PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS
# Case Name Facts
1 Republic v.  Through E.O No. 1, PCGG Chairman Jovito
Sandiganbayan Salonga created an AFP Anti-Graft Board and
investigated the “unexplained wealth” of
Major General Ramas. A search warrant was
issued for the home of Elizabeth Dimaano,
Ramas’ alleged mistress.
 Communications equipment, jewelry, land
titles, money and weapons & ammunition
were seized. Ramas denied allegations and
Dimaano assumed ownership of seized items.
 Ramas alleged that he cannot be classified as
a subordinate under its definition in E.O.No.
1, hence, the PCGG does not have jurisdiction
over him.
 Petitioner claims during the interregnum, the
Bill of Rights was not operative.
2 Philippine  PBMEO, after prior notice to the company,
Blooming Mills staged a mass demonstration in Malacañang
Employees to protest against the alleged abuses
Organization v. committed by the Pasig police. Company did
not stop them but said that those who fail to
Philippine
report to work for the morning shift will be
Blooming Mills dismissed pursuant to the “No Strike-No
Co., Inc. Lockout” clause in the CBA
3 Tupas v. CA  Petitioners received the CA decision on April
3, 1989. MR was filed on April 17, 1989. MR
(General Rule) was denied by an order on May 3, 1989, copy
(Exception: of which was received by petitioner’s counsel
on May 9, 1989. Petition for review was filed
PBMEO v.
on May 23, 1989
PBMCO)
Held/Ratio
 The PCGG has no jurisdiction to investigate
respondents. The PCGG, through the AFP
Board, can only investigate the unexplained
wealth and corrupt practices of AFP personnel
who fall under either of the two categories
 The Ombudsman should handle the
investigation and the OSG should file the
forfeiture petition, and not the PCGG.
 No Bill of Rights during interregnum
 The Company filed before the Court of
Industrial Relations which ruled that
petitioners are guilty of unfair labor practice
and that the 8 private petitioners be dismissed
from the Company. The SC ruled that PBMEO
was not guilty of unfair labor practice since
their substantive rights is paramount over
property rights.
 Petitioners only had until May 10,1989 to file
petition for review. They have forfeited their
right to appeal. Both substantive and
procedural rights are guaranteed by due
process. They complement each other.
Doctrine/s
 During the interregnum, a person could not
invoke any exclusionary right under a Bill of
Rights because there was neither a constitution
nor a Bill of Rights then. Nevertheless, the
Filipino people continued to enjoy, under the
Covenant and Declaration, almost the same
rights found in the Bill of Rights of the 1973
Constitution.
 Protected rights:
1. Right to Life: Right to a good life
emphasizing on the quality of life
2. Right to liberty: Measure of freedom.
Right to be free to use his faculties in all
lawful ways.
3. Right to property: Everything over
which man may have exclusive domain
or ownership
 Property and property rights can be lost
through prescription; but human rights are
imprescriptible.
 In the hierarchy of civil liberties, the rights of
free expression and of assembly occupy a
preferred position as they are essential to the
preservation and vitality of our civil and
political institutions; and such priority gives
these liberties the sanctity and the sanction not
permitting dubious intrusions
 A mere reasonable or rational relation between
the means employed by the law and its object or
purpose — that the law is neither arbitrary nor
discriminatory nor oppressive — would suffice
to validate a law which restricts or impairs
property rights.
 On the other hand, a constitutional or valid
infringement of human rights requires a more
stringent criterion, namely existence of a grave
and immediate danger of a substantive evil
which the State has the right to prevent.”
 Both substantive and procedural rights are
equally guaranteed by the due process,
whatever the source of such right, be it in the
Constitution, statutes or rules of court.
 Rules of procedure are intended to ensure the
orderly administration of justice and protection
of substantive rights.
CONSTI II | ALLANIC 1D 2021

4 El Banco v. Palanca  Engracio, a Chinese citizen, mortgaged
various parcels of real property in Manila in
order to secure his debt owed to El Banco. He
died thereafter, and thus the Bank moved to
foreclose the mortgage.
 The Bank notified him through publication in
a newspaper, and his properties were then
sold to the Bank. Years later, the
administrator of his property sought to
reverse the order contending that the court
never acquired jurisdiction over him or his
property.
5 Ang Tibay v. CIR  Ang Tibay allegedly ran low of leather
supplies and was unable tocommit to the
Philippine Army. Teodoro laid off some
workers. All being part of NLU, they filed a
case for unfair labor practice as ground.
 They alleged that NWB was unjustly favored
as nobody from them was laid off. First case,
Teodoro won.
 This is the second case, a petition for motion
for a new trial.
 Appearing personally in court is not relevant
because an action to foreclose a mortgage is a
proceeding quasi in rem; while it is not strictly
speaking an action in rem, it partakes of that
nature and is substantially such. In action in
rem, the property alone is treated as
responsible for the claim or obligation.
 In action quasi rem, an individual is named as
defendant, and the purpose of the proceeding is
to subject his interest therein to the obligation
or lien burdening the property.
 Failure of the clerk to send notice to the
defendant by mail didn’t destroy the
jurisdiction of the court and such irregularity
did not infringe the requirements of due
process of law.
 SC granted it in light of due process, and
enumerated the rights which must be respected
even in admin proceedings.
 Juris: CIR is not narrowly constrained by
technical rules of procedure.
 The fact that CIR, as a special court (more
administrative), may be free from rigidity of
procedural requirements does not entirely
ignore or disregard fundamental and essential
requirements of due process in trials and
investigations of an administrative character
 It is not absolutely right to say that procedural
rules should be suspended if it prejudices the
substantive rights.
The following are the requirements of due
process:
1. there must be an impartial court or tribunal
clothed with judicial power to hear and
decide the matter before it.
2. jurisdiction must be lawfully acquired over
the person or over the property
3. defendant must be given the opportunity to
be heard.
4. judgment must be rendered only after
lawful hearing.
Primary rights which must be respected even in
administrative proceedings:
1. Right to a hearing includes the right of the
party affected to present his own case and
submit evidence
2. The tribunal must consider the evidence
presented
3. The decision must have something to
support itself
4. The evidence must be substantial to support
a finding or conclusion
5. The decision must be based on the evidence
presented at the hearing, or at least
contained in the record and disclosed to the
parties affected
6. The Tribunal or any of its judges must act on
his or her own independent consideration of
the law and not simply accept the views of a
subordinate.
7. The Tribunal should render its decisions in a
manner that the parties can know the various
issues involved and the reasons for the
decision rendered.
CONSTI II | ALLANIC 1D 2021
6 Shu vs. Dee  Shu is the President of 3A Apparel
Corporation. He says that the respondent
Metrobank employees falsified deeds of real
estate mortgage to make it look like he signed
2 deeds.
 Eventually, 2 properties were foreclosed to
secure he loan. Shu complained to the NBI
and after investigation, NBI filed a complaint
to the City Prosecutor.
 When the case was brought to the SC,
respondents assailed that they were denied
due process.
7 GMA v. COMELEC  COMELEC issued a resolution implementing
the Fair Elections Act, mandating the airtime
limitation of candidates on a per station basis.
 However prior to the 2013 elections, they
issued another resolution modifying the
previous one and changing the per station
basis to a total aggregate basis.
8 Gov’t of Hongkong  Munoz is facing criminal charges with the
v. OLALIA Government of Hong Kong. His arrest is
requested by HK through the PH DOJ.
 When a petition for extradition was filed
before the RTC, Munoz applied for bail.
Munoz was granted bail by the RTC.
 HK then raised the issue to the SC.
 The SC ruled that upon the filing of the
respondents of an MR, due process already
existed.
 Also on the question whether NBI denied their
due process, the SC ruled that the NBI’s
findings, being an investigative agency are still
subject to the prosecutor’s and the Secretary of
Justice’s actions for purposes of finding the
existence of probable cause, and that it does not
have judicial or quasi-judicial powers, hence,
the agency cannot deny due process.
 While it is true that the COMELEC is an
independent office and not mere administrative
agency under Executive department, rules
which apply to the latter must also be deemed
apply to the former, as a dictate of due process
 It has been ruled in this case that since
COMELEC failed to conduct a hearing prior to
promulgating such resolution that introduced a
radical change in the process, the specific
provision that amended the previous rule is
unconstitutional, hence void.
 The SC overturned its previous decision not
allowing bail. Due to international treaties and
agreements, it is bound to give importance to
the rights of the individual as extradition may
entail a deprivation of liberty.
 Through an extradition case is administrative
in character, not criminal, it bears the
earmarks of the criminal process.
The essence of due process is simply the
opportunity to be heard. What the law prohibits
is not the absence of previous notice but its
absolute absence and lack of opportunity to be
heard.
Sufficient compliance with the requirements of
due process exists when a party is given a chance
to be heard through his motion for
reconsideration.
The determination of probable cause is
essentially an executive function, lodged in the
first place on the prosecutor who conducted the
preliminary investigation, reviewable by the
Secretary
Public participation, and not merely notice, is
required before the issuance of administrative
resolutions that effect a radical change in the
manner of things.
While extradition is not a criminal proceeding, it
entails deprivation of liberty and the means
employed to attain the purpose of extradition is
also “the machinery of criminal law”.
The standard of due process in the granting of bail
for extradition cases, will not be the same as that
of criminal proceedings. The quantum of evidence
needed would be “clear and convincing evidence”
This standard should be lower than proof beyond
reasonable doubt but higher than preponderance
of evidence
CONSTI II | ALLANIC 1D 2021
9 RCBC v. BDO  RCBC and BDO (EPCIB) entered into a Share
Purchase Agreement for the sale of subject
shares.
 After the execution of sale, RCBC claimed
that there was an overpayment of the subject
shares, which prompted them to settle the
dispute with the ICC-ICA.
 In order that the arbitration is continued,
the ICC-ICA required both parties to pay
advance on costs where RCBC complied but
BDO refused to pay.
 This refusal became a ground for the tribunal
to give the first partial award to RCBC. BDO
claimed that they have been violated their
due process because they were not given the
opportunity to be heard by an impartial
tribunal because of Chairman Barker’s
partiality towards RCBC. Despite this, RCBC
was awarded the second and final awards.
10 ADMU v.  The respondent students were involved in
CAPULONG the hazing incident which led to the death of
Lennie Villa, a first year student of Ateneo
Law School, and injuries of Bienvenido
Marquez.
 They were found guilty of violating the
disciplinary rule of the Ateneo Law School
against hazing, and were removed from the
roll of the students.
 Note: They were required to reply to the
allegations but they failed to do so. They were
placed under preventive suspension
 The RTC granted the petition of the students
and ordered for their re-admission, hence
this petition.
 The SC ruled that there was evident partiality
in the arbitration tribunal because Chariman
Barker exhibited strong inclination to grant
such relief to RCBC notwithstanding his
categorical ruling that the Arbitration Tribunal
“has no power under the ICC Rules to order
EPCIB to pay the advance on costs sought by
the ICC or to give the Claimant any relief
against the Respondent’s refusal to pay.”
 By furnishing the parties with a copy of Mr.
Secomb’s article, Chariman Barker practically
armed RCBC with supporting legal arguments
under the “contractual approached”.
 The Court ruled that the student’s right to due
process was not violated since the university
accorded to the students the proper procedure
in disciplinary cases.
 They were given opportunity to be heard
 As to their right to be informed of the evidence
against them, the students have no right to
examine affiants-neophytes since the hearing
is summary in nature.
 Court also affirmed decision of the
administration to dismiss the students on the
ground that the latter violated the rules.
 Ruling otherwise would be tantamount to
infringement of the university’s academic
freedom
 Enrollment in an institution of higher
institution is merely a PRIVILEGE, not a
RIGHT.
When a claim of arbitrator’s evident partiality is
made, “the court must ascertain from such record
as is available whether the arbitrators’ conduct
was so biased and prejudiced as to destroy
fundamental fairness.”
Partiality of ARBITRATOR in an ARBITRATION
case will merit its nullification.
Evident partiality is defined that it “encompasses
both an arbitrator’s explicit bias toward one party
and an arbitrator’s inferred bias when an
arbitrator fails to disclose relevant information to
the parties
Reasonable impression of partiality standard
requires a showing that a reasonable person
would have to conclude than an arbitrator was
partial to the other party to the arbitration. Bias
must be direct, definite, and capable of
demonstration.
The Court also ruled that, being, merely
administrative in character the disciplinary case
is not subject to the rigorous requirements of
criminal due process.
Due process in ACADEMIC
DISCIPLINARY CASES:
1. Must be informed in writing of the
nature and cause of the accusation
2. Right to answer charges against them,
with counsel, if desired
3. Shall be informed of the evidence
against them
4. Shall have the right to adduce own
evidence
5. The evidence must be duly considered
Academic freedom includes:
1. who may teach:
2. what may be taught;
3. how it shall be taught; and
4. who may be admitted to study.
CONSTI II | ALLANIC 1D 2021
11 Go v. San Juan de  Petitioner Kim B. Go, together with other
Letran fraternity members, was accused of being
involved in hazing rites and in violation of
Letran’s school policies.
 Letran informed Kim’s parents regarding the
matter and invited them to a couple of
conferences. Kim’s parents did not want to
believe Letran and failed to attend such
meetings.
 They were meted out suspension after
reducing their supposed penalty of dismissal.
 Spouses Go, parents of Kim, sued the school
for “unlawfully dismissing” Kim and also
sought for damages.
12 Lao Gi v. CA  Lao Gi, his wife and children were declared
as Filipino Citizens but such declaration was
revoked by the Minister of Justice based on
alleged fraud and misrepresentation.
 Deportation charge was filed against
petitioners, but was changed to‘failure to
register as aliens’, and continuing refusal.
 One of the children, Manuel, was also
charged criminally but was acquitted.
 Motion to Dismiss (MoD) was filed by
petitioners but was denied by CID.
13 Maceda v. ERB  The three oil companies filed with the ERB
applications for oil increase following the
outbreak of the Persian Gulf conflict.
 ERB granted a provisional increase of
P1.42/liter. Maceda filed for a prohibition as
this tantamounts to grave abuse of
discretion, but was denied. (Alleged that
there was no hearing and notice)
 However, hearings were set in order to give
opportunity to registered oppositors. During
the hearings, the three oil companies filed a
 The SC ruled that Letran had the authority to
dismiss, pursuant to education department’s
clear order
 It is a constitutional mandate of schools to
discipline their students, including dismissal
or exclusion from enrollment.
 Due process was observed.
 The essence of the written notice rule is to
inform the accused of the charges against him
and allow for sufficient time to prepare for a
defense. Although there was no written
document, the petitioners were already
informed of the case beforehand and were
given enough time to prepare.
 No preliminary investigation to determine
status as aliens.
 Before any charge should be filed in the CID a
preliminary investigation must be conducted
to determine if there is a sufficient cause to
charge the respondent for deportation.
 Petitioners should be given due course to assert
their citizenship first.
 Court ruled the order was well within the ERB’s
power as stated in Section 8 of EO 172.
 Pending the hearing, however, an order to
increase provisionally without need of a
hearing is authorized under Sec. 8, subject to
the final outcome of the proceeding.
 In the broader interest of justice, the Board
may, in any particular matter, except itself
from these rules and apply such suitable
procedure as shall promote the objectives of
the Order
 Same as ADMU v. Capulong
 The Court held that the school may discipline
their students even without cross-examination
of the witnesses.
 Since disciplinary proceedings may be
summary, “formal inquiry” is not necessary.
 “Where a party was afforded an opportunity to
participate in the proceedings but failed to do
so, he cannot [thereafter] complain of
deprivation of due process.
Deportation: Police power measure against
undesirable aliens whose presence is injurious to
public good.
Due process in DEPORTATION
PROCEEDINGS:
1. Preliminary investigation to determine
status
2. Warrant of Arrest issued after finding just
cause
3. Charge must specify act or omission
4. Right to be heard and present evidence
upon lawful hearing, which is summary
in nature
5. Final declaration of deportation with basis
Due process in REGULATION OF RATES:
1. Notice and hearing
2. Rate must be reasonable and just
3. Rate must not be confiscatory
Matters of rate or price fixing is
considered as exercising a quasi-
legislative function as opposed to price
regulation which is quasi-judicial. The
administrative agency is not bound by the strict
technical rules of evidence governing court
CONSTI II | ALLANIC 1D 2021
 motion to leave and applications to further
increase the oil prices.
 ERB granted such motion, this then deprived
Maceda his due process and failed to finish
his cross-examination.
14 Corona v. UHPAP  The PPA, regulating body of pilots, to restore
order in the ports and improve quality of
services issued an AO which provides that
existing licenses shall be cancelled on
December 31, 1992 and be subjected to
annual renewal after a rigid test.
 The respondents appealed that they were not
given the opportunity to defend for
themselves.
15 Salaw v. NLRC  Petitioner is employed by respondent bank
as credit investigator-appraiser, and part of
his work is to make inspect and investigate
on company’s foreclosed asset.
 The Criminal Investigation Service of the
Philippine Constabulary extracted from
petitioner a sworn-statement without
counsel which made it appear that he was in
cahoots with another wherein they acquired
some of the foreclosed assets of the bank.
 Petitioner was requested to appeal before the
Personnel Discipline and Investigating
Committee but was further requested that no
representative or counsel shall accompany
him. And then he was terminated for serious
misconduct
 The SC ruled that procedural due process was
granted to the respondents since they were
able to be heard at least 4 times (OP and RTC)
before it was decided by the SC.
 As a general rule, notice and hearing, as the
fundamental requirements of procedural due
process, are essential only when an
administrative body exercises its quasi-
judicial function.
 In the performance of its executive or
legislative functions, such as issuing rules and
regulations, an administrative body need not
comply with the requirements of notice and
hearing.
 However, the renewal of their license is now
dependent on a rigid evaluation of
performance which is conducted only after the
license has already been cancelled. The pre-
evaluation cancellation makes it unreasonable
and constitutionally infirm.
 The Court agrees with the LA that the
investigation, in which he did not have a
counsel, was a violation of his constitutional
right to due process. The Labor Code also
provided for the requirement of a counsel in
dismissal hearings and investigation
 Because the admission of petitioner in Sworn
Statement was done without counsel, the same
is inadmissible as evidence against him.
proceedings.
As long as a party was given the opportunity to
defend his interests in due course, he cannot be
said to have been denied due process of law, for
this opportunity to be heard is the very essence
of due process.
The substantial due process was violated since
the pilot license was a property right and
violates the security of tenure of the pilots.
Right to practice profession is considered
property right.
Administrative and quasi-judicial bodies are not
bound by the technical rules of procedure in the
adjudication cases. However, the right to
counsel, a very basic requirement of substantive
due process, has to be observed
The Court said that under the Labor Code, the
requirement in a dismissal proceeding are:
1. Authorized cause of dismissal as provided
by law
2. Requirement of due process which are
notice and hearing. These two requisites
and inviolable and must concur.
Any admission obtained from such kinds of
investigation shall be inadmissible as evidence
because they are in violation of a person’s
constitutional right, and also it did not follow the
standard to be imposed in administrative case as
CONSTI II | ALLANIC 1D 2021

16 People v. Nazario  The accused is charged with violation of an
Ordinance which requires payment of
municipal tax, to which he continuously
refused.
 He said that he is a lessee from the
government of a fishpond and that he is an
operator of such. The defendant argued that
the there is no law authorizing municipalities
to impose taxes on fishpond operators, and
that he is not covered by the said Ordinance
because he is a lessee of a forest land to be
converted into a fishpond.
 Finally, he claims that the Ordinance is vague
and ambiguous and he is not covered by
“owner and manager” because he is an
operator
17 Estrada v.  Joseph Estrada is being prosecuted under
Sandiganbayan the Plunder Law. He assails the
constitutionality of the said law on grounds
that it is vague, that the law requires less
evidence to prove reasonable doubt, and that
the law is mala prohibitum and therefore
does not need criminal intent.
 In this case, the Ordinance is not said to be
vague. The defendant is included in the term
“manager” since he financed the construction
of fishpond and its maintenance. Also, as the
sole recipient of the profits of the fishpond, as
the operator, it should be liable for the
municipal tax.
 Also, the imposition of tax is not vague. The
concerned provision presents a mere problem
of computation but does not make the law
vague. The Ordinance also sets standards
which make it unambiguous
 As a rule, a statute or act may be said to be
vague when it lacks comprehensible
standards that men "of common
intelligence must necessarily guess at its
meaning and differ as to its
application."
 It is repugnant to the Constitution in two
respects (Vagueness):
1. Violates due process for failure to accord
persons, especially the parties targeted by
it, fair notice of the conduct to avoid; and
2. Leaves law enforcers unbridled discretion
in carrying out its provisions and becomes
an arbitrary flexing of the Government
muscle.
 The SC argues that the general terms on the law
should not be scrutinized on its precise
scientific meaning, and that a law cannot be
deemed unconstitutional for its failure to
define general terms.
 There is still the need for the prosecution to
prove reasonable doubt, and the crime of
plunder is mala in se therefore requires
criminal intent.
Test for penal laws:
- Whether the language conveys a sufficiently
definite warning as to the proscribed
conduct when measured by common
understanding and practice.
laid down in Ang Tibay case
Kinds of vagueness:
1. Perfectly vague – obscurity is evident on its
face
2. Legislation couched in an imprecise
language but may still be saved by proper
construction
3. Ambiguous statutes applicable to certain
types of activities. Such may not be
challenged whenever directed against such
activities.
Balancing-of-interest doctrine: rational
balance between the object of prohibition, the
scope of restricted right and the interest
protected, to determine if a statute is repugnant
to the Constitution.
“Less restrictive alternative” doctrine –
the court searches for alternatives available to
the government so the statute will be
unnecessary.
Void-for-vagueness doctrine:
- Does not apply to statutes which have
imprecise standards and can be saved by
construction
Overbreadth doctrine:
“A governmental purpose may not be achieved by
means which sweep unnecessarily broadly and
thereby invade the area of protected freedoms.”
Facial challenge does not apply to penal
laws because:
- Allowed to be made to a vague statute and to
one which is overbroad because of possible
"chilling effect" upon protected speech.
- Does not apply to penal statutes; criminal
CONSTI II | ALLANIC 1D 2021

18 Feeder v. CA  A vessel of Honduran registry, owned by the
petitioner, left Singapore for Zamboanga
 The vessel anchored at the vicinity of Iloilo
without notifying the Iloilo customs
authority and did not have the required ship
and shipping documents, except for
clearance from Singaporean authorities.
 As such, a Warrant of Seizure and Detention
was issued. And was found guilty of violating
the Trade and customs Code.
 The petitioner argued that they are deprived
of their right to due process in its right to be
presumed to be innocent was not rebutted
beyond reasonable doubt. Also, their sworn
statement, taken without a counsel is a
violation of their constitutional right
19 CB v CA  The Monetary Board (MB) of the Central
Bank found Triumph Savings Bank (TSB) to
be insolvent and issued MB Resolution No.
596 placing TSB under the receivership of
Ramon V. Tiaoqui.
 Respondents argue that the said resolution is
unconstitutional due to bad faith and
arbitrariness since there was no prior notice
nor hearing given to TSB.
 Petitioners argue that TSB has no legal
capacity to annul the said resolution.
- It must be stressed, however, that the
"vagueness" doctrine merely requires a
reasonable degree of certainty for the
statute to be upheld - not absolute
precision or mathematical exactitude, as
petitioner seems to suggest.
- Flexibility, rather than meticulous
specificity, is permissible as long as the
metes and bounds of the statute are clearly
delineated. An act will not be held invalid
merely because it might have been more
explicit in its wordings or detailed in its
provisions, especially where, because of the
nature of the act, it would be impossible to
provide all the details in advance as in all
other statutes.
 The seizure and forfeiture proceedings under
the tariff and customs law are not penal in
nature as they do not result in the conviction
of the offender nor imposition of penalty.
 This is purely civil and administrative in
nature, as such, proof beyond reasonable
doubt is not required to justify the forfeiture of
goods.
 The evidence required is substantial evidence
which means such evidence which a reasonable
mind might accept as adequate to support a
conclusion. In this case, it is sufficiently
established that there is illegal importation.
 Also, the right of presumption of innocence is
not enjoyed by juridical persons
 Moreover, the absence of counsel when
petitioners made their statements does not
violate their constitutional right.
 The “close now hear later” scheme is a valid
exercise of power to prevent further dissipation
of assets and to protect the clients of the bank
and the general public.
 The Central Bank, through the Monetary
Board, is vested with exclusive authority over
banks and non-financial institutions.
 The SC ruled that Sec. 29 of RA 265 does not
require that there be any prior notice nor
hearing before a bank may be placed under
receivership or closed due since it would
dissipate the sensitive relationship between
banks and its clients
statutes have general in terrorem effect
resulting from their very existence, and, if
facial challenge is allowed for this reason
alone, the State may well be prevented from
enacting laws against socially harmful
conduct.
The overbreadth and vagueness doctrines
then have special application only to free
speech cases. They are inapt for testing the
validity of penal statutes.
In sum, the doctrines of strict scrutiny,
overbreadth, and vagueness are analytical
tools developed for testing "on their faces"
statutes in free speech cases or, as they are called
in American law, First Amendment cases. They
cannot be made to do service when what is
involved is a criminal statute.
The right of presumption of innocence is not
enjoyed by juridical persons
The right to the assistance of counsel is not
indispensable to due process unless required by
the Constitution or a law. In other proceedings
(non-criminal), the need for the assistance of
counsel is not as urgent nor is it deemed
essential to their validity. There is nothing in the
Constitution that says a party in a non-criminal
proceeding is entitled to be represented by
counsel. The assistance of lawyers, while
desirable, is not indispensible
 Closure proceedings are a valid exercise of
police power to protect the public from
dissipation of funds and bank runs. Does not
need notice and hearing as long as there is a
subsequent judicial review.
 The banking institutions are impressed with
public interest as they are important in the
economy of the State, hence the substantive
interest of the clients should take
precedence over the procedural rights
of respondent.
CONSTI II | ALLANIC 1D 2021

20 Perez v. Madrona  Chief Demolition officer sent a letter to
respondents ordering them to tear down
their concrete fence and steel gate, otherwise
the team will demolish it, as it allegedly
violate several laws and programs in
Marikina.
 Petitioner argued that since the fence was
nuisance per se, the property may be bated
summarily
21 American Inter-  Private respondent Glorious Sun was found
Fashion v. OP guilty by the Garments and Textile Export
Board of dollar-salting and misdeclaration of
importations.
 As such, its export quotas were cancelled and
allocated to De Soleil and herein petitioner
AIFC. Glorious Sun filed a petition for
certiorari before this Court on the ground
that the decision was not supported by
substantial evidence hence violated its right
to due process but Glorious Sun filed a
motion to withdraw the petition which the
Court granted.
 And then more than 2 years later, Glorious
filed with the GTEB filed a petition for
restitution of its export quotas allocation and
to reconsider previous decision because it
was not based on substantial evidence and
was issued due to the undue influence of
Ongpin (Marcos crony)
 The Court also ruled that, MB resolution
ordering for a bank to be under receivership
may only be annulled after the determination
by the trial court that it is tainted with
arbitrariness and bad faith. In this case, such
grounds are not present.
 Jurisprudence defines nuisance per se as one
which affects the immediate safety of persons
and property and may be summarily abated
under undefined laws of necessity.
 The Court said that respondent’s fence is not
nuisance per se because it does not bring any
threat to the immediate security of the persons
and property in the community as it primarily
prevents intruders from entering respondent’s
property.
 It is not injurious to the health or comfort of
the community. Also, the sidewalk is still
accessible.
 As such, not being a nuisance, but at most a
nuisance accidens, its summary abatement
without judicial intervention is unwarranted.
 A judgment on the merits is one rendered after
a determination of which party is right, as
distinguished from a judgment rendered upon
preliminary or final or merely technical point.
 The motion to withdraw the petition arose
from the fears of Mr. Co that not only Glorious
Sun but his other businesses would be
destroyed by the martial law regime
 The dismissal was clearly based on a technical
matter rather than on the merits of the
petition.
 AIFC cannot use as an excuse the subsequent
disclosure of the evidence in 1987 used by the
GTEB to Glorious in 1987 to justify the 1984
GTEB resolution. This shows more that AIFP
was denied due process.
 In effect, its export quota allocation, which
initially was a privilege, evolved into
some form of property right, which should
not be removed from it arbitrarily and without
due process only to hurriedly confer it on
another.
 Due process in CLOSURE PROCEEDINGS:
1. Examination by Central Bank
2. Report of the Monetary Board
3. Prima facie evidence about the bank’s
financial condition
Two requisites of injunction:
1. Right to be protected—in this case, the
right to property of Madrona spouses
without due process.
2. Act against which the injunction is
directed violates the said right—in
this case, the summary abatement
Nuissance Per Se- one that presents an
imminent danger; injurious to the rights of
property, health and comfort. Summary
abatement is justified.
Summary Abatement- abatement of a
nuisance without judicial proceeding; removal of
the nuisance.
For a judgment to be a bar to a subsequent case,
the ff requisites must concur:
1. it must be a final judgment
2. the court which resolved it had jurisdiction
over the subject matter and the parties
3. it must be a judgment on the merits
4. there must be identity between the two
cases, as to the parties, subject matter and
cause of action
Although factual findings of administrative
agencies are generally accorded respect, such
factual findings may be disregarded if they
are not supported by evidence; where the
findings are initiated by fraud, imposition or
collusion; where the procedures which lead to the
factual findings are irregular; when palpable
errors are committed; or when grave abuse of
discretion arbitrariness or capriciousness is
manifest.
CONSTI II | ALLANIC 1D 2021
22 British American  Cigarettes taxes according to brackets. 1997
Tobacco (BAT) v. law amending the NIRC had a freeze
Camacho provision which allowed old/existing
cigarette brands to remain in their current
bracket.
 But new brands entering 1997 onwards
would be taxed differently, subject to
increase.
 BAT said this violated the equal protection
clause.
Classification freeze provision – assailed law
freezes the tax classification of a cigarette
brand based on its current net retail price and
which, thus produced different classes of
brands based on the time of their introduction
into the market
23 British American Same
Tobacco v.
Camacho (MR)
SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS
24 US v. Toribio  The Appellant in this case slaughtered a
carabao for human consumption without a
permit from the municipal treasurer.
 Law: slaughter for human consumption of
carabaos fit for agricultural work and draft
purposes
 The appellant contends that Sec. 31 of the law
violates Sec. 5 of the Philippine Bill (Act of
Congress, July 1, 1902) which provides that
"no law shall be enacted which shall deprive
any person of life, liberty, or property
without due process of law”.
 SC affirmed the decision that the classification
was constitutional. The classification must be reasonable and rest
 The Court first said that laws should not upon some ground of difference having a fair and
discriminate and shall apply similarly to all substantial relation to the object of the legislation
persons in the same manner. However, the
Constitution does not require that things which Valid and reasonable classification means:
are different should be treated equally, hence 1. the classification rests on substantial
classification if rational in character is distinctions,
allowable. Also, the State has the power to 2. germane to the purpose of the law,
make reasonable classification to tax. 3. applies to both present and future
 The Court said that the rational basis test conditions,
should be applied. 4. applies equally to all those belonging to the
same class
 As to the contention of the petitioner that the
law provision unduly favors older brands, the
Court said that the petitioner did not clearly The Court said that when there is a claim of
demonstrate the exact extent of such impact. breach of the due process and equal
 It did not show how competition in the market protection clauses, considering that they are
was affected, and how it constraints the entry not fixed rules but rather broad standards,
of new brands in the market. there is need for proof as such persuasive
 The freeze provision applies uniformly to all
character as would lead to such a
newly introduced brands in the market.
conclusion. Absent such showing, the
presumption of validity must prevail
 The Rational Basis Test was properly applied There can be no violation of the equal protection
the first time. This means that a law which clause as the rational basis test was satisfied.
classifies things will be upheld if there are facts
that provide a rational basis for the
classification.
 It explains why the freeze classification is
germane to the purpose of the law:
o Administrative concerns to simplify tax
administration
o Elimination of areas of abuse and
corruption in tax collection
o Stable revenue generation
 The law on the slaughter for human
consumption of carabaos fit for agricultural Valid exercise of police power (requisites):
work and draft purposes is not an
appropriation of property interests to a "public 1. That the interests of the public generally,
use," and is not, therefore, within the as distinguished from those of a particular
principles of the exercise by the State of the class, require such interference; and
right of eminent domain. It is just a restriction 2. That the means are reasonably necessary
or limitation upon a private use, which the for the accomplishment of the purpose,
legislature deemed to be detrimental to the and not unduly oppressive upon
public welfare. individuals
 The SC ruled that it did not violate the
provision because the prohibition of slaughter
of carabaos is just a limitation upon a private
CONSTI II | ALLANIC 1D 2021
 use, which the legislature deemed to be
detrimental to the public welfare.
 The prohibition of the slaughter of carabaos for
human consumption, so long as these animals
are fit for agricultural work or draft purposes
was a "reasonably necessary" limitation
on private ownership, to protect the
community from the loss of the services of such
animals by their slaughter by improvident
owners, tempted either by greed of momentary
gain, or by a desire to enjoy the luxury of
animal food

25 Churchill v.  Churchill and Rafferty were in an
Rafferty advertisement business, specifically
billboards.
 Rafferty wanted to take them down because
they were considered to be offensive to sight
or a nuisance and then cancel the bond used
by the plaintiffs to secure a preliminary
injunction.
 Raferty acted under subsection (b) of section
100 of Act No. 2339, conferring power upon
the Collector of Internal Revenue to remove
any sign, signboard, or billboard upon the
ground that the same is offensive to the sight
or is otherwise a nuisance.
 Police power is exercised by the government
through the legislative branch. Any law which
divests a person of ordinary enjoyment iof their
property is no doubt invalid.
 But if the law acts in such a way to care and
is for the comfort of the general welfare
of the public, such law must be respected and
enforced.
 The billboards posted by the petitioners fall
under regulation of the government because it
affects the sight of the people. Also the
regulations on billboards are not
regulations on private properties but on
streets and paths used in travel.
Same doctrine as valid exercise of police power
Police power’s scope is anything that the
government may deem necessary to regulate and
prohibit for the welfare of its people
“Hence, we conceive that the regulation of
billboards and their restriction is not so much a
regulation of private property as it is a regulation
of the use of the streets and other public
thoroughfares.”

26 People v. Fajardo  Fajardo the incumbent mayor then passed
the assailed ordinance which allows the
mayor to require a mayor’s permit for
buildings and require a fee. Such building
should not destroy view of public plaza.
 Ironically in 1954 after his term expired he
and co-defendant erected the assailed
building after being denied a mayor’s permit
twice on the premise they badly needed a
house to live at after their previous house was
destroyed by a typhoon
27 Ermita-Malate  The petitioners, duly licensed to engage in
Hotel v. City of the business of hotels and motels, were
Manila assailing the constitutionality of the
Ordinance passed by the City of Manila
regarding the regulation of hotels and
motels.
 Ordinance: provides for higher license fees
and requires the owner to record specific
 Such ordinance convicting the appellants was The State cannot in the guise of police power
voided for violating the right of the owners to permanently divest its owners of the beneficial
enjoy and use their property without due use of their land
process and giving mayor unbridled discretion
to issue or not issue a mayor’s permit to erect
buildings
 The mayor has unbridled discretion to issue or
deny a permit without any standards set forth
in the ordinance at all to limit such discretion
or to guide the application.
 No purpose mentioned in the law and how the
permits are to be granted or denied. Purely
discretional on the mayor.
 The Supreme Court reversed the ruling of the Persons and property may be subject to all kinds
trial court and ruled that the Ordinance is a of restraint and burdens, in order to secure the
valid exercise of police power. general comfort, health, and prosperity of the
 It is neither unreasonable nor arbitrary. It is State
intended to curb the opportunity for the
immoral or illegitimate use to which such
premises are being devoted.
 Also, it is not violative of substantive due

CONSTI II | ALLANIC 1D 2021

 information about their tenants.
 The Trial court nullified the ordinance on the
ground that its provisions violate the due
process clause and due to lack of authority of
Mayor to enact such ordinance.
28 Ynot v. IAC  Ynot transported 6 carabaos from Masbate to
Iloilo. They were confiscated for violating EO
626-A.
 Petitioner sued for recovery and assailed the
constitutionality of the EO in the RTC.
 Executive Order No. 626-A imposes an
absolute ban not on the slaughter of the
carabaos but on their movement, providing
that "no carabao regardless of age, sex,
physical condition or purpose (sic) and no
carabeef shall be transported from one
province to another."
29 Balacuit v. CFI  Ordinance No. 640 was passed by the Butuan
Municipal Board requiring theaters to charge
only half of the regular price for children, 7-
12 years old.
30 Magtajas v. Pryce  A casino was announced to be opened in
CDO. In reaction to this, the Sangguniang
Panlungsod of CDO enacted two ordinances
which are against the opening of the casino.
 Pryce Properties, the corporation owning the
building leased by PAGCOR for the
establishment of the casino, assailed these
ordinances for being invalid.
 CA held that the ordinances were indeed
process since it was able to pass the measure of
reasonableness, and is free from arbitrariness.
 The court sustained the confiscation and
declined to rule on the constitutionality of the
EO for lack of authority and presumed validity.
 (Applying police power requisites) Carabao, as
the poor man's tractor, so to speak, has a direct
relevance to the public welfare and so is a
lawful subject
 We do not see how the prohibition of the
interprovincial transport of carabaos can
prevent their indiscriminate slaughter,
considering that they can be killed anywhere,
with no less difficulty in one province than in
another.
 Obviously, retaining the carabaos in one
province will not prevent their slaughter
there, any more than moving them to another
province will make it easier to kill them there.
 The methods or means used to protect the
public health, morals, safety or welfare, must
have some relation to the end in view, for under
the guise of the police power, personal rights
and those pertaining to private property will
not be permitted to be arbitrarily invaded by
the legislative department.
 While it is true that a business may be
regulated, it is equally true that such regulation
must be within the bounds of reason, that is,
the regulatory ordinance must be reasonable
and its provisions cannot be oppressive
amounting to an arbitrary interference with
the business or calling subject of a regulation.
 Furthermore, the ticket prices represent a right
of the owner. As such, it is considered as a right
to property
 The morality of gambling is not a justiciable
issue. Gambling is not illegal per se
 The flaw in the ordinances is that they
contravene P.D. 1869 and the public policy
embodied therein insofar as they prevent
PAGCOR from exercising the power conferred
on it to the operate a casino in Cagayan de Oro
City
 PAGCOR is recognized as the source of funding
in two later enactments of Congress, so it
Even if the means employed are reasonably
necessary, the assailed EO is still constitutionally
infirm because the minimum requirement of
due process, which are notice and hearing,
were not met.
Such process can be dispensed with if
there is a justification for the omission of
the right to a previous hearing,
the immediacy of the problem sought to be
corrected and the urgency of the need to
correct it. But, in this case, such urgency was not
present.
The police power legislation must be firmly
grounded on public interest and welfare, and a
reasonable relation must exist between purposes
and means
The right of the owner to fix a price at which his
property shall be sold or used is an inherent
attribute of the property itself and, as such, within
the protection of the due process clause.
Tests of a valid ordinance:
1. It must not contravene the constitution or
any statute
2. It must not be unfair or oppressive.
3. It must not be partial or discriminatory.
4. It must not prohibit but may regulate trade.
5. It must be general and consistent with
public policy.
6. It must not be unreasonable
CONSTI II | ALLANIC 1D 2021
 invalid, the MR was also denied.. cannot be deemed as repealed
 Municipal governments are only agents of the
national government. The delegate cannot be
superior to the principal or exercise powers
higher than those of the latter.
By and large, the national legislature is still the
principal of the local government units, which
cannot defy its will or modify or violate it.

31 Bennis v. Michigan  Petitioner was a joint owner, with her
husband, of an automobile in which her
husband engaged in sexual activity with a
prostitute.
 Husband was convicted of gross indecency
 A Michigan court ordered the automobile
forfeited as a public nuisance, with no offset
for her interest, notwithstanding her lack of
knowledge of her husband's activity.
 The Supreme Court cited numerous
jurisprudence with similar facts where it ruled
that the property of an innocent owner was
forfeited because of its wrongful use.
 Hence, abatement scheme is not violative of
the due process clause.
 Forfeiture of property prevents illegal uses
"both by preventing further illicit use of the
[property] and by imposing an economic
penalty, thereby rendering illegal behavior
unprofitable.
The innocence of the owner of property subject to
forfeiture has almost uniformly been rejected as a
defense.
The government may not be required to
compensate an owner for property which it has
already lawfully acquired under the exercise of
governmental authority other than the power of
eminent domain.

32 Cruzan v. Dir.  Cruzan is in a coma after sustaining severe
Missouri injuries after a car accident. Her parents
wanted to remove her life support but the
hospital staff refused to do so without court
approval.
 On the basis of Cruzan's expression to a
former housemate that she would not wish to
continue her life if sick or injured unless she
could live at least halfway normally
suggested that she would not wish to
continue on with her nutrition and
hydration, the lower court authorized the
termination of life support.
 State Supreme Court reversed lower court’s
decision.
 Supreme Court ruled that requiring ‘clear and Whether a person’s constitutional rights have
convincing evidence’ standard for proving been violated must be determined by balancing
Cruzan’s will does not violate her liberty his liberty interests against the relevant state
interest under the Due Process Clause in interests
refusing unwanted medical treatment
 Missouri has a general interest in the State may apply a clear and convincing evidence
protection and preservation of human life, as standard in proceedings where a guardian seeks
well as other, more particular interests, at to discontinue nutrition and hydration of a
stake. It may legitimately seek to safeguard the person diagnosed to be in a persistent vegetative
personal element of an individual's choice state. (NOT PRESENT IN THIS CASE)
between life and death
 The Supreme Court of Missouri held that, in
this case, the testimony adduced at trial did not
amount to clear and convincing proof of the
patient's desire to have hydration and nutrition
withdrawn.
 We do not think the Due Process Clause
requires the State to repose judgment on these
matters with anyone but the patient herself.
 Close family members may have a strong
feeling but there is no automatic assurance that
the view of close family members will
necessarily be the same as the patient's would
have been had she been confronted with the
prospect of her situation while competent

CONSTI II | ALLANIC 1D 2021

33 Chavez v. Romulo  President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo
delivered a speech before the members of the
PNP stressing the need for a nationwide gun
ban in all public places to avert the rising
crime incidents.
 She directed the then PNP Chief, respondent
Ebdane, to suspend the issuance of Permits
to Carry Firearms Outside of Residence
 Petitioner invokes the due process clause,
asserting that the revocation of his PTCFOR
pursuant to the assailed Guidelines deprived
him of his "vested property right" without
due process of law and in violation of the
equal protection of law.
34 GSIS v.  Nicolas married Milagros on 1983. Nicolas
Montescarlos applied and became eligible for pensions on
1984. Nicolas died on 1992.
 Milagros tried to file a claim for survivorship
but was denied because it was contrary to sec
18 of PD 1164
 The assailed provision prohibits survivorship
pension claim if the pensioner and spouse
were married 3 years before the pensioner
qualified for the pension
35 Chavez v.  Chavez entered into endorsement
COMELEC agreements with businesses. Due to these
agreements, billboards in the Balintawak
Interchange of NLEX were put up, with his
name and image as endorser. A few months
after, Chavez filed his certificate of candidacy
as Senator.
 On January 2004, COMELEC issued
Resolution No. 6520, which states that
propaganda materials mentioning a person’s
name or containing his image, who, after said
placement, becomes a candidate for public
office shall immediately remove said
materials.
 Chavez assailed the constitutionality of said
 Evidently, possession of firearms by the
citizens in the Philippines is the exception, not
the rule. The right to bear arms is a mere
statutory privilege, not a constitutional right.
 In evaluating a due process claim, the first and
foremost consideration must be whether life,
liberty or property interest exists
 Jurisprudence: a license authorizing a person
to enjoy a certain privilege is neither a property
nor property right.
 It is apparent from the assailed Guidelines that
the motivating factor in issuing such is the
interest of the public in general – to restore
peace and order
 The assailed Guidelines do not entirely
prohibit possession of firearms. What they
proscribe is merely the carrying of firearms
outside of residence. However, those who wish
to carry their firearms outside of their
residences may re-apply for a new PTCFOR.
This is a reasonable regulation (applying police
power requisites)
 Unduly oppressive as there is an outright
confiscation of benefits due the surviving
spouse.
 The purpose of the provision is to prevent
deathbed marriages. There is no reasonable
connection between the means employed and
the purpose intended.
 The law itself does not provide any reason or
purpose for such a prohibition.
 Court ruled in favor of said provision as the
means employed were necessary to equalize
the situation b/w rich and poor candidates, as
an exercise of the State’s police power.
 COMELEC is expressly authorized to supervise
or regulate the enjoyment/utilization of all
media communication or information to
ensure equal opportunity, time, and space. All
these are aimed at the holding of free, orderly,
honest, peaceful, and credible elections. 

 On the issue of overbreadth, the Court stated
that the provision is limited in its operation in
both time and scope.
 On the issue of non-impairment clause,
License to bear arms is neither a property nor a
property right
A PTCFOR, just like ordinary licenses in other
regulated fields, may be revoked any time. It does
not confer an absolute right, but only a personal
privilege to be exercised under existing
restrictions, and such as may thereafter be
reasonably imposed.
Notably, laws regulating the acquisition or
possession of guns have frequently been upheld
as reasonable exercise of the police power. With
the promotion of public peace as its objective and
the revocation of all PTCFOR as the means, we are
convinced that the issuance of the assailed
Guidelines constitutes a reasonable
exercise of police power.
Local government may be considered as having
properly exercised its police power only if there is
a concurrence of a lawful subject and lawful
method
Valid and Reasonable Classification
a. It must rest on substantial distinctions
b. It must be germane to the purpose of the law
c. Not be limited to existing conditions only
d. It must apply equally to all members of the
same class.
Police power, is the power to prescribe
regulations to promote the health, morals, peace,
education, good order, or safety, and the general
welfare of the people.
To determine the validity of a police measure, two
questions must be asked:
a. Does the interest of the public in general, as
distinguished from those of a particular class,
require the exercise of police power? 

b. Are the means employed reasonably
necessary for the accomplishment of the
purpose and not unduly oppressive upon
individuals? 

CONSTI II | ALLANIC 1D 2021
 provision, on the issues of being an invalid
exercise of police power, of being applied
retroactively, and invalid due to overbreadth.
36 Lucena Grand  Ordinance #1:
Terminal v. JAC o Granting franchise to Lucena Grand
Liner Teminal, Inc. to construct bus/mini-bus
and/or jeep terminal.
o Franchise for 25 years.
o The City shall not grant franchise to any
third party
 Ordinance #2:
o All outsider public utility vehicles cannot
enter the City. Only up to the terminal
o All temporary terminals are terminated
o No other terminals within Lucena
o Permanent entity; shall only be granted
franchise
 GOAL: solve worsening traffic condition
37 City of Manila v.  Ordinance:
Laguio o Prohibits establishments where women
are used as tools in entertainment and
which tend to disturb the morals of the
community
o Prohibits granting of license
o Transfer outside of Ermita-Malate area
or convert business to other kind not
falling under the prohibit class
 Argument of petitioner: Ordinance was
invalid as unconstitutional because: LGC
only grants power to regulate businesses;
Violative of a PD declaring Ermita-Malate
area as a commercial zone; Invalid exercise
of police power
contracts affecting public interest contain an
implied reservation of the police power as a
postulate of the existing legal order. It is
subject to and limited by the paramount police
power.
 In applying the police power requisites, the
first requisite is present as the objective of the
said ordinances is to relieve traffic congestion
in the city.
 However, regarding the second requisite, the
Court ruled that the ordinances assailed are
characterized by overbreadth such that they go
beyond what is reasonably necessary to solve
the traffic problem.
 Since the compulsory use of the terminal
operated by the petitioner would subject the
users thereof to fees, rentals, and charges, such
measure is unduly oppressive,
 The scope is so broad that even entities that
might be able to provide better facilities are
barred from operating at all. The grant of an
exclusive franchise to petitioner has not been
shown to be the only solution to the problem.
 REPUGNANT TO CONSTITUTION
 LGUs are endowed with police power. But, it
has limitations that it must be reasonable and
for the public good. In this case, it is repugnant
to the Constitution because it failed to meet the
requisites of a valid exercise of police power.
 The goal of the Ordinance to curb immorality
such as prostitution is within the scope of
police power but the means employed are
unreasonable and unduly oppressive.
 On reasonableness – The closing down and
compelling to transfer or change business are
not reasonable restrictions in relation to the
purpose; will not protect or promote moral
welfare not prevent the spread of sexual
disease in Manila. Enumerated establishments
are lawful. Illicit sexual affairs may be done
anywhere. The problem is not the nature of the
establishment but the activity that may occur
therein
 On fundamental rights – Infringes on
fundamental right to liberty and property.
Liberty – right to freely use facilities in all
lawful ways. And to engage in you know,
Local government may be considered as having
properly exercised its police power only if there is
a concurrency of a lawful subject and lawful
method
SC ruled that it’s its reasonableness and not its
effectiveness which bears upon the
constitutionality of the ordinances.
If the constitutionality of a law were measured by
its effectiveness, then even tyrannical laws may be
justified whenever the happen to be effective. The
weight of public opinion must be balanced w/ that
of an individual’s rights.
Equal protection requires that all persons or
things similarly situated should be treated alike,
both as to rights conferred and responsibilities
impose.
Procedural due process refers to the procedures
that the government must follow before it
deprives a person of life, liberty, or property.
Substantive due process looks to whether there is
a sufficient justification for the government’s
action.
Taking of property without just
compensation – possessory taking
(government confiscates or physically occupies)
and regulatory taking (government regulation
leaves no reasonable economically viable use of
the property
CONSTI II | ALLANIC 1D 2021

38 Bayan v. Ermita  Petitioners question the constitutionality of
BP 880 and CPR with their “no permit, no
rally” policy.
 They allege that their right to peaceful
assembly, right to freedom of speech,
expression and right to petition for redress of
grievances were violated when police
authorities prevented and disbanded the
peaceful mass action they participated
 The pertinent provisions assailed are those
on the requirement of a permit to rally, and
also the limitation of such to certain places
and time
39 KMU v. Dir. Gen  PGMA issued an Executive Order requiring
government agencies which are issuing IDs
to adopt a uniform ID system, for more
efficiency and economy. The Petitioners are
assailing its constitutionality on the ground
that it is a:
o Usurpation of legislative power
o Invasion of privacy
without state intervention, if without
impediment
 Zoning ordinance argument does not lie
because private properties which are not
noxious cannot be destroyed without just
compensation
 BP 880 is not an absolute ban of public
assemblies but a restriction on that simply Civil liberties may be subject to police power
regulates the time, place and manner of regulations in order to serve public interest
assemblies.  The Court said that the right to freedom of
 This is a content-neutral regulation and refers speech, to peacefully assemble and petition the
to all kinds of public assemblies that would use government for redress of grievances are
public places. fundamental rights, recognized and
 Maximum tolerance is for the benefit of all guaranteed by the Constitution.
rallyists and independent of the content  But, these rights are not absolute and are
 The permit can only be denied on the ground subject to the regulation of the State so as not
of clear and present danger to the public order, to impede on other’s enjoyment of such rights.
public safety, public moral and health and
convenience, as recognized in ICCPR and Prior restraint only if content of speech is relevant
UDHR to regulation.
 Not every expression of opinion is public
assembly. The law refers to rally,
demonstration, or another form of mass or
concerted action held in public place. So it does
not cover any and all kinds of gatherings
 The law merely regulates the exercise of the
right to peaceful assembly and petition only to
the extent needed to avoid a clear and present
danger of the substantive evil Congress has the
right to prevent
 No prior restraint because the content
of the speech is not relevant to the
regulation.
 AS TO THE CPR – does not mean any other
thing but maximum tolerance.
 ISSUANCE OF PERMIT – If Mayor has not
approved permit, rallyists may show
application on a certain date, after two days
from said date
 Legislative power is the authority to make laws Public power needs to be anchored on a law
and to alter or repeal them. In issuing EO 420, issued by the Legislature unless otherwise cited in
the President did not make, alter or repeal any the Constitution, and must be exercised with
law but merely implemented and executed lawful purpose and lawful means
existing laws.
 Only applies to certain government agencies
which currently are issuing IDs, for the
purpose of efficiency and economy. Limits
CONSTI II | ALLANIC 1D 2021

40 Mirasol v. DPWH  Three Department Orders were issued in
compliance with RA 2000:
 DO 74 – classifying NLEX and SLEX as
limited access zone
 DO 215 – classifying Coastal Road as limited
access zone
 DO 123 – revising AO 1, to allow motorcycles
provided that they are not below 400 cc
 AO 1 (1968 pa ito so DPWC pa) – prohibiting
motorcycles in limited access zones
 Petitioners are assailing the constitutionality
of the above DOs on the ground that it
infringes on their right to travel, and it
violates equal protection
data to information, which are usually
provided for in documents and IDs
 Well within President’s power of control of the
executive department because it does not
include other branches of independent
institutions. In fulfillment of faithful execution
clause because laws mandate the efficiency in
public service
 Did not alter or repeal law in the process
 EO 420 does not establish a national ID
system. It does not require any special
appropriation because the existing ID card
systems of government entities have the proper
appropriation or funding. It is not compulsory
on all branches of government nor is it
compulsory on all citizens.
 RIGHT TO PRIVACY:
 Juris where Government’s access to
information were upheld:
o Personal matters are outside of right
to public information
o rejected privacy claim re medical
records.
o Name of those who seek abortion
 The Court said that the use of public highways Classification by itself is not prohibited. A
by motorcycles is subject to regulation of the classification can only be assailed if it is deemed
state in the exercise of police powers of the invidious, that is, it is not based on real or
state. substantial differences.
 AO 1 IS NOT UNREASONABLE
 Merely outlines precautionary measures on the To test the constitutionality of a police power
use of limited access zones, to ensure public measure, the basis should be the reasonableness,
safety and regulate traffic. Included in the and not whether it imposes restriction on a right
regulation is on the type of vehicle to be
allowed to access the toll. The use of public highways by motor vehicles is
 In regulating tolls, it is inevitable to subject to regulation as an exercise of the police
regulate rights. power of the state.
 The rules are not arbitrary. There are safety
consideration behind the regulation To assure that the general welfare be promoted, a
regulatory measure may cut into the rights to
 VALIDITY OF POLICE POWER:
liberty and property.
 Police power does not rely upon existence of
definitive studies. No such requirement exists
in order for police power to be validly
exercised. Yardstick is always reasonableness
and not being oppressive
 Does not infringe on their right to travel. Such
right does not require entry to a toll
CONSTI II | ALLANIC 1D 2021
41 Parreno v. COA  Lt. Parreno served in the Armed Forces of the
Philippines for 32 years. He retired on
January 5, 1982 and started receiving his
pension worth PHP 13,680 per month.
 He migrated to Hawaii in a few years, losing
his Filipino citizenship which made the
government stop giving his pension in
January of 2001 because of PD 1638, which
made him file a petition for the validity of the
PD since it violated due process, in particular
the equal protection clause.
42 St. Lukes v. NLRC  Petitioner Santos was an X-Ray Technologist
of St. Luke’s. She was a graduate of Associate
in Radiological Technology.
 The Congress passed the “Radiological
Technology Act of 1992” which stipulates
that no person shall practice as a
radiology and/or x-ray technologist in
the Philippines without having
obtained the proper certificate of
recognition from the Board of
Radiological Technology.”
 Petitioner however failed to pass the exam.
She was offered the position of Secretary of
the Dietary Department but she did not
confirm. As such, she was terminated since
her option to seek a different position has
lapsed.
 She filed a case before LA for illegal dismissal
but it was denied. NLRC and CA also denied,
hence this petition
43 MMDA v. Viron  MMDA closed the bus terminals along EDSA
and planned on creating a single terminal for
all, to reduce traffic
 The Court declared the PD constitutional and The constitutional right of the State to require all
the classification valid because soldiers that citizens to render personal and military service
have lost their citizenship are not compelled to necessarily includes citizens who have retired
render service when the state requires it. from military service.
 It is only upon retirement that military
personnel acquire benefits. Further, *Doctrine about reasonable of valid classification
retirement rights of military personnel are under equal protection clause
purely GRATUITOUS in nature.
 A retiree who had lost his Filipino citizenship
already renounced his allegiance to the state.
Thus, he may no longer be compelled by the
state to render compulsory military service
when the need arises. Petitioner’s loss of
Filipino citizenship constitutes a substantial
distinction that distinguishes him from other
retirees who retain their Filipino citizenship.
 The law gave SLMC a just cause to terminate Police power embraces the power to prescribe
Maribel and does not violate her security of regulations to promote the health, morals,
tenure. education, good order, safety or general welfare of
 While the Constitutiton protects such, it may the people.
be reasonably regulated by the police power in
light of protecting the health, morals, and In this case, the state is justified in prescribing the
general welfare of the people. specific requirements for x-ray technicians
 Certain professions requiring technical and/or any other professions connected with the
expertise have exams such as medicine to health and safety of its citizens.
protect the public from potentially deadly
effects of incompetent doctors. This is also the
same with the present case.
 With that, SMLC has reasonably dismissed
petitioner since her continued employment
will bring injury or disadvantage on the part of
the hospital.
 The Court ruled that it is the DOTC which has No provision in MMDA law that grants the
the power to implement the said project. MMDA police power or the power to legislate. Its
 Moreover, SC ruled that MMDA has no police functions are administrative.
power to order for the closure of terminals.
 Assuming arguendo that they have, the order
still failed the test of reasonableness, hence the
order is void.
 This Court fails to see how the prohibition
against the existence of respondents'
terminals can be considered a reasonable
necessity to ease traffic congestion in the
metropolis.
CONSTI II | ALLANIC 1D 2021

44 Sec of DND v.  The Manalo brothers were abducted by the
Manalo CAFGU soldiers. They were detained and
tortured for months.
 Eventually, they escaped and filed petitions
to the Court. During the pendency of their
case, the writ of amparo was made.
 The brothers then petitioned to the SC that
this be treated under such writ.
 There are less intrusive measures such as
curbing the proliferation of "colorum" buses,
vans and taxis entering Metro Manila and
using the streets for parking and passenger
pick-up points might even be more effective in
easing the traffic situation.
 In the Philippines, while the 1987
Constitution does not explicitly provide for the
writ of amparo, several of the
above amparo protections are guaranteed by
our charter.
 While constitutional rights can be protected
under the Grave Abuse Clause through
remedies of injunction or prohibition under
Rule 65 of the Rules of Court and a petition
for habeas corpus under Rule 102, these
remedies may not be adequate to address the
pestering problem of extralegal killings and
enforced disappearances.
 The Amparo Rule offers a better remedy to
extralegal killings and enforced
disappearances and threats thereof
 It is preventive in that it breaks the
expectation of impunity in the commission of
these offenses;
 it is curative in that it facilitates the
subsequent punishment of perpetrators as it
will inevitably yield leads to subsequent
investigation and action.
 Threat to their right to life and liberty,and
a violation of their right to security? YES
 First, the right to security of person is "freedom
from fear” (UDHR); were threatened that if
they escaped, their families, including them,
would be killed
 Second, the right to security of person is a
guarantee of bodily and psychological integrity
or security.
 Third, the right to security of person is a
guarantee of protection of one's rights by the
government.
- apart from the failure of military
elements to provide protection to
respondents by themselves perpetrating
the abduction, detention, and torture,
they also miserably failed in conducting
an effective investigation
respondents' abduction
 The remedy provides rapid judicial
relief as it partakes of a summary
proceeding that requires only substantial
evidence to make the appropriate reliefs
available to the petitioner; it is not an action to
determine criminal guilt requiring proof
beyond reasonable doubt, or liability for
damages requiring preponderance of evidence,
or administrative responsibility requiring
substantial evidence that will require full and
exhaustive proceedings.
 The writ of amparo serves both preventive and
curative roles in addressing the problem of
extralegal killings and enforced
disappearances.
 The production order under the Amparo Rule
should not be confused with a search warrant
for law enforcement
KINDS OF AMPARO:
- Amparo libertad for the protection of
personal freedom, equivalent to the habeas
corpus writ
- Amparo contra leyes for the judicial review
of the constitutionality of statutes
- Amparo casacion for the judicial review of
the constitutionality and legality of judicial
decision
- Amparo administrative for the judicial
review of administrative actions
- Amparo agrario for the protection of
peasants’ rights derived from the agrarian
reform process
of
CONSTI II | ALLANIC 1D 2021

45 White Light v. City  The City of Manila passed an ordinance
of Manila prohibiting services such as short time
admissions (less than 12 hrs or renting a
room for more than once), short time
admission fees and wash up rate.
 Petitioners are assailing the constitutionality
of the ordinance on the ground that it
violates their right to liberty
 Should the medical records of respondents be
produced and the assignment of the doctors
and military personnel disclosed? YES
 The disclosure of the present places of
assignment of M/Sgt. Hilario aka Rollie
Castillo and Donald Caigas, whom respondents
both directly implicated as perpetrators behind
their abduction and detention, is relevant in
ensuring the safety of respondents by avoiding
their areas of territorial jurisdiction.
 Such disclosure would also help ensure that
these military officers can be served with
notices and court processes in relation to any
investigation and action for violation of the
respondents' rights.
 The apparent goal of the Ordinance is to Individual rights may be adversely affected only
minimize if not eliminate the use of the covered to the extent that may fairly be required by the
establishments for illicit sex, production, drug legitimate demands of public interest or public
use and alike. welfare.
 Yet the desirability of these ends does not
sanctify any and all means for their Constitutional requisite for the legitimacy
achievement. of the Ordinance as a police power
 The Ordinance infringes upon individual measure:
liberty. The right to privacy is a Constitutional 1) It must appear that the interests of the
right that requires a compelling state interest public generally, as distinguished from
to be justified in its invasion or curtailment those of a particular class, require an
(USED STRICT SCRUTINY) interference with private rights
2) The means must be reasonably
GENERAL TEST OF VALIDITY OF necessary for the accomplishment of
ORDINANCE - SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS: the purpose and not unduly oppressive
1. Strict scrutiny – refers to the of private rights.
standard of determining the quality and 3) It must also be evident that no other
amount of governmental interest alternative for the accomplishment of
brought to justify the regulation of the purpose less intrusive of private
fundamental freedom; if there is rights can work
compelling, rather than substantial 4) More importantly, a reasonable relation
government interest and on the absence must exist between the purposes of the
of less restrictive means for achieving measure and the means employed for
that interest; its accomplishment, for even under the
o Strict scrutiny is used today to test guise of protecting the public interest,
the validity of laws dealing with the personal rights and those pertaining to
regulation of speech, gender, or race private property will not be permitted
as well as other fundamental rights as to be arbitrarily invaded.
expansion from its earlier
applications to equal protection.
o The United States Supreme Court has
expanded the scope of strict scrutiny
to protect fundamental rights such as
suffrage, judicial access and interstate
travel.
CONSTI II | ALLANIC 1D 2021

46 Roxas v.  Petitioner is a US citizen of Filipino descent
Macapagal-Arroyo and is a member of BAYAN-USA.
 Medical mission; Abduction story; torture
story; Post-abduction story
 She filed a petitioner for Writ of Amparo and
Writ of Habeas Data impleading the officials
of the police and military because she
believed that the abductors are government
agents
 Prayers: enjoin from harming, return
property, inspection, videos
 Respondent: stage-managed daw yung
abduction based on Mr. Paolo’s testimony
and the medical certificate
 CA DECISION Granted: writ of amparo;
directing respondent to protect the
petitioner and her family from threat and to
continue the investigation. Also granted
habeas data
 Denied: return of property, inspection,
habeas data
47 Meralco v. Lim  Petitioner Lim is a clerk at the Bulacan
Metering Branch of MERALCO. One day, a
letter was posted on the door of the building
stating her disloyalty to MERALCO.
 After that, the HR ordered for her transfer to
the Alabang branch which petitioner refused
to do. She claimed that the transfer amount
to denial of due process and violation of job
security in the CBA. She requested for the
deferment of the implementation of the
order.
 No response, so she filed a petition for writ of
habeas data on the ground that MERALCO
2. Rational basis – ordinances are
upheld id they rationally further a
legitimate governmental interest; for
economical legislations; often used in
equal protection clause analysis
3. Immediate scrutiny – government
interest is extensively examined and the
availability of less restrictive measure is
considered
 GMA as a respondent was dismissed in this
case because of her immunity from suit.
 The doctrine of command responsibility is a
rule of substantive law that establishes liability
and, by this account, cannot be a proper legal
basis to implead a party- respondent in an
amparo petition.
 Since the application of command
responsibility presupposes an imputation of
individual liability, it is more aptly invoked in
a full-blown criminal or administrative case
rather than in a summary amparo proceeding.
 The inapplicability of the doctrine of command
responsibility in an amparo proceeding does
not, by any measure, preclude impleading
military or police commanders on the ground
that the complained acts in the petition were
committed with their direct or indirect
acquiescence.
 While a writ of amparo provides for initial
determination of the existence of the enforced
disappearance, it does not fix liabilities
whether administrative, criminal or civil under
substantive laws.
 Lack of substantial evidence to support the
same. Remanded for further investigation to be
led by the CHR.
 The Court said that the plea of respondent to
be spared from the order of MERALCO about
her transfer in the guise of quest for
information allegedly in the possession of
petitioner does not fall within the province of
writ of habeas data
 The habeas data in general is designed to
protect by means of judicial complaint the
image, privacy, honor, information and
freedom of information of an individual
 Meant to provide a forum to enforce one’s right
to the truth and informational privacy, thus
safeguarding the constitutional guarantees a
Writ of amparo does not protect property tights.
The remedy provides rapid judicial relief as it
partakes of a summary proceeding that requires
only substantial evidence to make the appropriate
reliefs available to the petitioner.
Writ of Habeas Data is a judicial remedy
enforcing the right to privacy, most
especially the right to informational
privacy of individuals; operates to protect a
person’s right to control information regarding
himself, particularly In the instances where such
information is being collected through unlawful
means in order to achieve unlawful ends.
o An indispensable requirement before the
privilege of writ may be extended is the
showing, at least by substantive evidence, of
an actual or threatened violation of the
right to privacy in life, liberty, or security of
the victim
Writ of amparo and habeas data will NOT issue to
protect purely property or commercial concerns
(such as employment) nor when the grounds
invoked in support of the petitions therefor are
vague or doubtful.
Writ of Habeas data will only issue against State
(GENERAL RULE). But may also issue agains
public officials or employees, or in the gathering,
collecting or storing data or information
regarding an aggrieved party’s person, family of
home.
CONSTI II | ALLANIC 1D 2021
 refused to provide her with the details and
information allegedly received by
MERALCO, and such amounted to a
violation of her right to privacy in life, liberty
and security.
 RTC: granted the writ because they said that
it is also available to individuals like
petitioner.
 MERALCO CONTENDS: that habeas data is
issued only against pubic officials or
employees, or private individuals or entities
engaged in the gathering, collecting or
storing data or information regarding an
aggrieved party’s person, family of home
48 Remman  RA 9646 was passed to professionalize the
Enterprises v. PRB real estate sector under a regulatory scheme
of licensing, registration and supervision of
real estate service practitioners in the
country.
 Petitioner contends that certain provisions of
the law are unconstitutional for violating
substantive due process by impinging on the
real estate developers’ most basic ownership
rights, the right to use and dispose property.
49 Disini v. SOJ  This is a consolidated petition to declare
several provisions of R.A. 10175, or the
Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012,
unconstitutional and void.
 Petitioners claim that the means adopted by
the cybercrime law for regulating
undesirable cyberspace activities violate
certain of their constitutional rights.
 The government of course asserts that the
law merely seeks to reasonably put order into
cyberspace activities, punish wrongdoings,
and prevent hurtful attacks on the system.
person’s right to life, liberty and security
against abuse in this age of technology
 Will not issue to protect purely property or
commercial concerns nor if the ground is
doubtful or vague
 Employment is a property right hence
not covered. The proper avenue is
through the NLRC
 There is also no showing that her right
to privacy was violated because the
argument of respondent that the
concealment of information is a threat
to her right is speculative
 No deprivation or restriction on the enjoyment The Court will not declare a statute as
of property that is caused by the unconstitutional when its regulation is an
implementation of the RA. Licensing is an unavoidable consequence of a reasonable
unavoidable consequence of the goal of regulatory measure.
professionalizing the sector
 No right is absolute. All are subject to When the conditions so demand as determined by
police power to promote public welfare. the legislature, property rights must bow to the
To declare licensing as an infringement would primacy of police power because property rights,
counter to the practice of regulating profession though sheltered by due process, must yield to
 There is importance in regulating the real general welfare
estate sector. Property rights must yield to
general welfare.
 Moreover, in the absence of evidence
demonstrating the alleged confiscatory effect
of the provision in question, there is no basis
for its nullification in view of the presumption
of validity which every law has in its favor.
 Cyberspace answers the need of the current
generation for greater information and facility of
communication. But all is not well with the
system since it could not filter out a number of
persons of ill will who would want to use
cyberspace technology for mischiefs and crimes.
CONSTI II | ALLANIC 1D 2021
50 Imbong v. Ochoa CONTENTIONS:
 Violates the right of the unborn,
protected by the Constitution. The RH Law
allows for the purchase of hormonal
contraceptives which are abortive.
 Right to health and right against
hazardous products – contraceptives are
cancerous
 Right to religious freedom – public
money is being used to purchase products
which are contrary to religious beliefs.
Medical practitioners are compelled to refer
clients to other doctors, and to give right
information about RH Law even when
against their belief. Also, mandatory sex
education is school
 Involuntary servitude – because medical
practitioners are required to render pro bono
services in philhealth accredited programs
for 48 hours for indigent women
 Right to equal protection – discriminates
against the poor. Makes them the target
 Violates due process for being vague –
what are conducts considered as violation of
the RH Law; removing their right to choose
facilities without due process
 Right to free speech – compelled to
explain family planning in a particular way
rather than in their own way
 Violates zone of privacy of one’s family
– against constitutional right of parents to
raise children; right between spouses to
mutually decide
 RH Law was enacted to provide Filipinos,
especially the poor and the marginalized,
access and information to the full range of
modern family planning methods, and to
ensure that its objective to provide for the
peoples' right to reproductive health be
achieved.
 Means employed:
 Mandatory for health providers to provide
information on the full range of modern
family planning methods, supplies and
services, and for schools to provide
reproductive health education.
RIGHT TO LIFE: A statute or act suffers from the defect of
Court: conception is fertilization, based on its vagueness when it lacks comprehensible
plain meaning from dictionaries. From the standards that men of common intelligence must
deliberations of Congress, life begins at necessarily guess its meaning and differ as to its
fertilization. Also, the field of medicine considers application.
conception as fertilization
- As such, the Court declared that contraceptives
which kills or destroys fertilized ovum is
prohibited but contraceptives affecting prior to
fertilization are allowed.
- The RH Law does not sanction abortion
(prohibits drugs which destroy fertilized ovum,
and those which prevent them from being
implanted into the uterus [abortifacient]).
- The word "primarily" in Section 3.01 (a) and (j)
of the RH-IRR should be declared void because
it appears to insinuate that a contraceptive will
only be considered as an "abortifacient" if its
sole known effect is abortion or, as pertinent
here, the prevention of the implantation of the
fertilized ovum.
RIGHT TO HEALTH
- The RH Law served as a safeguard that
contraceptives that will be sold and be made
available to public are safe and it guides
people on the use of contraceptives. However,
since there are no contraceptives yet approved
by FDA pursuant to the RH Law, this issue is
premature
FREEDOM OF RELIGION AND RIGHT TO
SPEECH
- The Court said that although there is free
exercise clause, the state has the right to
legislate on matters that would affect religious
freedom but should pass the strict scrutiny test
(determine compelling state interest), as ruled
in Escritor case.
- The first step is to determine whether the
right of the conscientious objector to
religious freedom has been violated.
- Though it has been said that the act of referral
is an opt-out clause, it is, however, a false
compromise because it makes pro-life
health providers complicit in the
performance of an act that they find
morally repugnant or offensive. They
cannot, in conscience, do indirectly what they
cannot do directly.
CONSTI II | ALLANIC 1D 2021
 RH Law criminalizes certain acts of refusals - Moreover, the guarantee of religious freedom
to carry out its mandates. is necessarily intertwined with the right to free
 To fortify and make effective the current laws speech, it being an externalization of one's
on contraception, women's health and thought and conscience. This in turn includes
population control. the right to be silent. The religious freedom of
health care service providers should be
respected as well
- Moreover, the provision in the IRR that skilled
health professional such as provincial, city or
municipal health officers, chiefs of hospital,
head nurses cannot be a conscientious objector
violates religious freedom and equal
protection.
- The Court found no compelling state interest in
violating the right to freedom of religion
because there is no immediate threat to health.

THE FAMILY AND THE RIGHT TO

PRIVACY
- As to the provision of the RH Law which does
not require consent of the other spouse in
engaging in reproductive health operations,
the Court found it void because it requires
mutual consent from the spouses
- As to the not requiring parental consent for
minors who already had miscarriage, it
impedes on parents’ right to parental
authority. The State cannot impede such right
without compelling state interest
- Exception: access to information does not
need consent of spouse; also for life-
threatening operations

ACADEMIC FREEDOM
Premature. But, although the right of parents
over their children is superior over that of the
state. The state has the duty to aid parents in
such pursuit. As to the objection of educators on
the basis of religion, the court reserves its
judgment until an actual case

DUE PROCESS
- A statute or act suffers from the defect of
vagueness when it lacks comprehensible
standards that men of common intelligence
must necessarily guess its meaning and differ
as to its application.
- It is repugnant to the Constitution in two
respects:

CONSTI II | ALLANIC 1D 2021

 - (1) it violates due process for failure to accord
persons, especially the parties targeted by it,
fair notice of the conduct to avoid; and
- (2) it leaves law enforcers unbridled discretion
in carrying out its provisions and becomes an
arbitrary flexing of the Government muscle.
- Private health care institutions and private
health care provides are synonymous
- Providing information and rendering
operation are necessarily included in service
- Incorrect- plain meaning; failure to observe
established standards, knowingly or with
malice.

EQUAL PROTECTION
Not violated by law. Not aimed at reducing the
number of the poor but rather is aimed at
protecting them.

INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE
Pro-bono service is not involuntary servitude
because practitioners can determine the manner
and date of rendering service. Also, PhilHealth
accreditation is a privilege not a right hence
subject to government regulation. Also, public
health is a valid subject of police power, as it for
general welfare. As to the means, they are merely
encouraging private practitioners and not
penalizing them
 But, conscientious objector still are exempted.

51 Garcia v. Drilon  Rosalie and Jesus got married in 2002, and
their relationship bore 2 children (the other
child Jo-Ann’s was Rosalie’s but Jesus
adopted her).
 Their relationship turned sour when Rosalie
found out Jesus was having an affair with the
manager of one Robinson’s Bank of Bacolod.
Jesus started beating Rosalie and Jo-Ann up,
and threatened to cut off financial support.
 Rosalie filed a case against her husband
Jesus under RA 9262, in which the RTC of
Bacolod issued several TPOs, amending
these and extending the same.
 Jesus questioned said TPOs and the
constitutionality of RA 9262 for being
violative of the due process clause as no
hearing was provided to him prior to the
issuance of TPO
 The Court ruled that RA 9262 is NOT violative
of the due process clause, as the two
requirements for substantive due process are
present, namely the interest being curbing
domestic violence against women and
children, and the means RA 9262 which
includes the issuance of TPOs
 A protection order protection order is an order
issued to prevent further acts of violence
against women and their children, their family
or household members, and to grant other
necessary reliefs. Its purpose is to safeguard
the offended parties from further harm
 TPO grants temporary custody
CANNOT BE SAID TO HAVE VIOLATED
DUE PROCESS BECAUSE:
 TPO is not issued arbitrarily or without
reasonable basis
The issuance of a TPO is a preventive measure.
Even though it is issued ex parte, the court is
obliged to order the immediate issuance and
service of the notice upon the respondent and
require him to file an opposition. The essence of
due process is the OPPORTUNITY TO BE
HEARD.
"To be heard" does not only mean verbal
arguments in court; one may be heard also
through pleadings. Where opportunity to be
heard, either through oral arguments or
pleadings, is accorded, there is no denial of
procedural due process.

CONSTI II | ALLANIC 1D 2021


52 Caram v. Segui  Christina became pregnant with the child of
Marcelino without the benefit of marriage.
She had him believe that she had an abortion
when in fact she gave birth to baby Julian.
 She intended for the child to be adopted
through Sun and Moon wherein she
voluntarily surrendered baby Julian via a
Deed of Voluntary Commitment
 DSWD, through respondents, issued a
certificate that baby Julian was legally
available for adoption and can no longer do
anything to stop the adoption process.
 Christina filed before the RTC a writ of
amparo to produce the body of baby Julian.
 Petitioner argues that the life, liberty, and
security of baby Julian is being violated by
respondents upon the enforcement of an
illegal Deed of Voluntnary Commitment
between her and Sun and Moon
53 Mison v. Gallegos  Ku was detained by the Bureau of
Immigration after the Interpol of Seoul asked
assistance with regard to his deportation.
 Ku filed for the Privilege of the Writ of
Amparo and was granted by respondent
Judge Gallegos
54 Zarate v. Aquino  During the rise of counterinsurgency in
III Davao, many Manobos evacuated the region.
Some of them eventually returned, but
claimed that they were deprived of their
liberty.
 To determine the offenders, the Manobos
were shown “lists” containing the names and
photos of petitioners.
 Subsequently, the petitioners applied for a
writ of amparo and habeas data.
 There is a reasonable basis for the ex parte
issuance of TPOs even without hearing and
notice
 Notice must immediately be sent to the
accused
 The essence of due process, which is to be
heard, is protected
 The SC reiterated that, as established in
jurisprudence, the writ of amparo is confined
only to cases of extrajudicial killings and
enforced disappearances, or threats thereof.
 There is no enforced disappearance as used in
the context of the Amparo rule since the third
and fourth elements are not present in the case.
 Respondents never concealed baby Julian as
attested in a memorandum by the DSWD
stating that baby Julian was in the custody of
the spouses Medina when Christina filed her
petition before the RTC wherein she also
admitted that the DSWD officers presented
baby Julian before the RTC during the
afternoon hearing.
 Since the case at bar involves the issue of child
custody and exercise of parental rights over a
child who is considered a ward of the State, the
Amparo rule cannot be applied.
 . The SC said that the issuance of the writ of
amparo was not justified since based on the
circumstances, the arrest and custody of Ku
was disclosed and not hidden.
 Neither extralegal killing nor enforced
disappearance are attendant in this case.
 But, the SC En Banc dismissed the petition
because:
1) there were no substantial evidence that there
were actual threats to their LLS (membership
is NOT an actual threat];
2) there were no substantial evidence that
there were actual threats to their privacy (lists
were readily accessible and available for the
public).
 Petitioners failed to substantially prove that
their life, liberty and security were actually
threatened with violation
The writ of amparo is confined only to cases of
extrajudicial killings and enforced
disappearances, or threats thereof.
ELEMENTS of “enforced disappearances”:
 There be an arrest, denetion, abduction, or
any form of deprivation of liberty
 It be carried out by, or with the
authorization, support, or acquiescence of,
the State or a political organization;
 It be followed by the State or political
organization’s refusal to acknowledge or give
information on the fate or whereabouts of the
person subject of the amparo petition; and
 The intention for such refusal is to remove
subject person from the protection of the law
for a prolonged period of time.
The fundamental function of the writ of amparo is
to cause the disclosure of details concerning the
extrajudicial killing or the enforced
disappearance of an aggrieved party.
Under the amparo rules, parties have to establish
their claims by substantial evidence.
The writ of amparo is also sought individually
and granted individually. Previous and present
experiences of all the petitioners cannot be
lumped together.
Need substantial evidence; it is more than a
mere imputation of wrongdoing.
The Habeas Data Rule presupposes that the
aggrieved party is still alive as the Rule requires
the petitioner to show how the violation of the
aggrieved party’s right to privacy or threats to
such violation affect the aggrieved party’s right to
life, liberty, or security.
CONSTI II | ALLANIC 1D 2021
 EQUAL PROTECTION OF LAW
55 Villegas v. Hiu  Villegas enacted an ordinance requiring
Choing Tsai Pao aliens to get an employment permit and pay
Ho P50 before working.
 Petitioner contends:
o It’s actually a revenue measure and violates
uniformity in taxation;
o Makes no distinction between useful and
non-useful occupations imposing a fixed
P50, and fails to prescribe a standard to
guide the action of the mayor, hence an
invalid delegation of legislative powers;
o Unreasonable because it deprives aliens of
their rights to life, liberty and property,
violating due process and equal protection
of the law.
 SC said it was unconstitutional for violating
uniformity in taxation under the guise of
regulation, undue delegation for giving the
mayor unbridled discretion, and due process
and equal protection for requiring a permit to
work when people have the inherent right to a
livelihood
 The P50 fee is unreasonable, not only because
it is excessive, but because it fails to make a
substantial difference in situation among
individual aliens who are required to pay it.
 Although the Constitution does not prohibit
distinction, there must be substantial and real
difference on the subject of legislation.
 The same amount of P50 is being collected
whether regular, casual or permanent, and
whether lowly employee or executive
 This is tantamount to denying their right to
engage in the means of livelihood.
The protection that the equal protection clause
guarantees applies to both aliens within the
jurisdiction and citizens.
Essence of equal protection is treating like as like.
Failure to classify likewise violates equal
protection.
Requisites for valid classification:
1. It must be based on substantial distinctions
2. It must be germane to the purpose of the
law
3. Must not be limited to existing conditions
4. Must apply to all members of the same class

56 Ormoc Sugar  The City of Ormoc passed an ordinance
Central v. Ormoc which imposes “on all and any production of
City centrifugal sugar milled at Ormoc Sugar
Company Inc., a municipal tax of 10%
equivalent to 1% per export sale to the US
and other foreign countries
 With that, petitioner was asked by the City
Treasurer to pay its municipal tax
 The petitioner filed a case before the CFI of
Leyte, alleging that the ordinance is
unconstitutional for being violative of the
equal protection clause. Also questions the
authority of the LGU, as well as the
conformity with the uniformity in taxation
requirements
57 CBEA vs. BSP  The New Central Bank Act changed Central
Bank to BSP. Eight years after its passage,
the petitioner assails the validity of the last
proviso of Section 15(c), Article II of the said
law which provides that, a human resource
management system will be established in
pursuit of professionalism and excellence at
all levels in the BSP, and a compensation
structure will be devised and there are two
provisos
 Provided that the Monetary Board shall
make its own system conform as closely as
possible with the principles provided under
 The ordinance applies only to Ormoc Sugar Co. Laws should not be so specific as to target a single
Although at that time, it was the only sugar and exclusive company in a way that subsequent
central, the municipal tax will not apply to companies of the same nature shall not be
future sugar mills because it expressly pertains affected by law.
to Ormoc Sugar Co. only.
 But, appellant is not entitled to interest
because the ordinance was valid then (doctrine
of operative fact)
 In this case, #3 requisite of valid classification
is lacking, as classification is based on present
conditions only.
 The Court said that on face value, the law does Doctrine of relative constitutionality - A
not violate the equal protection clause. The statute valid at one time may become void
EPC in the Constitution does not prohibit at another time because of altered
classification. It guarantees equality and not circumstances
identity of rights.
 The Congress is given a wide discretion in Thus, if a statute in its practical operation
classifying. But, there are standards. In this becomes arbitrary or confiscatory, its validity,
case, there was a justification in classifying even though affirmed by a former adjudication, is
salary grade 20 and above, because the goal is open to inquiry and investigation in the light of
to address lack of competency and expertise in changed conditions”
BSP and not to discriminate.
 BUT!! the subsequent enactment of laws
exempting all rank-and-file employees of

CONSTI II | ALLANIC 1D 2021

 the SSL
 Provided, however, that the compensation
and wage structure of employees whose
position fall under salary grade 19 and below
shall be in accordance with the rates
prescribed under the SSL.
 The main contention of the petitioner is that
it makes an unconstitutional cut between two
classes of employees:
o BSP officers who are exempted form SSL
o And the rank and file employees (SG 19
and below) who are not exempted from
the SSL
 They claim that there is no real difference
(class legislation) and that it is not germane
to the purpose of the law since the goal is “on
all levels”
 Claim of BSP: within its mandate to
professionalize BSP
 Solicitor General: classification is based on
real and substantial difference because
adheres to the mandate of BSP to
professionalize and promote excellence
58 Ycasuegi v. PAL  Armando Yrasegui was a flight cabin crew of
the Philippine Airlines. PAL, has a
qualification for its employees to maintain an
ideal weight.
 Because of his continuous failure to meet the
requirement, PAL asked him to have a
vacation leave in order to meet the weight
requirement.
 He still failed to meet the requirement and
was removed from work. He claims illegal
dismissal which the labor arbiter and NLRC
affirm, and was favorably ruled by LA and
NLRC on the ground that, although it is a
reasonable condition, they were improperly
applied to petitioner’s case because it was
allegedly a sickness, and that others who
were overweight were even promoted.
 CA reversed and SC affirms CA. They claim
that the weight qualification was a bona fide
occupational qualification reasonable and
necessary for his line of work which entails
safety of passengers in airlines.
 His being overweight posed a danger to such
safety. Therefore PAL had valid cause to
other GFIs makes the law invalid.
 The Court cited several cases wherein a law
initially considered as constitutional was later
on declared unconstitutional due to the change
in circumstance
 Also, there were cases wherein statutes were
not discriminatory in their face but were
oppressive in operation.
 The subsequent passage of charters of other
GFIs served as a significant change in the
circumstance which invalidates the assailed
provision in the BSP charter because it violates
the equal protection clause.
 The law fails to provide a substantial and real
distinction between the rank-and-file
employees of BSP with that of other GFIs. They
are of the same class but they have different
rules as to SSL exclusion
 Hence, the Court does not find justification for
the distinction.
 In conclusion, the Court ruled that the case
involves a fundamental right, or perpetuation
of prejudice against persons favored by the
Constitution with special protection, judicial
scrutiny ought to be more strict.
 Added info: Employment standard This case is a case of BFOQ (Bona Fide
 Employer must show it adopted the standard Occupational Qualification). Such is an exception
for purpose rationally connected to the to job discrimination on matters like sex, religion,
performance of the job. – rational in flight or race when the job requires the specific
safety qualification to operate
 The employer must establish that the standard
is reasonably necessary – obesity affects The qualification test of a BFOQ needs to show that
mobility the qualification requirement is related to the job
 Standard is reasonably necessary in order to and that the qualification is needed for the normal
accomplish the legitimate work-related operation of the work
purpose
 The Court said that petitioner has failed to
substantiate his claim that he was
discriminated. He merely gave names of the
people who were allegedly promoted despite
being overweight or being in the same situation
as him
 The court said that substantial proof must
be shown to as to how they are similarly
situated and the differential treatment
petitioner got from PAL despite the similarity
of his situation with other employees
 Equal protection clause is irrelevant in
CONSTI II | ALLANIC 1D 2021
 dismiss him after being given 5 years to
reduce his weight.
59 People v. Siton  After being under surveillance, petitioners
were arrested for violating Article 202(2) of
the RPC. (Vagrancy Law)
 As their defense, they assailed the said
provision for being unconstitutional for
being vague and for violating the equal
protection clause.
 The RTC declared the provision as violating
equal protection because it discriminates
against the poor and unemployed, thus
permitting an arbitrary and unreasonable
classification
60 League of Cities v.  During 11th Congress, 57 cityhood bills were
COMELEC filed. 33 of those were enacted into law. The
other 24 were not acted upon.
 RA 9009, amending Sec. 450 of the Local
Government Code of 1991 and provided: “that
a municipality may be converted into a
component city if it has a certified locally
generated average annual income of at least
P100 million. (Reason for this: there was a
“madrush” of municipalities wanting to
convert to become a city)
 During 12th Congress, a House Joint Resolution
was adopted exempting the 24 cityhood bills
not acted upon from the income requirement
this case because Bill of Rights is a
matter between the government and a
private person. This was a case of private-
private relations which should be covered by
Civil Law.
 The Court said that the power to define crimes Offenders of public order laws are punished not
is within the ambit or legislative power. for their status, as for being poor or unemployed,
However, in the exercise of such power, there but for conducting themselves under such
must be a reasonable precision so as to clearly circumstances as to endanger the public peace or
inform the public of the act that should be cause alarm and apprehension in the
prevented. community.
 The Supreme Court reversed the decision,
ruling that Article 202 (2) does not violate the
equal protection clause; neither does it
discriminate against the poor and the
unemployed.
 Being poor or unemployed is not a license or a
justification to act indecently or to engage in
immoral conduct.
 public laws, where this provision belongs, are
crafted to maintain minimum standards of
decency, morality and civility in human
society.
 The equal protection guarantee is embraced in 1. The classification must rest on substantial
the broader and elastic concept of due process. distinctions;
 Under the equal protection of laws, it is enough 2. The classification must be germane to the
that all persons or things similarly situated purpose of the law;
should be treated alike, both as to rights or 3. The classification must not be limited to
privileges conferred and responsibilities or existing conditions only; and
obligations imposed. 4. The classification must apply equally to all
 The EPC does not preclude the state from members of the same class.
recognizing and acting upon factual differences
between individuals and classes; that the Arbitrariness in general may be assailed on the
legislature has the right to classify, as long as it basis of the due process clause. But if an act is partial
is valid or prejudicial, the equal protection clause shall
 There is a substantial distinction that would apply.
justify the exemption of the cityhood laws. The
Court said it would be unfair to subject the
delayed cityhood bills to higher requirements
for reasons beyond their control.
 The purpose of the exceptions is to be fair to
the respondent LGUs whose cityhood laws
were pending since the 11th Congress but were
merely delayed due to unforeseen events
 Since the cities in the cityhood bills were
passed by the House and not by the Senate
before the passage of the amendment to the
CONSTI II | ALLANIC 1D 2021

61 Quinto v.  DENR Undersecretary Eleazar Quinto and
COMELEC DENR Land Management Bureau Director
Gerino Tolentino Jr wanted to run for office,
but as per COMELEC resolution, they would
be considered ipso facto resigned if they file
their certificate of candidacy, being
appointed officials.
 They brought the matter to court asserting
that it violates equal protection since elected
officials won’t be considered ipso facto
resigned if they file their certificate of
candidacy.
 The SC declared said provision as
unconstitutional
 INTERVENING EVENTS: Since the ruling,
several things happened, Cabinet officials
started to file their Certificates of
candidacies, Franklin Drilon and Manuel
Roxas intervened, filing an MR, COMELEC
also filed an MR, and the SC membership
changed.
 After reviewing the facts and intervening
events, the SC reversed its original decision
declaring the provisions it declared
unconstitutional as constitutional.
 “deemed resign” provision for appointive
officials upon filing candidacy
62 People v. Jumanan  Jumawan, husband of KKK, was charged
with 2 counts of raping his wife.
 RTC and CA found him guilty beyond
reasonable doubt.
 Jumawan tries to argue that the
determination of the existence of consent in
cases of ‘marital rape’ should differ from
normal forms of rape since, naturally,
marriage means consent is implied during
sexual acts.
LGC, there is substantial distinction which
creates real difference.
 VALID.
REST ON SUBSTANTIAL DISTINCTIONS - YES Difference between elective and appointive
 Elective officials occupy their office by officials (see ruling)
virtue of the mandate of the electorate.
They are elected to an office for a definite term And
and may be removed therefrom only upon
stringent conditions. On the other Requisites for valid classification
hand, appointive officials hold their office by
virtue of their designation thereto by an
appointing authority.
 Some appointive officials hold their
office in a permanent capacity and are
entitled to security of tenure while others
serve at the pleasure of the appointing
authority.
 Another substantial distinction between the
two sets of officials is that under the
Administrative Code, appointive officials,
as officers and employees in the civil
service, are strictly prohibited from
engaging in any partisan political
activity or take (sic) part in any election
except to vote. Under the same provision,
elective officials, or officers or
employees holding political offices, are
obviously expressly allowed to take part
in political and electoral activities
OTHER THREE REQUISITES - PRESENT
 SC says this is an outdated view. The Constitutional right to equal protection of the
 To treat marital rape as a different form of rape laws ordains that similar subjects should not
is a violation of the equal protection clause. The be treated differently, so as to give undue
law provides that similarly situated subjects favor to some and unjustly discriminate
should be treated equally so as to prevent against others; no person or class of persons
unjust discrimination shall be denied the same protection of laws, which
 The similar definition given to the three modes is enjoyed, by other persons or other classes in
of rape shows that the law does not distinguish like circumstances.
among them.
 Hence, the law affords the same protection to
the wife if raped by the husband and those
raped by another man.
 Should the defense be accepted, it would
unjustly discriminate against married women
who are victims of rape
 Also, a marriage license does not divest women
of their control over their body nor permits
CONSTI II | ALLANIC 1D 2021

63 Villanueva v. JBC  In 2012, petitioner is an RTC Judge of
Compostela Valley, a first-level court. After
one year, he applied to be a Judge of several
second-level court.
 He was later on informed that he was not
included in the list of nominees because the
JBC has a standing rule that a first-level
judge should have served for at least five
years in such position in order to qualify for
second-level.
 The petitioner claims that the classification
between judges with five years of experience
and those with less is violative of the equal
protection clause.
64 Ferrer v. Bautista  Quezon City passed two Ordinances.
 The first Ordinance provides that 0.5% of the
assessed value of land in excess of 100,000
shall be collected to for socialized housing
(land purchase, improvement, etc.)
 The other Ordinance is that it imposes
annual garbage fees to every household. It
provides for a schedule of garbage fees
depending on floor area and depending on
whether the house is a lot, a condominium or
socialized housing or apartment. It shall be
paid simultaneously with the real property
tax.
 Petitioner, Is a co-owner of a 371 sqm
residential property in QC.
 He claims that:
husband to forcibly rape their spouse
 Since the law does not provide for a distinct
definition for marital rape, the Court, tasked to
apply what the law dictates, should not as well
discriminate and divert from the wordings of
the law
 The Court said that, JBC, has the power to The equal protection clause does not preclude
promulgate rules and standards in executing classification of individuals who may be accorded
its mandate to provide for list of nominees for different treatment under the law as long as the
the judiciary to the President. classification is reasonable and not arbitrary.
 An incident to such function is to create rules,
such as this one, in order to ensure that the
members of the judiciary are of proven
competence, integrity, probity and
independence.
 The number of years of experience is a
valid basis for classification because it
serves as a measure of competence.
 The following are the justification for the
classification:
o To prove competence
o To acquire professional skills needed by a
judge
o It serves as evidence of integrity, probity
and independence
 The Court further said that meeting the
requirement does not guarantee promotion. It
will still be based on the merits of the applicant.
 As such, there is no infringement of due
process
ON THE SHT ORDINANCE:  The equal protect of the Consti and the LGC
 The Court upheld the validity of the Ordinance. provide that the ordinance should be:
The Court said that the equal protection clause o Equitable
does not prohibit classification o Based as far as practicable on taxpayers
 The Court said that there is substantial capacity to pay
distinction between a real property o Not unjust, excessive or oppressive or
owner and an informal settler and the confiscatory
distinction is obvious and need not be
discussed
 The distinction also conforms to the principle
of justice and equity and is not discriminatory.
 Also, the purpose of a tax may legally exist even
if the motive which impelled the legislature to
impose the tax was to favor one over another
 It is inherent in the power to tax that the State
is free to select the subject of taxation.
CONSTI II | ALLANIC 1D 2021
  For the SHT Ordinance:
 The SHT is a kind of class legislation that
violates the right of real property owners to
equal protection of the laws since it favors
informal settlers who occupy property not
theirs and pay no taxes over law-abiding real
property owners who pay income and realty
taxes
 For the garbage fee Ordinance:
 Invalid because double taxation, classifying
lots from condominium, etc.
 Garbage fee more expensive for
condominiums – around 2x price
 Inequities which result from a singling out of
one particular class for taxation or exemption
infringe no constitutional limitation.
 Far from being obnoxious, the provisions of the
subject ordinance are fair and just.
ON THE GARBAGE FEES
 They have authority to imposed this based
form LGC but incorrect exercise of power
because LGU have the power to collect fees for
collection and transfer ONLY of nonrecyclable
and special wastes and for the disposal in the
sanitary fills
 While, barangays have the authority to impose
fees for the collection and segregation of
biodegradable, compostable and reusable
wastes
 No Substantial distinction for purposes of
garbage collection between an occupant of a
lot, on one hand, and an occupant of a unit in a
condominium, socialized housing project or
apartment, on the other hand.
 Most likely, garbage output produced by these
types of occupants is uniform and does not vary
to a large degree; thus, a similar schedule of fee
is both just and equitable.

 The rates being charged by the ordinance are

unjust and inequitable
 The classifications under Ordinance No. S-
2235 are not germane to its declared purpose
of “promoting shared responsibility with the
residents to attack their common mindless
attitude in over-consuming the present
resources and in generating waste.”
 Respondent City Council should have
considered factors that could truly measure the
amount of wastes generated and the
appropriate fee for its collection. Factors
include age, sex, capacity to pay, etc.
65 1-UNITED v.  This is a petition for certiorari, the  The Court said that the assailed provision is a Captive-audience doctrine
COMELEC petitioners aver that R.A. 9615 violates their prior restraint to free speech, and in our The captive-audience doctrine states that when a
right to free speech. jurisprudence, they enjoy preference in the listener cannot, as a practical matter, escape from
 R.A. 9615, particularly section 7 states that it hierarchy of rights. intrusive speech, the speech can be restricted.
is unlawful to post or display election  The COMELEC may only regulate the
campaign or propaganda in public franchise or permit to operate and not The "captive-audience" doctrine recognizes that a
utility vehicles and within the ownership per se of PUVs and listener has a right not to be exposed to an
premises of public transport terminals. unwanted message in circumstances in which the
terminals.  In Adiong, the Court, while recognizing that communication cannot be avoided.

CONSTI II | ALLANIC 1D 2021

 The Comelec meanwhile argues that under
the constitution, it has the power to enforce
all laws and regulations under the
constitution, also they claim that R.A. 9615 is
a valid content-neutral regulation.
 The Fair Elections Act provides that political
parties and independent candidates may
post campaign materials only in public place.
Pursuant to that law, COMELEC issued a
resolution for the IRR and it includes PUVs
and terminals in the category of public places
which are subject to the limitation. More so,
violation of the said rules will result in the
cancellation of franchise.
 They also claim that the resolution is not
necessary in promoting equality of
opportunity among candidates
the COMELEC has supervisory power vis-a-vis Superficial differences do not make for a valid
the conduct and manner of elections under classification for equal protection clause under
Section 4, Article IX-C of the Constitution, Constitution
nevertheless held that such supervisory power
does not extend to the very freedom of
an individual to express his preference
of candidates in an election by placing
election campaign stickers on his
vehicle.
 The Court said that ownership and franchise in
public transportation are different.
ON EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE
 No substantial distinction between owners of
PUVs and transport terminals and owners of
private vehicles and other properties.
 The ownership of PUVs and transport
terminals, though made available for use by the
public, remains private as such, there is no
cogent reason to deny the same preferred right
to owners of PUVs and transport terminals.
 In terms of ownership, the distinction between
owners of PUVs and transport terminals and
owners of private vehicles and properties is
merely superficial. Superficial differences do
not make for a valid classification.
The fact that PUVs and transport terminals are
made available for use by the public is likewise
not substantial justification to set them apart
from private vehicles and other properties.
 Thus, there is no reason to single out owners of
PUVs and transport terminals in the
prohibition against posting of election
campaign materials.
 Further, classifying owners of PUVs and
transport terminals apart from owners of
private vehicles and other properties bears no
relation to provide equal time, space and
opportunity to candidates in elections.
 To stress, PUVs and transport terminals are
private properties.
CONSTI II | ALLANIC 1D 2021
 SECTION 3
# Case Name Facts Held/Ratio Doctrine

66 Salcedo-Ortanez v.  Respondent Ortanez filed a case to nullify his
CA marriage with petitioner Teresita Salcedo-
Ortanez on the grounds of lack of marriage
license and/or psychological incapacity
 Among the pieces of evidence presented by
respondent is a tape recording of the
conversation of petitioner with an
unidentified man.
 Petitioner moved to not admit the tape
recordings as evidence, but the trial court
admitted all the evidence of respondent,
including the tape recordings.
 Petitioner then filed a petition for certiorari
before the CA, but the CA ruled that tape
recordings are not inadmissible per se, and it
is based on how they are presented and how
a judge will utilize them as evidence,
upholding RTC’s decision
 Hence, this petition
67 Zulueta v. CA  Petitioner Cecilia Zulueta entered into the
clinic of her husband Alfredo Martin and
forcibly opened the drawers and cabinets
therein without his consent, in front of her
mother, driver, and secretary.
 She acquired 157 documents including his
passport, correspondence between Martin
and his alleged paramour, photographs, etc.
which she will use as evidence for the legal
separation case and disqualification from the
practice of medicine case.
 Respondent Martin filed a case before the
RTC for the return of the said documents.
RTC granted the petition and ordered Ceclia
to return the documents and to pay for
damages. CA affirmed RTC’s decision.
 Petitioner now appeals the judgment, and
her basis is the acquittal of her lawyers in the
case of Alfredo Martin v Alfonso Felix, Jr.
 In this case, respondent court issued an order Absent a clear showing that both parties to the
admitting all the evidence in question without telephone allowed the recording of the same, the
considering RA 4200 entitled “An Act to inadmissibility of the subject tapes is mandatory
Prohibit and Penalize Wire Tapping and Other
under RA 4200.
Related Violations of the Privacy of
Communication, and for other purposes”
which prohibits wiretapping and considers
such as inadmissible in evidence
 The RTC and CA failed to consider the said RA
in admitting the cassette tapes in question.
 “As may be prescribed by law…” – Under
Philippine laws, wiretapped devices are
inadmissible. This is MANDATORY.
 Defense regarding acquittal of lawyer: The SC  The SC ruled that the constitutional
noted that it was a different case since it was a provision declaring “the privacy of
case for disbarment. They clarified that in the communication and correspondence [to be]
said case, the reason why the items presented inviolable” is no less applicable just because
were admitted as evidence was because there the case is between husband and wife. The
was a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) only exception is if there is a “lawful order
issued against the writ of injunction by the from a court or when public safety or order
RTC. Once the TRO was lifted, the prohibition requires otherwise, as prescribed by law.”
against the further use of the documents were
once again effective.
 The privacy of communication and
correspondent expressly mandated in our
Constitution to be inviolable. Any other
violation of the same provision would render
the evidence obtained inadmissible “for any
purpose in any proceeding”.
 The law insures the absolute freedom of
communication between the spouses by
making it privileged. However, the case at bar
has nothing to do with the duty of fidelity that
the parties in this case owe to each other.

68 People v. Marti  Appellant sought the service of “Manila,
Packing and Export Forwarding” to deliver 4
gift-wrapped packages to Walter Fierz in
Switzerland.
 Upon the instruction of appellant, the
 The Court cited US SC cases wherein the
Supreme Court ruled that effects obtained
from unreasonable search and seizure are
inadmissible as evidence.
 But, the Supreme Court said that these cases
 The Bill of Rights embodied in the
Constitution is not meant to be invoked
against acts of private individuals. The
purpose of the Bill of Rights is protection
against the state. In the absence of

CONSTI II | ALLANIC 1D 2021

 proprietress did not open the said box.
Appellant claimed that the contents of the
boxes are books, gloves and cigars for his
friend.
 However, in accordance with the SOP, Mr.
Job Reyes opened the boxes for inspection
and he smelled a peculiar odor and then he
felt dried leaves therein. He sent samples to
the Narcotics Section of the NBI and called
the NBI.
 NBI went to the office. Mr. Job Reyes opened
the other boxes in the presence of NBI agents
and found dried leaves in the said boxes.
 The NBI made inventory of the boxes and
signed a receipt acknowledging custody
 Appellant was invited by the NBI to shed
light on the incident. Later on, the dried
leaves were found to be marijuana flowering
tops as certified by the forensic chemist.
 The RTC found him guilty for violating the
Dangerous Drugs Act
69 People v. Damaso  Officers of the Philippine Constabulary were
sent to Dagupan City to verify the presence of
CPP-NPA members. The group apprehended
several people and they were able to know
from these people that there is an
underground safe house in Garcia Village.
 They were able to secure subversive
documents in the said safe house
 Afterwards, they went to the rented
apartment of the sister of one of the people
they arrested. The sister’s visitor was
interviewed and she revealed that she was
once the help of appellant Damaso, and she
was instructed to lead the PC to the house of
appellant.
 When they reached the house, they saw Luz
Tanciangco and told her that they already
know she was a member of the CPP/NPA.
They ordered that they enter the house,
which they did and Luz also opened the
rooms in which the PC saw subversive
documents such as pamphlets, etc
 They confiscated the documents and they
later on learned from the people arrested
that Appellant Damaso is the lessee of the
apartment.
 The lower court convicted Damaso with
involve parties who are agents of the governmental intervention, such right
Government. cannot be invoked.
 Is the rule on inadmissibility in evidence still  As to the argument of petitioner that the
applicable if the party is a private individual modification to the Bill of Rights now include
such as this case? search and seizures whether conducted by
 In the absence of governmental intervention, the State or private individual, the Court said
such right cannot be invoked. that the modification was only with respect
 Mr. Job Reyes, in accordance with the SOP, to issuance of search warrant/arrest vis-à-vis
opened the boxes for final inspection. Such act responsibility of judge. But, there was not
is of a private individual modification as to its applicability only
 NBI did not make any search, much less illegal against the State.
search. Mere presence of the NBI does not
make the search and seizure illegal as they
merely looked at what is readily accessible to
the sight
 The Court said that the Bill of Rights is
intended to be a remedy of private individuals
against State and not against private
individuals, as said by Father Bernas
 Since the effects were obtained by a private
individual, there is no violation of right against
unreasonable searches, hence the effects are
admissible in evidence
 The lower court erred in convicting Damaso The constitutional immunity from
without substantial and credible evidence to unreasonable searches and seizures, being a
establish the facts that the accused is the lessee PERSONAL one, cannot be waived by anyone
of the apartment where the rifle and subversive except the person whose rights are invaded or
documents were found.
one who is expressly authorized to do so in his
 Also insufficient evidence to show that
appellant is the lessee of the apartment and the or her behalf.
owner of the rifles and subversive documents.
 Law enforcers failed to comply with the Right against unreasonable searches and
procedure of a valid search and seizure seizures is enshrined in the Constitution.
 The right against unreasonable searches and However, such right is not absolute. There are
seizures is enshrined in the Constitution instances when a warrantless search and
(Article III, Section 2). seizure becomes valid, namely:
 The purpose of the law is to prevent violations 1. search incidental to an arrest
of private security in person and property, and 2. search of a moving vehicle
unlawful invasions of the sanctity of the home 3. seizure of evidence in plain view
by officers of the law
 The records show that appellant was not in his
house at that time. No evidence that would
establish the fact that Luz was indeed the
appellant's helper or if it was true that she was
his helper, that the appellant had given her
authority to open his house in his absence.
 While the power to search and seize is
necessary to the public welfare, still it must be
exercised and the law enforced without
transgressing the constitutional rights of the
CONSTI II | ALLANIC 1D 2021
 violation of Presidential Decree No. 1866
(illegal possession of firearms) in
furtherance of, or incident to, or in
connection with the crime of subversion
70 Spouses Veroy v.  Petitioners are husband and wife who
Layague initially lived in Davao but transferred to QC
 Their house in Davao is under the custody of
two house boys, Favia and Burgos who had
their own quarters. They had key to the
kitchen where the circuit breaker was
located. The rooms were inaccessible to
Edna.
 Capt. Obrero received an information that
the house of petitioners were being used as
hideout and recruitment center of rebel
groups.
 Since the owners were not at home, Capt.
Obrero cannot make the search and so they
called the spouse and informed them about
the allegation, and also asked permission to
enter the premises
 Ma. Luisa permitted the entry but she
wanted to witness the search, so she will fly
to Davao, but later conceded that the search
should at least be conducted by their family
friend Major Macasaet.
 Capt. Obrero and Maj. Macasaet went to the
house and employed the help of a locksmith
to enter the interior of the house and the
rooms of the children and the master’s
bedroom.
 Inside, they saw printed materials of RAM-
SFP, book on Islamic Revolution, clothes,
 An Information for Illegal Possession of
Firearms and Ammunitions in Furtherance
of Rebellion was filed against petitioners
71 Vivares v. STC  Julia and Julienne, both minors, were,
during the period material, graduating high
school students STC, Cebu City.
 While changing into their swimsuits for a
beach party they were about to attend, Julia
and Julienne, along with several others, took
digital pictures of themselves clad only in
citizens, for the enforcement of no statute is of
sufficient importance to justify indifference to
the basic principles of government.
 As a consequence, the search conducted by the
authorities was illegal. It would have been
different if the situation here demanded
urgency which could have prompted the
authorities to dispense with a search warrant
 Case does not fall in any of the exceptions
 While Capt. Obrero was able to enter the  The objects seized, being products of illegal
compound, he did not enter the house because searches, were inadmissible in evidence in
he did not have a search warrant and the the criminal actions subsequently instituted
owners were not present. This shows that he against the accused-appellants.
himself recognized the need for a search
warrant, hence, he did not persist in entering
the house but rather contacted the Veroys to
seek permission to enter the same.
 Permission was indeed granted by Ma. Luisa
Veroy to enter the house but only to ascertain
the presence of rebel soldiers.
 Under the circumstances it is undeniable that
the police officers had ample time to procure a
search warrant but did not.
 The objects seized were inadmissible in
evidence as it constitutes violation of the
Constitution
 Undeniably, the offense of illegal possession of
firearms is malum prohibitum but it does not
follow that the subject thereof is necessarily
illegal per se.
 Motive is immaterial in mala prohibita but the
subjects of this kind of offense may not be
summarily seized simply because they are
prohibited. A search warrant is still necessary.
 Besides, assuming that there was indeed a
search warrant, still in mala prohibita, while
there is no need of criminal intent, there must
be knowledge that the same existed.
 Without the knowledge or voluntariness there
is no crime.
The writ of habeas data is not only Writ of habeas data:
confined to cases of extralegal killings  It seeks to protect a person's right to
and enforced disappearances control information regarding oneself,
 was designed "to safeguard individual freedom particularly in instances in which such
from abuse in the information age." As such, it information is being collected through
is erroneous to limit its applicability to unlawful means in order to achieve
unlawful ends
CONSTI II | ALLANIC 1D 2021
 their undergarments. These pictures were
then uploaded by Angela on her Facebook
profile.
 Back at the school, Ms. Escudero, a computer
teacher at STC’s high school department,
learned from her students that some seniors
at STC posted pictures online, depicting
themselves from the waist up, dressed only in
brassieres. Escudero then asked her students
if they knew who the girls in the photos are.
 Using STC’s computers, Escudero’s students
logged in to their respective personal
Facebook accounts and showed her photos of
the identified students, doing things
prohibited by the school. The students also
claim that the photos are viewable not only
by their friends but by FB users.
 Escudero reported the photos to the school’s
head of discipline department
 The parents were informed that the students
are barred from participating in the
commencement exercise.
 Despite the issuance of the TRO, STC,
nevertheless, barred the sanctioned students
from participating in the graduation rites.
 Thereafter, petitioners filed before the RTC a
Petition for the Issuance of a Writ of Habeas
Data on the basis of the following
considerations:
 The privacy setting of their children’s
Facebook accounts was set at “Friends
Only.” They, thus, have a reasonable
expectation of privacy which must be
respected. Petition was dismissed as the
photos were uploaded on FB and there is no
violation of right to privacy
# Case Name Facts
72 Near v. Minnesota
73 Freedman v.
Maryland
74 NY Times v. US
75 People v. Perez
extralegal killings and enforced  Requires the existence of a person's right
disappearances only. to informational privacy and a
showing, at least by substantial
W/N there was an expectation of privacy evidence, of an actual or
threatened violation of the right
 It is through the availability of to privacy in life, liberty or security of
said privacy tools that many OSN users are said the victim are indispensable before the
to have a subjective expectation that only those privilege of the writ may be extended.
to whom they grant access to their profile will
view the information they post or upload
thereto.
The writ of habeas data is not only
 This, however, does not mean that any confined to cases of extralegal killings
Facebook user automatically has a protected and enforced disappearances
expectation of privacy in all of his or her
Facebook activities.
Meaning of "engaged" in the gathering,
 Before one can have an expectation
collecting or storing of data or
of privacy in his or her OSN activity, it is first
information - To "engage" means "to do or
necessary that said user, in this case the
take part in something.” It does not necessarily
children of petitioners, manifest the
mean that the activity must be done in pursuit
intention to keep certain posts private,
of a business.
through the employment of measures to
prevent access thereto or to limit its
Three strands of right to privacy:
visibility. And this intention can materialize
 Locational or situational privacy –
in cyberspace through the utilization of the
privacy that is felt in physical space, such
OSN's privacy tools.
as that which may be violated by trespass
 In other words, utilization of
and unwarranted search and seizure
these privacy tools is the manifestation,
 Informational privacy- the right of
in cyber world, of the user's invocation
individuals to control information
of his or her right to
about themselves.
informational privacy.
 Decisional privacy – Usually defined
 Considering that the default setting for
as the right of individuals to make certain
Facebook posts is "Public," it can be surmised
kinds of fundamental choices with respect
that the photographs in question were viewable
to their personal and reproductive
to everyone on Facebook, absent any proof that
autonomy
petitioners' children positively limited the
disclosure of the photograph. If such were the
case, they cannot invoke the protection
attached to the right to informational privacy.
SECTION 4
Held/Ratio Doctrine
CONSTI II | ALLANIC 1D 2021
76 Dennis v. Uy
77 Gonzales v.
COMELEC
78 Ayer Prod v.
Capulong
79 Adiong v.
COMELEC
80 SWS v. COMELEC
(2001)
81 Diocese of Bacolod
v. COMELEC
82 1-United v.
COMELEC
83 SWS v. COMELEC
(2013)
84 Davao City v.
Aranjuez
85 Rubin v. Coors
Brewing
86 Policarpio v. Manila
Times
87 Lopez v. CA
88 NY Times v.
Sullivan
89 Rosenbloom v.
Metromedia
90 Gertz v. Welch
91 Hustler v. Magazine
92 Miller v. California
93 Gonzales v. Kalaw-
Katigbak
94 Pita v. CA
95 Barnes v. Glen
Theater
96 F.CC v. Pacifica
Foundation
97 Renton v. Playtime
Theater
98 Bethel School Dist
v. Fraser
99 Hazelwood School
Dist v. Kuhlmeier
100 Fernando v. CA

CONSTI II | ALLANIC 1D 2021

101 Bayan v. Ermita

CONSTI II | ALLANIC 1D 2021