Sie sind auf Seite 1von 14

San Sebastian College Of Law

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II
Second Semester 2020
Atty. Aison S. Garcia

Course Objectives

0 1. To help you become lawyers (Pass and excel in the bar exams)
1
2 2. To help you become good lawyers (for your future clients, to be able to
argue any position)

3 3. To teach law in a grand manner and to help you become great lawyers
(for justice, for the poor, for the country, and for the world)

*For objective 1, students will be required to read a textbook, memorize


provisions, and master jurisprudence

*For objectives 2 and 3, a problem-based approach will be followed. Moot


courts, role-playing of legislative debates, simulations of negotiations,
interrogations, etc., and similar exercises will be conducted.

Course Requirements

1. 50% = 4 Hour Final Examinations at the end of the semester


*A grade of 73 or below in the final exams will mean an automatic failure
for the course regardless of class standing.
*A high grade in the final exams will be given a bigger weight than one’s
class standing

2. 50% from class standing to be derived equally from:


i. Collective recitation grade (daily recitation and group
projects)
ii. Mid-Term Exams
iii. Special assignments

Recommended References

*Carlo and Isagani Cruz, Constitutional Law (2015)

*Joaquin Bernas S.J., The 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines:
A Commentary. Rex Bookstore (2009)

Note: All references to sections in the outline refer to Article III of the 1987
Constitution unless otherwise indicated.

I. INTRODUCTION (January 24)

A. Scope, coverage, methodology and overview of course

B. Review of Constitutional Law 1

i. Power of judicial review


ii. Approaches to constitutional interpretation
iii. Limits of the role of judiciary

*Article 8, Section 1

1
Illustrative Cases

 Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch (5 US) 137, 2 l. ed. 60 (1803)


 Javellana vs. Executive Secretary, G.R. No. L-36142. March 31, 1973

 Lagman vs Medialdea G.R. No. 231658/G.R. No. 231771/G.R. No.


231774. July 4, 2017

C. Introduction to Bill of Rights

 Aquino, Jr. vs. Enrile, 59 SCRA 183


 Garcia-Padilla v. Enrile, 121 SCRA 472 (1983)
 Enrile vs. Salazar G.R. 92163, June 5, 1990
 Enrile vs. Sandiganbayan GR 213847 (August 18, 2015)
 Ilagan vs. Enrile, G.R. No. 70748 October 21, 1985
 Brockaet. al. vs. Enrile G.R. No. 69863-65 (December 10, 1990)
 Ocampo et al. vs. Enriquez, G.R. Nos. 225973, November 2016

Additional introductory cases:

 Philippine Blooming Mills Employment Organization vs. Philippine


Blooming Mills Co., Inc., G.R. No. L-31195, 5 June 1973.
 Republic v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 104768, 21 July 2001.
 Yrasuegui vs. Philippine Airlines, G.R. No. 168081, 17 October
2008.

 Antonio G. M. La Viña, Human rights and the Law in More’s Utopia and
Duterte’s Philippines (2016)

 Antonio G. M. La Viña, The Long Legal Shadow of Martial Law (2016)

1. Historical overview of Bill of Rights

*Read the Bill of Rights of all Philippine constitutions from the


Malolos to the 1987 Constitution

*United States Constitution Bill of Rights (See amendments)


http://www.usconstitution.net/const.pdf

*French Declaration on the Rights of Man


http://www.conseil-constitutionnel.fr/conseil-
constitutionnel/root/bank_mm/anglais/cst2.pdf

*The Magna Carta


http://www.bl.uk/magna-carta/articles/magna-carta-english-
translation

2. International human rights law

*Universal Declaration on Human Rights


http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/

*International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights


https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/Volume%20999/volume-
999-I-14668-English.pdf

*International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights


http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/CESCR.aspx

2
*United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples
http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/unpfii/documents/DRIPS_en.pdf

Illustrative cases

*Vinuya vs Executive Secretary, GR 162230 (April 28, 2010);


see also A.M. No. 10-10-4-SC (March 8, 2011) RE: LETTER
OF THE UP LAW FACULTY

*Poe-Llamanzares v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No.


221697-700, Mar. 8, 2016; See also David v. Poe-
Llamanzares, 221538, September 20, 2016

3. Reframing rights before new technologies and social media

Illustrative Cases
 Vivares vs. STC, G.R. No. 202666 (September 29, 2014)
 ISAAA vs. Greenpeace, GR No. 209271 (December 8, 2015)
 Disini, Jr., et al. v. Sec. of Justice, GR no. 203335 (February 18,
2014)

II. POLICE POWER AND DUE PROCESS (January 31 and February 7)

**First part of Section 1


*Sections 16 and 11

Early cases
 U.S. v. Ling Su Fan, 10 Phil. 104,111-112 (1908)
 Carino vs. Insular Government 212 U.S. 449 (1909)
 U.S. v. Toribio, 15 Phil. 85 (1910)
 U.S. v. Pompeya, 31 Phil. 245, 253-254 (1915)
 Forbes v. ChuocoTiaco, 16 Phil. 534, 572 (1918)

A. Due process as a limitation on three main government powers:


Police Power, Taxation and Eminent Domain
 Ermita-Malate Hotel v. City Mayor of Manila, L-24693 (July 31, 1967)
 Noble State Bank v. Haskell, 219 U.S. 412 (1911)
 Ichong v. Hernandez, 101 Phil. 1155 (1957)
 Surigao del Norte Electric Coop vs. ERC, GR No. 183626, 4 October 2010
 Rimando vs. Naguilan Em. Test Center, GR No. 198860, 23 July 2012
 Manila Memorial Park vs. DSWD Secretary, GR No. 175356, 3 Dec. 2013

B. Substantive Due Process

Cases
 White Light Corporation vs. City of Manila, G.R. No. 122846, 20 January
2009.
 Calalang vs Williams, GR 47800 (2 December 1940]
 BancoEspanol-Filipino vs. Palanca, G.R. No. L-11390, March 26, 1918)
 People vs. Court of Appeals (262 SCRA 452)
 Rama vs. Moises, G.R. No. 197146, 6 December 2016.

US Jurisprudence

 Lochner vs. New York 198 U.S. 45 (1905)


 Lanzetta v. New Jersey, 306 US 451 (1939)
 Grisworld v. Connecticut 381 U.S. 479

3
 Roe vs. Wade 410 US 113, 35 L ED 2D 147

C. Procedural Due Process

Cases
 Ang Tibay v. CIR69 Phil. 635 (1940)
 Silva v. Ocampo, 90 Phil. 777 (1952)
 Halili v. PSC, 92 Phil. 106(1953)
 Ynot v. IAC, G.R. No. 74457, March 20, 1987
 Diosdado Guzman vs. National University, G.R. No. L-6828 July 11, 1986
 Tatad vs. Sandiganbayan 159 SCRA 70
 Guianivs. Sandiganbayan 386 SCRA 436
 Abraham Tolentino vs. Comelec, GR 187958 (April 7, 2010)
 Winston Garcia vs. Mario Molina, GR No. 157383 (7 July 2010)
 Gamboa vs. Chan, GR No. 193636 (July 24, 2012)
 Heirs of Bugarin vs. Republic, GR No. 174431 (August 6, 2012)
 Melendrez vs. PAGC, GR No. 163859 (August 15, 2012)
 Tua vs. Mangrobang, GR No. 170701 (January 22, 2014)
 Cudia vs. PMA Superintendent, GR No. 211362 (February 24. 2015)
 Roquero vs, UP Manila Chancellor, GR No. 181851 (March 9, 2010)
 Galman vs. Sandiganbayan, 144 SCRA 43
 A.Z. Arnaiz Realty vs. Office of the President, G.R. No. 170623, 9 July
2010.

III. EQUAL PROTECTION OF LAWS (February 14)

A. Rationale for equal protection principle

B. General equal protection rule

C. Exceptions

*Second part of Section 1

Cases
 Rubi vs. Provincial Board Mindoro (G.R. No. L-14078 Mar 7, 1919)
 Ormoc Sugar Central v. Ormoc City22 SCRA 603
 Cruz vs. NCIP, G.R. No. 135385. (December 6, 2000)
 Victoriano v. Elizalde Rope Workers' Union 158 Phil. 60, 86-87 (1974).
 Estrada vs. Sandiganbayan G.R. No. 148560 (November 19, 2001)
 Biraogo vs. Truth Commission, GR No. 193036 (December 7, 2010)
 Garcia vs. Drilon G.R. No. 179267 (2013)
 Remman Enterprises, Inc. vs. Professional Regulatory Board of
Real Estate Service, G.R. No. 197676, 4 February 2014.
 Villanueva vs. Judicial and Bar Council, G.R. No. 211833, 7 April
2015.
 Mosqueda vs. Pilipino Banana Growers and Exporters Association,
Inc., G.R. No. 189185, 16 August 2016
 Serrano v. Gallant Maritime Services, Inc., G.R. No. 167614, 24
March 2009.
 Central Bank Employees Association vs. Bangko Sentral ng
Pilipinas, G.R. No. 148208, 15 December 2014.
 Republic v. Manalo, G.R. No. 221029, 24 April 2018.
 Abakada Guro Partylist vs. Purisima, G.R. No. 166715, 14 August
2008.

US Jurisprudence

 Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857)

4
 Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896)
 Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 (1954)
 Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965)
 Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967)
 Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438 (1972)
 Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003)
 In re Marriage Cases, 43 Cal.4th 757 (2008
 US vs. Windsor (June 26, 2013), see
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-307_6j37.pdf
 Obergefell vs. Hodges http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-
556_3204.pdf
 Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. Vs. Colorado Rights Commission, 584 US
___ (2018)

*Moot court exercise on constitutionality of same sex marriages

IV. RIGHTS RELATED TO PROPERTY (February 21 and February 27)

A. No unjust taking of property

*Section 9

Cases
 Churchill v. Rafferty, 32 Phil 580 (1915)
 Barangay Sindalan vs. CA, G.R. No. 150640, 22 March 2007
 Philippine Columbian Association vs. Pants, 228 SCRA 668
 EPZA vs. Dulay, April 29, 1987
 Small Landowners vs. DAR Sec,, G.R. No. 78742(14 July 1989)
 J.M. Tuason vs. Land Tenure Administration, 31 SCRA 413 (1970)
 Deleste vs. Land Bank, GR No. 169913 (June 8, 2011)
 Forform Development Corporation vs. Philippine National
Railaways, G.R. No. 124795, 10 December 2008.
 Republic vs. Spouses Tan Song Bok, G.R. No. 191448, 16
November 2011.
 City of Manila vs. Te, G.R. No. 169263, 21 September 2011.
 Hacienda Luista vs. PARC, GR No. 171101 (April 24, 2012)
 Republic vs. Hans Menzi Estate, GR No. 183446 (Nov. 13, 2012)
 APO Fruits Corp. vs. Land Bank, GR No. 164195 (April 5, 2011)
 Sy vs. Quezon City, G.R. No. 202690 (June 5, 2013)
 Land Bank vs. Eusebio, G.R. No. 160143 (July 2, 2014)
 Republic vs. Macabagdal, G.R. No. 227215, 10 January 2018.
 Landbank of the Philippines vs. Honeycomb Farms Corporation,
G.R. No. 169903, 29 February 2012.
 Saguitan vs. City of Mandaluyong, G.R. No. 135087, 14 March
2000.
 Jesus is Lord Christian School Foundation, Inc. vs. Municipality of
Pasig, Metro Manila, G.R. No. 152230, 9 August 2005.
 Francia vs. Municipality of Meycauayan, G.R. No. 170432, 24
March 2008.
 Air Transportation Office vs. Gopuco, G.R. No. 158563, 30 June
2005.

B. Non-impairment of contracts

*Section 10

Cases

 U.S. v. Conde, 42 Phil. 76


 Ysmael vs. Deputy ES 190 SCRA 673

5
 C and M Timber vs. Alcala 273 SCRA 402
 Repubic vs. Rosemoor Mining 426 SCRA 517
 Republic vs. Caguia 536 SCRA 193
 Ganzon vs. Inserto 123 SCRA 713
 Philsonsa vs. Enriquez, 235 SCRA 506
 Eugenio vs. Drilon 252 SCRA 106
 Goldenway vs. Equitable, GR No. 195540 (March 13, 2013)
 PAGCOR vs. Bureau of Internal Revenue, G.R. No. 172087, 15
March 2011.
 Surigao del Norte Electric Cooperative vs. Energy Regulatory
Commission, G.R. No. 183626, 4 October 2010.
 The Learning Child, Inc. vs. Ayala Alabang Village Association, G.R.
No. 134269, 7 July 2010.

V. THE GREAT FREEDOMS (March 5)

A. Freedom of expression and free speech

*Section 4

*Cases
 Near v. Minnesota (1931)
 United States v Bustos, 37 Phil. 741 (1918)
 Sanidad vs. Comelec 181 SCRA 529
 Zaldivar vs. Sandiganbayan, 170 SCRA 1
 Chavez vs. Gonzalez, G.R. No. 168338 (February 15, 2008)
 David vs. Arroyo, 489 SCRA 160
 Penera vs. Comelec, G.R. 181613 (11 September 2009; Resolution
on Motion for Reconsideration, 25 November 2009)
 Cagas vs. Comelec, GR No. 209185 (February 25, 2014)
 Fernando vs. CA, 510 SCRA 351

a. Freedom of the press, including right to information

*Section 4, including in relation to Section 7

Cases
 United States v. Bustos, 37 Phil 731
 Chavez vs. PCGG, 299 SCRA 744
 Borjal vs. CA, 301 SCRA 1
 MVRS Publications vs. Islamic Dawah Council, G.R. No. 135306,
28 January 2003.
 Fernando vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 159751, 6 December
2015.
 In re Jurado, AM No. 90-5-2373 (July 12, 1990)
 Roque vs. Chief of Staff, G.R. No. 214986, 15 February 2017.
 In Re: Macasaet, A.M. No. 07-09-13-SC, 8 August 2008.
 In Re Letter of the UP Law Faculty, A.M. No. 10-10-4-SC, 7 June
2011.

Elections and free speech

 Adiong vs Comelec, GR no. 103956 (March 31, 1992)


 SWS vs. Comelec, GR no. 147571 (May 5, 2001)
 GMA Network vs. Comelec, GR No. 205357 (September 27, 2014)
 National Press Club vs. COMELEC, 207 SCRA 1
 Diocese of Bacolod vs. Comelec. GR No. 205728 (Jan. 21, 2015)

6
 Social Weather Station vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 208062, 7 April
2015.

US Jurisprudence
 Schenck v. United States, 249 US 47 (1919)
 Dennis v. United States, 341 US 494 (1951)
 Gitlow v. New York, 268 US 652 (1925)
 New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964)
 New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713 (1971)
 Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969)
 U.S. vs. O’Brien, 391 US 367.
 Grosjean vs. American Press Co., 297 US 233.

Movies/Art

 Gonzalez vs. Katigbak, GR No. L-69500 (July 22, 1985)


 Hustler Magazine vs
Falwell https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/485/46
 Texas vs
Johnson https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/491/397
 Miller vs
California https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/413/15

Right to information cases

 Legaspi vs. Civil Service Commission, G. R. No. 72119 (May 29 1987)


 Valmonte vs. Belmonte, G.R. No. 74930 (February 13, 1989)
 Gonzales vs. Narvasa, GR. No. 140835. August 14, 2000
 Chavez vs. PCGG, GR No. 130716, December 09, 1998
 Chavez vs. PEA-Amari Coastal Bay Development Corp. 384 SCRA 152
 Antolin vs. Domondon, GR No. 165036 (July 5, 2010)
 Privatization and Management Office, GR No. 200402 (June 13, 2013)
 Rappler, Inc. vs. Bautista, G.R. No. 222702, 5 April 2016.
 Sereno vs. CTRM, G.R. No. 175210, 1 February 2016.
 Antolin vs. Domondon, G.R. No. 165036, 5 July 2010.

(Midterm Exam March 12)

B. Freedom of association, assembly and form unions (March 19)

*Sections 4 and 8, 18 (1)

*Cases
 Primicias vs. Fugoso, L-1800 (January 27, 1948)
 Occena vs. Comelec 127 SCRA 404
 Ang Ladlad vs. Comelec, G.R. No. 190582, April 7,2010
 United Pepsi Cola Union vs. Laguesma 288 SCRA 15
 SSS Employees Association vs. CA, G.R. No. 85279, July 28, 1989
 Manila Public School Teachers Assn vs. Laguio, 200 SCRA 323
 Padcom Condominium vs. Ortigas Center, 382 SCRA 222
 Reyes vs. Bagatsing, 125 SCRA 553
 Bayan vs. Ermita, GR. no. 169838 (April 25, 2006)
 Gesite vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. Nos. 123562-65, 25 November 2004.
 National Union of Workers in the Hotel, Restaurant and Allied Industries
vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 166295, 11 November 2008.
 Samahan ng Manggagawa sa Hanjin Shipyard vs. Bureau of Labor
Relations, G.R. No. 211145, 14 October 2015.
 Quezon City PTCA Federation vs. Department of Education, G.R. No.
188720, 23 February 2016.

7
 Davao City Water District v. Aranjuez, G.R. No. 194192, 16 June 2015.
 Yates vs. U.S., 354 US 298.

C. Freedom of religion; free exercise and non-establishment

*Section 5

Cases

 Estrada vs. Escritor AM No. P-02-1651, August 4, 2003


 Genaro Gerona, et al. vs. Secretary of Education, et al.106 Phil 2
 Pamil vs. Teleron, 86 SCRA 413
 Manosca vs. CA, 252 SCRA 412
 Ebralinag v division superintendent of schools of Cebu 219 SCRA
256
 Garces vs. Estenzo 104 SCRA 510
 German vs. Barangan, 135 SCRA 514
 Tolentino vs, Sec. of Finance 235 SCRA 630
 Islamic Dawah Council vs. Executive Secretary, 405 SCRA 497
 Austria vs, NLRC, 310 SCRA 293
 Taruc vs. De La Cruz, 453 SCRA 123
 Request of Muslim Employee in the Different Courts in Iligan City
(Re: Office Hours) A.M. No. 02-2-10-SC, 14 December 2005.
 Perfecto vs. Judge Esidera, A.M. No. RTJ-15-2417, 22 July 2015.
 In Re: Letter of Tony Q Valenciano on the Holding of Religious
Rituals at the Hall of Justice Building in Quezon City, A.M. no. 10-4-
19-SC, 7 March 2017.

US Cases

 Arch R Everson v. Board of Education 330 US 1 (February 10, 1947)


 West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette 319 US 624 (June 14, 1943)
 Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 US 602, (1971)
 School District of Abington vs. Schemp, 374 US 203.
 Wisconsin vs. Yoder, 406 US 205
 Marsh vs. Chambers, 463 US 783.
 County of Allegheny vs. ACLU, 492 US 573
 Employment Division vs. Smith, 494 US 872
 Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye vs. City of Hialeah, 508 US 520
 Van Orden vs. Perry, 545 US 677
 Reynolds vs. United States, 98 US 145.

*Moot Court exercise

D. Freedom to choose where to live and travel (March 26)

*Section 6

Cases
 Mirasol vs. DPWH, 490 SCRA 318
 Villavicencio vs. Lukban, 39 Phil. 778.
 Marcos v. Manglapus, 177 SCRA 668 (1989)
 Manotoc vs. CA 142 SCRA 149
 Silverio vs. CA, 195 SCRA 760
 Santiago vs. Vasquez 217 SCRA 633
 Marcos vs. Sandiganbayan, 247 SCRA 127
 Yap vs. CA 358 SCRA 564
 Court Administrator vs. Macarine, AM No. MTJ-10-1770 (July 18, 2012)

8
 Arroyo vs. De Lima, G.R. No. 199034, 15 November 2011.
 Kalipunan ng Damayang Mahihirap vs. Robredo, G.R. No. 200903, 22
July 2014.
 Leave Division vs. Heusdens, A.M. No. P-11-2927, 13 December 2011.
 Genuino vs. De Lima, G.R. Nos. 197930, 17 April 2018.

VI. RIGHTS OF THE SUSPECT, ACCUSED, AND CONVICTED: FROM


SEARCH AND ARREST TO DETENTION TO TRIAL AND PUNISHMENT

A. Rules on arrest and search warrants

*Sections 2, 3:2

Cases
 Burgos v. Chief of Staff, 133 SCRA 800
 Salonga v. Cruz Pano, 134 SCRA 438 (1985)
 Webb vs. De Leon, G.R. No. 121234 (August 23, 1995)
 People vs. Huang Zhen Hua G.R. No. 139301 (September 29, 2004)
 People vs. Tudtud&Bolong, G.R. No. 144037 (September 26, 2003)
 People vs. Exala, 221 SCRA 494
 Estrada v. Sandiganbayan, 369 SCRA 394
 Posadas v. Court of Appeals, 188 SCRA 288
 Roan vs. Gonzales, 145 SCRA 687
 Stonehill v. Diokno, 20 SCRA 383
 People v. Veloso 48 Phil169 (1925)
 Nolasco v. Pano, 139 SCRA 152
 Posadas vs. CA, 188 SCRA 288
 Umil vs. Ramos, 187 SCRA 311
 People vs. Macarios, GR No. 188611 (June 16, 2010)
 Fajardo vs. People, GR No. 190889 (January 10, 2011)
 Codes vs. People, GR 1806661 (December 11, 2013)
 People vs. Calantiao, GR No. 203984 (June 18, 2014)
 People vs. Cogaed, GR No. 200334 (July 30, 2014)
 World Wide Web Corporation vs. People, G.R. No. 203335, 11
February 2014.
 People vs. Gajo, G.R. No. 217026, 22 January 2018.
 People vs. Ramirez, G.R. No. 225690, 17 January 2018.

US Jurisprudence

 Olmstead vs. U.S., 277 US 438 (Read also the Dissenting Opinion of
Justice Brandeis)
 Katz vs. U.S., 394 US 347.
 Terry vs. Ohio, 392 US 1.

B. Rules on privacy of communication and correspondence

*Section 3
*Writ of Habeas Data (See AM 08-1-16)
* R.A. 4200 (Anti-Wiretapping Act)

Cases
 Morfe v. Mutuc, 22 SCRA 424
 People of the Philippines vs. Andre Marti, 193 SCRA 57
 Marquez vs. Desierto, GR 135882 (June 27, 2001)
 Office of the Court Administrator v. Reyes, A.M. No. P-08-2535, 23 June

9
2010.
 Alejano vs. Cabuay, 468 SCRA 188
 Hing vs. Choachuy, GR No. 179736 (June 26, 2013)
 Lee vs. Ilagan, GR No. 203254 (October 8, 2014)
 Standard Chartered Bank v. Senate Committee on Banks, Financial
Institutions and Currencies, G.R. No. 167173, 27 December 2007.
 Pollo vs. Chairperson Karina Constantino-David, G.R. No. 181881, 18
October 2011.
 Belo- Henares vs. Guevarra, A.C. No. 11394, 1 December 2016.

US Jurisprudence
 Griswold vs. Connecticut, 81 US 479.

C. Rules on custodial investigation (April 2)

*Section 12
*Cases
 People vs. Duero, 104 SCRA 379
 Galman vs. Pamaran, 138 SCRA 294
 Tanenggee vs. People, GR No. 179448 (June 26, 2011)
 People vs. Chavez, GR No. 207950 (September 22, 2014)
 People vs. Abola, GR No. 195850 (February 16, 2015)
 People vs. Lara, G.R. No. 1999877, 13 August 2012.
 People vs. Guillen, G.R. No. 191756, 25 November 2013.

US Jurisprudence

 Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S.436 (1966)


 Escobedo v. Illinois 378 U.S. 478 (1964)
 United States vs. Wade, 388 U.S. 218 (1967)
 Gilbert vs. California. 388 U.S. 263 (1967
 Michigan v. Moseley, 423 U.S. 96 (1975)
 Garner v. United States, 424 U.S. 648 (1976)
 Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S 477 (1981)
 Missouri v. Seibert, 542 U.S.600 (2004)
 Berghuis v. Thompkins, 560 U.S. 370 (2010)
 Salinas v. Texas, no. 12-246, U.S. Supreme Court (June 17, 2013).

*Exercises on interrogations and on application and service of search and


arrest warrants

D. Right to Bail

*Section 13

Cases
People vs. Judge Donato& Rodolfo Salas 198 SCRA 130 (1991)
People vs. IAC, 147 SCRA 219
Comendador vs. De Villa, 200 SCRA 80 (1991)
Baylon vs. Judge Sison, 243 SCRA 284 (1995)
People vs. Sandiganbayan, 529 SCRA 764
Aswat vs. Galido, 204 SCRA 205
People vs. Donato, 198 SCRA 131
Yap vs. CA, 358 SCRA 564

E. Right to criminal due process, presumption of innocence,


speedy, impartial and public trial, and to confront witnesses,

*Section 14

10
*Cases

 Senator Leila M. De Lima Vs. Hon. Juanita Guerrero, et al. G.R.


No. 229781. October 10, 2017
See also opinion of UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention
https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/Detention/Opin
ions/Session82/A_HRC_WGAD_2018_61.pdf

 U.S. v. Pagaduan November 2 G.R. No. L-12616 (1917)


 Conde vs. Rivera, 45 Phil 650
 Mejia vs. Pamaran, No. L-56741, April 15, 1988
 Ong vs. Sandiganbayan, 470 SCRA 7
 Serapio vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 148468, January 28, 2003
 Benedicto vs. CA, G.R. No. 125359, September 4, 2001
 People vs. Lagao, G.R. No. 118457, April 8,1997
 People vs. Serzo, 274 SCRA 553
 People vs. Crisologo, 150 SCRA 653
 Yusop vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 138859-60, February 22, 2001
 Enriquez vs. Ombudsman, G.R. No. 174902-06, February 15, 2008
 Tilendo vs. Ombudsman G.R. No. 165975, September 13, 2007
 Martelino v Alejandro, 32 SCRA106 (March 25, 1970)
 Coscuella vs. People, GR No. 191871 (July 15, 2013)
 People vs. Sandiganbayan, GR No. 188165 (December 11, 2013)
 Barcelons vs. Lim, GR No. 189171 (2014)
 Galman vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 72670, 12 September 1986.
 Villareal vs. People, G.R. No. 151258, 1 February 2012.
 Arroyo vs. Department of Justice, G.R. No. 199082, 18 September
2012.
 In Re: Request for the Live Radio and TV Coverage of the Trial of
the Plunder Cases Against Joseph Estrada, A.M. No. 00-1-4-03-
SC, 13 September 2001.
 In Re: Petition for Radio and TV Coverage of the Multiple Murder
Cases Against Zaldy Ampatuan, A.M. No. 10-11-5-SC, 14 June
2011.
 Bangayan vs. RCBC, G.R. No. 149193, 4 April 2011.
 Go vs. People, G.R. NO. 185527, 18 July 2012.

F. Right against self-incrimination (April 9)

*Section 17

Cases

Bataan Shipyard vs. PCGG, 150 SCRA 181


Bagadiong vs. Gonzales, 94 SCRA 906
People vs. Olvis, 154 SCRA 513
Alih vs. Castro, 151 SCRA 279
People vs. Codilla, 224 SCRA 104
People vs. Yatar, 428 SCRA 504
Almonte vs. Vasquez, 244 SCRA 286
People vs. Ventura, 433 SCRA 389
People vs. Fieldad, GR No. 196005 (October 1, 2014)
De Castro vs. People, GR No. 171672 (February 2, 2015)

G. Prohibition on cruel, degrading or inhuman punishment

*Section 19

Cases

11
 People vs. Camano, 115 SCRA 688
 People vs. Alicante, 332 SCRA 440
 People vs. Baway, 350 SCRA 29
 People vs. Dapitan, 197 SCRA 378
 Alejano vs. Cabuay, 468 SCRA 188
 People v. Echegaray G.R. 117472, Feb. 7, 1997
 Corpuz vs. People, G.R. No. 180016, 24 April 2014
 People v. Mateo, GR No. 147678-87, July 7, 2004

 People vs Parazo, G.R. No. 121176, July 8, 1999


(See original decision in G.R. No. 121176. May 14, 1997)

 People vs. Licayan GR. Nos. 140900 & 140911. February 17,
2004; See the original decision in G. R. Nos. 140900 &
140911, August 15, 2001.

MATERIALS ON THE DEATH PENALTY

 http://chr.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Denunciation-of-
and-Withdrawal-from-International-Treaties-to-Re-impose-the-
Death-Penalty.pdf

 https://futureofworking.com/10-advantages-and-disadvantages-
of-the-death-penalty/

 http://www.thesundayleader.lk/2016/09/19/pros-and-cons-of-the-
death-penalty/

 http://reporter.ph/death-penalty-pros-and-cons-in-the-
philippines/

 https://www.ethicalrights.com/articles/media/136-death-penalty-
is-morally-unacceptable

 https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/ff8f/c7b4d5e1801c91693bb486
46bca356655541.pdf

*Simulated legislative debate on death penalty

VII. FREEDOM FROM UNJUST LAWS, PROSECUTION, & SENTENCES


(April 16 and April 23)

A. Writs of Habeas Corpus and Amparo

*Section 15, See also Article 7, Section 18

Cases

 Montenegro v. Castaneda, 91 Phil. Reports 882 (1949)


 Lansang vs. Garcia 42 SCRA 448
 Garcia-Padilla v. Enrile, 121 SCRA 472 (1983)
 SP02 Manalo vs. PNP Chief , G.R. No. 178920, Oct. 15, 2007
 People v. Bocar, August 10, 1985
 Caram vs. Segui, GR No. 193652, August 5, 2014
 In Re: Petition for Habeas Corpus of Eufemia Rodriguez, G.R.
No. 169482, 29 January 2008.
 Ampatuan vs. Macaraig, G.R. No. 182497, 29 June 2010.

Writ of Amparo

12
 Secretary of national Defense vs. Manalo, G.R. No. 180906, 7
October 2008.
 Burgos vs. Macapagal-Arroyo, G.R. No. 183711, 22 June 2010.
 Rodriguez vs. Macapagal-Arroyo, G.R. No. 191805, 15
November 2011.
 Boac vs. Cadapan, G.R. No. 184461, 31 May 2011.

B. Prohibition against involuntary servitude

*Section 18 (2)

Cases

 Aclaracion vs. Gatmaitan, 64 SCRA 131


 U.S. v. Pompeya, 31 Phil. 245

C. Prohibition against imprisonment for debt and non-payment of


poll tax

*Section 20

Cases
 People v. Linsangan, G.R. No. L-43290, December 21, 1935
 People vs. Lozano vs. Martinez, 146 SCRA 323
 Arceta vs. Mangrobang, 432 SCRA 136
 Vergara vs. Gedorio, 402 SCRA 520

D. No double jeopardy

*Section 21

Cases

 People vs. Hernando, 108 SCRA 121


 People vs. Lising, 85 SCRA 595
 Icasiano vs. Sandiganbayan, 318 SCRA 80
 Zapatos vs. People, 411 SCRA 148
 People vs. Tan, GR No. 167526, July 26, 2010
 Lejano vs. Philippines, GR No. 176389, January 18, 2011
 Navallo vs. Sandiganbayan, 234 SCRA 175
 Flores vs. Joven, 394 SCRA 339
 People vs. Militante, 117 SCRA 910
 Romualdez vs. Marcelo, 497 SCRA 89
 Villareal vs. Aliga, GR No. 1666995, January 13, 2014
 People vs. Ruiz, 81 SCRA 453

E. No ex post facto law or bill of attainder

*Section 22

Cases

 In Re: Kay Villegas Kami 35 SCRA 429


 Katigbak vs. Solicitor General, 180 SCRA 540

13
 People vs. Burton, 268 SCRA 531
 People vs. Pacificador, 354 SCRA 310
 Tan vs. Barrios 190 SCRA 686
 Wright vs. CA, 235 SCRA 341
 Lacson vs. Executive secretary 301 SCRA 29
 People v. Ferrer 48 SCRA 382

VIII. SPECIAL MODULE ON HUMAN RIGHTS (April 30 and May 7)

IX. SPECIAL TOPICS (Group reports/papers)

Students will be asked to organize themselves into groups of 3 and choose a


topic of interest to them. The topic must be contemporary and present
challenges to the current legal regime of rights. They will conduct research on
the topic, identify the issues related to the topic, and make recommendations
on how those issues will be addressed. They will present their findings to the
class in a creative way (skit, simulations, videos, etc) and submit a research
paper at the end of the semester.

Potential topics: Rights of the child, rights of people with disabilities, death
penalty, rights of people who use drugs, rights of people deprive of liberty,
justifying torture to stop terrorism, rethinking rape law, right to environment,
rights of refugees, rights of migrants, implications of new surveillance
technologies, implications of social media, decriminalizing libel, rights of
indigenous peoples, LGBT, MACR, “Tokhang”, etc.

X. CONCLUSION AND SYNTHESIS

(Finals May 14, 2020)

14