Constitutional Law 2
Article III: BILL OF RIGHTS
Section 1- Liberty freedom of expression
Section 2- House- Include any enclosures: office or garage
Persons- Warrant of arrest
Papers- including journals, books, accounting
books
Effects- objects used in the commission of the
crime:
1. Complainant
2. Witnesses (personal knowledge);
credibility, purpose tested by a jury
Oath or Affirmation: Article 7, Oath of Office by the
President (‘So help me God’)
Section 3- Correspondence: facts and messages e-mail
addresses, text messages
Paragraph 2: exclusionary rule in search warrant no search
warrant evidence acquired is inadmissible
Section 4- Freedom of Speech: Oral Expression Design (O-
E-D); or press, publication, broadcast, radio
1. Individual
2. freedom of assembly: a group of
people expressing their assent or
dissent to the gov’t
Section 5- non-establishment clause: *Ang Dating Daan v
INC
1. freedom to believe
2. freedom to practice one’s belief
Section 6- Freedom and liberty of abode *destierro
1. Residence
2. Domicile
: Hold Departure order- only court
can issue, Bureau of Immigration-
only implements
Section 7- Right of the people to information: freedom of
information, transparency, need for transparency
- official acts decisions transactions: official
records documents papers (A-D-T, R-D-P)
Section 8- Freedom of association: 3 kinds of organizations
(U-S-A)
1. Union
2. Societies
3. Associations
Section 9- Power of eminent domain
Section 10- Non-impairment clause *existing contracts
Section 11- pro Bono cases de oficio counsels
Bill of rights can only be invoked against the government:
*People vs…
1. Private individuals: you cannot
invoke against a private individual
because of equal protection
clause
2. Government
Sovereign people authors of constitution: aliens and
citizens, extraterritorial jurisdiction PH ship or airship
Sovereignty (Article I): sovereignty or jurisdiction refers to
the state or the government
Citizenship (Article IV): dual citizenship mixed marriages
Suffrage (Article V): best way to exercise our sovereign will
Certiorari- power of the judiciary, under rule 45 of the
Rules of court, can only be invoked on questions of law not
questions of fact
Functions of judicial review
1. Legitimizing- when the courts says null and void
unconstitutional
2. Checking- abuse of discretion (lack or excess)
3. Symbolic- the issue has become moot and
academic to help judges and lawyers to have
instructional the proper guidelines should serve
the same case or issue if it should arise in the
future
*Belgica v. Ochoa: political dynasty
Article II, Section 1: Democratic and Republican State
Separation of powers and principle of checks and balances
Article 3- Bill of Rights: inherent rights can apply to Filipino
or alien citizens
Vs
State: inherent powers
1. Eminent Domain Section 9
2. Police Power and general welfare clause: regulation
Section 1, Article III
3. Power to tax
To make sure that the government remembers our rights
enshrined in our constitution beyond the intrusion of the
State or Government
Police power does not prohibit it only regulates
Taxes- Local Government Units delegated powers, no
legislative powers
Article X- Local Governments only under the general
supervision of the Chief Executive or President
The bill of rights
Forbidden zones which are accessible to the gov’t and
serves to
1. To preserve democratic ideals
2. Safeguard fundamental rights
3. To promote the happiness of an individual
Judicial standards of review
1. Rational basis test: applicable for economic,
property, commercial legislation (E-P-C)
*Whitelight Corp v City of Manila
2. Strict scrutiny test: overriding or compelling
government interest so great that it justifies the
limitation of fundamental constitutional rights;
most difficult requirement *Bayan Muna v
Ermita: power of the executive to disperse a
crowd
3. Intermediate scrutiny test: from violating
classifications based on gender and legitimacy
*Ladlad v Comelec: deprived the right to seek
accreditation as party-list LGBT community
 *Cruz et al v DENR Secretary Ramos
15 members 7-7 votes: constitutionality of the IPRA= every
law must enjoy the presumption of constitutionality
Every decision promulgated must be certified and in
writing
General rule: Supreme court- tier of facts and laws Section
5, Article VIII
Judicial power includes the duty of the court to settle
actual controversies involving rights which are legally
demandable and enforceable and whether or not there
has been a grave abuse amounting to lack or excess in
jurisdiction of any branch or instrumentality of the
government.
Prescription period: 24 months for Supreme Court to
decide
Exception to the general rule within 30 days from the date
of its filing

Cases
People v Marti
- -Package to be sent to Walter Fierz, a Swiss national
- -Courier service four boxes old book cigars and tried to tobacco leaves
- -Marti: accused-appellant with common-law wife Shirley Reyes
- -Anita Reyes: owner of the shipping company; proprietress
- -Boxes were supposed to be shipped to Zurich, Switzerland
- -Transportation laws: extraordinary diligence= contract of carriage
- -Standard operating procedure is a last check of the courier service, forwarded to the NBI for forensic examination of
the suspected marijuana
- -The accused did not give away his address and only left a PO box number.
- -Ruling: The accused was found guilty by the Regional Trial court under Dangerous Drugs Act
- -Appeal: lack of due process is the legal good basis of their contention
- -Four boxes were opened without accused’ presence
- -Exclusionary rule under Section 2: unreasonable searches or seizures
- -First, the factual considerations of the case at bar readily foreclose the proposition that NBI agents conducted an
illegal search and seizure of the prohibited merchandise. Records of the case clearly indicate that it was Mr. Job
Reyes, the proprietor of the forwarding agency, who made search/inspection of the packages. Said inspection was
reasonable and a standard operating procedure on the part of Mr. Reyes as a precautionary measure before delivery
of packages to the Bureau of Customs or the Bureau of Posts.
- -Second, the mere presence of the NBI agents did not convert the reasonable search effected by Reyes into a
warrantless search and seizure proscribed by the Constitution. Merely to observe and look at that which is in plain
sight is not a search. Having observed that which is open, where no trespass has been committed in aid thereof, is not
search (Chadwick v. State, 429 SW2d 135).
- -Supreme Court ruled to sustain the conviction

Yrasegui v PAL Philippine Airlines

- -Flight attendant or cabin crew
- -Armando G. Yrasegui as the petitioner in this case
- -Prescribed weight is 160 lbs or pounds but the petition weighed over 200 pounds
- -Failed to report for weight checks
- -Petitioner made a commitment to a weight loss from 217-200lbs but thereafter, he remained overweight
- -Petitioner filed a labor case against Philippine Airlines
- -Invoked the equal protection clause under Article III, Section 1 of the 1987 Constitution:
 - Any person shall not be deprived of life, liberty or property and john not be denied of equal protection of the laws.
- -National Labor Relations Commission and Court of Appeals denied the petition.
- x x x [T]he standards violated in this case were not mere orders of the employer; they were the prescribed weights
that a cabin crew must maintain in order to qualify for and keep his or her position in the company. In other words,
they were standards that establish continuing qualifications for an employees position. In this sense, the failure to
maintain these standards does not fall under Article 282(a) whose express terms require the element of willfulness in
order to be a ground for dismissal. The failure to meet the employers qualifying standards is in fact a ground that
does not squarely fall under grounds (a) to (d) and is therefore one that falls under Article 282(e) the other causes
analogous to the foregoing.
- -A “discriminatory act” as claimed by the petitioner? Claim that obesity is an illness
- -Supreme Court ruled that you cannot invoke an equal protection clause against a private company.
- -Airline industry practice- all international carriers that petitioner can be liability because of his weight, it is also for
safety reasons

Zulueta v Court of Appeals

- -Exception to the rule
- -Spouse of Dr. Alfredo Martin, Cecilia Zulueta is the petitioner of the case
- -Petitioner filed for a legal separation and moved for the disbarment of Martin.
- -The decision of the Regional Trial Court of Manila (Branch X) which ordered petitioner to return documents and
papers taken by her from private respondent’s clinic without the latter’s knowledge and consent
- -There is no question that the documents and papers in question belong to private respondent, Dr. Alfredo Martin,
and that they were taken by his wife, the herein petitioner, without his knowledge and consent. For that reason, the
trial court declared the documents and papers to be properties of private respondent, ordered petitioner to return
them to private respondent and enjoined her from using them in evidence.
- -Indeed, the documents and papers in question are inadmissible in evidence. The constitutional injunction declaring
the privacy of communication and correspondence [to be] inviolable3 is no less applicable simply because it is the
wife (who thinks herself aggrieved by her husband’s infidelity) who is the party against whom the constitutional
provision is to be enforced. The only exception to the prohibition in the Constitution is if there is a lawful order [from
a] court or when public safety or order requires otherwise, as prescribed by law.4Any violation of this provision
renders the evidence obtained inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding
- -General rule: Bill of rights cannot be invoked against acts of private individuals
- -Exception to the rule: bill of rights was invoked and applied by ____against a private party

Whitelight Corp et al v. City of Manila

- -Owners of lodging facilities (motels) VESTED RIGHTS
- -Challenge an ordinance that the city government of Mindanao which prohibited the use of hotel rooms or facilities
on a short term or a washed-up rate
- -Ordinance prohibited the use of hotel rooms or facilities of the short term, when it imposed the maximum time of a
room-rental of 2 times
- -Supreme Court: economic: the owners derive their income from the short-term room rental, the court recognizes the
city of Manila to be a guardian of public morals and under police power and the general welfare clause it is to
safeguard the health of the people. The court and would the ordinance as unconstitutional. It added that you can
only regulate or restrain but not prohibit.
- -To students of jurisprudence, the facts of this case will recall to mind not only the recent City of Manila ruling, but
our 1967 decision in Ermita-Malate Hotel and Motel Operations Association, Inc., v. Hon. City Mayor of Manila.
Ermita-Malate concerned the City ordinance requiring patrons to fill up a prescribed form stating personal
information such as name, gender, nationality, age, address and occupation before they could be admitted to a
motel, hotel or lodging house. This earlier ordinance was precisely enacted to minimize certain practices deemed
harmful to public morals. A purpose similar to the annulled ordinance in City of Manila which sought a blanket ban on
motels, inns and similar establishments in the Ermita-Malate area. However, the constitutionality of the ordinance in
Ermita-Malate was sustained by the Court
- -Ordinance prevents the lawful uses of a wash rate depriving patrons of a product and the petitioners of lucrative
business ties in with another constitutional requisite for the legitimacy of the Ordinance as a police power measure. It
must appear that the interests of the public generally, as distinguished from those of a particular class, require an
interference with private rights and the means must be reasonably necessary for the accomplishment of the purpose
and not unduly oppressive of private rights.
Disini v Secretary of Justice
- -Supreme Court ruled that Chief Justice Panganiban and Philippine Daily Inquirer cannot be held liable for it was not
them who posted that derogatory comment.
- -VOID FOR VAGUENESS: an act as is vague if it lacks comprehensible standards that men of common intelligence must
necessarily guess at its common meaning as to its application.
- -Void for vagueness and Overbreadth Doctrine cannot be applied to penal statutes such as special penal laws and the
provisions of the revised penal code.
- -Exception to the rule: if the petitioner can show the court that the penal statute impaired his right

OVERBREADTH DOCTRINE: decrees that a governmental purpose may not be achieved by means which sweep unnecessarily
broadly and thereby invade the area of protected freedoms.
- -But Section 4(a)(3) does not encroach on these freedoms at all. It simply punishes what essentially is a form of
vandalism,the act of willfully destroying without right the things that belong to others, in this case their computer
data, electronic document, or electronic data message. Such act has no connection to guaranteed freedoms. There is
no freedom to destroy other peoples computer systems and private documents.
- When the law gives a chilling effect it is the duty of the courts to review to uphold the law or not.

Southern Hemisphere Network v Anti-Terrorism Council

- SHN: Left-leaning
- Constitutionality of the Anti-Terrorism law
- ‘Under surveillance’ no, it is meant to serve the lives of the people as a security measure
- Held: No, a limited (vagueness analysis of the definition of “Anti-terrorism law” in RA 9372 is legally impossible absent
any actual or imminent charge against them
- Supreme Court: valid, an expression of concern to serve our people
- -Facial challenge is an examination of the entire law, pinpointing its flaws and defects, not only on the basis of its
actual operation to the parties, but also on the assumption or prediction that its very existence may cause others not
before the court to refrain from constitutionally protected speech or activities under no case may ordinary penal
statutes be suspected to a facial challenge. If facial challenge to a penal statute is permitted, the prosecution of
crimes may be hampered. No prosecution would be possible.

Mirasol v DPWH
- Petitioner challenged the administrative order issued by the DPWH
- -Questioned the authority of the DPWH to issue the subject AO’s
- -Alleged that the administrative orders restrict use of highways most is specifically because of the limited tollways.
- -Limited access facility is defined as "a highway or street especially designed for through traffic, and over, from, or to
which owners or occupants of abutting land or other persons have no right or easement or only a limited right or
easement of access, light, air or view by reason of the fact that their property abuts upon such limited access facility
or for any other reason. Such highways or streets may be parkways, from which trucks, buses, and other commercial
vehicles shall be excluded; or they may be free ways open to use by all customary forms of street and highway traffic
- -Legal Bases: CAVITEX
- -Under Republic act 2000 creating the Toll regulation board which limited the use of specific tollway roads.
- -OSG: counsel of the DPWH
- -Ministry of Public Works (now DPWH) assumed the public works functions of the Ministry of Public Works,
Transportation and Communications. On the other hand, among the functions of the Ministry of Transportation and
Communications (now Department of Transportation and Communications [DOTC]) were to (1) formulate and
recommend national policies and guidelines for the preparation and implementation of an integrated and
comprehensive transportation and communications systems at the national, regional, and local levels; and (2)
regulate, whenever necessary, activities relative to transportation and communications and prescribe and collect fees
in the exercise of such power. Clearly, under EO 546, it is the DOTC, not the DPWH, which has authority to regulate,
restrict, or prohibit access to limited access facilities.
- -Tollways are not ordinary roads. Why? Payment equals convenience, this is to facilitate travel, commerce, also for
critical period or faster delivery
- Public safety: A toll way is not an ordinary road. As a facility designed to promote the fastest access to certain
destinations, its use, operation, and maintenance require close regulation. Public interest and safety require the
imposition of certain restrictions on toll ways that do not apply to ordinary roads. As a special kind of road, it is but
reasonable that not all forms of transport could use it.
- Police power: allows the government to regulate the use. Petitioners can traverse the toll way any time they choose
using private or public four-wheeled vehicles. Petitioners are not denied the right to move from Point A to Point B
 along the toll way. Petitioners are free to access the toll way, much as the rest of the public can. The mode by which
petitioners wish to travel pertains to the manner of using the toll way, a subject that can be validly limited by
regulation
- -The case was the taxpayers’ suit
Requisites of a judicial review
1. Verba legis
2. Look into the intent
3. Read the constitution as a whole
Status quo ante- before the filing of the case
Elements of a Res Judicata
1. Same parties
2. Same issues
3. Court had jurisdiction (preliminary injunction, temporary restraining order: does not dispose the merits of the case)
4. Court rendered decision on the merits
5. Decision has become final and executory

a. Procedural aspect: Res Judicata

b. Nature of the administrative orders: AO’s contravene
c. DOTC regulates restrictions on use of limited access facility SLEX NLEX engine displacement of at least 400 cubic
centimeters
The supreme court PARTIALLY granted the petition

Social Justice Society v. Mayor Lim

- -The petitioners challenged the ordinance which effectively postpones the revocation of oil deposits
- -During their term Mayor Atienza, the City Council approved the ordinance which required a relocation of all deposits
within a period of six months.
- -The ordinance was a zoning ordinance classification of land based on use
- -Offshoot of the 911 incident
- -The zoning ordinance is a tool which regulates the use of land
- -Due process and equal protection clause
- preference under the new law vs. constitutional protection: good health and balanced ecology
- -Supreme Court ruled apply the principle of the supremacy of the constitution.

Fernando vs. St. Scholastica’s College

The petitioner challenged the defiance of SSC to follow a regulation.
1. 80% see-through fence
2. 6-meter setback of the fence for parking
3. Legal basis of the ordinance is a valid exercise of police power: power of eminent domain
Obligations by the sisters
1. Lack of due process
2. Violates right to privacy
3. Violates property rights: expropriation for public purpose without just compensation
Distinguished police power vs. eminent domain
1. Lawful means
2. Lawful purpose

Aquino v. Municipality of Malay, Aklan

- No build zone: exercise of quasi-judicial function of the executive which is fact finding
- Boracay West Cove
1. Owner of the BWC resort
2. Applied for building permit for the expansion of his resort
3. Applied for business permit for operations of the resort
4. Relied on FlagT is issued by the department of environment and natural resources DENR and the DOT’s permit to the
said resort
5. Challenged the order of demolition of the local government units
Procedural aspect
- -direct action of the court
Substantive Aspect

1. Police power of local government units section 447 of the local government code
2. Distinction between nuisance per se (RTC) and nuisance per accidens (LGU)
- Supreme Court: petition was denied
- Local economy must be sustained. The No Build Zone provision of the local zoning ordinance allowed the mayor to
demolish the prohibited structures. Police Power includes the exercise of quasi-judicial power where the law allows
it.
- Rule 65 certiorari: immediate action when there is no plain and speedy recovery
- Police power of the local government units: Section 2, Article X Local Autonomy, Section 442 of the local government
code
- Supremacy of the constitution

Ferrer v Mayor Bautista

- SP 22095 Sangguniang Panglungsod

- Garbage collection fee
2 City ordinances
1. Specialized housing tax SHT : good for five years, the supreme court said that this is VALID for relief of real property
tax a discount by 20%, not a taxing power, amelioration law
2. Garbage fee: violate equal protection clause, are oppressive, it results to double taxation, when all the resources are
used to collect garbage
General welfare clause is for public safety and public health, part of the public duty of the government
Delegation of powers
Local government units may exercise the power of taxation only by delegation coming from Congress Section 5, Article X
Not exclusively vested upon Congress is delegated to the local government units subject to the regulations and limitations
imposed by the Congress
Legal basis for local government units to create revenues Section 5, Article X
1. Taxes
2. Fees
3. Charges
Ermita Malate Hotel v City of Manila
- Due process clause
Petitioner challenged the ordinance of the City on the following grounds:
1. Classification is violative of the equal protection clause
2. Requiring customers the present valid ID upon registration
3. Requiring customers below 18 years old to be accompanied by their parents
- The ordinances is a valid exercise of police power
- The city governments is the guardian of public morals and its constituents
The supreme court: the ordinance is VALID----
1. Every law enjoys the presumption of constitutionality
2. The ordinance is a valid exercise of police power as it only regulates the use of the facilities

Drugstore Association v National Council

- RA 77982 Magna Carta of Disabled Persons
- Disabled persons< persons with disabilities
- Tax deduction scheme
- Lobbying
- RA 9442 opportunity to participate fully in mainstream society 20% discount
SC:
1. the law is constitutional, persons with disabilities were accorded constitutional protection under section six, Article II,
Article XIII under Social Justice
2. Section 32 of the PWD law does not violate due process. The provision must be read in conjunction with the IRA law
(implementing rules and regulations)
 3. The law is not vague. The terms of the law were formulated the experts’ opinions, the experts being doctors,
psychologists
- Controlling: ID issued by the local government PWD ID
- Drugstores part of the social legislation social justice principle

Manila Memorial Park v DSWD and DOF

Petitioners challenged the constitutionality of the Senior’s Law on the following grounds:
1. Deprivation of income (20% discount)
2. Violative of the equal protection clause (tax deduction)
3. Exercise of eminent domain

1. The case does not present any justiciable controversy or issue, there is no actual inquiry
2. Laws are valid exercise of police power
- Eminent- take or appropriate property for public use without just compensation is not warranted, it is to improve
welfare of senior citizens
- Senior citizens have no capacity anymore to earn so they are more entitled to subsidies, devoted the prime years of
their lives in private or public sectors
SC: petition was dismissed the law which extends benefits the most senior citizens as a valid exercise of police power.
- Social justice principle
- Retirement for senior citizens:
- Private sectors is 60 years old
- Public sector or government is 65 years old
- There is no deprivation or loss note taking over of business
- Advancing the tax: absolve a discount at the end of the taxable year you can recover

Elements of the equal protection clause

1. Law is a valid exercise of police power together with the equal protection clause classification is substantial or distinct
2. Is germane to the purpose of the law: cater to persons with disabilities and senior citizens
3. Cater to people in existing conditions
4. Must apply to all members of the same class
Association of Medical Clinics for Overseas Workers, Inc. (AMCOW) vs. GCC Approved Medical Centers
Association, Inc.
- Distinctions of the Overseas Filipino Workers
- 2 associations, administrative orders five series 2001 GAMCA diagnostic clinics: Every OFW should have a Health
Clearance
- On March 8, 2001, the DOH issued Administrative Order No. 5, Series of 2001[5] (AO 5-01) which directed the decking
or equal distribution of migrant workers among the several clinics who are members of GAMCA.
(c.3) No group or groups of medical clinics shall have a monopoly of exclusively conducting health examinations on migrant
workers for certain receiving countries;
(c.4) Every Filipino migrant worker shall have the freedom to choose any of the DOH-accredited or DOH-operated clinics that
will conduct his/her health examinations and that his or her rights as a patient are respected. The decking practice, which
requires an overseas Filipino worker to go first to an office for registration and then farmed out to a medical clinic located
elsewhere, shall not be allowed;
- SC: “Referral Decking System” Decking order under an administrative order is VALID. Statutory due process vs.
Constitutional due process; SUPREMACY OF THE CONSTITUTION
Constitutional due process protects the individual from the government and assures him of his rights in criminal, civil or
administrative proceedings; while
Statutory due process found in the Labor Code and Implementing Rules protects employees from being unjustly terminated
without just cause after notice and hearing.
Overseas Filipino Act
System of Reference
1. Procedural due process: Legal Power, not grave abuse of discretion on the part of the DOH
2. Valid exercise of police power
 - The regulation applies to Philippine hospitals and clinics, as well as to employers of OFWs. It does not apply to the
GCCs and their visa processes. That the regulation could affect the OFWs' compliance with the visa requirements
imposed by GCCs does not place it outside the regulatory powers of the Philippine government.
Leus v St. Scholastica
- -Methodist/ Catholic
- -pregnant employee, requirement to be MARRIED
- -One cannot impose CIVIL STATUS, impede with Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution right to life, liberty and
property
PH Health Care Providers v Commissioner of Internal Revenue
- -The nature of health insurance, health benefits to a private provider
- -PHILHEALTH included in the Senior Citizen’s, also issued by LG
- -PHCP: health care provider, assessment notices demanding the payment of deficiency taxes, including surcharges
and interest, for the taxable years 1996 and 1997, claim they are not affiliated with insurance business and so cannot
be demanded for DST
- -Primary jurisdiction Health Maintenance Organizations- Department of Health: the contracting party may be held
liable
- -principle object: medical service, not assumption of risks or indemnification
- -Issue: Is a health care agreement in the nature of an insurance contract and therefore subject to the documentary
stamp tax (DST) imposed under Section 185 of Republic Act 8424 (Tax Code of 1997)?
- -SC: No, HMO contracts are not insurance contracts but cannot claim immunity from DST. The DST is levied on the
exercise by persons of certain privileges conferred by law for the creation, revision, or termination of specific legal
relationships through the execution of specific instruments, an excise upon the privilege,... opportunity, or facility
offered at exchanges for the transaction of the business. The DST under Section 185 of the 1997 Tax Code is imposed
on the privilege of making or renewing any policy of insurance (except life, marine,... inland and fire insurance), bond
or obligation in the nature of indemnity for loss, damage, or liability. Petitioner's health care agreement is primarily a
contract of indemnity.
- -Overall, petitioner appears to provide insurance-type benefits to its members (with respect to its curative medical
services), but these are incidental to the principal activity of providing them medical care. The “insurance-like” aspect
of petitioner’s business is miniscule compared to its noninsurance activities. Therefore, since it substantially provides
health care services rather than insurance services, it cannot be considered as being in the insurance business.
- -DOH-power over diagnostic clinics

Capin-Cadiz v Brent Hospital and College

Procedural Aspects
1. Failure to indicate true dates
2. Failure to attach pertinent documents to the appeal
-SC Ruling: The Court may relax the rules to serve the ends of justice.
Substantive Aspects:
1. Imposition of unreasonable standards of morality by the employee
2. Freedom to choose one’s status
-SC Ruling:
1. Employment standards must not be oppressive and discriminatory
2. Freedom of liberty requires utmost respect of the State
Judicial review: Allows the Court to waive certain matters, True dates: to ascertain or confirm the period to appeal
Inchong v Hernandez
-1935 Constituion ‘Filipino-First Policy’ *Manila Prince Hotel v GSIS
-Challeneged the constitutionality of a law which NATIONALIZE Philippine Retail Law
-Defense of Government (OSG): the law is a valid exercise of police power
-SC: The law is CONSTITUTIONAL
Application of Concepts or Principles
1. Police Power: Before: Aliens may engage in retail trade, Now: Protect businesses from foreign denomination by
allowing retail trade only and exclusively to FILIPINOS
- Lawful purpose
- Lawful means
 2. Equal Protection Clause
3. Due Process Clause: right of succession vested to Filipinos
4. Constitutional Right: superior over subordinate
5. Statutory Right
- Paved way to interracial marriages
Darthmouth College v Woodward
- Private educational institution created by royal decree of the King George III
- SC: Petition granted, Dartmouth College is reverted to a pivate institution
- By legislative act of the State of New Hampshire, converted to college to a public institution gave express powers
to the Governor to appoint new members to the New Board of Trustees
- Effectively changed the administration of the school
1. Bill of Attainder (Article III, Section 10)
2. Non-impairment Clause (Article III, section 1)
3. Violation of vested rights over the property: Due process (1) Right to NOTICE (2) Right to be HEARD

Rubi v Provincial Board of Mindoro

- Challenged the resolution of PB of Mindoro for holding the Mangyanes in a reservation camp, a violation of right
to liberty
- The resolution is a valid exercise of police power characterized the Mangyanes as uncivilized tribes. They must be
educated to become part of civilized society
- SC (US) The resolution of the PB is constitutional and a valid exercise of police power as part of GENERAL
WELFARE CLAUSE
- Equal Protection Clause cannot apply to the Mangyanes, not educated, cannot qualify
- Public safety (uncivilized) create acts of violence
- Violation of domicile? Just resettlement until EDUCATED, No violation. Temporary until they are able to
assimilate with the ways of the Christians.
- Police power for lawful purpose General Rule: Good faith is presumed

City of Manila v Hon Laguio

- City of Manila: guardian of public morals (juridical entity or person)

- Sought to review the decision of Hon. Laguio which pronounced the city ordinance which imposed requirements
on lodging facilities of the MPDC
- TRO good for 72 hours only
- Action for declaratory Relief: party goes to the Court assailing ordinance or act if the right are being impaired
- Only filed before the law is enacted, cannot be invoked once the law has been implemented
Procedural or Remedial Concepts
1. Declaratory Relief
2. Preliminary Injunction/ TRO
Substantive Issues:
TRO
1. Deprivation of life, liberty and property
2. Tourism or Commercial Use
3. Lack of Compelling purpose
4. Violates ex post facto law principle
Objectives
1. Violation of the equal protection clause
- SC: Petition is dismissed. The ordinance is an INVALID exercise of police power for violating the principles
governing delegation of powers
1. Completeness Test
2. Sufficient-Standards Test

Secretary of Justice v Lantion

- Extradition Treaty: agreement between two countries or states; coverage is common crimes in both countries
 - Purpose: to bring back a person found in the jurisdiction of the contracting party to ensure that the extradite will
undergo criminal trial
- PD 1069: Proceedings which control extradition treaty
- Request of contracting party: DFA>DOJ>RTC: Warrant of Arrest

Concepts

1. Due process
2. Constitutional Right
3. Statutory right: delay in performance not evasion of treaty obligation the treaty: part of the laws of the land
4. Supremacy of the Constitution
5. Sui generis proceeding: do not give notice to the extradite
6. Probable cause in extradition proceedings: only in compliance with treaty obligations; not certainty or the elements
of the crime, only KNOWLEDGE that a crime was committed, that there is an equivalent crime in the PH
7. Probable cause in a criminal case (Sec 2, Article III)
8. Pacta sund servada: obligation must be observed in good faith; generally accepted principle in international law;
customary practice among nations
9. Theory of incorporation
10. Theory of transformation: Ratification: treaty becomes part of the laws of the land

Treaty (N-E-R-D)

1. Negotiations (alter ego)

2. Execution (President)
3. Ratification (Concurrence of the Senate0
4. Deposit of Instrument: Exchange of copies with contracting party for him to know you complied with domestic law-
constitutional requirement DFA- furnish UN ICJ International Court of Justice

Lai v People

- Accused of homicide for the death of his neighbor Villanueva

- The deceased was shot duing a dance conducted by the SK and said that it was Nelson Lai who shot him
- Was subject to preliminary investigation by prosecutor and later prosecuted (Elumba)
- Later became a trial court judge (Elumba)
- Judge Elumba should have disqualified himself from having anything to do with the case once he became the
trial judge because he was compulsorily disqualified.
- Appellant claims that he was denied due process
- Elumbra asked the SC to review judgment of conviction
- He alleged that he was not given fair trial because Elumba did not inhibit himself
- SC: Petition GRANTED, Case is remanded to an impartial judge

Agadon v NLRC

- Two-notice rule in dismissal cases, constitutional right of the spouses

- Spouses Agabon were employees of a company dealing with the installation of home improvement products
- Were alleged to have abandoned their work station or employment and worked for another employer after their
demands had not been met, company dismissed them not entitled to backwages and separation pay
- To be sure, the Due Process Clause in Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution embodies a system of rights based
on moral principles so deeply imbedded in the traditions and feelings of our people as to be deemed
fundamental to a civilized society as conceived by our entire history. Due process is that which comports with
the deepest notions of what is fair and right and just. It is a constitutional restraint on the legislative as well as on
the executive and judicial powers of the government provided by the Bill of Rights.
- SC: Dismissal is VALID where there is JUST cause. However, there must be observation of due process
- Notice is required: Two-Notice is mandatory to allow the employee to explain their side.
- The violation of the petitioners right to statutory due process by the private respondent warrants the payment of
indemnity in the form of nominal damages. The amount of such damages is addressed to the sound discretion of
the court, taking into account the relevant circumstances. Considering the prevailing circumstances in the case at
 bar, we deem it proper to fix it at P30,000.00. We believe this form of damages would serve to deter employers
from future violations of the statutory due process rights of employees.
- Petition DENIED

Republic v Cagandahan

- Challenged the order of the Court which allowed the:

1. Change of name from Jennifer to Jedd
2. Change of sex from female to male
- Article III Section I: right to liberty; right to choose
- Peculiar medical condition
- SC: Petition DENIED. The constitutional guarantee of the right to liberty must be upheld. Under the UN
Declaration of Human Rights, respect the rights of the person to realize his POTENTIALS, Human right to the
PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS AND HEALTH and right to self-determination of the individuals
- UN Declaration of Human rights: International laws are deemed as part of the laws of the land.
- Not controlled by M/F if the nature itself calls for it.

Cudia v PMA Supt. Et al

- Cudia was charged with dishonesty for being late to class, dismissed as a cadet as consequence
- Honor Society Proceeding, investigated on the matter, Petitioner challenged this as an abuse of right on the part
of the Honor Committee

Grave abuse of Discretion?

- SC: No, The right of Cudia to appear with counsel is not applicable in administrative proceedings, petition for
review on certiorari DENIED
- SC: Cudia must have exhausted all administrative remedies possible, should’ve waited for the FINAL DECISION of
the Chief Executive (administrative case nature) before going to court
- SC: No abuse of right on the part of the Honor Committee for as an academic institution PMA may formulate its
own rules in the conduct of investigation

People v Aruta

- Violation of the Comprehensive Drugs Act for transportation of 8.5 kilograms of dried marijuana leaves
- Filed a motion for Reconsideration since there was no search warrant upon the seizure
- SC: The conviction must be reversed. The arrest was not validly mad therefore the seizure was also illegal.

When a warrantless search or arrest is legal or justifiable

1. When a crime is actually committed in the presence of a police officer. (inflagrante delicto)
2. When this is done in hot pursuit. Crime is being done.
3. Escapees *RPC

Principle or Concepts

1. Terry Search: The entitlement of a law enforcer is only limited to a body search. If in the judgment of the police
officer, the offender is armed or dangerous, posing threat. A justifiable protective search for weapons, even in
the absence of probable cause to arrest, where there is a suspicion that an individual is armed and dangerous.
2. Fruit of the poisonous tree: Not a valid arrest therefore whatever has been seized should not be admitted as
evidence in court.

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 73, Olongapo City, is hereby
REVERSED and SET ASIDE. For lack of evidence to establish her guilt beyond reasonable doubt, accused-appellant
ROSA ARUTA Y MENGUIN is hereby ACQUITTED and ordered RELEASED from confinement unless she is being held for
some other legal grounds. No costs.

SO ORDERED.
Republic v Albios

- Petitioner is Republic of the PH as represented by the OSG challenging the decision of the Regional Trial Court
rendering the marriage of Albios and Fringer as void from the very beginning which was then affirmed by the
Court of Appeals.
- “limited-purpose marriages”
- Marriage was contracted in consideration of S2,000 in the case of Fringer and acquisition of American citizenship
in the case of Albios

SC: CA and RTC decisions REVERSED. The marriage was VALID. Consent should be vitiated in order to constitute it as
lack or absence of consent.

Lacson v Executive Secretary

- Petitioners were charged of multiple murder of syndicate Kuratong Baleleng

- Sought to challenge the order of the Ombudsman who instituted criminal cases against herein petitioners.
- Challenged the jurisdiction of Sandiganbayan based on the new law which redefined the jurisdiction of
Sandiganbayan: RA 8249
- accused filed separate motions questioning the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan, asserting that under the
amended informations, the cases fall within the jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court pursuant to Section 2
(paragraphs a and c) of Republic Act No. 7975.[7] They contend that the said law limited the jurisdiction of
the Sandiganbayan to cases where one or more of the "principal accused are government officials with Salary
Grade (SG) 27 or higher, or PNP officials with the rank of Chief Superintendent (Brigadier General) or higher. The
highest ranking principal-accused in the amended informations has the rank of only a Chief Inspector, and none
has the equivalent of at least SG 27
- wanted to be tried before the RTC because the crime was committed is defined and penalized under RPC
- SC: RTC not the Sandiganbayan had the jurisdiction over the case. For Sandiganbayan to take cognizance of a
case, it must be shown that the person must have committed grave abuse of discretion in the exercise of his
official functions.
- Section 5, Article XIII of the 1973 Constitution which mandated that the Sandiganbayan shall have jurisdiction
over criminal cases committed by public officers and employees, including those in government-owned or
controlled corporations, in relation to their office as may be determined by law. This constitutional mandate
was reiterated in the new (1987) Constitution when it declared in Section 4 thereof that the Sandiganbayan shall
continue to function and exercise its jurisdiction as now or hereafter may be provided by law.
- The questioned provision of the statute were introduced by the authors thereof in bad faith as it was made to
precisely suit the situation in which petitioners cases were in at the Sandiganbayan by restoring jurisdiction
thereover to it, thereby violating his right to procedural due process and the equal protection clause of the
Constitution.

Garcia v Honorable Drilon

- Challenged the constitutionality of VAWC law

- Questioned the issuance of the TPO or Temporary Restraining Order of Judge Drilon without notice to him
- The VAWC alleged is violative of the equal protection clause
- Allegations of wife: 1. Physical violence 2. Economic Deprivation 3. Psychological Violence
- SC: The VAWC is CONSTITUTIONAL, Women and children do not engage in the same physical attributes to
protect them from being subjected to violent or unfair treatment.

Equal protection clause classification

(1) it must rest on substantial distinction;

(2) it must be germane to the purpose of the law;
(3) must not be limited to existing conditions only, and
(4) must apply equally to all members of the same class

Serrano v Gallant
 - Maritime Services Inc
- Challenged the award of lump-sum salary based on three months imposed by RA 8042 or the Overseas Worker’s
Protection Act
- Questioned the constitutionality of the provision of RA 8042 which limits the claim of an OFW to a maximum of 3
months and not to the full balance of the contract.
- Serrano was promised a job as 1st officer of a maritime vessel but upon aboarding, he was only 2nd officer and
there was a difference between the amount of salary
- Filed illegal dismissal against Gallant Maritime (agency) for unfair labor practice
- Petitioner contends that the subject clause is unconstitutional because it unduly impairs the freedom of OFWs to
negotiate for and stipulate in their overseas employment contracts a determinate employment period and a
fixed salary package. It also impinges on the equal protection clause, for it treats OFWs differently from local
Filipino workers (local workers) by putting a cap on the amount of lump-sum salary to which OFWs are entitled in
case of illegal dismissal, while setting no limit to the same monetary award for local workers when their dismissal
is declared illegal, foreign employers are liable for salaries covering a maximum of only three months of the
unexpired employment contract while local employers are liable for the full lump-sum salaries of their
employees.
- Our present Constitution has gone further in guaranteeing vital social and economic rights to marginalized
groups of society, including labor. Under the policy of social justice, the law bends over backward to
accommodate the interests of the working class on the humane justification that those with less privilege in life
should have more in law. And the obligation to afford protection to labor is incumbent not only on the legislative
and executive branches but also on the judiciary to translate this pledge into a living reality. Social justice calls for
the humanization of laws and the equalization of social and economic forces by the State so that justice in its
rational and objectively secular conception may at least be approximated.

Distinctions

1. OFW domestic workers

2. OFW land-based and seafarers
3. Security and tenure of the OFW’s
- The Court concludes that the subject clause contains a suspect classification in that, in the computation of the
monetary benefits of fixed-term employees who are illegally discharged, it imposes a 3-month cap on the claim
of OFWs with an unexpired portion of one year or more in their contracts, but none on the claims of other OFWs
or local workers with fixed-term employment. The subject clause singles out one classification of OFWs and
burdens it with a peculiar disadvantage.
- There was a distinction between (1) AND (20, the latter of no assurance that the contract be renewed

Samzeer Overseas Placement v Cabiles

- Hired as quality-control supervisor for WACOAL for a period of one year

- Upon arrival in Taiwan, she was deployed as a cutter, she was informed that she was INEFFICIENT
- Upon her return to Manila, she filed a labor case for her dismissal

Samzeer’s defenses

1. WACOAL’s present agent is now Pacific Placement

2. There is no employer-employee relationship
3. NLRC had no jurisdiction because the employment of Cabiles was performed in Taiwan.
- Labor Arbiter dismissed the case
- NLRC and CA reversed the Labor Arbiter’s decision
- SC: Cabiles was illegally dismissed
- Samzeer Placement cannot deny liability because the deployment of Cabiles was done while it was still the agent
of WACOAL
- RA 8042 protects the rights of Filipino OFW’s.

Lex loci contractus: follows laws of the country where the contract is created or perfected

Biraogo v The Philippine Truth Commission

 - Challenged EO 1 of President Aquino:
1. Encroachment of legislative powers when it assumed the powers of the Congress. The Executive have no
power to create office, only offices of the Executive Branch which must also comply with the law
2. Violates equal protection clause which was formed only the supposed acts of corruption committed during
the Arroyo administration---why single out Arroyo, how about the other administrations
3. Encroaches on the constitutional mandate of the Ombudsman Article XI Public Accountability
- PTC: role is to only to advise, guide the President in the enforcement of the laws of the land
- SC: EO 1-transgression of equal protection clause enshrined in the Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution.
Petition is granted.

Office of the Ombudsman (I-P-IS)

Investigatory functions: fact-finding

Prosecutorial: appear in Sandiganbayan

IS Impose Sanctions: demoting police officers

Atty Valmonte v De Villa

- Checkpoints: as unconstitutional, sought to dismantle them

- Check up without a court or a search warrant
- The search violated his right against unreasonable searches and seizures
- SC: Petition is dismissed. Individuals may be subject to reasonable search or seizure. The State has the right to
protect itself and as part of the general welfare clause. It may adapt measures which are reasonable.
1. Checkpoints are meant to protect the public
2. Checkpoints help maintain peace and order
3. Valid exercise of police power

Stonehill v Sec Diokno

- Accused of tax evasion

- Moved to quash 42 search warrants obtained by DOJ Sen Diokno
- Respondent moved that the court to sustain the 42 warrants
- That the items will be used as evidence for the commission of a crime

SC:

1. Search conducted in offices: valid only in so far as items seized must specifically cite the crime to which the
persons will be charged.
2. Search conducted in residences: not valid because no specific crime was cited.

Distinction between a juridical entity and a natural person

People v Damaso

- Accused was convicted by the RTC, violation of PD 1866

- He questioned the conviction because there was no valid search and seizure done because he was not personally
present when it was done
- The fact of existence of firearms and subversive matters was hearsay. The conviction was reversed. Any
application for the search must be based on personal knowledge, not hearsay
- The search must also be conducted in the presence of the person sought to be held liable for the commission of
the crime
- There is no waiver unless such was made in the presence of counsel

Smith, Bell and Co Ltd v Natividaad

- Philippine Bill of 1902

- Jones Bill of 1916: constitution before 1935 C.
 - Sought registration of its vessel, “Bato” under PH laws.
- Registration was not possible since Smith, Bell and Co is owned by British nationals
- US SC: Writ of mandamus DENIED

Burgos v Chief of Staff

- Sought to exclude evidence obtained by AFT from Metropolitan Mail and, we FORUM
- Burgos is guilty of laches
- He waited for 6 months to question the validity of the warrant
- The evidence is necessary to prove the crime of subversion
- SC: Petition is granted. The seizure violated the freedom of the press.
- Search warrant must be specific address or home – specific crime particular – objects to be seized

Allado v Hon. Diokno

- Was charged with the murder of a German national based on a confession of a security guard named Umbal
- Sought to quash the confession of Umbal upon which the warrant of arrest was issued against the two lawyers.
- SC: probable cause does not exist, the warrant of arrest against Allado and Mendoza are quashed
- No Corpus delicti, thereby blurring the guilt of the accused

Nala v Hon. Baroso

- Moved for the quashal of the following:

- 1. Warrant of arrest
- 2. Search warrant
- Illegal possession of firearms

SC:

1. The exact name may not fully coincide with person sought to be held liable. The same may be validly provided
the warrant containing the description of the person.
2. The items must be particularly described.
3. Illegally seized items can be used as evidence.
- Plain view doctrine

Roan v Hon. Gonzalez

- sought to quash the search warrant for the violation of PD 1866 illegal possession of firearms law
- sought to exclude the firearm seized
- SC: fruit of the poisonous doctrine was applied

People v Malmstedt

- Was accused for the violation of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act
- Was suspected for having committed a crime upon inspection search
- Applying the Terry Search, Malmstead was searched and he was found to have a pouch of marijuana
- A further search revealed his two teddy bears had marijuana/weed
- In flagrante delicto: having caught in the commission of crime.

Probable Cause

- Search warrant/ warrant of arrest commission of a specific criminal offense.

Laud vs. People

- Sec. De Lima – Chairman of Commission of Human Rights

‘Davao Death Squad’
- Sec. of Justice – search warrant – cemetery of salvaged victims of DDS
 - Laud – police officer
- designated caretaker of a property.

SC – If the lawyer with any person is unsuccessful in applying for a search warrant.
2 judges authorized – executive judge of Manila; RTC of Manila
- executive judge of QC; RTC of QC
Executive judge – like
- ‘principal’
De Lima applied for a search warrant.
*human remains* - could be a subject for a search warrant.
- challenged the issuance of a search warrant issued in Manila and to be seized in Davao City.
- in any court which territory where the crime was committed/ known however, special criminal cases – RTC
of Manila & QC
*See 12, Ch.5 AM – heinous crimes
‘SC Petition is DENIED’
- General Rule “The application for search warrants for criminal offenses has to be filed in the jurisdiction where
any of the elements of the crime was committed.”
- Exception to the General Rule – “An application for search warrant for commission of HEINOUS CRIMES may be
filed before the executive judge RTC Manila or QC.

Human remains being transportable may be considered as personal property under the Civil Code and may
therefore be covered by a search warrant.
Human remains consists of corpus delicti to prove the crime of murder
*same ruling with that of Allado vs Diokno
- cannot intervene – person seeking to run for a private sector does not have to be drug-free.
 Distinction of Constitutional right vs statutory right.

SJS vs. Dangerous Drugs Board

(consolidated petition)

- Challenged the constitutionality of RA 9165 ‘requiring mandatory drug testing for:

1. Candidates
2. Schools – students in secondary/ tertiary levels – invasion of the right to privacy.
3. Offices – employees in the office.
4. Accused – in cases including violation of Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act
Drugs Act – right against self-incrimination/ privacy.’

SC petition is granted in so far RA 9165 violates the constitutional requirement.

Valid in so far it is part of the academe requirement, but needs to be RANDOM

May be conducted but some have safeguards to ensure the right to privacy

Miranda rights

- no extraction of bodily fluid during preliminary investigation/ custodial investigation ONLY VERBAL
- should be added by the court.
- right against self-incrimination.

Dela Cruz

- police officer – entrapment

- original crime is EXTORTION
- Jaime Dela Cruz – police officer, appointed Philippine National Police
o RA 9165 – Comprehensive ---Drugs Act of 2002; shabu
- sought the reversal to his conviction for violation of RA No. 9165
 o -original intention was to charge him of extortion
- He was the subject of an entrapment operation of the NBI
- The entrapment operation was successful
- While under custody, the NBI agents subjected him to a urine extraction
- The test found him POSITIVE of illegal substance
- Violation of RA No. 9165 never the object of the entrapment, it was for extortion

SC acquitted him.

Lucas vs Lucas

- Subject matter claims of paternity of Jessie Lucas. Jessie Lucas alleged that he was the son of an illicit relationship
between his mother, Elsie and Jesus.
- Jessie Lucas submitted various documentary evidence to establish his claim.
- The court ordered the publication of the ‘summons’ because of personal service of the complaint against Jesus
was unsuccessful.
- Can the court order DNA testing to prove paternity?
SC. Yes.
- categorical ruling
Best proof – acceptance of DNA test to establish paternity.
- right of privacy prevents a person to give his sample.
DNA Test putative father, mother, child

People vs Johnson

- Exception to the rule.

- Issues of public safety – part of POLICE POWER
- to ensure everyone has peace of mind in boarding the airplane
- Stop frisk search - valid warrantless arrest
- Terry search
- Johnson was convicted for violation of the CDA (Comprehensive Drugs Act)
- Body search at the airport revealed that she had 3 packs of shabu
- As a defense, she argued that she underwent surgery and self-medicated ‘shabu’ as an alternative painkiller.
- SC: Conviction AFFIRMED
- Airport security checks part of global practice: all countries agreed in order to ensure public safety of passenger

Requisites of a valid, warrantless arrest

1. When a crime was committed in the presence of a police officer – in flagrante delicto
2. When there is a hot pursuit that the crime has been committed.
3. Cases of escapees

- Was the seizure of the three packs of shabu valid?

- Yes – that was the evidence the law enforcers needed to establish that she violated RA 9165

Pollo v Chairman of Civil Service Commission and Constantino David

- Question the validity of search and seizure ordered by the chairman of the CSC, Constantino David
- Constantino David ordered the search of the contents of the hard drive of the computer issued to Pollo and the
seizure of files found in the drawers of his table
- The search and seizure was done to establish the culpability of Pollo
- CSC chairman found Pollo guilty and ordered his dismissal; for feature of benefits; perpetual ban from taking any
CSC eligibility examination and ban from employment in any branch of government
- CA affirmed CSC decision
 - SC: the petition is denied. The search and seizure was lawful. An employer has diminished expectancy of the right
to privacy
- Court order not needed in administrative searches and seizures
- Premise: diminished expectancy of the right to privacy
- Computer was used for personal gain constituting gross dishonesty
- Privacy of communication, correspondents
- Before: radio, tv, letters
- Now (expanded by SC) : mass media, text messages, twitter, messenger – writ of habeas data
- Zones of right to privacy
1. Informational – facts of birth, study, residence
2. Decisional – cover social media terms and conditions
3. Locational – physical, more physical – like serving search warrant – knock and announce principle

Sabio v Gordon

- Inquiry officer of Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG)

- Right to privacy
- Can a public officer invoke the right to privacy in congressional inquiries?
- SC: no, for congressional inquiries are a matter of public interest and to ensure that public officers or government
are doing their jobs. Public officers not covered for transparency of government transactions.
- Right to life, liberty, property
- Liberty of abode
- Right to form associations
- Right against self-incrimination