce Lo Lhe CovernmenL.
Morever, slnce Lhe purchase of rlce abroad would necessarlly use publlc funds malnly
ralsed Lhrough LaxaLlon, and as peLlLloner musL necessarlly be a Laxpayer, he Lhus has
sufflclenL personallLy and lnLeresL Lo seek [udlclal asslsLance wlLh a vlew of resLralnlng
whaL he belleves Lo be an aLLempL Lo unlawfully dlsburse sald funds.
closs ootes.
wbot Jettlmeot woolJ petltlooet ooJ otbet tlce plootets teolly soffet?
o ecooomlc lojoty
" tbe lmpottotloo woolJ moke tlce ptlces mote competltlve, cbeopet
" Jeptlve tbem of tbe oblllty to coottol locol tlce ptlces!

Conzales v. Marcos (1973)
eLlLloner 8amon Conzales assalls Lhe creaLlon by Lhe resldenL of Lhe hlllpplnes of
a LrusL under Lhe name of Lhe CulLural CenLer of Lhe hlllpplnes.
letoooJo, I., held LhaL peLlLloner dld noL have sLandlng Lo sue. 1he funds for Lhe
LrusL, as admlnlsLered by Lhe resldenL, came from donaLlons and conLrlbuLlons, and
noL by LaxaLlon. eLlLloner, who lnvoked sLandlng as a Laxpayer, Lhus had no
requlslLe pecunlary or moneLary lnLeresL ln Lhe maLLer ln order Lo saLlsfy Lhe
elemenLal requlslLe of a Laxpayer's sulL.

eople v. vera (1937)
eLlLloners assall Lhe consLlLuLlonallLy of AcL 4221, whlch allows whlch provldes a
sysLem of probaLlon for persons convlcLed of crlmes.
lootel, I., held LhaL Lhe lssue of Lhe consLlLuLlonallLy of AcL 4221 has been properly
ralsed ln Lhe proceedlngs. 1he respondenL [udge of Lhe lower courL decllned Lo pass
upon Lhe lssue of consLlLuLlonallLy of Lhe AcL on Lhe ground LhaL Lhe prlvaLe
prosecuLor, noL belng a parLy whose rlghLs are affecLed by Lhe sLaLuLe, may noL ralse
Lhe quesLlon. Cenerally, a courL wlll noL conslder any aLLack made on Lhe
consLlLuLlonallLy of a sLaLuLe by one who has no lnLeresL ln defeaLlng lL because hls
rlghLs are noL affecLed by lLs operaLlon. 1he person who lmpugns Lhe valldlLy of a
sLaLuLe musL have a personal and subsLanLlal lnLeresL ln Lhe case such LhaL he has
susLalned, or wlll susLaln, dlrecL ln[ury as a resulL of lLs enforcemenL. Pere, Lhe
eople of Lhe hlllpplnes, represenLed by Lhe SollclLor-Ceneral and Lhe llscal of Lhe
ClLy of Manlla, ls a proper parLy. lf AcL 4221 ls really unconsLlLuLlonal, Lhe eople of
Lhe hlls. has a subsLanLlal lnLeresL ln havlng lL seL aslde. Cf greaLer lmporL Lhan Lhe
damage caused by Lhe lllegal expendlLure of publlc funds ls Lhe morLal wound
lnfllcLed upon Lhe fundamenLal law by Lhe enforcemenL of an lnvalld sLaLuLe. Well-
seLLled ls Lhe rule LhaL Lhe SLaLe can challenge Lhe valldlLy of lLs own laws.

I|ast v. Cohen (1968)
AppellanLs seek Lo en[oln Lhe expendlLure of federal funds under Lhe LlemenLary and
Secondary LducaLlon AcL of 1963, alleglng LhaL such funds were belng used Lo flnance
lnsLrucLlon ln varlous sub[ecLs ln rellglous schools, and Lo purchase LexLbooks.
wotteo, c.I., held LhaL peLlLloners had sLandlng as Laxpayers Lo flle Lhe presenL
acLlon. A Laxpayer may or may noL have Lhe requlslLe personal sLake ln Lhe ouLcome
of Lhe case, dependlng upon Lhe clrcumsLances of Lhe parLlcular case. ln decldlng Lhe
quesLlon of sLandlng, lL ls necessary Lo deLermlne wheLher Lhere ls a loglcal nexus
beLween Lhe sLaLus asserLed and Lhe clalm soughL Lo be ad[udlcaLed. lor a person Lo
have sLandlng as a Laxpayer, he musL flrsL esLabllsh a loglcal llnk beLween LhaL sLaLus
and Lhe Lype of leglslaLlve enacLmenL aLLacked - Lhus, only of exerclses of
congresslonal power under Lhe Laxlng and spendlng clause of Lhe ConsLlLuLlon.
Secondly, Lhe Laxpayer musL esLabllsh a nexus beLween LhaL sLaLus and Lhe preclse
naLure of Lhe lnfrlngemenL alleged - Lhe Laxpayer musL show LhaL Lhe challenged
enacLmenL exceeds speclflc consLlLuLlonal llmlLaLlons lmposed upon Lhe exerclse of
Lhe congresslonal Laxlng and spendlng power. AppellanLs here have saLlsfled boLh
nexuses Lo supporL Lhelr clalm of sLandlng, as Lhelr challenge ls made Lo an exerclse
of Congress of lLs power under Lhe Laxlng and spendlng clause Lo spend for Lhe
general welfare, and Lhe challenged program lnvolves a subsLanLlal expendlLure of
federal Lax funds. ln addlLlon, Lhey have alleged LhaL Lhe challenged expendlLures
vlolaLe Lhe LsLabllshmenL and lree Lxerclse clauses of Lhe llrsL AmendmenL. A
person who alleges LhaL hls Lax money ls belng exLracLed and spenL ln vlolaLlon of
speclflc consLlLuLlonal proLecLlons agalnsL abuses of governmenL wlll have sLandlng as
a Laxpayer.

Slerra Club v. Morton (1972)
eLlLloner Slerra Club, a membershlp corporaLlon wlLh a speclal lnLeresL ln Lhe
conservaLlon and sound malnLenance of Lhe naLlonal parks, game refuges, and
foresLs of Lhe counLry," seeks Lo resLraln federal offlclals from approvlng a skllng
developmenL ln Lhe Mlneral klng valley ln Lhe Sequola naLlonal loresL.
5tewott, I., held LhaL peLlLloner has no sLandlng Lo sue upon lLs clalm of a general


lnLeresL. Accordlng Lo Lhe AdmlnlsLraLlve rocedure AcL (AA), a person sufferlng
legal wrong because of agency acLlon, or adversely affecLed or aggrleved by agency
acLlon wlLhln Lhe meanlng of a relevanL sLaLuLe ls enLlLled Lo [udlclal revlew. 1he
ln[ury conLemplaLed ln Lhe AcL ls ln[ury ln facL." 1he ln[ury alleged by Lhe Slerra Club
wlll be lncurred enLlrely by reason of Lhe change ln Lhe uses Lo whlch Mlneral klng
wlll be puL, and Lhe change ln Lhe aesLheLlcs and ecology of Lhe area. ln[ury ln facL"
requlres more Lhan an ln[ury Lo a cognlzable lnLeresL, Lhe parLy seeklng revlew musL
be hlmself among Lhe ln[ured. 1he ln[ury alleged by Slerra Club wlll be felL dlrecLly
only by Lhose who use Mlneral klng and Sequola naLlonal ark, and for whom Lhe
aesLheLlc and recreaLlon values of Lhe area would be lessened by Lhe planned
developmenL. 1he Slerra Club falled Lo allege LhaL lL or lLs members would be
affecLed ln any of Lhelr acLlvlLles by Lhe developmenL. A mere lnLeresL ln a problem ls
noL sufflclenL by lLself Lo render Lhe organlzaLlon adversely affecLed" or aggrleved"
wlLhln Lhe meanlng of Lhe AA.
closs ootes
tbe lojoty soffeteJ by 5letto clob ls too otteoooteJ
o tbe oexos betweeo stotos ooJ clolm ls too fot

unlLed SLaLes v. SC8A (1973)
Appellee SC8A assalls Lhe declslons of Lhe lnLersLaLe Commerce Commlsslon, ln
decllnlng Lo suspend Lhe 2.3 surcharge of rallroad carrlers, because Lhe Commlsslon
falled Lo lnclude a deLalled envlronmenLal lmpacL sLaLemenL, as requlred by law.
SC8A clalms LhaL each of lLs members suffered economlc, recreaLlonal, and
aesLheLlc harm dlrecLly as a resulL of Lhe adverse envlronmenLal lmpacL of Lhe
rallroad frelghL sLrucLure, LhaL each member was caused Lo pay more for flnlshed
producLs, LhaL each uses Lhe naLural resources surroundlng Lhe WashlngLon
MeLropollLan area and aL hls legal resldence, for recreaLlonal and aesLheLlc purposes,
LhaL Lhese uses have been adversely affecLed by Lhe lncreased frelghL raLes, LhaL each
has been forced Lo pay lncreased Laxes because of Lhe sums expended Lo dlspose of
wasLe maLerlal.
5tewott, I., held LhaL appellees have sufflclenLly alleged LhaL Lhey were adversely
affecLed" or aggrleved" wlLhln Lhe meanlng of Sec. 10 of Lhe AdmlnlsLraLlve
rocedure AcL. ln[ury ln facL" does noL llmlL sLandlng Lo Lhose who can show
economlc harm, as aesLheLlc and envlronmenLal well-belng may fall wlLhln Lhe
deflnlLlon as well. And Lhe facL LhaL many persons shared Lhe same lnLeresL or ln[ury
does noL lmmedlaLely deny sLandlng Lo a parLy. ln 5letto clob v Mottoo, lL was
sLressed LhaL Lhe parLy seeklng revlew musL hlmself be among Lhe ln[ured, as lL ls Lhls
requlremenL LhaL glves llLlganLs a sLake ln Lhe conLroversy. Pere, Lhe appellees clalm
LhaL Lhe acLlon of Lhe Commlsslon would dlrecLly harm Lhem ln Lhelr use of Lhe
naLural resources of Lhe WashlngLon MeLropollLan Area. Also, Lhe challenged acLlon
ls appllcable Lo all of Lhe counLry's rallroads, Lhus has an adverse lmpacL on all Lhe
naLural resources of Lhe counLry and all persons who uLlllze Lhem.

k||osbayan, Inc., eL al v. Culngona (1994)
eLlLloners seek Lo prevenL Lhe lmplemenLaLlon of Lhe ConLracL of Lease beLween Lhe
CSC and Lhe CMC for Lhe operaLlon of an onllne loLLery sysLem. 8espondenLs
asserL LhaL peLlLloners have no sLandlng Lo sue, as Lhey are noL parLles Lo Lhe conLracL
and are Lhus noL real parLles ln lnLeresL.
uovlJe, It., I., held LhaL peLlLloners have sLandlng Lo sue. A parLy's sLandlng before
Lhe CourL ls a procedural LechnlcallLy whlch lL may seL aslde ln vlew of Lhe
LranscendenLal lmporLance" of Lhe lssues ralsed. 1he lssues ralsed here are of
paramounL publlc lmporLance, Lhe ramlflcaLlons of such lssues affecL Lhe soclal,
economlc, and moral well-belng of Lhe people, and so Lhe CourL brushes aslde Lhe
procedural barrler ln order Lo address and resolve Lhe lssues hereln ralsed.

SLeffel v. 1hompson eL al. (1974)
eLlLloner was handbllllng on a sldewalk ouLslde of a shopplng cenLer agalnsL Lhe
vleLnam War. Pe had already been warned Lwlce Lo sLop hls acLlvlLy, Lhen LhreaLened
wlLh arresL lf he perslsLed, and ln facL hls companlon had been charged wlLh vlolaLlon
of Lhe Ceorgla crlmlnal Lrespass law. eLlLloner assalls Lhe appllcaLlon of Lhe sLaLuLe
Lo hlm, as lL would vlolaLe hls llrsL and lourLeenLh AmendmenL rlghLs.
8teoooo, I., held LhaL peLlLloner presenLs an acLual conLroversy, and Lhus has
sLandlng Lo sue. eLlLloner has alleged LhreaLs of prosecuLlon LhaL cannoL be
characLerlzed as lmaglnary or speculaLlve, he had already been warned Lwlce and has
been Lold LhaL lf he conLlnued, he would be prosecuLed. ln facL, hls companlon had
already been prosecuLed. lL ls noL necessary LhaL peLlLloner flrsL expose hlmself Lo
acLual arresL or prosecuLlon Lo be enLlLled Lo challenge a sLaLuLe LhaL he clalms deLers
Lhe exerclse of hls consLlLuLlonal rlghLs.
closs ootes
ooJet ttoJltloool tole oo stooJloq, be sboolJ bove beeo ottesteJ fltst befote
be coolJ poestloo tbe stotote
bowevet, tbe coott qtooteJ stooJloq
o be boJ olteoJy beeo wotoeJ 2x, bls compooloo boJ beeo ottesteJ
o oo oeeJ to sobject blm to ottest befote be moy qo to coott
" tbteot of ottest olteoJy lmmloeot - olteoJy omooots to lojoty lo foct

Iranc|sco v. Pouse of 8epresenLaLlves (2003)
eLlLloners challenge Lhe 2nd lmpeachmenL complalnL flled agalnsL Chlef !usLlce


Pllarlo uavlde. 8espondenL-lnLervenors asserL LhaL eLlLloners have no sLandlng,
slnce only Lhe Chlef !usLlce has susLalned and wlll susLaln dlrecL personal ln[ury.
cotplo-Motoles, I., held LhaL peLlLloners have sLandlng Lo flle Lhe peLlLlon. 1he
SollclLor-Ceneral asserLs LhaL peLlLloners have sLandlng slnce Lhe CourL had, ln Lhe
pasL, accorded sLandlng Lo Laxpayers, voLers, concerned clLlzens, leglslaLors ln cases
lnvolvlng paramounL publlc lnLeresL, and LranscendenLal lmporLance. Amlcos cotloe
uean angalangan ls of Lhe same oplnlon, clLlng LranscendenLal lmporLance and Lhe
rule excepLlon LhaL, when Lhe real parLy ln lnLeresL ls unable Lo vlndlcaLe hls rlghLs by
seeklng Lhe same remedles, as ln Lhe case C! uavlde who, for eLhlcal reasons, cannoL
lnvoke Lhe [urlsdlcLlon of Lhe SC. 1here ls a dlfference beLween Lhe rule on real-parLy-
ln-lnLeresL and Lhe rule on sLandlng, Lhe former ls a concepL of clvll procedure, whlle
Lhe laLLer has consLlLuLlonal underplnnlngs. Whlle rlghLs personal Lo Lhe C! may have
been ln[ured here, none of Lhe peLlLloners asserLs a vlolaLlon of such, Lhey lnvoke Lhe
vlndlcaLlon of Lhelr own rlghLs supposedly vlolaLed by Lhe unconsLlLuLlonal acLs of Lhe
Pouse of 8eps.
kepolsltes of 5tooJloq (os stoteJ lo tbe cose)
C|t|zen: 1he lnLeresL of Lhe peLlLloner musL be dlrecL and personal. Pe musL be
able Lo show LhaL he has susLalned or ls ln lmmlnenL danger of susLalnlng some
dlrecL ln[ury as a resulL of Lhe enforcemenL of Lhe challenged governmenLal acL.
lL musL appear LhaL he has been or ls abouL Lo be denled some rlghL or prlvllege
Lo whlch he ls lawfully enLlLled or LhaL he ls abouL Lo be sub[ecLed Lo some
burdens or penalLles by reason of Lhe sLaLuLe or acL complalned of. When Lhe
proceedlng lnvolves Lhe asserLlon of a publlc rlghL, Lhe mere facL LhaL he ls a
clLlzen saLlsfles Lhe requlremenL of personal lnLeresL.
1axpayer: A peLlLloner ls allowed Lo sue where Lhere ls a clalm LhaL publlc funds
are lllegally dlsbursed, or LhaL publlc money ls belng deflecLed Lo any lmproper
purpose, or LhaL Lhere ls wasLage of publlc funds Lhrough Lhe enforcemenL of an
lnvalld/unconsLlLuLlonal law. Pe musL speclflcally prove LhaL he has sufflclenL
lnLeresL ln prevenLlng Lhe lllegal expendlLure of money ralsed by LaxaLlon and
LhaL he would susLaln a dlrecL ln[ury as a resulL of Lhe enforcemenL of Lhe
quesLloned sLaLuLe or conLracL. lL ls noL sufflclenL LhaL he has merely a general
lnLeresL common Lo all members of Lhe publlc. CourLs are vesLed wlLh dlscreLlon
as Lo wheLher or noL a Laxpayer's sulL should be enLerLalned.
Leg|s|ator: A peLlLloner ls allowed Lo sue Lo quesLlon Lhe valldlLy of any offlclal
acLlon whlch he clalms lnfrlnges hls prerogaLlves as a leglslaLor. A member of Lhe
Pouse of 8eps. has sLandlng Lo malnLaln lnvlolaLe Lhe prerogaLlves, powers, and
prlvlleges vesLed by Lhe ConsLlLuLlon ln hls offlce.
Assoc|at|on: An assoclaLlon has legal personallLy Lo represenL lLs members,
especlally when lL ls composed of subsLanLlal Laxpayers and Lhe ouLcome wlll
affecL Lhelr vlLal lnLeresLs. 1he mere lnvocaLlon by Lhe l8 or any member of Lhe
legal professlon of Lhe duLy Lo preserve Lhe rule of law does noL sufflce Lo cloLhe
lL wlLh sLandlng, Lhe lnLeresL ls Loo general and ls shared by oLher groups and Lhe
whole clLlzenry.
C|ass Su|t: When flled ln behalf of all clLlzens, persons lnLervenlng musL be
sufflclenLly numerous Lo full proLecL Lhe lnLeresLs of all concerned Lo enable Lhe
courL Lo deal properly wlLh all lnLeresLs lnvolved ln Lhe sulL, for a [udgmenL ln a
class sulL, wheLher favorable or unfavorable Lo Lhe class, ls, under tes joJlcoto,
blndlng on all members of Lhe class wheLher or noL Lhey were before Lhe courL.
1ranscendenta| Importance: As Lhere ls no docLrlnal deflnlLlon of LranscendenLal
lmporLance, Lhe ff. deLermlnanLs formulaLe by former !usLlce lellclano are
lnsLrucLlve:
1) Lhe characLer of Lhe funds or oLher asseLs lnvolved ln Lhe case
2) Lhe presence of a clear case of dlsregard of a consLlLuLlonal or sLaLuLory
prohlblLlon by Lhe publlc respondenL agency or lnsLrumenLallLy of Lhe
governmenL
3) Lhe lack of any oLher parLy wlLh a more dlrecL and speclflc lnLeresL ln
ralslng Lhe quesLlons belng ralsed
1he CourL has adopLed a llberal aLLlLude on Lhe locus sLandl of a peLlLloner where
he ls able Lo crafL an lssue of LranscendenLal slgnlflcance Lo Lhe people.
Powever, lL does noL mean LhaL Lhe requlremenL LhaL a parLy should have an
lnLeresL ln Lhe maLLer ls LoLally ellmlnaLed. A parLy musL, aL Lhe very leasL, sLlll
plead Lhe exlsLence of such lnLeresL.
Intervenor: 1he 8ules of CourL requlres an lnLervenor Lo possess a legal lnLeresL
ln Lhe maLLer ln llLlgaLlon, or ln Lhe success of elLher of Lhe parLles, or an lnLeresL
agalnsL boLh, or ls so slLuaLed as Lo be adversely affecLed by a dlsLrlbuLlon or
oLher dlsposlLlon of properLy ln Lhe cusLody of Lhe courL or of an offlcer Lhereof.
Whlle lnLervenLlon ls noL lLself a rlghL, lL may be permlLLed by Lhe courL when Lhe
appllcanL shows facLs whlch saLlsfy Lhe requlremenLs auLhorlzlng lnLervenLlon.

Sanlakas v. LxecuLlve SecreLary (2004)
eLlLloners assall acLs of res. Clorla Macapagal-Arroyo: roclamaLlon no. 427
declarlng a sLaLe of rebelllon followlng Lhe Cakwood MuLlny, and Ceneral Crder no. 4
calllng ouL Lhe Armed lorces Lo suppress Lhe rebelllon.
1loqo, I., held LhaL only peLlLloners 8ep. Supllco eL al. and Sen. lmenLel, as members
of Congress, have sLandlng Lo challenge Lhe sub[ecL lssuances, as Lhey clalm LhaL Lhe
declaraLlon of a sLaLe of rebelllon by Lhe resldenL ls LanLamounL Lo an exerclse of Lhe
emergency powers of Congress, and LhaL Lhe declaraLlon ls a subLerfuge Lo avold
congresslonal scruLlny lnLo Lhe resldenL's exerclse of marLlal law powers.


klpeoess
1an v. Macapagal (1972)
eLlLloners, purporLedly sulng on behalf of Lhemselves and Lhe llllplno people, assall
Lhe valldlLy of Lhe Laurel-Leldo 8esoluLlon of Lhe 1971 ConsLlLuLlonal ConvenLlon,
whlch deals wlLh Lhe range of auLhorlLy of Lhe ConvenLlon. 1hey conLend LhaL Lhe
ConvenLlon has no power Lo revlse Lhe presenL ConsLlLuLlon (1933) Lhrough Lhe
adopLlon of a form of governmenL oLher Lhan LhaL ouLllned ln Lhe ConsLlLuLlon, and
LhaL lL ls merely empowered Lo propose lmprovemenLs Lo Lhe presenL ConsLlLuLlon
wlLhouL alLerlng Lhe general plan lald down Lhereln.
letoooJo, I., held LhaL Lhe CourL has no [urlsdlcLlon over Lhe peLlLlon. 1he docLrlne of
separaLlon of powers calls for Lhe oLher deparLmenLs belng lefL alone Lo dlscharge
Lhelr duLles as Lhey see flL. lL ls a prerequlslLe LhaL someLhlng had by Lhen been
accompllshed or performed by Lhe execuLlve or Lhe leglslaLlve branch before Lhe
courL may come lnLo Lhe plcLure. lL may pass on Lhe valldlLy of whaL was done buL
only when properly challenged ln an approprlaLe legal proceedlng. Such a prlnclple
applles as well when Lhe lnqulry concerns Lhe scope of Lhe compeLence lodged ln Lhe
ConsLlLuLlonal ConvenLlon, noL only because lL ls a coordlnaLe agency buL also
because lLs powers are LranscendenL, amounLlng as lL does Lo submlLLlng for popular
raLlflcaLlon proposals whlch may radlcally alLer Lhe organlzaLlon and funcLlon of all
Lhree deparLmenLs, lncludlng Lhe courLs. As long as any proposed amendmenL ls sLlll
unacLed on by lL, Lhere ls no room for Lhe lnLerposlLlon of [udlclal overslghL.

oe eL al. v. U||man (1961)
eLlLloners assall a ConnecLlcuL sLaLuLe whlch prohlblLs Lhe use of conLracepLlve
devlces and Lhe glvlng of medlcal advlce on Lhelr use, clalmlng LhaL Lhese deprlve
Lhem of llfe (as Lwo of Lhe plalnLlffs, marrled women, needed medlcal advlce on Lhe
use of such devlces for Lhe proLecLlon of Lhelr healLh) and llberLy wlLhouL due process
of law.
ltookfottet, I., held LhaL Lhere was no quesLlon LhaL was rlpe for ad[udlcaLlon.
lederal [udlclal power ls Lo be exerclsed only aL Lhe lnsLance of one who ls hlmself
lmmedlaLely harmed, or lmmedlaLely LhreaLened wlLh harm, by Lhe challenged
acLlon. A law musL be broughL lnLo acLual or LhreaLened operaLlon upon rlghLs
properly falllng under [udlclal cognlzance. 1he mere exlsLence of a sLaLe penal
sLaLuLe would consLlLuLe lnsufflclenL grounds Lo supporL a courL's ad[udlcaLlon of lLs
consLlLuLlonallLy ln proceedlngs agalnsL Lhe SLaLe's prosecuLlng offlclals lf real LhreaL
of enforcemenL ls wanLlng. 1he facL LhaL ConnecLlcuL has noL chosen Lo press Lhe
enforcemenL of Lhe sLaLuLe deprlves Lhese conLroversles of Lhe lmmedlacy whlch ls
an lndlspensable condlLlon of consLlLuLlonal ad[udlcaLlon.
uooqlos, I., Jlsseot, says LhaL Lhls case shows a need for a remedy ln Lhe shadow of a
crlmlnal prosecuLlon. A publlc cllnlc dlspenslng blrLh conLrol lnformaLlon has been
closed by Lhe SLaLe, and docLors and a nurse worklng Lhere had been arresLed and
charged wlLh glvlng advlce Lo marrled women on conLracepLlve use (leople v.
Nelsoo). CLher Lhan Lhe nelson case, several proprleLors had been prosecuLed afLer
Lhey were arresLed for selllng conLracepLlves. 1he ma[orlLy declslon forces docLors
and paLlenLs Lo flouL Lhe law and go Lo prlson, or vlolaLe Lhe law and hope noL Lo geL
caughL. We should noL Lurn Lhem away and make Lhem flouL Lhe law and geL
arresLed Lo have Lhelr consLlLuLlonal rlghLs deLermlned. 1hey are enLlLled Lo an
answer Lo Lhelr predlcamenL here and now."

unlLed SLaLes v. 8lchardson (1974)
8espondenL, clalmlng sLandlng as federal Laxpayer, challenges Lhe consLlLuLlonallLy of
Lhe CenLral lnLelllgence Agency AcL, whlch permlLs Lhe ClA Lo accounL for lLs
expendlLures solely on Lhe cerLlflcaLe of Lhe ulrecLor.
8otqet, c.I., held LhaL respondenL has no sLandlng Lo brlng Lhe lssue before Lhe CourL.
Pls challenge does noL address Lhe Laxlng or spendlng power of Congress, buL
sLaLuLes regulaLlng Lhe ClA. Pe asks Lhe courLs Lo compel Lhe CovernmenL Lo glve
hlm lnformaLlon on how Lhe ClA spends lLs funds. 1here ls no loglcal nexus"
beLween Lhe asserLed sLaLus of Laxpayer and Lhe clalmed fallure of Congress Lo
requlre Lhe LxecuLlve Lo supply a more deLalled reporL on ClA expendlLures (acc. Lo
requlslLes of sLandlng ln llost v. cobeo). eLlLloner ls merely alrlng a generallzed
grlevance, common Lo all members of Lhe publlc, and has noL alleged LhaL, as a
Laxpayer, he ls ln danger of sufferlng any parLlcular concreLe ln[ury as a resulL of Lhe
operaLlon of Lhe sLaLuLe.

Mootoess
DeIun|s v. Cdegaard (1974)
eLlLloner Marco uelunls, afLer havlng been denled admlsslon Lo Lhe unlverslLy of
WashlngLon Law School, commenced Lhls sulL ln Lhe Lrlal courL, clalmlng LhaL he had
been dlscrlmlnaLed agalnsL on accounL on hls race, ln vlolaLlon of hls rlghL Lo Lqual
roLecLlon. 1he Lrlal courL granLed hls peLlLlon, and he was admlLLed Lo Lhe school.
Cn appeal, Lhe WashlngLon Supreme CourL reversed, by Lhls Llme, uelunls was ln hls
2
nd
year. Pe Lhen peLlLloned Lhe uS Supreme CourL for a wrlL of cerLlorarl, whlch
sLayed Lhe [udgmenL of Lhe SLaLe SC pendlng flnal dlsposlLlon of Lhe case. ue lunls
was ln Lhe flrsL Lerm of hls Lhlrd and flnal year ln school when Lhe CourL flrsL
consldered hls peLlLlon for cerLlorarl. ln Lhe oral argumenL, counsel for peLlLloner
lnformed Lhe CourL LhaL uelunls has reglsLered for hls flnal quarLer ln law school, and
counsel for respondenLs sLaLed LhaL Lhe school wlll noL seek Lo abrogaLe Lhls
reglsLraLlon.


1he CourL held LhaL lL cannoL conslder Lhe subsLanLlve consLlLuLlonal lssues ralsed as
Lhe case had already become mooL. uelunls was already ln hls flnal year ln law
school, and Lhere was no lnLenLlon on Lhe parL of Lhe school Lo affecL hls enrollmenL
Lhereln, Lhus a deLermlnaLlon by Lhe CourL of Lhe legal lssues Lendered by Lhe parLles
ls no longer necessary Lo compel LhaL resulL or serve Lo prevenL lL. 1he conLroversy
beLween Lhe parLles has Lhus clearly ceased Lo be deflnlLe and concreLe" and no
longer Louches Lhe legal relaLlons of parLles havlng adverse legal lnLeresLs." lL mlghL
be suggesLed LhaL Lhls case presenLs a quesLlon LhaL ls capable of repeLlLlon, yeL
evadlng revlew" and Lhus amenable Lo federal ad[udlcaLlon Lhough lL mlghL be
consldered mooL. 8uL uelunls lnsLlLuLed Lhe sulL only on hls behalf, he wlll noL be
requlred Lo undergo Lhe admlsslon process agaln, and so Lhe quesLlon ls cerLalnly noL
capable of repeLlLlon" so far as he ls concerned.

||. DUL kCCLSS

Ak1ICLL III
5ectloo 1. no person shall be deprlved of llfe, llberLy, or properLy wlLhouL due process of law, nor shall any
person be denled Lhe equal proLecLlon of Lhe laws.

ulvlded lnLo procedural and subsLanLlve
rocedural due process - quesLlon of how much process ls due
SubsLanLlve due process - proLecLlon of prlvacy, properLy, and llberLy
lnLeresLs

A. rocedural uue rocess

Notlce ooJ neotloq
noLlce
ubllcaLlon ln newspapers for ln rem proceedlngs.
o ln rem - agalnsL Lhe Lhlng lLself.
o noLlce Lo person/owner noL necessary, and lnsLead ls a noLlce Lo
Lhe whole world.

Appllcotloo
1. Pow much process ls due ls dependenL on Lhe naLure of Lhe proceedlngs.
AdmlnlsLraLlve
o quasl-[udlclal - hlgh
o quasl-leglslaLlve - low
o 8equlslLes of due process ln admlnlsLraLlve proceedlngs (Ang 1lbay
v Cl8)
1) 1he rlghL Lo a hearlng whlch lncludes Lhe rlghL of Lhe parLy
lnLeresLed or affecLed Lo presenL hls own case and submlL
evldence ln supporL Lhereof.
2) noL only musL Lhe parLy be glven an opporLunlLy Lo presenL
hls case and Lo adduce evldence Lendlng Lo esLabllsh Lhe
rlghLs whlch he asserLs buL Lhe Lrlbunal musL conslder Lhe
evldence presenLed.
3) Whlle Lhe duLy Lo dellberaLe does noL lmpose Lhe
obllgaLlon Lo declde rlghL, lL does lmply a necesslLy whlch
cannoL be dlsregarded, namely, LhaL of havlng someLhlng
Lo supporL lLs declslon. A declslon wlLh absoluLely noLhlng
Lo supporL lL ls a nulllLy, a place when dlrecLly aLLached.
4) noL only musL Lhere be some evldence Lo supporL a flndlng


or concluslon buL Lhe evldence musL be subsLanLlal."
SubsLanLlal evldence ls more Lhan a mere sclnLllla lL means
such relevanL evldence as a reasonable mlnd mlghL accepL
as adequaLe Lo supporL a concluslon.
3) 1he declslon musL be rendered on Lhe evldence presenLed
aL Lhe hearlng, or aL leasL conLalned ln Lhe record and
dlsclosed Lo Lhe parLles affecLed.
6) 1he CourL of lndusLrlal 8elaLlons or any of lLs [udges,
Lherefore, musL acL on lLs or hls own lndependenL
conslderaLlon of Lhe law and facLs of Lhe conLroversy, and
noL slmply accepL Lhe vlews of a subordlnaLe ln arrlvlng aL
a declslon.
7) 1he CourL of lndusLrlal 8elaLlons should, ln all conLroverslal
quesLlons, render lLs declslon ln such a manner LhaL Lhe
parLles Lo Lhe proceedlng can know Lhe varlous lssues
lnvolved, and Lhe reasons for Lhe declslons rendered. 1he
performance of Lhls duLy ls lnseparable from Lhe auLhorlLy
conferred upon lL.
o ueLermlnaLlon on wheLher an admlnlsLraLlve funcLlon ls quasl-
[udlclal or leglslaLlve (PlLCCMSA1 v Alcuaz)
" Cn wheLher Lhe acLlon ls across Lhe board or slngular
" naLure of Lhe funcLlon
!udlclal
o clvll - low
o crlmlnal - hlgh
Academlc
o uue process ln academlc lnsLlLuLlons (Alcuaz v S8A)
1) 1he sLudenLs musL be lnformed ln wrlLlng of Lhe naLure
and cause of any accusaLlon agalnsL Lhem,
2) 1hey shall have Lhe rlghL Lo answer Lhe charges agalnsL
Lhem, wlLh Lhe asslsLance of counsel, lf deslred
3) 1hey shall be lnformed of Lhe evldence agalnsL Lhem
4) 1hey shall have Lhe rlghL Lo adduce evldence ln Lhelr own
behalf
3) 1he evldence musL be duly consldered by Lhe lnvesLlgaLlng
commlLLee or offlclal deslgnaLed by Lhe school auLhorlLles
Lo hear and declde Lhe case.
Speclal roceedlngs
o lnsolvency proceedlngs (u8 v nL8C)
o LxLradlLlon proceedlngs (Sec. of !usLlce v Pon. LanLlon)
2. uue process ls necessary ln acLlons LhaL ad[udlcaLe lmporLanL rlghLs.
o SLaLe acLlon agalnsL Lhese rlghLs should come wlLh due process.
" Welfare ls noL a prlvllege, buL a rlghL. (Coldberg v kelly)
o ConnecLlon of prlvllege Lo rlghL.
" urlver's llcense: Whlle orlglnally deemed Lo be a prlvllege,
lL ls connecLed Lo proLecLed rlghLs of properLy (when lL
becomes essenLlal Lo Lhe llvellhood) and llberLy (moblllLy)
(8ell v 8urson)
" rlvllege Lurns lnLo rlghL when codlfled Lo a rule or a rule-
bound exerclse. (u v Pon. LlgoL-1elan)
3. lalr warnlng ln penal laws
o vold-for-vagueness - a due process problem (LsLrada v
Sandlganbayan)
" SLaLuLe lLself couched ln an lndeflnlLe language LhaL lL ls
noL posslble for men of ordlnary lnLelllgence Lo deLermlne
whaL lL meanL.
" lf Lhe law ls Loo vague, Lhe accused has no warnlng on
whaL consLlLuLes a crlmlnal acL

8anco Lspano| I|||p|no v alanca (1918)
5tteet, I.. loreclosure of properLy of owner who was ln Chlna. Cwner was declared ln
defaulL, and Lhe order was challenged, assalllng Lhe [urlsdlcLlon of Lhe courL and on
procedural due process grounds. uue process: Lhere was quesLlon on wheLher Lhe
clerk malled noLlce of [udlclal proceedlngs. noLlce was posLed ln Lhe newspaper. SC:
ersonal noLlce Lhru mall noL absoluLely necessary Lo saLlsfy due process. 1he noLlce
LhaL ls ln due process menLloned here ls Lhe publlcaLlon ln Lhe newspaper. AffltmeJ.

Ang 1|bay v Cl8 (1940)
lootel, I.. naLlonal Labor unlon flled a complalnL agalnsL Ang 1lbay for unfalr labor
pracLlce, and flled for moLlon for a new Lrlal under Lhe CourL of lndusLrlal 8elaLlons.
SC: MoLlon for new Lrlal granLed. SC held a dlscusslon on Lhe naLure of Lhe Cl8, and
malnLalned lL as an admlnlsLraLlve courL exerclslng [udlclal and quasl-[udlclal
funcLlons. 1hey also esLabllshed Lhe requlremenLs of due process for admlnlsLraLlve
Lrlals and lnvesLlgaLlons. CtooteJ.

nILCCMSA1 v Alcuaz (1989)
keqoloJo, I.. n1C dlrecLed PlLCCMSA1 Lo lower Lhe raLes LhaL lL charges wlLhouL
noLlfylng Lhe former of n1C's plans and wlLhouL subsequenL hearlngs wlLh


PlLCCMSA1 on raLe-flxlng. SC: PlLCCMSA1's rlghL Lo due process ls vlolaLed. Whlle
n1C has quasl-[udlclal and quasl-leglslaLlve powers, boLh are llmlLed: Lhe former by
Lhe publlc lnLeresL and reasonableness, and Lhe laLLer by due process. 1he lncrease ln
raLe was only Lowards PlLCCMSA1 and noL Lo saLelllLe servlces ln general, whlch
makes lL ad[udlcaLory and hence necesslLaLes due process. CtooteJ.

Ateneo v CA (1986)
Cottletez, I.. ALeneo sLudenL dlsmlssed from Lhe unlverslLy due Lo an lncldenL
whereln he sLruck a walLresss lnslde hls dorm's cafeLerla. SLudenL's parenLs sued for
damages, clalmlng LhaL Lhelr son was dlsmlssed wlLhouL due process of law and Lhey
were noL noLlfled of hls expulslon. SC: 1he sLudenL was lnvesLlgaLed by a board of Lhe
school, and LhaL he was appeared ln fronL of Lhe board Lo be quesLloned. noLlce Lo
Lhe parenLs noL necessary, slnce Lhe sLudenL was 18 years old and fully cognlzanL of
whaL he dld and lLs penalLy. CtooteJ.

Alcuaz v S8A (1988)
lotos, I.. SLudenLs and some Leachers rallled and barrlcaded Lhe schools ln proLesL
agalnsL Lhe admlnlsLraLlon. Some of Lhem-Lhe peLlLloners-were blackllsLed and
were noL allowed Lo enroll ln Lhe school. eLlLloners conLend LhaL Lhey were denled
due process of law. SC: ConLracLs beLween Lhe school and Lhe sLudenL end every
semesLer, hence, Lhey don'L have any conLracLual relaLlon Lo speak of aL Lhe
beglnnlng of Lhe semesLer. School has a rlghL Lo refuse Lhe sLudenLs from enrolllng,
slnce lL was shown LhaL vlolaLlons of school rules was commlLLed by Lhe sLudenLs.
ulsmlsseJ.

Non v !udge uames (1990)
cottes, I.. College sLudenLs were noL allowed Lo re-enroll by Lhe school for
parLlclpaLlng ln sLudenL mass acLlons agalnsL Lhe school ln Lhe precedlng semesLer.
eLlLloners seek Lo be re-admlLLed, on Lhe grounds LhaL Lhe conLracL beLween Lhe
school and Lhe sLudenL ls noL LermlnaLed every semesLer, and LhaL due process was
noL observed when Lhe dlsclpllnary measures were lnsLlLuLed agalnsL Lhe sLudenLs.
SC: 1he Manual of 8egulaLlons for rlvaLe Schools ls consLrued Lo mean LhaL Lhere ls a
rlghL of Lhe sLudenL Lo be enrolled ln hls course for Lhe enLlre perlod he ls expecLed
Lo compleLe lL." Also, Lhe sLudenLs have Lhe rlghL Lo speech and Lo peaceably
assemble, and whlle Lhe school has Lhe power Lo dlsclpllne Lhem, such proceedlngs
are under Lhe amblL of due process. CtooteJ, ovettotoeJ Alcuaz v. S8A.

8eyes v CA (1991)
MeJlolJeo, I.. u's 8oard of 8egenLs ordered Lhe u College of Medlclne Lo admlL
sLudenLs whose scores dld noL pass Lhe uCM faculLy's cuL-off score, buL were well-
wlLhln nMA1's cuL-off score. uCM dld noL admlL sLudenLs. uCM clalmed LhaL Lhelr
academlc freedom ls vlolaLed by Lhe 8C8. SC: 1he 8C8 was upholdlng Lhe admlsslon
requlremenL approved by Lhe unlverslLy Councll agalnsL Lhe uCM faculLy who
changed Lhe requlremenLs wlLhouL followlng Lhe prescrlbed rules and procedures.
ulsmlsseJ.

Go|dberg v kelly (1970)
8teoooo, I.. 8esldenLs recelvlng flnanclal ald who alleged LhaL beneflLs were Lo be
LermlnaLed or LermlnaLed already wlLhouL due process and hearlng, slnce appearance
of reclplenL before revlewlng offlclal ls only afLer LermlnaLlon of Lhe beneflLs and noL
before revlewlng. SC: 1he resldenLs have sLaLuLory enLlLlemenL Lo Lhe flnanclal ald.
SLaLe acLlon of LermlnaLlon ad[udlcaLes lmporLanL rlghLs, l.e. welfare. Pence,
evldenLlary hearlng musL be done pre-LermlnaLlon Lo saLlsfy due process
requlremenL. 1he proceedlng need noL be [udlclal or quasl-[udlclal. AffltmeJ.

8ell v 8urson (1971)
8teoooo, I.. Ceorgla sLaLuLe provldes LhaL reglsLraLlon and llcense of unlnsured
moLorlsLs lnvolved ln accldenLs shall be suspended unless he posLs securlLy Lo cover
Lhe amounL of damages clalmed. AdmlnlsLraLlve hearlng excludes conslderaLlon of
Lhe moLorlsL's faulL or llablllLy for Lhe accldenL. ln Lhls case, peLlLloner was denled
hearlng for Lhe evldence of non-llablllLy when glrl rode blcycle on Lo Lhe slde of hls
car. eLlLloner laLer found Lo be noL llable. ConsLlLuLlonallLy of sLaLuLe quesLloned for
vlolaLlon of due process. SC: 8lghL Lo due process vlolaLed, lnsofar as lL does noL
provlde hearlng prlor Lo suspenslon. ossesslon of llcenses deemed a rlghL, slnce lL
may become essenLlal Lo pursulL of llvellhood. ConsLlLuLlonal resLralnLs llmlL sLaLe
power Lo LermlnaLe enLlLlemenL. kevetseJ ooJ temooJeJ.

U v Pon. LlgoL-1elan (1993)
kometo, I.. Law sLudenL recelvlng beneflLs under u's S1lA afLer lL was dlscovered
LhaL he had a car, and LhaL hls moLher supporLed hlm and hls broLher by worklng
abroad. 8C8 suspended sLudenL, and was ordered Lo relmburse Lhe S1lA beneflLs
he recelved. SLudenL alleged he was denled due process, due Lo a 8C8 meeLlng
whereln he was noL asked Lo appear. SC: under Lhe amblL of academlc freedom, so
Lhe courL has no [urlsdlcLlon on Lhe case. Also, Lhe meeLlng was for reconslderaLlon of
Lhe prlor declslon of Lhe 8C8 regardlng Lhe sLudenL's case, he was noL enLlLled Lo be
noLlfled or Lo appear. CtooteJ.



D8 v nL8C (1990)
Meleoclo-netteto, I. u8 foreclosed on Lhe properLles of Ll8AC afLer lL ceased
operaLlons. Ll8AC also had backpay owed Lo lLs employees who were dlsmlssed prlor
Lo Lhe cessaLlon of operaLlons. 1he Labor ArblLer held ln favor of paylng Lhe
employees and ordered u8 Lo remlL Lhe amounL from Lhe foreclosed properLles Lo
Lhe employees. u8 argued LhaL lL was deprlved of lLs properLy wlLhouL due process
of law. SC: uue process was saLlsfled on Lhe parL of Lhe u8. lL was glven Lhe
opporLunlLy Lo be heard and presenL evldence. u8 flled several moLlons durlng Lhe
proceedlngs. CtooteJ.

SecreLary of !usLlce v non. Lant|on (2000)
looo, I.. Mark !lmenez exLradlLlon case. Pe flled case ln order Lo compel uC! Lo
furnlsh hlm coples of, and commenL on, Lhe exLradlLlon documenLs LhaL were senL Lo
Lhe uC! for evaluaLlon of Lhe exLradlLlon requesL. lssue was WCn a person ls enLlLled
Lo noLlce and hearlng durlng Lhe evaluaLlon sLage of exLradlLlon proceedlngs. SC: ?es.
1he evaluaLlon sLage of Lhe exLradlLlon proceedlng ls akln Lo an admlnlsLraLlve agency
conducLlng an lnvesLlgaLlve proceedlng, Lhe consequences of whlch are essenLlally
crlmlnal slnce such Lechnlcal assessmenL seLs off or commences Lhe procedure for,
and ulLlmaLely, Lhe deprlvaLlon of llberLy of a prospecLlve exLradlLee. As such, due
process requlremenLs of noLlce and hearlng musL be saLlsfled. ulsmlsseJ.

LsLrada v Sand|ganbayan (2001)
8eloslllo, I.. ConsLlLuLlonallLy of Lhe AnLl-lunder Law. ALLacked on grounds of due
process, namely: vagueness (comblnaLlon" and serles" ln Lhe acLs needed Lo be
proven) and overbreadLh, and lowerlng Lhe evldence necessary Lo convlcL (l.e. less
Lhan beyond reasonable doubL). SC: vagueness: Lhe sLaLuLe conLalns ascerLalnable
sLandards and well-deflned parameLers whlch would enable Lhe accused Lo
deLermlne Lhe naLure of hls vlolaLlon. CverbreadLh: wlLh vold-for-vagueness, applled
usually Lo freedom of speech cases. Lvldence: rosecuLlon sLlll needs Lo prove
beyond reasonable doubL Lhe acLs sufflclenL Lo form a comblnaLlon or serles whlch
would consLlLuLe a paLLern and lnvolvlng an amounL of 30M. ulsmlsseJ, kA
coostltotloool.

8. Cld" SubsLanLlve uue rocess: roLecLlon for roperLy lnLeresLs

5obstootlve uoe ltocess
Concurrence of:
Lawful purpose - Lhe lnLeresL of Lhe publlc musL [usLlfy Lhe lnLerference of
Lhe SLaLe
Lawful meLhod - Means employed are reasonably necessary for Lhe
accompllshmenL of Lhe purpose and noL unduly oppresslve upon lndlvlduals.
o CverbreadLh docLrlne: A governmenLal purpose may noL be
achleved by means whlch sweep unnecessarlly broadly and Lhereby
lnvade Lhe area of proLecLed freedoms.

IoJlclol 5ctotloy lo 5obstootlve uoe ltocess
ln hlllpplne [urlsdlcLlon, Lhe raLlonal relaLlonshlp LesL and helghLened scruLlny ls
used.
ueferenLlal LesL - Lhe courL ls noL concerned wlLh Lhe pollcy or wlsdom of a
leglslaLlve acL
8aLlonal relaLlonshlp LesL
o 8easonable means LesL
o Mlnlmum LesL of raLlonallLy
o lor as long as purpose ls publlc ln characLer and Lhe purpose ls
advanced Lhrough Lhe means
o Lven lf Lhere are alLernaLlves LhaL are avallable and are less
lnLruslve does noL mean LhaL Lhe law ls noL valld.
PelghLened scruLlny
o 1rlggered by Lhe posslble vlolaLlon of a speclally proLecLed rlghL
under Lhe ConsLlLuLlon
o 1he means employed musL be narrowly Lallored Lo Lhe purpose of
Lhe leglslaLlon.
o 1here musL be a LlghL flL beLween Lhe purpose and Lhe means
SLrlcL scruLlny

ltopetty lotetests
roperLy lLself
o roflLs (Lochner, omar, eLc.)
roperLy rlghLs
o MorLgages (nuC and AC8lx v v8)
ConLracLual rlghLs - also, freedom Lo conLracL
o Lmployee conLracLs (eople v omar)

Calder v 8u|| (1798)
cbose, I.. Pearlng of Lhe wlll LhaL was lnlLlally noL approved by Lhe probaLe courL was
granLed by Lhe leglslaLure. 1he wlll was granLed, and Lhe wlfe-who was noL named
ln Lhe wlll-appealed on Lhe basls LhaL Lhe approval had Lhe effecL of dlvesLlng Lhe
rlghL LhaL accrued Lo her when Lhe wlll was lnlLlally denled because, by law, Lhe wlfe


has Lhe rlghL as Lhe helress Lo her husband's esLaLe. lalnLlff aLLacked Lhe order of Lhe
leglslaLure, saylng LhaL Lhey had no consLlLuLlonal power Lo order such a new hearlng.
SC: 8esoluLlon had no effecL on any rlghL whaLever vesLed ln Calder and wlfe. 1he
resoluLlon, wlLh Lhe new hearlng and declslon, Look away Lhelr rlghL Lo recover Lhe
properLy ln quesLlon. 8uL no rlghL of properLy vesLed ln wlfe because Lhe flrsL decree
dld noL vesL ln or Lransfer any properLy Lo Lhem. lf any one has a rlghL Lo properLy
such rlghL ls a perfecL and excluslve rlghL, buL no one can have such rlghL before he
has acqulred a beLLer rlghL Lo Lhe properLy, Lhan any oLher person ln Lhe world: a
rlghL, Lherefore, only Lo recover properLy cannoL be called a perfecL and excluslve
rlghL. AffltmeJ.

Lochner v new ?ork (1903)
leckbom, I.. n? sLaLe law prohlblLs an employee Lo work more LhaL 10 h/day. 8akery
requlrlng LhaL employees work for more Lhan 60 h/week was found ln vlolaLlon of
Lhls law. Cwner of bakery challenged Lhe consLlLuLlonallLy of Lhe sLaLuLe, saylng lL
lnLerferes wlLh Lhe freedom Lo conLracL beLween employer and employee. SC:
unconsLlLuLlonal. 1esL used: reasonable means LesL. Law does noL affecL porLlon of
publlc, buL for Lhe safeLy and healLh of Lhe lndlvldual baker. 1he safeLy of Lhe bread ls
noL dependenL on Lhe number of hours a baker works. 1he Lrade of a baker ls noL
alarmlngly healLh Lo need lnLerference of Lhe SLaLe. kevetseJ.

eople v omar (1924)
Iobosoo, I.. Lmployer dldn'L wanL Lo glve employee maLernlLy leave wlLh pay, as
prescrlbed ln one of Lhe acLs of Lhe hll. leglslaLure. uefendanL challenged Lhe
consLlLuLlonallLy of Lhe provlslon, saylng lL was an unreasonable exerclse of Lhe pollce
power of Lhe SLaLe and lmpalrs hls freedom Lo conLracL. SC: unconsLlLuLlonal. 1he
rlghL Lo llberLy lncludes Lhe rlghL Lo enLer lnLo and LermlnaLe conLracLs. 1here was no
due process lnvolved: lL only Lakes lnLo accounL Lhe welfare of Lhe employee and noL
Lhe perlods of dlsLress ln Lhe buslness. ulsmlsseJ.

nuC and AC8lx v h||. Veterans 8ank (1990)
ctoz, I.. AC8lx was rehablllLaLed by naL'l uev'L Co. under u 1717, whereln Lhe
morLgage and oLher llens were exLlngulshed. When v8, who had glven AC8lx a
morLgage, flled for Lhe paymenL of Lhe loan credlL afLer AC8lx wenL bankrupL. AC8lx
ralsed u 1717 as defence. v8 foreclosed Lhe morLgage. v8 assalled Lhe
consLlLuLlonallLy of Lhe u on subsLanLlve due process grounds. SC: ubllc lnLeresL ln
AC8lx noL sufflclenL for governmenL Lo lnLerfere wlLh Lhe prlvaLe conLracL beLween
AC8lx and v8. lL was noL shown how Lhe publlc's welfare would be promoLed or
proLecLed. ulsmlsseJ., lu oocoostltotloool.
ueoo. wON tbete ls tokloq of ptopetty. lo tbls cose, wbot wos tokeo ls mottqoqe
secotlty, oot tbe ptopetty ltself. wbot ls tokeo ls o ptopetty tlqbt. (uecotpoteollzotloo
of ptopetty).

eop|e v nazarlo (1988)
5otmleoto, I.. llshpond owner refuses Lo pay hls munlclpallLy's flshpond Lax, and was
charged wlLh vlolaLlon of Lhe ordlnance. Pe assalled Lhe consLlLuLlonallLy of Lhe
ordlnance, sLaLlng LhaL lL was vague, as lL was amblguous and uncerLaln as Lo lLs
deflnlLlon on who owns Lhe properLy and consequenLly on whom would be Laxed,
and on when Lhe Lax shall be pald. SC: MusL be uLLerly vague on lLs face, noL [usL
lmpreclsely saved by proper consLrucLlon or leglslaLlon. 1he quesLlon on when Lhe Lax
would be collecLed can be deLermlned by compuLaLlon. ulsmlsseJ.

8a|acu|t v Cll (1988)
Coocoyco, I.. Munlclpal ordlnance, maklng movle LlckeLs aL half-prlce for chlldren.
CuesLlon on wheLher lL ls a valld exerclse of pollce power, as Lhey consldered Lhe
ordlnance conflscaLory, amounLs Lo resLralnL of Lrade, and vlolaLlve of Lhe freedom Lo
conLracL. SC: Movle LlckeL ls a specles of properLy, boLh as a conLracL and llcense. 1he
ordlnance Lhus lnLerferes on hls properLy rlghLs and rlghL Lo llberLy. Lawful
sub[ecL/purpose: none. lncreased savlngs of parenLs and encouragemenL of famlly
values noL sufflclenL publlc lnLeresL. kevetseJ, OtJloooce oocoostltotloool.

AgusLln v Ldu (1979)
letoooJo, I.. ConsLlLuLlonallLy of leLLer of lnsLrucLlon provldlng for Lhe mandaLory use
of early warnlng devlces for all moLor vehlcles, Lhus, a vehlcle owner would be
requlred Lo buy Lhese devlces (properLy). SC: noL vlolaLlve of due process. Lawful
sub[ecL/purpose: Lrafflc safeLy. Lawful means: use of LWus. 1he publlc safeLy beneflLs
of uslng LWus sufflclenLly backed by sLaLlsLlcs. Also, Lhe lmplemenLaLlon was noL
leglslaLlve ln naLure, buL [usL an enforcemenL of vlenna ConvenLlon's
recommendaLlons on use of Lrafflc safeLy devlces. ulsmlsseJ.

C. new" SubsLanLlve uue rocess: roLecLlon for LlberLy" lnLeresLs ln rlvacy

llbetty lotetests lo ltlvocy
8lghL of prlvacy - lL ls Lhe rlghL of Lhe lndlvldual, marrled or slngle, Lo be free
from unwarranLed governmenLal lnLruslon lnLo maLLers so fundamenLally
affecLlng a person as Lhe declslon wheLher Lo bear or begeL a chlld
(LlsensLadL v 8alrd)
o ConLracepLlon (Crlswold v ConnecLlcuL)

CasLro, uelfln, MagbaLo, Mohammadsall, ngo, 8osales, velasco. | 82014 | 1S

o AborLlon declslon (8oe v Wade)
o 8lghL of homosexual adulLs Lo engage ln lnLlmaLe, consensual
conducL (Lawrence v 1exas)
o uegree of proLecLlon lowered lf Lhere have been compromlses ln
prlvacy
" ubllc school envlronmenL (8oard of LducaLlon v Larls)
" rlor consenLed lnvaslon of prlvacy (8oard of LducaLlon v
Larls)
Warren & 8randels. 1he 8lghL Lo rlvacy
o Warren and 8randels premlse Lhelr concepLlon of Lhe rlghL of
prlvacy as a rlghL agalnsL Lhe world of an lndlvldual for prevenLlng
Lhem from undue publlclLy. 1hey also lnclude LhaL Lhe rlghL of
prlvacy can be exLended for Lhe proLecLlon ln Lerms of personal
appearance, saylngs, acLs, and Lo personal relaLlon of a person.
CorLes. ConsLlLuLlonal loundaLlons of rlvacy
o 1he rlghL of prlvacy glves a person Lhe rlghL Lo deLermlne whaL, how
much, Lo whom and when lnfo abouL hlm shall be dlsclosed. ln Lhe
hlllpplnes, lL provldes for prlvacy of correspondence and
communlcaLlon."
Cscar 1an
o 1wo klnds of prlvacy
" ueclslonal prlvacy - as ln 8oe v Wade, Crlswold, eLc.
" lnformaLlon prlvacy
rlvacy clause (prlvacy of communlcaLlon and
correspondence)
unlawful search and selzure clause

ClmsLead v US (1928)
1oft, I.. eLlLloners were found Lo be ln Lhe buslness of dlsLrlbuLlng llquor durlng Lhe
prohlblLlon, and were convlcLed. lnformaLlon on Lhe operaLlons was obLalned by
Lapplng Lhe phone llnes on Lhe sLreeLs near Lhe houses. ConvlcLlon was aLLacked on
Lhe grounds LhaL lL vlolaLed Lhelr rlghLs under Lhe 4
Lh
(unreasonable searches and
selzures) and 3
Lh
(self-lncrlmlnaLlon) AmendmenLs. SC: no. 1here was no compulslon,
physlcal Laklng, or Lrespasslng lnvolved. 1he wlreLapplng only amounLed Lo recordlng
of audlo and noL Lhe Laklng of documenLs or oLher ob[ecLs. Also, Lhere was no
Lrespasslng as Lhe wlreLapplng was done on Lhe sLreeLs. 8randels dlssenL: roLecLlon
agalnsL unreasonable search and selzure musL be exLended Lo wlreLapplng. lL ls an
encroachmenL on an lndlvldual's llberLy. AffltmeJ.

Sk|nner v Cklahoma (1942)
uooqlos, I.. Sklnner convlcLed of Lhree felonles: once for sLeallng chlckens, and Lwlce
for robbery wlLh Lhe use of a flrearm. 1he Cklahoma PablLual Crlmlnal SLerlllzaLlon
AcL provldes LhaL hablLual crlmlnals are Lo be sexually sLerlllzed, hablLual crlmlnals
belng Lhose havlng been convlcLed for 2 or more Llmes, buL Lhose convlcLed under
prohlblLory laws, revenue acLs, embezzlemenL, or pollLlcal offences are noL covered
by Lhe AcL. lL was assalled on Lhe grounds of equal proLecLlon. SC: vlolaLlve of equal
proLecLlon. 1here ls an unequal LreaLmenL on crlmlnals whose acLlons are Lhe same,
l.e. larceny and embezzlemenL. 1he lnherlLablllLy of crlmlnal LralLs havlng been noL
assalled, Lhe law ls essenLlally saylng LhaL Lhere are lnherlLable LralLs ln one felony
and noL Lhe oLher. SC recognlzed Marrlage and procreaLlon are fundamenLal Lo Lhe
very exlsLence and survlval of Lhe race" and LhaL lL ls a baslc llberLy." kevetseJ.

Gr|swo|d v ConnecLlcuL (1963)
uooqlos, I.. 1he sLaLe penallzes Lhe use of any drug or arLlcle Lo prevenL
conLracepLlon, and punlshes Lhose who asslsL and counsels ln Lhe commlsslon of an
offence as prlnclpal offenders. 1he appellanLs are execuLlves of Lhe lanned
arenLhood League, and Lhey glve medlcal advlce and lnformaLlon on Lhe use of
conLracepLlves Lo marrled persons. 1hey assalled Lhe consLlLuLlonallLy of Lhe
provlslons, based on lLs vlolaLlon of Lhe rlghL of marlLal prlvacy. SC: WlLhln Lhe 8lll of
8lghLs exlsLs a penumbra where prlvacy ls proLecLed from governmenLal lnLruslon",
ln Lhe 1
sL
(rlghL of assoclaLlon), 3
rd
(prohlblLlon of quarLerlng of soldlers), 4
Lh

(unreasonable searches and selzures), 3
Lh
(self-lncrlmlnaLlon), and 9
Lh
(noL dlsparaglng
oLher rlghLs of Lhe people). noLe: AnoLher lssue here ls Lhe sLandlng of lanned
arenLhood League. LssenLlally, Lhey are advocaLes of Lhe rlghLs of Lhe marrled
couples-LhaL ls why Lhey are allowed by Lhe SC Lo have sLandlng. kevetseJ.

LlsensLadL v 8a|rd (1972)
8teoooo, I.. Appellee personally handed a box of vaglnal foam Lo a young unmarrled
woman afLer hls lecLure on conLracepLlon. MassachuseLLs law penallzes Lhe selllng,
lendlng, or glvlng away of conLracepLlve devlce Lo unmarrled persons. lssues:
sLandlng, due process, equal proLecLlon. SC: Appellee has sLandlng Lo asserL Lhe rlghLs
of unmarrled persons. urpose/means LesL: SLaLuLe could noL have been used Lo
deLer fornlcaLlon and as a healLh measure. As Lo fornlcaLlon: lL cannoL be prevenLlon
of fornlcaLlon-sLaLe punlshes dlsLrlbuLlon of conLracepLlves wlLh lmprlsonmenL flve
Llmes Lhe duraLlon Lhan LhaL of fornlcaLlon. As Lo healLh: noL all conLracepLlves are
harmful. 1he sLaLuLe ls lnvldlous agalnsL Lhe unmarrled, and overbroad agalnsL Lhe
unmarrled. AffltmeJ.



oe v U||man
See arL l.

koe v Wade (1973)
8lockmoo, I.. 1exas penal laws makes a crlme Lo procure aborLlon or aLLempL one
excepL when lL ls for Lhe purpose of savlng Lhe llfe of a moLher. AppellanLs were a
slngle woman wanLlng Lo procure an aborLlon, a docLor prosecuLed for performlng
aborLlons, and husband and wlfe who wanLs Lo have aborLlon avallable for Lhem ln
Lhe fuLure, slnce wlfe had dlsorder LhaL would make pregnancy deLrlmenLal. ALLacked
Lhe consLlLuLlonallLy of Lhe law, saylng lL vlolaLes Lhe consLlLuLlonally proLecLed rlghL
Lo LermlnaLe pregnancy. SC: 8lghL Lo prlvacy lncludes Lhe rlghL Lo declde Lo LermlnaLe
a pregnancy. 1hls rlghL of Lhe pregnanL woman ls noL overrldden by Lhe Lheory of llfe
beglnnlng aL concepLlon. 1he SLaLe musL have a compelllng sLaLe lnLeresL Lo lnLerfere
wlLh Lhls rlghL. urposes enumeraLed by SLaLe were Lo dlscourage llllclL sexual
conducL, proLecL pregnanL women, and proLecLlng prenaLal llfe. llllclL sexual conducL:
overbroad. roLecLlng prenaLal llfe: Lhe feLus musL flrsL be vlable. roLecL maLernal
healLh: recognlzed by SC, however, Lhey conLend LhaL SLaLe lnLerference here musL
be llmlLed Lo regulaLlon of aborLlon procedures. 1hey dlvlded lnLerference accordlng
Lo Lhe LrlmesLers: 1
sL
- no lnLerference, 2
nd
- may lmpose regulaLlons for adopLlon
procedure, 3
rd
- lmpose ban. kevetseJ.

8owers v Pardwlck (1986)
8otqet, I.. Pardwlck was caughL havlng anal sex wlLh a man lnslde hls bedroom. Pe
was charged under a Ceorgla sLaLuLe punlshlng sodomy. Pe challenged Lhe
consLlLuLlonallLy of Lhe sLaLuLe, lnsofar as lL crlmlnallzed consensual sodomy, and LhaL
lL lnfrlnges on Lhe fundamenLal rlghL of homosexuals Lo engage ln sodomy. SC:
Pomosexuals have Lo rlghL under Lhe consLlLuLlon Lo lndulge ln sodomy. 1here ls no
connecLlon beLween famlly, marrlage, or procreaLlon and homosexual acLlvlLy.
ulsmlsseJ.
ueoo. low ls oeottol oo lts foce, bot os opplleJ, ls Jlsctlmloototy. Aool sex ls peoollzeJ
oqolost bomosexools, bot oot oqolost betetosexools.

Lawrence v 1exas (2003)
keooeJy, I.. Lawrence was caughL havlng anal sex wlLh a man lnslde hls bedroom. Pe
was charged under a 1exas sLaLuLe LhaL penallzes havlng sexual lnLercourse wlLh
anoLher person of Lhe same sex. 1hey assalled Lhe consLlLuLlonallLy of Lhe sLaLuLe
under boLh Lhe equal proLecLlon and due process clause. SC: 1he sLaLuLe seeks Lo
conLrol a personal relaLlonshlp LhaL, wheLher or noL enLlLled Lo formal recognlLlon ln
Lhe law, ls wlLhln Lhe llberLy of persons Lo choose wlLhouL belng punlshed as
crlmlnals. 1he llberLy proLecLed by Lhe ConsLlLuLlon allows homosexual persons Lhe
rlghL Lo choose Lo enLer upon relaLlonshlps ln Lhe conflnes of Lhelr homes and Lhelr
own prlvaLe llves and sLlll reLaln Lhelr dlgnlLy as free persons." Sodomy laws are noL
for consenLlng adulLs ln prlvaLe, for consenLlng adulLs cannoL prosecuLe each oLher.
under equal proLecLlon: lL penallzes Lhe acL (anal sex) for homosexuals, buL noL
heLerosexuals. kevetseJ ooJ temooJeJ.

8oard of Lducat|on v Larls (2002)
1bomos, I.. School dlsLrlcL's rules provldlng for mandaLory drug LesLlng for all hlgh
school sLudenLs parLlclpaLlng ln exLra-currlcular acLlvlLles. ConsLlLuLlonallLy aLLacked
on Lhe grounds LhaL lL ls a vlolaLlon of Lhe unreasonable search and selzure provlslon
and of Lhe sLudenLs' rlghL Lo prlvacy. SC: lL ls noL a crlmlnal lnvesLlgaLlon, so probable
cause ls noL necessary. As Lo Lhe rlghL of prlvacy clalm, sLudenLs already have a
llmlLed expecLaLlon of prlvacy," slnce lL has been already compromlsed by Lhe oLher
requlremenLs of Lhe school acLlvlLles. 1he lnLruslon ls negllglble, as Lhere ls a meLhod
on geLLlng Lhe urlne sample and Lhere ls a need-Lo-know basls ln Lhe dlsclosure of
lnformaLlon. 1esL used: reasonableness. urpose: prevenLlng drug use. Means: drug
LesLlng. kevetseJ.

Cp|e v. 1orres (1998)
looo, I.. SenaLor Cple ls assalllng Lhe consLlLuLlonallLy of AdmlnlsLraLlve Crder 308
enLlLled AdopLlon of a naLlonal CompuLerlzed ldenLlflcaLlon 8eference SysLem",
saylng LhaL lL ls an abrldgemenL of Lhe rlghL Lo prlvacy. 1he CSC enumeraLes Lhe
followlng as Lhe purposes of Lhe admlnlsLraLlve order, 1) for fasLer lmplemenLaLlon of
baslc governmenL servlces 2) Lo eradlcaLe fraud and 3) Lo generaLe populaLlon daLa,
and says LhaL Lhe requlremenLs for Lhe raLlonal relaLlonshlp LesL are saLlsfled.
I. looo held LhaL when a fundamenLal rlghL ls abrldged, ln Lhls case Lhe rlghL Lo
prlvacy, Lhe sLrlcL scruLlny LesL musL be applled. AlLhough Lhe purposes of Lhe order
saLlsfled Lhe compelllng sLaLe lnLeresL requlremenL, Lhe narrowly drawn means
requlremenL was noL saLlsfled. A.C. 308 does noL provlde penalLles ln case such daLa
ls Lampered wlLh and glves an undeLerred dlscreLlon Lo any agency handllng Lhe daLa
Lo use lL for purposes oLher Lhan Lhose sLaLed. 1he use of blomeLrlcs and compuLer
Lechnology does noL assure Lhe lndlvldual of a reasonable expecLaLlon of prlvacy."
As Lechnology advances, Lhe level of reasonably expecLed prlvacy decreases. 1he test
of the reasonab|eness of a person's expectat|on of pr|vacy cons|sts of two parts 1)
whether by h|s conduct, the |nd|v|dua| has exh|b|ted an expectat|on of pr|vacy and
2) whether th|s expectat|on |s one that soc|ety recogn|zes as reasonab|e. Noll ooJ
volJ.!
ueoo. uoto coo be oseJ fot otbet potposes.


xomples of fooJomeotol tlqbts tbot wlll be loftloqeJ lf tbls system ls lmplemeoteJ.
llbetty of oboJe (tbey coo keep ttock of wbete yoo qo)
tlqbt to be secote oqolost ooteosoooble seotcbes ooJ selzotes (coo occess oll
kloJs of lofotmotloo oboot yoo)

uuncan AssoclaLlon v. G|axo We|come (2004)
1loqo, I.. 1ecson, a medlcal represenLaLlve of Claxo, marrled an employee of lLs rlval
company desplLe slgnlng a conLracL whlch sLaLes LhaL Claxo managemenL, lf lL sees a
poLenLlal confllcL of lnLeresLs, has Lhe prerogaLlve Lo reasslgn or LermlnaLe
employmenL of an employee who has a relaLlonshlp wlLh an employee of any of lLs
rlval companles. Claxo managemenL remlnded hlm of such pollcy and gave hlm Llme
Lo comply wlLh Lhe agreemenL and advlsed hlm LhaL elLher he reslgns or hls wlfe
does. 1ecson dld noL heed Lhe advlce of managemenL and Claxo reasslgned hlm Lo
anoLher place, much farLher from hls wlfe's place of employmenL.
CourL held LhaL 1) Claxo's enforcemenL of Lhe foregolng pollcy was a valld exerclse of
lLs managemenL prerogaLlves. 1he purpose of Lhe conLracL ls Lo prevenL Lhe rlval
company from galnlng access Lo secreLs, procedures or rules, oLherwlse, Claxo wlll be
deprlved of leglLlmaLe proflLs. 1he ConsLlLuLlon recognlzes Lhe rlghL of enLerprlses Lo
adopL and enforce such a pollcy Lo proLecL Lhelr rlghLs Lo reasonable reLurns on
lnvesLmenLs and Lo expanslon and growLh. 2) 1he conLracL dld noL vlolaLe Lhe equal
proLecLlon clause. 1he conLracL dld noL lmpose an absoluLe prohlblLlon on marrlage.
WhaL Lhe company avolds ls a confllcL of lnLeresLs LhaL may arlse ouL of such
relaLlonshlps. 1he equa| protect|on c|ause |s not a sh|e|d aga|nst pr|vate conduct
except when the state |n any of |ts man|festat|ons or act|ons has been found to
have become entw|ned or |nvo|ved |n the wrongfu| pr|vate conduct. Such excepLlon
ls noL presenL ln Lhe case. 3) 1ecson was glven Llme Lo remedy Lhe slLuaLlon. Pe
slgned Lhe conLracL ln whlch such pollcy was sLaLed. 1he conLracL of employmenL has
Lhe force of law beLween Lhe parLles and should be complled wlLh ln good falLh.
ueoleJ.
ueoo. 1est (Jlffeteot levels of sctotloy) ls oot oppllcoble wbeo o ptlvote compooy ls
lovolveJ ooJ os looq os tbete ls oo lovolvemeot of tbe stote (stote octloo
tepoltemeot). Otbetwlse, we sboolJ bove opplleJ tbe belqbteoeJ sctotloy test sloce
wbot ls lovolveJ ls tbe tlqbt to motty.
1be potpose of tbe coottoct wos to ptotect compooy sectets. uo we moke o
Jlstloctloo betweeo scleotlflc ooJ commetclol sectets?
Atqoe fot 1ecsoo. coottoct ls lovollJ becoose lt wos lo effect o wolvet of tbe
coostltotloool tlqbt to motty.

8ommel !aclnLo uanLes Sllverlo v. kepub||c (2007)
Sllverlo underwenL a sex change operaLlon and was engaged Lo anoLher man. Pe flled
a peLlLlon for a change of flrsL name and sex ln hls blrLh cerLlflcaLe. 1he 8epubllc,
Lhrough Lhe CSC, alleged LhaL Lhere ls no law allowlng a change of enLrles ln Lhe blrLh
cerLlflcaLe on Lhe basls of sex reasslgnmenL.
cotooo, I. held LhaL Lhere ls no law allowlng Lhe change of name or sex on Lhe ground
of sex reasslgnmenL. 1he SLaLe has an lnLeresL ln Lhe names borne by lndlvlduals and
enLlLles for purposes of ldenLlflcaLlon. 1he enLrles may noL be changed on Lhe ground
of equlLy. Sllverlo, hlmself, wanLed Lo geL marrled. 1hls poses serlous publlc lssues
(ex. Labor rlghLs of women). ueoleJ.
ueoo. 1bete ls o pobllc lotetest lo tbe cbooqe of oome - stoblllty of lJeotlty.
compote wltb tbe coqooJoboo cose wbete cootts Jeclsloo testeJ oo coqooJoboos
ptefetteJ lJeotlty.

Wh|te L|ght Corporat|on v. ClLy of Manlla (2009)
1loqo, I.. WhlLe LlghL CorporaLlon (WLC) was Lhe owner of a chaln of hoLels/moLels
LhaL offers wash-up raLes (shorL-Llme admlsslon). lnvoklng Lhe rlghL of lLs cusLomers,
lL assalled Lhe consLlLuLlonallLy of an ordlnance prohlblLlng esLabllshmenLs Lo offer
such raLes. 1he ClLy lnvokes Lhe general welfare clause of Lhe Local CovernmenL
Code, whlch, accordlng Lo lL, glves lL Lhe rlghL Lo regulaLe such esLabllshmenLs. 1he
purpose of Lhe ordlnance was Lo dlscourage lmmoral behavlor. ShorL-Llme admlsslon
raLes, Lhe ClLy sald, encouraged prosLlLuLlon and drug use.
1hree LesLs:
raLlonal basls LesL (usually applled ln equal proLecLlon cases) - Lhe sLaLuLe ls
valld as long as Lhere ls a raLlonal relaLlonshlp beLween a subsLanLlve sLaLe
lnLeresL and Lhe means employed
lmmedlaLe revlew - avallablllLy of less resLrlcLlve measures ls examlned
sLrlcL scruLlny (applled ln regulaLlon of speech, race, gender cases) - noL [usL
subsLanLlve buL compelllng sLaLe lnLeresL ls requlred, less resLrlcLlve
measures are noL avallable
1he ordlnance suffers from belng overbroad. Marrled couples or slngle people
engaged ln leglLlmaLe sexual behavlor would be affecLed. AnoLher group of people
who would be affecLed are famllles or persons resLlng ln beLween Lrlps. 1he sLrlcL
scruLlny LesL was applled ln Lhls case. CLher measures may be employed Lo curb
prosLlLuLlon and lllegal drug use (ex. more sLrlcL enforcemenL of Lhe law)
1he rlghL Lo llberLy was lnfrlnged. 1o [usLlfy such lnfrlngemenL:
means musL be reasonably necessary for Lhe accompllshmenL of Lhe purpose
and musL noL be unduly oppresslve on prlvaLe rlghLs
Lhere ls no oLher alLernaLlve for Lhe accompllshmenL of Lhe purpose


noL all requlremenLs were saLlsfled ln Lhls case. CtooteJ.
ueoo soys. lotpose of stotote. motollty, Meoos. ptoblbltloo of wosb-op totes
Oo-lts-foce vs. os-opplleJ
1be ossolleJ otJloooce wos vollJ oo lts foce bot oot vollJ os opplleJ to tbe costomets
of tbe botels/motels. 1be level of sctotloy opplleJ wlll JepeoJ oo wbot lotetests ote
lovolveJ. lf commetclol lotetests wete lovokeJ l.e. wlcs tlqbt to ptopetty, tbe
totloool telotloosblp test woolJ bove beeo sofflcleot. lo tbot cose, tbe coostltotlooollty
of tbe otJloooce woolJ bove beeo opbelJ. nowevet, wlc lovokeJ tbe tlqbt of tbelt
costomets. 1be tlqbt of lotlmocy wos lovolveJ ooJ belqbteoeJ sctotloy boJ to be
opplleJ. 1bete wos oo oottow flt betweeo tbe potpose ooJ tbe meoos becoose olooq
tbe woy, tbe otJloooce wos olso poolsbloq leqltlmote octs.

u. roLecLed lnLeresLs ln roperLy
Mete keqolotloo ooJet tbe uoe ltocess cloose vetsos 1okloq of ltopetty vlo tbe
lowet of mloeot uomolo

ldenLlfy naLure of sLaLe power lnvolved:
uue rocess - regulaLory Laklng
ower of LmlnenL domaln - Laklng
AL whaL polnL do you regulaLe someLhlng such LhaL ln effecL you are already Laklng lL?

Churchlll v. kafferty (1913)
lalnLlffs conLend LhaL a porLlon of an acL empowerlng Lhe collecLor of lnLernal
8evenue Lo remove blllboards lf Lhey are offenslve Lo Lhe slghL (nulsances)
consLlLuLed a deprlvaLlon of properLy wlLhouL due process of law. 1he plalnLlffs
owned blllboards, whlch were locaLed on prlvaLe lands, and are seeklng Lo en[oln Lhe
CollecLor from removlng Lhem. 1he lnqulry ls llmlLed Lo Lhe quesLlon wheLher Lhe
enacLmenL assalled was a leglLlmaLe exerclse of Lhe pollce power of Lhe governmenL.
I. 1teot held LhaL slgns and blllboards, whlch are offenslve Lo Lhe slghL, are wlLhln Lhe
caLegory of Lhlngs LhaL lnLerfere wlLh publlc safeLy, welfare and comforL, hence, Lhey
are wlLhln Lhe reach of pollce power. SLaLuLes concernlng offenslve nolses and smells
are usually upheld on Lhe Lheory of safeguardlng Lhe publlc healLh even lf as a maLLer
of facL Lhey have llLLle bearlng upon Lhe healLh of Lhe normal person buL a greaL deal
Lo do wlLh physlcal comforL and convenlence. 1he CovernmenL ls noL prevenLed from
proLecLlng Lhe lndlvldual from Lhose LhaL are offenslve Lo hls sense of slghL. 8lllboards
mar or block Lhe vlew of beauLlful landscapes. Pours of lelsure and relaxaLlon of
passersby are belng lnLruded upon.
1he success of blllboard adverLlslng depends noL so much on Lhe use of prlvaLe
properLy as lL does upon Lhe use of Lhe channels of Lravel used by Lhe general publlc.
CsLenslbly locaLed on prlvaLe properLy, Lhe real and sole value of Lhe blllboard ls lLs
proxlmlLy Lo Lhe publlc Lhoroughfares. Pence, the regu|at|on of b|||boards and the|r
restr|ct|on |s not so much a regu|at|on of pr|vate property as |t |s a regu|at|on of the
use of the streets and other pub||c thoroughfares.
SLaLe lnLerference wlLh Lhe use of prlvaLe properLy may be exerclsed ln Lhree ways:
power of LaxaLlon - lL ls assumed LhaL Lhe lndlvldual recelves Lhe equlvalenL
of Lhe Lax ln Lhe form of proLecLlon and beneflL he recelves from Lhe
governmenL
power of emlnenL domaln - Lhe lndlvldual recelves Lhe markeL value of Lhe
properLy Laken from hlm
pollce power - Lhe beneflLs Lhe lndlvldual derlves are only Lhose LhaL may
arlse from Lhe malnLenance of a healLhy economlc sLandard of socleLy.
ulsmlsseJ.
ueoo soys. Nolsooce Jocttloe (obotemeot of o oolsooce) - bolJloq ptlvote ptopetty
tbot ls o oolsooce to tbe pobllc wos o closslc qtoooJ fot tbe 5tote to exett pollce
powet.
Nolsooce - 5tote bos oo Joty to telmbotse (5tote. bey wete Joloq tbe pobllc o fovot
ftom temovloq tbe oolsooce)
mloeot Jomolo - 5tote bos Joty to telmbotse (jost compeosotloo)
lo wbot woys ote oqly blllbootJs o oolsooce? 8locks vlew of ootote (os lo tbe cose),
bozotJ to pobllc motols, Jlsttoctloq lo tbot tbey coose occlJeots
Altbooqb tbe ptopetty beloq tokeo (tbe blllbootJ/oolsooce) wos ptlvote ptopetty, tbe
5tote ls jostlfleJ ftom oot telmbotsloq tbe owoet, eveo lf be wete jost teotloq tbe
blllbootJ to oootbet potty ooJ lt wos oot bls foolt tbot tbe cooteots wete offeoslve,
becoose lt wos tbe 5tote wbo cteoteJ tbe oJvettlsloq voloe by coosttoctloq fot
exomple tooJs oeot tbe oteo. cooomlc voloe lost wos ecooomlc voloe cteoteJ by tbe
qovetomeot.

U.S. v. 1orlblo (1910)
Luls 1orlblo slaughLered for human consumpLlon a carabao wlLhouL obLalnlng a
permlL from Lhe munlclpal Lreasurer, ln vlolaLlon of Lhe provlslons of Lhe assalled acL.
1orlblo, conLends LhaL Lhe sLaLuLe ln so far as lL penallzes Lhe slaughLer of carabaos
for human consumpLlon as food, wlLhouL flrsL obLalnlng a permlL, whlch cannoL be
procured ln Lhe evenL LhaL Lhe anlmal ls noL unflL for agrlculLural work or for drafL
purposes consLlLuLed elLher Laklng wlLhouL [usL compensaLlon or undue exerclse of
pollce power of Lhe SLaLe. I. cotsoo held LhaL Lhe resLralnL placed by law on Lhe
slaughLer for human consumpLlon of carabaos flL for agrlculLural work and drafL
purposes ls lnLerfered wlLh Lhe excluslve possesslon and conLrol of Lhe owners buL lL
ls noL such a Laklng, such an lnLerference wlLh Lhe rlghL and LlLle of owners, as ls


lnvolved ln Lhe exerclse by Lhe SLaLe of Lhe rlghL Lo emlnenL domaln, so as Lo enLlLle
Lhem Lo compensaLlon. lL ls ln facL a mere restr|ct|on or ||m|tat|on upon pr|vate use,
whlch Lhe leglslaLure deemed Lo be deLrlmenLal Lo Lhe publlc welfare. 1he llmlLaLlons
were lmposed ln Lhe promoLlon of general welfare (Lo proLecL Lhe communlLy from
Lhe loss of Lhe servlces of Lhese work anlmals) ln Lhe SLaLe's exerclse of pollce power.
1tlol cootts Jeclsloo offltmeJ.
ueoo soys: lotpose. coosetve cotoboos, Meoos. boo oo slooqbtet
wos tbete o tokloq lo tbe cose? Not emloeot Jomolo tokloq (1O1Al Jeptlvotloo of
ptopetty) bot ooly teqolototy tokloq (pott Jeptlvotloo ooly)
klqbt of owoetsblp locloJes tlqbt to "#$%! #$&&%! '("#$%! )$#*+,-%! '.)! /,##$## tbe
ptopetty ((".)&$0,10+234*#! '//+,'54). 1be stotote ooly took ooe ospect (tbe tlqbt to
Jesttoy tbe ptopetty). uesttoyloq cotoboos omoooteJ to o oolsooce. nete, tbe tokloq
wos ooly teqolototy tokloq.
6,+2(2,!6$#*. booJle-of-tlqbts opptoocb

Art|c|e III
5ectloo 9. rlvaLe properLy shall noL be Laken for publlc use wlLhouL [usL compensaLlon.

eople v. Ia[ardo (1938)
la[ardo was charged for consLrucLlng wlLhouL a permlL from Lhe munlclpal mayor a
bulldlng LhaL desLroys Lhe vlew of Lhe publlc plaza. 1he mayor refused Lo lssue a
permlL because Lhe bulldlng would prevenL Lhe plaza from belng seen from Lhe publlc
hlghway. I. I.8.l. keyes held LhaL Lhe ordlnance ls unreasonable and oppresslve, ln
LhaL lL operaLes Lo permanenLly deprlve la[ardo Lhe rlghL Lo use Lhelr own properLy. lL
amounLs Lo a Laklng wlLhouL [usL compensaLlon. A regu|at|on, wh|ch substant|a||y
depr|ves an owner of a|| benef|c|a| use of h|s property, |.e., |t cannot be used for any
reasonab|e purpose, |s p|a|n, beyond regu|at|on and must be recogn|zed as a tak|ng
of the property. AcpoltteJ.
ueoo soys. kelote to booJle-of-tlqbts opptoocb jpossess, ose, sell, obose, Jesttoy].
lojotJo JlJ oot teolly lose ooy ospect 8u1 be lost oll beoeflclol ose of tbe bollJloq.
5ote, be coo ose tbe looJ os o qotJeo bot be coooot ose lt to bollJ o boose fot
exomple (petpetool boo oo wbot be loteoJeJ to ose lt fot).
7'8'+),!6$#*9 oll beoeflclol ose

not vs. CourL of Appeals (1987)
Marcos lssued an order prohlblLlng Lhe lnLerprovlnclal movemenL of carabaos
regardless of Lhelr age, sex and physlcal condlLlon. ?noL's carabaos were conflscaLed
because he was found Lo have LransporLed Lhem from MasbaLe Lo llollo. I. ctoz held
LhaL Lhe measure ls an lnvalld exerclse of pollce power. Whlle Lhe execuLlve order has
a lawful sub[ecL l.e. Lo prevenL Lhe lndlscrlmlnaLe slaughLer of Lhe carabao, Lhe poor
man's LracLor, Lhe reasonable connecLlon wlLh Lhe means employed ls mlsslng.
Carabaos can be kllled anywhere, wlLh no less dlfflculLy ln one provlnce Lhan ln
anoLher. ln Lhe 1orlblo case, Lhe sLaLuLe was susLalned because Lhe penalLy was
lmposed only afLer Lrlal. ln Lhe presenL case, no such Lrlal ls prescrlbed and Lhe
properLy belng LransporLed ls lmmedlaLely lmpounded by Lhe pollce and declared as
forfelLed Lo Lhe governmenL. kevetseJ.
ueoo. leqltlmote teosoo fot ttoospottloq tbe cotoboo - sovloq lts llfe, fot qtozloq

u.S. v. Causby (1946)
1he u.S. Army and navy alrcrafL was regularly passlng over Lhe land of Lhe Causbys aL
low alLlLudes. 1he famlly ls deprlved of sleep because of Lhe nolse and Lhe glare from
Lhe planes. 1hey had Lo glve up Lhelr chlcken buslness because Lhe chlckens dled from
frlghL. 1he properLy also depreclaLed ln value. I. uooqlos held LhaL Lhere was a Laklng
ln Lhls case and Causbys were enLlLled Lo [usL compensaLlon. lL ls Lhe owner's loss and
noL Lhe Laker's galn, whlch ls Lhe measure of Lhe properLy Laken. 1he alrspace ls a
publlc hlghway buL lf Lhe landowner ls Lo have full en[oymenL of Lhe land, he musL
have excluslve conLrol of Lhe lmmedlaLe reaches of Lhe enveloplng aLmosphere. 1he
fllghL of alrplanes, whlch sklm Lhe surface buL do noL Louch lL, ls as much an
approprlaLlon of Lhe use of Lhe land as a more convenLlonal enLry upon lL. I||ghts
over pr|vate |and are not a tak|ng, un|ess they are so |aw and so frequent as to be a
d|rect and |mmed|ate |nterference w|th the en[oyment and use of the |and.
kevetseJ.
ueoo. ulmlootloo of ptopetty voloe of tbe coosbys coostltotes o tokloq.

8epubllc v. LD1 (1969)
Lu1 holds a leglslaLlve franchlse Lo operaLe a Lelephone sysLem LhroughouL Lhe
hlllpplnes. 1he 8ureau of 1elecommunlcaLlons seL up lLs own governmenL Lelephone
sysLem by renLlng Lhe Lrunk llnes of Lu1 Lo enable governmenL offlces Lo call prlvaLe
parLles. 1he 8ureau has slnce Lhen exLended lLs servlces Lo Lhe general publlc uslng
Lhe same renLed Lrunk llnes renLed from Lu1 and prescrlblng lLs own schedule of
raLes. Lu1 lnformed Lhe 8ureau LhaL lL was vlolaLlng Lhe condlLlons of lLs conLracL
and LhaL lf sald vlolaLlons were sLopped Lu1 would sever Lhe Lelephone connecLlons.
Lu1 dld noL recelve any reply and lL dlsconnecLed Lhe Lrunk llnes belng renLed Lo Lhe
8ureau. I. I.8.l. keyes held LhaL whlle Lhe 8epubllc may noL compel Lu1 Lo enLer lnLo
a conLracL wlLh lL, lL may ln Lhe exerclse of Lhe power of emlnenL domaln requlre Lhe
Lelephone company Lo permlL lnLerconnecLlon of Lhe governmenL Lelephone sysLem
and LhaL of Lu1, sub[ecL Lo Lhe paymenL of [usL compensaLlon. Norma||y, the power
of em|nent doma|n resu|ts |n the tak|ng or appropr|at|on of t|t|e to, and possess|on


of, the expropr|ated property but sa|d power may be ava||ed of or |mpose a burden
upon the owner w|thout h|m g|v|ng up t|t|e or possess|on. kea| property may,
through expropr|at|on be sub[ected to an easement of r|ght of way. under ArLlcle
xlll SecLlon 6, Lhe SLaLe may ln Lhe lnLeresL of naLlonal welfare, Lransfer uLlllLles Lo
publlc uLlllLles upon paymenL of [usL compensaLlon. 1here ls no reason why the State
may not requ|re a pub||c ut|||ty to render serv|ces |n the genera| |nterest, prov|ded
[ust compensat|on |s pa|d. ulLlmaLely, Lhe beneflclary of Lhe lnLerconnecLlng servlce
would be Lhe user of boLh Lelephone sysLems, so LhaL Lhe condemnaLlon would be for
publlc use. AffltmeJ.
ueoo. leqol woys by wblcb to compel lotetcoooectloo.
eooct lows - eveotoolly lo 1992 oo execotlve otJet compelleJ lotetcoooectloo
of llu1
powet of emloeot Jomolo (os lo tbls cose)
o wbot wos beloq tokeo? use of ptopetty/ setvlces
o Je-cotpoteollzeJ ootote of ptopetty - ptopetty ls NO1 A 1nlNC bot o
booJle of leqol telotloosblps
o jost compeosotloo - mootbly poymeots
ftoocblse - coottoct - pollce powet
o qovetomeot coo soy to llu1. sloce we qove yoo petmlssloo, we coo
coocel yoot ftoocblse lf yoo Jo oot sobject yootself to cettolo
cooJltloos

8epubllc v. Caste||v| (1974)
2olJlvot, I.. CasLellvl enLered lnLo a lease agreemenL ln 1947 wlLh Lhe 8epubllc
Lhrough Lhe Al, Lhe conLracL was renewable every year. 1he Al consLrucLed
mlllLary lnsLallaLlons on her properLy whlch were permanenL ln naLure. ln 1939, Lhe
8epubllc flled Lhe complalnL for emlnenL domaln sLaLlng LhaL Lhe value of Lhe
properLy should be based on Lhe daLe Lhe lease was enLered lnLo whlch was ln 1947.
1he CourL held LhaL Lhe Laklng" of Lhe CasLellvl properLy should noL be reckoned as
of Lhe year 1947 and Lhe [usL compensaLlon Lo be pald should noL be deLermlned on
Lhe basls of Lhe value of Lhe properLy durlng LhaL year. 1he 8epubllc's clalm LhaL lL
had Lhe rlghL and prlvllege" Lo buy Lhe properLy aL Lhe value LhaL lL had aL Lhe Llme
when lL flrsL occupled Lhe properLy as lessee appears nowhere ln Lhe lease conLracL.
Iust compensat|on |s to be determ|ned at the date of the f|||ng of the comp|a|nt. It
cannot be accepted that the kepub||c enters |nto a contract of |ease where |ts rea|
|ntent|on was to expropr|ate property and f|x the va|ue of the property at the t|me
of |ease and not at the t|me of the f|||ng of the comp|a|nt.
ClrcumsLances LhaL musL be presenL ln Lhe Laklng" of properLy for purposes of
emlnenL domaln:
expropr|ator must enter a pr|vate property - (saLlsfled) Al Lhrough Lhe
lease agreemenL Look possesslon of CasLellvl's properLy
entrance |nto pr|vate property must be for more than a momentary per|od
- (noL saLlsfled) alLhough permanenL lmprovemenLs were consLrucLed, by
express provlslon of Lhe lease agreemenL (renewable yearly by consenL of
Lhe owner), Lhe 8epubllc ooJettook to tetoto tbe ptemlses ln subsLanLlally
Lhe same condlLlon as Lhe flrsL Llme lL was occupled
enLrance musL be under warrant or co|or of |ega| author|ty - (saLlsfled) Al
enLered as lessee
properLy musL be devoLed Lo a pub||c use or oLherwlse lnformally
approprlaLed or ln[urlously affecLed - (saLlsfled) properLy was used by Lhe alr
force of Al
Lhe uLlllzaLlon of Lhe properLy for publlc use musL be ln such a way as Lo oust
the owner and depr|ve h|m of a|| benef|c|a| en[oyment of the property -
(noL saLlsfled) CasLellvl remalned as owner as evldenced by Lhe renewal of
lease conLracL from year Lo year. nelLher was she deprlved of all Lhe
beneflclal en[oymenL of Lhe properLy because Lhe Al was paylng her
monLhly renLals unLll 1939 when lL flled Lhe complalnL. MoJlfleJ.
ueoo. 1959 - possessloo becomes oJvetse lo cbotoctet

8el-Alr AssoclaLlon vs. IAC
Pomeowners of 8el-Alr AssoclaLlon flled sulLs agalnsL Ayala CorporaLlon for breach of
conLracL. 1he deed of sale granLed Lo Lhe homeowners conLalned a resLrlcLlon whlch
llmlLed Lhe use of loLs for resldenLlal purposes. ln 1970's Ayala CorporaLlon opened
Lhe enLlre lengLh of !uplLer LreeL (whlch was a boundary beLween 8el-Alr vlllage and
Ayala's commerclal secLlon) Lo publlc Lrafflc, whlch caused dlfferenL loLs Lo be used
for commerclal purposes. 1he munlclpal governmenL of MakaLl also declared LhaL
LhaL Lhe area had become commerclal ln characLer. I. 5otmleoto held LhaL !uplLer SL.
has been consldered as a boundary slnce 1937. lrom Lhe sLarL, lL never was for Lhe
excluslve beneflL" of 8el-Alr vlllage resldenLs. 1he SLaLe can exerclse lLs pollce power
Lo promoLe Lhe common good aL Lhe expense of conLracLual rlghLs. ueoleJ.
ueoo. kooJ ls ooly o boooJoty. wbot ptopetty of tbe 8el-Alt teslJeots wos ot stoke
bete? Ooly tbe qote. 1be qote wos o oolsooce tbot boJ to be oboteJ, lt wos oo
locooveoleoce to mototlsts. Iost compeosotloo ls oot oppllcoble lo tbls cose.
8y opeoloq tbe tooJ to tbe pobllc, wbot ptopetty tlqbts wete beloq lmploqeJ oo? 1be
voloe of tbe looJ octoolly qot blqbet. usloq u.5. v. coosby, we coo soy tbot tbe
bomeowoets lost tbe potpose fot wblcb tbe potcboseJ tbe ptopetty.


2ooloq teqolotloo of l.C.u. (pollce powet fot tbe comfott ooJ cooveoleoce of qeoetol
pobllc) vs. ueeJ testtlctloo (stoblllty of expectotloos l.e. keep ptomlse to keep ote
teslJeotlol)

MMuA v. 8e|-A|r Assoc|at|on (2000)
MMuA lssued a noLlce requesLlng 8el-Alr AssoclaLlon Lo open nepLune SL. Lo publlc
vehlcular Lrafflc. MMuA clalms lL has Lhe auLhorlLy Lo open Lhe SLreeL because lL ls an
agenL of Lhe sLaLe endowed wlLh pollce power ln Lhe dellvery of baslc servlces ln
MeLro Manlla, ln Lhls case Lhe servlce ls Lrafflc managemenL l.e. Lhe regulaLlon of Lhe
use of Lhoroughfares Lo lnsure Lhe safeLy, convenlence and welfare of Lhe general
publlc. MMuA urges LhaL Lhere ls no need for Lhe clLy of MakaLl Lo enacL an
ordlnance openlng nepLune SLreeL Lo Lhe publlc. I. looo held LhaL MMuA cannoL
exerclse pollce power. lL ls a developmenL auLhorlLy and lLs funcLlons are
admlnlsLraLlve ln naLure. ollce power ls lodged prlmarlly ln Congress. Congress
delegaLed pollce power Lo Lhe local governmenL unlLs ln Lhe Local CovernmenL Code
of 1991. unllke Lhe leglslaLlve bodles of Lhe local governmenL unlLs, Lhere ls no
provlslon ln Lhe Local CovernmenL Code, whlch empowers MMuA, or lLs councll Lo
enacL ordlnances, approve resoluLlons and approprlaLe funds Lo promoLe Lhe general
welfare of lLs lnhablLanLs. An agency upon wh|ch |eg|s|at|ve powers are not
conferred cannot exerc|se po||ce power. ueoleJ.
ueoo. lo wbot woy ls tbls Jlffeteot ftom 8el-Alt Assoclotloo v. lAc? MMuA ooly boJ
oJmlolsttotlve powet.

CrLlgas v. Ieat| (1979)
CrLlgas & Co. ls engaged ln Lhe buslness of selllng loLs, among whlch are Lhe loLs ln
Plghway Pllls subdlvlslon locaLed along LuSA. CrLlgas has a resLrlcLlon ln lLs deed of
sale LhaL Lhe loLs ln sald subdlvlslon shall be used for resldenLlal purposes only. leaLl
bank consLrucLed a commerclal bulldlng on sub[ecL loLs conLendlng LhaL Lhe bulldlng
was belng consLrucLed ln accordance wlLh zonlng regulaLlons. rlor Lo leaLl's
consLrucLlon, Lhe munlclpal governmenL of Mandaluyong lssued a resoluLlon
declarlng Lhe area a commerclal and lndusLrlal zone. I. 5ootos held LhaL whlle non-
lmpalrmenL of conLracLs ls consLlLuLlonally guaranLeed, Lhe rule ls noL absoluLe slnce
lL has Lo be reconclled wlLh Lhe leglLlmaLe exerclse of pollce power. Local
governmenLs can exerclse pollce power Lo safeguard or promoLe Lhe healLh, safeLy,
peace, good order and general welfare of Lhe people ln Lhe locallLy. 1he MunlclpallLy
of Mandaluyong was perfecLly [usLlfled. 1he nolse and polluLlon are noL conduclve Lo
Lhe welfare of Lhe resldenLs along Lhe hlghway. lndusLrlal and commerclal zones have
flourlshed abouL Lhe place. AffltmeJ.
ueoo. Most of tbe ptopettles lo tbe oteo bove become commetclol ooywoy.
LZA v. Du|ay (1987)
LZA wanLed Lo buy Lhe properLy of uulay. LZA presenLed Lax declaraLlons as basls
for value of compensaLlon. Such declaraLlons were made by Lhe Lapu-lapu munlclpal
assessor long before MarLlal law when land was noL only much cheaper buL when
assessed values of properLles were sLaLed ln flgures consLlLuLlng only a fracLlon of
Lhelr Lrue markeL value. AL Lhe Llme Lhe declaraLlons were made, uulay was noL even
Lhe owner yeL of sub[ecL properLy. LZA urges LhaL .u. 1333, whlch seLs LhaL ln
deLermlnlng [usL compensaLlon of properLy ln an exproprlaLlon case, Lhe only basls
should be lLs markeL value as declared by Lhe owner or as deLermlned by Lhe assessor
whlchever ls lower, has already repealed 8ule 67 of Lhe 8ules of CourL, whlch requlres
Lhe courL Lo appolnL commlssloners Lo deLermlne Lhe value of Lhe land Lo be Laken. I.
Cotlettez, It. held LhaL Lax values can serve as guldes buL cannoL be absoluLe
subsLlLuLes for [usL compensaLlon. 1he values glven by provlnclal assessors are usually
unlform for very wlde areas and lndlvldual dlfferences are never Laken lnLo accounL.
lL would be vlolaLlve of due process Lo deny Lo Lhe owner Lhe opporLunlLy Lo prove
LhaL Lhe valuaLlon ls unfalr or wrong. lL ls repulslve Lo Lhe concepL of [usLlce Lo allow
Lhe work of a clerk or bureaucraL Lo absoluLely prevall over Lhe [udgmenL of a courL
promulgaLed only afLer experL commlssloners have acLually vlewed Lhe properLy,
afLer evldence and argumenLs pro and con have been presenLed, and afLer all facLors
and conslderaLlons essenLlal Lo a falr and [usL deLermlnaLlon have been [udlclously
evaluaLed. Iust compensat|on means the va|ue of the property at the t|me of tak|ng.
It means a fa|r and fu|| equ|va|ent for the |oss susta|ned tak|ng |nto account a|| the
facts |.e. |ts cond|t|on, surround|ngs and |mprovements. .u. 1333 ls
unconsLlLuLlonal. ulsmlsseJ.
ueoo. 1be Jectee temoveJ tbe tole of tbe joJqe lo Jetetmloloq jost compeosotloo,
wblcb ls tbe oltlmote sofeqootJ oqolost obose.
uefloltloo of folt motket voloe. ptlce sellet ls ftee to sell ot oot to sell to boyet wbo ls
ftee to boy ot oot to boy

nC v. CA (1996)
nC enLered lnLo negoLlaLlons wlLh Lhe Sadang spouses Lo purchase Lhe laLLer's land
upon whlch Lhey wlll consLrucL an access road Lo lLs AngaL 8lver pro[ecL. 1he
negoLlaLlons were noL yeL concluded buL nC, wlLh Lhe consenL of Lhe spouses,
begun consLrucLlon of Lhe road ln 1961. ln 1962, San ulego lnc. acqulred Lhe land aL a
publlc aucLlon and was lssued a LlLle. ln 1963, nC lnsLlLuLed proceedlngs agalnsL Lhe
Sadangs for exproprlaLlon. 1he maln quesLlon posed by Lhe parLles ln Lhls case ls aL
whaL polnL should Lhe value of Lhe land sub[ecL Lo exproprlaLlon be compuLed: aL Lhe
daLe of Lhe Laklng or Lhe daLe of Lhe flllng of Lhe complalnL?" I. looqoolboo held LhaL
Lhe general rule ls LhaL lL be compuLed aL Lhe day of Lhe flllng of Lhe complalnL. 1hls


rule admlLs of an excepLlon l.e. ln Lhe case when Lhe delay ln collecLlon would glve
Lhe owner undue lncremenLal advanLages arlslng from Lhe use Lo whlch Lhe
governmenL devoLes properLy exproprlaLed. 1he burden of proof ls on Lhe
exproprlaLor. Powever, nC falled Lo prove LhaL Lhe lncrease ln value of Lhe land
(boughL by San ulego from Lhe Sadangs) from 1978-1992 was due Lo nC's occupancy
and use and noL because of ordlnary lnflaLlon and lncrease ln land values. 1he general
rule applles ln Lhls case and noL Lhe excepLlon. CtooteJ.
ueoo. 8y beloq tbe lost bolJoot (lost to cove lo), tbe owoet of tbe ptopetty
qovetomeot seeks to exptoptlote wlll eoto mote ptoflts.
lo Jetetmloloq voloe fot jost compeosotloo. poestloo of bow mocb tbe owoet wlll lose
ooJ oot o poestloo of bow mocb tbe qovetomeot wlll beoeflt ftom tbe ptopetty.

1okloqs ooJet mloeot uomolo vetsos 1okloqs ooJet tbe 5oclol Iostlce cloose
De knecht v. 8auLlsLa (1980)
1here was a plan Lo exLend Lhe road from LuSA Lo 8oxas 8lvd. 8y passlng Lhrough
CuneLa Avenue. 1hls proposed exLenslon was changed Lo go Lhrough lernando 8eln -
uel an sLreeLs, whlch was llned wlLh houses, among whlch was ue knechL's. 1he
governmenL flled exproprlaLlon proceedlngs on ue knechL's properLy. 1he SollclLor
Ceneral [usLlfled Lhe change of rouLe on Lhe ground LhaL Lhe governmenL wanLed Lo
mlnlmlze Lhe soclal lmpacL facLor or problem lnvolved. I. letoooJez held LhaL Lhe
cholce of lernando 8eln - uel an sLreeLs ls arblLrary. uue process negaLes sLaLe
power Lo acL ln an oppresslve manner. 1he governmenL may noL caprlclously or
arblLrarlly choose whaL prlvaLe properLy should be Laken. lL ls presumed LhaL Lhe
ueparLmenL of ubllc Plghways made sLudles before decldlng on CuneLa Avenue. 1he
sudden change ln Lhe rouLe ls lndeed odd. lL ls doubLful LhaL Lhe exLenslon along
CuneLa Avenue can be ob[ecLed Lo on Lhe ground of soclal lmpacL. 1he lmprovemenLs
along Lhe avenue are mosLly moLels. Lven granLlng LhaL more people wlll be affecLed,
Lhe Puman SeLLlemenLs Commlsslon has suggesLed coordlnaLed efforLs wlLh
governmenL agencles wlLh Lhe relocaLlon of Lhose who wlll be adversely affecLed. 1he
Puman SeLLlemenLs Commlsslon has recommended reverLlng Lo Lhe orlglnal plan
(CuneLa Avenue) Lo mlnlmlze Lhe soclal lmpacL facLor. CtooteJ.
ueoo.
now Joes ooe estobllsb otblttoty octloo?
cooflscototy - tox ls so blqb
opptesslve - owoet fotceJ to cotty botJeo
wby wos tbete otblttotloess lo tbls cose? Covetomeot boJ o cbolce.
cooeto Aveooe - lloeJ wltb motels
letoooJo kelo - uel loo - bomes wltb fomllles.
woys of xptloptlotloo
oqteemeot betweeo tbe pottles (voloototy oeqotlotloo wltb owoet)
coott octloo
leqlslotlve octloo
kepoltemeots fot mloeot uomolo
pobllc ose - Jltect
jost compeosotloo

kepub||c v. ue knechL (1990)
1he governmenL was able Lo acqulre Lhrough negoLlaLed purchase abouL 83 percenL
of Lhe lands along lernando 8eln-del an sLreeLs for Lhe proposed LuSA exLenslon.
1he owners dld noL ralse any ob[ecLlon as Lo Lhe arblLrarlness on Lhe cholce of Lhe
pro[ecL and Lhe rouLe. lL ls only wlLh respecL Lo ue knechL and a few oLhers LhaL Lhe
governmenL cannoL negoLlaLe a sales agreemenL. 8.. 8lg. 340 was enacLed
exproprlaLlng Lhe sub[ecL properLles. uesplLe Lhls, ue knechL, whose holdlng ls hardly
3 of Lhe area, surrounded Lhe parcel of land LhaL she owned wlLh prlvaLe securlLy
guards who prevenLed governmenL englneers from enLerlng. I. Coocoyco held LhaL
Lhe soclal lmpacL facLor LhaL persuaded Lhe courL Lo conslder Lhls exLenslon Lo be
arblLrary had dlsappeared (see ue knechL v. 8auLlsLa). All resldenLs ln Lhe area have
been relocaLed and duly compensaLed save for respondenL. ue knech, wlLhouL any
moral legal lnLeresL aL hand, slnglehandedly sLands ln Lhe way of Lhe compleLlon of
Lhe pro[ecL LhaL ls essenLlal Lo Lhe progress of MeLro Manlla and surroundlng areas.
8.. 8lg. 340 superseded Lhe aforesald flnal and execuLory declslon of Lhls CourL.
Supervenlng evenLs have changed Lhe facLual basls of Lhe earller ue knechL declslon
Lo [usLlfy subsequenL enacLmenL of Lhe sLaLuLe. CtooteJ.

Manotok v. nPA (1987)
1he resldenL lssued Lwo decrees summarlly exproprlaLlng Lwo esLaLes. 1he decrees
proclalmed Lhe Lwo areas as bllghLed communlLles (squaLLer areas) and were lssued
allegedly ln Lhe name of soclal [usLlce. 1he decrees besLowed Lhe power on Lhe ClLy
Assessor alone Lo deLermlne Lhe value of Lhe properLy buL seL maxlmum amounLs for
compensaLlon. ManoLok, one of Lhe owners, says LhaL Lhe provlslons ln Lhe decrees
dlrecLlng Lhe ClLy Assessor Lo Lake lnLo conslderaLlon Lhe alleged exlsLlng condlLlons
of Lhe properLy (LhaL no lmprovemenL has been made on Lhe land and LhaL Lhe land ls
squaLLed upon by resldenL famllles) whlch should conslderably depress Lhe
exproprlaLlon cosLs forced Lhe assessor Lo accepL such condlLlons as acLual, buL Lhe
facLs say oLherwlse. 1he Sunog-Apog area has been dlvlded lnLo subdlvlslons and Lhe
occupanLs Lhereof are noL squaLLers buL lessees. LocaLed ln Lhe 1ambunLlng esLaLe, ln
addlLlon Lo some resldenLlal houses, are commerclal sLrucLures, whlch were belng
leased Lo buslness proprleLors. I. Cotlettez, It. held LhaL Lhe decrees are


unconsLlLuLlonal. 1he decrees, do noL by Lhemselves, provlde for any form of hearlng
or procedure by whlch Lhe peLlLloners can quesLlon Lhe proprleLy of Lhe exproprlaLlon
of Lhelr properLles or Lhe reasonableness of Lhe [usL compensaLlon. noL only are Lhe
owners deprlved of Lhls opporLunlLy, buL Lhe declslons of Lhe naLlonal Pouslng
AuLhorlLy are expressly beyond Lhe reach of [udlclal revlew. CourLs are compleLely
en[olned form lnqulry or parLlclpaLlon ln Lhe exproprlaLlon. 1he markeL value sLaLed
by Lhe ClLy Assessor cannoL subsLlLuLe for Lhe CourL's [udgmenL ln exproprlaLlon
proceedlngs. lL ls vlolaLlve of due process Lo deny Lo Lhe properLy owners Lo fully
plead Lhelr case llke conLesLlng Lhe accuracy of Lhe assessor's valuaLlon. CtooteJ.

LrmlLa-MalaLe PoLel and MoLel CperaLors v. C|ty of Man||a (1967)
1he ClLy of Manlla lssued an ordlnance LhaL 1) requlred hoLel, moLel cllenLs and Lhelr
guesLs Lo flll up personal lnformaLlon forms, 2) requlred such moLels Lo malnLaln
cerLaln mlnlmum faclllLles sub[ecL Lo regular lnspecLlon 3) lmposed llcense fees on
such esLabllshmenLs for Lhelr conLlnued operaLlon 4) prohlblLed Lhe accepLance of
mlnors as guesLs unless accompanled by a parenL or guardlan and 3) prohlblLed
shorL-Llme admlsslon. vlolaLlons wlll resulL Lo an auLomaLlc cancellaLlon of Lhe
buslness llcense. 1he purpose of Lhe ordlnance was Lo curb lmmorallLy. 1he hoLel
owners sald LhaL Lhe ordlnance Lransgressed Lhe due process clause and caused Lhem
Lhe desLrucLlon of Lhelr buslness and loss of lnvesLmenLs. I. letoooJo upheld Lhe
ordlnance. lf Lhe llberLy lnvolved were freedom of Lhe mlnd or Lhe person, Lhe
sLandard for Lhe valldlLy of governmenLal acLs ls much more rlgorous, buL where Lhe
llberLy curLalled affecLs aL Lhe mosL rlghLs of properLy Lhe permlsslble scope of
regulaLory measure ls wlder. ln Lhe lnsLance case lL ls sufflclenL LhaL Lhere be a
correspondence beLween Lhe undeslrable slLuaLlon (deLerloraLlon of publlc morals)
and Lhe leglslaLlve aLLempL aL correcLlon [uean: mlnlmum LesL of raLlonallLy/raLlonal
relaLlonshlp LesL was applled]. 1axaLlon may be made Lo lmplemenL Lhe sLaLe's pollce
power. ln Lhls case, Lhe llcense fees were lmposed ln exerclse of pollce power. Cne
lmporLanL facLor ln Lhe deLermlnaLlon of Lhe amounL of Lhe llcense fee ls Lhe
deslrablllLy of lmposlng resLralnL upon Lhe number of persons who mlghL oLherwlse
engage ln non-useful enLerprlses. kevetseJ.
ueoo.
J sovetelqo powets
pollce powet
emloeot Jomolo
toxotloo - 8efote toxes wete ooly oseJ to tolse mooey. Now, toxotloo ls oseJ
fot motol potposes (e. slo toxes)
Atqoe oqolost tbe 5tote soyloq tbete wos oo tokloq - loss of fotote ptoflts omooots to
o tokloq.

Art|c|e III
5ectloo 1. no person shall be deprlved of llfe, llberLy or properLy wlLhouL due process of law, nor shall any
person be denled equal proLecLlon of Lhe law.
5ectloo 4. no law shall be passed abrldglng Lhe freedom of speech, of expresslon, or of Lhe press, or Lhe
rlghL of Lhe people Lo peaceably assemble and peLlLlon Lhe governmenL for redress of grlevances.

AssoclaLlon of Small Landowners v. Secretary of Agrar|an keform (1989)
eLlLloners are assalllng Lhe consLlLuLlonallLy of cerLaln provlslons ln Lhe
Comprehenslve Agrarlan 8eform rogram (CA8) Law. Sald law provldes LhaL Lhe uA8
shall conducL admlnlsLraLlve proceedlngs Lo deLermlne Lhe compensaLlon for Lhe land
by requlrlng lnLeresLed parLles Lo submlL evldence. lL also provldes LhaL Lhe owner
shall be compensaLed buL Lhls compensaLlon may noL be pald fully ln money buL ln
any of several modes LhaL may conslsL of parL cash and parL bond, wlLh lnLeresL,
maLurlng perlodlcally. I. ctoz held LhaL exproprlaLlon as conLemplaLed by Lhe
agrarlan reform program saLlsfles Lhe requlremenLs for Lhe proper exerclse of
emlnenL domaln. 1he deLermlnaLlon made by uA8 on Lhe value of Lhe land ls only
prellmlnary. CourLs of [usLlce wlll sLlll have Lhe rlghL Lo revlew and deLermlne wlLh
flnallLy Lhe value of Lhe land. Cn Lhe argumenL of peLlLloners LhaL Lhe provlslons are
unconsLlLuLlonal for maklng Lhem accepL compensaLlon ln a form oLher Lhan money,
lL was held LhaL alLhough Lhe LradlLlonal medlum for paymenL of [usL compensaLlon ls
money and no oLher, Lhe case dealL wlLh here ls noL a LradlLlonal exerclse of Lhe
power of emlnenL domaln. 1hls ls noL an ordlnary approprlaLlon where only a speclflc
properLy of relaLlvely llmlLed area ls soughL Lo be Laken by Lhe SLaLe from lLs owner
for a speclflc and perhaps local purpose. WhaL ls dealL here ls a revo|ut|onary k|nd of
expropr|at|on. vasL areas of land wlll be sub[ecL Lo exproprlaLlon and Lhe cosL wlll be
Lremendous. 1he amounL of money Lo fund Lhls approprlaLlon ls noL currenLly
avallable. 1he conLenL and manner of [usL compensaLlon provlded for ln Lhe CA8 law
does noL vlolaLe Lhe ConsLlLuLlon. ueoleJ.
ueoo. kevolotloooty tokloq - pottokes of o Jool ootote
pollce powet - teteotloo llmlt (5 bectotes)
emloeot Jomolo - fotceJ sole to tbe qovetomeot
lotpose. eoJ optlsloqs, belp fotmets, teJlsttlbotloo
Meoos. looJ tefotm

Sumulong v. Guerrero (1987)
1he naLlonal Pouslng AuLhorlLy flled a complalnL for exproprlaLlon of parcels of land
LhaL covered Lhe properLy of Lhe Sumulong. Sumulong conLends LhaL Lhe use Lo whlch
Lhe land would be devoLed, soclallzed houslng, does noL quallfy as publlc use" slnce
lL wlll beneflL only a handful of people, berefL of publlc characLer" and quesLlons
why governmenL ls allowed Lo exproprlaLe hls small loLs whlle Lhere are vasL areas of


land ln oLher places. I. cottes held LhaL soclallzed houslng, deflned as Lhe
consLrucLlon and/or lmprovemenL of dwelllng unlLs for Lhe mlddle and lower lncome
groups of socleLy and relocaLlon and reseLLlemenL of squaLLers, quallfles as publlc
use. 8efore, a llLeral meanlng was aLLached Lo publlc use," l.e. whaLever pro[ecL ls
underLaken musL be for Lhe publlc Lo en[oy llke sLreeLs or parks. now, whatever may
be benef|c|a||y emp|oyed for the genera| we|fare sat|sf|es the requ|rement of pub||c
use. urban renewal or redevelopmenL and Lhe consLrucLlon of low-cosL houslng ls
recognlzed as a publlc purpose, noL only because of Lhe expanded concepL of publlc
use buL also because of Lhe speclflc provlslons ln Lhe ConsLlLuLlon (see ArL. ll SecLlons
9 and 10). ShorLage ln houslng ls a maLLer of sLaLe concern slnce lL dlrecLly and
slgnlflcanLly affecLs publlc healLh, safeLy, Lhe envlronmenL and ln sum, Lhe general
welfare. 1he pub||c character of hous|ng measures does not change because un|ts |n
hous|ng pro[ects cannot be occup|ed by a|| but on|y by those who sat|sfy prescr|bed
qua||f|cat|ons. Also, exproprlaLlon ls noL conflned Lo landed esLaLes. 1here ls no
express consLlLuLlonal provlslon llmlLlng exproprlaLlon Lo Lhe same. ueoleJ.
ueoo. xomple of soclol jostlce meosote - boosloq qlveo to qovetomeot employees
wbo coot offotJ lt
lobllc ose - JepeoJs oo bow yoo Jefloe tbe qool

ClLy CovernmenL v. Iudge Lr|cta (1983)
1he Cuezon ClLy Councll lssued an ordlnance, whlch dlrecLs publlc cemeLerles Lo a loL
6 of Lhe area of Lhe memorlal park for charlLy burlal of deceased persons who are
paupers. vlolaLlon of such order wlll resulL Lo Lhe revocaLlon or cancellaLlon of Lhelr
permlL Lo operaLe and Lhe punlshmenL of flne or lmprlsonmenL. 1he ClLy governmenL
conLends LhaL Lhe Laklng of Lhe properLy ls a valld and reasonable exerclse of pollce
power and LhaL Lhe land ls Laken for a publlc use as lL ls lnLended for Lhe burlal
ground of paupers. 8espondenL Plmlayang lllplno argues LhaL Lhe Laklng or
conflscaLlon of properLy ls obvlous because Lhe quesLloned ordlnance permanenLly
resLrlcLs Lhe use of Lhe properLy such LhaL lL cannoL be used for any reasonable
purpose and deprlves Lhe owner of all beneflclal use of hls properLy. lL polnLs ouL LhaL
lf an owner ls deprlved of hls properLy ouLrlghL under Lhe SLaLe's pollce power, Lhe
properLy ls generally noL Laken for publlc use buL ls urgenLly and summarlly
desLroyed, as ln Lhe abaLemenL of a nulsance. I. Cotlettez It. upheld Lhe rullng of Lhe
lower courL LhaL declared Lhe ordlnance as unconsLlLuLlonal. 1he power Lo regulaLe
does noL lnclude Lhe power Lo conflscaLe or prohlblL. 1he conflscaLory clause and Lhe
penal provlslon deLer one from operaLlng a memorlal park cemeLery. lL would seem
LhaL Lhe ordlnance ls noL a mere regulaLlon buL an ouLrlghL conflscaLlon. lurLher, no
reasonable relaLlon exlsLs beLween Lhe 6 alloLmenL and Lhe promoLlon of healLh,
morals, good order, safeLy or general welfare of Lhe people. 1he ordlnance ls acLually
a Laklng wlLhouL compensaLlon of a cerLaln area from a prlvaLe cemeLery Lo beneflL
paupers who are charges of Lhe munlclpal corporaLlon. lnsLead of bulldlng or
malnLalnlng a publlc cemeLery for Lhls purpose, Lhe clLy passes Lhe burden Lo prlvaLe
cemeLerles. ulsmlsseJ.
ueoo. lollce powet otqomeot - uobotleJ cotpses ote o oolsooce (poses setloos beoltb
lssoes)

Luz Iarms v. SecreLary of Agrarlan 8eform (1990)
CA8 provlslons dlrecLed commerclal farms" Lo execuLe and lmplemenL producL-
sharlng plans whereby Lhey are called upon Lo dlsLrlbuLe a percenLage of Lhelr gross
sales and neL proflLs Lo Lhelr workers as addlLlonal compensaLlon. 1he CA8
provlslons lncluded ln Lhe deflnlLlon of commerclal farms" prlvaLe agrlculLural lands
devoLed Lo llvesLock and poulLry ralslng. Luz larms ls a corporaLlon engaged ln Lhe
llvesLock and poulLry buslness. 1he consLlLuLlonal provlslon under conslderaLlon ls
ArLlcle xlll SecLlon 4. I. lotos held LhaL Lhe dellberaLlons of Lhe ConsLlLuLlonal
Commlsslon clearly show LhaL lL was never Lhe lnLenLlon of Lhe framers Lo lnclude
llvesLock and poulLry lndusLry ln Lhe coverage of Lhe consLlLuLlonally mandaLed
agrarlan reform program of Lhe governmenL. 1he assalled CA8 provlslons are lnvalld
Lo Lhe exLenL LhaL Lhe agro-lndusLrlal acLlvlLles (llvesLock, poulLry and swlne ralslng)
are made Lo be covered by Lhe agrarlan reform program of Lhe sLaLe. 1here ls slmply
no reason Lo lnclude llvesLock and poulLry lands ln Lhe coverage of agrarlan reform.
1he requlremenL LhaL sald buslnesses execuLe producL-sharlng plans ls unreasonable
for belng conflscaLory, and Lherefore vlolaLlve of due process. CtooteJ.
ueoo. woys to Jetetmloe wbetbet looJ ls oqtlcoltotol looJ
test of otoblllty
blstotlcol potpose - fot tlce, soqot
loJostty - bow loJostty ls sbopeJ by tecbooloqy (exomple booooo ploototloo
ls oot oqtlcoltotol looJ), telotloosblp betweeo fotmet ooJ owoet

Carlday v. CA
Ctloo-Apoloo, I.. lorbes ark lmposes a resLrlcLlon LhaL noL more Lhan one slngle
famlly resldenLlal bulldlng wlll be consLrucLed on lLs loLs. vlolaLlon of Lhls resLrlcLlon
wlll resulL Lo Lhe dlsconnecLlon of waLer supply. Carlday lnvesLmenL CorporaLlon was
Lhe owner of a resldenLlal bulldlng ln Lhe lorbes arL Subdlvlslon. lL consLrucLed a
house LhaL allowed Lhe occupancy of Lwo famllles. 1he CourL susLalned Lhe rlghL of
lorbes ark Lo dlsconnecL Lhe waLer supply accordlng Lo lLs rules and regulaLlons.
Cotlettez, I., dlssenL: 1here ls no showlng LhaL Lwo famllles ln one resldence ln lorbes
park would lead Lo any of Lhe unpleasanL consequences as overcrowdlng,
deLerloraLlon of roads, ugly surroundlngs and lawless behavlor. A famlly could hlre a


baLLallon of servanLs wlLhouL vlolaLlng Lhe one-famlly rule and lL sLlll would noL be
consldered overcrowdlng. 1he resLrlcLlon ls lnLended Lo lnsure LhaL lorbes ark real
esLaLe value remalns hlgh and encourages an ellLlsL llfesLyle. lL ls a wasLe of scarce
resources Lo devoLe properLy LhaL ls worLh mllllons Lo Lhe use of one famlly. 1he
ConsLlLuLlon emphaslzes Lhe soclal funcLlon of land (see ArL. xlll SecLlon 1). ueoleJ.
ueoo. Cotlettez soys tbot tbete ls oo flt betweeo tbe potpose ooJ meoos
lotpose. peoce ooJ ttoopolllty ! potpose coo be JefeoteJ by bltloq o bottolloo of
setvoots
Meoos. 1- fomlly fot 1-lot
5tote sboll oot leoJ lts otm to tbe eofotcemeot of oo oojost coottoct.
kesttlctlve coveooots
1btee levels of sctotloy.
totloool/Jefeteotlol - pobllc potpose, vollJ meoos
belqbteoeJ sctotloy - sobstootlol pobllc lotetest, cotefolly-tolloteJ meoos
sttlct sctotloy - compellloq pobllc lotetest, cotefolly tolloteJ meoos
wbot ttlqqets off level of sctotloy?
sospect closslflcotloo
lmpoct

Carlos Superdrug CorporaLlon v. DSWD (2007)
Azcooo, I.. A law was passed whlch lmposes Lax deducLlons on senlor clLlzens.
eLlLloners, whlch lnclude Carlos Superdrug, say LhaL ln Lhls parLlcular Lax scheme,
Lhey are noL belng relmbursed on a peso-Lo-peso basls. 1he CourL held LhaL Lax
deducLlons are ln Lhe exerclse of Lhe pollce power of Lhe sLaLe and noL of Lhe power
of emlnenL domaln. 8lghL Lo properLy can be rellnqulshed upon Lhe command of Lhe
SLaLe for Lhe promoLlon of Lhe publlc good. eLlLloners falled Lo show LhaL Lhe
deducLlon scheme works greaLly Lo Lhelr dlsadvanLage such LhaL lL amounLs Lo
conflscaLlon. Mere showlng LhaL Lhey wlll suffer loss of earnlngs ls noL sufflclenL.
8aLlonal basls LesL was applled, purpose of Lhe sLaLuLe was Lo lmprove Lhe welfare of
senlor clLlzens. ulsmlsseJ.
ueoo. coostltotloool ptovlsloo tbot stote bos tbe Joty to toke cote of lts seolot cltlzeos
! Jooqet lo tbls ls tbot yoo coo toke ooy cloose ooJ ose lt to jostlfy tbe low
kotloool bosls test wos opplleJ becoose tlqbt to ptopetty (ptoflts) wos lovolveJ
use epool ptotectloo cloose lo yoot otqomeot. tbe low wotks lo fovot of seolot
cltlzeos, o Jlstloct closs ! lo tbls cose, yoo coo opply tbe sttlct sctotloy test

|||p|no 8anana Growers and Lxporters Assoc|at|on v. ClLy of uavao (2009)
eLlLloners assall Lhe ordlnance LhaL bans aerlal spraylng ln farms. cA held LhaL
ordlnance ls lnvalld and unconsLlLuLlonal, saylng LhaL lL already consLlLuLed a Laklng.
use of Lrucks as an alLernaLlve ls already conflscaLory, because companles wlll be (1)
spendlng more ln lnvesLlng on roads, (2) less land for growlng Lhe bananas, and (3)
physlcally lmposslble.
CtooteJ.


|||. LUAL kC1LC1ICN CLAUSL

Ak1ICLL III
5ectloo 1. No person shall be depr|ved of ||fe, ||berty, or property w|thout due process of |aw, nor shall
any person be den|ed the equa| protect|on of the |aws.
Ak1ICLL II
5ectloo 14. 1he SLaLe recognlzes Lhe ro|e of women |n nat|on-bu||d|ng, and shall ensure the fundamenta|
equa||ty before Lhe law of women and men.
5ectloo 22. 1he SLaLe recognlzes and promoLes Lhe r|ghts of |nd|genous cu|tura| commun|t|es wlLhln Lhe
framework of naLlonal unlLy and developmenL.
See Ak1ICLL IV on arL vlll.
Ak1ICLL kII
5ectloo 2. All lands of Lhe publlc domaln, waLers, mlnerals, coal, peLroleum, and oLher mlneral olls, all
forces of poLenLlal energy, flsherles, foresLs or Llmber, wlldllfe, flora and fauna, and oLher naLural resources
are owned by Lhe SLaLe. WlLh Lhe excepLlon of agrlculLural lands, all oLher naLural resources shall noL be
allenaLed. 1he exploraLlon, developmenL, and uLlllzaLlon of naLural resources shall be under Lhe full conLrol
and supervlslon of Lhe SLaLe. 1he SLaLe may dlrecLly underLake such acLlvlLles, or lL may enLer lnLo co-
producLlon, [olnL venLure, or producLlon-sharlng agreemenLs wlLh llllplno clLlzens, or corporaLlons or
assoclaLlons aL leasL slxLy per cenLum of whose caplLal ls owned by such clLlzens. Such agreemenLs may be
for a perlod noL exceedlng LwenLy-flve years, renewable for noL more Lhan LwenLy-flve years, and under
such Lerms and condlLlons as may be provlded by law. ln cases of waLer rlghLs for lrrlgaLlon, waLer supply
flsherles, or lndusLrlal uses oLher Lhan Lhe developmenL of waLerpower, beneflclal use may be Lhe measure
and llmlL of Lhe granL.
1he SLaLe shall proLecL Lhe naLlon's marlne wealLh ln lLs archlpelaglc waLers, LerrlLorlal sea, and excluslve
economlc zone, and reserve lLs use and en[oymenL excluslvely Lo llllplno clLlzens.
1he Congress may, by law, allow small-scale uLlllzaLlon of naLural resources by llllplno clLlzens, as well as
cooperaLlve flsh farmlng, wlLh prlorlLy Lo subslsLence flshermen and flsh- workers ln rlvers, lakes, bays, and
lagoons.
1he resldenL may enLer lnLo agreemenLs wlLh forelgn-owned corporaLlons lnvolvlng elLher Lechnlcal or
flnanclal asslsLance for large-scale exploraLlon, developmenL, and uLlllzaLlon of mlnerals, peLroleum, and
oLher mlneral olls accordlng Lo Lhe general Lerms and condlLlons provlded by law, based on real
conLrlbuLlons Lo Lhe economlc growLh and general welfare of Lhe counLry. ln such agreemenLs, Lhe SLaLe
shall promoLe Lhe developmenL and use of local sclenLlflc and Lechnlcal resources.
1he resldenL shall noLlfy Lhe Congress of every conLracL enLered lnLo ln accordance wlLh Lhls provlslon,
wlLhln LhlrLy days from lLs execuLlon.
5ectloo 14.2. 1he pract|ce of a|| profess|ons ln Lhe hlllpplnes shall be ||m|ted to I|||p|no c|t|zens, save ln
cases prescrlbed by law.

All classlflcaLlons made by law are generally presumed Lo be valld unless shown
oLherwlse by peLlLloner.

Mlnlmum 8equlremenLs for ClasslflcaLlon (Crmoc Sugar Co. v. 1reasurer)
SubsLanLlal dlsLlncLlons
MusL be germane (relevanL) Lo Lhe purpose of Lhe law
MusL noL be llmlLed Lo exlsLlng condlLlons only
MusL apply equally Lo all members of Lhe same class

Levels of ScruLlny
Mlnlmum/8aLlonal 8asls 1esL- classlflcaLlon should bear a reasonable
relaLlon Lo governmenL's purpose.
lnLermedlaLe
SLrlcL scruLlny - when acL lmpacLs upon a proLecLed, fundamenLal
consLlLuLlonal rlghL.
o CovernmenL has Lo show an overrldlng or compelllng governmenL
lnLeresL so greaL LhaL lL [usLlfles Lhe llmlLaLlon of fundamenLal
consLlLuLlonal rlghLs. ubllc purpose ls noL enough-lL needs Lo be
compelllng.
o Also, pollcy musL be narrowly Lallored, and be Lhe leasL resLrlcLlve
means Lo achleve Lhe purpose. lL musL be nelLher overbroad nor
underlncluslve.
o Also applled when Lhe classlflcaLlon ls suspecL (see below).

1ake lnLo accounL wheLher or noL Lhe law ls:
Cver-lncluslve
under-lncluslve
!usL 8lghL/ Cermane (le. lL achleves Lhe purpose of Lhe law)

SuspecL ClasslflcaLlon
Allenage/ClLlzenshlp- noL suspecL (lchong v. Pernandez)
CrlLerlon- LesL by whlch Lhe classlflcaLlon ls made, who ls belng dlscrlmlnaLed
agalnsL?
o MaLch wlLh Lhe purpose!
o LlsL can be found ln Lhe consLlLuLlon (women, eLhnlc mlnorlLles,
lndlgenous people, labor clause, chlldren)
o lmmuLablllLy!a characLerlsLlc wlLh whlch we can'L do anyLhlng
" e.g. color, race
" eople v. CayaL: 'membershlp ln an lndlgenous Lrlbe'
($lmmuLable) as a proxy crlLerlon for level of
educaLlon/clvlllzaLlon ($noL lmmuLable)
" MosL lmmuLable, Lhus hlgher level of scruLlny, always
suspecL
8ace, proxles: allenage, accenL, naLlonal orlgln
Cender, proxles: sexual orlenLaLlon (noLe: lL ls a
cholce, Culsumblng oplnlon ln kepobllc v.
coqooJoboo: cannoL lmpose sexual orlenLaLlon.


1hus lL ls changeable, and ls noL sub[ecL Lo sLrlcL
scruLlny.), homosexuallLy (hlgher proLecLlon:
llberLy and due process, lower proLecLlon:
equallLy and equal proLecLlon. 1hey cancel each
oLher ouL!)
" Lxample of lnherenLly suspecL crlLerlon: raclal proflllng

roLecLed 8lghLs
8lghL Lo publlc offlce (CulnLo v. CCMLLLC, uumlao v. CCMLLLC, 1ecson v.
CCMLLLC)
lreedom of Speech
lreedom of 8ellglon
Lconomlc rlghLs (Crmoc Sugar Company lnc. v. 1reasurer of Crmoc ClLy)
varlous llberLles"

ulscrlmlnaLlon
8enlgn dlscrlmlnaLlon
8everse dlscrlmlnaLlon
AfflrmaLlve acLlon- Lo dlscrlmlnaLe ln favor of Lhe mlnorlLy

Crmoc Sugar Company, Inc. v. 1reasurer of Crmoc ClLy (1968)
eLlLloner conLesLs Lhe valldlLy of Lhe ordlnance lmposlng Lax on lL alone. 8eoqzoo, I.
held LhaL Lhe equal proLecLlon clause only applles Lo persons or Lhlngs ldenLlcally
slLuaLed, and does noL bar a reasonable classlflcaLlon of Lhe sub[ecL of a leglslaLlon, as
long as Lhey are: (1) based on subsLanLlal dlsLlncLlons, (2) germane Lo Lhe purpose of
Lhe law, (3) classlflcaLlon applles Lo presenL condlLlons and subsLanLlally ldenLlcal
fuLure condlLlons, (4) applles Lo Lhose who belong Lo Lhe same class. SLaLuLe ln Lhls
case falls Lhe flrsL and Lhlrd LesL. kevetseJ, stotote oocoostltotloool.
ueoo. ttoJltloool tecltotloo of tbe tepoltemeots fot o stotote to be oble to poss
coostltotloool poestloos.

uumlao v. CCMLLLC (1980)
eLlLloner seeks Lo nulllfy 8 32, whlch does noL allow a person aged above 63 Lo run
for elecLlon. Meleoclo-netteto, I. held LhaL Lhe classlflcaLlon (63 and above v. below
63) ls noL arblLrary and unreasonable: for purposes of publlc servlce, Lhe older group
ls already sub[ecL Lo compulsory requlremenL, and because 'Lhe need for new blood
assumes relevance.' 5totote vollJ (epool ptotectloo lssoe ooly).
ueoo. ctltetloo ls eoetqy ooJ oew lJeos, oqe ls beloq oseJ os o ptoxy ctltetloo, fot tbe
potpose of lofosloq oew blooJ lo tbe qovetomeot. lf lt ls tbe tlqbt of sofftoqe, ose
belqbteoeJ sctotloy.

CulnLo v. CCMLLLC (2010)
8e Lhe consLlLuLlonallLy of Lhe Comelec resoluLlon LhaL declared appolnLlve offlclals
who flled Lhelr cerLlflcaLe of candldacles as lpso focto reslgned from Lhelr precedlng
poslLlons. looo, I. held LhaL lL does noL vlolaLe Lhe equal proLecLlon clause, Lhere ls a
subsLanLlal dlsLlncLlon beLween publlc and elecLlve offlclals: source of deslgnaLlon,
lengLh of Lerm, parLlsan/non-parLlsan. ulsmlsseJ, kesolotloo coostltotloool.
ueoo. belqbteoeJ level of sctotloy becoose lt ls tbe tlqbt of sofftoqe. lf tbe poestloo ls
wltb teqotJ to tbe obose of pobllc offlce tbete ls oo sobstootlol Jlffeteoce. A Jllemmo
of tbe epool ptotectloo cloose ls wbeo oll Jlstloctloos ote temoveJ.

League of C|t|es v. CCMLLLC (2008)
8e Lhe consLlLuLlonallLy of Lhe ClLyhood Laws, converLlng 16 munlclpallLles lnLo clLles,
and ln Lhe process were glven exempLlons from Lhe Lhreshold lncome requlremenL.
cotplo, I. held LhaL by granLlng Lhe exempLlon Lo only 16 munlclpallLles, Lhere was a
vlolaLlon of Lhe equal proLecLlon clause, speclflcally Lhe requlremenL LhaL lL musL
apply Lo all LhaL are slmllarly slLuaLed. CtooteJ, cltybooJ lows oocoostltotloool.
noLe: A 2009 declslon overLurned Lhls, wlLh Lhe SC voLlng 6-4 ln favor of Lhe
consLlLuLlonallLy of Lhe ClLyhood Laws.

eop|e v. CayaL (1939)
8espondenL was convlcLed under Lhe acL LhaL dlsallowed members of non-ChrlsLlan
Lrlbes Lo possess and drlnk llquor oLher Lhan Lhe so-called naLlve wlnes and llquors.
Motoo, I. held LhaL acL ls consLlLuLlonal, as lL saLlsfles Lhe requlremenLs ln Otmoc
5oqot compooy, loc. v. 1teosotet of Otmoc clty. AffltmeJ.
ueoo. 1bls woolJot be tbe woy tbot tbe cose ls JeclJeJ oow.
coyot Joesot woot to llbetote bls fellow ll, be seeks to be locloJeJ lo tbe cbtlstloo
sect!be wos boptlzeJ ooJ leotoeJ. 5lmllot to llessy. 1bey botb ockoowleJqe tbot
tbete ls Jlsctlmlootloo, bot tbot tbey sboolJot be pot lo tbot closs. ullemmo.
ptotectloo ooJ octloo os oo loJlvlJool ooJ oot os o membet of tbot closs v. os o
membet of tbe closs. uocoostltotloool oo-lts-foce ot os-opplleJ (to pottlcolot
loJlvlJool). 1bey Joot llbetote tbelt closs, tbey llbetote tbemselves ftom tbelt closs.

lchong v. nernandez (1937)
8e consLlLuLlonallLy of 8A 1180, whlch prohlblLs non-llllplnos Lo engage ln reLall
Lrade. lobtoJot, I. held LhaL Lhe mere facL of clLlzenshlp and allenage ls a valld basls


of classlflcaLlon. lalnly lrraLlonal dlscrlmlnaLlon ls prohlblLed, buL lL may be a
leglLlmaLe ob[ecL of leglslaLlon, glven LhaL lL ls conLrolllng an apprehended evll. 1he
ob[ecLlonable characLerlsLlcs of allen Lrade, and because lL doesn'L really make a
genulne conLrlbuLlon Lo naLlonal lncome and wealLh allow for Lhe leglLlmacy of Lhe
sLaLuLe. ueoleJ.
ueoo. vety toclst, tettlble Jeclsloo. Alleooqe/cltlzeosblp wos oot o sospect
closslflcotloo, tbos mlolmom sctotloy. Alleooqe ls o ttoJltloool qtoooJ of exclosloo.
8ot moybe we sboolJ bove beeo ftook oboot lt ooJ oseJ etbolclty os o ctltetloo, tbeo
lt woolJ bove beeo sospect, ooJ woolJ ttlqqet o blqbet level of sctotloy. Ametlcoos
tbeo wete exempteJ becoose of tbe potlty omeoJmeot.

koremaLsu v. US (1944)
WWll: eLlLloner, Amerlcan clLlzen of !apanese descenL, was convlcLed for remalnlng
ln an area, agalnsL Lhe uS Army dlrecLlve orderlng LhaL all persons of !apanese
ancesLry should be excluded. 8lock, I. held LhaL Lhe excluslon was valld and
necessary, because of Lhe presence of an unascerLalned number of dlsloyal members
ln Lhe group. AffltmeJ.
ueoo. ctltetloo ls loyolty to eoemy stote, ptoxy ctltetloo. of Iopooese Jesceot.
lotpose. pteveot esploooqe ot sobotoqe.
coootetotqomeot. oo flt betweeo ptoxy ctltetloo ooJ teol ctltetloo
8u1 tbot wos o tlme of wot, tbete ls oo tlme to cbeck lt cose by cose, eveo lf tbete ote
otbet tests of loyolty.
1bete ote woys to JlscteJlt tbe ptoxy otqomeot. (1) ooeveooess, excloJe tbe Cetmoos
ooJ ltolloos, too, wby sloqle oot tbe Iopooese? (2) tbete ls oo ecooomlc loceotlve fot
tbe wblte bosloesspeople.

lessy v. Ierguson (1893)
eLlLloner, a clLlzen of unlLed SLaLes, and ls of 1/8 Afrlcan blood, was noL allowed ln
Lhe coach asslgned Lo Lhe whlLe race. 8e consLlLuLlonallLy of Lhe Loulslana AcL
provldlng for separaLe rallway carrlages for Lhe whlLe and colored races. 8towo, I.
held LhaL Lhe dlsLlncLlon LhaL does noL desLroy Lhe legal equallLy of Lhe Lwo races. ln
Lhe naLure of Lhlngs lL could noL have been lnLended Lo abollsh dlsLlncLlons based on
color Lo enforce soclal, as dlsLlngulshed from pollLlcal, equallLy. 8easonableness ls
llberLy Lo acL wlLh reference Lo esLabllshed usages, cusLoms and LradlLlons of Lhe
people. AffltmeJ.

unlverslLy of Callfornla v. 8akke (1977)
8espondenL assalls as vlolaLlve Lhe peLlLloner medlcal school's program of havlng a
speclal admlsslons program, whlch glves preference Lo Lhose of Lhe mlnorlLy, granLlng
Lhem a lower Lhreshold score for admlsslon. lowell, I. held LhaL Lhe speclal
admlsslons program ls lnvalld. 1he goal of achlevlng a dlverse sLudenL body ls
sufflclenLly compelllng Lo [usLlfy conslderaLlon of race ln admlsslons declslons under
some clrcumsLances, buL Lhe program hereln ls unnecessary Lo Lhe achlevemenL of
Lhls goal, lL was noL Lhe leasL lnLruslve means. AffltmeJ, ltoqtom lovollJ.
ueoo. Affltmotlve Actloo. koce os o ctltetloo ls sospect, bot tbete ote woys to qo
otoooJ lt, e.q. notvotJs toce-os-o-plos-foctot!oot teolly Jetetmloloq, jost o tbomb-
oo-o-scole.
AcoJemlc Jlvetslty otqomeot- stoJeots leoto best lo o Jlvetse eovltoomeot, soJJeoly
o pott of ocoJemlc fteeJom. 8ot flxeJ pooto ls oot ollowoble. wby? loepoollty lo tbe
ooepool mlootltles!totol exclosloo of cettolo cooJlJotes lo cettolo coteqotles.

CruLLer v. 8o|||nger (2003)
eLlLloner, a whlLe Amerlcan, was denled admlsslon Lo Lhe unlverslLy of Mlchlgan
Law School, alleglng LhaL Lhe respondenLs had dlscrlmlnaLed agalnsL her on Lhe basls
of race, and had glven appllcanLs from mlnorlLy groups a slgnlflcanLly greaLer chance
of belng admlLLed Lhan sLudenLs wlLh slmllar credenLlals from dlsfavored raclal
groups. Ocoooot, I. held LhaL race-based acLlon necessary Lo furLher a compelllng
governmenLal lnLeresL, ln Lhls case Lhe educaLlonal beneflLs such as cross raclal
undersLandlng and Lhe breakdown of raclal sLereoLypes, ln Lhls case uslng a hlghly
lndlvlduallsLlc, hollsLlc revlew wlLhouL resorL Lo pollcy or a 'sofL' rule, does noL vlolaLe
Lhe equal proLecLlon clause as long as lL ls narrowly Lallored Lo furLher LhaL lnLeresL.
ulsmlsseJ.
ueoo. blstotlcol otqomeot ls ftowoeJ opoo by tbe coott. 8ot moybe by tbls qeoetotloo
tbose wbo ote lo tbe mlootlty qtoops ote olteoJy soccessfol!tbe potpose ls oo looqet
tbete, tbey oteot ot o JlsoJvootoqe ooymote!

lraganLe v. C|ty and County of nono|u|u (1989)
eLlLloner ls a llllplno who wasn'L accepLed for a clerk [ob because of hls accenL.
1tott, I. held LhaL Lhere was no dlscrlmlnaLlon on Lhe basls of hls naLlonal orlgln, lL
was noL hls llllplno accenL, buL lLs deleLerlous effecL on hls ablllLy Lo communlcaLe
orally, a sklll reasonably relaLed Lo Lhe [ob performance, because Lhe clerk would be
deallng wlLh a greaL number of Lhe dlsgrunLled publlc. AffltmeJ.
ueoo. ctltetloo of occeot Jlsctlmlootloo os o ptoxy fot toclol Jlsctlmlootloo. 5o lt ls
sospect! 8ot tbete ls oo exceptloo. job tepoltemeot. 1be test of job efflcleocy ls
oeottol, tbe Jlsctetloo by o cettolo oombet of people wblcb tbe stote totlfles.
As opplleJ to coll ceotets? No, becoose lt ls jost o job tepoltemeot.
Acceot Jlsctlmlootloo. o peckloq otJet, speokloq os o soclol sttoctote.
1be cootts embtoceJ otbets Jlsctlmlootloo, llke lo Lovlng v. vlrglnla.


8radwell v. I|||no|s (1872)
eLlLloner, a woman, wasn'L granLed llcense Lo pracLlce law. lL was held LhaL Lhe
professlon of law ls noL open Lo every Amerlcan clLlzen as a maLLer of rlghL-lL ls
sub[ecL Lo Lhe requlremenLs lald down by Lhe leglslaLure, and LhaL lnconvenlence
would resulL from permlLLlng her Lo en[oy her legal rlghLs. AffltmeJ.
ueoo. 5c JlJot eveo botbet wltb tbe lootteeotb AmeoJmeot ooJ ooly tolkeJ oboot
tbe qeoJet toles.

CoesarL v. C|eary (1948)
eLlLloner assalls as unconsLlLuLlonal Lhe sLaLuLe LhaL requlres barLenders Lo be
llcensed, and LhaL no female shall be glven one unless she ls Lhe wlfe or daughLer of
Lhe male owner of a llcensed llquor esLabllshmenL. ltookfottet, I. held LhaL Lhere ls a
reasonable basls for Lhe classlflcaLlon, Lhe overslghL assured Lhrough ownershlp of a
bar by a husband or a faLher of a barmald mlnlmlzes hazards for Lhe glrl, and LhaL
women are allowed Lo serve as walLresses anyway. AffltmeJ.
ueoo. closslflcotloo. wlves ooJ Jooqbtets of mole owoets - femole botteoJets.
lotpose. coottol tbe sole of llpoot, o motol ctosoJe. 1bete ote excloJeJ
closses!womeo wbo owo llpoot estobllsbmeots, Jooqbtets of womeo bot owoets,
etc. cooclosloo. oot qeoJet boseJ, teol test ls tbe mlscblef tbot ls beloq pteveoteJ.

Gedu|d|g v. Alello (1973)
8e dlsablllLy lnsurance sysLem for prlvaLe employees LhaL dldn'L allow recovery for
pregnancy resulLed dlsablllLles. 5tewott, I. held LhaL lL ls noL an lnvldlous
dlscrlmlnaLlon of Lhe Lqual roLecLlon Clause. uesplLe Lhe sysLem's under
lncluslveness, sLaLe may Lake one sLep aL a Llme, addresslng lLself Lo Lhe phase of Lhe
problem whlch seems acuLe Lo Lhe leglslaLlve mlnd, parLlcularly wlLh respecL Lo soclal
welfare programs, so long as Lhe llne drawn by Lhe SLaLe ls raLlonally supporLable.
kevetseJ.
ueoo. lssoe ls wON tbe exclosloo of pteqooot womeo ls qeoJet boseJ. Atqomeot. lt ls
o closslflcotloo betweeo pteqooot ooJ oot pteqooot people. coootetotqomeot.
oJJltloool beoeflt to tbe oot pteqooot womeo, tbete ls oo socb tbloq os pteqooot
womoo !ooly exclosloo ls botoe by tbe otbet slJe, teolly. coootet coootet otqomeot.
pteqooocy ls o cbolce.

Mlsslsslppl unlverslLy School for Women v. nogan (1981)
8espondenL was refused admlsslon Lo a sLaLe supporLed women's professlonal
nurslng school solely on Lhe basls LhaL he was male. Ocoooot, I. held LhaL Lhere was
no showlng of any compelllng sLaLe lnLeresL Lo supporL Lhe school pollcy of admlsslon
Lo females only. 1he asserLlon LhaL lL compensaLes for dlscrlmlnaLlon agalnsL women
and ls an afflrmaLlve acLlon does noL sufflce, slnce Lhere ls no acLual dlsadvanLage
suffered by Lhem. ollcy also Lends Lo perpeLuaLe sLereoLypes of nurslng as an
excluslvely woman's [ob. AffltmeJ, lollcy vlolotes tbe pool ltotectloo cloose.
ueoo. qeoJet boseJ. lf lts oo offltmotlve octloo, tbeo oot sospect. lf lts oo blstotlcol
lojostlce, tbose wbo beoeflt ote oot tbe octool vlctlms, bot tbelt JesceoJoots, wbo
weteot tbe ooes wbo soffeteJ.

Mlchael M. v. Super|or Court (1980)
WCn sLaLuLory rape law vlolaLed Lhe equal proLecLlon clause, dlscrlmlnaLlng only on
Lhe basls of gender. kebopolst, I. held LhaL lL does noL consLlLuLe a vlolaLlon. SLaLe has
a sLrong lnLeresL ln prevenLlng llleglLlmaLe pregnancy, and Lhls by lLself ls a
subsLanLlal deLerrenL Lo young females. no slmllar naLural sancLlons deLer males,
Lhus Lhe crlmlnal one lmposed on Lhem. Also, Lhe age of men ls lrrelevanL, younger
men are as capable as older men of lnfllcLlng Lhe harm soughL Lo be prevenLed.
AffltmeJ.
ueoo. lemoles os oeeJloq speclol ptotectloo ftom pteJototy moles!lovlJloos ooJ
otcbolc steteotype of womeo os oot beloq oble to cooseot. lotpose. pteveot
oowooteJ pteqooocles, closslflcotloo. bloloqlcol Jetetteot - ooly womeo coo qet
pteqooot.

ersonne| Adm|n|strator v. leeney (1978)
WCn sLaLuLe preferrlng veLerans for employmenL ln clvll servlce vlolaLes Lhe equal
proLecLlon clause, and ls dlscrlmlnaLlng agalnsL women, Lhe laLLer consLlLuLlng only a
small percenLage of Lhe group. 5tewott, I. held LhaL Lhere ls no vlolaLlon. SlgnlflcanL
numbers of nonveLerans are men-Lhe dlsLlncLlon ls beLween veLerans and
nonveLerans, noL men and women. Also Lhe purpose for Lhe preference ls noL Lo
dlscrlmlnaLe women, adverse consequences Lo Lhem were noL foreseeable, appellee
has falled Lo demonsLraLe how Lhe law could be dlscrlmlnaLlng Lo women. kevetseJ
ooJ temooJeJ.

|ck Wo v. Popklns (1886)
eLlLloner was lmprlsoned for vlolaLlon of a San lranclsco sLaLuLe LhaL vesLed ln Lhe
board of supervlsors Lhe dlscreLlon Lo granL llcenses Lo operaLe laundry ln wooden
bulldlng. Cf Lhe appllcaLlons, all Chlnese-Amerlcan appllcanLs were denled whlle only
one non-Chlnese Amerlcan llcense was noL granLed. Mottbews, I. held LhaL Lhere was
a vlolaLlon of Lhe equal proLecLlon clause. AlbelL sLaLuLe was noL dlscrlmlnaLory on-
lLs-face, lL was lnLended Lo reduce Lhe number of Chlnese laundrles raLher Lhan work
as a soluLlon agalnsL Lhe rlsk of flre. Also, sLaLuLe ls unconsLlLuLlonal for lack of
sufflclenL sLandards. kevetseJ ooJ temooJeJ.


ueoo. 5totote ls toce oeottol oo lts foce, bot tbete ls o Jlspotote lmpoct fot tbe
cbloese!toce bloseJ stotote.

Internat|ona| Schoo| A|||ance v. Culsumblng (2000)
Local hlred Leachers were proLesLlng Lhe 23 lncrease of salary for forelgn hlres.
kopoooo, I. held LhaL people who work wlLh equal classlflcaLlons, sklll, efforL and
responslblllLy, under slmllar condlLlons and performlng equal work, should be pald
slmllar salarles. kevetseJ (lo pott).
ueoo. boseJ oo polot-of-blte, meooloq tbe closslflcotloo ls oot llllploo ot ooo-llllploo
(toce). As o tesolt of tbls Jeclsloo, petbops tbe scbool woolJ jost opt to blte fotelqoets
ooly, ooJ oevet botbet wltb locol bltes.

8oard of D|rectors v. 8oLary Club (1986)
8oLary consLlLuLlon excludes women from membershlp, an alleged vlolaLlon of
Callfornla's unruh AcL, whlch enLlLles all persons, regardless of sex, Lo full and equal
accommodaLlons ln all buslness esLabllshmenLs of Lhe sLaLe. lowell, I. held LhaL Lhe
evldence falls Lo demonsLraLe how Lhe admlsslon of women wlll slgnlflcanLly affecL
Lhe members' ablllLy Lo carry ouL Lhelr varlous purposes. Cpenlng membershlp Lo
women would obLaln a more represenLaLlve cross secLlon of communlLy leaders wlLh
a broadened capaclLy for servlce. AffltmeJ.
ueoo. kototy ls jost oo ossoclotloo wbetelo people jolo jost fot bosloess potposes.
Ooestloo. opply tbls to ftots, bow ote tbey Jlffeteot? 5ee exptesslve ossoclotloo
below.

8oy Scouts of Amer|ca v. uale (2000)
8espondenL's poslLlon as asslsLanL scouLmasLer of a new !ersey Lroop was revoked
when peLlLloners learned LhaL he ls a homosexual and a gay rlghLs acLlvlsL. kebopolst,
c.I. held LhaL Lhe 8oy ScouLs of Amerlca ls proLecLed by Lhe freedom of expresslve
assoclaLlon, wand lL does so when lLs adulL leaders lnculcaLe lLs youLh members wlLh
lLs value sysLem. PomosexuallLy ls lnconslsLenL wlLh Lhese values, and lL doesn'L wanL
Lo promoLe such as leglLlmaLe behavlor, whlch could happen when respondenL
conLlnues Lo be a member. kevetseJ ooJ temooJeJ.
ueoo. to koow lf lt ls oo exptesslve ossoclotloo, look ot tbe (1) potpose fot jololoq, (2)
ootote of otqoolzotloo, ooJ (2) ootote of telotloosblp wltblo otqoolzotloo.

Goodr|dge v. ueparLmenL of ubllc PealLh (2003)
Seven same sex couples LhaL were denled marrlage llcenses assall Lhe respondenL's
pollcy and pracLlce of dolng such as a vlolaLlon of Lhe equal proLecLlon clause.
Motsboll, c.I. held LhaL Lhere was a vlolaLlon. (1) rocreaLlon and ferLlllLy ls noL a
prlmary condlLlon for marrlage, nor ls lL a ground for dlvorce, (2) Lhe 'besL lnLeresLs of
Lhe chlld' sLandard does noL Lurn on a parenL's sexual orlenLaLlon or marlLal sLaLus,
and (3) Lhere ls no raLlonal relaLlonshlp of an absoluLe ban on same sex marrlage Lo
Lhe goal of Lhe economy. Clvll marrlage means Lhe volunLary unlon of Lwo people as
spouses, Lo Lhe excluslon of all oLhers-deflnlLlon redresses Lhe consLlLuLlonal ln[ury
and provldes for Lwo goals: sLable seLLlng for chlld rearlng and conservlng sLaLe
resources. vocoteJ ooJ temooJeJ.
ueoo. meoos oseJ Jo oot flt tbe potpose.

1ecson v. CCMLLLC (2004)
8e l!'s naLlonallLy. eLlLloner asserLs LhaL l! was blrLhed Lo unmarrled parenLs,
maklng hlm an llleglLlmaLe chlld, and Lherefore he followed Lhe clLlzenshlp of hls
Amerlcan moLher. vltoq, I. held LhaL dlsLlngulshlng beLween a leglLlmaLe and
llleglLlmaLe chlld, and Lhe llleglLlmaLe chlld of a llllplno moLher and LhaL of a llllplno
faLher, would amounL Lo a vlolaLlon of Lhe equal proLecLlon clause. lL ls an lnvldlous
dlsLlncLlon LhaL resLs on no posslble sLaLe lnLeresL. ulsmlsseJ.
ueoo. Jlsctlmlootloo oo bosls of clvll stotos. clvll low Jefloltloo of llleqltlmocy ls oot
bloJloq fot polltlcol low. AllotteJ fot o blt of flexlblllty becoose llI wos toooloq fot o
pobllc offlce. level of sctotloy oseJ? 5ttlct. 1be polltlcol tlqbt of sofftoqe ls lo poestloo,
llleqltlmocy ls ftowoeJ opoo becoose lt ls vety Jlsctlmloototy.



|v. IkLLDCM CI LkkLSSICN

Ak1ICLL III
SecLlon 4. no law shall be passed abrldglng Lhe freedom of speech, of expresslon, or of Lhe press, or Lhe
rlghL of Lhe people peaceably Lo assemble and peLlLlon Lhe governmenL for redress of grlevances.

A. roLecLed Speech
ltlot kesttolot
llrsL rohlblLlon of Lhe lreedom of Speech and ress clause
rlor resLralnL refers Lo offlclal governmenLal resLrlcLlons on Lhe press or oLher forms
of expresslon ln advance of acLual publlcaLlon or dlssemlnaLlon.
lreedom from prlor resLralnL ls largely freedom from governmenL censorshlp of
publlcaLlons, whaLever Lhe form of censorshlp, and regardless of wheLher lL ls
wlelded by Lhe execuLlve, leglslaLlve or [udlclal branch of Lhe governmenL. 1hus, lL
precludes governmenLal acLs LhaL requlred approval of a proposal Lo publlsh,
llcenslng or permlLs as prerequlslLes Lo publlcaLlon lncludlng Lhe paymenL of llcense
Laxes for Lhe prlvllege Lo publlsh, and even ln[uncLlons agalnsL publlcaLlon. Lven Lhe
closure of Lhe buslness and prlnLlng offlces of cerLaln newspapers, resulLlng ln Lhe
dlsconLlnuaLlon of Lhelr prlnLlng and publlcaLlon, are deemed as prevlous resLralnL or
censorshlp. Any law or offlclal LhaL requlres some form of permlsslon Lo be had
before publlcaLlon can be made, commlLs an lnfrlngemenL of Lhe consLlLuLlonal rlghL,
and remedy can be had aL Lhe courLs. (cbovez v. Coozolez)
Any sysLem of prlor resLralnLs of expresslon comes Lo Lhls CourL bearlng a heavy
presumpLlon of lnvalldlLy. 1he CovernmenL Lhus carrles a heavy burden of showlng
[usLlflcaLlon for enforcemenL of such resLralnL.

rlor 8esLralnL ls noL absoluLe and may be allowed for cerLaln regulaLlons
1) a conLenL-neuLral regulaLlon, l.e., merely concerned wlLh Lhe lncldenLs of Lhe
speech, or one LhaL merely conLrols Lhe Llme, place or manner, and under
well deflned sLandards, only a subsLanLlal governmenLal lnLeresL ls requlred
for lLs valldlLy. 8ecause regulaLlons of Lhls Lype are noL deslgned Lo suppress
any parLlcular message, Lhey are noL sub[ecL Lo Lhe sLrlcLesL form of [udlclal
scruLlny. 1he valldlLy of a law requlres LhaL Lhe resLrlcLlons be narrowly-
Lallored Lo promoLe an lmporLanL or slgnlflcanL governmenLal lnLeresL LhaL ls
unrelaLed Lo Lhe suppresslon of expresslon.
2) A conLenL-based resLralnL or censorshlp, l.e., Lhe resLrlcLlon ls based on Lhe
sub[ecL maLLer of Lhe uLLerance or speech ls glven Lhe sLrlcLesL scruLlny ln
llghL of lLs lnherenL and lnvaslve lmpacL.

near v MlnnesoLa (1931)
nughes, C.I.eLlLloner publlshed ln a local newspaper an arLlcle aLLacklng Lhe mayor,
Lhe pollce chlef and oLher offlclals for Lhelr lnefflclency and negllgence and
lmpllcaLlng Lhelr connecLlon wlLh Lhe prevalence of crlmes. 1he newspaper was
abaLed under a MlnnesoLa sLaLuLe LhaL provlded for Lhe abaLemenL, as a publlc
nulsance, of a "mallclous, scandalous & defamaLory newspapers". 1he courL held LhaL
Lhe sLaLue was unconsLlLuLlonal. 1he gag law scheme consLlLuLed a form of prlor
resLralnL, an aLLempL by governmenL Lo prohlblL communlcaLlon of lnformaLlon
before publlcaLlon, hence was lnvalld under Lhe llrsL AmendmenL. 1he prohlblLlon
agalnsL prlor resLralnL--Lhe very hearL of Lhe llrsL AmendmenL--applled Lo sLaLes as
well as Lhe federal governmenL. kevetseJ.

new ?ork 1lmes v uS (1971)
er Curlam
1he nlxon admlnlsLraLlon flled a resLralnlng order agalnsL Lhe new ?ork 1lmes ln


order Lo prevenL Lhe publlcaLlon of classlfled documenLs relaLed Lo Lhe vleLnam War.
1he courL declared LhaL Lhe admlnlsLraLlon's efforLs Lo prevenL Lhe publlcaLlon of Lhe
lnformaLlon vlolaLe Lhe llrsL AmendmenL. 1he courL deLermlned LhaL: Any sysLem of
prlor resLralnLs of expresslon comes Lo Lhls CourL bearlng a heavy presumpLlon
agalnsL lLs consLlLuLlonal valldlLy." 1he governmenL Lhus carrles a heavy burden of
showlng [usLlflcaLlon for Lhe lmposlLlon of such a resLralnL." 1he governmenL was
deemed unable Lo overcome Lhe "heavy presumpLlon agalnsL" prlor resLralnL of Lhe
press ln Lhls case by belng unable Lo show LhaL Lhe publlcaLlon would cause grave and
lrreparable danger. kevetseJ ooJ temooJeJ.

Ireedman v Maryland (1963)
!. 8rennan
lreedman exhlblLed Lhe fllm "8evenge aL uaybreak" wlLhouL flrsL submlLLlng lL Lo Lhe
8oard of Censors for approval and llcenslng as requlred by sLaLe law.
1he courL held LhaL Lhe Maryland sLaLuLe presenLs a danger of unduly suppresslng
proLecLed expresslon. unllke a prosecuLlon for obscenlLy, a censorshlp proceedlng
puLs Lhe lnlLlal burden on Lhe exhlblLor or dlsLrlbuLor. Cnly a [udlclal deLermlnaLlon ln
an adversary proceedlng ensures Lhe necessary senslLlvlLy Lo freedom of expresslon,
only a procedure requlrlng a [udlclal deLermlnaLlon sufflces Lo lmpose a valld flnal
resLralnL. kevetseJ.

harmaceuLlcal and PealLh Care AssoclaLlons of Lhe hlllpplnes v. DCn Secretary
(2007)
AusLrla-MarLlnez, !.
1he Mllk Code was passed glvlng effecL Lo Lhe lnLernaLlonal code of MarkeLlng of
8resL Mllk SubsLlLuLes. 1he uCP lssued Lhe 8evlsed lmplemenLlng 8ules and
8egulaLlons, parL of whlch lncludes a LoLal ban on adverLlslng and promoLlons for
breasL mllk subsLlLuLes. eLlLloners conLend LhaL Lhe 8l88 goes beyond Lhe law lL ls
supposed Lo lmplemenL. 1he courL upheld Lhe labellng requlremenLs as valld and Lhe
uCP under Lhe mllk code has Lhe auLhorlLy Lo requlre LhaL each conLalner/label shall
conLaln such message LhaL Lhere ls no subsLlLuLe for breasL mllk.

Chavez v Conzales (2008)
CA8lC, !
Pello Carcl scandal: uC! SecreLary Conzales warned reporLers LhaL Lhose
broadcasLlng or publlshlng lLs conLenLs of Cu could be held llable under Lhe AnLl-
WlreLapplng AcL and LhaL possesslon or broadcasL was a conLlnulng offense, sub[ecL
Lo arresL by anybody. n1C lssued a press release warnlng radlo and Lelevlslon
owners/operaLors Lo observe anLl-wlreLapplng law and perLlnenL clrculars on
program sLandards, wlLh Lhe rlsk of suspenslon, revocaLlon and/or cancellaLlon of Lhe
llcenses or auLhorlzaLlons. 1he courLs held LhaL Lhe acLs of Lhe respondenLs abrldge
freedom of speech and of Lhe press and were un[usLlfled slnce Lhey falled Lo prove
Lhe publlcaLlon and broadcasLlng would consLlLuLe a clear and presenL danger. 1he
press sLaLemenLs can also be consldered as prlor resLralnL due Lo Lhelr chllllng effecL
upon members of Lhe press.
cblllloq effect. o Jetetteot wbetelo speecb ooJ cooJoct ls sopptesseJ ftom feot of
sooctloos

8L: 8LCuLS1 8AulC-1v CCvL8ACL Cl 1PL 18lAL Cl ln 1PL SAnulCAn8A?An Cl 1PL
LunuL8 CASLS ACAlnS1 1PL lC8ML8 8LSluLn1 !CSLP L. LS18AuA
ln response Lo Lhe requesL, Lhe courL denled Lhe llve broadcasL of Lhe plunder Lrlal of
Lrap on Lhe basls LhaL lL would pre[udlce hls rlghL Lo a falr Lrlal. 1he rlghL of Lhe press
musL glve way Lo Lhe rlghL of Lhe accused. 1he accused musL recelve a verdlcL solely
on Lhe basls of a [usL and dlspasslonaLe [udgmenL, a verdlcL LhaL would come only
afLer Lhe presenLaLlon of credlble evldence LesLlfled Lo by unblased wlLnesses
unswayed by any klnd of pressure, wheLher open or subLle, ln proceedlngs LhaL are
free from lmproper lnfluence, and decreed by a [udge wlLh an unpre[udlced mlnd,
unbrldled by runnlng emoLlons or passlons, someLhlng whlch may noL be achleved lf
Lhe proceedlngs are covered and broadcasLed llve.

5obsepoeot loolsbmeot
Second rohlblLlon of Lhe lreedom of Speech and ress clause
uangerous Lendency rule- When Lhe leglslaLlve body has deLermlned generally, ln Lhe
exerclse of lLs dlscreLlon, LhaL uLLerances of a cerLaln klnd lnvolve such danger of a
subsLanLlve evll LhaL Lhey may be punlshed, Lhe quesLlon wheLher any speclflc
uLLerance comlng wlLhln Lhe prohlblLed class ls llkely, ln and lLself, Lo brlng Lhe
subsLanLlve evlls, ls noL open Lo conslderaLlon. ln such cases, Lhe general provlslon of
Lhe sLaLuLe may be consLlLuLlonally applled Lo Lhe speclflc uLLerance lf lLs naLural and
probable effecL was Lo brlng abouL Lhe subsLanLlve evll LhaL Lhe leglslaLlve body mlghL
prohlblL. [ClLlow v. new ?ork, 268 uS 632 (1923).]

Clear and presenL danger- 1he quesLlon ln every case ls wheLher Lhe words used are
used ln such clrcumsLances and are of such a naLure as Lo creaLe a clear and presenL
danger LhaL Lhey wlll brlng abouL Lhe subsLanLlve evlls LhaL Congress has a rlghL Lo
prevenL. lL ls a quesLlon of proxlmlLy and degree. [Schenck v. unlLed SLaLes, 249 uS 47
(1919) as clLed ln LasLern 8roadcasLlng Corp. (u?8L) v. uans, !r., 137 SC8A 712
(1992)]



ulfference:
uangerous Lendency: danger ls llkely
Clear and presenL danger: danger ls lmmlnenL

eop|e v erez
MALCCLM, !
eLlLloner shouLed LhaL llllplnos oughL Lo decaplLaLe Lhe governor general of Lhe
hlllpplne lslands for hls bad admlnlsLraLlon. 1he courL held LhaL lL was noL proLecLed
speech because lL was sedlLlous. CrlLlclsm of Lhe governmenL ls allowed buL noL when
Lhe lnLenL of such speech ls Lo lnclLe sedlLlon.
8uL when Lhe lnLenLlon and effecL of Lhe acL ls sedlLlous, Lhe consLlLuLlonal guaranLles
of freedom of speech and press and of assembly and peLlLlon musL yleld Lo punlLlve
measures deslgned Lo malnLaln Lhe presLlge of consLlLuLed auLhorlLy, Lhe supremacy
of Lhe consLlLuLlon and Lhe laws, and Lhe exlsLence of Lhe SLaLe.

uennls v US
I. V|nson
uennls and oLhers were convlcLed of consplrlng Lo organlze Lhe CommunlsL arLy of
Lhe unlLed SLaLes as a group Lo Leach and advocaLe Lhe overLhrow of Lhe CovernmenL
of Lhe unlLed SLaLes by force and vlolence. 1he SC afflrmed Lhe convlcLlons.
Consplracy Lo organlze Lhe CommunlsL arLy and Lo each and advocaLe Lhe overLhrow
of Lhe governmenL of Lhe uS by force and vlolence creaLed a clear and presenL
danger.

Abrams v US (1919)
!. CLA8kL
eLlLloners were convlcLed of vlolaLlng Lhe Lsplonage AcL of Congress for prlnLlng and
dlsLrlbuLlng leafleLs denounclng Lhe sendlng of Amerlcan Lroops Lo 8ussla and urglng
for a cesslon of producLlon of maLerlals Lo be used ln Lhe war efforL. 1he courL held
LhaL Lhe acLs were noL wlLhln proLecLlon of freedom of speech due Lo lLs sedlLlous
naLure.

Polmes' ulssenL:
1he peLlLloners leafleLs urge Lhe curLallmenL of producLlon of Lhlngs necessary Lo Lhe
prosecuLlon of Lhe war, whlch ls wlLhln Lhe meanlng of Lhe AcL. 1hey are noL
crlmlnally llable slnce Lhe acL was noL proven Lo be made "wlLh lnLenL by such
curLallmenL Lo crlpple or hlnder Lhe unlLed SLaLes ln Lhe prosecuLlon of Lhe war."
Polmes reasoned LhaL Lhe Lhe peLlLloners expressed an oplnlon whlch was
consLlLuLlonally proLecLed. Pe argued LhaL LhaL Lhe surrepLlLlous publlshlng of a sllly
leafleL by an unknown man" dld noL creaLe such a danger as conLemplaLed ln Lhe
clear and presenL danger LesL.

Lastern broadcast|ng v uans
CuLlerrez !r !
8adlo SLaLlon u?8L was closed on Lhe allegaLlon LhaL Lhe sLaLlon was used Lo lnclLe
people Lo sedlLlon by lLs shlfL Lowards whaL lL sLaLed was Lhe coverage of publlc
evenLs and Lhe alrlng of programs geared Lowards publlc affalrs. 1he sLaLlon,
however, was purchased by anoLher company unlnLeresLed ln pursulng Lhe sulL,
renderlng lL mooL and academlc. 1he SC lssued a number of guldellnes. All forms of
medla are enLlLled Lo freedom of speech as long as Lhey pass Lhe clear and presenL
danger rule. necessarlly, however, Lhe freedom of Lelevlslon and radlo broadcasLlng
ls somewhaL lesser ln scope Lhan Lhe freedom accorded Lo newspaper and prlnL
medla. ln parLlcular, radlo broadcasLlng, more Lhan oLher forms of communlcaLlons,
recelves Lhe mosL llmlLed proLecLlon from Lhe free expresslon clause slnce Lhe
broadcasL medla has esLabllshed a unlquely pervaslve presence ln Lhe llves of all
llllplnos, unllke books and newspapers.

5peecb llos
US v C' 8rlen (1968)
WA88Ln, C!
8espondenL and companlons burned Lhelr SelecLlve Servlce reglsLraLlon, ln vlolaLlon
of federal laws, ln fronL of a crowd. 1he courL held LhaL Lhe amendmenL prohlblLlng
such an acL was consLlLuLlonal. uesLrucLlon of a reglsLraLlon cerLlflcaLe ls noL
consLlLuLlonally proLecLed acLlvlLy. 1he governmenL had a subsLanLlal lnLeresL ln
prevenLlng Lhe desLrucLlon of reglsLraLlon cerLlflcaLes due Lo Lhe noLlflcaLory and
oLher funcLlons whlch Lhey serve whlch are unrelaLed Lo Lhe suppresslon of Lhe
supposed speech elemenL ln Lhe burnlng of Lhe cerLlflcaLe.
C'8rlen LesL: CovernmenL regulaLlon ls sufflclenLly [usLlfled [1] lf lL ls wlLhln Lhe
consLlLuLlonal power of Lhe CovernmenL, [2] lf lL furLhers an lmporLanL or subsLanLlal
governmenLal lnLeresL, [3] lf Lhe governmenLal lnLeresL ls unrelaLed Lo Lhe
suppresslon of free expresslon, and [4] lf Lhe lncldenLal resLrlcLlon on alleged llrsL
AmendmenL freedoms [of speech, expresslon and press] ls no greaLer Lhan ls
essenLlal Lo Lhe furLherance of LhaL lnLeresL.

1|nker v ues Molnes School (1969)
lC81AS, !
eLlLloners wore black armbands Lo school Lo proLesL Lhe vleLnam War. 1he school
offlclals asked Lhem Lo remove Lhelr armbands, buL Lhe 1lnkers refused. 1hey were


Lhen suspended from school unLll Lhey agreed Lo remove Lhe armbands. SC: Lhe
wearlng of black armbands ls an expresslon of speech and proLecLed by Lhe
ConsLlLuLlon. SLudenLs do noL shed Lhelr consLlLuLlonal rlghLs Lo freedom of speech or
expresslon aL Lhe schoolhouse gaLe. 1he peLlLloners only wore Lhe armbands and
dldn'L noL uLLer or acL ln any way LhaL would cause dlsorder or dlsLurbance ln Lhe
school.
ueoo. o cooteot oeottol opptoocb to pteveot tbem ftom weotloq tbose otmbooJs
woolJ be lf tbete wos o scbool oolfotm pollcy.
necklets veto. wbeo tbe qovetomeot coo cottolo o pottys fteeJom of exptessloo lo
otJet to stop ooJeslteJ teoctloos ftom otbet pottles (tbe becklets)

Assembly ooJ letltloo
r|m|c|as v lugoso
lL8lA, !
8espondenL Mayor of manlla denled peLlLloners requesL Lo hold a publlc meeLlng ln
plaza Mlranda. CourL says LhaL whlle rlghLs should be regulaLed, Lhey should be
regulaLed ln a reasonable manner wlLh reasonable dlscreLlon. 1he regulaLory powers
granLed Lo Lhe mayor ln sec 1119 musL be lnLerpreLed Lo mean LhaL appllcaLlons for
Lhe use of publlc areas are sub[ecL Lo reasonable dlscreLlon Lo deLermlne whlch areas
Lo use Lo avold confuslon and mlnlmlze dlsorder. 1here ls no reasonable reason Lo
deny Lhls publlc meeLlng.
ulsseot by I. nlloJo.
1he rlghL Lo freedom of speech and assembly are noL absoluLe rlghLs slnce Lhey are
sub[ecL Lo regulaLlon as regards Lhe Llme, place and manner of lLs exerclse. Mayor of
Manlla had Lhe duLy and power" Lo granL or deny permlLs and has Lhe rlghL Lo
regulaLe Lhe use of publlc places. laza Mlranda ls a publlc place ln LhaL lL ls a hlgh
Lrafflc area, wheLher for vehlcles or pedesLrlans. As such, holdlng Lhe meeLlng Lhere
would have caused an lnconvenlence and lnLerfere wlLh Lhe rlghL of Lhe people ln
general". 1here ls no consLlLuLlonal rlghL Lo use publlc places under governmenL
conLrol, hence when lugoso denled Lhe use of laza Mlranda Lhere was no
consLlLuLlonal rlghL lnfrlnged. 1he refusal was noL caprlclous or arblLrary and does noL
warranL a mandamus slnce Lhe Mayor of Manlla polnLed Lo Lhe hlgh posslblllLy of
Lrouble LhaL would resulL from Lhe meeLlng Laklng place.
ueoo. xceptloo to 1Ml teqolotloo, wbeo o cooteot oeottol tlme, moooet, ploce
teqolotloo cottolls tbe fteeJom of exptessloo (e.q. wbeo tbe ploce ls loJlstloqolsboble
ftom tbe messoqe) tbeo lt becomes cooteot boseJ.

navarro v V|||egas
Mayor of manlla denled sLudenLs requesL Lo hold rallles and demonsLraLlons ln laza
Mlranda durlng weekdays and suggesLed Lhe Sunken Carden as an alLernaLlve venue.
SC held LhaL Lhere was no denlal of freedom of assembly slnce Lhe mayor has Lhe
dlscreLlon Lo regulaLe Lhe use of publlc places Lo secure convenlenL use and Lo
mlnlmlze dlsLurbance and dlsorder. 1he mayor had deLermlned LhaL granLlng Lhe
requesL for plaza Mlranda durlng weekdays would lead Lo danger of publlc dlsorders,
breaches of peace, and crlmlnal acLs. 1he mayor also respecLed peLlLloner's rlghLs Lo
assemble by offerlng an alLernaLlve venue or allowlng Lhe use of plaza Mlranda
durlng weekends, when dlsLurbance of normal acLlvlLy would be mlnlmal.

8M Lmp|oyees v 8M
Makaslar, !.
hlllpplne 8loomlng Mllls Lmployees CrganlzaLlon lnLended Lo Lake parL ln a proLesL
aL Malacanang. Lmployees from all shlrLs would parLlclpaLe ln Lhe demonsLraLlons.
Powever, Lhe company wanLed for workers who belong Lo Lhe 1sL shlfL Lo reporL Lo
work and clalmed LhaL such a demonsLraLlon would be a vlolaLlon of Lhe collecLlve
bargalnlng agreemenL. 1he demonsLraLlon proceeded and Lhe company dlsmlssed
Lhe leaders of Lhe unlon. 1he courL held LhaL demonsLraLlon was purely and
compleLely an exerclse of Lhelr freedom of expresslon ln general and of Lhelr rlghL of
assembly and peLlLlon for redress of grlevances ln parLlcular before approprlaLe
governmenLal agency. 1o conslder lL a vlolaLlon of Lhe C8A would mean LhaL Lhe C8A
would be a means of lnhlblLlng speech.
ueoo. tbe meJlom ls tbe messoqe. 1be foct tbot oll tbe employees ote ptotestloq
seoJs o messoqe to tbe execotlve. lf tbe employees took sblfts lo ptotestloq, tbeo tbe
stteoqtb of tbelt messoqe woolJ be JlloteJ.

naLlonal unlon of Workers ln Lhe PoLel 8esLauranL and Allled lndusLrles v. CA (2008)
vLLASCC !8., !.
AfLer a bargalnlng deadlock, members of Lhe unlon began comlng Lo work wlLh
closely cropped halr or cleanly shaven heads. 1he PoLel prevenLed Lhese workers
from enLerlng Lhe premlses clalmlng LhaL Lhey vlolaLed Lhe PoLel's Croomlng
SLandards. 1he hoLel subsequenLly LermlnaLed and suspended a number of workers
for vlolaLlng Lhe C8A. 1he courL held LhaL Lhe unlon's vlolaLlon of Lhe PoLel's
Croomlng SLandards was clearly a dellberaLe and concerLed acLlon Lo undermlne Lhe
auLhorlLy of and Lo embarrass Lhe PoLel and was, Lherefore, noL a proLecLed acLlon.
1he acL was lnLended Lo negaLlvely lmpacL Lhe hoLel's repuLaLlon and flnances.

I8L keyes v. 8agaLslng
C! lernando
eLlLloner soughL a permlL Lo conducL a march from LuneLa Lo Lhe uS embassy. 1he


peLlLlon was denled on Lhe basls LhaL pollce lnLelllgence advlsed agalnsL conducLlng
such demonsLraLlon. 1he courL sald Lhe permlL should be granLed slnce clear and
presenL danger musL have sufflclenL evldence ln order Lo [usLlflably curLaln freedom
of expresslon. Mere asserLlon of Lhe posslblllLy of dlsorder and danger ls lnsufflclenL
Lo llmlL Lhe exerclse of Lhls consLlLuLlonal rlghL.

Ma|abanan vs. 8amenLo
lernando, C.!.
Cfflcers of Lhe AraneLa unlverslLy sLudenL councll were suspended afLer conducLlng a
demonsLraLlon ouLslde of Lhe Llme and bounds sLaLed ln Lhe permlL Lhey were
granLed, Lhus causlng a dlsrupLlon of classes. 1he courL held LhaL Lhe rlghLs Lo free
expresslon of Lhe sLudenLs where vlolaLed. 1he rlghL Lo peaceably assemble & free
speech are "boLh embraced ln Lhe concepL of freedom of expresslon, w/c ls ldenLlfled
w/ Lhe llberLy Lo dlscuss publlcly & LruLhfully any maLLer of publlc lnLeresL w/o
censorshlp or punlshmenL excepL on a showlng...of a clear & presenL danger of a
subsLanLlve evll w/c Lhe sLaLe has Lhe rlghL Lo prevenL." 1he sLudenLs should sLlll be
sub[ecL Lo dlsclpllnary acLlon, buL Lhe punlshmenL recelved was dlsproporLlonaLe Lo
Lhelr Lransgresslon.

8ayan v. Lxecut|ve Secretary (2006)
AZCunA, !.
eLlLloner's peaceful mass acLlon was forclbly dlspersed by Lhe pollce who clalm Lo be
lmplemenLlng Lhe CallbraLed reempLlve 8esponse of 8aLas ambansa no. 880, Lhe
laLLer requlres a permlL Lo be granLed upon lawful cause before one can sLage a
publlc assembly. 1he courL held LhaL 8.. 880 ls consLlLuLlonal slnce lL ls noL an
absoluLe ban of publlc assemblles buL a resLrlcLlon LhaL slmply regulaLes Lhe Llme,
place and manner of Lhe assemblles. 1he callbraLed preempLlve response was sLuck
down for belng a phanLom law slnce lL was a mere press sLaLemenL.

I8 v ALlenza (2010)
CA8lC MC8ALLS, !
l8 applled for a permlL Lo conducL a rally aL Lhe fooL of Mendlola 8rldge. A permlL
was granLed buL Lhe laza Mlranda was lndlcaLed as Lhe venue lnsLead. 1he courL
held ln modlfylng Lhe permlL ouLrlghL, respondenL gravely abused hls dlscreLlon when
he dld noL lmmedlaLely lnform Lhe l8 who should have been heard flrsL on Lhe
maLLer of hls percelved lmmlnenL and grave danger of a subsLanLlve evll LhaL may
warranL Lhe changlng of Lhe venue. 1he opporLunlLy Lo be heard precedes Lhe acLlon
on Lhe permlL, slnce Lhe appllcanL may dlrecLly go Lo courL afLer an unfavorable
acLlon on Lhe permlL. 8espondenL falled Lo lndlcaLe any basls or explanaLlon for hls
acLlon Lo change Lhe venue. kevetseJ.

ltee 5peecb ooJ 5offtoqe
Conzales v. CCMLLLC
lernando, !.
eLlLlon assalllng Lhe valldlLy of Lhe revlsed elecLlon code whlch prohlblLs early
nomlnaLlon of candldaLes and llmlLs perlod of elecLlon campalgn and parLlsan
pollLlcal acLlvlLy, Lhe purpose of Lhe law ls Lo lnsure a free, orderly and honesL
elecLlon. 1he courL, Lhough lacklng Lhe necessary voLes Lo deem lL so, deLermlned
LhaL lL was unconsLlLuLlonal. 1he law pre[udlces Lhe peLlLloner's baslc rlghLs such as
Lhelr freedom of speech, Lhelr freedom of assembly and Lhelr rlghL Lo form
assoclaLlons. for purposes noL conLrary Lo law, guaranLeed under Lhe hlllpplne
ConsLlLuLlon. 1here ls vagueness ln Lhe sLaLuLe when lL refers Lo elecLlon campalgn"
and parLlsan pollLlcal acLlvlLy" Lhe challenged sLaLuLe could have been more
narrowly drawn and Lhe pracLlces prohlblLed more preclsely dellneaLed Lo saLlsfy Lhe
consLlLuLlonal requlremenLs as Lo a valld llmlLaLlon under Lhe clear and presenL
danger docLrlne. ulsmlsseJ.
8oloocloq of lotetest test. "1be tbeoty of bolooce of lotetests tepteseots o wbolly
ptoqmotlc opptoocb to tbe ptoblem of lltst AmeoJmeot fteeJom, loJeeJ, to tbe
wbole ptoblem of coostltotloool lotetptetotloo. lt tests oo tbe tbeoty tbot lt ls tbe
coott's fooctloo lo tbe cose befote lt wbeo lt floJs pobllc lotetests setveJ by leqlslotloo
oo tbe ooe booJ ooJ lltst AmeoJmeot fteeJoms offecteJ by lt oo tbe otbet, to
bolooce tbe ooe oqolost tbe otbet ooJ to ottlve ot o joJqmeot wbete tbe qteotet
welqbt sboll be ploceJ. lf oo bolooce lt oppeots tbot tbe pobllc lotetest setveJ by
testtlctlve leqlslotloo ls of socb o cbotoctet tbot lt ootwelqbs tbe obtlJqmeot of
fteeJom, tbeo tbe coott wlll floJ tbe leqlslotloo vollJ. lo sbott, tbe bolooce-of-
lotetests tbeoty tests oo tbe bosls tbot coostltotloool fteeJoms ote oot obsolote, oot
eveo tbose stoteJ lo tbe lltst AmeoJmeot, ooJ tbot tbey moy be obtlJqeJ to some
exteot to setve opptoptlote ooJ lmpottoot lotetests

San|dad vs. CCMLLLC
!. Medlaldea
eLlLloner assalls Lhe consLlLuLlonallLy of a CCMLLLC 8esoluLlon whlch prohlblLs
campalgnlng for or agalnsL Lhe pleblsclLe lssues by mass medla columnlsLs,
commenLaLors, announcers a day before and on pleblsclLe day. 1he courL held LhaL lL
was unconsLlLuLlonal. 1he CCMLLLC only has Lhe power Lo supervlse and regulaLe Lhe
use and en[oymenL of franchlses, permlLs or oLher granLs and noL Lhe freedom of
expresslon of medla pracLlLloners Lhemselves. leblsclLe lssues are maLLers of publlc
concern. And Lhe people's ablllLy Lo freely and lnLelllgenLly make a declslon would be


beLLer served by access Lo an unabrldged dlscusslon of lssues. CtooteJ.

naLlonal ress Club vs. CCMLLLC
!. lellclano
Assalled ls Lhe republlc acL whlch prohlblLs Lhe sale or donaLlon of prlnL space and alr
Llme "for campalgn or oLher pollLlcal purposes" excepL Lo Lhe CCMLLLC. 1he courL
deLermlned LhaL Lhe law was consLlLuLlonal, Lhere ls a reasonable nexus beLween Lhe
law and lLs ob[ecLlve (Lo level Lhe playlng fleld beLween candldaLes). 1he law ls
closely Lallored: Lhe appllcablllLy ls llmlLed Lo elecLlon perlods, lL only covers pollLlcal
ads and noL lnLervlews or commenLarles, and CCMLLLC Llme and space ls allocaLed Lo
each candldaLe on a falr and equal basls. lL ls a conLenL neuLral, Llme place manner
regulaLlon lnsLlLuLed ln order Lo promoLe equal opporLunlLy among candldaLes.
ulsmlsseJ.

Ad|ong vs. CCMLLLC
Cu1lL88LZ, !8., !.:
Assalled were a number of elecLlon laws passed by Lhe CCMLLLC Lo regulaLe elecLlon
propaganda. 1he law prohlblLs Lhe posLlng of decals and sLlckers ln 'moblle" places
llke cars and oLher movlng vehlcles. 1he courL deLermlned LhaL such a prohlblLlon by
Lhe CCMLLLC ls unconsLlLuLlonal. Such a censorshlp ls vold for overbreadLh and
unduly lnfrlnges on Lhe clLlzen's fundamenLal rlghL of free speech. 1here ls no publlc
lnLeresL subsLanLlal enough Lo warranL Lhe klnd of resLrlcLlon. 1he regulaLory measure
bears no clear and reasonable nexus wlLh Lhe consLlLuLlonally sancLloned ob[ecLlve.
1he posLlng of decals and sLlckers ln moblle places llke cars and oLher movlng vehlcles
does noL endanger any subsLanLlal governmenL lnLeresL. 1here musL be a clear and
presenL danger ln order Lo [usLlfy Lhe curLallmenL of Lhe freedom of expresslon. ln
addlLlon, Lhe law ls so lnvaslve LhaL lL prohlblLs Lhe posLlng or dlsplay of elecLlon
propaganda ln any place, wheLher publlc or prlvaLe. 1he consLlLuLlonal ob[ecLlve Lo
glve candldaLes equal opporLunlLy was noL served by Lhe prohlblLlon of decals.
CtooteJ.

A8S C8N v CCMLLLC (2000)
AnCAnl8An, !.Comelec approved a resoluLlon, whlch prohlblLed Lhe conducL of exlL
polls. A8S-C8n or any oLher groups were resLralned from conducLlng any exlL survey
on Lhe basls LhaL such Lhe resulLs of Lhe exlL poll mlghL confllcL wlLh Lhe offlclal
Comelec counL, as well as Lhe unofflclal qulck counL of Lhe naLlonal MovemenL for
lree LlecLlons. 1he courL declared LhaL such a ban was a vlolaLlon of Lhe rlghL Lo
freedom of expresslon. A resLrlcLlon on Lhe freedom of expresslon wlll be valld lf lL
meeLs Lhe clear and presenL danger rule or Lhe dangerous Lendency rule. LxlL polls do
noL consLlLuLe clear and presenL danger or dangerous Lendency of desLroylng Lhe
credlblllLy and lnLegrlLy of Lhe elecLoral process due Lo lnconslsLency wlLh Lhe
comelec or namfrel counL. Such argumenLs are merely speculaLlve. 1he survey resulLs
are noL lnLended Lo replace or be aL par wlLh Lhe offlclal Comelec counL. lL conslsLs
merely of Lhe oplnlon of Lhe polllng group as Lo whom Lhe elecLoraLe ln general has
probably voLed for. CtooteJ.

SWS v CCMLLLC (2001)
MLnuCZA, !
Assalled are Comelec 8esoluLlons prohlblLlng Lhe holdlng of pre-polls and exlL polls
and Lhe dlssemlnaLlon of Lhelr resulLs Lhrough mass medla. 1he purpose ls Lo prevenL
Lhe manlpulaLlon and corrupLlon of Lhe elecLoral process by unscrupulous and
erroneous surveys [usL before Lhe elecLlon. 1he courL held LhaL Lhe resoluLlons are
unconsLlLuLlonal slnce lL lmposes a prlor resLralnL on Lhe freedom of expresslon. 1he
resoluLlon falls Lhe Lhlrd elemenL of Lhe C'brlen LesL slnce prohlblLlng Lhe publlcaLlon
of elecLlon survey resulLs because of Lhe posslblllLy LhaL such publlcaLlon mlghL
undermlne Lhe lnLegrlLy of Lhe elecLlon, suppresses a whole class of expresslon, whlle
allowlng Lhe expresslon of oplnlons concernlng Lhe same sub[ecL maLLer by medla
commenLaLors, columnlsLs. lL falls elemenL 4 as well slnce Lhe alm of Lhe resoluLlon
can be more narrowly pursued by punlshlng unlawful acLs, raLher Lhan speech.
CtooteJ.

use of ltlvote ltopetty os o lotom fot otbets 5peecb
runeyard v. kob|ns (1980)
!. 8LPnCulS1
SLudenLs conducLed a proLesL lnslde a prlvaLe mall by passlng ouL leafleLs and havlng
passersby slgn Lhelr peLlLlon. 8ecause Lhey were vlolaLlng runeyard's pollcles, Lhe
securlLy guard asked Lhem Lo leave. 1he courL sald LhaL because Lhe mall ls a publlc
forum, Lhe prlvaLe owners of Lhe mall cannoL resLrlcL Lhe sLudenL consLlLuLlonal
llberLles. 1he sLaLe may adopL resLrlcLlons on prlvaLe properLy so long as Lhe
resLrlcLlons do noL amounL Lo a Laklng wlLhouL [usL compensaLlon or conLravene any
law. 1he respondenLs were noL behavlng ln any way LhaL would dlmlnlsh Lhe value or
use of Lhe place as a shopplng cenLer. AddlLlonally, Lhe naLure of Lhe mall as a publlc
forum means LhaL people would noL lmpuLe a proLesLer's message as belng Lhe same
senLlmenL as Lhe mall owner. AffltmeJ.
ueoo. qeoetolly, ptlvote ptopetty oeeJs tbe cooseot of tbe owoet. Molls woot to
Jlscootoqe exptessloo becoose lt coo be boJ fot bosloess (beoce o posslble fotm of
tokloq)



wtooq otttlbotloo ptoblem. lf people exetclse tbelt fteeJom of exptessloo lo o moooet
slmllot to ptooyotJ, people mlqbt ossoclote tbe ptotestets messoqe wltb tbot of tbe
moll owoet. coootetotqomeot, metely o ptesomptloo, we bove oo lJeo wbot people
ote teolly tblokloq.
lotceJ speecb. tbe moll owoet bos tbe tlqbt oot to speok, bot lf tbete ls o wtooq
otttlbotloo, tbe owoet moy be fotceJ to speok to clotlfy bls stooce.
lobllc fotom ls tbe exceptloo to tbe cooseot tepoltemeot of ptlvote ptopetty. 1o
Jetetmloe wbot ls o pobllc fotom, tbe potpose of tbe estobllsbmeot ls exomloeJ.
Molls ote fot eotettolomeot. 1bey lovlte ooJ eotlce tbe pobllc to tbe estobllsbmeot
ooJ ote tbetefote pobllc fotoms. 5cbools ote pobllc fotoms becoose tbey ooqbt to
voloe tbe spteoJloq of eJocotloool lJeos.
nlstoty, o ploce blstotlcolly oseJ fot ptotestloq coo be o pobllc fotm tbooqb lt moy be
ptlvote ptopetty
5lze, o bosloess coo be so blq tbot tbe ptotestets messoqe coooot be ossocloteJ wltb
tbe eotlte compooy.

8. unproLecLed Speech
1he proLecLlon of Lhe freedom of speech wlll noL be auLomaLlcally lnvoked ln cases
of:
uefamaLory Speech
llghLlng Words
Cbscene maLerlals
Such uLLerances would have Lo pass Lhe LesLs seL ln [urlsprudence ln order Lo lnvoke
Lhe proLecLlon of Lhe blll of rlghLs.

1esL:
1. n? 1lMLS LesL (publlc offlclal):
resumpLlon of mallce ls nA when crlLlclsms or sLaLemenLs are abouL
publlc offlclals ln Lhelr offlclal conducL
1here musL be proof of acLual mallce (wlLh knowledge of falslLy, reckless
dlsregard of falslLy)
2. ubllc llgure (reasons fr uean):
volunLary LhrusLlng one's persona Lo publlc sphere (sorL of walver)
1hey have opporLunlLy Lo rebuL/flghL ln publlc

A publlc flgure would have less proLecLlon due Lo Lhe naLure of hls work or llfe, where
Lhe publlc has an lnLeresL ln whaL he ls dolng and hls repuLaLlon. Lx. ln conLroverslal
cases lnvolvlng a publlc offlclal and anoLher prlvaLe lndlvldual, Lhe lnLeresL of Lhe
publlc ln geLLlng lnformaLlon necessarlly lncludes Lhe role of Lhe prlvaLe lndlvldual,

Medla wlll be glven greaLer leeway ln Lerms of how and whaL Lhey choose Lo publlsh
ln Lhe lnLeresL of democracy. rovlded LhaL maLerlals are done ln good falLh and
wlLhouL knowlng dlsregard of LruLh or falslLy. 1he naLure of Lhe publlcaLlon, and Lhe
demands of deadllnes are Laken lnLo conslderaLlon ln deLermlnlng wheLher Lhere was
excusable or gross negllgence.

uefamaLory speech ls ln close relaLlon Lo llbel. ln case of prlvaLe persons LruLh cannoL
be a defense as lL proLecLs Lhe repuLaLlon of Lhe vlcLlm. Whlle for publlc offlclals,
Lhough Lhe presumpLlon of mallce ls noL appllcable, LruLh or falslLy of Lhe maLerlal
can be used by Lhe offlclal for hlm Lo prosecuLe glven LhaL such ls relaLed Lo hls publlc
funcLlon.

uefomototy 5peecb
CLICAkIC vs. MAnlLA 1lMLS (1962)
1he plalnLlff Lumen ollcarplo sued manlla Llmes for damages by reason of a
publlcaLlon lmpllcaLlng LhaL she mlsapproprlaLed sLenclls and funds of Lhe local
unLSCC naLlonal Commlsslon. 1he flrsL arLlcle conLalned false facLs, whlch gave Lhe
lmpresslon LhaL her gullL and crlme was more severe Lhan lL acLually was, especlally
as Lhe penalLy of whaL was belng charged agalnsL her depended on Lhe acLual
amounL.
SC coocepcloo I: AlLhough lL ls glven ln our consLlLuLlon LhaL newspapers musL en[oy a
cerLaln degree of dlscreLlon ln deLermlnlng Lhe manner Lo whlch publlc lssues are Lo
be presenLed, a publlcaLlon conLalnlng derogaLory lnformaLlon musL be noL only Lrue,
buL also falr, and lL musL be made ln good falLh. 1he presumpLlon of mallce ln ArLlcle
334 of Lhe 8C ls noL lmmedlaLely appllcable ln cases of a) prlvaLe communlcaLlon, b)
falL and Lrue reporL made ln good falLh. kevetseJ.
!
LCLZ vs. CA (1970)
1hls Week" magazlne publlshed an arLlcle regardlng Lhe PCAx of Lhe ?ear" of a
man named lldel Cruz who falsely reporLed a serlal klller ln 8aLanes ln order Lo geL
passage back Lo Manlla. 1he magazlne aLLached Lhe plcLure of a dlfferenL lldel Cruz
(former mayor and buslnessman) Lo Lhe arLlcle due Lo confuslon as boLh plcLures
were flled ln Lhe magazlne records. 1he magazlne lmmedlaLely lssued a reLracLlon
afLer dlscoverlng Lhe mlsLake.
SC letoooJo, I.: A newspaper, lL ls sLressed, should noL be held Lo accounL Lo a polnL
of suppresslon for honesL mlsLakes, or lmperfecLlon ln Lhe cholce of words." 1he
newspapers should be glven leeway and Lolerance provlded LhaL Lhey publlshed such
arLlcles wlLh good falLh and reasonable care. kevetseJ.


NLW Ckk 1IMLS vs. SuLLlvAn (1964) [landmark case]
1hls ls a llbel case regardlng Lhe publlcaLlon of an adverLlsemenL publlshed regardlng
Lhe arresLs of MarLln LuLher klng and Lhe sLruggle for freedom ln Lhe SouLh. Sulllvan
clalmed LhaL Lhe arLlcle necessarlly lmpllcaLed hlm as Lhe facLs were connecLed Lo hls
posL as a publlc offlclal.
SC 8teoooo, I.: CrlLlclsms addressed Lo publlc offlclals regardlng Lhelr offlclal conducL
does noL lose lLs consLlLuLlonal proLecLlon merely because lL ls effecLlve crlLlclsm
hence dlmlnlshes Lhelr offlclal repuLaLlon. 1he burden of proof shlfLs Lo Lhe publlc
offlclal, absenL any proof of acLual mallce, or Lhere was knowledge of Lhe falslLy and
Lhere was reckless dlsregard of Lhe falslLy Lhe acLlon for llbel would en[oy a lesser
degree of consLlLuLlonal proLecLlon. kevetseJ.

ALk kCDUC1ICN vs. !uuCL CAuLCnC
eLlLloner wanLed Lo make a movle of Lhe evenLs leadlng Lo and Lhe sLory of Lhe LuSA
revoluLlon. Sen. Lnrlle refused when asked lf Lhey could use hls name and sLory ln Lhe
movle.
SC lellclooo, I.: 1he rlghL Lo prlvacy ls noL absoluLe. Allowable ls a llmlLed lnLruslon
where Lhe person ls a publlc flgure and Lhe lnformaLlon ls of publlc lnLeresL. AffltmeJ.

llqbtloq wotJs
1hey are noL proLecLed by Lhe freedom of speech as Lhe sLaLe has an lnLeresL ln
proLecLlng Lhe peace of Lhe communlLy. llghLlng words are deflned as Lhose whlch
causes men of common lnLelllgence Lo flghL due Lo Lhe uLLerance of such.

1esL
CPALlnSk? LesL: whaL men of common lnLelllgence would undersLand
would be words llkely Lo cause an average addressee Lo flghL.
CCPLn: Words/ uLLerances are undersLood noL [usL ln Lhelr cognlLlve or
llLeral meanlng buL also for Lhelr emoLlve funcLlon

CPALlnSk? vs. NLW nAMSnIkL (1942)
eLlLloner was arresLed for uLLerlng offenslve words you are a god damned
rackeLeer and a damned fasclsL" ln publlc ln vlolaLlon of a sLaLe law.
SC Motpby, I.: Lhe rlghL of free speech ls noL absoluLe. 1he proLecLlon does noL cover
Lhe lewd and obscene, Lhe profane, Lhe llbelous and Lhe flghLlng words- Lhose whlch
by Lhelr very uLLerance lnfllcL ln[ury or Lend Lo lnclLe an lmmedlaLe breach of Lhe
peace. 1he LesL of whaL ls consldered offenslve would be: whaL men of common
lnLelllgence would undersLand would be words llkely Lo cause an average addressee
Lo flghL. Also sLaLuLes wlLh Lhe Lendency Lo lnfrlnge Lhe freedom of free speech musL
be narrowly Lallored. AffltmeJ.

CCnLN vs. CALllC8nlA (1971)
1he defendanL wore a [ackeL ln courL prlnLed on such was Lhe phrase luCk Lhe
u8Al1." Pe dld noL make any loud nolse or uLLerances before hls arresL.
SC notloo, I.: 1he wearlng of Lhe [ackeL was consldered speech lnsLead of conducL, lL
was meanL Lo express hls oplnlon regardlng Lhe drafL for Lhe vleLnam War.
undlfferenLlaLed fear or apprehenslon of dlsLurbance ls noL enough Lo overcome Lhe
rlghL Lo freedom of expresslon. Words are chosen and undersLood noL [usL for Lhelr
cognlLlve funcLlon buL also for emoLlve funcLlon. 1he speech ln Lhls case serves noL Lo
offend Lhe publlc and does noL lnclLe Lhe common man Lo flghL. kevetseJ.

Obsceolty
1esL:
8C1P LesL: WheLher Lo Lhe average person, applylng conLemporary
communlLy sLandards Lhe domlnanL Lheme of Lhe maLerlal Laken as a whole
appeals Lo prurlenL lnLeresLs.
MLMCl8S LesL (re[ecLed):
o 1he domlnanL Lheme (Laken as a whole) appears Lo prurlenL
lnLeresLs ln sex
o MaLerlal ls paLenLly offenslve because lL affronLs conLemporary
communlLy sLandards
o MaLerlal ls uLLerly wlLhouL redeemlng soclal value.
MlLLL8 LesL
o WheLher Lo Lhe average person applylng conLemporary communlLy
sLandards, Laklng Lhe maLerlal as a whole appeals Lo prurlenL
lnLeresLs
o WheLher Lhe maLerlal deplcLs/descrlbes ln a paLenLly offenslve way
sexual conducL whlch ls speclflcally deflned and prohlblLed by Lhe
sLaLuLe
o WheLher Lhe work Laken as whole lacks serlous llLerary, arLlsLlc,
pollLlcal, sclenLlflc value.
CLLA8 Anu 8LSLn1 uAnCL8 LesL
o 1here musL be a clear and presenL danger Lo remove Lhe proLecLlon
of Lhe consLlLuLlon
o 1here musL be ob[ecLlve and convlnclng proof provlded by Lhe sLaLe



8C1P vs. US (1937)
8oLh was charged ln vlolaLlon of Lhe Callfornla enal SLaLuLe for lewdly keeplng for
sale obscene and lndecenL books.
SC 8teoooo, I.: CbscenlLy ls noL proLecLed by Lhe freedom of speech and press. lL ls
consldered as uLLerly wlLhouL any redeemlng soclal lmporLance. Also lL was held LhaL
such maLerlal and uLLerances are no essenLlal parL of any exposlLlon of ldeas LhaL any
beneflL LhaL may be derlved from such ls clearly ouLwelghed by Lhe soclal lnLeresL ln
order and morallLy. AffltmeJ.
1be kotb test. wbetbet to tbe ovetoqe petsoo, opplyloq cootempototy commoolty
stooJotJs tbe Jomlooot tbeme of tbe motetlol tokeo os o wbole oppeols to ptotleot
lotetests.

MILLLk vs. CALllC8nlA (1973)
Mlller conducLed a mass malllng campalgn Lo adverLlse Lhe sale of lllusLraLed books
or adulL" maLerlals.
SC 8otqet, I.: Lhe sLandards applled ln Memolrs would lnfrlnge Lhe freedom of
speech, Lhere could be no sLandard means Lo deLermlne Lhe uLLer absence of soclal
value, Lhus Lhe Mlller LesL. vocoteJ ooJ temooJeJ.
1be Mlllet test. wbetbet tbe wotk tokeo os wbole locks setloos lltetoty, ottlstlc,
polltlcol, scleotlflc voloe.

CCnZALLZ vs. kALAW kA1IG8Ak (1983)
1he movle kAl1 sa A1ALlM" was glven a raLlng by Lhe board of revlew of for
adulLs only." 1he peLlLloners assall LhaL Lhls ls a vlolaLlon of Lhelr consLlLuLlonal rlghL
Lo freedom of expresslon.
SC letoooJo, cI.: MoLlon plcLures are lmporLanL boLh as a medlum for Lhe
communlcaLlon of ldeas and expresslon of arLlsLlc lmpulse. 1helr effecLs on Lhe
percepLlon by Lhe people of lssues and publlc flgures as well as prevalllng culLural
LralLs are conslderable. 1he freedom of speech can only be llmlLed by showlng a clear
and presenL danger of a subsLanLlve evll LhaL Lhe sLaLe has a rlghL Lo prevenL.
CbscenlLy appllcable Lo moLlon plcLures, a less llberal approach calls for observance
because Lelevlslon ls far reachlng and chlldren are llkely Lo be exposed Lo
lnapproprlaLe maLerlal and Lhe sLaLe has a duLy Lo proLecL Lhe morallLy of Lhe publlc.

I1A vs. CA (1989)
1he clLy of Manlla sLarLed an anLl-smuL campalgn whlch selzed peLlLloner's magazlnes
on Lhe basls of Lhelr deLermlnaLlon LhaL Lhey were obscene.
SC 5otmleoto, I.: lmmoral lore or llLeraLure comes wlLhln Lhe amblL of free
expresslon. 1he proLecLlon can only be removed ln showlng LhaL Lhere ls a clear and
presenL danger LhaL would warranL SLaLe lnLerference and acLlon. 1he burden of
proof falls on Lhe auLhorlLles Lrylng Lo remove Lhe proLecLlon of Lhe consLlLuLlon.
1here musL be ob[ecLlve and convlnclng, noL sub[ecLlve or con[ecLural proof of Lhe
exlsLence of Lhe danger. CtooteJ.

8LnC vs. ACLU (1997)
1he CommunlcaLlons uecency AcL of 1996 crlmlnallzes Lhe knowlng" Lransmlsslon of
obscene or lndecenL messages Lo any reclplenL under 18. lL seeks Lo proLecL mlnors
from harmful maLerlals on Lhe lnLerneL.
SC 5teveos, I.: Lhe acL ls unconsLlLuLlonal as lL abrldges Lhe freedom of speech. lL falls
Lo provlde a sLandard Lo LesL whaL ls obscene and lndecenL glven Lhe naLure of Lhe
lnLerneL where lL covers dlfferenL communlLles wlLh very dlfferenL sLandards. 1he
lnLeresL of Lhe sLaLe Lo proLecL chlldren ls superseded by Lhe rlghL of a large amounL
of adulLs Lo recelve and send lnformaLlon. AffltmeJ.

ASnCkCI1 vs. ACLu (2002)
1he case ralses Lhe consLlLuLlonallLy of Lhe Chlld Cnllne roLecLlon AcL for belng
overbroad, and creaLlng an effecLlve ban on freedom of speech whlch ls noL Lhe leasL
resLrlcLlve means of accompllshlng a governmenL purpose.
SC: 1he communlLy sLandards requlred ls noL llmlLed Lo a geographlcal area. 1here ls
no need for a naLlonal sLandard as lL would be lmposslble Lo apply and would serve Lo
encroach upon Lhe rlghL Lo freedom of speech ln Lrylng Lo accommodaLe all polnL of
vlews lnLo one naLlonal sLandard.



v. CnUkCn AND S1A1L: 1nL WALL CI SLAkA1ICN

Ak1ICLL II-Dec|arat|on of r|nc|p|es and State o||c|es
5ectloo 6. 1he separaLlon of Church and SLaLe shall be lnvlolable.
Note. lo bls ceoteoolol lectote, ueoo ooteJ tbe blstoty of tbls sepototloo. 1be
telotloosblp of tbe cbotcb ooJ stote ls o stotleJ ooe ooJ tbe tlmes bove colleJ fot solJ
sepototloo. lt wos fltst lottoJoceJ lo tbe Mololos coostltotloo ooJ bos beeo cottleJ oo
lo tbe Jlffeteot coostltotloos of tbe coootty (temembet tbe coostl1 lessoos.)

Ak1ICLL III-8||| of k|ghts
5ectloo 5. no law shall be made respecLlng an esLabllshmenL of rellglon, or prohlblLlng Lhe free exerclse
Lhereof. 1he free exerclse and en[oymenL of rellglous professlon and worshlp, wlLhouL dlscrlmlnaLlon or
preference, shall forever be allowed. no rellglous LesL shall be requlred for Lhe exerclse of clvll or pollLlcal
rlghLs.
Note. 1bls ottlcle emboJles wbot ote colleJ tbe stobllsbmeot ooJ ltee xetclse
clooses. lo tbe sepotote Jlscossloos of botb toplcs, tbete moy be lostooces wbeo tbete
ls oo ovetlop. 1be test fot estobllsbmeot ls. (1) exlsteoce of o secolot leqlslotlve
potpose, (2) ptlmoty effect oeltbet oJvooces oot loblblts o tellqloo, ooJ (J) oo
excesslve eotooqlemeot by tbe qovetomeot wltb tellqloo. 1be test fot ftee exetclse ls
wbetbet ot oot tbete ls coetclve effect oo people to eltbet ptoctlce o tellqloo ot
loblblts tbem ftom tbelt ptoctlce of tbelt tellqloo. 1be exetclse of tellqloo ls two-folJ.
(1) bellevloq ooJ (2) octloq oo tbose bellefs. 1be fltst ooe ls boooJless os lt ls ooly lo
tbooqbts, tbe secooJ ooe moy be teqoloteJ opoo o sbowloq of o cleot ooJ pteseot
Jooqet of o sobstootlve evll tbot ls sooqbt to be ovolJeJ.

Ak1ICLL VI-1he Leg|s|at|ve Department
5ectloo 29(2). no publlc money or properLy shall be approprlaLed, applled, pald, or employed, dlrecLly or
lndlrecLly, for Lhe use, beneflL, or supporL of any secL, church, denomlnaLlon, secLarlan lnsLlLuLlon, or
sysLem of rellglon, or of any prlesL, preacher, mlnlsLer, oLher rellglous Leacher, or dlgnlLary as such, excepL
when such prlesL, preacher, mlnlsLer, or dlgnlLary ls asslgned Lo the armed forces, or Lo any pena|
|nst|tut|on, or government orphanage or |eprosar|um.
1be tole ls tbe fltst cloose, bot ueoo polots oot tbe exceptloo (lo bolJ). 1bls ls becoose
lo tbe exceptloos, tbe 5tote ls Joty-boooJ to toke oo tbe oecessoty costs to ollow tbe
petsoos tbetelo to fteely exetclse tbelt tellqloo. (xomple. ptlsooets coooot qo oot to
qo to beot moss, so tbe 5tote most covet tbe costs so tbot tbese ptlsooets moy
ptoctlce tbelt tellqloo.)

A. LsLabllshmenL Clause
A81lCLL lll-8lll of 8lghLs
5ectloo 5. No |aw sha|| be made respect|ng an estab||shment of re||g|on, or prohlblLlng Lhe free exerclse
Lhereof. 1he free exerclse and en[oymenL of rellglous professlon and worshlp, wlLhouL dlscrlmlnaLlon or
preference, shall forever be allowed. no rellglous LesL shall be requlred for Lhe exerclse of clvll or pollLlcal
rlghLs.

Agllpay vs. ku|z
lootel, I.. eLlLloner (head of Agllpayan Church) wanLed Lo prohlblL respondenL
(ulrecLor of osL) from lssulng a sLamp commemoraLlng Lhe 33
rd
lnLernaLlonal
LucharlsLlc Congress. 1he case dealL wlLh Lhe hlsLory and dlscussed Lhe naLure of clvll
and rellglous freedom people en[oy. 1he CourL held here LhaL Lhe sLamp was noL
acLually ln supporL of Lhe rellglon, buL lL merely commemoraLes Lhe facL LhaL an
lnLernaLlonal gaLherlng was golng Lo be held ln Manlla. 1he purpose of Lhe sLamp was
Lo adverLlse Lhe happenlng of such an evenL ln Lhe hlllpplnes and aLLracL LourlsLs. lL
was noL meanL Lo favor Lhe CaLhollc Church, so Lhere was no vlolaLlon of Lhe
esLabllshmenL clause. ueoleJ.

Carces v. Lstenzo
Apoloo, I.. ln celebraLlon of a Lown flesLa, Lhe barangay councll procured a wooden
lmage of a salnL. lunds Lo acqulre sald lmage was ralsed Lhru sollclLaLlons and cash
donaLlons. 1he resoluLlon was challenged, buL lL was held by Lhe CourL LhaL lL was
valld because Lhe prlmary purpose for Lhe acqulslLlon of Lhe lmage was noL for a
rellglous purpose. lL was acLually golng Lo be used for celebraLlon of Lhe Lown flesLa
and whaL was acqulred was Lhe lmage of Lhe Lown's paLron salnL. Moreover, Lhe
funds used were prlvaLe and noL publlc. ulsmlsseJ.
8ot tbe octloos of tbe cooocll wete oot teolly secolot. 1bey boJ tbe Jlsctetloo os to
wbot to ptocote ooJ bow to Jo lt. 1be cooocll boJ Jlsctetloo ooJ tbey cbose tbe
wooJeo lmoqe. 1bey eveo JeclJeJ to stott o fooJ-tolsloq compolqo to tbls effect.

Lemon v. kurLzman
8otqet, I.. 1hls was declded concurrenLly wlLh Larley v. ulCenso and 8oblnson v.
ulCenso. A law ln 8hode lsland, whlch wanLed Lo conLrol Lhe quallLy of non-publlc
school, provldes Lhe sLaLe shall pay of 13 exLra salary Lo non-publlc schools
Leachers. 1hese Leachers were supposed Lo Leach only secular sub[ecLs or else lose
Lhe beneflLs. Powever, lL was shown LhaL of Lhe non-publlc sLudenLs ln Lhe sLaLe (23
of all sLudenLs), 93 go Lo 8oman CaLhollc schools and LhaL all non-publlc
schoolLeachers who applled for Lhe beneflL all came from 8C schools. A ennsylvanla
law meanL Lo solve non-publlc school crlsls due Lo rlslng cosLs. lL relmbursed non-


publlc schools for expenses relaLed Lo Leacher's salarles Leachlng secular sub[ecLs and
LexLbooks on secular sub[ecLs.
1he 8hode lsland law was sLruck down for lL fosLered Loo much enLanglemenL
beLween Lhe governmenL and Lhe rellglous schools. 1he Lhree LesLs were lald down
here: (1) exlsLence of a secular leglslaLlve purpose, (2) prlmary effecL nelLher
advances nor lnhlblLs a rellglon, and (3) no excesslve enLanglemenL by Lhe
governmenL wlLh rellglon. Whlle Lhere may been secular purposes, Lhe arrangemenL
beLween Lhe governmenL and Lhe schools are noL clearly deflned and Lhe role of Lhe
Leachers as secular sub[ecL Leachers ls sLlll under Lhe conLrol of parochlal school
auLhorlLles (whlch Lended Lo vlolaLe Lhe second LesL). 1here would be sLaLe revlew of
Lhe schools acLlons and alLogeLher Lhls consLlLuLes excesslve enLanglemenL.
1he ennsylvanla sLaLuLe goes furLher by provldlng dlrecL flnanclal ald. 1here was a
valld leglslaLlve purpose, buL, agaln, lLs effecL cannoL be ascerLalned fully and lL
acLually Lended Lo favor Lhe parochlal schools. 1here was also excesslve
enLanglemenL beLween Lhe governmenL and Lhe schools as Lhere was a consLanL
need Lo accounL for Lhe expenses (flnanclally and for use ln secular sub[ecLs) Lo be
relmbursed. ln Lhe end, Lhe CourL noLed Lhe enLanglemenL lmplled ln Lhe laws Lended
Lo creaLe pollLlcal dlvlslveness. AffltmeJ.

8oard of LducaLlon v. A||en
wblte, I.. eLlLloners are assalllng a law LhaL requlred Lhe SLaLe Lo lend LexLbooks free
of charge Lo all school chlldren ln grades seven Lhrough Lwelve regardless of wheLher
Lhey aLLended publlc or prlvaLe schools. 1hey clalm LhaL Lhe books LhaL are loaned are
belng used by parochlal schools ln speclflc courses. 1he CourL applled Lhe Lverson
LesL and concluded LhaL Lhe law: (1) had a valld secular purpose and (2) dld noL
advance Leachlng of rellglon. As Lo Lhe secular purpose, Lhe law meanL Lo help
educaLlon of chlldren and lessen book expenses on parenLs, regardless of wheLher
Lhe chlld goes Lo a parochlal or publlc school. lL dld noL advance Leachlng of rellglon
because Lhe books were screened and only secular books recelved approval, lL was
noL shown how Lhe LexLbooks ln speclflc courses were supposedly used Lo Leach
rellglon. AffltmeJ.

CounLy of Allegheny v. ACLU
8lockmoo, I.. 1here were Lwo recurrlng dlsplays ln publlc properLy ln lLLsburgh. 1he
flrsL was a creche deplcLlng Lhe ChrlsLlan naLlvlLy scene, was placed on Lhe Crand
SLalrcase of Lhe Allegheny CourLhouse, whlch ls Lhe maln, mosL beauLlful, and mosL
publlc parL of Lhe courLhouse. 1he creche was donaLed by Lhe Poly name SocleLy, a
8oman CaLhollc group, and bore a slgn Lo LhaL effecL. 1he second was an 18-fooL
Chanukah menorah or candelabrum, whlch was placed [usL ouLslde Lhe ClLy CounLy
bulldlng nexL Lo Lhe clLy's 43-fooL ChrlsLmas Lree. AL Lhe fooL of Lhe Lree was a slgn
bearlng Lhe mayor's name and conLalnlng LexL declarlng Lhe clLy's saluLe Lo llberLy."
1he menorah ls owned by Chabad, a !ewlsh group, buL ls sLored, erecLed, and
removed each year by Lhe clLy.
eLlLloners here wlshed Lo en[oln Lhe use of Lhe dlsplays. 1he CourL applled Lhe
Lemon 1esL and concluded LhaL Lhe flrsL dlsplay was vlolaLed Lhe esLabllshmenL
clause and Lhe second dld noL. 1he flrsL dlsplay endorsed CaLhollclsm because of Lhe
naLlvlLy scene, Lhe lnscrlpLlon Clory Lo Cod," and Lhe facL LhaL Lhere was recognlLlon
LhaL a CaLhollc rellglous group owned lL. 1he second dlsplay dld noL speclflcally
endorse a rellglon buL merely recognlzed Lhe presence of dlverse groups ln Lhe clLy.
1he LexL declarlng saluLe Lo llberLy" sLrengLhened Lhls polnL.

Lynch v. uonnelly (1984)
8otqet, I.. ln Lhls case, Lhere was also a publlc dlsplay of creche. 1he courL here held
Lhe dlsplay Lo be valld. lL sald LhaL rellglous symbollsm may be used lf lL does noL
endorse a rellglous bellef and Lhls may be seen ln Lhe conLexL of lLs use. Pere, Lhe
creche was used alongslde non-rellglous flgure (llke SanLa). ln conLrasL Lo Lhe
prevlous case, Lhe dlsplay here was merely reflecLlng a symbol LhaL has come Lo be
assoclaLed wlLh Lhe holldays and lLs presenLaLlon does noL provlde lmporLance Lo a
parLlcular rellglous bellef. kevetseJ.

Lpperson v. Arkansas (1968)
lottos, I.. 1here ls an Arkansas law LhaL prohlblLs Leachers ln publlc schools Lo use
LexLbooks LhaL supporL Lhe ldea "LhaL manklnd ascended or descended from a lower
order of anlmals." 1here was a penalLy of dlsmlssal for vlolaLors. eLlLloner here was
a Leacher ln Lhe clLy of LlLLle 8ock, whlch used a book conLalnlng Lhe prohlblLed
lessons. eLlLloner Lhen assalled Lhe valldlLy of Lhe law, whlch was evenLually
declared lnvalld, as lL was noL neuLral. 1he Lverson LesL was applled and lL was
concluded LhaL Lhe law Lallored Lhe educaLlon of sLudenLs Lo prlnclples of a rellglon.
1he full range of lessons was llmlLed slmply because Lhe LeneLs of a rellglon were noL
ln llne wlLh lL. kevetseJ.

School ulsLrlcL v. Schempp (1963)
clotk, I.. A sLaLe rule requlred Lhe readlng of Len verses from Lhe Poly 8lble every
sLarL of Lhe day ln publlc schools. 8espondenL here ls Lhe faLher of one of Lhe chlldren
ln Lhe schools. Pe assalled Lhe rule, whlch was evenLually declared lnvalld. Whlle lL
may have Lhe secular purpose of lnsLllllng good morals, Lhe manner by whlch lL was
done was a hlghly rellglous acLlvlLy. 1he facL LhaL chlldren may be excused ls of no
momenL as Lhe pracLlce places Lhe non-pracLlLloners ln a dlsadvanLaged poslLlon


(Lhere may aLLach an lmage of excluslon and Lhe Lendency Lo be lndocLrlnaLed ls
presenL). kevetseJ.

Lnge| v. vlLale (1962)
8lock, I.. A new ?ork dlsLrlcL requlred Lhe reclLaLlon of a prayer every sLarL of classes
ln publlc schools. lL was reclLed by Lhe Leacher and [olnlng ln ls volunLary, Lhose who
choose noL Lo pray may [usL sLand sllenLly. lL was assalled by a group of parenLs. lL
was held LhaL Lhe non-compulsory naLure of Lhe prayers was sLlll a vlolaLlon of Lhe
esLabllshmenL clause. 1he sLaLe by [usL holdlng Lhe rellglous acLlvlLy, wheLher
enforced volunLarlly or noL, ls essenLlally endorslng a rellglon. kevetseJ.

1llLon v. k|chardson (1971)
8otqet, I.. ConnecLlcuL provlded consLrucLlon granLs Lo secLarlan schools. 1he
condlLlons were: LhaL Lhe bulldlngs on whlch Lhese granLs were Lo be used should
have non-secLarlan purpose and aL Lhe end of LwenLy years, Lhe schools may use Lhe
bulldlng for whaLever purpose. lL was held LhaL Lhe granLs were valld buL Lhe second
condlLlon was lnvalld. 1here was a secular purpose and Lhe prlmary effecL dld noL
advance any rellglon. 1he granLs were Lo colleges were sLudenLs are more skepLlcal
and less malleable. 1he goal of aldlng Lhe schools Lowards beLLer educaLlons ls meL.
1here ls also no excesslve enLanglemenL from Lhe sLaLe as lL ls [usL concerned wlLh
Lhe non-secular bulldlngs and noLhlng else. 1he second condlLlon was declared lnvalld
because when, aL Lhe end of LwenLy years, Lhe schools declde Lo use lL any way Lhey
wanL, publlc fund may be used for secular purposes Lhen. kemooJeJ.

8rother M|ke Ve|arde v. Soclal !usLlce SocleLy (2004)
looqoolboo, I.. 8espondenL here flled cases agalnsL rellglous leaders quesLlonlng Lhe
valldlLy of Lhelr endorsemenL of candldaLes and encouraglng Lhelr members Lo voLe a
parLlcular candldaLe. 1he courL merely shlrked from resolvlng Lhe lssue. 1hey sLruck
down an 81C declslon supporLlng Lhe respondenLs for a badly wrlLLen declslon and
Lhey ruled LhaL respondenL falled Lo sLaLe a valld cause of acLlon, as lL was noL able Lo
ldenLlfy any rlghL, whlch may have been vlolaLed. CtooteJ.

Newdow v. unlLed SLaLes Congress (2002-3)
eLlLloner's (an aLhelsL) daughLer aLLended a publlc school where Lhe pledge of
alleglance was reclLed dally for paLrloLlc reasons. no one ls compelled Lo reclLe lL buL
peLlLloner clalms LhaL lL harms her daughLer when she sees her Leachers and
classmaLes proclalm LhaL Lhere ls a Cod and LhaL Lhe naLlon ls under Cod. Applylng
Lhe Lemon 1esL, lL was held LhaL Lhe pledge vlolaLes Lhe esLabllshmenL clause. 1he
phrase under Cod" was speclflcally lnserLed for rellglous reasons and Lherefore
Lhere was no valld secular purpose for lL. kevetseJ ooJ temooJeJ.

G|assroth v. Moore (2003)
1bompsoo, I.. Moore was a member of Lhe Alabama Supreme CourL. Pe ls a known
rellglous bellever of Lhe 1en CommandmenLs. When a [udlclal bulldlng was
consLrucLed, he had a repllca of Lhe commandmenLs bullL ln lL. 1here were oLher
lnscrlpLlons on Lhe flgure buL Lhe commandmenLs were obvlously Lhe mosL
promlnenLly casL. 1he flgure became assoclaLed wlLh Lhe [udlclal bulldlng. lL was held
LhaL such a flgure does noL supporL a secular purpose, lL was hlghly rellglous ln naLure
and lL evoked an expllclL rellglous Lone.

MarLln v. Corporat|on of the res|d|ng 8|shop
1he Church of !esus ChrlsL of LaLLer-day SalnLs wanLed Lo consLrucL a sLeeple 83 feeL
ln helghL over lLs Lemple. 1hls vlolaLed zonlng resLrlcLlon LhaL provldes a maxlmum of
11 feeL. A board of appeals allowed Lhem Lo do so, buL a [udge nulllfled Lhe granLlng
of Lhe excepLlon. 1he Supreme CourL ruled LhaL lL was noL up Lo Lhe [udge Lo rule
wheLher Lhe sLeeple was an lnLegral parL of Lhe Lemple. 1he board found LhaL Lhe
sLeeple was lmporLanL for Lhe Mormons' and Lhere was no munlclpal concern LhaL
was vlolaLed.

8. lree Lxerclse Clause
Ak1ICLL III-8||| of k|ghts
5ectloo 5. no law shall be made respecLlng an esLabllshmenL of rellglon, or prohlblLlng the free exerc|se
thereof. 1he free exerc|se and en[oyment of re||g|ous profess|on and worsh|p, w|thout d|scr|m|nat|on or
preference, sha|| forever be a||owed. no rellglous LesL shall be requlred for Lhe exerclse of clvll or pollLlcal
rlghLs.

Amer|can 8|b|e Soc|ety v. ClLy of Manlla
lellx, I.. 8espondenL lssued an ordlnance requlrlng mayor's permlL and paymenL of
Laxes for a number of commerclal acLlvlLles. eLlLloner's acLs of selllng 8lbles came
under Lhe purvlew of Lhe ordlnance. 1hey assalled Lhe valldlLy of Lhe ordlnance. 1he
CourL ruled LhaL Lhe ordlnance ls valld because lL ls of general appllcaLlon Lo Lhe
buslness llsLed Lhere, buL lL ls noL appllcable Lo peLlLloners. 1he rlghL Lo free exerclse
of rellglon lncludes Lhe rlghL Lo dlssemlnaLe rellglous lnformaLlon. Where Lhere ls no
clear and presenL danger soughL Lo be avolded, Lhe resLralnL on peLlLloners musL fall.
lL ls lmmaLerlal wheLher or noL peLlLloner proflLs from Lhe sale of lLs holy book,
because Lhe fees lL pald and Lhe Laxes lL musL Lurn over amounL Lo prlor resLralnL on
Lhe free exerclse of rellglon. kevetseJ.



Cerona v. Secretary of Lducat|on
Mootemoyot, I.. A law made lL mandaLory Lo have flag ceremonles ln all educaLlonal
lnsLlLuLlons. eLlLloner ls a parenL of a chlld who goL expelled because of refusal Lo
saluLe Lhe flag, slng Lhe naLlonal anLhem and reclLe Lhe pledge of alleglance. 1he
refusal was due Lo rellglous bellef (!ehovah's WlLness). 1he CourL held here LhaL Lhe
flag ceremony was secular ln naLure. lLs purpose was Lo evoke paLrloLlsm ln Lhe
sLudenLs. lL sald LhaL Lhe rellglous ob[ecLlons had no place as Lhere was no pressure
on Lhelr rellglon nor was Lhere a rellglous LesL Lo Lhe acL. lL even menLloned LhaL
exempLlon of Lhe chlld would lead Lo dlsrupLlon as oLhers would also call for Lhe same
LreaLmenL. AffltmeJ.
lt took ovet tbltty yeots to set tbls tolloq oslJe.

Lbra||nag v. ulvlslon SuperlnLendenL
kopoooo, I.. 1he facLs ln Lhls case are slmllar Lo Lhe Cerona case. Pere Lhe CourL
reversed Lhe rullng ln Cerona. 1he Lwo fold exerclse of rellglon: (1) freedom Lo
bellevlng ls llmlLless as lL ls only ln LhoughLs, and (2) freedom Lo acLlng on one's
bellefs ls noL absoluLe. 1here musL exlsL a clear and presenL danger Lo warranL
curLallmenL of acLlons. ln Lhls case, Lhe mere sllence of people wlLh rellglous
ob[ecLlons does noL harm anyone. 1he secular purpose of paLrloLlsm may be achleved
ln some oLher way (by learnlng ln classroom) and lL ls noL valld Lo resLrlcL Lhelr
rellglous pracLlce for Lhe enforcemenL of Lhls alone. CtooteJ.

Newdow v. u.S. Congress (2002)
1he free exerclse aspecL of Lhls case perLalns Lo Lhe peLlLloner as a faLher. As an
aLhelsL, he wlshes Lo Leach hls bellefs Lo hls daughLer. 1he reclLlng of Lhe oaLh of
alleglance, whlch afflrms Lhe exlsLence of a Cod, runs counLer Lo whaL he Leaches hls
daughLer. 1here ls, Lherefore, a resLralnL on hls exerclse of hls bellefs. kevetseJ ooJ
temooJeJ.

Anucenslon v. NLU
Mokoslot, I.. Members of Lhe lnC lefL a labor unlon on accounL of a clrcular lssued by
Lhelr church, whlch prohlblLed [olnlng organlzaLlons or assoclaLlons. 1he unlon asked
Lhe Paclenda LulslLa Lo release from work Lhe members of Lhe lnC for vlolaLlon of
Lhelr collecLlve bargalnlng agreemenL. 1he unlon assalled 8A 3330, whlch proLecLed
workers from dlsmlssal due Lo Lhelr rellglous bellef of non-afflllaLlon wlLh any unlon.
1he CourL ruled LhaL 8A 3330 was consLlLuLlonal because Lhere was a valld purpose Lo
Lhe law. 1he rlghL Lo [oln a unlon also lncludes Lhe rlghL noL Lo [oln a unlon. 1he
concepL of closed shops" was dlscussed (where managemenL negoLlaLes wlLh labor
unlons and Lhe agreemenLs are blndlng upon all members of Lhe unlon). 8A 3330
provlded a remedy for workers who may wanL Lo exerclse Lhelr rlghL noL Lo assoclaLe
concurrenLly wlLh Lhelr rlghL Lo free exerclse of rellglon. 1here ls noLhlng ln Lhe law
LhaL prohlblLs or enforces assoclaLlon, lL only provldes Lhe excepLlon Lo Lhe rule.
CtooteJ.

Ig|es|a N| Cr|sto v. CA
looo, I.. eLlLloner runs a Lelevlslon program LhaL ls hlghly crlLlcal of oLher rellglons.
M18C8 dlrecLed Lhem Lo submlL coples of Lhelr Laped programs. Some eplsodes were
marked x," whlch meanL Lhey cannoL be shown on alr for Lhe reason LhaL lL aLLacks
oLher rellglons. 1he CourL afflrmed M18C8's power Lo revlew all Lelevlslon programs
buL lL reversed Lhe CA declslon LhaL supporLed M18C8's move. 1he CourL explalned
LhaL Lhe aLLacks were mere crlLlclsms of oLher rellglons, Lhere was no clear and
presenL danger LhaL would be avolded and Lherefore Lhe acL of flagglng Lhe programs
amounLed Lo prlor resLralnL on peLlLloner's rlghL Lo free exerclse of rellglon. lottly
qtooteJ.

am|| v. 1eleron (1996)
letoooJo, I.. A prlesL was elecLed munlclpal mayor. eLlLloner here challenged Lhe
valldlLy of Lhe prlesL's holdlng of Lhe poslLlon, clLlng a provlslon ln Lhe 1917
AdmlnlsLraLlve Code. 1haL provlslon prohlblLs eccleslasLlcs from holdlng publlc
poslLlon. Ma[orlLy of Lhe members of Lhe CourL held LhaL Lhe provlslon of Lhe
admlnlsLraLlve code was repealed by Lhe 1933 ConsLlLuLlon lL was expllclLly sald LhaL
no rellglous LesL shall be made for exerclse of pollLlcal or clvll rlghLs. Powever, Lhere
were noL enough voLes Lo declare Lhe admlnlsLraLlve code lnvalld. kevetseJ.

McDan|e| v. aLy
8otqet, I.. eLlLloner was an ordalned mlnlsLer and ran for a poslLlon ln a
consLlLuLlonal convenLlon (1ennessee). 8espondenL here challenged Mcuanlel's
runnlng, lnvoklng Lhe resLrlcLlon on mlnlsLers Lo quallfy for publlc offlce. 1he Supreme
CourL ruled LhaL Lhe law resLrlcLlng Lhe mlnlsLers resLrlcLed Lhe rlghLs of sald
mlnlsLers. 1hey were made Lo choose beLween Lhelr rlghL Lo free exerclse of rellglon
and Lhelr pollLlcal rlghLs, as Lhe exerclse of one meanL Lhe rellnqulshlng of Lhe oLher.
kevetseJ.

Cerman v. 8arangan
eLlLloners were members of Lhe AugusL 1wenLy-Cne MovemenL and soughL Lo hear
mass aL Lhe SL. !ude Chapel, whlch was ad[olnlng Malacanang alace. 8espondenLs
were offlcers who sLopped peLlLloners from golng Lo Lhe chapel. 1he CourL ruled LhaL
Lhe peLlLloners' rlghL Lo free exerclse of rellglon was noL vlolaLed. 1here was a


compelllng lnLeresL soughL Lo be proLecLed, whlch was Lo secure Lhe presldenL and
hls famlly. 1he peLlLloners' acLlons (clenched flsLs) and wearlng of yellow shlrLs are
lndlcaLlve of an lnLeresL oLher Lhan Lo slmply hear mass. 1he resLrlcLlon was
reasonable glven Lhese clrcumsLances. !usLlce 1eehankee dlssenLed and malnLalned
LhaL a prlor resLralnL on free exerclse should be based on Lhe clear and presenL
danger LesL, whlch was noL proven ln Lhls case. ueoleJ.

Cantwe|| v. ConnecLlcuL
kobetts, I.. eLlLloners and hls sons wenL Lo ConnecLlcuL Lo promoLe Lhe message of
!ehovah's WlLnesses. 1here was a law requlrlng a llcense Lo be procured flrsL before
one may sollclL funds or dlsLrlbuLe maLerlals for rellglous causes. eLlLloners dld noL
apply for such a llcense clalmlng lL was beyond Lhe governmenL's auLhorlLy Lo cerLlfy
wheLher or noL !ehovah's WlLness ls a rellglon. 1hey proselyLlzed ln a ChrlsLlan
nelghborhood and peLlLloner was subsequenLly convlcLed under LhaL law. Powever,
Lhe Supreme CourL sLruck down Lhe law as lL amounLed Lo prlor resLralnL on exerclse
of rellglon. Whlle Lhere may be a sLaLe lnLeresL ln regulaLlon of rellglous acLs, Lhls can
only be grounded upon a showlng of clear and presenL danger LhaL ls soughL Lo be
avolded. 1he facL LhaL Lhe peLlLloners annoyed some people when Lhey preached dld
noL pose a clear and presenL danger. And Lhe requlremenL of sLaLe approval for such
an exerclse was obvlously a prlor resLralnL on Lhe free exerclse of rellglon, Lhe sLaLe ln
Lhls lnsLance essenLlally provldes condlLlons before people may acL on Lhelr rellglous
bellefs. kevetseJ.

CommonwealLh v. 1w|tche|| (1993)
wllklos, I.. uefendanLs were ChrlsLlan SclenLlsLs (SclenLology) who also came from
famllles ln Lhe same rellglon. 1helr daughLer dled of compllcaLlons, whlch could have
been avolded by surglcal procedures. 1helr rellglon allowed only Lhe use of
LreaLmenLs by splrlLual means only. 1he CourL ruled LhaL generally Lhere ls a parenLal
duLy Lo provlde medlcal care for chlldren. lf Lhelr acLlon ls wanLon or so reckless ln
denylng such a medlcal care, even splrlLual LreaLmenL provlslons wlll noL bar
prosecuLlon for crlmlnal offenses. Powever, Lhe facLual clrcumsLances of Lhls case
need more problng as Lo Lhe defendanLs' accounL of Lhelr founded bellef LhaL Lhey
would noL have crlmlnal llablllLy when Lhey slmply used splrlLual LreaLmenLs, whlch
Lhey based on an oplnlon of Lhe aLLorney-general and a church publlcaLlon provldlng
LhaL advlce. kevetseJ.

Cass|us C|ay a.k.a. Muhammad A|| v. unlLed SLaLes (1971)
let cotlom. eLlLloner was belng drafLed lnLo Lhe armed forces for Lhe vleLnam War.
Pe requesLed Lo be classlfled as a consclenLlous ob[ecLor on accounL of rellglous
bellefs. 1he LesLs for consclenLlous ob[ecLlon are: (1) LhaL Lhere ls opposlLlon Lo war ln
any form, (2) LhaL Lhls opposlLlon ls based on rellglous bellef and Lralnlng and (3) LhaL
Lhls opposlLlon ls slncere. lnvesLlgaLlons were done and Lhere was a recommendaLlon
cerLlfylng hlm as a consclenLlous ob[ecLor. 1he Supreme CourL ruled LhaL All's
ob[ecLlons were based on hls Musllm bellefs and LhaL Lhey were slncere. 1he forclble
enllsLmenL ln Lhe armed forces when lL ls already no longer a facLual lssue LhaL he has
slncere rellglous bellefs agalnsL Lhe war wlll amounL Lo a resLrlcLlon on hls free
exerclse of hls rellglous bellefs. AcpoltteJ.

LsLrada v. Lscr|tor (2003)
looo, I.. eLlLloner requesLed LhaL respondenL, a courL lnLerpreLer, be lnvesLlgaLed
for lmmoral conducL. 1he facLs were noL dlspuLed: LhaL respondenL was llvlng wlLh a
man noL her husband and LhaL Lhey have a son. 8espondenL seL up Lhe defense of
free exerclse of rellglon. She sald LhaL her cohablLaLlon wlLh her parLner was valld
under Lhelr rellglon, Lhe !ehovah's WlLness. 1he CourL here wenL lnLo deLall regardlng
Lhe naLure of Lhe separaLlon of church and sLaLe. lL found LhaL Lhere was benevolenL
neuLrallLy adopLed by Lhe sLaLe, on accounL of Lhe llllplno people's rellgloslLy. 8uL Lhe
sLaLe's lnLeresL musL be addressed. 1he CourL sLressed LhaL Lhe LesL for overrldlng a
free exerclse of rellglon musL be grounded on subsLanLlal sLaLe lnLeresL -LhaL ls
wheLher or noL Lhere ls a sLaLe lnLeresL subsLanLlal enough Lo merlL en[olnmenL of an
acLlon rellglous ln naLure or based on rellglous bellefs. ln Lhls case, Lhe CourL
remanded Lhe case back Lo CCA for: (1) deLermlnaLlon of respondenL's slncerlLy and
cenLrallLy of rellglon ln her llfe (wheLher she really was a devouL !ehovah's WlLness),
(2) show wheLher Lhe lnLeresL soughL Lo be malnLalned (hlgh moral sLandards ln Lhe
[udlclary) ls compelllng enough Lo overrlde respondenL's rlghL and (3) show LhaL Lhe
means Lhe sLaLe adopLs ls Lhe leasL resLrlcLlve on respondenL's rlghLs. ulsmlsseJ.

C. unusual 8ellglous 8ellefs and racLlce

Wlsconsln v. oder
8otqet, I.. 1here was a law ln Wlsconsln requlrlng parenLs Lo send Lhelr chlldren Lo
school. lLs goal was Lo ensure educaLlon for all, whlch would ln Lurn be beneflclal Lo
socleLy. uefendanLs were members of Lhe Amlsh rellglon. 1hey clalmed LhaL Lhe
sendlng of Lhelr chlldren Lo school wlll undermlne Lhelr rellglous bellef and expose
Lhelr chlldren Lo worldly lnfluences, whlch Lhelr rellglon prohlblLs. 1hey seek an
exempLlon from Lhe law on accounL of Lhelr bellefs. 1he Supreme CourL held LhaL Lhe
defendanLs should be exempLed. lL was esLabllshed ln Lhe case LhaL Lhe Amlsh
chlldren's non-aLLendance wlll noL adversely affecL Lhem. 1here was a real LhreaL Lo
Lhe chlldren's Amlsh bellefs lf Lhey are forclbly senL Lo school along wlLh oLher


chlldren. 1he sLaLe's lnLeresL was also noL abandoned when granLlng Lhe exempLlon.
lL was also shown LhaL Lhe Amlsh chlldren were learnlng llvellhood acLlvlLles and Lhey
wlll noL become burdens on socleLy because Lhelr lack of a compleLe educaLlon wlll
noL be counLer-producLlve Lo Lhem.

u.S. v. 8a||ard
uooqlos, I.. uefendanLs were convlcLed of consplrlng and uslng malls for fraud. 1he
charge was LhaL Lhe l Am movemenL used false represenLaLlon ln dlsLrlbuLlng
llLeraLure Lo sollclL funds and membershlp. 1hey clalmed dlvlne enLlLles LransmlLLed
Lhelr word Lhrough Lhem and LhaL Lhey were able Lo cure people from lncurable
dlseases. 1he lssue here was wheLher Lhe CourLs may quesLlon Lhe valldlLy of Lhelr
clalms (afLer all lL cannoL be proved or dlsproved). 1he courL ruled ln Lhe negaLlve and
sald LhaL all LhaL should have been quesLloned was wheLher Lhey acLed ln good falLh
(freedom Lo belleve ls absoluLe, buL acLlng on lL LhaL bellef musL be regulaLed). 1here
was a sLrong dlssenL saylng Lhe bar Lo quesLlon Lhelr clalms ls ln effecL an un[usL
LreaLmenL of a posslble crlmlnal acLlvlLy. kevetseJ.

u.S. v. Seeger (1963)
clotk, I.. 1hls case was resolved wlLh Lwo oLher defendanLs (!acobson and eLer) who
were convlcLed on Lhe same grounds as Seeger. uefendanLs here were convlcLed for
refuslng Lo be lnducLed lnLo Lhe armed forces. All of Lhem dld noL have a parLlcular
rellglon. Seeger clalmed he was a consclenLlous ob[ecLor, consclenLlously ob[ecLlng
war ln any form because of hls rellglous bellefs. Pe had an eLhlcal creed of bellef and
devoLlon Lo goodness and vlrLue. Pe lefL Lhe quesLlon of bellef ln a Supreme 8elng
open, buL dld noL dlsmlss lL. !akobson clalmed LhaL hls bellefs were LhaL no man's llfe
should ever be sacrlflced as a means Lo an end. eLer sald he consldered golng Lo war
a vlolaLlon on hls moral code. ln resolvlng Lhls case, Lhe CourL sald LhaL Lhere was no
parLlcular rellglon favored Lo be granLed exempLlons. lL was noL for Congress Lo
lmpuLe sLandards on a rellglon dlfferenL for oLhers. So Lhe LesL Lhe courL used was:
does Lhe clalmed bellef occupy Lhe same place ln Lhe llfe of Lhe ob[ecLor as an
orLhodox bellef ln Cod holds ln Lhe llfe of one clearly quallfled for exempLlon? uslng
Lhls LesL, Lhe CourL exoneraLed all defendanLs. Seeger's bellef was found Lo be cenLral
Lo hls llfe and he was slncere ln pracLlclng sald bellef. !akobson's bellef was found Lo
be slmllar Lo a bellef ln a Supreme 8elng. And eLer's bellefs were also found Lo be
cenLral ln hls llfe. kevetseJ/AffltmeJ.

v|. ACADLMIC IkLLDCM

academlc freedom may be sald Lo be analogous Lo rellglous freedom
o rellglous freedom
" eplsLemologlcally, beyond any morLal or morLal creaLlon (Lhe SLaLe)
Lo deLermlne
" Lhe SLaLe backs off, absenL any compelllng lnLeresL Lo lnLervene
o academlc freedom
" acLually, several noLches lower Lhan rellglous freedom
" academlc experLlse, knowledge, ls beyond Lhe SLaLe's powers Lo
lmpose on or lnLerfere wlLh

Art|c|e kIV - Lducat|on, Sc|ence and 1echno|ogy, Arts, Cu|ture, and Sports
5ectloo 1. 1he SLaLe shall proLecL and promoLe Lhe rlghL of all clLlzens Lo quallLy educaLlon aL all levels and
shall Lake approprlaLe sLeps Lo make such educaLlon accesslble Lo all.
5ectloo 5(2). Academlc freedom shall be en[oyed ln all lnsLlLuLlons of hlgher learnlng.

Carcla v. Iacu|ty Adm|ss|on Comm|ttee, Loyo|a Schoo| of 1heo|ogy (1973)
eLlLloner Lplcharls Carcla seeks Lo compel respondenL Lo allow her re-admlsslon Lo
Lhe school.
letoooJo, I., held LhaL respondenL may noL be compelled Lo admlL peLlLloner, as
respondenL has no clear duLy Lo her. llrsLly, Lhe Loyola School of 1heology ls a
semlnary for Lhe prlesLhood, obvlously, peLlLloner wlll noL quallfy Lo sLudy Lhere,
belng a lay person and a woman. And even on Lhe assumpLlon LhaL she ls quallfled,
Lhere ls sLlll no duLy on Lhe parL of respondenL Lo admlL her, slnce Lhe school clearly
has Lhe dlscreLlon Lo Lurn down even quallfled appllcanLs due Lo llmlLaLlons of
faclllLles, professors, eLc. and oLher llke conslderaLlons. eLlLloner only possesses a
prlvllege, noL a clear legal rlghL wlLh a correlaLlve duLy on Lhe parL of respondenL Lo
respecL such rlghL. 1here ls also Lhe recognlLlon ln Lhe ConsLlLuLlon of lnsLlLuLlons of
hlgher learnlng en[oylng academlc freedom. Academlc freedom does noL only mean
Lhe rlghL of a faculLy member Lo pursue sLudles ln hls parLlcular speclalLy and publlsh
Lhese wlLhouL fear of reLrlbuLlon should hls concluslons be found dlsLasLeful or
ob[ecLlonable Lo auLhorlLles. As Lhe ConsLlLuLlonal provlslon menLlons lnsLlLuLlons of
hlgher learnlng," lL follows LhaL Lhe school/college lLself ls possessed of such a rlghL.
lL decldes for lLself lLs alms and ob[ecLlves and how besL Lo aLLaln Lhem, free from
ouLslde coerclon or lnLerference, save only when Lhe overrldlng publlc welfare calls
for some resLralnL. An lnsLlLuLlon of hlgher learnlng has Lhe freedom Lo deLermlne for
lLself on academlc grounds who may Leach, whaL may be LaughL, how lL shall be
LaughL, and who may be admlLLed Lo sLudy.
Mokoslot, I., Jlsseot, sLaLes LhaL Lhe academlc freedom Lhus guaranLeed ls noL llmlLed


Lo members of Lhe faculLy or Lo Lhe admlnlsLraLors of Lhe educaLlonal lnsLlLuLlon, lL
should also be deemed granLed ln favor of Lhe sLudenL body. 1he educaLlonal
lnsLlLuLlon ls permlLLed by Lhe SLaLe Lo exlsL and operaLe for Lhe beneflL of lLs
sLudenLs. Also, an lndlvldual has a naLural and lnherenL rlghL Lo learn and develop hls
faculLles, whlch should be recognlzed and respecLed noL only by Lhe SLaLe buL also by
enLerprlses auLhorlzed by Lhe SLaLe Lo operaLe. WhaL ls lnvolved here ls noL merely
academlc freedom of Lhe hlgher lnsLlLuLlons of learnlng, buL sLrlkes aL Lhe broader
freedom of expresslon of Lhe lndlvldual - Lhe very core of human llberLy. 1he sLudenL
musL noL be resLralned from ralslng quesLlons or from challenglng Lhe valldlLy of
dogmas, Lhe happlness and full developmenL of Lhe lnLellecL of Lhe sLudenL are
proLecLed by Lhe narrow guaranLee of academlc freedom and more so by Lhe broader
rlghL of free expresslon. eLlLloner has a clear legal rlghL, and respondenLs have Lhe
equally clear duLy of permlLLlng her Lo conLlnue sLudylng Lheology. ulsmlsseJ.

Isabe|o Ir. v. erpeLual Pelp College of 8lzal (1993)
eLlLloner ManuellLo lsabelo, !r. seeks Lo compel Lhe respondenL ueparLmenL of
LducaLlon, CulLure, and SporLs (uLCS) Lo lmplemenL lLs order dlrecLlng respondenL
erpeLual Pelp College Lo re-admlL hlm as a senlor graduaLlng sLudenL.
vltoq, I., held LhaL lL ls Lrue LhaL ln Lhe exerclse of Lhe rlghL of academlc freedom,
admlsslon Lo an lnsLlLuLlon of hlgher learnlng ls dlscreLlonary upon Lhe school and
LhaL such an admlsslon ls a mere prlvllege, raLher Lhan a rlghL, on Lhe parL of Lhe
sLudenL. Llke any oLher rlghL, however, academlc freedom has never been meanL Lo
be an unabrldged llcense, lL assumes a correlaLlve duLy Lo exerclse lL responslbly. 1he
conLracL beLween Lhe sLudenL and Lhe school ls one lmbued wlLh publlc lnLeresL, a
sLudenL has a rlghL Lo be enrolled for Lhe enLlre perlod requlred ln order Lo compleLe
hls course. ln Lhe lnsLanL case, lL seems LhaL Lhe prlnclpal reason of prlvaLe
respondenL college ln dropplng peLlLloner from lLs roll of sLudenLs was hls fallure Lo
compleLe some remalnlng unlLs ln Lhe CM1 course. Pe was unceremonlously
dropped when Lhe semesLer was abouL Lo end. 1hough he Look a speclal Lralnlng
durlng Lhe sem break and was able Lo pass, Lhe college sLlll refused Lo glve hlm LhaL
accredlLaLlon, lnslsLlng LhaL he had by Lhen ceased Lo be a sLudenL of Lhe college. 1he
CourL wlll noL heslLaLe Lo acL when a LalnL of arblLrarlness ls percelved ln Lhe exerclse
of dlscreLlon - Lhe punlshmenL of expulslon ls dlsproporLlonaLe Lo havlng had some
unlL deflclencles ln Lhe CM1 course. 8uL Lhere remalns an admlnlsLraLlve
deLermlnaLlon Lo be resolved wlLh flnallLy by Lhe uLCS wheLher peLlLloner really
deserves Lo be ln Lhe senlor class or has a number of school deflclencles Lo overcome.
lor a wrlL of mandamus Lo lssue, a peLlLloner musL have a clear legal rlghL Lo Lhe
Lhlng demanded, and Lhere should be an lmperaLlve duLy of a respondenL Lo perform
Lhe acL soughL Lo be mandaLed.
8eyes v. Court of Appea|s (1991)
uean MarlLa 8eyes of Lhe unlverslLy of Lhe hlllpplnes College of Medlclne (uCM)
and oLher peLlLloners/members of Lhe faculLy of Lhe uCM assall Lhe order of Lhe u
8oard of 8egenLs (8C8) orderlng Lhem Lo admlL respondenL-sLudenLs, who had
obLalned grades above Lhe 70 passlng mark ln Lhe nMA1, Lo Lhe College of
Medlclne.
MeJllJeo, I., held LhaL peLlLloners may be compelled Lo admlL respondenL-sLudenLs
pursuanL Lo Lhe order of Lhe 8C8. 1he powers vesLed ln Lhe 8C8 by Lhe u CharLer
lncludes Lhe governance and admlnlsLraLlon of Lhe unlverslLy sysLem, whlle Lhe
powers vesLed ln Lhe unlverslLy Councll lnclude Lhe power Lo flx Lhe admlsslon
requlremenLs Lo any college ln Lhe unlverslLy. 1he unlverslLy Code granLs Lo Lhe
College laculLy Lhe power Lo deLermlne enLrance requlremenLs of Lhe parLlcular
college, sub[ecL Lo Lhe approval of Lhe auLonomous uC. AL Lhe Llme Lhe respondenL-
sLudenLs Look Lhe nMA1, Lhe uCM laculLy prescrlbed an nMA1 cuL-off score of 90
as a condlLlon for admlsslon, wlLhouL Lhe approval of Lhe uC - Lhus maklng lL lnvalld.
Slnce Lhe faculLy-prescrlbed 90 percenLlle cuL-off score was lnefflcaclous, Lhe
sLudenLs have Lhe rlghL Lo sLay ln Lhe college as Lhey had meL Lhe cuL-off score of 70
prevlously lmposed by Lhe uC. Also, Lhe 8C8 only exerclsed lLs power of governance
and lLs duLy Lo see Lo lL LhaL all Lhe unlLs ablde wlLh Lhe law, unlverslLy rules and
regulaLlons, lL dld noL assume a power lL dld noL have ln Lhe flrsL place. 1he 8C8 dld
noL lmplnge on Lhe uCM faculLy's academlc freedom because Lhelr rlghLs as
unlverslLy Leachers remaln unaffecLed, lL only soughL Lo correcL Lhe acL of peLlLloners
whlch was clearly ouL of Lhelr [urlsdlcLlon Lo effecL.
closs ootes
ls tbete teolly o vollJ oJmlssloo?
o tbe stoJeots wete ooly oJmltteJ by vlttoe of o tempototy testtololoq
otJet lssoeJ by tbe k1c
" opoo expltotloo, tbey wete tecbolcolly oo looqet stoJeots

unlverslLy of Lhe hlllpplnes v. Court of Appea|s (1993)
eLlLloner unlverslLy of Lhe hlllpplnes assalls Lhe rullng of Lhe CourL of Appeals
denylng lLs moLlon Lo dlsmlss Lhe complalnL agalnsL professors 8allen and Salazar
who had made clalms regardlng Lhe 1asaday Lrlbe.
8omero, !., held LhaL Lhe CourL of Appeals correcLly denled Lhe peLlLlon of u. u
conLends LhaL Lhe allegaLlons ln Lhe complalnL regardlng Lhe acLs and sLaLemenLs of
Lhe Lwo professors are proLecLed by Lhe lnsLlLuLlonal academlc freedom of u and
are Lherefore prlvlleged communlcaLlons. 8uL Lhe Lrlal courL and Lhe CourL of Appeals
correcLly ruled LhaL u had no common cause of acLlon wlLh Lhe professors, Lhere ls
no rlghL or lnLeresL of Lhe peLlLloner allegedly affecLed by Lhe complalnL slmply


because lL was noL an orlglnal defendanL. 1he complalnL dld noL show LhaL u
auLhorlzed Lhe professors Lo conducL a sLudy, or Lo publlclze Lhelr flndlngs abroad.
1haL ls noL Lo say LhaL u's lnLervenLlon was lmproper, ln facL, lL proved Lo be
evenLually necessary. lL had Lo prove LhaL Lhe alleged damaglng acLs and uLLerances
of Lhe professors were clrcumscrlbed by Lhe prlnclple of academlc freedom.
Powever, lL oughL Lo have champloned Lhelr cause ln Lhe course of Lhe Lrlal of Lhe
case, noL Lo aborL Lhe proceedlngs aL lLs lncepLlon. noLwlLhsLandlng Lhe procedural
lapse, peLlLloner may sLlll lnLervene durlng Lhe Lrlal and lnvoke and prove Lhe defense
of lnsLlLuLlonal academlc freedom and ln Lhe process, lnvoke and dwell upon Lhe
lndlvldual academlc freedom of lLs faculLy members.

DLCS v. San ulego (1989)
rlvaLe respondenL 8oberLo 8ey San ulego assalls Lhe rule found ln MLCS Crder no.
12, Serles of 1972 LhaL a sLudenL shall be allowed only 3 chances Lo Lake Lhe nMA1,
afLer Lhree successlve fallures, he shall noL be allowed Lo Lake Lhe nMA1 agaln.
8espondenL [udge ruled LhaL San ulego had been deprlved of hls rlghL Lo pursue a
medlcal educaLlon Lhrough and arblLrary exerclse of pollce power.
ctoz, I., held LhaL Lhe MLCS Crder was a lawful exerclse of pollce power, and so Lhe
uLCS may noL be compelled Lo allow prlvaLe respondenL Lo Lake Lhe nMA1 agaln.
1he academlc preparaLlon of an appllcanL may be gauged by Lhe Lhree-flunk rule," a
valld regulaLlon of Lhe medlcal professlon. 1he regulaLlon ls a valld exerclse of Lhe
pollce power, as lL ls Lhe rlghL and Lhe responslblllLy of Lhe SLaLe Lo lnsure LhaL Lhe
medlcal professlon ls noL lnfllLraLed by lncompeLenLs Lo whom paLlenLs may enLrusL
Lhelr llves and healLh. 1he meLhod employed by Lhe challenged regulaLlon was for a
lawful purpose and was noL oppresslve or arblLrary. Whlle every person ls enLlLled Lo
asplre Lo be a docLor, he does noL have a consLlLuLlonal rlghL Lo be a docLor. 1hls ls
Lrue of any oLher professlon ln whlch Lhe publlc lnLeresL ls lnvolved, a person cannoL
lnslsL on belng a physlclan lf he wlll be menace Lo hls paLlenLs. 1he rlghL Lo quallLy
educaLlon lnvoked by Lhe prlvaLe respondenL ls noL absoluLe. 1he ConsLlLuLlon also
provldes LhaL every clLlzen has Lhe rlghL Lo choose a professlon or a course of sLudy,
sub[ecL Lo falr, reasonable, and equlLable admlsslon and academlc requlremenLs."
rlvaLe respondenL musL yleld and glve way Lo Lhose beLLer prepared. lL ls noL
enough Lo slmple lnvoke Lhe rlghL Lo a quallLy educaLlon, one musL show LhaL he ls
enLlLled Lo lL because of hls preparaLlon and promlse.

1ablarln v. Gut|errez (1987)
eLlLloners, ln Lhelr behalf and ln behalf of all appllcanLs for admlsslon lnLo medlcal
colleges who have noL Laken or successfully passed Lhe nMA1, assall Lhe requlremenL
of Laklng Lhe nMA1 as a condlLlon Lo be ellglble for admlsslon lnLo medlcal schools.
lellclooo, I., held LhaL Lhe requlremenL of Laklng Lhe nMA1 as a condlLlon for
ellglblllLy for enrollmenL lnLo a medlcal school ls a valld exerclse of pollce power. 1he
SLaLe ls noL llLerally en[olned by Lhe ConsLlLuLlon Lo Lake approprlaLe sLeps Lo make
quallLy educaLlon accesslble Lo all who wlsh Lo enroll ln a professlonal school buL
raLher merely Lo make such educaLlon accesslble Lo all who quallfy under falr,
reasonable, and equlLable admlsslon and academlc requlremenLs. 1he sLaLuLes and
resoluLlons prescrlblng Lhe nMA1 consLlLuLe a valld exerclse of Lhe pollce power of
Lhe SLaLe. 1he regulaLlon of Lhe pracLlce of medlclne ls a reasonable meLhod of
proLecLlng Lhe healLh and safeLy of Lhe publlc. 1he power Lo regulaLe and conLrol Lhe
pracLlce of medlclne lncludes Lhe power Lo regulaLe admlsslon Lo Lhe ranks of Lhose
auLhorlzed Lo pracLlce medlclne. SLaLuLes and regulaLlons requlrlng Lhose who wlsh
Lo pracLlce medlclne Lo compleLe and pass prescrlbed courses ln a recognlzed medlcal
school and Lo Lake and pass medlcal board examlnaLlons are recognlzed Lo be a valld
exerclse of Lhe regulaLory auLhorlLy of Lhe SLaLe. 1he regulaLlon of access Lo medlcal
schools, by prescrlblng Lhe nMA1, ls relaLed Lo such recognlzed and accepLed
regulaLlons. 1he nMA1 ls reasonably relaLed Lo Lhe securlng of Lhe ulLlmaLe end of
leglslaLlon and regulaLlon ln Lhe medlcal fleld, lL ls for Lhe lmprovemenL of Lhe
professlonal and Lechnlcal quallLy of graduaLes of medlcal schools, and ulLlmaLely, Lhe
proLecLlon of Lhe publlc from Lhe poLenLlally deadly effecLs of lncompeLence and
lgnorance ln Lhose who would underLake Lo LreaL people's bodles and mlnds for
dlsease or Lrauma.
closs ootes
wbot lotetests woolJ be setveJ by tbe NMA1, J-flook tole?
o lotetest of tbe scbool lo teocbloq, speoJloq oo ooly tbose JeemeJ
wottby - to moxlmlze tesootces
o 1o wlooow oot (poteotlol) locompeteot Joctots

Non v. !udge uames (1990), sopto.
Alcuaz v. S8A (1988), sopto.
See arL ll.



v||. rotected IN1LkLS1S IN LI8Lk1

A. nonlmpalrmenL of CbllgaLlons of ConLracLs
Art|c|e III
5ectloo 10. no law lmpalrlng Lhe obllgaLlon of conLracLs shall be passed.
C|v|| Code Art|c|e 1306: 1he conLracLlng parLles may esLabllsh such sLlpulaLlons,
clauses, Lerms and condlLlons as Lhey may deem convenlenL, provlded Lhey are noL
conLrary Lo law, morals, good cusLoms, publlc order, or publlc pollcy.

1he acL of lmpalrmenL ls anyLhlng whlch dlmlnlshes Lhe value of Lhe conLracL. 1he
leglslaLure may, however, change Lhe remedy or may prescrlbe new modes of
procedure. 1he change does noL lmpalr Lhe obllgaLlon of conLracLs so long as anoLher
remedy, [usL as efflcaclous, ls provlded for Lhe adequaLe enforcemenL of Lhe rlghLs
under Lhe conLracL. (Manlla 1radlng Co v. 8eyes, 1933)

1o valldly lmpalr conLracLs
1. 1here musL be an emergency whlch warranLs Lhe enacLmenL of Lhe law
2. 1he sLaLuLe musL address a leglLlmaLe need, Lhe proLecLlon of a baslc
lnLeresL of socleLy
3. 1he condlLlons are noL unreasonable,
4. 1he leglslaLlon ls Lemporary ln operaLlon.

PCML 8ulLuL8S & LCAn ASSCC. vs. 8LAlSuLLL
!. Pughes
AfLer Lhe greaL depresslon, Lhe MlnnesoLa MoraLorlum law allowed for Lhe
posLponemenL of execuLlon sales of foreclosed real esLaLe & Lhe exLenslon of perlods
of redempLlon of morLgaged properLy. 1he law was Lo be effecLlve durlng Lhe Llme of
emergency. 1he perlod of exLenslon for each debL depended on whaL Lhe [udges
would deem Lo be [usL and equlLable. 1he courL held LhaL Lhe moraLorlum law as
consLlLuLlonal. Cnly Lhe Llme facLor was alLered, buL Lhe lndebLedness remalned. 1he
leglslaLure may enlarge, llmlL, or alLer conLracLs, provlded lL does noL deny a remedy
or lmpalr Lhe value of a rlghL. 1he nonlmpalrmenL of conLracLs ls noL absoluLe. 1he
economlc lnLeresLs of Lhe SLaLe may [usLlfy Lhe exerclse of lLs conLlnulng and
domlnanL proLecLlve power noLwlLhsLandlng lnLerference wlLh conLracLs. 1he
lnLerdlcLlon of sLaLuLes lmpalrlng Lhe obllgaLlon of conLracLs does noL prevenL Lhe
SLaLe from exerclslng such powers as are vesLed ln lL for Lhe promoLlon of Lhe
common weal, or are necessary for Lhe general good of Lhe publlc, Lhough conLracLs
prevlously enLered lnLo beLween lndlvlduals may Lhereby be affecLed.

kU11Lk vs. LS1L8An
8Au1lS1A AnCLLC, !
8A 342 provldes for an elghL-year moraLorlum for prewar obllgaLlons. 1he purpose of
Lhe law was Lo granL debLors Lhe opporLunlLy Lo rehablllLaLe Lhemselves by glvlng
Lhem reasonable Llme Lo pay Lhelr pre-exlsLlng war debLs and Lo prevenL Lhem from
belng vlcLlmlzed by Lhelr credlLors. 1he courL held LhaL even lf Lhere was an
lmpalrmenL of Lhe obllgaLlons of Lhe conLracL, lL was [usLlfled as a valld exerclse of
pollce power. LxlsLlng laws read lnLo conLracLs ln order Lo flx obllgaLlons as beLween
Lhe parLles, buL Lhe reservaLlon of essenLlal aLLrlbuLes of soverelgn power ls also read
lnLo conLracLs. Powever, Lhe perlod of 8 years ls deemed unreasonable and
oppresslve slnce Lhe credlLor wlll noL galn lnLeresL and Lhe prlnclple wlll be lose lLs
value Lo lnflaLlon durlng Lhe moraLorlum. 1he purpose for whlch Lhe law was creaLed
does noL apply slnce Lhe flnanclal condlLlon of Lhe counLry has lmproved due Lo
reconsLrucLlon and rehablllLaLlon. kevetseJ.

CrLlgas v. Ieat|
See arL ll.

!uA8LZ vs. CA
C8uZ, !.:
eLlLloners had been leaslng a loL slnce Lhe early 1900s, and laLer subleased lL Lo a
Lhlrd person. AfLerwards, 8 877 was passed whlch provldes subleaslng wlLhouL Lhe
consenL of Lhe owner as a ground for e[ecLmenL of Lhe lessee. 1he courL held LhaL Lhe
law was noL an ex posL facLo law and dld noL apply reLroacLlvely Lo lmpalr Lhe
conLracL of lease. 1he conLracL of lease ls undersLood Lo be renewable on a monLhly
basls. 1herefore Lhe law applled prospecLlvely Lo Lhe conLracL when Lhe lease was
renewed afLer Lhe 8 Look effecL. Slnce exlsLlng laws are read lnLo conLracLs, Lhere ls
no lmpalrmenL lf Lhe conLracL of lease. As long as Lhe conLracL affecLs publlc welfare
one way or anoLher (houslng) so as Lo requlre Lhe lnLerference of Lhe SLaLe, Lhen
musL Lhe pollce power be asserLed and prevall, over Lhe lmpalrmenL of conLracLs.
ueoleJ.

CALLCn vs. AGUS DLVLLCMLN1
8luln, !
rlvaLe respondenL leased a loL Lo Caleon who bullL an aparLmenL bulldlng upon lL
and began subleaslng Lhe unlLs wlLhouL Lhe consenL of Lhe owner. 8 23 prohlblLs
subleaslng Lo Lhlrd persons wlLhouL securlng Lhe consenL of Lhe owner. 1he courL
held LhaL Lhere was no lmpalrmenL of conLracL. LeglslaLlon approprlaLe Lo
safeguardlng vlLal lnLeresL of Lhe people may modlfy or abrogaLe conLracLs already ln


effecL. Lvery conLracL affecLlng publlc lnLeresL, houslng ln Lhls case, suffers a
congenlLal lnflrmlLy ln LhaL lL conLalns an lmplled reservaLlon of Lhe pollce power as a
posLulaLe of Lhe exlsLlng legal order. 1hls power can be acLlvaLed aL anyLlme Lo
change Lhe provlslons of Lhe conLracL, or even abrogaLe lL enLlrely, for Lhe promoLlon
or proLecLlon of Lhe general welfare. AffltmeJ.

8. lnvolunLary ServlLude
Ak1ICLL III
5ectloo 18(2). no lnvolunLary servlLude ln any form shall exlsL excepL as a punlshmenL for a crlme whereof
Lhe parLy shall have been duly convlcLed.

8u8l vs. kCVINCIAL 8CAkD (1919)
1he provlnclal board of Mlndoro adopLed a resoluLlon obllglng Lhe Mangyans Lo llve
ln one place ln Lhe lnLeresL of law and order.
SC Molcolm, I.: Lhe seLLlemenL does noL resulL Lo lnvolunLary servlLude, raLher lL
proLecLs Lhem from lnsLances of such from Lhe clvlllzed socleLy whlch Lhey come lnLo
conLacL wlLh glven Lhelr lesser degree of clvlllzaLlon (lllusLraLed by Lhe classlflcaLlon
non-chrlsLlan Lrlbe). ueoleJ.
ueoo. lt woolJ be lovoloototy setvltoJe os tbey ote fotceJ to wotk wltblo tbe
settlemeot bot tbe ftolts ooJ ptoceeJs qo to tbe qovetomeot.

kAlSAPAn vs. GC1AMCC (1948)
1he labor unlon sLaged a sLrlke resulLlng ln a compromlse for Lhem Lo reLurn Lo work
ln exchange of an lncrease of 2 pesos ln Lhelr wages. 1he courL lssued a reLurn-Lo-
work" durlng Lhe resoluLlon of Lhe case, and before CC1AMCC complled wlLh Lhe
agreemenL.
SC nlloJo, I.: lnvolunLary servlLude cannoL be lnvoked when Lhe person volunLary
enLers lnLo a conLracL of employmenL. AffltmeJ.
ueoo. wbot woolJ moke lt lovoloototy? .q. ptlsoo lobot, lobot lo poymeot of Jebt

C. lmprlsonmenL for non-aymenL of uebL
Ak1ICLL III
5ectloo 20. no person shall be lmprlsoned for debL or non-paymenL of a poll Lax.

LC2ANC vs. MA81lnLZ (1986)
1he consLlLuLlonallLy of 8 22 ls belng ralsed for vlolaLlng Lhe provlslon forblddlng
lmprlsonmenL for non-paymenL of debL.
SC op, I.: 8 22 ls noL Lo punlsh nonpaymenL buL raLher lnLended Lo prevenL under
fear of penal sancLlon Lhe lssulng knowlngly of worLhless checks and puLLlng Lhem
lnLo clrculaLlon. CtooteJ.
ueoo. Noo-poymeot of Jebt ls lo o seose o ptlvote lojoty bot tbe lssoloq of wottbless
cbecks offeoJs o pobllc lotetest (bookloq, lovestmeots). 1be pobllc most belleve ooJ
ttost tbe cbeck system to. 1) pteveot/lesseo ctlmes, 2) to fooJ ooJ eocootoqe
lovestmeots.

u. 8lghL agalnsL Self-lncrlmlnaLlon
Ak1ICLL III
5ectloo 17. no person shall be compelled Lo be a wlLness agalnsL hlmself.

8eason: lf Lhe accused was requlred Lo LesLlfy agalnsL hlm, he would be LempLed Lo
commlL per[ury also Lhus proLecLlon prevenLs cases of geLLlng lnformaLlon Lhrough
duress as an accused would llkely refuse Lo share lncrlmlnaLlng lnformaLlon.

1wo ways Lo lnvoke rlghL:
- Accused: refuse Lo Lake Lhe wlLness sLand
- WlLness: refuse Lo answer lncrlmlnaLlng quesLlons

AppllcaLlon ln ulfferenL klnds of roceedlngs
a) AdmlnlsLraLlve-
b) Crlmlnal - full proLecLlon
c) !udlclal- full proLecLlon
d) Clvll- wheLher Lhe case ls punlLlve (e.g. forfelLure)
e) lacL- llndlng- wheLher Lhe case or LesLlmonles would be lncrlmlnaLlng

U.S. vs. nAvA88C (1904)
1he defendanLs are charged wlLh lllegal deLenLlon ln kldnapplng Lhe vlcLlm, ln Lhe
course of Lhe proceedlng Lhe accused refused Lo reveal Lhe whereabouLs of Lhe
vlcLlm. under par. 2 of ArL. 483 of Lhe 8C, Lhe maxlmum penalLy ls lmposed ln falllng
Lo reveal such lnformaLlon.
SC Mcuooooqb, I.: Lhe arLlcle vlolaLes Lhe rlghL agalnsL self-lncrlmlnaLlon. lf Lhe
accused reveals or ls forced Lo reveal Lhe whereabouLs of Lhe vlcLlm he wlll be llable
for a compleLely dlfferenL felony wlLh a greaLer penalLy. (stlll) Collty.
*tbe tlqbt locloJes o tlqbt to tefose to testlfy to o foct wblcb woolJ oecessotlly llok ot
ptove oo elemeot of o ctlme.


CasLro, uelfln, MagbaLo, Mohammadsall, ngo, 8osales, velasco. | 82014 | S0

vlLLAlLC8 vs. SUMMLkS (1920)
vlllaflor was charged wlLh adulLery and asked Lo submlL Lo a physlcal examlnaLlon Lo
deLermlne lf she was pregnanL or noL. She refused lnvoklng rlghL agalnsL self-
lncrlmlnaLlon.
SC Molcolm, I.: Lhe consLlLuLlonal guaranLy LhaL no person shall be compelled ln any
crlmlnal case Lo be a wlLness agalnsL hlmself, ls llmlLed Lo a prohlblLlon agalnsL
compulsory LesLlmonlal self-lncrlmlnaLlon. ueoleJ.
ueoo. 1bete ls lobeteot oofoltoess lo ptoJocloq evlJeoce oqolost ooeself. 1be test ls
tbe temptotloo to petjote ooeself ooJ teoJeocy fot moolpolotloo. 1be cltcomstooce
most oot qlve loceotlve to lle ooJ fobtlcote evlJeoce.

8LL18An vs. SAMSCn (1929)
1he [udge ordered peLlLloner Lo appear before Lhe flscal Lo Lake a dlcLaLlon ln hls own
hand wrlLlng Lo conflrm lf he was really Lhe one who wroLe several falslfled
documenLs. Pe refused, lnvoklng hls rlghL agalnsL self-lncrlmlnaLlon.
SC komoolJez, I.: 1he handwrlLlng ls consldered a LesLlmonlal. 1hls case compels Lhe
accused Lo produce evldence LhaL ls non-exlsLenL aL Lhe Llme Lhus requlrlng hlm Lo
furnlsh evldence agalnsL hlmself. CtooteJ.
ueoo. testlmoolol evlJeoce Joes oot tepolte ottetooce. kepoltloq tbe occoseJ to
ptoJoce bls booJwtltloq ls cooslJeteJ testlmoolol fot be koows tbe potpose ooJ tbos
coo be tempteJ to oltet booJwtltloq temovloq lt ftom tbe teol of objectlve evlJeoce.

CA8AL vs. kAunAn (1962)
Cabal was belng charged of grafL and corrupLlon and was belng ordered Lo appear ln
Lhe wlLness sLand ln Lhe lnvesLlgaLlng commlLLee.
SC coocepcloo, I.: Lhough Lhe penalLy ls forfelLure of properLy and funds and
Lechnlcally a clvll proceedlng. 1he naLure of Lhe proceedlng ln Lhls case ls crlmlnal.
1he purpose of Lhe charge was noL Lo remove hlm from offlce buL Lo apply Lhe anLl-
grafL law. 1he forfelLure ls lmposed as a punlshmenL Lo lnsure a prescrlbed course of
conducL, Lransferrlng LlLles from Lhe prlvaLe person Lo Lhe soverelgn power. CtooteJ.
ueoo. tbe test ls wbetbet tbe ptoceeJloq woolJ be pooltlve lo cbotoctet.

8Lu8LlC vs. SANDIGAN8AAN (2003)
Case of forfelLure agalnsL Lhe swlss deposlLs of Lhe Marcos clan. 1hey were asserLlng
LhaL Lhe forfelLure would affecL Lhe crlmlnal proceedlngs flled agalnsL Lhem ln courL,
and LhaL Lhe forfelLure ls a penalLy glvlng Lhem Lhe beneflL of Lhe compleLe
proLecLlon of due process.
SC cotooo, I.: 1hls case ls ln rem (or agalnsL Lhe Lhlng lLself) merely resLorlng whaL ls
due Lo Lhe governmenL vs. cases ln persona (or agalnsL Lhe person of Lhe one
accused). ueoleJ.
ueoo. tecooclle cobol ooJ 5ooJlqooboyoo.

n8 vs. GANCACC (1963)
n8 was belng asked Lo open lLs records Lo ald Lhe lnvesLlgaLlon of corrupLlon
charges agalnsL LrnesLo !lmenez.
SC keqolo, I.: Lhe anLl-grafL law repealed 8A 1403, whlch glves bank deposlLs absoluLe
confldenLlallLy. 1he case falls lnLo Lhe one of Lhe four exempLlons for refuslng
dlsclosure: 1) wrlLLen permlsslon of deposlLor, 2) cases of lmpeachmenL, J) otJet of
competeot coott lo coses of btlbety ooJ Jetellctloo of Joty of pobllc offlclols, 4) cases
where money deposlLed ls sub[ecL maLLer of llLlgaLlon. AffltmeJ.

8LNG2CN vs. SLnA1L 8LuL 8l88Cn CCMMl11LL (1991)
SenaLe commlLLee requlred peLlLloners Lo LesLlfy ln senaLe hearlng and produce
evldence regardlng Lhe sale of equlLy of kokoy 8omualdez of 36 corporaLlons.
SC loJlllo, I.: Crdlnary wlLness may be compelled Lo Lake Lhe wlLness sLand and clalm
Lhe prlvllege as each quesLlon requlrlng an lncrlmlnaLlng answer ls shoL aL hlm, an
accused on Lhe oLher hand may alLogeLher refuse Lo Lake Lhe wlLness sLand and
refuse Lo answer any and all quesLlons. 1hls rlghL of accused ls exLended Lo
admlnlsLraLlve lnvesLlgaLlons buL only lf analogous Lo a crlmlnal proceedlng. 8uL Lhe
courL granLed Lhe peLlLlon Lo refuse solely because Lhe hearlng was noL ln ald of
leglslaLlon ln vlolaLlon of Lhe separaLlon of powers. CtooteJ.

CALMAn vs. AMAkAN (1983)
1he AC8AvA facL-flndlng board was creaLed by res. Marcos Lo lnvesLlgaLe Lhe deaLh
of nlnoy Aqulno, Lhe decree lncluded an lmmunlLy clause Lo Lhose who wlll LesLlfy.
SC coevos, I.: Lhe LesLlmonles of Lhe wlLnesses are noL admlsslble as evldence ln any
subsequenL proceedlng. 1hough only a facL-flndlng board, Lhe naLure of Lhe
lnvesLlgaLlon Lrles Lo esLabllsh who Lhe perpeLraLors are for a crlmlnal proceedlng
Lhus covered by Lhe full proLecLlon of due process and ArL. lll, sec. 17. ulsmlsseJ.

MIkANDA vs. A8lZCnA (1966)
wotteo, cI.. Mlranda 8lghLs musL be read for any LesLlmony gaLhered be admlsslble
ln evldence.
1he quesLlon of when cusLody beglns? 1esL: 1) when Lhe person ls placed ln a poslLlon
of fear, compulslon. kevetseJ.


ueoo. klqbts bove to be teoJ lo otJet fot tbe occoseJ to koow tbot tbe ottestloq
offlcet ls ptepoteJ to tespect socb tlqbts.

L. unlawful Search and Selzure
Ak1ICLL III
5ectloo 2. 1he rlghL of Lhe people Lo be secure ln Lhelr persons, houses, papers, and effecLs agalnsL
unreasonable searches and selzures of whaLever naLure and for any purpose shall be lnvlolable, and no
search warranL or warranL of arresL shall lssue excepL upon probable cause Lo be deLermlned personally by
Lhe [udge afLer examlnaLlon under oaLh or afflrmaLlon of Lhe complalnanL and Lhe wlLnesses he may
produce, and parLlcularly descrlblng Lhe place Lo be searched and Lhe persons or Lhlngs Lo be selzed.

Cvervlew: 1he provlslon proLecLs Lhe properLy and Lhe person hlmself from
unreasonable searches and selzures. 1he LesL of unreasonable search ln general
would be Lhe absence of a valld warranL auLhorlzed by a compeLenL auLhorlLy.

1LS1 of SLA8CP

8equlslLes for search warranL:
Search has moderaLe chance of flndlng evldence of wrongdolngs
Search ls permlsslble ln scope
robable cause: falr probablllLy or subsLanLlal chance of flndlng lncrlmlnaLlng
evldence. ln general probable cause requlres facLs and clrcumsLances whlch
would lead a reasonable man Lo belleve LhaL an offense has been commlLLed
and Lhe ob[ecLs soughL ln connecLlon wlLh Lhe offense are ln Lhe place
soughL Lo be searched.

- 1he consLlLuLlon proLecLs a leglLlmaLe expecLaLlon of prlvacy

LeglLlmaLe LxpecLaLlon of rlvacy:
a. lrlsklng, Lhe 1LS1: ls lL reasonable?
b. CPLCkCln1S: plaln vlew" docLrlne. Lxample from uean: 8ouLlne check polnLs, lf
Lhe pollce polnL Lhe flashllghL lnslde Lhe vehlcle and sees a bag of marl[uana lylng
around. 1here ls no need for a search warranL.
c. volunLary rellnqulshmenL of conLrol of properLy" e.g Lrash ouLslde of house = noL
covered by proLecLlon, Lhere ls no longer a leglLlmaLe expecLaLlon of prlvacy.

** 1he consLralnL ls only on Lhe slde of Lhe governmenL and noL of prlvaLe lndlvlduals
agalnsL prlvaLe lndlvlduals. Lxample: SecurlLy checks before enLerlng a mall. ln
exchange of enLry, Lhe lndlvldual musL sub[ecL hlmself Lo Lhe pollcy of Lhe prlvaLe
lnsLlLuLlon.

MA vs. CPlC (1960)
1he peLlLloner was found Lo be ln possesslon of cerLaln lewd maLerlals ln vlolaLlon of
Chlo's 8evlsed Code. 1he prosecuLlon falled Lo presenL a search warranL and Lhe
reason for Lhe rald was compleLely dlfferenL from whaL Lhe peLlLloner ls belng
charged wlLh.
SC Clark, !: Lxcluslonary rule: evldence obLalned ln vlolaLlon of Lhe due process ls
lnadmlsslble ln courL. kevetseJ ooJ temooJeJ.

S1CnLPlLL vs. DICkNC (1967)
Concepclon, C!: Ceneral warranLs are dlscouraged because of Lhe vlces lnherenL ln
lssulng such: 1) general warranLs mean LhaL Lhere was no evldence or probable cause
Lo begln wlLh, 2) abuse of power. ulsmlsseJ.



v|||. SCCL CI CCNS1I1U1ICNAL kC1LC1ICN

- applles Lo ALL as long as Lhe 8o8 says, no person."

A. Who are enLlLled Lo ConsLlLuLlonal roLecLlon
cltlzeosblp ooJ Alleooqe

Ak1ICLL IV - CI1I2LNSnI
5ectloo 1. 1he followlng are clLlzens of Lhe hlllpplnes:
[1] 1hose who are clLlzens of Lhe hlllpplnes aL Lhe t|me of the adopt|on of th|s Const|tut|on,
[2] 1hose whose fathers or mothers are c|t|zens of Lhe hlllpplnes,
[3] 1hose born before Ianuary 17, 1973, of I|||p|no mothers, who e|ect h|||pp|ne c|t|zensh|p upon
reach|ng the age of ma[or|ty, and
[4] 1hose who are natura||zed ln accordance wlLh law.
5ectloo 2. Natura|-born c|t|zens are Lhose who are c|t|zens of the h|||pp|nes from b|rth w|thout hav|ng to
perform any act to acqu|re or perfect the|r h|||pp|ne c|t|zensh|p. 1hose who elecL hlllpplne clLlzenshlp ln
accordance wlLh paragraph (3), Sect|on 1 hereof sha|| be deemed natura|-born c|t|zens.
5ectloo J. hlllpplne clLlzenshlp may be |ost or reacqu|red ln Lhe manner prov|ded by |aw.
5ectloo 4. ClLlzens of Lhe hlllpplnes who marry a||ens sha|| reta|n the|r c|t|zensh|p, un|ess by the|r act or
om|ss|on, Lhey are deemed, under Lhe law, Lo have renounced |t.
5ectloo 5. Dua| a||eg|ance of clLlzens |s |n|m|ca| Lo Lhe naLlonal lnLeresL and shall be dealL wlLh by law.

llllplnos
o naLural ersons- clLlzens
o !urldlcal ersons- no flxed formula! !usL reason lL ouL.
" unlawful Search and Selzure Clause (SLonehlll v. ulokno)
uependenL upon clrcumsLances (CenLral 8ank v.
Morfe).
" 8lghL Lo rlvacy- obvlously noL.
" lreedom of Speech? 8ellglon?
Allens
o lmpacL of deporLaLlon ls as bad as an arresL, Lhus Lhe need for due
process for Lhe one belng deporLed (Cua Chee Can v. ueporLaLlon
8oard), buL only Lhe mosL fundamenLal rlghLs are accorded, l.e.
hearlng, noLlce, cross-examlnaLlon LhaL ls noL as sLrlcL (Parvey v.
uefensor-SanLlago).
o ueporLaLlon normally requlres a full Lrlal, buL lL can be summary ln
naLure/admlnlsLraLlve lf allen has renounced hls llllplno clLlzenshlp
(?u v. uefensor-SanLlago).

ueporLaLlon- allen's presence ls lnlmlcal Lo Lhe counLry's lnLeresLs, Lhus Lhey're belng
senL ouL, lL doesn'L maLLer where.
2 ways (Cua Chee Can v. ueporLaLlon 8oard):
8y order of Lhe resldenL afLer due lnvesLlgaLlon
8y Lhe Commlssloner of lmmlgraLlon

ArresL ueLenLlon endlng ueporLaLlon
Plgh level of proLecLlon!all
guaranLees of due process
Lower level of proLecLlon (due
process) requlred
L.g. presumpLlon of lnnocence and all
oLher rlghLs of Lhe accused
no guaranLees because lL ls an
exerclse of Lhe sLaLe's pollce power
!udlclal lnherenL pollLlcal power exerclsed by
Lhe soverelgn, AdmlnlsLraLlve ln
characLer
need for a warranL of arresL lssued by
a [udge
Along wlLh Lhe power Lo deporL
comes Lhe power Lo deLaln and arresL,
Lhe warranL may come from Lhe
lmmlgraLlon Commlssloner

ueporLaLlon LxLradlLlon (SecreLary of !usLlce v.
LanLlon)
Sul generls
ulluLed requlremenLs of Lhe uC
SenL Lo:
SLaLe of naLlonallLy
SLaLe of hablLual resldence
LasL porL of embarkaLlon
Send back a fuglLlve of [usLlce Lo Lhe
place where he ls belng charged wlLh
Lhe crlme
Culck process Longer process

8oard of Commlssloners (Clu) v. De|a kosa (1991)
eLlLloner seeks Lo en[oln Lhe respondenLs' order, whlch prohlblLed Lhe former from
deporLlng prlvaLe respondenL Wllllam CaLchallan, an alleged llllplno clLlzen wlLh a
llllplno grandfaLher, who arrlved here as a chlld, and has been lssued an
ldenLlflcaLlon CerLlflcaLe. 8lJlo, I. held LhaL (1) a valld warranL of arresL lssued by Lhe
Commlssloner of lmmlgraLlon musL be for Lhe sole purpose of execuLlng a flnal order
of deporLaLlon only, and noL for purposes of lnvesLlgaLlon, whlch was granLed ln Lhls
case. (2) AlLhough Lhe proceedlng does noL parLake of Lhe naLure of a crlmlnal acLlon,
conslderlng Lhe harsh and exLraordlnary admlnlsLraLlve proceedlng affecLlng Lhe
freedom and llberLy of a person, due process should noL be denled. Also, CaLchallan
ls a llllplno clLlzen under Art|c|e IV 1 of Lhe ConsLlLuLlon. ulsmlsseJ.
ueoo. ottest ls JlstloqolsbeJ ftom Jeteotloo peoJloq Jepottotloo, see obove.


ua Chee Gan v. ueporLaLlon 8oard (1963)
eLlLloner, a Pk naLlonal, conLesLs respondenL's order abouL hls deporLaLlon because
Lhe former allegedly purchased uS dollars wlLhouL llcense and aLLempLed Lo brlbe a
governmenL offlclal. 8otteto, I. held LhaL Lhe resldenL has Lhe resldual power Lo
deporL an allen afLer due lnvesLlgaLlon. 1he rlghL Lo be secure ln Lhelr persons [Art|c|e
III 2] also applles Lo forelgners. CtooteJ.
ueoo. tbe obove ls o teslJool tlqbt of fotelqoets. ueteotloo peoJloq uepottotloo otJet
ls lssoeJ by tbe commlssloo oo lmmlqtotloo!tbete ote stlll some mecboolsms ooJ
tbe oeeJ fot floJloqs, eveo lf tbe stooJotJs ote Jlffeteot. ulu!oJmlolsttotlve lo
cbotoctet. 5o qo bock to Ang 1lbay v. Cl8.

Parvey v. Defensor-Sant|ago (1988)
Allen peLlLloners are accused of belng chlld pedophlles, and are belng deporLed.
Meleoclo-netteto, I. held LhaL whlle pedophllla may noL be a crlme ln Lhe 8C, lL ls
sLlll lnlmlcal Lo Lhe counLry. 1here was probable cause necessary for Lhelr arresL, and
deporLaLlon proceedlngs have been flled agalnsL Lhem, maklng Lhe resLralnL agalnsL
Lhem legal. Also an order for deporLaLlon ls noL punlshmenL, buL merely a prevenLlve
measure. 1he power Lo deporL allens ls an acL of Lhe sLaLe for lLs lnLeresL, done under
Lhe auLhorlLy of Lhe soverelgn power. ueoleJ.
ueoo. fotelqoets ooly bove weokeoeJ qootootees, ooly tbe most fooJomeotol tlqbts.

?u v. Defensor-Sant|ago (1989)
1he case ls abouL Lhe deLenLlon and deporLaLlon of peLlLloner, who, desplLe hls
naLurallzaLlon as a llllplno, sLlll obLalned a orLuguese passporL. All of hls perLlnenL
documenLs purporL hlm Lo be a orLuguese. loJlllo, I. held LhaL all of hls acLlons
consldered LogeLher consLlLuLe express renunclaLlon of hls hlllpplne clLlzenshlp.
1hus adversary proceedlngs are no longer necessary, lL can be summary. ueoleJ.
ueoo. oootbet sbottcot ls to bove tbe stote of ootlooollty coocel Jepottees posspott.
8u1, tbete ls o tlqbt to ttovel (Motcos v. Mooqlopos).

IotlJlcol letsoos
SLonehlll v. D|okno (1967), sopto
See arL vll. eLlLloner (naLural person) does noL have a cause of acLlon Lo assall or
ob[ecL for Lhe corporaLlon because of Lhe laLLer's separaLe ldenLlLy. 1he consLlLuLlonal
rlghL Lo unreasonable search and selzures [Art III 2] ls only appllcable Lo Lhe
corporaLlon, seelng as lL owns Lhe perLlnenL documenLs, and noL Lhe peLlLloner.
ulsmlsseJ.

Centra| 8ank v. Morfe (1967)
rlvaLe respondenL seeks Lo annul Lhe peLlLloner's acL of selzlng lLs books and ledgers
as unconsLlLuLlonal. coocepcloo, c.I. held LhaL unreasonableness and probable cause
ls a condlLlon dependenL upon Lhe clrcumsLances surroundlng each case. CtooteJ.
ueoo. A qeoetol wottoot coo be lssoeJ lo tbls cose becoose tbe ceottol 8ook bos to
seotcb oll of tbe compooys books to Jetetmloe lf tbete wos o vlolotloo ot
oot!wbetbet ot oot tbe compooy wos collectloq ot leoJloq.

8. Who are sub[ecL Lo ConsLlLuLlonal rohlblLlons
5tote Actloo kepoltemeot
uC- no sLaLe acLlon requlremenL needed
loS- yes, excepL for publlc forum excepLlons: school newspapers, campus
[ournallsLs (1lnker v. ues Molnes, non v. uames).
8lghL Lo rlvacy- avallable even agalnsL prlvaLe persons
Lqual roLecLlon- no sLaLe acLlon ln schools, uuncan AssoclaLlon v. Claxo-
Wellcome
ueoo. tbete ote woys to qo otoooJ tbe stote octloo tepoltemeot!

eop|e v. MarLl (1991)
Lvldence agalnsL Lhe accused-appellanL MarLl was obLalned by a prlvaLe lndlvldual's
acL of searchlng Lhrough Lhe packages he was golng Lo send Lo SwlLzerland, whlch
conLalned marl[uana. Alleged acL was Lhe sLandard operaLlng procedure for prlvaLe
lndlvldual as Lhe owner of Lhe package forwardlng company. Pe subsequenLly
reporLed Lhe conLraband arLlcle Lo Lhe n8l. 8lJlo, I. held LhaL Lhe consLlLuLlonal
proLecLlon agalnsL uSS ls noL exLended Lo acLs commlLLed by prlvaLe lndlvlduals. 8lll
of 8lghLs dlrecLed only agalnsL Lhe governmenL. Mere presence of n8l dld noL converL
Lhe prlvaLe acLlon lnLo LhaL of Lhe SLaLe's. AffltmeJ.
ueoo. eveo lf N8l wos tbete, lt wos tbe compooy owoet wbo foooJ tbe ptoboble
coose. 1bos, tbe ooe wbo loltloteJ tbe seotcb ls tbe loJlcotot!

runeyard Shopplng CenLer v. kob|ns, sopto, ln relaLlon Lo 8or[a| v. CA (1999)
lor runeyard, see arL lv. 8or[al was charged wlLh llbel by prlvaLe respondenL
lranclsco Wenceslao, Lhe former havlng publlshed a serles of columns ln a
newspaperabouL a corrupL 'organlzer,' whlch Lhe laLLer alleges Lo be an aLLack on hlm
(Wenceslao). no llbel, 'organlzer' noL ldenLlflable as Wenceslao. rlvlleged
communlcaLlon, lmpllclL ln Lhe freedom of press, has Lwo klnds: (a) absoluLely
prlvlleged, whlch ls noL acLlonable even lf Lhere ls bad falLh (e.g. 11 Art.VI) and (b)
quallfledly prlvlleged, whlch ls also noL acLlonable unless wlLhouL good lnLenLlon or


[usLlflable moLlve. 1he prlvlleged characLer of a communlcaLlon desLroys Lhe
presumpLlon of mallce. CtooteJ.

1he 8ule on Lhe WrlL of Amparo
-Ampoto, Lo proLecL:"
Ampoto llbettoJ - ersonal freedom (Art III 13, 1S, Art VII 18, Art VIII
S(1))
Ampoto cootto leyes - !udlclal revlew of consLlLuLlonallLy of sLaLuLes (Art VIII
1)
Ampoto cosocloo - !udlclal revlew of [udlclal declslon (Art VIII S(2))
Ampoto oJmlolsttotlvo - !udlclal revlew of admlnlsLraLlve acLlons
Ampoto oqtotlo - easanL's rlghLs derlved from Lhe agrarlan reform process
-ulfference from oLher [urlsdlcLlons:
roLecLlon only for Lhe rlghL Lo llfe, llberLy and securlLy of persons
Covers acLual and LhreaLened vlolaLlons
lncludes vlolaLlons commlLLed by prlvaLe lndlvlduals
Also covers exLralegal kllllngs and enforced dlsappearances
-May be flled by:
Aggrleved parLy
AuLhorlzed parLy ln case whereabouLs of aggrleved ls unknown
Any clLlzen, noL precluded when auLhorlzed or when clrcumsLances requlre

erLlnenL secLlons Laken by 8lchard navarro from Cscar 1an's Attlcolotloq tbe
complete lblllpploe klqbt to ltlvocy lo coostltotloool ooJ clvll low. A 1tlbote to cblef
Iostlce letoooJo ooJ Iostlce cotplo
(Source: [ournals.upd.edu.ph/lndex.php/law/arLlcle/vlew/1879/1793)

Chlef !usLlce lernando deemed prlvacy so lmporLanL LhaL, 1he rlghL Lo be leL alone ls
lndeed Lhe beglnnlng of all freedom.

Whalen vs. 8oe:
1he cases someLlmes characLerlzed as proLecLlng prlvacy" have ln facL lnvolved aL
leasL Lwo dlfferenL klnds of lnLeresLs. Cne ls Lhe lndlvldual lnLeresL ln avoldlng
dlsclosure of personal maLLers, and anoLher ls Lhe lnLeresL ln lndependence ln maklng
cerLaln klnds of lmporLanL declslons

1.) ueclslonal prlvacy: Lhe lnLeresL ln lndependence ln maklng cerLaln klnds of
lmporLanL declslons"
1hls rlghL of prlvacy, wheLher lL be founded ln Lhe lourLeenLh AmendmenL's concepL
of personal llberLy and resLrlcLlons upon sLaLe acLlon, as we feel lL ls, or, as Lhe
ulsLrlcL CourL deLermlned, ln Lhe nlnLh AmendmenL's reservaLlon of rlghLs Lo Lhe
people, ls broad enough Lo encompass a woman's declslon wheLher or noL Lo
LermlnaLe her pregnancy
1hus, declslonal prlvacy ls a necessary or even lmplled uue rocess ouLgrowLh LhaL
resLralns governmenL from lnLrudlng lnLo cerLaln personal declslons deemed
fundamenLal ln human experlence, and noL [usL Lhose perLalnlng Lo narrow aspecLs of
sexuallLy and famlly llfe.
Morfe vs MuLuc - general llberLy proLecLed by subsLanLlal due process. ln Morfe v.
MuLuc Lhe Supreme CourL had Lhe occaslon Lo rule on Lhe exlsLence of Lhe rlghL Lo
prlvacy. Morfe recognlzed Lhe consLlLuLlonal rlghL Lo prlvacy lald down ln Crlswold.

-1he rlghL Lo prlvacy ls accorded recognlLlon lndependenLly of lLs ldenLlflcaLlon wlLh
llberLy. 1he concepL of llmlLed governmenL has always lncluded LhaL governmenLal
powers sLop shorL of cerLaln lnLruslons lnLo Lhe personal llfe of Lhe clLlzen.A sysLem
of llmlLed governmenL safeguards a prlvaLe secLor, whlch belongs Lo Lhe lndlvldual,
flrmly dlsLlngulshlng lL from Lhe publlc secLor, whlch Lhe SLaLe can conLrol.
ueclslonal prlvacy ls usually deflned as Lhe rlghL of lndlvlduals Lo make cerLaln klnds
of fundamenLal cholces wlLh respecL Lo Lhelr personal and reproducLlve auLonomy.
Among Lhe Lhree sLrands of prlvacy, declslonal prlvacy, or Lhe consLlLuLlonal
proLecLlon [for] personal declslons relaLlng Lo marrlage, procreaLlon, conLracepLlon,
famlly relaLlonshlps, chlld rearlng, and educaLlon," has been Lhe mosL conLroverslal.

CasLro, uelfln, MagbaLo, Mohammadsall, ngo, 8osales, velasco. | 82014 | SS

WlLhln Lhls sLrand, Lhe CourL has found consLlLuLlonal rlghLs of mlnors Lo obLaln
conLracepLlon wlLhouL parenLal consenL, of adulLs Lo possess obscene maLerlals, of
women Lo obLaln aborLlons, and of all lndlvlduals Lo engage ln acLs hlsLorlcally
characLerlzed as devlaLe sexual lnLercourse."

ArLlcle lll SecLlon 2
CC ArLlcle 23, [e]very person shall respecL Lhe dlgnlLy, personallLy, prlvacy, and
peace of mlnd of hls nelghbors and oLher persons." Zones of prlvacy are llkewlse
recognlzed and proLecLed ln our laws. 1he Clvll Code provldes LhaL '[e]very person
shall respecL Lhe dlgnlLy, personallLy, prlvacy and peace of mlnd of hls nelghbors and
oLher persons' and punlshes as acLlonable LorLs several acLs by a person of meddllng
and prylng lnLo Lhe prlvacy of anoLher.

-1he rlghL Lo prlvacy ls accorded recognlLlon lndependenLly of lLs ldenLlflcaLlon wlLh
llberLy. 1he concepL of llmlLed governmenL has always lncluded LhaL governmenLal
powers sLop shorL of cerLaln lnLruslons lnLo Lhe personal llfe of Lhe clLlzen. A sysLem
of llmlLed governmenL safeguards a prlvaLe secLor, whlch belongs Lo Lhe lndlvldual,
flrmly dlsLlngulshlng lL from Lhe publlc secLor, whlch Lhe SLaLe can conLrol. - L[erclLo v
Sandlganbayan

lnformaLlonal prlvacy: Lhe lndlvldual lnLeresL ln avoldlng dlsclosure of personal
maLLers" lnformaLlonal prlvacy ls usually deflned as Lhe rlghL of lndlvlduals Lo conLrol
lnformaLlon abouL Lhemselves. 1hls lncludes Lhe conLrol over Lhe processlng,
acqulslLlon, dlsclosure and use of personal lnformaLlon. lnformaLlonal prlvacy draws
prlmarlly upon Lhe LorL law of prlvacy. - Chlef !usLlce uno

[W]e presclnd from Lhe premlse LhaL Lhe rlghL Lo prlvacy ls a fundamenLal rlghL
guaranLeed by Lhe ConsLlLuLlon, hence, lL ls Lhe burden of governmenL Lo show LhaL
A.C. no. 308 ls [usLlfled by some compelllng sLaLe lnLeresL and LhaL lL ls narrowly
drawn. - Cple vs. 1orres

ln conLrasL, a sysLem of llmlLed governmenL safeguards a prlvaLe secLor, whlch
belongs Lo Lhe lndlvldual, flrmly dlsLlngulshlng lL from Lhe publlc secLor, whlch Lhe
sLaLe can conLrol. roLecLlon of Lhls prlvaLe secLor - proLecLlon, ln oLher words, of
Lhe dlgnlLy and lnLegrlLy of Lhe lndlvldual - has become lncreaslngly lmporLanL as
modern socleLy has developed. All Lhe forces of a Lechnologlcal age -
lndusLrlallzaLlon, urbanlzaLlon, and organlzaLlon - operaLe Lo narrow Lhe area of
prlvacy and faclllLaLe lnLruslon lnLo lL. ln modern Lerms, Lhe capaclLy Lo malnLaln and
supporL Lhls enclave of prlvaLe llfe marks Lhe dlfference beLween a democraLlc and a
LoLallLarlan socleLy. - personal zone of secluslon
ln Lhe case aL bar, Lhe LhreaL comes from Lhe execuLlve branch of governmenL whlch
by lssulng A.C. no. 308 pressures Lhe people Lo surrender Lhelr prlvacy by glvlng
lnformaLlon abouL Lhemselves on Lhe preLexL LhaL lL wlll faclllLaLe dellvery of baslc
servlces

1he rlghL Lo lnformaLlonal prlvacy arlses from Lhe penumbras, and lLself has Lwo
aspecLs: 1) Lhe rlghL of an lndlvldual noL Lo have prlvaLe lnformaLlon abouL hlmself
dlsclosed, and 2) Lhe rlghL of an lndlvldual Lo llve freely wlLhouL survelllance and
lnLruslon - Whalen vs 8oe

1aken LogeLher, kaLz, Sllverman, Cple, !ohnson, and CanLon answer Lhe quesLlon,
When does a search occur?" Lven lf a place ls expllclLly named ln Lhe ConsLlLuLlon
such as a house," lL only occurs when Lhe lndlvldual manlfesLed a sub[ecLlve
expecLaLlon of prlvacy ln Lhe searched ob[ecL, and socleLy ls wllllng Lo recognlze LhaL
expecLaLlon as reasonable." 1he lnLruslon or search, as uean Agabln phrased, delves
lnLo one's capaclLy Lo malnLaln aspecLs of one's llfe aparL from publlc awareness"
and Lhe conLrol we have over lnformaLlon abouL ourselves," whlch form Lhe very
core of lnformaLlonal prlvacy.


Ak1ICLL III
uangerous urugs 1esL and 8ecord 8equlremenLs

5ectloo J6. AotbotlzeJ utoq 1estloq. - AuLhorlzed drug LesLlng shall be done by any
governmenL forenslc laboraLorles or by any of Lhe drug LesLlng laboraLorles
accredlLed and monlLored by Lhe uCP Lo safeguard Lhe quallLy of LesL resulLs. 1he
uCP shall Lake sLeps ln seLLlng Lhe prlce of Lhe drug LesL wlLh uCP accredlLed drug
LesLlng cenLers Lo furLher reduce Lhe cosL of such drug LesL. 1he drug LesLlng shall
employ, among oLhers, Lwo (2) LesLlng meLhods, Lhe screenlng LesL whlch wlll
deLermlne Lhe poslLlve resulL as well as Lhe Lype of Lhe drug used and Lhe
conflrmaLory LesL whlch wlll conflrm a poslLlve screenlng LesL. urug LesL cerLlflcaLes
lssued by accredlLed drug LesLlng cenLers shall be valld for a one-year perlod from Lhe
daLe of lssue whlch may be used for oLher purposes. 1he followlng shall be sub[ecLed
Lo undergo drug LesLlng:
(a) AppllcanLs for drlver's llcense. - no drlver's llcense shall be lssued or
renewed Lo any person unless he/she presenLs a cerLlflcaLlon LhaL he/she
has undergone a mandaLory drug LesL and lndlcaLlng Lhereon LhaL he/she ls
free from Lhe use of dangerous drugs,
(b) AppllcanLs for flrearm's llcense and for permlL Lo carry flrearms ouLslde
of resldence. - All appllcanLs for flrearm's llcense and permlL Lo carry
flrearms ouLslde of resldence shall undergo a mandaLory drug LesL Lo ensure
LhaL Lhey are free from Lhe use of dangerous drugs: ltovlJeJ, 1haL all
persons who by Lhe naLure of Lhelr professlon carry flrearms shall undergo
drug LesLlng,
(c) SLudenLs of secondary and LerLlary schools. - SLudenLs of secondary and
LerLlary schools shall, pursuanL Lo Lhe relaLed rules and regulaLlons as
conLalned ln Lhe school's sLudenL handbook and wlLh noLlce Lo Lhe parenLs,
undergo a random drug LesLlng: ltovlJeJ, 1haL all drug LesLlng expenses
wheLher ln publlc or prlvaLe schools under Lhls SecLlon wlll be borne by Lhe
governmenL,
(d) Cfflcers and employees of publlc and prlvaLe offlces. - Cfflcers and
employees of publlc and prlvaLe offlces, wheLher domesLlc or overseas, shall
be sub[ecLed Lo undergo a random drug LesL as conLalned ln Lhe company's
work rules and regulaLlons, whlch shall be borne by Lhe employer, for
purposes of reduclng Lhe rlsk ln Lhe workplace. Any offlcer or employee
found poslLlve for use of dangerous drugs shall be dealL wlLh
admlnlsLraLlvely whlch shall be a ground for suspenslon or LermlnaLlon,
sub[ecL Lo Lhe provlslons of ArLlcle 282 of Lhe Labor Code and perLlnenL
provlslons of Lhe Clvll Servlce Law,
(e) Cfflcers and members of Lhe mlllLary, pollce and oLher law enforcemenL
agencles. - Cfflcers and members of Lhe mlllLary, pollce and oLher law
enforcemenL agencles shall undergo an annual mandaLory drug LesL,
(f) All persons charged before Lhe prosecuLor's offlce wlLh a crlmlnal offense
havlng an lmposable penalLy of lmprlsonmenL of noL less Lhan slx (6) years
and one (1) day shall have Lo undergo a mandaLory drug LesL, and
(g) All candldaLes for publlc offlce wheLher appolnLed or elecLed boLh ln Lhe
naLlonal or local governmenL shall undergo a mandaLory drug LesL.
ln addlLlon Lo Lhe above sLaLed penalLles ln Lhls SecLlon, Lhose found Lo be
poslLlve for dangerous drugs use shall be sub[ecL Lo Lhe provlslons of SecLlon
13 of Lhls AcL.

5ectloo J7. lssoooce of lolse ot ltooJoleot utoq 1est kesolts. - Any person
auLhorlzed, llcensed or accredlLed under Lhls AcL and lLs lmplemenLlng rules Lo
conducL drug examlnaLlon or LesL, who lssues false or fraudulenL drug LesL resulLs
knowlngly, wlllfully or Lhrough gross negllgence, shall suffer Lhe penalLy of
lmprlsonmenL ranglng from slx (6) years and one (1) day Lo Lwelve (12) years and a
flne ranglng from Cne hundred Lhousand pesos (100,000.00) Lo llve hundred
Lhousand pesos (300,000.00).
An addlLlonal penalLy shall be lmposed Lhrough Lhe revocaLlon of Lhe llcense Lo
pracLlce hls/her professlon ln case of a pracLlLloner, and Lhe closure of Lhe drug
LesLlng cenLer.

5ectloo J8. lobotototy xomlootloo ot 1est oo ApptebeoJeJ/AttesteJ OffeoJets. -
Sub[ecL Lo SecLlon 13 of Lhls AcL, any person apprehended or arresLed for vlolaLlng
Lhe provlslons of Lhls AcL shall be sub[ecLed Lo screenlng laboraLory examlnaLlon or
LesL wlLhln LwenLy-four (24) hours, lf Lhe apprehendlng or arresLlng offlcer has
reasonable ground Lo belleve LhaL Lhe person apprehended or arresLed, on accounL
of physlcal slgns or sympLoms or oLher vlslble or ouLward manlfesLaLlon, ls under Lhe
lnfluence of dangerous drugs. lf found Lo be poslLlve, Lhe resulLs of Lhe screenlng
laboraLory examlnaLlon or LesL shall be challenged wlLhln flfLeen (13) days afLer
recelpL of Lhe resulL Lhrough a conflrmaLory LesL conducLed ln any accredlLed
analyLlcal laboraLory equlpmenL wlLh a gas chromaLograph/mass specLromeLry
equlpmenL or some such modern and accepLed meLhod, lf conflrmed Lhe same shall
be ptlmo focle evldence LhaL such person has used dangerous drugs, whlch ls wlLhouL
pre[udlce for Lhe prosecuLlon for oLher vlolaLlons of Lhe provlslons of Lhls
AcL: ltovlJeJ, 1haL a poslLlve screenlng laboraLory LesL musL be conflrmed for lL Lo be
valld ln a courL of law.



5ectloo J9. AccteJltotloo of utoq 1estloq ceotets ooJ lbyslcloos. - 1he uCP shall be
Lasked Lo llcense and accredlL drug LesLlng cenLers ln each provlnce and clLy ln order
Lo assure Lhelr capaclLy, compeLence, lnLegrlLy and sLablllLy Lo conducL Lhe laboraLory
examlnaLlons and LesLs provlded ln Lhls ArLlcle, and appolnL such Lechnlcal and oLher
personnel as may be necessary for Lhe effecLlve lmplemenLaLlon of Lhls provlslon. 1he
uCP shall also accredlL physlclans who shall conducL Lhe drug dependency
examlnaLlon of a drug dependenL as well as Lhe afLer-care and follow-up program for
Lhe sald drug dependenL. 1here shall be a conLrol regulaLlons, llcenslng and
accredlLaLlon dlvlslon under Lhe supervlslon of Lhe uCP for Lhls purpose.
lor Lhls purpose, Lhe uCP shall esLabllsh, operaLe and malnLaln drug LesLlng cenLers
ln governmenL hosplLals, whlch musL be provlded aL leasL wlLh baslc Lechnologlcally
advanced equlpmenL and maLerlals, ln order Lo conducL Lhe laboraLory examlnaLlon
and LesLs hereln provlded, and appolnL such quallfled and duly Lralned Lechnlcal and
oLher personnel as may be necessary for Lhe effecLlve lmplemenLaLlon of Lhls
provlslon.

5ectloo 40. kecotJs kepolteJ fot 1toosoctloos oo uooqetoos utoq ooJ ltecotsots ooJ
sseotlol cbemlcols. -
a) Lvery pharmaclsL deallng ln dangerous drugs and/or conLrolled precursors and
essenLlal chemlcals shall malnLaln and keep an orlglnal record of sales, purchases,
acqulslLlons and dellverles of dangerous drugs, lndlcaLlng Lhereln Lhe followlng
lnformaLlon:
(1) Llcense number and address of Lhe pharmaclsL,
(2) name, address and llcense of Lhe manufacLurer, lmporLer or wholesaler
from whom Lhe dangerous drugs have been purchased,
(3) CuanLlLy and name of Lhe dangerous drugs purchased or acqulred,
(4) uaLe of acqulslLlon or purchase,
(3) name, address and communlLy Lax cerLlflcaLe number of Lhe buyer,
(6) Serlal number of Lhe prescrlpLlon and Lhe name of Lhe physlclan, denLlsL,
veLerlnarlan or pracLlLloner lssulng Lhe same,
(7) CuanLlLy and name of Lhe dangerous drugs sold or dellvered, and
(8) uaLe of sale or dellvery.
A cerLlfled Lrue copy of such record coverlng a perlod of slx (6) monLhs, duly slgned
by Lhe pharmaclsL or Lhe owner of Lhe drugsLore, pharmacy or chemlcal
esLabllshmenL, shall be forwarded Lo Lhe 8oard wlLhln flfLeen (13) days followlng Lhe
lasL day of !une and uecember of each year, wlLh a copy Lhereof furnlshed Lhe clLy or
munlclpal healLh offlcer concerned.
(b) A physlclan, denLlsL, veLerlnarlan or pracLlLloner auLhorlzed Lo prescrlbe any
dangerous drug shall lssue Lhe prescrlpLlon Lherefor ln one (1) orlglnal and Lwo (2)
dupllcaLe coples. 1he orlglnal, afLer Lhe prescrlpLlon has been fllled, shall be reLalned
by Lhe pharmaclsL for a perlod of one (1) year from Lhe daLe of sale or dellvery of
such drug. Cne (1) copy shall be reLalned by Lhe buyer or by Lhe person Lo whom Lhe
drug ls dellvered unLll such drug ls consumed, whlle Lhe second copy shall be reLalned
by Lhe person lssulng Lhe prescrlpLlon.
lor purposes of Lhls AcL, all prescrlpLlons lssued by physlclans, denLlsLs, veLerlnarlans
or pracLlLloners shall be wrlLLen on forms excluslvely lssued by and obLalnable from
Lhe uCP. Such forms shall be made of a speclal klnd of paper and shall be dlsLrlbuLed
ln such quanLlLles and conLaln such lnformaLlon and oLher daLa as Lhe uCP may, by
rules and regulaLlons, requlre. Such forms shall only be lssued by Lhe uCP Lhrough lLs
auLhorlzed employees Lo llcensed physlclans, denLlsLs, veLerlnarlans and pracLlLloners
ln such quanLlLles as Lhe 8oard may auLhorlze. ln emergency cases, however, as Lhe
8oard may speclfy ln Lhe publlc lnLeresL, a prescrlpLlon need noL be accompllshed on
such forms. 1he prescrlblng physlclan, denLlsL, veLerlnarlan or pracLlLloner shall,
wlLhln Lhree (3) days afLer lssulng such prescrlpLlon, lnform Lhe uCP of Lhe same ln
wrlLlng. no prescrlpLlon once served by Lhe drugsLore or pharmacy be reused nor any
prescrlpLlon once lssued be refllled.
(c) All manufacLurers, wholesalers, dlsLrlbuLors, lmporLers, dealers and reLallers of
dangerous drugs and/or conLrolled precursors and essenLlal chemlcals shall keep a
record of all lnvenLorles, sales, purchases, acqulslLlons and dellverles of Lhe same as
well as Lhe names, addresses and llcenses of Lhe persons from whom such lLems were
purchased or acqulred or Lo whom such lLems were sold or dellvered, Lhe name and
quanLlLy of Lhe same and Lhe daLe of Lhe LransacLlons. Such records may be sub[ecLed
anyLlme for revlew by Lhe 8oard.

look ot. loJlvlJooteJ ossessmeot, pteseoce of ptoboble coose.

Consti2 Reviewer

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Consti2 Reviewer

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

!"#$%&%'%&"#()+(,--.

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen