Constitutional Law 2 Professor H. Harry Roque University of the Philippines College of Law THE BILL OF RIGHTS I.
Due Process Clause: Constitution ART III, Sec 1. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied of the equal protection of the laws. A. Definition and Hierarchy PBM Employees v. PBM, Ermita Malate Hotel, Motel Assoc. v. City of Manila Who Are Protected Smith Bell Co. v.Natividad Villegas v. HuiChiong
51 SCRA 189 (2 Bernas 423) 20 SCRA 849 (2 Bernas 34)
40 Phil 163 G.R. 112801
Meaning Life Teodoro v. Manalo G.R. No. 186050 (2011) Pestaño v. GRP-Human Rights Committee CCPR/C/98/D/1619/2007 Marcellana v. Republic of the Philippines UNHRC CCPR/C/94/D/1560/2007 When Does Life Begin, Begin , Records of R.C.C. No. 85 09-17-1986& 1986 Constitutional Commission Proceedings R.C.C. No. 86 09-18-1986 The Rule on the Writ of Amparo A.M. No. 07-9-12-SC Burgos v. Arroyo G.R. No. 183711 Gadian v. Ibrado G.R. No. 187652 & CA-G.R. SP No. 00034 Buck v. Bell 274 US 200 Imbong v. Ochoa GR No. 204819 Liberty Rubi v. Provincial Board of Mindoro 39 Phil 660 Property Terrace v. Thompson
263 US 197
Exclusion Nunez v. Averia Crespo v. Provincial Board JMM Promotion v. CA Pedro v. Rizal Libanan v. Sandiganbayan
57 SCRA 726 16 SCRA 66 G.R. No. 120095 1996 G.R. No. 34163 233 SCRA 163
B. Aspects of Due Process Police Power Kwongsing v. City of Manila Yu Eng Cong v. Trinidad Layno v. Sandiganbayan Deloso v. Sandiganbayan Procedural Impartial Court * Moot Cases ** Acting Cases
41 Phil 103 271 US 500 136 SCRA 536 173 SCRA 409
Javier v. COMELEC 144 SCRA 194 Galman v. Sandiganbayan 144 SCRA 43 Marcos v. Sandiganbayan G.R. No. 126995 (1998) Rivera v. Civil Service 240 SCRA 43 Banco Español Filipino v. Palanca 37 Phil. 921 (2 Bernas 4) AngTibay v. CIR 69 Phil. 635 (2 Bernas 6) PHILCOMSAT v. Alcuaz 180 SCRA 218 (2 Bernas 8) Ateneo v. CA 145 SCRA 106 Alcuaz v. PSBA 161 SCRA 7 Non v. Judge Dames 185 SCRA 523 (2 Bernas 14) Goldberg v. Kelly 397 US 254 (1970) Petitioners are NYC residents receiving financial aid under the federally assisted programs that were terminated or about to be terminated without prior notice or hearing. Due process requires an adequate hearing before, not after, the termination of welfare benefits. Bell v. Burson 402 US 535 (1971) Bell, a clergyman who travels as part of his ministerial duties, was involved in an accident when a child hit his car; he was sued for damages and his license was revoked, but he was only allowed to present evidence on his behalf during appeal, which violated due process. Except in emergency situations, the State affords notice and opportunity for hearing appropriate to the nature of the case before terminating an interest. UP v. Hon. Ligot-Telann 227 SCRA 342 STFAP; Ramon Nadal. DBP v. NLRC 183 SCRA 328 Laborers filed individual complaints for backwages and separation pay from RHI whose assets were foreclosed by DBP; the latter was ordered by the Labor A rbiter, affirmed by the NLRC, to pay RHI’s debts. Despite lack of formal hearing, DBP was given opportunity to be heard and in fact filed MFRs and appeals. Estrada v. Sandiganbayan 369 SCRA 394 No circumvention of presumption of innocence, even in plunder cases. Guilt must be proved beyond reasonable doubt, even if only for a number of acts sufficient to form a combination or series of activities involving an amount of P 50M. Read: separate opinion by Ynares-Santiago Reyes v. COMELEC G.R. No. 207264 Jurisdiction Ynot v. IAC Eastern Broadcasting v. Dans Tatad v. Sandiganbayan Gonzales v. SCS
148 SCRA 659 (2 Bernas 21) 137 SCRA 628 (2 Bernas 261) 159 SCRA 70 226 SCRA 66
C. “Old” Substantive Due Process: Protection for Property Interests Calder v. Bull 3 US (3 Dall.) 386 (1978) Lochner v. New York 198 US 48 (1905) Lochner is charged for permitting (note: not requiring) an employee (baker) to work more than 60 hours a day; question on what two rights shall prevail, police power or freedom to contract. Police power requires the limit for health considerations, which do not apply to the present case, thus it cannot prevail over freedom to contract. People v. Pomar 46 Phil 440 Pomar found guilty of refusing to grant maternity leave with pay to pregnant employees. The law was found to be unconstitutional, in violation of freedom to contract. Pakistan International Airlines v. Ople 190 SCRA 90 (1990) NDC and AGRIX v. Phil Veterans 192 SCRA 257 (2 Bernas 48) People v. Nazario Balacuit v. CFI Agustin v. Edu
165 SCRA 182 (2 Bernas 41) 163 SCRA 182 (2 Bernas 41) 88 SCRA 195 (2 Bernas 43)
D. “New” Substantive Due Process: Protection for “Libe rty” interests in Privacy
* Moot Cases ** Acting Cases
Warren and Brandeis, The Right to Privacy, 4 Harv. L. Rev. 193 (1890) Cortes I., Constitutional Foundations of Privacy, in Emerging Trends in Law (1983), pp 1-70 Olmstead v. US (Brandeis Dissent)* Skinner v. Oklahoma* Griswold v. Connecticut* Eisenstatd v. Baird* Poe v. Ullman* Roe v. Wade* Bowers and Hardwick Lawrence v. Texas* US v. Windsor* Board of Education v. Earls Ople v. Torres Bayan Muna v. Ermita, Duncan Assoc v. Glaxo Welcome* David v. Arroyo E.
277 US 438 316 US 535 (1942) 381 US 479 (1965) 405 US 438 367 US 479 410 US 113 (1973) 106 S. Ct. 2841 (1986) 02-0102 (26 June 2003) 570 U.S. ___ (2013) 01-332 (27 June 2002) 141 SCRA 293 G.R. No. 167930 (2006) G.R. 162994, (17 September 2004) 489 SCRA 160
Protected Interests in Property
Mere “Regulation” under the Due Process Clause versus “Taking” of Property via the Power of Eminent Domain Churchill v. Rafferty 32 Phil 580 (2 Bernas 26) US v. Toribio 15 Phil 85 (2 Bernas 19) Constitution ART III, sec. 9. Private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation. People v. Fajardo Ynot v. CA US v. Causby Republic v. PLDT Republic v. Castelvi Bel-Air Association v. IAC EPZA v. Dulay NPC v. CA RA 8974, Villar Law on the Zoning Value of Land
100 Phil 443 (2 Bernas 639) supra 328 US 256 (2 Bernas 636) 26 SCRA 620 (2 Bernas 639) 58 SCRA 336 (2 Bernas 627) 176 SCRA 719 149 SCRA 305 (2 Bernas 655) 129 SCRA 665 (2 Bernas 655)
“Takings” under Eminent Domain versus “Takings” under the Social Justice Clause De Knecht v. Bautista 100 SCRA 660 (2 Bernas 666) Republic v. De Knecht 182 SCRA 441 (2 Bernas 671) Manotok v. NHA 150 SCRA 89 (2 Bernas 674) Ermita Malate Hotel Association v. City of Manila supra Constitution ART III, Sec 1 Constitution ART III, Sec 4. No 4. No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, Assoc. of Small Landowners v. Sec. of Agrarian Reform 175 SCRA 34 3 (2 Bernas 990) Sumulong v. Guerrero 154 SCRA 461 (2 Bernas 650) City Government v. Judge Ericta 122 SCRA 759 (2 Bernas 631) Luz Farms v. Secretary 192 SCRA 51 (2 Bernas 1101) Cariday v. CA (Guttierez J, Dissenting) 176 SCRA 31 RA 7279, Urban Development and Housing Act of 1992, March 24, 1992 II.
Equal Protection Clause Constitution ART III, Sec 1. No person shall be deprive of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied of the equal protection of the laws.
* Moot Cases ** Acting Cases
Constitution ART II, Sec 14. The 14. The State recognizes the role of women in nation-building, and shall ensure the fundamental equality before the law of women and men. Constitution ART II, Sec 22. The 22. The State recognizes and promotes the rights of indigenous cultural communities within the framework of national unity and development. Constitution ART IV. Section 1. The following are citizens of the Philippines: (1) Those who are citizens of the Philippines at the time of the adoption of this Constitution; (2) Those whose fathers or mothers are citizens of the Philippines; (3) Those born before January 17, 1973, of Filipino mothers, who elect Philippine citizenship upon reaching the age of majority; and (4) Those who are naturalized in accordance with law. Section 2. Natural-born 2. Natural-born citizens are those who are citizens of the Philippines from birth without having to perform any act to acquire or perfect their Philippine citizenship. Those who elect Philippine citizenship in accordance with paragraph (3), Section 1 hereof shall be deemed natural-born citizens. Section 3. Philippine 3. Philippine citizenship may be lost or reacquired in the manner provided by law. Section 4. Citizens 4. Citizens of the Philippines who marry aliens shall retain their citizenship, unless by their act or omission, they are deemed, under the law, to have renounced it. Section 5. Dual 5. Dual allegiance of citizens is inimical to the national interest and shall be dealt with by law. Constitution ART XII, Sec 2. All lands of the public domain, waters, minerals, coal, petroleum, and other mineral oils, all forces of potential energy, fisheries, forests or timber, wildlife, flora and fauna, and other natural resources are owned by the State. With the exception of agricultural lands, all other natural resources shall not be alienated. The exploration, development, and utilization of natural resources shall be under the full control and supervision of the State. The State may directly undertake such activities, or it may enter into coproduction, joint venture, or production-sharing agre ements with Filipino citizens, or corporations or associations at least sixty per centum of whose capital is owned by such citizens. Such agreements may be for a period not exceeding twenty-five years, renewable for not more than twenty-five years, and under such terms and conditions as may be provided by law. In cases of water rights for irrigation, water supply fisheries, or industrial uses other than the development of water power, beneficial use may be the measure and limit of the grant. The State shall protect the nation's marine wealth in its archipelagic waters, territorial sea, and exclusive economic zone, and reserve its use and enjoyment exclusively to Filipino citizens. The Congress may, by law, allow small-scale utilization of natural resources by Filipino citizens, as well as cooperative fish farming, with priority to subsistence fishermen and fish- workers in rivers, lakes, bays, and lagoons. The President may enter into agreements with foreign-owned corporations involving either technical or financial assistance for large-scale exploration, development, and utilization of minerals, petroleum, and other mineral oils according to the general terms and conditions provided by law, based on real contributions to the economic growth and general welfare of the country. In such agreements, the State shall promote the development and use of local scientific and technical resources. The President shall notify the Congress of every contract entered into in accordance with this provision, within thirty days from its execution. Constitution ART XII, Sec 14.2. The practice of all professions in the Philippines shall be limited to Filipino citizens, save in cases prescribed by law. Ormoc Sugar Company, Inc. v. Treasurer of Ormoc City 22 SCRA 603 (2 Bernas 78) Dumlao v. COMELEC 96 SCRA 392 (2 Bernas 72) People v. Cayat 68 Phil 12 (2 Bernas 58) Ichong v. Hernandez 101 Phil 1155 (2 Bernas 61) Korematsu v. US 323 US 214 (1944) The Civil Liberties Act of 1988 102 Stat. 102 Stat. 904, 904, 50a 50a U.S.C. § U.S.C. § 1989b et se (Presidential Medal of Freedom to Fred Korematsu by Bill Clinton) Plessy v. Ferguson 163 US 537 (1896) * Moot Cases ** Acting Cases
University of California v. Bakke 438 US 265 (1978) Gratz v. Bollinger 539 U.S. 244 (2003) Grutter v. Bollinger 539 U.S. 244 (2003) Bradwell v. Illinois 83 US 103 (1873) Goesart v. Cleary 335 US 464 (1948) (2 Bernas 76) Geduldig v. Aiello 417 US 484 (1974) Mississippi Univ. School for Women v. Hogan 458 US 718 (1982) Michael M. v. Superior Court 450 US 464 (1981) Personnel Administrator v. Feeney 442 US 256 (1979) YickWo v. Hopkins 118 US 365 (1886) Fragante v. City and County of Honolulu* 888 F. 2d 591(1989) Fragante v. City and County of Honolulu 110 S. Ct. 1811 (1990) Defensor-Santiago, The New Equal Protection, 58 Phil. L. J. 1 (March 1983)
III.
International School Alliance v. Quisumbing Board of Directors v. Rotary Club* Boy Scouts of America v. Dale* Sombilon v. Romulo,
33 SCRA 14 (June 2000) 481 US 537 No. 99-699 (28 June 2000) G.R. 176051 (2009)
Goodridge v. Dept. of Public Health Tecson v. COMELEC Garcia v. Hon. Drilon*
440 Mass 309, 793 NE 2d 941 (18 Nov 2003) G.R. No. 161434 (2004) G.R. No. 179267 (June 25, 2013)
Freedom of Expression: Constitution ART III, sec 4. No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances. A. Protected Speech Prior Restraint Near v. Minnesota New York Times v. US Freedman v. Maryland Chavez v. Gonzales Estrada v. Desierto Subsequent Punishment People v. Perez Dennis v. US Abrams v. US Eastern Broadcasting v. Dans
“Speech Plus”: Symbolic Speech US v. O'Brien Tinker v. Des Moines School District Texas v. Johnson Assembly and Petition Primicias v. Fugoso (Hilado, Dissent) Navarro v. Villegas PBM Employees v. PBM JBL Reyes v. Bagatsing Malabanan v. Ramento IBP Cadiz, Roque, Butuyan v. Atienza,
* Moot Cases ** Acting Cases
238 US 697 (2 Bernas 238) 403 US 713 (2 Bernas 243) 380 US 551 (2 Bernas 251) G.R. No. 168338
45 Phil 599 (2 Bernas 288) 341 US 494 (2 Bernas 290) 250 US 616 (1919) supra
391 US 367 (1968) 393 US 503 (1969) 491 US 397 (1989)
80 Phil 78 31 SCRA 731 (2 Bernas 423) 51 SCRA 189 (2 Bernas 425) 125 SCRA 553 (2 Bernas 430) 129 SCRA 359 (2 Bernas 437) G.R. No. 172591
Free Speech and Suffrage Gonzalez v. COMELEC Sandidad v. COMELEC National Press Club v. COMELEC Adiong v. COMELEC Bayan v. Ermita
27 SCRA 835 (2 Bernas 296) 181 SCRA 529 (2 Bernas 304) 207 SCRA 1 (2 Bernas 307) 207 SCRA 712 (2 Bernas 317) G.R. No. 168338
Use of Private Property as a forum for others’ Speech Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robbins
447 US 74 (1980)
B. Unprotected Speech Defamatory Speech Pre-Sullivan in Philippine Jurisprudence Policarpio v. Manila Times Lopez v. CA US v. Bustos
5 SCRA 148 (2 Bernas 343) 34 SCRA 116 (2 Bernas 345) 37 Phil 371
Sullivan New York Times v. Sullivan Rosenbloom v. Metromedia Garrison v. Louisiana Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts In Re: IML v. Utah
376 US 254 (2 Bernas 350) 403 US 29 (2 Bernas 355) 379 US 64 388 US 130 No. 20010159 (15 Nov 2002)
Sullivan in Philippine Jurisprudence Borjal v. CA Vasquez v. CA Guingguing v. CA Soliven v. Makasiar Ayer Production v. Judge Capulong
301 SCRA 1 G.R. No. 118971 (1999) 471 SCRA 196 167 SCRA 394 (2 Bernas 147) 160 SCRA 865 (2 Bernas 254)
Reversion to Pre-Sullivan in Philippine Jurisprudence Fermin v. People G.R. No. 157643 (2008) Diaz v. People G.R. No. 159787 (2007) Libel in UN Human Rights Committee Adonis v. The Philippines
CCPR/C/103/D/1815/2008 CCPR/C/103/D/1815/2008
Supreme Court and Freedom of Speech In Re Jurado In Re Macasaet
“Fighting Words”, Offensive Words Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire Cohen v. California MVRS v. Islamic Da’wah of the Philippines Obsidian Finance Group, LLC v. Cox Obscenity Roth v. US Miller v. California Gonzalez v. KalawKatigbak Pita v. CA Reno v. ACLU Ashcroft v. ACLU Regina v. Hicklin * Moot Cases ** Acting Cases
315 US 568 (1942) 403 US 15 (1971) G.R. No. 80892 (1989)
354 US 476 (1957) 37 L. Ed. 2d 419 (1973) (2 Bernas 368) 137 SCRA 717 (2 Bernas 377) 178 SCRA 362 (2 Bernas 381) 521 US 844 (26 June 1997) No. 00-1293 (13 May 2002) L.R. 3 Q.B. 360 (1868)
Privacy Hannover v. Germany* Campbell v. Mirror Group Newspapers* IV.
[2004] EMLR 379; (2005) 40 EHRR 1 [2004] UKHL 22
Church and State: The Wall of Separation Constitution ART II, sec 6 Constitution ART III, sec 5 Constitution ART VI, sec 29(2)
Establishment Clause Aglipay v. Ruiz Garces v. Estenzo Lemon v. Kurtzman Board of Education v. Allen County of Allegheny v. ACLU Lynch v. Donnely Epperson v. Arkansas School District v. Schempp Engel v. Vitale Tilton v. Richardson Newdow v. US Congress 2003) Glassroth v. Moore Martin v. Corporation of the Presiding Bishop
63 Phil 201 (2 Bernas 444) 104 SCRA 510 (2 Bernas 446) 403 US 602 (2 Bernas 464) 392 US 236 (2 Bernas 459) 57 LW 5045 (2 Bernas 482) 465 US 668 (1984) 393 US 97 (1968) 374 US 203 (2 Bernas 449) 370 US 421 (1962) 403 US 672 (2 Bernas 470) No. 00-16423, 9thCir., June 26, 2002 (amended Feb 28, 335 F.3d 1282 (11th Cir. 2003) 434 Mass. 141, 727 N.E. 2d 131
Free Exercise Clause American Bible Society v. City Gerona v. Secretary of Education* Ebralinag v. Division Superintendent* Newdow v. US Congress Anucension v. NLU Iglecia ni Cristo v. CA Pamil v. Teleron McDaniel v. Paty German v. Barangan Cantwell v. Connecticut Commonwealth v. Twitchell
101 Phil 386 (2 Bernas 515) 106 Phil 2 (2 Bernas 518) 219 SCRA 256 (2 Bernas 518) 00-16423 (26 June 2002) 80 SCRA 350 259 SCRA 529 (26 July 1996) 86 SCRA 413 (2 Bernas 533) 435 US 618 (2 Bernas 542) 135 SCRA 514 310 US 163 (2 Bernas 512) 416 Mass. 114 (1993)
Cassius Clay v. US Estrada v. Escritor*
403 US 698 (1971) 492 SCRA 1
Unusual Religious Beliefs and Practices Wisconsin v. Yoder US v. Ballard US v. Seeger Clay v. US
406 US 205 (2 Bernas 524) 380 US 163 (1965) 380 US 163 (1965) supra
V. Academic Freedom Background Reading: Byrne, Academic Freedom: A “Special Concern” of the First Amendment, 99 Yale L.J. 25 (1989) Constitution ART XIV, sec 1 and 5(2) Garcia v. Faculty Admission Committee Isabelo v. PerpetualHelp * Moot Cases ** Acting Cases
68 SCRA 277 (2 Bernas 1076) 227 SCRA 591
Reyes v. CA UP v. CA DECS v. San Diego Tablarin v. Gutierrez Non v. Judge Dames Alcuaz v. PSBA
194 SCRA 402 (2 Bernas 1084) 218 SCRA 728 (9 February 1993) 180 SCRA 534 (2 Bernas 1054) 154 SCRA 730 supra supra
VI. Protected Interests in Liberty A. Non-Impairment of Obligations and Contracts Background Reading: Padilla IV-A CIVIL LAW 11-42 (1988) Discussion of ART 1306 Constitution ART III, sec 10 Civil Code ART 1306 Home Builders and Loan Association v. Blaisdell Rutter v. Esteban Ortigas v. Feati Juarez v. CA Caleon v. Agus Development
290 US 398 (2 Bernas 684) 93 Phil 68 (2 Bernas 690) 94 SCRA 533 (2 Bernas 702 214 SCRA 475 (2 Bernas 706) 207 SCRA 748
B. Involuntary Servitude Rubi v. Provincial Board of Mindoro Kaisahan v. Gotamco
supra 80 Phil 521
C. Imprisonment for Non-Payment of Debt Constitution ART III, sec 20 Lozano v. Martinez
146 SCRA 323 (2 Bernas 876)
D. Right Against Self-Incrimination US v. Navarro Villaflor v. Summers Beltran v. Samson Cabal v. Kapunan Bengzon v. Senate Blue Ribbon Committee Galman v. Pamaran
3 Phil 143 (2 Bernas 844) 41 Phil 62 (2 Bernas 848) 53 Phil 570 (2 Bernas 851) 6 SCRA 1059 (2 Bernas 861) 203 SCRA 767 138 SCRA 294
E. Unlawful Search and Seizure Stonehill v. Diokno Katz v. US Terry v. Ohio** People v. Marti
20 SCRA 383 (2 Bernas 120) 394 US 347 392 US 1
Nala v. BarrosoJr, Lim v. Felix** Alvarez v. CFI Bache & Co. v. Ruiz Burgos, Sr. v. Chief of Staff Roan v. Gonzales
G.R. No. 153087 August 7, 2003 194 SCRA 292 64 Phil 33 37 SCRA 823 133 SCRA 800 145 SRA 687
Nolasco v. Pano People v. Malmstedt** People v. Aminudin ** People v. Burgos Chimel v. California Manilil v. Court of Appeals** Malacat v. Court of Appeals **
39 SCRA 152, 147 SCRA 509 198 SCRA 401 163 SCRA 402 144 SCRA 1 395 US 752 280 SCRA 400 283 SCRA 159
* Moot Cases ** Acting Cases
Papa v. Mago People v. Aruta**
22 SCRA 657 288 SCRA 620
Aniag v. COMELEC**
237 SCRA 424
Valmonte v. de Villa
178 SCRA 211, 185 SCRA 665
In Re Umil et al v. Ramos People v. Mengote People v. Manlulu VII.
187 SCRA 311 210 SCRA 174 22 April SCRA 159
Scope of Constitutional Protection A. Who Are Entitled to Constitutional Protection Citizenship and Alienage Constitution ART IV Board of Commissioners (CID) v. Dela Rosa, et al 197 SCRA 853 Qua CheeGan v. Deportation Board 9 SCRA 27 Harvey v. Defensor-Santiago 162 SCRA 840 (2 Bernas 210) Yu v. Defensor-Santiago 169 SCRA 364 (2 Bernas 945) Labo v. COMELEC 176 SCRA 1 (2 Bernas 952) Aznar v. COMELEC 185 SRA 703 (2 Bernas 957) Juridical Persons Stonehill v. Diokno, Central Bank v. Morfe
supra 20 SCRA 507 (2 Bernas 957)
B. Who Are Subject to Constitutional Prohibitions State Action Requirement People v. Marti Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robbins In relation to. Borjal v. CA
* Moot Cases ** Acting Cases
193 SRA 57 (2 Bernas 226) supra supra
