DE LA SALL UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW Constitutional Constitution all Law II Constitutiona THE BILL OF RIGHTS
Secon Se!este" #anua"$ %&'( Att$) Victo"ia V) Loan*on Cou"se O+,ecti-es. At t/e en o0 t/e cou"se1 t/e stuents will +e a+le. 1. To have an appreciation of the relationship of the state and its people. 2. To understand the concept of due process and its application. 3. To know the history of the Bill of Rights and how the Constitution protects the people against possible abuses of the government. . To understand the inherent powers of government and the interplay of such powers in the enshrined powers of the people under the Bill of Rights. !. To appreciate the constitutionally protected rights of the people as the "upreme Court applies and interprets such rights in assigned cases. I) HISTORY AND 2UR2OSE OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS (' Constitution Constitution A) Conce3t o0 So-e"ei4n Will # $reamble %rt. &&' "ections 1 and 3' %rt (' B) T/e Conce Conce3t 3t o0 Se3a"a Se3a"atio tion n o0 2owe"s 2owe"s and the the Three Three Branches Branches of )overnment )overnment## %rt.(&' (&& and (&&&' Constitution C) De0i De0ini niti tion on an 2u"3 2u"3os osee of the Bill of Rights# protection of guaranteed rights to liberty' property and other freedoms. *"ection 1' %rticle &&&' Constitution+ ,The Bill Bill of Rights Rights governs governs the relations relationship hip between between the T/ee Bill T/ Bill o0 Ri4/ Ri4/ts ts.. ,The individual and the state. &ts concern is not the relation between individuals' between a private individual and other individuals. -hat the Bill of Rights does is to declare some some forbid forbidden den ones in the private private sphere sphere inacce inaccessib ssible le to any power power holder./ holder./ 0 People People v. Marti (1991) (1991) &t is selfeecuting. 0Gamboa 0Gamboa v. Teves Teves (2011 (20 11)) &t also imposes safeguards imposes safeguards against against violations by the government' by individuals' or by groups of individuals. %rticle &&& of the Constitution protects the following person4s fundamental person4s fundamental civil and political rights *1+ !ivil rights 5 rights that belong to an individual by virtue of his citienship in a state or community. community. *2+ Political *2+ Political rights 5 rights that pertain to an individual6s citienship vis7vis the management of the government. *3+ "ocial "ocial and economic rights 5 rights 5 rights which are intended to insure the wellbeing and economic security of the individual. *+ #ights *+ #ights of the accused 5 5 civil rights intended for the protection of a person accused of any crime. $uman rights have a primac% over propert% rights. The rights of free epression and of assembly occupy a preferred position as they are essential to the preservation and vitality of civil institutions. The Bill of Rights is designed to preserve the ideals of libert%& e'ualit% and securit% 8against securit% 8against the assaults of opportunism' the epediency of the passing hour' the erosion of small encroachments' and the scorn and derision of those those who have have no patien patience ce with with general general princi principle ples./0 s./0 Philippine Philippine looming Mills mplo%ees *rgani+ation *rgani+ation v. Philippine looming Mills !o.& ,nc. ,nc. (19-) (19-)
1 | P a g e
T/e Bill o0 Ri4/ts se"-es 5 *1+ To preserve preserve democratic ideals. *2+ To safeguard fundamental rights. *3+ To promote promote the happiness of an a n individual. The Bill Bill of Righ Rights ts cann cannot ot be invo invoke ked d agai agains nstt acts acts of priv privat atee Gene"al Gene "al Rule# The individuals. The e9ual protection erects no shield against private conduct' however discriminatory or wrongful. 0/rasueg 0 /rasuegui ui v. P P (200) E6ce3tion to t/e Rule. The Bill of Rights was invoked and applied by the Court against a private party. * 3ulueta 3ulueta v. !.. & 1994) #uicial Stana"s o0 Re-iew une" t/e Bill o0 Ri4/ts This test test is applicab applicable le for economic& propert%& commercial ') RATIONAL BASIS TEST. This legislation. legislation. 05hite 05hite ight !orporation v. !it% of Manila (2009) (2009) 2. STRICT SCRUTINY TEST. This This re9uir re9uires es the govern governmen mentt to show an overriding or compelling government interest so great great that that it :usti :ustifi fies es the the limi limitat tatio ion n of fundamental constitutional rights. rights. The courts make the decision of whether or not the purpose of the law makes the classification necessary. 7) INTER8EDIATE SCRUTINY TEST. % third third standa standard' rd' denomi denominat nated ed as height heightene ened d or imme immedia diate te scrut scrutin iny y' was was late laterr adop adopte ted d by the the ;.". ;.". "upr "uprem emee Cour Courtt for for eval evalua uati ting ng classi classifi ficat catio ions ns based based on gender an and legitimac%. legitimac%. -hil -hilee the the test test may have have firs firstt been been articulated in e9ual protection analysis' it has in the ;nited "tates since been applied in all substantive due process cases as well. 05hite 05hite ight !orporation v. !it% of Manila (2009) (2009) VOID5FOR5VAGUENESS DOCTRINE AND OVERBREADTH DOCTRINE comprehensible standards standards that men of VOID FOR VAGUENESS. %n act is vague when it lacks comprehensible common intelligence must necessarily guess at its common meaning and differ as to its application. On t/e 9uestion o0 t/e constitutionalit$ o0 t/e Anti5Te""o"is! Law an t/e c"eation o0 t/e Anti5Te Anti5Te""o"is! Council# % statute statute establi establishi shing ng a crimina criminall offens offensee must must define define the offense with sufficient definiteness that persons of ordinary intelligence can understand what conduct is prohibited by the statute. % 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 in its application. The statute is repugnant to the Constitution in two respects# *1+ &t violates violates due process process for failure failure to accord persons' especially especially the parties parties targeted targeted by it' fair notice of notice of what conduct to avoid< *2+ &t leaves law enforcers an unbridled discretion in discretion in carrying out its provisions and becomes an arbitrary fleing of the )overnment muscle. 0"outhern 0 "outhern $emisphere v. nti6Terrorism !ouncil (2010) (2010) On t/e 9uestion o0 t/e constitutionalit$ o0 t/e 2lune" Law # ,0This doctrine can only be invoked against that species of legislation that is utterly vague on its face' i.e.' that which cannot be clarified either by a saving clause or by construction. The test in determining wheth whether er a crim crimin inal al statu statute te is void void for for unce uncert rtai ainty nty is whet whethe herr the the lang langua uage ge conv convey eyss a sufficiently definite warning as to the proscribed conduct. &t must be stressed' however' that the vagueness doctrine merely re9uires a reasonable degree of certainty for the statute to be upheld 5 not absolute precision or mathematical eactitude./ 0 strada 0 strada v. "andiganba%ad OVERBREADTH DOCTRINE The overbreadth doctrine decrees that 8a governmental purpose may not be achieved by mean meanss whic which h sweep sweep unne unneces cessar sarily ily broa broadl dly y and and ther thereby eby inva invade de the the area area of prot protect ected ed freedoms.8 0"outhern 0"outhern $emisphere& supra
2 | P a g e
General Rule (oidforvagueness and overbreadth doctrines are inapplicable to penal statutes. By their very nature penal statutes have a general in terrorem effect which are intended to discourage citiens from committing the prohibited acts. 7ception "aid doctrines apply to penal statutes when *1+ The statute is challenged as applied8 or *2+ The statute involves free speech. * #ationale "tatute may be facially challenged in order to counter the ,chilling effect/ of the same.+ 0 isini v. "ec. of :ustice (201;)' on t/e constitutionalit$ o0 t/e C$+e"c"i!e Law: 1. He"!ano Oil 8anu0actu"in4 ; Su4a" Co"3o"ation -) Toll Re4ulato"$ Boa"1 (<% SCRA 7=>1 G)R) No) '?(%=& No-e!+e" %?1 %&'<. &n Mirasol v. epartment of Public 5or
"CR% 31? *2>>@+' the Court has further noted that# % toll way is not an ordinary road. %s a facility designed to promote the fastest access to certain destinations' its use' operation' and maintenance re9uire close regulation. $ublic interest and safety re9uire the imposition of certain restrictions on toll ways that do not apply to ordinary roads. %s a special kind of road' it is but reasonable that not all forms of transport could use it. @Be"sa!in1 #)
2. Carlos Superdrug Corp. v. Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD), 526 SCRA 130 (2007): validity of the Senio Citi!en"# A$t 3. Fernando v. St. Scholastica’s College , 6%3 SCRA 1&1 (2013): the ' $annot $o*+el o i*+o#e e#ti$tion# of the +o+ety ight# of +ivate +e#on# nde the gi#e of e-e$i#e of +oli$e +oe#. &. Aquino v. Municipalit of Mala! A"lan, 737 SCRA 1&5 (201&): a /ayo *ay e-e$i#e addi$atoy +oe# and ode de*olition of a #t$te hi$h $ontavene# an odinan$e in hi# i#di$tion. 5. Ferrer! #r. v. $autista , 760 SCRA 652 (2015): the Con#tittion allo# lo$al goven*ent# to ai#e thei on #o$e# of evene t the +ovi#ion of a +li$ #evi$e i# not #e$t to any fo* of ta- i*+o#ition ta-e# on idle land# and #o$iali!ed ho#ing ae valid t ta- on gaage $olle$tion i# invalid. 6. %hilippine &ealth Care %roviders! 'nc. v. Commissioner of 'nternal evenue! 600 SCRA &13 (200%): +ay*ent of do$*entay ta-e# and A4 y ay of de$ien$y a##e##*ent y the R $onta$t# of 8/9 ae not #e$t to S4 and A4. 7. ational %o*er Corporation v. Cit of Ca+anatuan, 737 SCRA 305 (201&): a##e##*ent of fan$hi#e ta- on ;AP9C9R ;AP9C9R i# liale to +ay fan$hi#e ta- to the ' <. %eople v. Marti, 1%3 SCRA 57 (1%%1): the ight again#t illegal #ea$h and #ei!e $annot e invo=ed again#t a +ivate +e#on =) Nu"se"$ Ca"e Co"3o"ation -s) Ace-eo1 (7' SCRA %&1 G)R) No) '&?>' #ul$ 7&1 %&'<. There is double taation when the same tapayer is taed twice when he should be taed only once for the same purpose by the same taing authority within the same :urisdiction during the same taing period' and the taes are of the same kind or character. @Be"sa!in1 #) D) T/e T/"ee G"eat 2owe"s o0 Go-e"n!ent # $olice $ower' $ower to Ta' $ower to Apropriate as limitations to en:oyment of rights
3 | P a g e
#ead annotations found in political> constitutional la= boo
Dele4ation o0 3owe" to e63"o3"iate. Dele4ation o0 t/e 3owe" !a$ +e one t/"ou4/ le4islation) Thus under R.%. G1@> *The Hocal )overnment Code+' the power has been be delegated to H);s. Ether government entities through the charters creating them also en:oy the right to epropriate. 0 Manapat v. ! (200-) Requisites for e*ercise of the power of eminent #omain *1+ $rivate property *2+ )enuine necessity *3+ Ior public purpose *+ $ayment of :ust compensation *!+ Due process 0 Manapat v. ! *2>>G+ Ci"cu!stances w/ic/ !a$ wa""ant tain45 -hen the owner is deprived of his proprietar% rights& there is taking of private property. &t may include *1+ Diminution in value< *2+ $revention of ordinary use< and *3+ Deprivation of beneficial use. Cases# 1. $acienda uisita& ,nc. v. Presidential grarian #eform !ouncil ' @G> "CR% 3=2 *2>12+# award of land under tenancy can be done through a natural person or collectively through a :uridical person< a resolution of an administrative agency has the effect of a law and can be governed by the operative fact doctrine. 2. "ecretar% of the epartment of Public 5or> "CR% 23 *2>13+ and #esolution dated 21 %pril 2>1!' 5 "CR% 5 *).R. Jo. 1G=33' 21 %pril 2>1!+# where a private property is not entitled to ,:ust compensation/ 3. Mactan6!ebu ,nternational irport uthorit% v. o+ada& "r.' @13 "CR% @1? *2>1>+# limitation on the eercise of power< right of the private property owner ) #epublic v. $eirs of "aturnino H. orbon' G! "CR% > *2>1!+# Considering that the Court has consistently upheld the primordial importance of public use in epropriation proceedings' J%$ECER6s reliance on Metropolitan 5ater istrict v. e los ngeles' !! $hil. GG@ *1=31+' was apt and correct. (erily' the retirement of the transmission lines necessarily stripped the epropriation proceedings of the element of public use. To continue with the epropriation proceedings despite the definite cessation of the public purpose of the pro:ect would result in the rendition of an invalid :udgment in favor of the epropriator due to the absence of the essential element of public use. @Be"sa!in1 #) !. and an< of the Philippines vs. "unta%& 442 "!# 41;& G.#. Io. 1-4 ecember 1;& 2011# The enactments of the Hegislature decreed that the money to be paid to the landowner as :ust compensation for the taking of his land is to be taken only from the %grarian Reform Iund. %s such' the liability is not the personal liability of Hand Bank' but its liability only as the administrator of the %RI. &n fact' "ection 1>' Rule 1= of the 2>>3 D%R%B Rules of $rocedure' reiterates that the satisfaction of a :udgment for :ust compensation by writ of eecution should be from the %RI in the custody of Hand Bank. @Be"sa!in1 #) @. Iational Po=er !orporation v. $eirs of Macabang *2>11+# nature of public use< when is a party entitled to :ust compensation despite no apparent physical taking G. 7port Processing 3one uthorit% (no= Philippine 7port 3one uthorit%) vs. Pulido& 4D4 "!# 1D& G.#. Io. 199D ugust 2;& 2011 . Compensation cannot be :ust to the owner in the case of property that is immediately taken unless there is prompt payment' considering that the owner thereby immediately suffers not only the loss of his property but also the loss of its fruits or income. Thus' in addition' the owner is entitled to legal interest from the time of the taking of the property until the actual payment in order to place the owner in a position 5 | P a g e
as good as' but not better than' the position he was in before the taking occurred. @Be"sa!in1 #) ?. po ?ruits !orporation vs. !ourt of ppeals& 40- "!# 200& G.#. Io. 14;19D ecember ;& 2009 . The taking of property under C%RH is an eercise by the "tate of the power of eminent domain. % basic limitation on the "tate6s power of eminent domain is the constitutional directive that private property shall not be taken for public use without :ust compensation. Fust compensation refers to the sum e9uivalent to the market value of the property' broadly described to be the price fied by the seller in open market in the usual and ordinary course of legal action and competition' or the fair value of the property as between one who receives and one who desires to sell. &t is fied at the time of the actual taking by the "tate. Thus' if property is taken for public use before compensation is deposited with the court having :urisdiction over the case' the final compensation must include interests on its :ust value' to be computed from the time the property is taken up to the time when compensation is actually paid or deposited with the court. =. vda e *uano vs. #epublic @G.#. Io. 14--0& 2011A &n epropriation' the private owner is deprived of property against his will< due process ought to be strictly followed. $ublic use as an eminent domain concept' has now ac9uired an epansive meaning to include any use that is of ,usefulness' utility or advantage or what is productive of general benefit *of the public+. *(elasco' F.+ NOTE t/at. E63"o3"iation is one of the harshest proceedings which the state has against a private party because it deprives the party of perpetual use of his property< re9uisites' how :ust compensation is determined< relate to the Bill of Rights. 7) 2owe" o0 Ta6ation De0inition. Ta6ation is the power by which the "tate raises to defray the necessary epenses of the )overnment. &t is the enforced proportional contributions from persons and property' levied by the "tate by virtue of its sovereignty' for the support of the government and for all public needs. Une" t/e li0e+loo t/eo"$1 ta6es a"e i!3ose 5 *1+ To raise revenue *2+ %s a tool for regulation *3+ To serve as protection of state6s interestKpower to keep alive Sco3e an Li!itations *1+ $ower to ta eists for the general =elfare< should be eercised only for a public purpose. *2+ &mposition might be :ustified as for public purpose even if the immediate beneficiaries are private individuals. *3+ Ta should not be confiscatory . &f a ta measure is so unconscionable as to amount to confiscation of property' the Court will invalidate it. But invalidating a ta measure must be eercised with utmost caution' otherwise' the "tate6s power to legislate for the public welfare might be seriously curtailed. *+ ;niformity of taation General Rule The power to ta operates with the same force and effect in every place where the sub:ect of it is found. This is known as geographical uniformity. E6ce3tion. The rule on uniformity does not prohibit classification for purposes of taation' provided the re9uisites for valid classification are met. 0*rmoc "ugar v. Treasurer of *rmoc (194) @> Ta6es !ust +e e9uitable %s a general rule' taes should be apportioned among the people according to their ability to pay. 6 | P a g e
Clai! 0o" Ta6 E6e!3tions Gene"al Rule. Ta6 e6e!3tions a"e 0"owne u3on) T/e"e0o"e1 no law granting any ta eemption shall be passed without the concurrence of a maCorit% of all the Members of Congress 0"ec. 2 (;)& rt. J, There is no vested right in a ta eemption 0. Being a mere statutor% privilege' a ta eemption may be modified or withdrawn at will by the granting authority. 0 #epublic v. !aguioa (2009) E6e!3tions !a$ eit/e" +e constitutional o" statuto"$) !onstitutional e7emptions 0"ec. 2()& rt. J, Re9uisites# %ctual' Direct and Aclusive ;se by the following# *a+ ducational institutions *b+!haritable institutions *c+ #eligious organi+ations &f statutor%' it has to have been passed by ma:ority of all the members of Congress. 0 "ec. 2 (;)& rt. J, Case. "om. of +nternal Revenue v. S. ". ,ohnson Son' +nc .& 09 "!# -. ,n negotiating ta7 treaties& the underl%ing rationale for reducing the ta7 rate is that the Philippines =ill give up a part of the ta7 in the e7pectation that the ta7 given up for this particular investment is not ta7ed b% the other countr%. +n or#er to eliminate #ou(le ta*ation' a ta* treat& resorts to several metho#s. irst' it sets out the respective rights to ta* of the state of source or situs an# of the state of resi#ence with regar# to certain classes of income or capital. The second method for the elimination of double ta7ation applies =henever the state of source is given a full or limited right to ta7 together =ith the state of residence. ,n this case& the treaties ma
B) Citi*ens/i3 une" A"t) IV an Ri4/t o0 Su00"a4e une" A"ticle V Natu"al5+o"n citi*ens A"t) IV1 Sec) % Poe6 laman+ares v. !*M!& supra Pu(lic 1fficers who must (e natural (orn citi/ens$ 2Please commit to memor&.3 $resident and (ice $resident' %rt. (&&' "ec. 2 Members of Congress' %rt. (&' "ections 3 and @ Fustices of the "upreme Court and lower collegiate courts' %rt. (&&&' "ec. G *1+ Embudsman and his deputies' %rt. L&' "ec. ? Members of the Constitutional Commission' %rt. &L' B' "ec. 1 *1+< C' "ec. *1+< and D' "ec. 1*1+ Members of the Central Monetary %uthority' %rt. L&&' "ec. 2> Members of Commission on uman Rights %rt. L&&&' "ec. 1G *2+ ormer natural (orn citi/ens as transferees of private lan#s' A"t) II1 Sec) Natu"ali*e citi*ens une" Co!) Act No) <(7 5ho are 'ualified to be naturali+edL "ec. 2 5hen is the 106%ear residence re'uirement reduced to D %earsL "ec. 3 5ho are dis'ualified to be naturali+edL "ec. eclaration of ,ntention& "ec. ! Procedure& "ections G? 5hen decision is e7ecuted& "ec. 1 ffect on =ife and minor children& "ec. 1! enaturali+ation& "ec. 1? Citi*ens/i3 +$ le4islati-e act Loss an Reac9uisition o0 Citi*ens/i3) A"t) IV1 Sec) 71 Sec) % Dual Citi*ens/i3. R)A) No) ='7= 5 The %dministrative Jaturaliation Haw of 2>>> R)A) No) =%%> Citienship Retention and Reac9uisition %ct of 2>>3 Ri4/t o0 Su00"a4e1 A"ticle V R) A) No) ='= Everseas (oting Haw 4icolas- Lewis v. "1M5L5" & ;9- "!# 4;9 *verseas ?ilipinos 'ualified to vote under the #.. Io. 919 need not have one %ear actual ph%sical residence in the Philippines to e7ercise their right of suffrage. III) RIGHT TO LIFE1 LIBERTY AND 2RO2ERTY. SAFEGUARDS OF DUE 2ROCESS1 EUAL 2ROTECTION AND NON5I82AIR8ENT CLAUSES
%) Ri4/t to Li0e #epublic v. Nagandahan& D4D "!# -2 (200) Gamboa v. P>""upt. !han& et al.& G.#. Io. 1944& :ul% 2;& 2012 ,mbong v. *choa& G.#. Io. 20;19& pril & 201; B. Due 2"ocess Clause @Section'1 A"ticle III De0inition. Due process furnishes a standard to which the governmental action should conform in order that deprivation of life' liberty or property' in each appropriate case' be valid. &t is responsiveness to the supremacy of reason' obedience to the dictates of :ustice. Jegatively pit' arbitrariness is ruled out and unfairness avoided. Correctly it has been identified as freedom from arbitrariness. & t is the embodiment of the sporting idea of fair play. 0 ,chong v. $ernande+ (19D-) < | P a g e
% law hears before it condemns' which proceeds upon in9uiry and renders :udgment only after trial. 0 arthmouth !ollege v. 5ood=ard& ; 5heaton D1 REUISITES OF DUE 2ROCESS
Due process of law means simply that *1+ There shall be a law prescribed in harmony with the general powers of the legislative department of the )overnment< *2+ This law shall be reasonable in its operation< *3+ &t shall be enforced according to the regular methods of procedure prescribed< and *+ &t shall be applicable alike to all the citiens of the state or to all of a class. 0 #ubi v. Provincial oard of Mindoro (1919) SCO2E OF DUE 2ROCESS 2"oceu"al Due 2"ocess $rocedural due process is that aspect of due process which serves as a restriction on actions of Cudicial and 'uasi6Cudicial agencies of the government. &t refers to the method or manner by which a law is enforced. Su+stanti-e Due 2"ocess "ubstantive due process' asks =hether the government has an ade'uate reason for ta
!arbonel v. !"!& G.#. Io. 1-49& "eptember -& 2010 b. ue process in Cudicial proceedings Jelasco v. "andiganba%an and the People of the Philippines& G. #. Io. 1492D& ?ebruar% 20& 201 c. ue process in academic and disciplinar% proceedings "pouses Go and Minor !hester Go v. !olegio de "an de etran& et al.& G.#. Io. 14991& *ctober 10& 2012 Instances when no notice an /ea"in4 a"e "e9ui"e rro%o v. #osal $omeo=ners ssociation& ,nc.& G.#. Io. 1-D1DD& *ct. 22& 2012 Jivas& on his behalf and on behalf of the shareholders of Q#*!#,T !ommunit% an< v. The Monetar% oard of the "P and P,!& G.#. Io. 191;2;& ugust -& 201 E00ect w/en ue 3"ocess is not o+se"-e 5inston ?. Garcia v. Molina and Jelasco& G.#. Io. 1D-& ugust 10& 2010 Ri4/t to Counsel # umi'ued v. 7evea& 22 "!# 12D (199-) Instances when no notice an /ea"in4 a"e "e9ui"e nillo v. !ommission on the "ettlement of and Problems& D; "!# 22(200-) Paga%anan #. $adCi6"irad v. !ivil "ervice !ommission& G.#. Io. 1224-& ug.2& 2009 3. Su+stanti-e Due 2"ocess a. Due 2"ocess an 2"o3e"t$ Ri4/ts Due 2"ocess an 2"o3e"t$ Ri4/ts $eirs of r. :ose eleste v. and an< of the Philippines& et al.& G.#. Io. 14991& :une & 2011 b. Due 2"ocess an 2olice 2owe"# rmita6Malate $otel and Motel *perators ssociation ,nc. v. !it% of Manila& 20 "!# ;9(194-) 5hitelight !orp. v. !it% of Manila& D-4 "!# ;14(2009) c. Due 2"ocess an E!inent Do!ain *"ection =' %rticle &&& and %rticle 1?' %rticle L&&+ Re9uirements for eercise of right of epropriation# taking for public purpose and :ust compensation 2"oceu"al Re9ui"e!ent$ Answer require# in eminent #omain procee#ings !it% of Manila v. Melba Tan Te& G.#. Io. 14924& "eptember 21& 2011 d. Due 2"ocess an Non5Econo!ic Li+e"ties. Ri4/t to 2"i-ac$ Concept of the Right *"ection 3' %rticle &&&' Constitution+ "pouses $ing v. !haoahu%& "r. and lllan !hoachu%& G.#. Io. 1-9-4& :une 24& 201 -hen may right be invoked %nti-ireTapping %ct *R.%. 2>>+ $rivileged Communication "alcedo6*rtane+ v. !& $on. 3amora Iavarro v. ! and the People of the Philippines ugust 1999 leCano v. !abuha%& ;4 "!# 1(200D) *ple v. Torres& 29 "!# (199) C. E9ual 2"otection Clause De0inition. A9ual protection re9uires that all persons or things similarly situated should be treated alike' both as to rights conferred and responsibilities imposed. &t does not demand absolute e9uality among residents< it merely re9uires that all persons shall be treated alike' under like circumstances and conditions both as to privileges conferred and liabilities enforced. The guarantee means that no person or class of persons shall be denied the same protection of laws which is en:oyed by other persons or other classes in like circumstances. 0 ,chong v. $ernande+ (19D-) REUISITES FOR VALID CLASSIFICATION 10 | P a g e
*1+ &t must rest on substantial distinctions which make real differences< *2+ &t must be germane to the purpose of the law< *3+ &t must not be limited to eisting conditions only< and *+ %pply e'uall% to all members of the same class. 2RESU82TION OF VALIDITY %ll classifications made by law are generally presumed to be valid unless shown otherwise by petitioner. @acson v. 7ecutive "ecretar% (1999)A BASIS FOR CLASSIFICATION# age' gender' religion' economic class' ethnicity' race' seual orientation' economic class' residence' disability' date of filingK effectivity of the law !ases /rasuegui v. Philippine irlines& ,nc.& D49 "!# ;4- (200)
,arcia v. Drilon! - SCA /01 (123/) "errano v. Gallant Maritime "ervices& ,nc.& D2 "!# 2D; (2009)
Sameer 4verseas %lacement Agenc! 'nc. v. Ca+iles , 732 SCRA 22 (201&) 5conomic 5qualit&$Iilipino Iirst $olicy# classification based on alienage ,chong v. $ernande+& 101 Phil. 114D (19D-) Political 5qualit&$ Dilution of voting rights based on residence# 'uino and #obredo v. !*M!& G.#. Io. 19-9& pril -& 2010 5*clusion (ase# on se*ual orientation# ng adlad v. !*M!& G.#. Io. 190D2& pril & 2010 Social 5qualit&$ Iorced resettlement based on ethnicity# #ubi v. Provincial oard of Mindoro& 9 Phil.& 440 Privilege (ase# on ethnicit&# !ru+ v. I!,P& G.#. Io. 1DD& ecember 4& 2000 D) CONTRACT CLAUSE J NON5I82AIR8ENT CLAUSE 1. Concept of Mutual Ebligation *"ection 1>' %rticle &&&' Constitution+ Contract Clause# % law which changes the terms of a legal contract between parties' either in the time or mode of performance' or imposes new conditions' or dispenses with those epressed' or authories for its satisfaction something different from that provided in its terms' is law which impairs the obligation of a contract and is therefore null and void. RAN;&"&TA"# *1+ -hen there is substantial impairment which *a+ changes the terms of legal contract either in time or mode of performance< *b+ imposes new conditions< *c+ dispenses with epressed conditions< or *d+ authories for its satisfaction something different from that provided in the terms. *2+ -hen a law affects the rights of parties with reference to each other' and not with respect to nonparties. 0 Philippine #ural lectric !ooperatives ssociation v. "ecretar%& ,G& G.#. Io. 1;0-4& :une 10& 200 Aceptions to rule when the state may impair contracts# *1+ $ower of taation# government may increase taes covering certain transactions *2+ Regulation on loans# as a matter of public interest' the government may impose restrictions on loans 2. Concept of (ested Right 3. -aiver of Right Jigilar v. 'uino& G.#. Io. 10& :anuar% 1& 2011 Golden=a% Merchandising !orporation v. 'uitable P!, an<& G.#. Io. 19DD;0& March 1& 201 11 | P a g e
IV) INTELLECTUAL LIBERTY. FREEDO8 OF E2RESSION @S2EECH AND 2RESS1 FREE ASSE8BLY AND 2ETITION1 FREEDO8 OF ASSOCIATION1 RELIGIOUS FREEDO8 AND ACADE8IC FREEDO8
%. FREEDO8 OF E2RESSION @S2EECH AND THE 2RESS 1. Definition *"ection ' %rticle &&&' Constitution+ NATURE AND SCO2E OF THE RIGHT. The primacy and high esteem accorded freedom of epression is a fundamental postulate of our constitutional system. This right was elevated to constitutional status 0 reflecting our own lesson of history' both political and legal' that freedom of speech is an indispensable condition for nearly every other form of freedom. The scope of freedom of epression is so broad that it etends protection to nearly all forms of communication. &t protects speech' print and assembly regarding secular as well as political causes' and is not confined to any particular field of human interest. The protection covers myriad matters of public interest or concern embracing all issues' about which information is needed or appropriate' so as to enable members of society to cope with the eigencies of their period. 0!have+ v. Gon+ales *2>>?+ 2. Bases for $rotection# $romotion of Truth' Anhance $rinciples of Democracy' Apression of "elf Iulfillment of Citiens S3eec/1 e63"ession1 an 3"ess inclue. *1+ -ritten or spoken words *recorded or not+ *2+ "ymbolic speech *e.g. wearing armbands as symbol of protest+ *3+ Movies and other literary works 3. -hy "tate Restricts and &mposes Himitations on Ireedom of Apression# Maintenance of $eace' $romotion of Community Morals' and $rotection of &ndividual Dignity FACIAL CHALLENGES AND THE OVERBREADTH DOCTRINE General #ule % party can 9uestion the validity of a statute onl% if' as applied to him' it is unconstitutional. 0"outhern $emisphere v. nti6Terrorism !ouncil (2010) 7ception % facial challenge is allowed to be made to a vague statute and to one which is overbroad because of possible ,chilling effect/ upon protected speech. The theory is that ,0when statutes regulate or proscribe speech and no readily apparent construction suggests itself as a vehicle for rehabilitating the statutes in a single prosecution' the transcendent value to all society of constitutionally protected epression is deemed to :ustify allowing attacks on overly broad statutes with no re9uirement that the person making the attack demonstrate that his own conduct could not be regulated by a statute drawn with narrow specificity./ The possible harm to society in permitting some unprotected speech to go unpunished is outweighed by the possibility that the protected speech of others may be deterred and perceived grievances left to fester because of possible inhibitory effects of overly broad statutes. This rationale does not appl% to penal statutes 0without a freespeech aspect. Criminal statutes have general in terrorem effect resulting from their very eistence' and' if facial challenge is allowed for this reason alone' the "tate may well be prevented from enacting laws against socially harmful conduct. &n the area of criminal law' the law cannot take chances as in the area of free speech. 0"outhern $emisphere& supra Howe-e"1 sai oct"ines a33l$ to 3enal statutes w/en *1+ The statute is challenged as applied< or *2+ The statute involves free speech 0 isini v. "ec. of :ustice (201;) OVERBREADTH DOCTRINE
12 | P a g e
% governmental purpose may not be achieved by means which sweep unnecessarily broadly and thereby invade the area of protected freedoms.
Tests a33lie to F"eeo! o0 S3eec/ # DANGEROUS TENDENCY TEST. &f the words uttered create a dangerous tendency of an evil which the "tate has the right to prevent' then such words are punishable. 0 !abansag v. ?ernande+ (19D-) CLEAR AND 2RESENT DANGER TEST. This rule re9uires that ,the danger created must not only be clear and present but also traceable to the ideas epressed/. 0 Gon+ales v. !*M! (1949) BALANCING OF INTEREST TEST. -hen a particular conduct is regulated in the interest of public order' and the regulation results in an indirect' conditional and partial abridgement of speech' the duty of the courts is to determine which of the two conflicting interests demands greater protection. 0 merican !ommunications ssoc. v. ouds& 9 Q" 22
. ;nprotected "peechKApression and $rotected "peechKApression' distinguished# a. Un3"otecte S3eec/JE63"ession # )eneral )uidelines' Ebscenity' and &ncitement to Jational "ecurity' Ialse or Misleading %dvertisement' Hibelous "peech' ate "peech and Contumacious "peech. b. 2"otecte S3eec/JE63"ession# all those ecluded from unprotected epression may include utterances critical of public conduct' ordinary commercial speech' and satirical speechKparody. !. How Go-e"n!ent Rest"icts F"eeo! o0 E63"ession "ontent Base# Restrictions #istinguishe# from "ontent 4eutral Restrictions as gleane# from Fustice Carpio6s concurring opinion in Chave v. )onale' supra *i+. any contentbased prior restraint on $RETACTAD epression is unconstitutional. *ii+. only unprotected epression is sub:ect to prior restraint. *iii+. prior restraint presumes that the epression is unconstitutional. *iv+.government has the burden of proof every time it eercises censorship. @. Stana"s o0 Re-iew OKB"ien Test on Content5Neut"al Rest"ictions. ?or validit% of content6neutral regulation *1+&f it is within the constitutional power of the government *2+ &f it furthers an important or substantial government interest *3+ &f the government interest is unrelated to the suppression of free epression *+ &f the incidental restriction is no greater than is essential to the furtherance of that interest 8ille" Test to determine obscenity# *1+ -hether the average person' applying contemporary community standards would find that the work' taken as a whole' appeals to prurient interest *2+ -hether the work depicts or describes in a patently offensive way' seual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law *3+ -hether the work' taken as a whole' lacks serious' literary' artistic' political' or scientific value 0 Miller v. ! (19-) also applied in ?ernando v. ! (2004) Doct"ines o0 st"ict sc"utin$1 o-e"+"eat/ an -a4ueness Li+el as a C"i!inal O00ense @A"ticle 7><1 Re-ise 2enal Coe 13 | P a g e
!ases
1. Chave5 v. ,on5ale5 , 5&5 SCRA &&1 (200<) 2. Disini! #r. v. Secretar of #ustice , 716 SCRA 201& and 723 SCRA 10% (201&) 3. 4sme6a v. Commission on 7lections , 2<< SCRA &&7 (1%%<) &. Social Weather Stations! 'ncorporated v. Commission on 7lections , 357 SCRA &%6 (2001) 5. ,MA et*or"! 'nc. v. Commission on 7lections , 73& SCRA << (201&) 6. Diocese of $acolod v. Commission on 7lections , 7&7 SCRA 1 (2015) 7. 389nited :ransport ;oalison (389ta") v. Commission on 7lections , 755 SCRA &&1 (2015) <. Social Weather Stations! 'nc. v. Commission on 7lections , 755 SCRA 12& (2015) %. Southern &emisphere 7ngagement et*or"! 'nc. v. Anti8:errorism Council, 632 SCRA 1&6 (2010) 10. %harmaceutical and &ealth Care Association of the %hilippines v. Duque ''' 535 SCRA 265 (2007) >Read Se+aate 9+inion of C.?. Pno@ 11. $aan v. 7rmita, &<< SCRA 226 (2006 12. 'ntegrated $ar of the %hilippines v. Atien5a! #r. , 613 SCRA 51< (2010) 13. e< =etter of the 9% =a* Facult 7ntitled >estoring 'ntegrit< A Statement + the Facult of the 9niversit of the %hilippines College of =a* on the Allegations of %lagiarism and Misrepresentation in the Supreme Court!? 6&& SCRA 5&3 (2011) 1&. "oriano vs. aguardia 0).R. Jo. 1@G?!. %pril 2=' 2>>=# $lain and simple insults to another person cannot be elevated to the status of a religious speech. @Velasco1 #) B) RIGHT TO INFOR8ATION 1. Right to &nformation' %rticle &&&' "ection G' Constitution The constitutional right to information includes official information on on6going negotiations before a final contract. The information' however' must constitute definite propositions by the government' and should not cover recognied eceptions. @!have+ v. Philippine state uthorit% (2002) iplomatic secrets (iplomatic Iegotiations Privilege) "ecrecy of negotiations with foreign countries is not violative of the right to information. Diplomacy has a confidential nature. -hile the full tet 0of the F$A$% may not be kept perpetually confidential' it is in line with the public interest that the offers echanged during negotiations continue to be privileged information. Iurthermore' the information sought includes documents produced and communicated by a party e7ternal to the $hilippine government. owever' such privilege is merely presumptive' and will not apply to all cases. 0
1. $rivileged information rooted in separation of powers 2. &nformation of military and diplomatic secrets *Jeri v. (arious Committees of the "enate+ . &nformation affecting national and economic security ;. &nformation on investigations of crimes by law enforcers before prosecution 0!have+ v. P and mari& supra D. Trade secrets and banking transactions 0!have+ v. P!GG *1==?+ 1& | P a g e
4. Effers echanged during diplomatic negotiations 0
122@ Statement of Assets! =ia+ilities and et Worth SA=B and %ersonal Data Sheet or Curriculum itae of the #ustice of the Supreme Court and 4cers and 7mploees of the #udiciar , 672 SCRA 27 (2012) Cases.
1. Chave5 v. %residential Commission on ,ood ,overnment! 2%% SCRA 7&& (1%%<) 2. e< equest for Cop of 122@ Statement of Assets! =ia+ilities and et Worth SA=B and %ersonal Data Sheet or Curriculum itae of the #ustice of the Supreme Court and 4cers and 7mploees of the #udiciar , 672 SCRA 27 (2012) 2. %ccess to $ublic Records K Transparency in the )overnment' %rticle &&' "ection 2?' Constitution 3. Himitations Cases. "enate of the Philippines v. rmita& ; "!# 1 (2004) Ieri v. "enate !ommittees D;9 "!# -- (200) ntolin v. belardo #. omondon& et al.& G.#. Io. 14D04. :ul% D& 2010 C) RIGHT TO ASSE8BLE AND TO SEE REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES FRO8 GOVERN8ENT a%an v. rmita& ; "!# 224 (2004) ,P v. Ma%or tien+a& G.#. Io.1-D2;1& ?eb. 2;& 2010 G"," and Garcia v. Jillavi+a et al.& G. #. Io. 10291& :ul% 2-& 2010
D. RIGHT OF ASSOCIATION 1. Right to "trike and the Right to ;nionie' %rticle &&&' "ection ?' Constitution Sco3e. The right is recognied as belonging to people whether emplo%ed or unemplo%ed ' and whether employed in the government or in the private sector. The right includes the right to form labor unions' societies or associations not contrary to law.
Case: 'n e< Att. Marcial A. 7dillon, <& SCRA 556 (1%7<): $o*+l#oy *e*e#hi+ in the ntegated a of the Phili++ine# 2. Right of $rivate "ector Amployees and )overnment Amployees' %rticle &&&' "ection ?' Constitution Case. Jictoriano v. li+alde #ope 5or
@%) BENEVOLENT NEUTRALITY 5CO82ELLING STATE INTEREST @7) CONSCIENTIOUS OB#ECTOR
3. "eparation of $owers' %rticle (&' "ec.! *2+' and %rticle &L C' "ection 2*!+' Constitution BASIS
,0TAhe principle of separation of !hurch and "tate is based on mutual respect . )enerally' the "tate cannot meddle in the internal affairs of the church' much less 9uestion its faith and dogmas or dictate upon it. &t cannot favor one religion and discriminate against another. En the other hand' the church cannot impose its beliefs and convictions on the "tate and the rest of the citienry. &t cannot demand that the nation follow its beliefs' even if it sincerely believes that they are good for the country./ 0 ,mbong v. *choa (201;) Relevant provisions of the Constitution on the separation of the church and the state# *1+ rt. ,,& "ec. 4 ,The separation of Church and "tate shall be inviolable./ *2+ rt. ,K6!& "ec. 2(D) ,Religious denominations and sects shall not be registered 0as political parties./ *3+ rt. J,& "ec. D(2)# ,Ior three consecutive terms after the ratification of this Constitution' onehalf of the seats allocated to partylist representatives shall be filled' as provided by law' by selection or election from 0 sectors as may be provided by law' e7cept the religious sector./ *+ rt. J,& "ec. 29(2) ,Jo public money or property shall be appropriated' applied' paid' or employed' directly or indirectly' for the use' benefit' or support of any sect' church' denomination' sectarian institution' or system of religion' or of any priest' preacher' minister' other religious teacher' or dignitary as such' ecept when such priest' preacher' minister' or dignitary is assigned to the armed forces' or to any penal institution' or government orphanage or leprosarium./ . Two %spects of Ireedom of Religion# Ireedom to Believe and Ireedom to %ct on Ene6s Beliefs CASES. 1. ng adlad GT Part% v. !ommission on lections' @1? "CR% 32 *2>1>+ 2. strada v. scritor& ;0 "!# 1 (200) ;92 "!# 1 (2004) .Taruc v. e a !ru+& ;D "!# 12 (200D) ;. ,mbong v. *choa (constitutionalit% of the #$ ill) #ead onl% the portion on conscientious obCector in relation to freedom of religion F) Acae!ic F"eeo! The right to academic freedom may only be invoked only against the state. %ll private educational institutions may prescribe its own re9uirements to maintain the standard of 9uality of academic 9uality. "ase$ PT of "t. Mathe= !hristian cadem% et al.& v. Metroban<& G.#. Io. 1-4D1& March 2& 2010) V) 2HYSICAL LIBERTY. LIBERTY OF ABODE AND FREEDO8 OF 8OVE8ENT FREEDO8 TO BE SECURE IN ONEKS 2ERSON1 HO8E AND 2OSSESSION A) FREEDO8 OF ABODE1 FREEDO8 TO CHANGE ABODE AND RIGHT TO TRAVEL ') Constitutional Gua"antee une" "ection @' %rticle &&&' Constitution F"eeo! o0 !o-e!ent inclues two "i4/ts. 1+ Hiberty of abode 2+ Hiberty of travel LI8ITATIONS. In ce"tain instances +ot/ t/e li+e"t$ o0 a+oe an "i4/t to t"a-el !a$ +e i!3ai"e) Case. *! v. :udge ,gnacio . Macarine& .M. Io. MT:61061--0& :ul% 1& 2012 16 | P a g e
&n interest of national security' public safety or public health and as may be provided +$ law1 +ot/ t/e 0"eeo! o0 a+oe an "i4/t to t"a-el !a$ +e "est"icte) Case. Gudani v. "enga& ;9 "!# 4-1 (2004) The eecutive of a municipality does not have the right to force citiens of the $hilippine &slands to change their domicile from one locality to another. 0 Jillavicencio vs. u
1. W"it o0 Ha+eas Co"3us %rticle &&&' "ections 13 and 1!' 1=?G Constitution 2. Iunction of the -rit of abeas Corpus Case. Jillavicencio v. uG==12"C and abeas Data 0%.M. Jo.>?1 1@"C Melissa !. #o7as v. President Macapagal6 rro%o& et al.& G.#. Io. 191DD& "eptember -& 2010 !anlas v. Iapico $omeo=ners ssn.& ,nc.& DD; "!# 20 (200) !. W"it o0 Ha+eas Data Case. Jiveres and "u+ara v. "t. Theresas !ollege& G.#. Io. 202444& "eptember 29&201; @. W"it o0 aliasan Case. MM v. !oncerned residents of Manila a% G.#. Ios. 1-19;-6;& ecember 1& 200 VI) RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED AND OTHER RIGHTS RELATED TO CRI8E AND 2UNISH8ENT A) FREE ACCESS TO COURTS 1. Re3"esentation +e0o"e t/e Cou"ts ' %rticle &&&' "ection 11' Constitution Case. People v. $on. +arraga and Prevendido& G. #. Io. 1-11-& *ctober 12& 2011 2) Costs o0 Liti4ation #e Huer% of Mr. #oger !. Prioreschi re 7emption from egal and ?iling ?ees of the Good "hepherd ?oundation& ,nc.& D94 "!# ;01 (2009) #e #e'uest of ,P Iational !ommittee on egal id !lients from Pa%ing ?iling& oc>= 0R.%. Jo. =G! C) RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED 1. Basis o0 Ri4/t to Bail' %rticle &&&' "ection 13' Constitution -hen Bail is allowed W/en Bail is a !atte" o0 "i4/t *Rules on Criminal $rocedure' Rule 11' "ection + or a matter of discretion on the part of the cour *Rule on Criminal $rocedure' Rule 11' "ection !+ Case. :uan Ponce6nrile v. "andiganba%an& ugust 1& 201D 2. Natu"e o0 C"i!inal Due 2"ocess #u"isiction o-e" C"i!inal O00enses # a%an Muna v. #omulo and *ple& G.#. Io. 1D941& ?ebruar% 1& 2011 1< | P a g e
Criminal &mmunity isini v. "andiganba%an& G.#. Io. 10D4;& :une 22& 2010 Ri4/ts in-ol-e in C"i!inal 2"oceein4s' %rticle &&&' "ection 1*1+ and *+ Ri4/t to Su+stanti-e an 2"oceu"al Due 2"ocess 2"esu!3tion o0 Innocence Ri4/t to +e /ea" +$ Hi!sel0 an Counsel To +e in0o"!e o0 t/e Natu"e an Cause o0 Accusation a4ainst Hi! Ri4/t to Ha-e a S3ee$1 I!3a"tial an 2u+lic T"ial Ri4/t to 8eet t/e Witnesses Face to Face To Ha-e Co!3ulso"$ 2"ocess to Secu"e t/e Attenance o0 Witnesses an t/e 2"ouction o0 E-ience in /is +e/al0 3) S3ee$ T"ial -) S3ee$ Dis3osition o0 Cases ' %rticle &&&' "ection1@' Constitution D) THE RIGHT AGAINST SELF5INCRI8INATION 1. W/en Ri4/t !a$ +e in-oe. in all C"i!inal Cases1 A!inist"ati-e Cases an I!3eac/!ent %) T"ansactional I!!unit$ 7) As3ects co-e"e +$ t/e Witness 2"otection 2"o4"a! an C"i!inal 2"oceu"e Cases. gustin v. !ourt of ppeals& ;40 "!# 1D (200D) Tanchanco v. "andiganba%an& ;-4 "!# 202 (200D) E) 2ROTECTION AGAINST DOUBLE #EO2ARDY 1. Natu"e o0 Dou+le #eo3a"$1 A"ticle III1 Section %'1 Constitution Natu"e o0 "i4/t# People v. ante Tan& G.#. Io. 14-D24& :ul% 24& 2010 W/en "i4/t will not a33l$ ra+a v. "andiganba%an& G. #. Io. 19D0& ?ebruar% 20& 201 7ception& =hen invo) 2"o/i+ition a4ainst C"uel an De4"ain4 2unis/!ent1 A"ticle III1 Section '=@' an @%1 Constitution ?) Non5I!3"ison!ent 0o" De+t o" 2oll Ta61 A"ticle III1 Section %&1 Constitution Case. People v. acu%cu%& 1- "!# 90 (199) G) BAN ON E P1S! FACTO LAW AND BILL OF ATTAINDER 1) C/a"acte"istics o0 an E6 2ost Facto Law1 A"ticle III1 Section %%1 Constitution Su00icienc$ o0 In0o"!ation# People v. alao& et al.& G.#. 1-419& :anuar% 24& 2011 2. W/en Ret"oacti-it$ o0 t/e Law is allowe "alvador v. Mapa& D9 "!# ; (200-) Jaleroso v. People& supra 1% | P a g e
Re0e"ences. Be"nas1 #oa9uin G)1 T/e '=( 2/ili33ine Constitution. A Co!3"e/ensi-e Re-iewe" @%&'' V) V) 8eno*a1 Ba" Re-iew Guie in 2olitical Law @'=( En"i9ue 8) Fe"nano1 T/e Constitution o0 t/e 2/ili33ines @'=(( Isa4ani 8) C"u*1 2olitical Law Rene B) Go"os3e1 Constitutional Law1 Volu!es I an II @%&&? 8i"ia! De0enso"5 Santia4o1 Constitutional Law@%&&> #) 8ias 8a"9ue*1 T/e Constitutional 2/iloso3/$ o0 2/ili33ine #u"is3"uence @%&&> Antonio B) Nac/u"a1 Outline in 2olitical Law Re-iew @%&&?
20 | P a g e
