Sunteți pe pagina 1din 81

CONSTI 2: Bernas Casebook 2010 ed.

Updated Darvins Digest

BILL OF RIGHTS 4. Judgment must be rendered after lawful hearing


SECTION 1 FABELLA vs CA - The contention that government employees are prohibited from
Section 1.No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due undergoing strikes is not the question in the present case, but rather were the respondents
process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws. robbed of due process of law in the proceedings after their strike.
In administrative proceedings, due process includes the following:
Seat of Police Power 1. The right to actual or constructive notice of the institution of proceedings which
may affect a respondent's legal rights
MMDA vs. BEL-AIR VILLAGE ASSOC. Neptune Street / Police Power The MMDA
sent a Notice to the Bel-Air Village Association (BAVA) ordering for the opening of 2. A real opportunity to be heard personally or with the assistance of counsel, to
Neptune Street (privately-owned by BAVA) to public vehicular traffic and that the perimeter present witnesses and evidence in one's favor, and to defend one's rights
fence separating said street from Kalayaan Ave. was to be demolished. The order was 3. A tribunal vested with competent jurisdiction and so constituted as to afford a
claimed to be in the exercise of police power. person charged administratively a reasonable guarantee of honesty as well as
The powers of the MMDA are administrative in nature, and the MMDA Law (RA No. 7924) impartiality
grants the MMDA neither police power nor legislative power. It is only a development 4. A finding by said tribunal which is supported by substantial evidence submitted
authority organized for the purpose of laying down policies and with coordinating w/ the for consideration during the hearing or contained in the records or made known
various government organizations for the delivery of basic services w/in the metropolitan to the parties affected
area. Police Power is lodged in the National Legislature and was delegated to the Local
Government Units through the Local Government Code. Police power was not conferred ESPELETA vs. AVELINO right to be heard / cross-examination of witness The
by Congress to the MMDA. respondent judge disregarded and struck from the records, in its entirety, the testimony of
Hierarchy of Rights a witness for the defense (w/c is indispensable to his case) for failure to appear on the
PHIL. BLOOMING MILLS CASE Hierarchy of Rights Human Rights are imprescriptible scheduled date despite motions for continuance by the defendant counsel. By denying
and hold primacy over property rights. These include the right to free speech, religion, free defendant the right to present evidence indispensable to his defense, he was practically
assembly, the press, and the right to petition. A law that restricts the exercise of property denied the opportunity to be heard. This is a violation of due process. His right to his day in
rights is valid as long as it is reasonable and not arbitrary. However, a law restricting the court was eroded.
basic human rights must satisfy a very strict criterion namely that there must be a grave ANG TIBAY vs. CIR Administrative Due Process Although the Court of Industrial
and immediate evil that the state has the right to prevent. It must also pass the balancing Relations is not bound by strict rules of technicality in order to settle and prevent further
of interest test. agricultural and industrial disputes, still it cannot do away with the basic and fundamental
DUNCAN ASSOC vs GLAXO WELCOME - The prohibition against personal or marital principles of due process. The requisites of Administrative Due Process are as
relationship with employees of competitor companies upon Glaxos employees is follows:
reasonable under the circumstances. Glaxo has a right to protect its trade secrets, 1. The right to hearing & presentation of his own case
manufacturing formulas, marketing strategies, and economic interests. 2. The tribunal must consider the evidence presented
STAR PAPER vs SIMBOL - There is NO valid reasonable business necessity for the 1995 3. Decision must be supported by evidence
SPC policy. Such policy is premised on management fear that employees married to each 4. Evidence must be substantial, reasonable, and adequate not mere hearsay
other would be less efficient. Allowing SPC to continue on with this policy without just
cause violates the employees right to security of tenure. 5. Decision must be based on the evidence in the record & disclosed to the
parties
Procedural Due Process
6. The judge must decide on his own and not merely adopt those of his
BANCO ESPAOL vs. PALANCA due process / notice by mail Actual Notice need not subordinates
be sent to the absentee-owner of a mortgaged property subject to foreclosure. It is not
absolutely necessary under the law. Rationale: property is presumed to be in the 7. The parties must be informed of the issues involved and the reasons behind
possession of the owner or his agents, and it is his duty to be vigilant and aware when his the decisions rendered
property is called to requisition. If he fails to gain notice through the ordinary publications, PHILCOMSAT vs. ALCUAZ notice & hearing / quasi-judicial functions Commissioner
then it is his misfortune and he must abide by the consequences. Alcuaz of the National Telecommunications Commission (NTC) issued motu propio an
The requisites of Due Process in Judicial Proceedings: Order requiring the provisional reduction by 15% of the rates that may be charged by the
petitioner for the delivery of its services, w/o the benefit of a hearing. It was based upon a
1. Court or tribunal clothed w/ judicial power to hear & determine the matter report submitted by the Gen. Auditing Office. Notice & hearing are not essential for
before it administrative action if it is exercised as an executive, administrative, or legislative
2. Jurisdiction acquired over the person or property subject of the proceedings function. But if the administrative agency exercises a quasi-judicial function, notice &
3. Defendant must be afforded the opportunity to be heard hearing is necessary.

1|Mik e e Retirado 1-C


CONSTI 2: Bernas Casebook 2010 ed.
Updated Darvins Digest

The Order pertains exclusively to the petitioner and it involves questions of fact. It was thus Bureau of Fisheries, or starting from the year 1964 in case it was opened beyond the said
issued in the exercise of quasi-judicial powers. That the said Order is interlocutory is year. He likewise claims that, being a lessee, he is neither owner nor manager w/in the
immaterial. PHILCOMSAT is likewise entitled to controvert the report upon w/c the Order scope of the definition of the law.
was based. The Public Service Act likewise requires notice & hearing before the NTC may In order for a law to be vague, its obscurity must be evident on its face such that it cannot
fix service rates. The power of the government to regulate property rights and franchises be clarified by a saving clause or by construction. It is distinguished from laws couched on
must be reasonable and must not be arbitrary and confiscatory and must be in accord with imprecise language or laws that are fairly ambiguous but nevertheless applicable. In the
the best interest of the public. case at bar, the ordinances are not vague and merely poses a simple mathematical
RADIO COMMUNICATIONS vs. NTC notice & hearing / provisional rates PLDT applied problem as to the dates of the payment w/c may nevertheless be computed. Being the one
for the approval of rates for Digital Service Transmission Facilities w/ the NTC w/c granted who benefits and profits from the fishponds, the petitioner likewise falls squarely w/in the
the PLDT provisional approval. No notice was sent to the other telecom providers except coverage of the term operator or manager of the said fishpond for the purpose of the
to PT&T w/c notified the others (petitioners herein) of the provisional approval. The tax.
petitioners thus allege grave abuse of discretion on the part of the NTC and violation of CORONA vs. UNITED HARBOR PILOTS occupation / property rights The Phil. Ports
due process. Under the Public Service Act, the NTC can provisionally approve rates Authority (PPA), in the exercise of its control power, enacted an Admin. Order, ordering
proposed by public services w/o need for hearing, but subject to hearing 30 days that all appointments to harbor pilot positions shall be for a term of only 1 year, subject to
thereafter. It applies to both initial and revised rates. renewal or cancellation yearly after rigid evaluation of performance. The Office of the
Provisional rates are, by their nature, temporary and subject to adjustment after final President, through Exec. Sec. Corona, affirmed the validity of the said resolution.
hearing. No notice is required therefor. It is also noteworthy that it is impossible for the However, it was nullified by the trial court.
NTC to send notices to all affected parties. The law does not require the impossible. Rates Procedurally, the Admin. Order is valid despite the lack of notice & hearing prior to its
are likewise presumed reasonable and the courts will not interfere w/ administrative action enactment, because it was enacted through the exercise of a quasi-legislative function.
in the absence of gave abuse of discretion. However, substantially, it is unreasonable and superfluous and amounts to deprivation of
NON vs. JUDGE DAMES rallying students / school discipline Ariel Non and 12 other property w/o due process of law because it restricts the harbor pilots from enjoying their
students of the Mabini College participated in unruly mass actions within school premises. profession before their compulsory retirement. The right to ones occupation is a vested
They violated their rally permits w/c only allowed them to rally in the school basketball property right and can only be restricted or denied with due process of law.
court. It resulted to the disruption of classes. They were thus denied re-enrollment for the ARMY & NAVY CLUB vs. CA property rights / historical landmarks The City of Manila
next semester. The following are the requisites for due process in school disciplinary attempts to evict the Army & Navy Club for its failure to comply w/ contractual obligations.
actions: The latter asserts that it is a historical landmark for being so declared by the Natl Historical
1. students must be informed in writing of the nature & cause of the accusations Commission and thus, its existence allegedly cannot be undermined by a simple ejectment
2. they shall have the right to answer the charges, w/ counsel should they so suit.
choose When properties are classified into historical treasures, it imposes limits on ownership
3. they shall be informed of the evidence against them hence it must be done in accordance w/ due process. As an exercise of the police power,
4. they shall have the right to adduce evidence in their own behalf such authority is lodged in the legislature and the governing laws are RA No. 4846 and PD
No. 374 providing the manner by w/c said properties are to be classified. Hence, it must
5. school authorities must decide based on evidence follow the prescribed procedure first before being so classified.
6. penalty imposed must be proportional SUMMARY DISMISSAL BOARD vs. TORCITA conduct unbecoming of officer / notice
The penalty of denying Non and the other petitioners re-enrollment is clearly excessive & hearing PO Torcita was charged w/ several counts of conduct unbecoming of an officer,
and disproportionate to the offenses committed. grave threats, and abuse of authority. All charges were dismissed. However, he was
LAO GI alias CHIA Jr. vs. CA due process / deportation Deportation proceedings instead convicted of Simple Irregularity in the Performance of Duty for w/c he was not
must be conducted in accordance w/ the principles of due process. There must be a specifically charged. Petitioners allege that the offense of Simple Irregularity (w/c includes
preliminary investigation to determine the existence of probable cause. The alien must be being drunk during duty hours) is covered by the more serious offense of Conduct
informed of the specific ground for deportation. Hearing must be in accordance w/ the rules Unbecoming of an Officer. A person cannot be found guilty of an offense for w/c he was
prescribed by the Commissioner of Immigration. The Rules of Criminal Procedure govern neither notified nor charged. It violates the rudimentary requirements of due process.
the issuance of search warrants, warrants of arrest, bail, motion to quash, and the trial. DD: A person cannot be penalized for an offense for w/c he was not charged or one w/c is
Private prosecutors cannot intervene in deportation proceedings in order to avoid not alleged in the information because to do so would violate the right of the accused to be
harassment and oppression, hence there are special prosecutors tasked to prosecute informed of the nature and cause of the accusations against him. It is a violation of due
deportation. process.
PEOPLE vs. NAZARIO vague law / fish ponds case Nazario was charged for violating SEC. OF JUSTICE vs. LANTION extradition / notice & hearing Herein respondent
certain municipal ordinances w/c he assails as vague. The said ordinances impose a P demands that he be furnished a copy of the extradition petition and its supporting papers
3.00 tax per square hectare of fishpond, w/c starts 3 years from the approval by the pending the evaluation stage w/ the Sec. of Justice, to w/c the latter refuses. He claims

2|Mik e e Retirado 1-C


CONSTI 2: Bernas Casebook 2010 ed.
Updated Darvins Digest

that such refusal violates the right to notice and hearing. The implementing law, PD No. The concept of overbreadth, peculiar to free expression cases, is not applicable to the
1069 provides that the notice shall be given at the same time as the warrant of arrest. The case at bar.
same rule is likewise provided in the treaty to w/c both the US and the Philippines agree GONZALES vs. NLRC & ATENEO DE DAVAO removal of teacher / due process
and to w/c other countries have expressed the same interpretation. For the purpose of Lorlene Gonzales, a teacher, was investigated pursuant to complaints from 2 parents
notice and hearing, a criminal procedure cannot be equated w/ an extradition proceeding alleging that she resorted to corporal punishment to discipline students. She called for the
and it follows that the evaluation process is not similar to preliminary investigation. amendment of some school rules, particularly that w/c limited the participation of her
Also applying the balancing of interests test, considering that the case is only in its counsel to advice only w/o direct participation. She was terminated upon notice; the
evaluation process, the nature of the right being claimed is nebulous in character and the NLRC sustained the termination. Opportunity must be afforded the accused to defend
degree of injury is minimal. The balance is thus tilted in favor of the State. Such procedural herself either personally or through counsel, to be informed of the nature and causes of the
protection has not yet become due given the extent to w/c the defendant is to suffer loss or accusations against her, and to confront and cross-examine the witnesses. The adamant
injury. refusal of the committee to accede to the demand to amend the rule and allow her counsel
DD: Notice and hearing for extradition cases is not required during the Executive Phase of to participate has led to her failure to successfully confront and cross-examine the
the proceedings, but it is required in the Judicial Phase thereof. Considering that the accusers ultimately vitiating the investigation.
petition is still under the evaluation of the Secretary of Justice, then it is still in the
Executive Phase hence no notice and hearing is yet required. Substantive Due Process
LAZATTA vs. STATE OF NEW JERSEY gangster / vague law The State of NJ enacted UNITED STATES vs. TORIBIO slaughter of carabao / restraint on property use The
a criminal statute penalizing w/ a fine and imprisonment any person not engaged in a appellant was prosecuted for slaughtering or causing to be slaughtered a carabao, against
lawful occupation who is a member of a gang of two or more persons and has been the provisions of Act No. 1147 w/c is now assailed either as an invalid exercise of
convicted at least 3 times. A statute, especially a penal statute, must explicitly prescribe eminent domain or police power. The legislature may regulate and restrain the use of
the rule to govern conduct and warn against transgression. The law is vague and leaves property as would be inconsistent or injurious to the rights of the public. Great discretion is
even persons of common intelligence to speculate as to its meaning and differ in its vested upon the State to determine not only what the interests of the public require but
application. A vague law violates due process. also what measures are reasonably necessary to such interests. It does not amount to
DD: The word gang is vague and was not properly defined in the statute. If a law is taking of private property for public use.
vague, there is no way by w/c common people may be certain as to how to conduct YNOT vs. IAC carabeef / valid purpose, invalid means Ynot transported 6 carabaos
themselves so as not to violate the law. It would be unfair considering that it is presumed from Masbate to Iloilo and was caught and penalized under EO No. 66-A prohibiting the
that the people know the law and ignorance of the law excuses no one. inter-provincial transport of carabaos and carabeef & authorizing the immediate
PEOPLE vs. DE LA PIEDRA vague law / illegal recruitment Carol de la Piedra was confiscation of the said carabaos & distribution of the same to deserving farmers
convicted of illegal recruitment on a large scale. She challenges the constitutionality of the (charitable institutions in the case of carabeef) as the Chairman of the National Meat
Labor Code provision penalizing the same for being vague. When recruitment or Inspection Commission may see fit. The purpose of the law was to protect carabaos as a
placement is undertaken by unauthorized persons it is deemed to be illegal recruitment national energy resource given the prevailing energy crisis. Take note that the carabao is
and if the same is perpetrated against 3 or more persons, then it is deemed to be on a said to be the poor mans tractor.
large scale. She likewise asserts overbreadth. The concept of overbreadth is peculiar to There is no connection between prohibiting inter-province transport of carabaos / carabeef
free expression cases and is inapplicable to the case at bar. & preventing their slaughter. They can be slaughtered nevertheless w/o having to transport
An act will be declared void for vagueness only upon a showing that defect or vagueness them. It is an unreasonable exercise of the police power. It orders the immediate
is to such an extent that the courts are unable to determine, with any reasonable degree of confiscation and forfeiture of the said property w/o due process and w/o affording the
certainty, what the legislature intended. The said law is capable of reasonable defendant the opportunity to be heard. The objective may be valid, but the means amount
construction, hence it cannot be declared void. to deprivation of property w/o due process of law. The EO also encroaches upon the
ESTRADA vs. SANDIGANBAYAN plunder law / vague law / series or combination powers of the judiciary in violation of the principle of the separation of powers by
Former Pres. Estrada is prosecuted under the Plunder Law (RA No. 7080) as amended by allowing the Chairman of the National Meat Inspection Commission to dispose of the
RA No. 7659. He challenges the constitutionality of the said law for being vague claiming confiscated properties as he may see fit.
that the words combination and series in the phrase combination or series of obvert CHURCHILL vs. RAFFERTY billboards regulation Act No. 2339 allows the Collector of
and criminal acts are vague. A statute is vague when it lacks comprehensible standards Internal Revenue, after due investigation, to decide that any sign or billboard exposed to
that men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ in its the public view is offensive to the sight or is otherwise a nuisance and empowers him to
application. Words in a statute are understood in their plain and common meaning, unless summarily order the its removal. If not complied with w/in 10 days, he may cause the
the legislature otherwise intended. It can very easily be understood that what the law removal himself. The plaintiffs contend that it constitutes deprivation of property w/o due
punishes is the accumulation of ill-gotten wealth amounting to at least P 50 million through process of law. The regulation of billboards falls squarely w/in the police power of the
the series or combination of criminal acts. It is, in fact, clear and free from ambiguity. State.

3|Mik e e Retirado 1-C


CONSTI 2: Bernas Casebook 2010 ed.
Updated Darvins Digest

Things offensive to the senses, such as sight, smell, or hearing, may be suppressed by the ERMITA-MALATE HOTEL & MOTEL OPERATORS vs. CITY OF MANILA hotel
State especially those situated in thickly populated districts. The people are entitled to regulation To address the increase of prostitution and other activities offensive to the
protest against the indiscriminate and wholesale use of the landscape by advertisers public morals, the City of Manila enacted an Ordinance burdening the hotel / motel
especially if they are offensive to the senses under certain conditions. The State has the operators (petitioners) with certain regulations such as that lessees are to be required to fill
duty to promote a healthy social and economic condition and the comfort and up registration forms, imposing a prohibition against the lease of rooms to minors, or for
convenience of the people fall squarely w/in its coverage. The prevailing public sentiment more than twice w/in 24 hours, that the said establishments must be open for inspection by
likewise militates against the erection of billboards w/c are offensive to the sight. the Mayor of Chief of Police, and classifying said establishments into 2 classifications (1st
DD: Aesthetics may now be regulated by the police power of the State, although usually class & 2nd class) and imposing certain minimum requirements therefor.
justified by the public interest and safety. Petitioners assail the Ordinance for invading their right to privacy. Police power is the
PEOPLE vs. FAJARDO view of the plaza / deprivation of property Juan Fajardo was power of the State to enact regulations to promote the health, morals, peace and order,
convicted for having constructed a building, w/o permit from the Municipal Mayor, that and welfare of the society. The said ordinance is enacted precisely for that purpose: to
obstructs the view of the Plaza from the Highway, contrary to an Ordinance enacted for prevent the deterioration of the public morals. The standard for the validity of its exercise is
that matter. The ordinance is unreasonable and oppressive. The purpose of the law may its responsiveness to the supremacy of reason, obedience to the dictates of justice. It must
be valid; however, the means employed is arbitrary. An ordinance w/c permanently not be arbitrary and oppressive. The additional taxes imposed are reasonable and may be
restricts the use of property such that it can no longer be used for any reasonable purpose, imposed as an exercise of police power for so long as it is just and uniform. In the absence
is beyond regulation and constitutes taking of property. It clearly oversteps the boundaries of a clear showing of infirmity, the presumption of constitutionality prevails.
of the exercise of police power and amounts to confiscation and deprivation of property CITY OF MANILA vs JUDGE LAGUIO - An ordinace that prohibited that include but not
w/o just compensation. The use and enjoyment of the property is an element of ownership. limited to the following:l1. Sauna Parlors 2. Massage Parlors 3. Karaoke Bars 4.
DD: If the State will restrict the use of private property such that it can no longer be used Beerhouses 5.Night Clubs 6. Day Clubs 6. Super Clubs 7. Cabarets 8. Discotheques 9.
for any reasonable purpose or for the purpose for w/c it is intended then it amounts to Dance Halls 10. Motels. 12. Inns was declared unconstitutional.
taking of the property. In this case, the State must expropriate the property and pay the It is an arbitrary use of government power because it inhibits the use of property by way of
owner just compensation. legislation. Govt cannot seize, forfeit, and destroy property without trial and conviction by
ACEBEDO OPTICAL vs. CA business permit vs. professional license Acebedo Optical the ordinary mode of judicial procedure. The goal of the City of Manila can be achieved by
applied w/ the City Mayor of Iligan for a business permit w/c was granted, anent opposition less restrictive means and regulations rather than absolute prohibition. These
from local optometrists, but subject to various burdensome condition such that it is establishments by themselves/per se do not contribute to the social ills the City of Manila
limited to a commercial store, that it cannot examine or prescribe reading glasses & cannot wishes to cure. Absolute prohibition of legitimate businesses will not stop prostitution,
sell the same w/o prescription of independent optometrists, that it can only advertise Ray fornication, adultery, and the spread of STDs.
Ban and similar frames. WHITE LIGHT CORPORATION vs. CITY OF MANILA - The case assailsthe validity of
Although police power is vested in the legislature and is granted to local government units Manila City Ordinance No. 7774 An Ordinance Prohibiting ShortTime Admission, Short-
(including the power to issue permits), a business permit cannot be equated w/ a license to Time Admission Rates, and Wash-Up Rate Schemes in Hotels, Motels, Inns, Lodging
practice a profession, the issuance of w/c is lodged in a board of commissioners tasked Houses, Pension Houses, and Similar Establishments in the City of Manila. In the case,
specifically to regulate the said profession in this case, the Board of Examiners in the goal of the ordinance is to minimize if not eliminate the use of the establishments for
Optometry. The local government does not have authority to regulate the profession or illicit sex, prostitution, drug use, among many others. However, the end does not
practice of Optometry. Further, a corporation such as Acebedo has all the contractual necessarily justify the means. There is a probability that legitimate activities such as sexual
rights of a person and may employ qualified optometrists it is not against public policy or behavior between spouses and consenting adults, which are actually protected by the
the law. constitution, will be curtailed in the process. The ordinance makes no distinction as
LAWRENCE vs. TEXAS sodomy / form of liberty The Houston police, responding to a between places frequented by patrons engaged in illicit activities and patrons engaged in
weapons disturbance report, entered Lawrences apartment and saw him and another man legitimate actions. The ordinance violates the right to property of the establishments as
engaging in sexual acts. They were thus prosecuted under a Texas Law prohibiting well as the right to privacy of their clients. The rights involved in this case fall within the
sodomy. The fact that the majority perceive something to be immoral is not, by itself, ambit of the rights to liberty.
sufficient to justify a law prohibiting the same. Furthermore, individual decisions concerning BALACUIT vs. CFI half-priced seats for kids / no public interest served The City Board
the intimacies of physical relationships are a form of liberty protected by the due process of Butuan enacted Ordinance No. 640 mandating that admission seats for children
clause. The case involves two consenting adults, not minors or persons that may be between 7-12 years old should be sold for half the price, apparently to lessen the
injured or coerced, or prostitution, such that would warrant the States interference. economic burden of parents whose kids are lured by the so-called attractive nuisances. It
DD: The State has no business meddling w/ the sexual preferences of consenting adults provides for penalties for violators. Police power legislation must be firmly grounded on
for as long as they pose no danger to the ublic health or interest. It is guaranteed by their public interest and welfare. A reasonable relation between end and means must exist. No
right to liberty. public interest at all is served by the ordinance. Ascertaining the ages of children for the
purpose of the discount is likewise difficult. It is not at all practicable, as the Council
asserts, to require children to present birth certificates while purchasing theater tickets.
4|Mik e e Retirado 1-C
CONSTI 2: Bernas Casebook 2010 ed.
Updated Darvins Digest

MAGTAJAS vs. PRYCE PROPERTIES legal gambling / LGU police power Because of does not follow that the same applies to an incompetent person. The State has a general
the success of its Casino business, the PAGCOR planned to establish a casino in interest in the protection and preservation of human life. It must guard against potential
Cagayan de Oro City. They leased a portion of a building from Pryce Properties for that abuses by surrogates who may not act according to the interests of the patient. For this
purpose. A wave of strong protest from the local officials, organizations, and other citizens reason, the State of Missouri can apply a clear and convincing evidence standard to
followed w/c led the local Sanggunian to enact the assailed Ordinance prohibiting the determine whether or not the proposed termination of the death-delaying mechanisms is in
establishment of casinos w/in its territory. While it is generally considered illegal, the accordance w/ the will of the patient.
Constitution does not prohibit gambling outright. It is up to Congress to decide, based on In this case, the evidence adduced in trial (based on the testimony of her friend that she
its own wisdom, whether or not to prohibit the same outright or some forms of it.I once remotely expressed not wanting to live further in a vegetative state) does not suffice
Although the local governments are imbued w/ police power, they may only prohibit to meet the said standard. The Due Process Clause does not require the State to accept
gambling that is illegal, but not forms of gambling allowed by law in this case by the the substituted judgment of close family members in the absence of clear proof that
PAGCOR Charter. they reflect the same views of the patient.
The following are the requisites for a valid ordinance: BELTRAN vs. SECRETARY OF HEALTH - RA 7719s purpose is to supply safe blood by
1. It must not contravene any law or the Constitution promoting voluntary blood donations and regulating blood banks in the country and in
2. It must not be unfair or oppressive doing so Section 7 of RA 7719 calls for the phasing out of commercial blood banks.
(Section 23 is the process of the phasing out of commercial blood banks). Police power is
3. It must not be partial or discriminatory validly exercised if (a) the interest of the public generally requires the interference of the
4. It may not prohibit but may regulate trade state and (b) means employed are reasonably necessary. In this case, in order to
5. It must be general and consistent w/ public policy adequately supply the country with safe blood through voluntary donations it would require
6. It must not be unreasonable the interference of the state to change the blood banking system of the Philippines. And in
AGUSTIN vs. EDU early warning devices / road safety Pres. Marcos, pursuant to the serving public interest the Legislature deemed it NECESSARY to phase out commercial
Vienna Convention on Road Signs & Signals, enacted PD No. 229 requiring, as a pre- blood banks
registration requisite, the installation of an Early Warning Device for vehicles, which may MANALO vs. PNP CHIEF - During the May 2007 elections, five unidentified malefactors
be procured from any source provided that it substantially complies with the specifications bearing high-powered firearms suddenly appeared at the Pinagbayanan Elementary
therein contained. The statute was enacted in the exercise of the police power to promote School in Taysan, Batangas. The school grounds is polling area for the 2007 national and
road and traffic safety clearly in the interest of the public. In the absence of a clear local elections. The investigation of the incident yielded that all six petitioners, who are all
factual foundation of record to overthrow the validity of the said law, then the presumption members of the PNP Regional Special Operations Group (PNP-RSOG), failed to timely
of validity must prevail. respond. Because the petitioners are implicated of the crime, a memorandum stating their
BENNIS vs. MICHIGAN confiscated car / deterrent against illegal use The car jointly restrictive custody and monitored movements was issued. The "restrictive custody"
owned by the Bennis spouses was confiscated by the Michigan Court as a public nuisance complained of by petitioners is nominal restraint which is beyond the ambit of habeas
because the husband, John, used it to engage in sexual activity with a prostitute along a corpus. It is a permissible precautionary measure to assure the PNP authorities that the
Detroit City street. He was convicted of gross indecency. The wife, Tina, claims that, being police officers concerned are always accounted for.
the co-owner and innocent spouse without knowledge or consent to her husbands illegal LUCENA GRAND CENTRAL TERMINAL, INC. vs. JAC LINER - This is a Petition for
activity, she has been deprived of her property w/o due process of law. It is a well settled review to assail the decision and resolution of the CA which declared that that the City
rule in jurisprudence that the acts of the possessor bind the interests of the owner, whether Ordinance No. 1778 of Lucena in which it denies all the other temporary terminals in the
he is innocent or not. It is a defense of the State against forbidden use and the evasion City of Lucena the right to operate as an invalid exercise of police power.There are two
from liability by dispensing with the necessity of conducting judicial inquiry regarding requisites for an ordinance to be considered as a valid exercise of police power: (1) Public
possible collusion. interest, which requires state interference and (2) Means employed are reasonably
necessary, for the attainment of the objection.
The government is NOT required to compensate the owner of the property it has lawfully
taken unless the taking was done in the exercise the power of Eminent Domain. In this The first requisite is obviously present since it involves the public interest in relieving the
case, the forfeiture was exercised through the police power of the State. The confiscation terrible traffic congestion inside the City of Lucena While the first requisite is present, the
of the said property is in the nature of a penalty, hence no compensation is due. The second is considered absent as the disputed ordinances went beyond what is reasonable
purpose of the law is to deter illegal activities leading to the deterioration of the to solve Lucenas traffic problems.
neighborhood and to unsafe streets.
CRUZAN vs. MISSOURI DIRECTOR OF DOH euthanasia / State interest to protect life Equal Protection Clause
Nancy Cruzan, due to an automobile accident, is in persistent vegetative state. The state PEOPLE vs. CAYAT prohibited liquors for natives Cayat was a member of the non-
trial court authorized the termination of death-delaying procedures at the instance of her Christian tribes of Benguet. He was charged and sentenced (under RA No. 1639) for
close family but the State Supreme Court reversed. Generally, a competent person has the possession of intoxicating liquors other than the so-called native wines. He challenges the
constitutionally-protected right to refuse life-saving hydration and nutrition. However, it constitutionality of the said act. The guarantee of equal protection is not violated by

5|Mik e e Retirado 1-C


CONSTI 2: Bernas Casebook 2010 ed.
Updated Darvins Digest

legislation based on a reasonable classification. The free use of the said liquors by the upon filing the same. There is a substantial distinction between elective and appointive
natives has resulted in lawlessness and crimes hampering the efforts of the government to officials. Appointive officials are prohibited from engaging in partisan political activities or
prepare them for integration w/ the mainstream community. When the public safety so from taking part in elections except to vote.
requires, the hand of the legislature cannot be stayed from providing for its discontinuance DD: Cabinet members are not covered by the rule considering that they hold office by
despite inconveniences that some members of a particular class may suffer. virtue of the mere confidence of the Chief Executive and are thus, essentially, partisan in
The following requisites must be complied with to satisfy equal protection: his favor. This case abandons the ruling in the Dimaporo Case which was based on the
1. It must rest on substantial distinctions Omnibus Election Code.
2. It must be germane to the purpose of the law GOESART vs. CLEARY wife or daughters of tavern owner only / unwise but valid The
3. It must not be limited to existing conditions only assailed Michigan law states that no female may be licensed to be a bartender unless she
is the wife or daughter of the male owner. While Michigan may deny to all women the
4. It must apply equally to all members of a class opportunity for bartending, they cannot play favorites with women w/o rhyme or reason.
DD: The distinction made in this case may no longer be valid under the present state of The legislature apparently believes that the wives or daughters of male bar owners are
society. less susceptible to the hazards of the said job due to the oversight afforded by the owner
ICHONG vs. HERNANDEZ retail trade law / aliens vs. citizens The assailed law aims to of the bar. The law may be questionable insofar as its wisdom, but the court cannot
nationalize the retail trade industry by restricting engagement in retail trade to Filipinos and gainsay the belief of the legislature.
providing prohibitions against alien participation, as well as the transition of the retail trade DD: It is not the province of the Judiciary to rule upon the wisdom of legislation only its
towards Filipinization. Chinese retail businessmen challenge the law for being legality may be ruled upon. This is in keeping with the principle of the separation of
discriminatory. The constitutional guarantees are not limited to citizens but are extended powers.
towards aliens as well. Equal protection does not demand absolute equality but merely that ORMOC SUGAR CENTRAL vs. ORMOC CITY tax imposed on the said company only /
persons similarly situated be treated similarly, both w/ regard to the conferment of uniformity The Municipal Board of Ormoc imposed a tax on all sugar productions milled at
privileges and imposition of liabilities. the Ormoc Sugar Central Company (the only sugar central existing in Ormoc City during
It is undeniable that in many communities, the alien retailers have replaced the natives, that time) at 1% per export sale. It taxes only the sugar produced in the said company and
and have gradually exercised control and dominance, and it is the responsibility of the none other. The classification, in order to be reasonable, must be applicable to future
government to step in to prevent the economic subjugation of the nation. It is apparent that conditions as well. While Ormoc Sugar Central is the only sugar central in the City of
aliens have repeatedly engaged in pernicious and intolerable practices. For the purpose of Ormoc during that time, the ordinance will not affect other sugar centrals established
engaging in retail, there is a sufficient distinction between citizens and aliens, who do not thereafter. Taxing ordinances should not be singular and exclusive as to exclude any
owe the same degree of allegiance and loyalty to the country. It is a reasonable subsequently established sugar centrals.
classification that justifies unequal treatment and preference for the Filipino trader. SISON Jr. vs. ANCHETA taxation / professionals & businessmen vs. compensation
DUMLAO vs. COMELEC 65 year old candidate / age distinction / accused vs. convict earners BP No. 135 imposed a higher tax rate for net income of professionals and
Patricio Dumlao, a candidate for Governor of Nueva Vizcaya assails the validity of a businessmen as opposed to the gross income tax at a lower rate applied to compensation
provision of BP No. 52 that prohibits retired elected officials over 65 years old from seeking or fixed-wage earners. Taxpayers may be classified into different classes or categories
re-election for the same position from which he retired. The rationale for the said provision and such classification must rest upon substantial distinctions. There is a significant
is the necessity for new blood and the policy of the State to promote its emergence in local distinction between compensation earners and professionals / businessmen. Wage
governments. (Justice Teehankee dissents from the classification stating that it does not earners have no overhead expenses and are not entitled to make deductions for taxing
further the aim of the law, because the retiree can run for a position other than that from purposes. Businessmen and professionals, on the other hand, are not uniform as to their
w/c he retired) expenses necessary to produce their income. There is thus ample justification for the
Another provision of the law prohibits persons charged with crimes from seeking public classification.
office. It contravenes the constitutional provision on presumption of innocence and in effect HIMAGAN vs. PEOPLE preventive suspension / PNP vs. ordinary accused Himagan,
classifies those merely charged with those already convicted. a member of the PNP, was charged for the killing of Benjamin Machitar Jr. and the
DD: A person merely charged for a crime cannot be put in the same level as a person attempted murder of Barnabe Machitar. For this he was preventively suspended on the
already convicted for the purpose of disqualifying him from office. It is an invalid basis of the DILG Act for such period until the termination of his case. He contends that the
classification. 90-day maximum period for preventive suspension under the law should apply to him.
FARIAS vs. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY ipso facto resignation / elective vs. appointive There is ample distinction between members of the PNP and other ordinary people
officials The Fair Elections Act repealed the provision of the Omnibus Election Code charged w/ offenses. Policemen carry weapons and a badge that can be used to harass or
declaring those officials holding elective positions ipso facto resigned upon filing their threaten witnesses. The legislative intent, based on the record of deliberations, is clear.
candidacy for other positions. It, however, retains the rule against appointive officials. In The 90-day suspension period was not meant to apply to members of the PNP charged w/
short, an elective official retains his position even upon his filing of a certificate of crimes. Their suspension is valid for such period prior to the termination of their case.
candidacy for another position; while an appointive official is deemed ipso facto resigned

6|Mik e e Retirado 1-C


CONSTI 2: Bernas Casebook 2010 ed.
Updated Darvins Digest

PHIL. JUDGES ASSOC. vs. PARDO franking privilege / judiciary vs. other PARRENO vs. COA - There was NO denial of due process in this case. When petitioner
departments RA No. 7354, through its repealing clause, withdraws the franking privilege lost his Filipino citizenship, the AFP had no choice but to stop his monthly pension in
from the Judiciary but retains it for the other branches of the government, such as the accordance with Section 27 of PD 1638. Petitioners loss of Filipino citizenship constitutes
executive and the legislative, even in favor of former first ladies and the AFP Ladies a substantial distinction that distinguishes him from other retirees who retain their Filipino
Steering Committee. Arbitrariness in general may be challenged based on the due process citizenship. Thus, PD 1638 is compliant with the requisites for reasonable classification.
clause. But if the particular act assailed partakes of an unwarranted partiality or prejudice, The State has the right to require all citizens to render personal and military service. This
the sharper weapon to cut it down is the equal protection clause. It is the Judiciary that would include even those have retired from military service. A retiree who had lost his
needs the franking privilege the most. If the problem is loss of revenue for the Phil. Postal Filipino citizenship already renounced his allegiance to the State. Thus, he may no longer
Corp. then the remedy is to withdraw the privilege from all branches of government. The be compelled by the state to render compulsory military service when the need arises.
distinction between the grantees of the privilege and the Judiciary is simply superficial. CENTRAL BANK EMPLOYEES vs. BANGKO CENTRAL - Central Bank (now BSP)
TIU vs. CA SBMA businesses tax incentives RA No. 7227 and EO No. 97-A grant Employees Association, Inc., filed a petition for prohibition against BSP and Executive
several forms of tax incentives in favor of businesses and residents w/in the secured area Secretary of the Office of the President, to restrain respondents from further implementing
of the Subic Special Economic Zone (SSEZ) but denies them to those businesses located the last proviso in Section 15(c), Article II of RA 7653, on the ground that it is
outside the said zone. The policy of the law is to develop the SSEZ into a self-sustaining unconstitutional. The provision makes an unconstitutional classification between two
commercial and financial investment center. There is clearly a substantial difference classes of employees in the BSP: (1) the BSP officers or those exempted from the
between the big investors being lured in to establish their business w/in the SSEZ and the coverage of the Salary Standardization Law (SSL) (exempt class); and (2) the rank-and-file
present small merchants doing trade outside the area. The establishments outside of the (Salary Grade [SG] 19 and below), or those not exempted from the coverage of the SSL
said zone do not have any impact on the purpose of the law to turn the former military (non-exempt class.
base into an industrial and commercial hub; hence there is hardly any reasonable basis to The classification created by the questioned proviso, on its face and in its operation, is
extend to them the benefits under RA No. 7227. constitutional. The equal protection clause allows for valid classification. The enactment,
DE GUZMAN vs. COMELEC re-assignment of election officers / singled out The however, of subsequent laws exempting all other rank-and-file employees of Government
Voters Registration Act declared that election officers who have served for more than 4 Financial Institutions (GFIs) from the SSL renders the continued application of the
years w/in a said municipality or city are to be re-assigned to a different area. This has challenged provision a violation of the equal protection clause.
resulted to the re-assignment of De Guzman and the other herein petitioners. They aver Concept of relative constitutionality - A statute valid at one time may become void at
that they have been singled out. The policy of the law in singling out the said election another time because of altered circumstances.
officers is to ensure the impartiality of election officials by preventing them from developing SERRANO vs. GALLANT MARITIME SERVICES - All monetary benefits should be
familiarity with the people of their place assignment. Hence it does not violate the equal enjoyed by workers equally and all monetary obligations borne by them equally. There are
protection clause. three (3) levels of scrutiny at which the Court reviews the constitutionality of a classification
PT&T vs. NLRC company policy against marriage Herein respondent, a married embodied in a law.
woman, was dismissed from her work at PT&T due to concealment of civil status and In order to review the constitutionality of a classification, the Court undertakes three (3)
defalcation of company funds. The record, however, discloses that her termination was, in levels of scrutiny:
reality, primarily caused by the companys policy against married women. The policy
against accepting women workers who contract marriage runs afoul to the right against Deferential or Rational Basis Scrutiny - challenged classification needs only
discrimination of women protected by labor laws and the Constitution. The companys to be shown rationally related to serving a legitimate state interest.
policy is highly discriminatory. It is the policy of the State to protect labor as well as the Middle-tier or Intermediate Scrutiny government must show that the
fundamental right to equality before the law of women and men. challenged classification serves an important state interest and that the
INTERNATIONAL ALLIANCE vs. QUISUMBING foreign hires vs. local hires classification is at least substantially related to serving that interest
Respondent International School employs both foreign and locally-hired teachers but Strict Judicial Scrutiny legislative classification which impermissibly interferes
grants the foreign-hires additional salary of 25% and other benefits such as housing, with the exercise of a fundamental right or operates to the peculiar disadvantage
transportation, shipping costs, travel allowances, and the like. The local-hires cry of a suspect class is presumed unconstitutional and the government must prove
discrimination. Discrimination, especially in terms of wages, is frowned upon by the Labor that the classification is necessary to achieve a compelling state interest and it is
Code. Employees should be given equal pay for equal value of work. Local hires perform the least restrictive means.
basically the same functions and services as foreign hires and are thus entitled to the NOTE: Under most circumstances, the Court will exercise judicial restraint in deciding
same compensation. Thus, the dislocation factor is not a valid basis for distinction in questions of constitutionality, recognizing the broad discretion given to Congress in
salary rates but may be adequately compensated by the other benefits granted by the exercising its legislative power. Judicial scrutiny would be based on the rational basis
school to w/c it is more directly related. test and the legislative discretion would be given deferential treatment. But if the
DD: It appears in this case that the Bill of Rights was invoked against a private entity as challenge to the statute is premised on the denial of a fundamental right, or the
opposed to the common and general rule that the Bill of Rights regulates the exercise of perpetuation of prejudice against persons favoured by the Constitution with special
State power. protection, then judicial scrutiny ought to be more strict.
7|Mik e e Retirado 1-C
CONSTI 2: Bernas Casebook 2010 ed.
Updated Darvins Digest

BRITISH AMERICAN TOBACO vs. CAMACHO - R.A 8240 was enacted on October 1 are not illegal per se and under exceptional circumstances, they may be installed by the
1996, which states that those companies found in Annex D are taxed using their net retail government. Where abuse marks the operation of checkpoints, the citizen is not helpless
price in 1996. This provision in the law is also called the classification freeze provision. and may avail of other legal remedies.
In order to clarify the classification freeze provision RA 9334 was enacted which states that Consolidated Dissents (Justices Cruz and Sarmiento):
new brands, those introduced after the enactment of RA 8240, are taxed based on their The checkpoints have basically taken the place of a search warrant in violation of the right
present day net retail prices. In upholding the assailed provisions as valid, the Supreme against unreasonable searches. The failure of the government to suppress crimes is not
Court used the rational basis test. The classification freeze provision was a result of an excuse to suspend the operation of the Bill of Rights. Constitutional shortcuts should
Congress earnest efforts to improve efficiency and effectivity of the tax administration of not be allowed. Probable cause is determined by a judge, not by a soldier or policeman.
sin product. They simplified the classification of the sin products in order to remove The checkpoints allow the officers to fish for probable cause where originally there is
potential areas of abuse and corruption. Thus, its provisions are germane to the purpose of none.
the law and the RA satisfies all the requirements of rational basis test.
PEOPLE vs. ESCANO firearms found in the trunk / vehicle search A gun was found in
QUINTO AND TOLENTINO vs. COMELEC - Respondents in this case are assailing the the trunk of Escano (with Usana and Lopez) during a routine vehicle search in a
previous Decision of the SC declaring unconstitutional Section 4(a) of Resolution 8678 of checkpoint pursuant to the COMELECs gun ban during the election period. They were
the COMELEC (appointive officials are ipso facto resigned upon filing of COC). The charged w/ illegal possession of firearms and ammunition. Jurisprudence recognizes the
resolution does not violate the equal protection clause. There is substantial difference following valid warrantless searches:
between appointive officials and elective officials. The former occupy their office by virtue
of the mandate of the electorate while the latter by the virtue of their designation by an 1. Search incidental to a lawful arrest
appointing authority. Under the administrative code, appointive officials are strictly 2. Search of moving vehicles
prohibited from engaging in any partisan political activity. 3. Evidence in plain view
4. Customs searches
BILL OF RIGHTS 5. Consented warrantless searches
SECTION 2 6. Stop-and-frisk situations
Section 2.The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and There are indications that Escano consented to the search because he did not refuse and
effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for freely accompanied the police to the trunk of his car. Checkpoints need not be announced;
whatever purpose shall be inviolable, and so search warrant or warrant of arrest and to limit the search to visual searches would defeat the aim of the COMELEC to effect
shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge the gun ban.
after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he DD: The court seemed to have presumed a waiver of rights from the actions of Escano.
may produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons This is contrary to the generally accepted principle that waiver of constitutional rights is
or things to be seized. never presumed as well as the rule that inspection during checkpoints must be limited to
When intrusion is a "search" visual searches only.
VALMONTE vs. GEN. DE VILLA - checkpoints / not per se illegal Due to the alarming
lawlessness and violence prevalent in urban areas and the threat of the NPA, LOI No. 02- Requisites of a valid waiver
87 created the NCR District Command (NCRDC) to establish an effective territorial ALVAREZ vs. CFI search for money-lenders papers / hearsay / fishing expedition
defense and to provide an atmosphere of peace and order in Metro Manila. It mandated Suspected for being a loan shark, a search warrant was issued against Alvarez based
the creation of checkpoints placed in various strategic locations manned by military solely on the affidavit of Agent Almeda stating that he acquired information from a reliable
personnel. It conducted regular searches and check-ups of vehicles without a warrant or source. A search warrant must be based upon an application under oath of the applicant or
court order. There was once an instance when a person was fired at and killed for the witnesses he may produce; personal knowledge is necessary not mere hearsay. In
speeding off and refusing to submit to the search. Thus, the petitioner challenges the the absence of personal knowledge of the complainant, affidavits of witnesses with
measure alleging that it serves as a vehicle for harassment or abuse.
personal knowledge must be procured before the warrant can issue. The warrant is thus
The Constitutional right against unreasonable searches and seizures is a personal right void.
invocable only by those whose rights have been infringed. The petitioner cannot invoke it
On the other hand, a particular description of the things to be seized is necessary, unless,
for other persons. Mere apprehension that the checkpoints will lead to harassment and
by the nature of the goods to be seized, they must be described generally. Taking into
violation of rights is insufficient to declare the checkpoints illegal per se. The inherent right consideration the nature of the articles sought (books, receipts, lists, etc. in connection w/
of the State to protect its existence prevails over an individuals right against a warrantless
money-lending activities), no better and more accurate description is possible. The
search, provided that it is reasonably conducted. petitioner protested to the seizures from the beginning, hence there is no waiver of rights.
The 6th coup detat against the Aquino Government took place. Checkpoints were once Statutes authorizing searches and seizures must be strictly construed against the State
again instituted. For as long as the search is limited to a visual search and no body search and liberally in favor of the accused.
is conducted, then they do not violate the right against unreasonable search. Check points
8|Mik e e Retirado 1-C
CONSTI 2: Bernas Casebook 2010 ed.
Updated Darvins Digest

PEOPLE vs. VELOSO parliamentary club / john doe Jose Veloso, a member of the disregard the fiscals certification and require the submission of supporting affidavits from
House of Representatives and manager of the so-called Parliamentary Club (a gambling witnesses. The issuance by a judge of a warrant is discretionary and not ministerial.
den), was arrested pursuant to a John Doe warrant issued based on an affidavit executed STONEHILL vs. DIOKNO general warrants / fishing expedition A total of 42 search
by secret-agent Geronimo. It alleged that John Doe was illegally in possession in the warrants were issued against the petitioners and corporations of w/c they are officers for
building (specifically described as 124 Calle Arzobispo, Manila), as well as of certain violation of Central Bank Laws, Tariff & Customs Laws, the Internal Revenue Code, and
effects used in violation of the Anti-Gambling Law. Veloso violently resisted the arrest the Revised Penal Code. It mandated the seizure of all papers and documents pertaining
alleging that the John Doe warrant is void. to the businesses regardless of the legality of the transactions. There was no specific
A warrant must specifically describe the persons or things to be seized. But if the name of offense charged and no reference to any particular provision. It is thus a general warrant.
the person to be seized is unknown, a John Doe warrant may still be valid provided that a General warrants are outlawed by the Bill of Rights. It was impossible for the judges who
descriptio personae sufficient to enable the arresting authority to identify the person is issued the same to have found the existence of probable cause.
made therein. In this case, the description enabled the police to identify, accurately, the Particular acts must be alleged. Likewise, no search warrant shall issue except for more
person sought to be seized. Thus, the warrant is valid. There is likewise no justification for than one specific offense. Things to be seized must likewise be particularly described. The
excessive violence in resisting arrest. Upon a lawful arrest, the officers may likewise take search warrants are thus void and evidence obtained therefrom is thus inadmissible. To
from the arrested person things or effects used to perpetrate the offense or the fruits hold otherwise would render the constitutional guarantee against unreasonable searches
thereof. illusory. What was committed was, in fact a fishing expedition. Only corporations,
PEOPLE vs. MAMARIL marijuana / personal examination of complainant Mamaril was however, may contest the warrants appertaining to them because they have their
found in possession of marijuana (and various effects relative thereto) pursuant to a respective personalities.
search warrant. In trial he contended that there was no evidence that searching questions DD: The right against unreasonable searches is personal and may be invoked only by the
were asked the complainant during application for the warrant. There were no person whose rights have been violated.
stenographic notes in support thereof. The issuance of a search warrant is justified only CENTRAL BANK vs. MORFE unauthorized banking / general pattern of business
upon a finding of probable cause. The judge must examine the complainant or witnesses Judge Morfe nullified a search warrant issued against the First Mutual Savings & Loan
personally, under oath, and it must be reduced in writing in the form of searching questions Organization w/c allegedly engaged in banking practices w/o authority from the Monetary
and answers. Mere affidavits are insufficient. In the absence of such, the search warrant is Board such as extending loans. Morfe stated that the deponent must have stated the
void, and all evidence obtained therefrom is deemed inadmissible. Failure to object to the specific illegal acts and transactions, and their respective perpetrators and victims, so that
entry into his house is not tantamount to a waiver of such right. The courts indulge every only books and records pertaining thereto are to be seized from the said Organization.
presumption against the waiver of constitutional rights. This contention is untenable. Failure of the witness (Manila Police detective) to mention
DD: Take note that under the Rules of Court, in order to justify the issuance of a search the particular individuals does not disprove his knowledge of the specific acts of the
warrant, there must be personal examination of the complainant and the witnesses he Organization. The records clearly suggest that the illegal transactions constitute the
may produce. On the other hand, for the issuance of a warrant of arrest, personal general pattern of business of the Organization. That no victims were named is immaterial;
determination suffices. the law obviously seeks to protect the public not only from actual but also potential injury
SOLIVEN vs. MAKASIAR libel / personal determination An information for libel was that may be caused by the illegal banking practices of the corporation.
filed against petitioners Soliven & Beltran; warrants for their arrest were issued pursuant COLUMBIA PICTURES vs. CA copyright infringement / master tapes The seizure of
thereto by the judge w/o personally examining the complainant and the witnesses. The allegedly pirated video cassettes was assailed on the basis of lack of probable cause.
Constitution no longer requires personal examination by the judge of the complainant and Based on the 20th Century Fox case, in order to determine the existence of probable
the witnesses. What the Constitution underscores personal determination of the existence cause in video piracy cases, the original or master tape must be presented in court and
of probable cause w/c is simply the exclusive and personal duty of the judge to satisfy compared with the (purchased) counterfeit in order to determine the existence of probable
himself of the existence of probable cause. cause. The court will not give credence to mere testimony alleging the supposed similarity
He must personally evaluate the report and supporting documents submitted by the fiscal w/o the presentation of the originals and the counterfeit copies for the purpose of
regarding the existence of probable cause. He may require the submission of supporting comparison. However, this rule is no longer applicable the master tapes are no longer
affidavits should he find the report insufficient. The rationale behind the rule is that to absolutely necessary to determine the existence of probable cause. They are only needed
require the judges to personally examine the complainants, judges would be unduly laden if there is doubt as to the true nexus of the infringed material in comparison w/ the original.
w/ preliminary investigation instead of concentrating on deciding cases. The 20th Century Fox Case, in this regard, has already been superseded.
DD: This is the prevailing rule insofar as warrants of arrest are concerned personal BURGOS vs. CHIEF OF STAFF subversive publication / typo error / general warrants
determination suffices. Two offices of the We Forum publication were searched, pursuant to 2 separate warrants,
PLACER vs. VILLANUEVA supporting affidavits / fiscal report not binding Refer to the for subversion according to PD No. 885. Printing machines, paraphernalia, motor vehicles,
originals for the facts of the case. The judge may rely upon the fiscals report to determine and other effects were seized. The two search warrants, however, pointed to one and the
the existence of probable cause however he is not obligated to issue a warrant on the same place (apparently a typo error). In this case, the executing officer (Col. Abadilla) was
basis thereof. If, on the face of the information, the judge finds no probable cause, he may likewise the complainant and the executing officers prior knowledge of the premises to
be searched is relevant. The intent of the judge who issued the warrant is clear that there
9|Mik e e Retirado 1-C
CONSTI 2: Bernas Casebook 2010 ed.
Updated Darvins Digest

are two separate places to be searched. Further, should there be ambiguity in the warrant bundle of marijuana wrapped in Manila paper. Appellant argues that the marijuana seized
as to the place to be searched, the executing officer may resort to the affidavit to clarify the as a result of the search is inadmissible due to the irregularity of the search warrant which
same. contained the name Ising Gutierrez Diwa and not Priscilla del Norte
That properties seized are owned by other persons is immaterial. For as long as they are The Constitution requires search warrants to particularly describe not only the place to be
subject of the offense, or intended to be used in connection therewith, is sufficient. Only searched, but also the persons to be arrested.nThe authorities did NOT have personal
personal property may be seized; and since they do not allege ownership over the land, knowledge of the circumstances surrounding the search. They did NOT conduct
then any equipment attached thereto shall be considered as movable property. The surveillance before obtaining the warrant. It was only when they implemented the warrant
warrant, however, fails on the aspect of its being a general warrant. In warrants directed that they coordinated with the barangay officials. The authorities based their knowledge on
against publications, the alleged subversive materials must be specified. Mere pure hearsay. Except for the drugs taken by Police Officer de Leon and the barangay
generalizations will not suffice. tanod, there was NO incriminating evidence to prove that Priscilla del Norte was the
CORRO vs. LISING Philippine Times / inciting to sedition / general warrants Warrants possessor of those illegal drugs.
were issued ordering the search and seizure of copies of the Philippine Times, articles, SALAZAR vs. ACHACOSO POEA / only judges issue warrants / deportation The
copiers and typewriters, subversive documents, and other such effects. The libel case filed authority of the POEA to issue warrants was contested in this case. Although Pres.
against the same was rendered moot by the Agrava Commission report regarding the Marcos, through PD No. 1920 granted the Labor Minister arrest and closure powers, and
assassination of Ninoy Aquino. Motion for reconsideration w/ the lower court may be through PD No. 2018, gave the same arrest and seizure powers, under the 1987
dispensed with where violations of the fundamental rights taint the proceedings. Constitution, only judges can issue warrants. The said laws were thus impliedly repealed
It is well settled that applications for warrants for subversive publications must specify w/ by the Constitution. Neither can prosecutors issue warrants. The only exception is the
particularity the alleged offenses and the things to be seized. Allegations that the articles power of the Executive to arrest aliens for the purpose of deportation w/c is an
breed hatred towards the government are mere conclusions of law, not of fact, and cannot exceptional power given the supremacy of the Executive in matters of foreign affairs.
serve as basis for the issuance of the warrants. Likewise, the warrant authorized the DD: The Executive through the Commission on Immigration and Deportation may
seizure of materials and effects indiscriminately whether they are legal or illegal. It is thus issue warrants but only for the purpose of enforcing a deportation order that has become
in the nature of a general warrant abhorrent to the Constitution. final and executory.
DD: The padlocking of the publications office amounts to prior restraint in violation of the BACHE & CO. vs. RUIZ tax assessments / personal examination by judge A search
freedom of expression and of the press guaranteed by Section 4 of the Bill of Rights. warrant was issued against Bache & Co. for violation of Sec. 46 of the National Internal
PEOPLE vs. CA adjacent place / particularization of place to be searched Hussain was Revenue Code. The BIR made tax assessments based on the documents obtained
allegedly in possession of firearms and explosives in Abigail Store. A search warrant was therefrom. No transcript of the testimony was attached to the questioned warrant. The
thus issued for the said place, but the police instead entered Apartment No. 1, adjacent to complainant (De Leon) and the witness (Logronio) brought with them prepared depositions
the store resulting to the arrest of 4 Pakistanis and the seizure of chemicals and and a prepared warrant for signature of the issuing Judge Vivencio Ruiz. After a hearing
explosives, as well as various belongings and money not mentioned in the warrant. The he was conducting that day, he simply listened to a few stenographic notes read to him,
discrepancy resulted from the inaccurate description of the officers of the said place and gave a warning against the commission of perjury, and proceeded to administer the oath
the judge merely entered in the record the information he was provided. The Burgos Ruling and signed the warrant.
is inapplicable because this case involves not merely a typo error but rather the absence of Examination of the complainant and the witnesses must be conducted personally by the
the meeting of the minds between applicant and issuing judge as to the place to be judge and by none other. Personal examination is necessary for the judge in order to
searched. Particularization of the place to be searched is decided by the judge, not by the determine the existence of probable cause. The degree of participation offered by the
executing officers otherwise it opens the door to abuse. Particularization is, in fact, for respondent judge cannot, in any way, be considered as amounting to personal
the purpose of leaving the executing officer w/ no room for discretion. He must only act examination.
according to his warrant. DD: Once again, be careful of the distinction between a search warrant and a warrant of
arrest. For the former, personal examination of the complainant and the witnesses is
Particularity of description necessary. For a warrant of arrest, personal determination suffices.
PEOPLE vs. TEE undetermined amount of marijuana / no technical precision required LIM vs. JUDGE FELIX fiscal & judge / power to issue warrant vs. power to prosecute
The accused challenges the validity of a search warrant that specified an undetermined Refer to the originals for the facts of the case. The determination of probable cause lies at
amount of marijuana for failing to satisfy the requirement of particularity. It is not required the discretion of the Judge solely. The Prosecutor may assist him in arriving at his
that technical precision of description be applied, especially when, by the nature of the conclusion, but he is never bound by the fiscals findings. Determination must likewise not
things to be seized, the description must be general. Otherwise, no warrant can ever issue. be based solely on the prosecutors report but must be supported by affidavits, transcripts
PEOPLE vs DEL NORTE - SPO1 Lumabas and his group were tasked to serve a search of stenographic notes (if any) and all other supporting documents. Otherwise, it is as if the
warrant against a certain Ising Gutierrez Diwa residing at Caloocan City, for alleged fiscal made the determination and not the judge.
violation of RA 6425 or The Dangerous Drug Act. Instead of finding Diwa, it was Priscilla The determination of the existence of probable cause for the purpose of issuing a warrant
del Norte (appellant) who opened the door. The authorities search the house and found a is at the discretion of the judge. On the other hand, determination of the existence of

10 | M i k e e Retirado 1-C
CONSTI 2: Bernas Casebook 2010 ed.
Updated Darvins Digest

probable cause during preliminary investigation for the purpose of determining whether to can only be made upon the person lawfully arrested, and in the place where the arrest was
file criminal charges is discretionary upon the fiscal. It is an Executive and not a Judicial made, and not elsewhere. Roque was not even in her house during the time when the
function. arrest and the search were made. Given the fact that the evidence was obtained clearly in
violation of the prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures, any evidence
Bank secrecy rule obtained therefrom is deemed inadmissible. The so-called exclusionary rule is the only
practical means of preventing violations of the above principle.
MARQUEZ vs. DESIERTO PEA-AMARI / bank secrecy Ombudsman Desierto issued
an Order to Union Bank Julia Vargas Branch Manager Marquez ordering the production of DD: A search incidental to lawful arrest may be made only in the person of the arrestee as
several bank documents relative to its investigation of the PEA-AMARI controversy. well as the area w/in his immediate control. The purpose is to protect the arresting officer
Marquez failed to submit the documents requested and is thus being charged w/ contempt. from possible hidden weapons or anything that the arrestee can use to harm him but not
Generally, bank deposits are strictly confidential except for the following instances: to fish for evidence.
1. Upon authority of the Monetary Board if there is reasonable ground for fraud or PAPA vs. MAGO customs searches Responding to a counter-intelligence report, the
serious irregularity PNP, through Chief Ricardo Papa (duly deputized by the Commissioner of Customs)
intercepted trucks containing allegedly contraband goods. They were not armed w/ a
2. Regular audit of an independent auditor search warrant. The Tariff & Customs Code does not require warrants for customs officers
3. Upon written consent of the depositor to board and search vessels, beasts, or persons suspected of introducing contraband
4. Impeachment merchandise into the Philippines. However, the search of dwelling houses, even for the
5. Upon order of competent court enforcement of Customs Laws, requires a warrant. Search of motor vehicles is likewise
6. When the deposited amounts are subject of litigation valid w/o a search warrant. Vehicles are, after all, not actively used in w/in the home,
where the sanctity of privacy is more safeguarded, but instead is used in public places
As held in PNB vs gancayco, in cases of unexplained wealth. such as roads and may facilitate commission of crimes. The PNP, having been deputized
In order for an in camera inspection to be allowed, there must be a pending case before a by the Commissioner of Customs, is thus authorized to carry out such searches.
court of competent jurisdiction. In this case, there is none and what the Ombudsman PEOPLE vs. CFI Dodge car chase / exceptional circumstances Relying upon an
would wish to do is to conduct a fishing expedition in violation of the rights of the depositor. intelligence report, the Regional Anti-Smuggling Action Center (RASAC), w/o a search
The bank personnel and depositor must likewise be notified and should be present during warrant, intercepted and chased a blue Dodge car allegedly containing contraband goods
the inspection. from Angeles to be brought to Manila. In the car were Sgt. Hope and Monina Medina. They
found 4 boxes in the rear seat and 7 more in the compartment containing untaxed
Warrantless Searches wristwatches. They claimed not to know the contents of the boxes. The RASAC proceeded
PEOPLE vs. ARUTA valid warrantless searches Refer to the originals for the facts of to the drop-off spot but aborted the mission given the fact that the suspected receivers
the case. The following are valid warrantless searches: never came. The prosecution found the existence of a prima facie case against them, but
the trial court declared the evidence inadmissible.
1. Search incidental to a lawful arrest
It is a settled rule that Customs searches do not require a warrant, except for those
2. Search of moving vehicles
conducted in the dwelling of persons. Furthermore, the case is an exceptional case. The
3. Evidence in plain view RASAC could not have possibly secured a warrant based on their intelligence reports w/c
i. there must be prior valid intrusion are not fully certain. But given the occurrence of the fact, it is easily discernible that the
ii. evidence was inadvertently discovered information, in this case, was more than just hearsay. In extraordinary events involving
iii. evidence must be immediately apparent warrantless arrests, their reasonableness becomes purely a judicial question. When the
officials see the existence of probable cause, coupled w/ the fact that the case involves
iv. mere seizure of evidence w/o further search
motor vehicles, searches need not be justified by a warrant.
4. Customs searches
Separate Opinion of Justice Teehankee:
5. Consented warrantless searches
In the absence of exigent circumstances, a warrant must be procured. Given that they had
6. Stop-and-frisk situations the information one week in advance, there was ample time to procure a warrant and not
DD: A 7th category may be added, which pertains to warrantless searches under simply rely on bare information given by an unidentified source. They could have delayed
exceptional or emergency situations such as during a coup detat as provided in People actual seizure until the warrant has been secured because they already had actual
vs. De Gracia. possession of the vehicle. In this case, the search was remote to the arrest and hence a
NOLASCO vs. PAO warrantless search only in place of arrest Mila Aguilar Roque search warrant must have been secured.
was arrested on board a public vehicle for alleged rebellion. The military officers, however, The doctrine relied upon by the majority called superior property rights (contraband) has
armed with a void general search warrant, and at the instance of the arrest, searched not already been abandoned by the Supreme Court. The right of the people to be secure in
only her person, but also her residence for the recovery of various subversive documents. their persons, houses, papers, and effects is w/o distinction, whether the effects to be
They allege that the search was made incident to a lawful arrest. The warrantless search
11 | M i k e e Retirado 1-C
CONSTI 2: Bernas Casebook 2010 ed.
Updated Darvins Digest

seized are contraband or otherwise. What was committed was a typical shortcut in warrantless search and seizure. Also, the officers were only making a routine search, not
enforcing the law. an extensive search.
PEOPLE vs. LO HO WING undercover agent / taxi / warrantless search The Phil. Consolidated Dissents of Justices Narvasa & Isagani Cruz:
Constabulary (PC) received info regarding importation of illegal drugs. The services of There was no probable cause in this case hence there is no valid arrest; and when there
Reynaldo Tia were employed to be the undercover agent. Tia spied on the accuseds Lim is no valid arrest, any search made incidental thereto is void. Malmstedt has not
and Peter Lo from China all the way until arriving at Manila, w/ the supposed drugs committed, was not committing, or was about to commit a crime in the soldiers presence
stashed in tea cans. Upon their arrival, the PC took strategic positions, followed and cut when he was searched. There is no probable cause yet. The mere bulge in his waist does
the taxis they were riding, arrested the accuseds, and took custody over the suspected not suffice. Upon searching and finding the hashish, that is the only time that they arrested
illegal drugs. They did not have a warrant. That the authorities had reasonable grounds to Malmstedt a typical fishing expedition. The arrest must first be made; then the incidental
suspect the importation of illegal drugs is sufficient probable cause given that the arrest search follows. The process cannot be reversed; otherwise it amounts to a fishing
and search involved a moving vehicle. Their knowledge and information clearly was expedition. According to Justice Cruz, in this case, it was the fruit of the poisonous tree
insufficient for a valid search warrant to issue, w/c justifies their failure to procure one prior that washed clean the tree itself.
to the arrest. DD: This is another notorious case, so take note of the dissents. A search incidental to a
DD: In the above cases we will see how the arresting officers exploit the moving vehicle lawful arrest must come after the arrest, not before the arrest. Otherwise, a fishing
exception to the requirement of a valid warrant. The Supreme Court seems to tolerate the expedition is being committed.
short-cut method. ROAN vs. GONZALES wrong guns / hearsay Respondent Judge issued a search
CABALLES vs. CA jeep covered w/ leaves / no probable cause / intrusion Two officers warrant based on the mere affidavit of Capt. Quillosa and some witnesses w/o taking their
flagged a jeep suspiciously covered by kakawati leaves and found that it contained 700 depositions in writing. Quillosa did not have personal knowledge but relied upon the
kilos of conductor wires owned by the NAPOCOR. They were stolen wires. The officers statements of the witnesses. They stated that they saw 8 men deliver arms to Roans
arrested the driver and took custody of the said wires for evidence. They did not have a house. Upon search, the officers did not find any of the articles mentioned in the warrant
search warrant. Generally, mere routine checks of vehicles do not violate the right against but instead found a Colt Magnum Revolver. A search warrant must not be issued based on
unreasonable searches. But when the officer goes beyond the portion of the vehicle mere hearsay. The judge must not merely rehash the statements but must examine them
viewable from the outside, such already constitutes an intrusion into the domain protected closely and ascertain the existence of probable cause. The search warrant is thus
by the Constitution and hence must be justified by the existence of probable cause. Mere defective and void and the gun and bullets of the petitioner were confiscated illegally. That
suspicion because some vehicle appears be uncommon does not amount to probable the said guns are illegally possessed is of no moment. Just because they are illegal items
cause. does not mean that they can just be summarily seized w/o due process.
DD: Routine traffic checks must be limited to visual searches only. An extensive search PEOPLE vs. TABAR marijuana buy-bust / kid and aunt / plain view Police officers
cannot be conducted unless there is probable cause. This case may be reconciled w/ the conducted a buy-bust operation involving the sale of marijuana. The child who sold the
Valmonte Ruling. marijuana to the undercover agent entered a shanty where his aunt was. Acting nervously
OBRA vs. CA truck moving into mining area Facts of the case are very limited; refer to and suspiciously, the aunt was caught w/ a white pair of pants w/c, upon order of the
the originals for accurate statement of facts. A truck was flagged and searched extensively officers, she spread out revealing packs of marijuana. The crime was committed in the
upon its entry into a mining zone. It was not leaving the area nor was it transporting plain view of the officers. Even assuming that there was no warrant, there was a waiver of
minerals. In the absence of probable cause, moving vehicles cannot be subjected to an the right when the aunt submitted to the search and seizure. in this case, a valid
extensive search in the absence of probable cause. warrantless search and arrest was justified.
DD: Take note that the truck was moving into the mining zone, not leaving it. ANIAG vs. COMELEC Batasan Checkpoint / gun ban / intrusion Pursuant to the gun
PEOPLE vs. MALMSTEDT Caucasian w/ marijuana / search pursuant to lawful arrest ban, the petitioner ordered his driver to return his 2 issued firearms to the HR. His driver,
Responding to certain intelligence reports (regarding a Caucasian carrying drugs), the however, was flagged and searched in a checkpoint 20m away from the Batasan entrance
NARCOM set up a temporary checkpoint for the purpose. Without any warrant, they and was detained and charged accordingly. In the absence of probable cause, the PNP
stopped the bus that Malmstedt was riding and conducted a search therein. One of the could not extensively search the car w/o violating the constitutional injunction against
soldiers noticed a bulge in Malmstedts waist. Their suspicion was aroused as well by his unreasonable searches and seizures. The driver was not, in any way, acting suspiciously,
failure to present valid IDs. They found hashish in his pouch. There were some that were and the guns were neatly wrapped and placed in their cases and kept in the trunk of the
likewise stashed inside teddy bears in his luggage. He was thus arrested and prosecuted car. He did not have instant access to the guns. Nothing could have triggered their
for violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act. suspicion and instead, they intruded upon a persons privacy. Note: I think this case may
Majority Opinion: somehow indicate a re-consideration of the Valmonte ruling. D.D.
There is no search warrant required for that made incidental to a lawful arrest. Given the PEOPLE vs. TUDTUD marijuana in King Flakes boxes / arrest before search / waiver
bulge in his waist and his suspicious behavior, as well as the intelligence reports, there is On the basis of reports made by a civilian asset Bobong Solier, the police suspected
probable cause to suggest that Malmstedt was committing a crime that would justify the Tudtud for being responsible for the proliferation of marijuana. They received a report that
Tudtud will arrive from Cotabato w/ a supply of marijuana, thus they posed undercover.

12 | M i k e e Retirado 1-C
CONSTI 2: Bernas Casebook 2010 ed.
Updated Darvins Digest

They saw 2 persons (one matching the reported looks of Tudtud) helping each other (a) A prior valid intrusion based on the valid warrantless arrest in which the police
unloading boxes. They approached and introduced themselves as police and asked if they are legally present in the pursuit of their official duties;
may look into the boxes to w/c Tudtud did not contest. Among the contents was indeed (b) The evidence was inadvertently discovered by the police who have the right
marijuana leaves. For this, they were arrested and charged accordingly. to be where they are; and
It is now accepted that the arrest must come before the search, and not the other way (c) The evidence must be immediately apparent; and
around. Nevertheless, if there is probable cause, and the search is substantially (d) Plain view justified mere seizure of evidence without further search
contemporaneous to the arrest, it may precede the same. In this case, there was
absolutely no hint that they were committing a crime. They were merely unloading some The seizure of evidence in plain view applies only where the police officer is not
boxes. Mere reliable information no longer suffices to amount to probable cause.The searching for evidence against the accused, but inadvertently comes across an
mere fact that he did not oppose does not indicate waiver. The courts indulge every incriminating object
presumption against the waiver of constitutional rights. The following are requisites for PEOPLE vs. DE GRACIA coup detat / exigent situations In the event of a coup detat
such waiver: the Eurocar Building was put under surveillance for housing large quantities of
1. the right exists ammunition. One time, the car of the surveillance team was fired upon by 5 persons from a
crowd w/in the vicinity. The team raided the building one night w/o a warrant. The court
2. the person had actual or constructive knowledge of the right at that time was closed due to the disorder. The raiding team was able to seize de Gracia
3. actual intention to relinquish the right along w/ 2 janitors and plenty of explosives and ammunition. The case is an exceptional
DD: This case may be an affirmation of the Cruz dissent from People vs. Malmstedt. one and there was more than sufficient probable cause to justify their intrusion. The arrests
VERONIA SCHOOL DISTRICT vs. ACTON mandatory drug test / privacy / negligible were impelled by the exigencies of the situation w/c concerned the very survival of
The petitioner school district imposed a Student Athlete Drug Policy w/c authorizes random society itself and the government. The arrests were in the nature of capturing enemies of
urinalysis testing for those engaged in athletic programs. Acton was denied admission to the State, and if the officials are justified in killing them given the dangerous situation so
the football program for refusing to submit to the procedure. He assails the validity of the much more are they justified in depriving them temporarily of their liberty.
measure claiming that it amounts to an intrusion upon privacy. There are special needs BOARDS OF EDUC. vs. EARLS urine test for extra-curricular activities / negligible
attendant to the school setting that justify the measure such as the interest to prevent intrusion The Tecumseh School District implemented mandatory urinalysis testing for
drug use among students and athletes. Students who participate in such athletic programs students engaged in extra-curricular activities. It was to test whether the students are
have a reasonably lesser degree of privacy, particularly w/ medical examinations and engaged in drug use. Some students oppose claiming that it violates their right to privacy.
procedures. The intrusion in requiring a urine sample is negligible. The schools, as custodians of the children, are possessed w/ a high degree of tutelary
DD: It likewise does not violate the right against self-incrimination w/c covers only responsibility. Students who engage in extra-curricular activities likewise have less to
testimonial compulsion, not the taking of specimens from the body of the person. expect regarding privacy. The measure is reasonable and the intrusion brought about by
PEOPLE vs. COMPACION marijuana plant used for migraine / no valid intrusion the testing is pretty much negligible. It is exercised pursuant to a legitimate policy w/c is
Compacion was put under surveillance for maintaining marijuana plants in his yard. The to curb the proliferation of drugs in campuses and among the youth.
NARCOM tried to procure a warrant but was unable to (due to office hours) and SOCIAL JUSTICE SOCIETY v. DANGEROUS DRUGS BOARD - There are 3
nevertheless proceeded to Compacions house to make the search and arrest. The consolidated petitions attacking the constitutionality of Section 36 of Republic Act No. (RA)
marijuana plants were allegedly for the use of his wife medicinally. He did not contest their 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, insofar as it
entry given they were heavily armed and intimidating. He was charged for violating the requires mandatory drug testing of candidates for public office, students of secondary and
Dangerous Drugs Act. Mere passive conformity and failure to object to their entry cannot tertiary schools, officers and employees of public and private offices, and persons charged
be construed as a waiver of the right against unreasonable search and seizures. The before the prosecutors office with certain offenses, among other personalities
courts indulge every presumption against the waiver of constitutional rights. The plain What the Philippine court deduced from these two US cases:
view rule cannot likewise apply because the NARCOM had no authority to enter the 1. schools and their administrators stand in loco parentis with respect to their
dwelling w/o a valid warrant. The following requisites must concur: students
1. valid intrusion based on valid warrantless arrest 2. minor students have contextually fewer rights than an adult, and are subject to
2. evidence was inadvertently discovered / they have the right to be where they the custody and supervision of their parents, guardians, and schools
are 3. schools, acting in loco parentis, have a duty to safeguard the health and well-
3. evidence must be immediately apparent being of their students and may adopt such measures as may reasonably be
4. seizure w/ no further search necessary to discharge such duty
PEOPLE vs VALDEZ - Respondent was caught in flagrante delicto and without a search 4. schools have the right to impose conditions on applicants for admission that
warrant of cultivating 7 fully grown marijuana plants. plain view doctrine does not apply to are fair, just, and non-discriminatory.
the case at bar. For the doctrine to apply, the following elements must be present:

13 | M i k e e Retirado 1-C
CONSTI 2: Bernas Casebook 2010 ed.
Updated Darvins Digest

Guided by these cases, the Court holds that the provisions of RA 9165 requiring necessary because a search pursuant to a buy-bust operation is one made incidental to a
mandatory, RANDOM, and SUSPICIONLESS drug testing of students are lawful arrest.
CONSTITUTIONAL. DD: A buy-bust operation is a form of entrapment w/c is not illegal per se. What the
Constitution proscribes is Inducement, where the arresting officer induces an otherwise
Of whatever nature or for any purpose innocent person to commit a crime, and arrests him thereafter.
MATERIAL DISTRIBUTORS (PHIL.) INC. v. NATIVIDAD - Lope Sarreal filed a complaint PEOPLE vs. AMINUNDIN just disembarking from a ship / no warrant / no probable
(to include Harry Lyons) seeking a money judgment against petitioners. Petitioners then cause Based on a tip from an informant, the officers of the Philippine Constabulary waited
moved for reconsideration on the grounds of Article 46 of the Code of Commerce which for Aminundin to disembark from a the M/V Wilcon 9, accosted him, searched his
prohibits the delivery, communication and general examination of the correspondence of belongings, and found what was later confirmed to be marijuana. They were not armed w/
merchants, a substantial right, as well as the petitioners' right to the inviolability of their any warrant. Aminundin was not in flagrante delicto when he was arrested and searched
correspondence as guaranteed by the Constitution would be violated by the order requiring he was merely disembarking from a ship. Hence, there is no probable cause. Mere
the production of the documents. information does not constitute probable cause. The PC had 2 days to procure a warrant
The constitutional guarantee of privacy of communication and correspondence will not be but they did not even exert any effort to comply w/ the law. Since the arrest was invalid, the
violated, because the trial court has power and jurisdiction to issue the order for the search made incidental thereto was likewise invalid.
production and inspection of the books and documents in question in virtue of the HARVEY vs. DEFENSOR-SANTIAGO pedophiles / deportation is not a criminal
constitutional guarantee making an express exception in favor of the disclosure of procedure Harvey, Sherman, and Elshout are aliens arrested upon Order by the
communication and correspondence upon lawful order of a court of justice. Commissioner of Immigration (Miriam) for having engaged in pedophilia. Various effects
CAMARA V. MUNICIPAL COURT - Inspector of the Division of Housing Inspection of the such as videotapes were seized therefrom. They were under close surveillance for 3
San Francisco Department of Public Health entered the apartment building of Camara for months. Deportation proceedings were then instituted against the said aliens. Since the
a routine Annual Inspection for possible violations of the Housing Code. The building deportation proceedings have already been instituted, then, their detention has become
manager informed the inspector that Camara, a lessee of the ground floor, was using the legal, even assuming that to begin with, it was not. Hence, habeas corpus can no longer
rear of his leasehold as a personal residence. The inspector confronted Camara and apply. The probable cause was likewise affirmed by the 3 months of close surveillance.
claimed that the buildings occupancy permit did not allow residential use of the ground The Commissioner of Immigration & Deportation is authorized by the Revised Admin.
floor. Inspector demanded Camara to permit him an inspection. Camara refused because Code to issue warrants. The warrant however must give the alien sufficient info about the
there was no warrant. charges and there must still be due regard for his basic rights. The rule that only judges
The final justification suggested for warrantless administrative searches is that the public issue warrants does not apply to deportation proceedings it is not a criminal but only a
interest demands such a rule: it is vigorously argued that the health and safety of entire preventive measure. Since it is only administrative in nature, bail is not mandatory but is
urban populations is dependent upon enforcement of minimum fire, housing, and discretionary upon the CID.
sanitation standards, and that the only effective means of enforcing such codes is by DD: The Commissioner of Immigration & Deportation may issue warrants only for the
routine systematized inspection of all physical structures. purpose of carrying out a deportation order that has become final and executory.
PEOPLE vs. SUCRO sale of marijuana in chapel / personal knowledge Fulgencio, a
Warrantless Arrests police officer, monitored the activities of Sucro who was allegedly selling marijuana. Under
surveillance, Sucro 3 times sold marijuana along a chapel to 3 different buyers. On the 3rd
IN RE: UMIL vs. RAMOS Rebellion / continuing crime Rolando Dural, a member of the time, the police zeroed in on him and the buyer who tried to escape, threw a tea bag to the
NPA, shot and killed two policemen in furtherance of rebellion. He was confined in the St. ground w/c was found to contain marijuana. The illegal act was committed in the presence
Agnes Hospital when he was arrested w/o a warrant. Mere membership w/ the NPA is a of the arresting officers. He was caught in flagrante delicto, and the search is made
continuing crime w/c is set apart from common crimes hence, warrantless arrests are pursuant to a lawful arrest; hence no warrant is necessary. The arresting officers were
justified on its basis. Dural was no less subversive just because he was confined in a near enough to see the movements of the appellant and the buyer.
hospital; and the nature of the offense impels repetition of the same acts of lawlessness
until the objective of overthrowing the government is attained. PEOPLE vs. RODRIGUEZA big mistake in buy-bust; a certain Don Responding to
intelligence reports regarding the on-going trafficking of drugs, the police conducted a buy-
DD: A rebel will not stop until the overthrow of the government is achieved. Thus, he is bust operation. Taduran posed as the buyer and purchased from a certain Don 100g. of
said to be always in flagrante delicto even when he is asleep. Hence a warrantless arrest marijuana for P 200 (marked money). However, instead of arresting him on the spot,
can be effected against him anytime. Taduran returned to Headquarters and reported the incident. Thereafter, a team was
PEOPLE vs. DE LA CRUZ buy-bust / search incident to lawful arrest Respondent was formed and, w/o a warrant, stormed through Rodriguezas house, confiscated various
apprehended through a buy-bust operation and was charged for violation of the Dangerous effects of marijuana, and arrested both Rodrigueza and his father. For there to be a valid
Drugs Act. He challenges the constitutionality of such operation. It is true that buy-bust warrantless arrest, the person arrested must have been caught in the act. Taduran should
operations are prone to abuse; however they have proven to be the most effective means have arrested him on the spot and such would have been a valid warrantless arrest. The
of addressing drug trafficking. It is more a question of implementation. Through it, the raid of the house w/o a search warrant is likewise illegal. Otherwise, a warrant was
arresting officers catch the malefactor in flagrante delicto. A search warrant is not
14 | M i k e e Retirado 1-C
CONSTI 2: Bernas Casebook 2010 ed.
Updated Darvins Digest

necessary. Further, even if Rodrigueza waived his rights under custodial investigation, the basis of the tip they received, the arresting officers did not have personal knowledge of the
said waiver should have been in the presence of counsel. crime. There was likewise no valid intrusion and the marijuana was not inadvertently
PEOPLE vs. BAGISTA similar to Malmstedt / probable cause / moving vehicle / 23 yr discovered hence the plain view doctrine cannot apply. They had to intentionally peep
old woman curly hair Responding to reliable information stating that there is a woman w/ through the window. They should have 1st conducted a surveillance and then proceeded
curly hair around 52 who will be transporting drugs from the north, the NARCOM to secure a proper warrant before making the intrusion.
established a temporary checkpoint. They flagged a bus and boarded the same, noticed a PEOPLE vs. ESCORDIAL arrested while watching basketball Escordial allegedly
woman of the same description, and inspected her bags revealing marijuana. Searches of committed a crime but was arrested while watching a game in the local basketball court 1
moving vehicles are allowed w/o a warrant provided that there is probable cause. The week after the commission of the crime. Since the warrantless arrest was effected 1 week
NARCOM officers had probable cause to stop ad search the vehicles given the information after the offense, the arresting officers could not possibly have personal knowledge of the
report that they received. The accused likewise fit the description made by the informant. facts constituting the offense. Further, the offense should have just been committed. The
DD: It would seem from the foregoing and from some other similar cases that mere arresting officers thus have no reason for not securing a warrant first before proceeding w/
information may suffice to constitute probable cause provided that the search was made the arrest. However, the fact that Escordial pleaded not guilty and did not question the
of a moving vehicle. The courts seem to tolerate such short-cut arrests or searches even arrest amounts to a waiver of right.
w/o a valid warrant. PEOPLE vs. JAYSON ihaw-ihaw case / pointed to by the bystanders Jayson was a
PEOPLE vs. MENGOTE looking from side to side / no probable cause Based on a bouncer of the Ihaw-Ihaw Nightclub who shot Nelson Jordan. The police officers arrived at
phone call regarding suspicious persons, the police stationed a surveillance team who the scene responding to a radioed order pertaining to the said crime. The bystanders
noticed two men (Mengote & Morellos) looking from side to side and one of them holding pointed to Jayson who was seen running from the crime scene. He was apprehended and
his abdomen. The police approached, and introduced themselves but the men tried to run. searched, and seized form him was the .38 cal pistol. The assailant was pointed to by the
They were caught and a search thereafter yielded a .38 cal gun. There was no probable by-standers only moments after the shooting and such suffices to give the arresting
cause because at the time when the accused was arrested he was merely looking from officers personal knowledge of the facts constituting the commission of the offense.
side to side while holding his abdomen. By no stretch of the imagination was he Jurisprudence has repeatedly upheld such rule.
committing a crime. Furthermore, the police did not have personal knowledge to justify the PEOPLE vs. SALVATIERRA waiver by submitting to jurisdiction Salvatierra was
warrantless arrest and search because all they had was hearsay info from the phone call. charged for the murder (by stabbing) of Charlie Fernandez. He never raised the legality of
GO vs. CA murder due to traffic mishap / warrantless arrest 6 days after the fact While his arrest in his pleadings. He is thus estopped from questioning the legality of the arrest
driving, Go nearly collided w/ Maguan who was driving in the opposite direction on a one- because he voluntarily submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the court and participated in
way street. Go shot Maguan and sped away but his plate number was identified by the the trial.
security guard who, upon being shown a sketch of the perpetrator, confirmed that it PEOPLE vs. HERNANDEZ failure to quash / plea of not guilty amounts to waiver
matched the appearance of Go. The police launched a manhunt. Six days after the Hernandez was arrested w/o the benefit of a warrant but he does not file for a Motion to
shooting, Go showed up at the Station and inquired as to what was going on; he was Quash prior to arraignment. Instead, he enters a plea of not guilty and participates
accompanied by 2 lawyers. Immediately he was arrested. There is no valid warrantless voluntarily in trial. Failure to file a Motion to Quash prior to arraignment amounts to a
arrest if the crime had not just been committed. In this case, it was 6 days ago. None of waiver of the right to question the validity of the arrest. Also, filing a bail bond amounts to
the arresting officers had personal knowledge of the circumstances of the offense. such waiver.
Warrantless arrest must immediately follow the commission of the crime. Murder is not a DD: Under the present state of law, filing a Bail Bond no longer amounts to a waiver of the
continuing crime that would justify the warrantless arrest anytime. right to question the validity of the arrest (Okabe vs. Judge de Leon).
PEOPLE vs. MANLULU 1 a.m. killing, 7 p.m. arrest / personal knowledge, not
gathering of info Manlulu was arrested w/o warrant for having killed another person at Entrapment
around 1:00 a.m. The warrantless arrest, however, was made around 7:00 p.m. some 19
hours later. For there to be a lawful warrantless arrest, the arresting officer must have PEOPLE vs. DORIA entrapment / objective & subjective test PO3 Manlangit posed as
personal knowledge of the offense w/c has in fact just been committed. Further, that Pat. a buyer of marijuana; the informant initially contracted the accused Doria to deal w/ him.
Perez personally gathered the info does not suffice what the law states is personal As a result, Doria was apprehended as he handed a brick of marijuana to Manlangit.
knowledge, not personal gathering of the information. Entrapment in US jurisprudence is equivalent to Instigation in our jurisprudence. In
Philippine law, instigation is prohibited while entrapment is generally allowed. In
DD: Even if an arresting officer has personal knowledge of the facts constituting the crime, entrapment, the criminal impulse originates from the mind of the accused; while in
he can only effect a warrantless arrest if the crime has just been committed. If a sufficient instigation, it is the arresting officer who encourages the perpetrator to commit the crime.
amount of time lapses as to allow him to procure a warrant, then he must do so. Instigation is a good defense in criminal proceedings, entrapment is not.
PEOPLE vs. BOLASA peeping through the window Tipped by an anonymous caller Both objective phase and subjective phase must be applied to test the validity of the
PO3s Salonga and Carizon parked their car 300 m. from the alleged den, and then entrapment. In the objective phase, it is necessary to determine if the arresting officers
proceeded to peep through the window where they saw a man and woman packing conducted themselves w/in permissible bounds. In the subjective test, the circumstances
marijuana. They entered the premises and seized the various effects therein. Solely on the

15 | M i k e e Retirado 1-C
CONSTI 2: Bernas Casebook 2010 ed.
Updated Darvins Digest

of the accused, such as previous criminal records, must be considered. Given the otherwise, as prescribed by law. Any evidence obtained in violation of this or the
circumstances of the case, clearly Doria is guilty of selling marijuana. preceding section shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding.
Right to Privacy & the Exclusionary Rule
Stop and frisk PEOPLE vs. MARTI package of marijuana / intrusion by private person Marti & Shirley
TERRY vs. OHIO stop and frisk Detective McFadden was observing 2 persons who Reyes employed the services of Manila Packaging & Export Forwarders for the purpose of
were suspiciously walking back and forth and pausing to stare at the same store and sending a package to a friend in Switzerland. Shirley refused to have the box inspected
conversing suspiciously amongst themselves. They converged w/ a 3rd person and it was and claimed that it contained merely cigars and books. However, Job Reyes, a co-
at this time that McFadden approached them and introduced himself. They mumbled proprietor, opened the boxes during a routine inspection and suspected that the contents
something; then McFadden spun them around, frisked them, and found concealed pistols were illegal drugs. Thus, he forwarded the contents to the NBI w/c confirmed that they
w/in their outer clothing. When a reasonably prudent officer believes that there exists a were marijuana. The NBI proceeded to the exporters and supervised the complete opening
threat to the public, he may make searches for weapons against persons whom he of the package. Marti assails the admissibility of the drugs as evidence against him.
believes to be harmful and dangerous. The protection conferred by the Bill of Rights is intended as a restraint against the State,
The reasonableness is determined based on the circumstances of the case. In this case, not against private persons. The contents of the box came to the possession of the State
the actions of the accuseds reasonably corroborate the officers theory that they were w/o transgressing the right to privacy because it was a private individual who opened the
planning a daylight armed robbery. The search was limited to what was reasonably package. The NBI made no search and seizure it was Reyes who did it. Mere presence
required by the circumstances; hence it is a valid search. of the NBI during the search does not make it the kind of search prohibited.
MALACAT vs. CA fast eyes / no genuine belief In response to a bomb threat, Rodolfo DD: When a private individual violates another persons right to privacy, the evidence
Yu of the WPD and other officers stationed themselves near the Mercury Drugstore in obtained therefrom is admissible; however the violator could be held civilly liable under
Plaza Miranda where they observed 2 groups of Muslim-looking men who were acting Article 32 of the New Civil Code.
suspiciously and with eyes moving very fast. As the officers approached the said groups, RAMIREZ vs. CA tape recorded slandering A verbal altercation ensued between
they ran but were apprehended and a search of their persons yielded a hand grenade and Garcia and Ramirez, who was allegedly vexed and humiliated by the former. On the
a .38 cal pistol. Yu did not issue any receipt for the grenade. They were charged w/ illegal occasion of a confrontation, Ramirez tape-recorded the altercation w/o the knowledge and
possession of explosives. The trial court sustained the search. The alleged perpetrators consent of Garcia. Garcia thus sues for violation of the Anti-Wiretapping Act (RA No.
were not in flagrante delicto when they were arrested and searched. The allegation that 4200). Sec. 1 of the said law clearly makes it illegal for any person, not authorized by the
they had eyes moving very fast was very doubtful and could not have justified the parties to a private conversation, to secretly record such communication using a tape
existence of probable cause. Hence, since the arrest was invalid, any search made recorder. Either the parties themselves, or 3rd persons who invaded their privacy may be
incidental thereto, is likewise illegal. liable for therefor the law does not distinguish. However, the use of a telephone
While probable cause is not necessary to stop-and frisk, mere suspicion will likewise not extension does not violate the RA No. 4200 because its use is not expressly enumerated
validate it. A genuine reason must exist to warrant a belief that the person has weapons therein; penal laws are strictly construed.
concealed. Nothing in the accuseds behavior then would warrant such suspicion. SILAHIS INTERNATIONAL V. SOLUTA -Coronel Floro Maniego who was the General
PEOPLE vs. CHUA Zest-O Box / no stop-and-frisk / no in flagrante delicto As Chua Manager of the hotels security agency had been receiving reports that sale and/or use of
arrived w/in the vicinity of Thunder Inn Hotel carrying a Zest-O box, he was hurriedly marijuana, dollar smuggling, and prostitution were going on in the union office at the hotel
accosted by the police, searched and arrested for possession of drugs. There was no and that there was a theft syndicate. In the present case, the reports regarding illegal
probable cause to justify a warrantless arrest; hence any search incidental thereto is also activities had been arriving since late 1987 which gives the petitioners ample time to obtain
void. He was not in flagrante delicto. There is likewise no valid stop-and-frisk. For it to a search warrant prior to their search.
apply, the police must 1st approach and introduce himself, ask initial questions, and
restrain a person who manifests unusual conduct and search for possible weapons. The Waiver of rights
accused did not manifest any unusual conduct. In stop-and-frisk, the introduction must be PEOPLE vs. DAMASO personal right / may be waived only by the injured party The
before the search, not thereafter. group of Lt. Quijardo entered the dwelling of Damaso w/o a valid warrant when the latter
Given the fact that the accused has been under surveillance for 2 years, there absolutely is was absent. Only Tancianco and Morados were there, the latter being a mere helper.
no excuse for not obtaining a valid warrant of arrest. When they opened the door, the authorities saw copier machines, an M-14 rifle,
ammunition, and other items used for the purpose of committing subversion. The right
BILL OF RIGHTS against unreasonable searches and seizures cannot be waived by anyone except by the
SECTION 3 person whose rights are injured or one who is expressly authorized to make the waiver in
his behalf. Morados, being a mere helper, does not qualify as a person authorized to waive
Section 3. The privacy of communication and correspondence shall be inviolable such right in representation of her employer. The search thus being invalid for lack of
except upon lawful order of the court, or when the public safety or order requires warrant evidence obtained therefrom is inadmissible.

16 | M i k e e Retirado 1-C
CONSTI 2: Bernas Casebook 2010 ed.
Updated Darvins Digest

SPOUSES VEROY vs. LAYAGUE qualified consent and waiver The Veroy Spouses SECTION 4
moved to Quezon City and left their Davao City house to a caretaker who only had keys Section 4.No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression,
only up to the kitchen thereof. They maintained possession of the keys to the bedrooms. or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the
Capt. Obrero raided the said house based on a report that rebel soldiers are allegedly government for redress of grievances.
hiding therein. They only entered up to the yard since they did not have a warrant. They
contacted Ma. Luisa Veroy, the wife, who allowed entry to their house subject to the
condition that it be monitored by Major Macasaet a personal friend. The consent was Prior Restraint
only for the purpose of finding out if rebel soldiers were indeed hiding there. NEAR vs. MINNESOTA Saturday Press / scandalous criticism / prior restraint The
However, despite the qualified consent, the officers however entered various rooms, Session Law of Minnesota (1925) mandated the abatement, as public nuisances, of
including the childrens room, and confiscated various subversive items such as a malicious, scandalous, and defamatory publications. Enjoined from publication as a result
handgun, printed materials w/ subversive indicia, ammunition, and other such items. The of this provision is The Saturday Press, owned by the petitioner Near, w/c published
permission was granted only for the purpose of ascertaining the presence of rebel soldiers. articles critical of certain local public personalities such as Mayor Leach, Chief of Police
In order for them to be allowed to conduct a search therein, they should have obtained a Brunskill, and County Attorney Olson, among others. The articles allege that the said
warrant. Just because the items were allegedly subject to an offense mala prohibita officials are not energetically performing their duties in preventing gambling, racketeering,
(subversion) it does not mean that they can be summarily seized w/o a valid warrant. bootlegging, and other crimes allegedly controlled by a certain Jew.
PEOPLE vs. EVARISTO gunshot sounds / personal knowledge / inadvertent discovery The statute does not aim to provide remedies for any wrong that may be committed
Officers Vallarta and Romeroso, among others, were on routine patrol when they heard through publication; rather it is aimed towards prevention. Its object is not punishment but
bursts of gunfire. They proceeded to where the sound came from and saw Rosillo who ran rather suppression. The very nature of criticism implies that the imputations be to some
to the house of Evaristo. Vallarta noticed the bulge on Evaristos waist and frisked him extent scandalous. Although no penalty is provided, continued publication would make the
revealing a .38 cal revolver. Romeroso sought the consent of Evaristo for the entry into the publisher liable for contempt. Authority to resume publication thus becomes discretionary
latters house to w/c he consented. Upon entry they found various firearms, upon the court and would require presentation of evidence to substantiate whatever
paraphernalia, and other effects. allegations are contained therein and this typically amounts to prior restraint. It is a form
of censorship repugnant to the constitutional guarantee of freedom of expression and of
The plain view doctrine will apply to the seizure of the firearms & effects because their the press.
discovery was inadvertent. The purpose for the entry (w/c was consented to by Evaristo)
was to search for Rosillo, hence the discovery of the firearms was accidental. The arrest NEW YORK TIMES vs. US Vietnam Files / national security The US Government
and search upon the person of Evaristo was likewise justified. The gunfire, the bulge in his sought to enjoin the NY Times & Washington Post from publishing the History of US
waist, and the peace officers professional instinct more than suffice to grant him personal Decision-Making on Vietnam Policy based on national security considerations. Any prior
knowledge of the facts of the crime that has just been committed. restraint upon the freedom of the press bears a heavy presumption against its
constitutionality. The Government must clearly make out a case to overcome this
For there to be a valid waiver of rights, the following requisites must attend: presumption and in this case, it failed.
1. The person must be possessed of such right The First Amendment tolerates absolutely no prior restraints upon the press predicated
2. He must know of the existence of the right upon beliefs that untoward consequences may result therefrom. The press must be left
3. He must have actual intention to waive his right free to publish news, whatever the source, w/o censorship or restraint. Only a free and
OKABE vs. JUDGE - Respondent Cecilia Maruyama filed a complaint charging petitioner unrestrained press can effectively expose government deception to the people. There is no
Teresita Tanghal Okabe with estafa. Petitioner questioned the irregularity of the informed populace w/o an informed press. There is, also, no act of Congress relied upon
determination of probable cause during the preliminary investigation.Respondent judge by the State to justify the restraint. Congress itself has opted not to enact such laws.
ruled that the posting of bail and the filing motions for relief estopped the petitioner from Since the Executive possesses unshared power to regulate national defense and conduct
questioning the same. The respondent judge considered the bail filed by the petitioner as a foreign relations, it is likewise its responsibility to protect the confidentiality of its own
waiver of her right to assail the warrant issued for her arrest. records. Only in times of war may prior restraints possibly be justified.
The new rule has reverted to the ruling of this Court in People v. Red. The new rule is DD: According to the dissent, the Executive possesses the wisdom to determine up to
curative in nature because precisely, it was designed to supply defects and curb evils in what extent publication of such information will prejudice the national interest. This is in
procedural rules. Curative statutes are by their essence retroactive in application. There keeping w/ the principle of the separation of powers.
must be clear and convincing proof that the petitioner had an actual intention to relinquish FREEDMAN vs. MARYLAND Revenge at Daybreak / delay amounts to restraint /
her right to question the existence of probable cause. The posting of a personal bail bond safeguards Freedman, a theatre owner, was convicted for having shown Revenge at
was a matter of imperative necessity to avert her incarceration; it should not be deemed as Daybreak w/o having submitted the same to the Board of Censors for review. The
a waiver of her right to assail her arrest. Maryland Motion Picture Statute requires the time-consuming appeal to the courts once
exhibition of a proposed film is denied by the Board. Further, no time limit is imposed upon
BILL OF RIGHTS the Board to decide whether to allow the showing of a film submitted to it for review. In the
area of freedom of expression, one has standing to challenge the constitutionality of a
17 | M i k e e Retirado 1-C
CONSTI 2: Bernas Casebook 2010 ed.
Updated Darvins Digest

particular regulation if it allegedly delegates excessively broad licensing ability upon an In the absence of substantial compliance w/ the requirements of due process and in the
administrative office. Likewise, restraint always bears a heavy burden against its absence of clear and present danger, the summary closure is deemed null and void.
constitutionality. TOLENTINO vs. SEC. OF FINANCE VAT on publications The enactment of the VAT
Adequate safeguards to obviate dangers of censorship must be put in place. Final decision Law (RA No. 7166) in effect removed the tax exemptions previously conferred by the
regarding the suitability for publication must be in the hands of the judiciary, not an National Internal Revenue Code upon print media. The Finance Secretary enacted a
administrative branch. The procedure must also assure prompt decision and quell the Regulation exempting circulation income but not income acquired through advertising.
deterrent effects of interim or erroneous denials of license. The Maryland Statute fails to There is no violation of press freedom in this case. The press is not immune from the
meet the criteria. general regulations by the State. They must pay equitable taxes just like all other
It requires recourse to the court and the exhibitor assumes the burden of proof to establish businesses. Imposition of reasonable taxes does not amount to prior restraint. The press is
that it is protected expression. Pending approval, the film cannot be exhibited; otherwise it not being singled out; instead the State merely takes back what it had once conferred tax
may give rise to contempt. There is no assurance of prompt judicial action, hence the exemption.
statute is unconstitutional. All the circumstances put together paints a clear picture of prior Allegations that such taxes will drive some publications out of business are unfounded.
restraint. The imposition of registration fees likewise violates no right; it is not a pre-condition to the
AYER PRODUCTIONS vs. JUDGE CAPULONG EDSA 4-Day Revolution / public exercise of any right but is merely an administrative fee.
figure Ayer Productions produced the Four Day Revolution depicting the events that ALEXANDER vs. US porno guy / prior restraint vs. subsequent punishment Ferris
transpired during the EDSA people power revolution. It combined fictitious characters w/ Alexander was engaged in the adult entertainment industry for more than 30 years. He
real-life ones in order to portray the Filipino culture and the historic events that transpired. was convicted for obscenity as well as for violation of the Racketeer Influenced & Corrupt
It was a docu-drama production for television viewing in coordination w/ HBO. FVR himself Organizations Law (RICO Law). As a result, several of his assets amounting to millions of
gave his consent to the showing of the film, but Juan Ponce Enrile objected and invoked dollars, including his porn and adult stores and enterprises were foreclosed. He alleges
his right to privacy. The freedom of expression is granted both to locally-owned and that the foreclosure amounts to prior restraint against his future expression.
foreign-owed production companies. That the exhibition of said film is for profit is of no The concepts of prior restraint and subsequent punishment are different. The foreclosure
moment. imposed upon him is a punishment for criminal conduct, not a prior restraint against his
There is no dispute that Enrile is a public figure given the role he has played in EDSA and freedom of expression. The foreclosure does not impose a ban on any future expression
the fact that he is a Senator. A limited intrusion upon the privacy of a public person is he might make; it only deprived him of specific assets w/c were found to be related to his
permissible if the info sought to be elicited from him is a matter of public concern. previous racketeering violations. He may return to his porno businesses anytime w/o being
The rules of clear and present danger as well as the balancing of interest are applied. cited for contempt; it is just that he cannot finance those activities using assets derived
There was no clear and present danger since there was no knowledge yet of the actual from racketeering.
contents of the film. With regard to the balancing of interest test, the intrusion is fairly DD: In this case. Alexander was being punished, not for the expression of his ideas, but
reasonable in order to keep the film a truthful historical account. The producer, however, rather for his having derived proceeds from racketeering. Free expression was never the
assumes the responsibility not to divulge intimate or purely private matters pertaining to issue in this case.
Enrile or any of the characters therein, and there must be due regard for the truthfulness NEWSOUNDS BROADCASTING vs. DY - Petitioners are broadcasting networks which
and accuracy of the events. run Bombo Radyo and Star FM. However, it was upon their application for renewal in 2002
EASTERN BROADCASTING vs. DANS summary closure Radio Station DYRE was that the petitioners were denied the mayors permit.
summarily closed for national security reasons for allegedly having aired subversive The restriction made by the respondents was arbitrary and was not content-neutral but
programs. The said programs were geared more towards public affairs. It is a recognized content-based. Only content-neutral regulations are allowed. Content-neutral regulation is
rule that broadcasters have to be licensed. They do not possess the same scope of concerned with incidents of speech or control over the time, place, manner. Regulations
freedom as that of publications. The rules on administrative due process under the Ang that can be across similar businesses while Content-based restraint refer to control over
Tibay Ruling must govern. In this case, there was no opportunity to be heard, and there the subject matter of the speech.
was mere summary closure. Public officials do not posses the power to simply summarily
close down broadcasting stations or arbitrarily deny its license. This amounts to
curtailment and prior restraint. Subsequent Punishment
The clear and present danger rule must be applied. After all, the government has the GONZALES vs. COMELEC campaign law / early nomination / political campaigning
right to be secure against broadcasts intended to incite persons to overthrow it. There was Responding to the undesired reality of prolonged political campaigns, RA No. 4880 was
clearly no such danger in this case. Mere criticism of public officials does not amount to enacted containing 2 assailed provisions, Sec. 50-A prohibiting the early nomination of
inciting to sedition or subversive acts. IN the case at bar, there is no grave and imminent candidates by parties, and Sec. 50-B limiting the period of campaign and partisan political
danger of a substantive evil that the government has the right to protect against. activity. It does not, however, prohibit the common expression of thoughts or the mention
of names relating to the elections. Freedom of expression, and the right to freely associate
are not absolute. They are both affected in this case. The right to associate is not impaired;
the scope of activities is merely limited.
18 | M i k e e Retirado 1-C
CONSTI 2: Bernas Casebook 2010 ed.
Updated Darvins Digest

The dangerous tendency doctrine permitted the application of restrictions once there is a 3. The governmental interest is unrelated to the suppression of free expression
rational connection between the speech and the danger apprehended, and the tendency of 4. The incidental restriction on alleged First Amendment freedoms is no greater
one to create the other is shown. This doctrine has already been abandoned. than is essential to the furtherance of that interest.
In the clear and present danger rule, the court must find that the evil sought to be avoided DD: In this case, the impairment of free speech was merely an incidental effect of the
is both serious and imminent to a high degree. It must be present and inevitable. The enforcement of the law. The law was not targeted towards free speech.
balancing of interest test, on the other hand, mandates the court to determine w/c of the BLUE RIBBON COMMITTEE vs. JUDGE MAJADUCON gross ignorance / no
two conflicting demands particular speech or conduct against that of the public order malignant intent Pursuant to Resolutions filed by Sen. Ople and Sen. Sotto, the Blue
demands greater protection based on the circumstances. In the case at bar, it was the Ribbon Committee conducted inquiries regarding a possible coup detat as well as alleged
balancing of interest test that was applied in determining the validity of Sections 50-A and mismanagement of military retirement and benefit funds. It probed the purchase of a lot
50-B of RA No. 4880. While the Court has expressed doubt as to the constitutionality of from Atty. Flaviano for P 10,500 per sq.m. The Registry of Deeds disclosed that the
the provisions insofar as they are vague and defective, the required 2/3 vote to declare it purchase price is only P 3,000 per sq.m. Flaviano refused to appear during the inquiries
unconstitutional was not attained. after having been summoned and filed for a TRO w/ Judge Majaducon, w/c the latter
PEOPLE vs. PEREZ lets cut off Woods head w/ bolos! / seditious Isaac Perez, the granted. The Committee, through Sen. Pimentel, countered w/ a petition for certiorari w/c
Municipal Secretary of Pilar, Sorsogon, was charged for inciting to sedition for having alleged gross ignorance of the law on the part of Majaducon. It was published in the
uttered seditious words while engaged in a discussion, where he said that the Filipinos Philippine Star and as a result, Majaducon, motu propio, found Pimentel guilty of indirect
should all get bolos and cut of Gov. Gen. Woods head for recommending bad things for contempt.
the Filipinos and for killing the independence. He was charged for violating certain The term gross ignorance of the law is a description of normal usage in law to describe
provisions of the Penal Code. Free speech is permitted even if critical of the government, acts of lower courts that are challenged before higher tribunals. There is no malignant
but when the intention and effect is seditious, they are not protected speech. In the case at intention behind its usage. It does not constitute improper conduct that tends to obstruct or
bar, there was a seditious tendency in the words used, and it could easily cause degrade the administration of justice. Further, the contempt power should be used
disaffection among the people. It was made to stir up the people to rise against the lawful correctively, and not in a retaliatory manner. Publications, likewise exercise discretion as to
authorities. what material they would publish and Pimentel or the Committee cannot be faulted for the
DD: This is a very old case decided during the American Occupation. The rule applied Philippine Star articles.
here is the dangerous tendency doctrine. This rule no longer holds ground under the DD: The TRO issued by Judge Majaducon against the appearance of Atty. Flaviano during
present state of law. the Senate inquiries was a clear violation of the separation of powers. That is why Sen.
DENNIS vs. UNITED STATES conspiring communists / advocacy vs. discussion Pimentel alleged gross ignorance of the law on his part.
Dennis and the other petitioners were convicted for conspiring to organize the Communist SANIDAD vs. COMELEC plebiscite / restraint / no legal basis The COMELEC
Party of the United States, w/c advocates the destruction and overthrow of the promulgated Res. No. 2167 to govern the conduct of the plebiscite for the approval of the
government. They transformed the Communist Political Association into the Communist Cordillera Autonomous Region Organic Act. It prohibits the use of columns or
Party and changed its policy from peaceful cooperation to that of violent overthrow. There commentaries from campaigning for or against plebiscite issues during the campaign
is no doubt that it is w/in the power of Congress to enact measures to protect the security period. It uses BP No. 881 as basis, w/c prohibits the sale or granting of and space or air
of the State from armed rebellion. time to candidates during the election period and requires leave of absence of candidates
However, given the fact that the crimes sought to be prevented contain elements of free engaged in the broadcast or print media business.
speech, they deserve special and careful consideration. The clear and present danger rule In a plebiscite there are no candidates, only issues are voted upon hence BP No. 881
must be applied in order to sustain a conviction based on evidence taking the form of cannot apply. While the restriction does not absolutely bar the freedom of expression, it is
speech and expression. In the case at bar, the prohibition is directed against advocacy, not still a restriction upon his choice of where to express his views, and no sufficient
discussion. The right of the people to free discussion is not impaired. The probability of justification has been advanced in support of the prohibition.
success of the rebels is of no moment; what is important is that the requisite danger exists.
We cannot bind the government to inaction until it is too late and in this case, there was DD: Free discussion of the issues pertaining to the plebiscite must, in fact, be encouraged
clearly a group ready to make an attempt at any time. rather than curtailed so as to allow the voters to cast enlightened and well-informed votes.
US vs. OBRIEN burning of certificate / incidental restriction OBrien and 3 other NATIONAL PRESS CLUB vs. COMELEC ban on political ads [The law banning
companions burned their Selective Service Certificates outside of a Boston Courthouse, in political ads has since been repealed but the Court made this important observation which
front of a crowd, in order to influence them to accept his anti-war beliefs. It must be noted is still pertinent] The technical effect of Article IX (C) 4 ofThe COMELEC promulgated a
that there is an existing law penalizing the intentional destruction of the said certificate; he Resolution banning political ads other than those dedicated to the COMELEC time or
assails the validity of such law for violating his right to symbolic speech. COMELEC hour. The freedom of expression is a preferred right and may not be curtailed
except on the basis of a substantial and clear government interest in this case, to
A government regulation is sufficiently justified if (Obrien Test): prevent the evident degradation of the electoral process. The right to expression is not
1. It is within the constitutional power of the Government absolutely curtailed but is merely regulated in the interest of the public. The regulation is
2. It furthers an important or substantial governmental interest thus valid.
19 | M i k e e Retirado 1-C
CONSTI 2: Bernas Casebook 2010 ed.
Updated Darvins Digest

There is not even any allegation that the ads are misleading. Although there is a legitimate
Speech and the electoral process government interest in this case, the government went overboard by employing means that
ADIONG vs. COMELEC no posters, decals,stickers allowed / restraint / property rights are too sweeping and curtail fundamental liberties.
The COMELEC promulgated Res. No. 2347 w/c provides that decals and posters may only B. PHARMACEUTICAL vs. SECRETARY OF HEALTH - Milk Code, banning of ads
be posted on authorized posting areas such as campaign headquarters, candidates alternative to breastfeeding is invalid - Although the advertising and promotion of breast
residences, common posted areas, etc. It also prohibits the exhibition of stickers and milk substitutes fall within the ambit of commercial/economic speech which is not accorded
decals in mobile places such as vehicles. The regulation unduly infringes upon a citizens the same level of protection like the protected speeches in our Constitution, it is
right to free speech. There is no adequate government interest endangered that would nonetheless entitled to protection. The absolute ban on advertising of breast milk
justify the curtailment; there is no clear and present danger. It likewise strikes at the substitutes is unduly restrictive and is more than necessary to further the avowed
freedom of the individual to express his preference and support and sweeps too broadly governmental interest of promoting the health of infants and young children.
invading the area of protected freedoms. It is also too loosely worded such that even
posting in ones residence (non-candidate) or car is illegal. It infringes upon the lawful use CITY OF LADUE vs. GILLEO law against Residential Signs is invalid / Peace in the
of private property. That the law intends to equalize the playing field in favor of the poorer Gulf Respondent was a resident of Ladue who placed a sign by her residence saying For
candidates is immaterial as it is merely of a marginal significance. Peace in the Gulf expressing her opposition to a war in the Persian Gulf. Discrimination is
ABS-CBN vs. COMELEC exit polls / speculative The COMELEC promulgated a assumed because the ordinance restricts too little speech and the exemptions provided
Resolution to enjoin the ABS-CBN from conducting and reporting the results of exit polls, are on the basis of the signs messages, or on the ground that it prohibits too much
claiming that it could prejudice the results of the election, promote bandwagon mentality, protected speech.
and impair the secrecy of the ballot. Even if the governments purpose is legitimate, it
cannot be pursued by means w/c broadly stifle fundamental liberties. There must be a RUBIN vs. COORS BREWING strength wars / direct advancement of interest The
substantial government interest involved to justify restrictions upon free expression, not Federal Alcohol Admin. Act prohibits the display of alcohol content in the beer labels and
mere speculations. There is no showing of any chaos or confusion brought about by the hence rejected the respondents application for the approval of its labels. The aim is to
conduct of exit polls. The secrecy of the ballot is not exposed because participation in the curb the so-called strength wars, where brewers compete on the basis of the strength of
exit polls is voluntary and the actual ballots are not exposed. alcohol content. The government has a significant interest in preserving the health and
SWS vs. COMELEC surveys / direct & total suppression / disproportionate The Fair safety of the citizens, however, the said labeling cannot directly and materially advance the
Election Act prohibits the publication of election surveys 15 days before the national governments aim because there are provisions in the same act that tend to undermine the
elections, and 7 days before local elections, allegedly to prevent the manipulation of the means employed. For example, the law allows liquors to be identified as malt liquors to
electoral process by the publication of erroneous and unscrupulous surveys. The SWS and emphasize the strength of its alcohol content. There are more direct ways to achieve the
Kamahalan Publishing (Manila Standard) assail the validity of such provisions. While the aim of the government w/o intruding upon the right to free expression, such as directly
prohibition may be for a limited time only, it is direct and absolute and constitutes the total regulating alcohol content, etc.
suppression of a category of speech: publication of surveys. The suppression is clearly CINCINNATI vs. DISCOVERY NETWORK news racks / reasonable fit standard The
greater than that w/c is necessary to further the government interest. The Admin. Code State of Cincinnati authorized Discovery to maintain free-standing news racks for the
provides ways by w/c the purpose may be more narrowly pursued such as by punishing purpose of distributing free magazines for the advertisement of its services. It was later
unlawful acts instead of punishing or prohibiting free expression itself. It likewise revoked on the basis of an old ordinance prohibiting news racks for aesthetic reasons. The
constitutes prior restraint. city has failed to discharge its burden to establish a reasonable fit between its interest in
safety and aesthetics and the means it chose to attain those ends w/c intruded upon free
Commercial Speech speech. Commercial and non-commercial publications are equally responsible for the
CENTRAL HUDSON GAS & ELEC. CORP. vs. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION clutter but the city failed to justify the differential treatment between the two types of news
commercial ads, law against electricity ads is void -The NY Public Service Commission racks. There were equal protection issues involved in this case.
banned the electric utility from advertising to promote the use of electricity the aim being
to promote energy conservation. It is true that commercial expression is afforded a lesser Speech and Judicial Process
degree of protection; however, it is still protected against unwarranted government IN RE: REQUEST FOR TV COVERAGE OF ERAP TRIAL rights of the accused prevail
regulation. The following are guidelines for the States regulation of commercial / prohibiting the live telecast of hearing is valid A request for possible TV coverage of the
speech and expression: Estrada plunder trial in the Sandiganbayan was filed but was rejected by the same court.
1. The advertisement must not be misleading Live video coverage is prohibited in order to protect the right of the parties to due process,
2. There must be a substantial government interest prevent the distraction of proceedings, avoid the miscarriage of justice, and to avoid
3. The regulation must directly advance the government interest prejudice and pressure during the trial. In case of seeming conflict, the rights of the
accused under criminal trial prevail over the rights of others to free expression or
4. It must not be more extensive than necessary. information on matters of public concern.

20 | M i k e e Retirado 1-C
CONSTI 2: Bernas Casebook 2010 ed.
Updated Darvins Digest

IN RE: PETITION TO ANNUL 98-7-02 SC prohibiting demonstrations in vicinity of Supreme Court has yet to rule upon the matter of its legality arguing that the Philippines
courts is invalid The said Resolutions prohibit demonstrations along premises w/in a is not yet ready to adopt the more liberal policy enunciated in Freedman vs. Maryland.
200m. radius of the Supreme Court or other courts because such activities interrupt and Libel
hamper the working conditions in the said courts. It is for the purpose of assuring the POLICARPIO vs. MANILA TIMES publications must be true, fair and in good faith,
people impartial and orderly administration of justice. The court is, after all, empowered by otherwise, it may be libelous / sensationalized news / unfair Lumen Policarpio was the
the Constitution to promulgate rules for the purpose of protecting rights. Exec. Secretary of the local UNESCO National Commission. She terminated Herminia
US vs. GRACE prohibition of display of flags & banners in SC sidewalks is valid / Reyes from the service; and the latter countered by filing a case for estafa thru falsification
protected speech Title 40 of the USC prohibits the display of such devices w/in the vicinity and malversation of public funds against her. The issue was published by the Manila
of the US Supreme Court or any of its grounds including sidewalks constituting the outer Times, but it reported that the case was filed by the Presidential Complaint and Action
bounds of the premises. Persons bearing picket signs or distributing leaflets were Commission (PCAC) pursuant to an administrative investigation. It did not indicate that the
threatened w/ arrest on the basis of the said law. Picketing and leaflet distribution are alleged stencils Policarpio used for private purposes amounted to only P54.00 and that the
covered by protected speech. An absolute prohibition of a particular type of expression will reimbursements she made were for certain trips. In short, the Manila Times
only be upheld if based on compelling governmental interests. Such prohibition likewise sensationalized the issue and made them appear to be far more serious than they actually
does not serve substantially the purpose to maintain law and order on Court grounds. are putting Policarpio in an unfavorable light.
DD: This is a United States case; in case of conflict, local jurisprudence must be favored. In order to enjoy immunity, a publication containing derogatory info must be both TRUE
Additional Cases and FAIR, and must be made in GOOD FAITH, w/o comments or remarks.
IGLESIA NI CRISTO vs. CA attacks against other sects / no clear and present danger Every defamatory imputation is presumed to be malicious if there is no good intention or
Certain programs of the Iglesia were given an x-rating by the MTRCB for attacking the justifying motive, except for the following:
dogmas of other religions and were thus prevented from being aired. Thus this petition. (1) private communication and
The right to religion has been accorded a preferred status and involves both the freedom (2) a fair and true report made in good faith, w/o comments and remarks (Art. 354
to believe, and the freedom to act upon ones beliefs. The free and outward exercise of RPC).
religion may be regulated by the State when it will bring about a clear and present danger
of some substantive evil and if it is inimical to society. In the case at bar, the article was clearly unfair; and even if they acted in good faith under
a misapprehension of facts, Manila Times is still guilty of negligence. Even assuming that a
The conduct of the MTRCB clearly amounts to prior restraint in this case. Simply criticizing subsequent article was published to rectify the error, it does not wipe out the responsibility
other religions does not pose a clear and present danger, and the MTRCB cannot prohibit arising from the publication of the 1st article although it mitigates liability.
such criticisms, no matter how unclean they are, in the absence of such danger. The clear
and present danger test was not properly applied in this case. LOPEZ vs. CA hoax of the year / wrong guy! / negligence / classificatory article will only
reduce liability, not absolve Fidel Cruz was a sanitary officer assigned in Babuyan Islands
DD: Mudslinging is common to the free market of religious dogmas. These expressions, no who made a distress signal to the passing USAF plane, w/c dropped an emergency-
matter how odious they are, cannot be curtailed unless they begin to pose a clear and sustenance kit w/ a radio. He used the radio to contact Manila, concocting a story that a
present danger. mad killer s on the loose, prompting the authorities to send a rescue squad. An article was
MTRCB vs. ABS-CBN Prosti-tuition / jurisdiction of MTRCB / all TV shows The Inside published by the Manila Chronicle, but erroneously used the picture of Fidel G. Cruz, a
Story, produced and hosted by Loren Legarda, aired the segment Prosti-Tuition depicting businessman from Bulacan, who then sued for libel. The Chronicle published a
female students moonlighting as prostitutes. The name of Philippine Womens University subsequent article expressing their sincere regrets for the mistake, w/c was displayed
was mentioned and the faade of the PWU Building was used as background for the said conspicuously. Generally, a newspaper should not be held to account for honest mistakes
show. It caused uproar w/in the said school, particularly its administration, leading to the or imperfection in the choice of words to the point of suppression. However, in this case,
filing of suit before the MTRCB. The show was not submitted for approval to the MTRCB; they were not even under the pressure of a deadline, as the article was published in a
hence the ABS-CBN was penalized for showing it. weekly magazine. Hence they failed to observe reasonable care and are thus held liable
The MTRCB is empowered by law to disapprove the show or the exhibition of various therefor. Subsequent rectification does not erase the liability for the previous article.
forms of media w/c are immoral, indecent, contrary to law or good customs, derogatory to Dissent of Justice Dizon:
the prestige of the Republic of the Philippines, or w/c tend to encourage the commission of There is no evidence of actual malice in this case, and it clearly falls w/in the ambit of
crimes or violence. ALL television programs, whether religious, documentary, or otherwise excusable negligence. Hence, the Chronicle should not be held liable.
are subject to the MTRCBs review powers. The only exceptions are those programs aired
by the Government and newsreels w/c is simply straight news reporting. The Inside Story DD: The Supreme Court seems to have departed from the Policarpio and Lopez Rulings
cannot be considered a newsreel because it contains analyses, commentaries, and and has been very lenient towards the media as illustrated by the succeeding cases. Even
opinions. when the media is guilty of sensationalizing or even negligence, the Supreme Court
absolved them in the absence of clear and actual malice unless they clearly intrude upon
DD: Despite the doubtful constitutionality of the existence of the MTRCB or its exercise of the personal lives of private individuals.
prerogatives, particularly because it exercises prior restraint on a regular basis, the

21 | M i k e e Retirado 1-C
CONSTI 2: Bernas Casebook 2010 ed.
Updated Darvins Digest

NY TIMES vs. SULLIVAN criticism of officials / factual errors & defamatory language / 1. allegation of a discreditable act or condition concerning another
no actual malice A public official brought an action for damages arising from the 2. publication of the charge
defamatory criticisms made in an article of the NY Times. The action was grounded upon 3. identity of the person defamed (at least a 3rd person or stranger may identify)
an Alabama statute declaring that it is libelous per se if the published material brings the
official in contempt or tends to injure his reputation. Factual error, or the effect of injuring 4. malice (there must be ill will)
official reputation, or even the utterance of half-truths and some misinformation, do not Considering that the person criticized is a pubic official, no liability may be imposed unless
suffice to justify the repression of free speech. Officials may not recover damages from the the statement was made with actual malice or w/ knowledge that it was false, or w/
publication unless they can establish ACTUAL MALICE. In this case, what was made was reckless disregard for the truth or falsity of the statements.
effective criticism w/c constitutes protected speech. GERTZ vs. ROBERT WELCH INC. alleged frame-up / public officer / public figure A
DD: Actual malice means either (1) intentionally publishing the imputations knowing that Chicago cop named Nuccio was convicted of murder. The respondents magazine alleged
they are false, or (2) reckless disregard for the truth or falsity of the imputations published. that the petitioner who is neither a public official nor public figure was responsible for
BORJAL vs. CA blind item / qualified privileged communication Arturo Borjal, in his the frame-up, and implied that he has a criminal record and is a Communist fronter. The
column w/ the Philippine Star called The Jaywalker, alleged anomalous activities of a protection imbued by the NY Times Ruling does not apply to defamation or falsehoods
conference organizer w/o naming any person specifically alleging that the person has committed against persons who are neither public officials nor public figures. Private
engaged in dubious ways, or is thick faced, or engages in shady deals. Francisco persons are more protected. They have not voluntarily exposed themselves to the risk of
Wenceslao, the organizer of the First National Conference on Land Transport (FNCLT), defamation and are more vulnerable, w/ fewer avenues to rebut the allegations. In this
apparently thinking that the article is targeted towards him, filed a complaint before the case, mere appearance as an attorney at the coroners inquest does not make him a
National Press Club, as well as a criminal complaint for libel. The libel case was dismissed public official. He has likewise not attained any degree of notoriety or general fame and
but he later filed a civil case for damages. In order to maintain a libel suit, it is necessary involvement in societal affairs to qualify him as a public figure. Hence, he is more protected
that the person targeted is named. It is not sufficient that Wenceslao identified himself. The by the law. Damages may be claimed, but only for actual injuries.
articles did not name him, and there are, in fact, several organizers of the said event. TIME vs. FIRESTONE divorce issue / public official / public figure Respondent sought
Privileged communication may be absolute (like statements made by legislators in separate maintenance from her husband who countered w/ a suit for divorce on the ground
Congress) w/c are never actionable, or qualified w/c are not actionable if found to have of adultery and extreme cruelty. Time reported that the divorce was in fact granted based
been made in good faith or for justifiable motive. The above article belongs to the category on the said grounds. Respondent was neither public official nor figure as she did not
of qualified privileged communication. Further, Wenceslao is a public official as organizer occupy any role of special prominence in the society; hence the NY Times Ruling
of the FNCLT being an entity imbued w/ public interest; he cannot dissociate himself from (requiring actual malice as an element) does not apply. She is entitled to greater protection
media scrutiny. While generally every defamatory imputation is presumed malicious, if the from unwarranted defamation. Further, no finding was ever made by the divorce court
communication is privileged, the presumption does not arise. The plaintiff assumes the regarding adultery. Two criteria must be followed in determining civil liability in libel
burden of proving malice as in this case. In the absence of clear malice, the action for cases:
damages thus cannot prosper. 1. Compensatory awards must be supported by competent evidence concerning
ARAFILES vs. PHILIPPINE JOURNALISTS INC. allegedly raped vs. in fact raped / the injury
leeway Emelita Despuig, in the police station and in the presence of a reporter Morales, 2. Liability cannot be imposed w/o actual fault.
executed an affidavit stating that she was abducted and raped on one instant, and the Since the court did not find actual fault on the part of the petitioner, no damages are due.
same crime has in fact just been attempted upon her that same night again by a certain HUSTLER MAGAZINE vs. JERRY FALWELL Jerry Falwell talks about his first time /
Director Arafiles of the National Institute of Atmospheric Studies. Morales interviewed the incestuous rendezvous Hustler Magazine featured an ad parody portraying Falwell (a
complainant, and submitted the report to his editor; the article was published the same known commentator in politics and other public affairs) engaged in a drunken sexual and
night saying Govt Exec Rapes Coed and the article stated that the girl WAS ABDUCTED incestuous rendezvous w/ his mother in an outhouse. It was modeled after actual Campari
and RAPED. It did not qualify that the said acts were merely alleged. Thus, Arafiles filed an ads featuring celebrities interviewed about their 1st times drinking Campari. Falwell filed a
action for damages claiming that the articles were overly sensationalized. libel claim alleging outrageous and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
The alleged libelous material should be viewed as a whole. Reference to other sections of In the absence of a false statement of facts made w/ apparent malice, public officials or
the report indicates that the narration of the events was based only on an account made by public figures, such as Falwell, cannot recover damages for the tort or intentional infliction
Emelita. Newspapers must be given a certain degree of leeway and tolerance to enable of emotional distress by reason of the publication of a caricature. The caricature was not
them to perform their duty courageously and effectively. They should not be held reasonably believable; hence, it cannot be interpreted as having stated actual facts.
accountable for honest mistakes or imperfection in the choice of words.
JAL vs. SAMINGAN Japan Airlines Jesus Samangan bought a ticket going to the US
VASQUEZ vs. CA barangay official denounced / elements of libel / public official / via Japan Airlines (petitioner). While on board the MLA-JPN flight, respondent was
malice A citizen denounced a barangay official of the Tondo Foreshore Area for alleged suspected by petitioners crew of carrying falsified travel documents and he was only using
misconducts in office. The barangay official thus sued for libel. The following are the that flight in order to be a TNT in Japan. Respondent was ordered to leave the plane. It
elements of libel: turned out that his documents were in order. He filed a case for moral and exemplary

22 | M i k e e Retirado 1-C
CONSTI 2: Bernas Casebook 2010 ed.
Updated Darvins Digest

damages. He won it both in RTC and CA. He publicized his grievances on his own through requires a clear and present danger for the limitations upon freedom of expression,
the newspaper. it generally frowns upon obscenity.
JAL is a common carrier, which deals with the travelling public. Thus, it drew public
attention when it bumped off respondent without a valid reason. The subject complaint To determine what is obscene, it is based upon the perception of an average
relates to a public issue, thus the public has the right to be informed. Samangan may not person applying contemporary community standards to determine if the
be held liable for damages for publication. The constitutional guarantee of freedom of theme of the material caters to the prurient interest. Although the standard
speech and of the press includes fair commentaries on matters of public interest. applied by the Board is unduly restrictive, the Court failed to muster the required
number of votes to find grave abuse of discretion. Although the State must not
Obscenity & Indecency meddle w/ the sexual preferences of consenting adults, it has an interest in guiding
the development of the youth pursuant to the parens patriae doctrine.
MILLER vs. CALIFORNIA hardcore sex / contemporary community standards
Miller conducted a mailing campaign for the promotion of adult material. Some SORIANO vs LAGUARDIA Ang dating daan Petitioner, as host of the program Ang
brochures were received unwillingly by a restaurant owner and his mother in Dating Daan, aired on UNTV 37, made obscene remarks against the Iglesia Ni Cristo.
Newport Beach, prompting them to file a complaint. The Court has decided to There is NO prior restraint and an abridgement of his exercise of religion and freedom of
abandon the Memoirs Doctrine requiring the material to be utterly w/o any expression. The sanction imposed on the tv program does not constitute prior
redeeming social value, it being a burden almost impossible to discharge. In restraint but a subsequent punishment. As regards petitioners contention on the
order to be benefited by the protection conferred by the 1 st Amendment, the prurient primacy of his freedom to exercise his religious belief over the right and duty of the
and patent display of sexual conduct must have some serious literary, political, or state as parens patriae, petitioner failed to consider that the medium he used to
scientific value. Forms of expression may be considered obscene if the following make his statements was a television broadcast which is accessible to children. The
characteristics attend: statements simply illustrate that petitioner had descended to the level of name-calling and
foul language discourse. Petitioner could have chosen to contradict and disprove his
detractors but opted for the low road.
1. the average person, applying contemporary community standards,
would find the work, taken as a whole, to appeal to the prurient interests Dissent: Abad - Suspending the Ang Dating Daan television program is the equivalent of
closing down their churches to its followers. Petitioner Sorianos Bible ministry has been on
2. It depicts patently offensive sexual conduct TV continuously for 27 years since 1983 with no prior record of use of foul language. For a
3. It lacks some serious literary, political, or scientific value. 15-second outburst of its head at his bitterest critics, it seems unfair for the Court to close
down this Bible ministry to its large followers altogether for a full quarter of a year.
No one may be punished for the sale or exposure of obscene materials
unless they depict patently hardcore sexual conduct. Such material can be PITA vs. CA Pinoy Playboy / due process / unwarranted search / judicial
regulated by the state but need not be utterly devoid of redeeming social value. determination Pursuant to an Anti-Smut Campaign, the Manila WPD seized from
What the 1st Amendment protects is the commerce of ideas, w/c must be the sidewalks, stores, and peddlers copies of allegedly obscene materials, including
distinguished from the commercial exploitation of obscene material w/c is the so-called Pinoy Playboy. They were ordered destroyed. It is recognized that the
not a protected form of expression. right of the press in not absolute and the State may protect the people from
pornography. However, the requirements of due process and the prohibition
DD: The Memoirs Doctrine requires that a form of expression must be utterly against unreasonable searches and seizures cannot be compromised. The
devoid of literary, scientific, or political value. In this case, that a form of expression following procedure must have been applied:
lacks serious literary, scientific, or political value is sufficient to classify it as a form
of obscenity. Notice that in the former case, the burden is almost impossible to 1. Application for a warrant from a judge
discharge. 2. Authorities must convince the court that the material to be seized is
obscene and pose a clear and present danger
GONZALES vs. KALAW-KATIGBAK Kapit sa Patalim / classification / parens 3. The judge will determine if they are indeed obscene through exercise of
patriae The Board of Review classified the movie Kapit sa Patalim as being For sound discretion
Adults Only, for containing some sexually explicit scenes, such as naked women 4. Issuance of the warrant
dancing, or lesbian action, among other things. The Board ordered the deletion of
the said scenes and delayed the issuance of permit to exhibit. The power of the 5. Proper suit is brought to court under the provisions of the RPC
Board is limited to that of classification to determine what films are for 6. Conviction subject to appeal. The court determines whether or not
general patronage, and what are suitable for adults only. Although the law the materials are indeed obscene.

23 | M i k e e Retirado 1-C
CONSTI 2: Bernas Casebook 2010 ed.
Updated Darvins Digest

BARNES vs. GLEN THEATER pasties / government interest in morality / as obscenity is. It is quite similar to a nuisance, possibly the right thing in
incidental effect The Kitty Kat Lounge and Glen Theater are two establishments the wrong place.
that seek to exhibit totally-nude-dancing, and thus assail an Indiana statute that
requires dancers to wear pasties and a g-string. They claim that the statute violates Consolidated Dissents of Justices Brennan and Marshall:
the 1st Amendment. The court applied the O Brien Test and ruled that the
objective of the law is to protect the societal order and morality against The stance of the majority of the court would effectively empower a majority to
public nudity. It is not specifically targeted against free expression and the silence dissidents. The interest of the majority was upheld but to the detriment of
restriction is merely an incidental limit upon the said expressive activity. The the minority who equally have the right to listen. Further, the courts have
interest in unrelated to free expression and requiring the wearing of pasties and g- maintained the trend that obscenity, w/c the minors must be protected against,
strings does not deprive the performances of whatever expressive or erotic must partake of an erotic nature and in this case, this is not evident.
messages they convey.
The parents have the time-honored right to raise their children as they see fit.
Dissent of Justice White: Lastly, the speakers choice of words cannot be divorced from the ideas he
wishes to express. A sanitized message would not deliver the same message as
The OBrien Test is not applicable in this case. The Indiana Statute clearly is effectively as the author intended.
targeted, not towards public nudity in general w/ incidental effect upon expression,
but against a particular form of expression itself w/c is the communicative aspect
of an erotic dance. The nudity of the dancer is an integral part of the emotions and RENTON vs. PLAYTIME THEATERS - zoning / legitimate interest / content-neutral
thoughts that the nude dance evokes. And where government prohibits conduct The City of Renton planned to enact a zoning ordinance for the purpose of
precisely because of its communicative attributes, the regulation should regulating adult-oriented establishments. The council issued a moratorium on
definitely be unconstitutional. licensing and a issued a regulation that no adult theater shall be situated w/in
1,000 feet from a school, residential dwelling, church, or park. Playtime
Theaters acquired property and intended to open 2 adult movie houses and thus
They do not punish nudity in stage plays, or ballets, or operas, but only the challenged the said enactments. The ordinance does not ban adult theaters
nudity committed w/in the said go-go bars. The States interest, allegedly, is to altogether but merely regulates the time, manner, and place of their
prevent offense to the public, but all of the customers of such go-go bars are operations. Generally, laws enacted for the purpose of regulating speech or
consenting adults who are there precisely for the enjoyment of the said expression based on its content are void, however, there is a legitimate and
performances. substantial government interest to preserve the quality of urban life in this
case. The proximity of such adult theaters to wholesome areas has produced
DD: It appears that the regulation specifically targeted the go-go bars and was not various ill effects and the city must be given reasonable opportunities to
concerned with public nudity at all; the US Supreme Court nevertheless sustained formulate solutions to such problems.
the regulation.
BETHEL SCHOOL vs. FRASER lewd speech / school setting / loco parentis
FCC vs. PACIFICA FOUNDATION words you wouldnt say ever / offensive / Matthew Fraser, during a speech to support his candidate for the school
nuisance Pacifica aired a 12 minute monologue by George Carlin where he elections, and before a crowd of some 600 14-years-olds, made use of lewd and
uttered extremely vulgar language depicting sexual and excretory activities, sexual innuendo. As a result he was suspended for 2 days and disqualified from
broadcast during the daytime when children could have been listening. It was being the graduation speaker. Represented by his father, he sued the school for
reviewed by the Commission and put on the record of Pacifica w/ a warning that violating his freedom of speech. Through the exercise of the right to speech,
further acts would result to the non-renewal of their license. Although the law one must also consider the sensibilities of others. The right conferred to
does not confer upon the Commission the power to censor the material adults to utter certain forms of offensive expressions does not necessarily
prior to broadcast, there is nothing to preclude them from reviewing the extend to children. The right to speech does not prevent the school from
same and to impose sanctions. Obscenity is different from indecency the determining the extent of allowable conduct w/in school premises; likewise,
latter being simply non-conformance w/ accepted standards of society. Prurient school authorities, acting in loco parentis, have the right to protect students from
appeal is an essential element of indecent language; it offends in the same sexually explicit and indecent speeches.
manner as obscenity offends. It is not accorded absolute constitutional
protection. DD: It is also part of the academic freedom of the school to determine what
disciplinary measures to impose and what policies to implement pursuant to its
Given the intrusive nature of broadcasting, w/c can reach into the privacy of the mission and vision. Unlike public forums that enjoy greater constitutional
home and tap the young audience; the broadcaster may be deprived of his rights protection, expression in schools may be regulated according to the principles
if he transmits such shocking and vulgar material. It is just as harmful to children and policies of the institution.
24 | M i k e e Retirado 1-C
CONSTI 2: Bernas Casebook 2010 ed.
Updated Darvins Digest

HAZELWOOD SCHOOL vs. KUHLMEIER school paper / school policy / less DD: Regulation of free expression in the internet is a problematic issue
rights Principal Reynolds of Hazelwood School deleted 2 pages from the considering the rapid development of cyberspace. There is a very easy tendency
proposed issue of the school paper, Spectrum, one of w/c deals w/ teenage for regulations to go overboard considering that access is available to both
pregnancy, and the other dealing w/ the effects of divorce upon the students. He minors and adults. Jurisdiction is also a problem.
alleged that the identities of the students were not adequately protected and the
parents and families must be afforded the right to be heard. The authors thus sue US vs. AMERICAN LIBRARY ASSOC. surfing for porn in the library / conditions
the school for violating their right to speech. A school need not tolerate speech imposed / imposing the installation of anti-porn software is valid Due to
or publication inconsistent w/ the school policy or mission. In this case, the the fact that the free internet services in the public libraries have been used for
paper Spectrum was but a part of the Journalism class curriculum and the school searching for porn, the Congress enacted the Childrens Internet Protection Act,
exercises discretion as to its content. It is not a public forum. A students right requiring libraries to install software to filter or block obscene or pornographic
to expression is not co-extensive w/ an adults rights under the 1st websites. Otherwise, their internet service will not be maintained. The Congress
Amendment. may impose certain conditions when it appropriates funds for the public
benefit. Internet access in libraries should be for educational or research
DD: Unlike speech in public forums that enjoys greater constitutional protection, purposes. There is likewise a substantial government interest at stake that
expression of ideas in schools may be regulated according to the principles and of protecting young internet users from inappropriate material.
policies of the institution.
DD: The library computers are public property made available to the people; thus
RENO vs. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION internet regulation is invalid / the government may impose reasonable regulations for their utilization.
vagueness / problematic application The Communications Decency Act of
1996 (CDA) sought to protect minors from the harmful effects of the internet by ASSEMBLY AND PETITION
criminalizing the knowing transmission of obscene or indecent messages to any
person below 18 years old. The description is void for vagueness. It differs NAVARRO V. VILLEGAS Sunken Gardens as an alternative to Plaza Miranda (valid
from other laws in that it failed to define indecent or it does not allow parents exercise of discretion; no denial of right) Navarro applied for a permit to hold a rally at
consent to the use of restricted material, and omits the standard of lack of Plaza Miranda on 26 February 1970 from 4PM to 11PM. Mayor Villegas granted the permit
socially redeeming value. Further, given the complexity of cyberspace, the to hold the rally at the Sunken Gardens instead and at an earlier time. Navarro filed a
factors recognized for broadcast and other mediums are not applicable. It petition for mandamus to compel Villegas to release a permit for the desired rally and
is likewise not content-neutral. Internet forums are open to all comers making alleged that his right to assembly has been violated. The SC held that the Mayor, as the
its applicability very difficult especially given the growing complexity and diversity licensing authority, possesses reasonable discretion to specify the streets or public
of the internet. places to be used for the assembly: (1) To secure convenient use thereof by others (2)
To provide adequate and proper policing to minimize the risks of disorder and maintain
public safety.In other words, another place may be designated by the licensing authority
ASHCROFT vs. FREE SPEECH UNION child & virtual porno / overboard / fails the should there be a clear and present danger of a substantive evil.
miller test / Ferber test no record, no victim The Child Pornography Concurring opinion of Justice Villamor: The right to freedom of assembly is neither
Prevention Act of 1996 (CPPA) penalized ANY visual depiction of what appears unlimited nor absolute. In this case, the Mayor did not refuse to grant the permit applied
to be, or in any way depicts, minors engaged in explicit sexual conduct for, but simply offered an alternative.
including virtual CG renderings. The law is gravely overboard and is thus
unconstitutional. The regulation proscribes ANY form of depiction, even if Dissenting opinion of Justice Castro and Fernando: The offering of the alternative
it is not patently offensive. Many otherwise legitimate and artistic films would constitutes a prior restraint to a constitutional right. Also, the Ordinance empowering the
fall w/in its prohibition and would be penalized. The presence of a single explicit Mayor lacks a narrow, objective, and definite standard, making it unconstitutional.
scene will criminalize a certain expression and as a rule, the work must be Phil. Blooming Mills EMPLOYEES V. PBM Company - Strike against Pasig Police
considered as a whole. (unlawful termination of employment; denial of right to assembly) Petitioner is a labor union
composed of employees of the PHILIPPINE BLOOMING MILLS and it decided to stage a
mass demonstration at Malacanang to protest against the alleged abuses of the Pasig
Further, virtual porn is not intrinsically related to the abuse of children. Police. The Union informed the respondent company of the intended demonstration but the
Even assuming that watching virtual porn will whet the appetites of pedophiles company warned the union that the workers, especially those part of the first shift, without
and encourage them to commit such acts, that reason alone is insufficient to leave of absence who fail to report for work, shall be dismissed for violation of the NO
justify the prohibition and the penalty. The overbreadth doctrine disallows the LOCKOUT, NO STRIKE in the CBA. The company then filed charges against petitioner for
government from banning a certain unprotected speech if, as a result, violation of the CBA. The COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ruled in favor of the
certain protected speech will likewise be proscribed. company and found the Union guilty for having bargained in bad faith. The SC held that
25 | M i k e e Retirado 1-C
CONSTI 2: Bernas Casebook 2010 ed.
Updated Darvins Digest

the rights of free expression, assembly, and petition are civil and political rights and, thru If the licensing authority is of the view that there is such an imminent and
the said freedoms, the citizen can participate: gravedanger, the applicants must be heard on the matter
In the periodic establishment of the government The decision of the licensing authority must be transmitted to the applicants at
In the administration of public affairs the earliest opportunity
In the discipline of abusive public officers The applicants may have recourse to the proper judicial authorities
The SC also held that a valid infringement of human rights requires a stringent criterion, But if it were a private place, only the consent of the one entitled to its legal
namely the existence of a grave and immediate danger of a substantive evil that the State possession is required
has the right to prevent. There was no grave and immediate danger in the case at bar. In MALABANAN V. RAMENTO - Rally in school premises (yes, there was a violation, but
fact, the Company should have stepped in and rally to the defense of its employees, so the punishment was too severe) Petitioners were officers of the Supreme Student Council
that the latter can report to work free from harassment or vexation and perform their work of the GREGORIO ARANETA UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION. They were granted a permit
more efficiently. The pretension of the Company that it would suffer loss by reason of the to hold a meeting to protest the merger of two units of the university. On the scheduled
absence of its employees from 6AM to 2PM is a plea for the preservation merely of its date, the students continued the rally beyond the allowed time and held it in a different
property rights. The SC further held that the primacy of human rights freedom of place from that indicated in the permit. They expressed their opposition in a vehement
expression, of peaceful assembly, and of petition for redress of grievances over language and, as a result, classes and office work were disturbed. Petitioners were
property rights has been sustained in jurisprudence. In this case, to regard the eventually found guilty of holding an illegal assembly and oral defamation, meriting a 1-
demonstration as evidence of bad faith in collective bargaining and, hence, a violation of year suspension as punishment. Petitioners maintained that the University failed to accord
the CBA and a cause for termination would unduly stretch the compass of the CBA and respect to their constitutional rights. The SC held that the invocation of the freedom of
turn it into a potent means of inhibiting free speech. Thus, it was the company that was peaceable assembly implies that the right to free speech has been disregarded. Right to
guilty of unfair labor practices for restraining its employees from exercising their basic peaceably assembly and free speech are embraced in the concept of freedom of
rights expression, which is identified with the liberty to discuss any matter of public interest
JBL REYES V. MAYOR BAGATSING - Anti-Bases Coalition rally (unlawful denial and publicly and truthfully without censorship or punishment and that is not to be limited, much
modification of less denied, except upon a showing of a clear and present danger of a substantive evil that
permit; no clear and present danger) Retired Justice Reyes, in behalf of the members of the State has a right to prevent. The SC also held that while educational institutions have
the ANTI- BASES COALITION, sought a permit to rally from LUNETA PARK until the front authority over the conduct of students, it cannot go so far as to violate constitutional
gate of the US EMBASSY, which is less than two blocks apart. The permit was denied by safeguards. Except when conduct by the student, in class or out of it:
Manila Mayor Bagatsing, but the latter offered the RIZAL COLISEUM instead. The Mayor Materially disrupts classwork
claimed that there were intelligence reports, which indicated that the rally would be Involves substantial disorder
infiltrated by lawless elements. He also issued City Ordinance 7295 to prohibit the staging Invades the rights of others
of rallies within the 500-meter radius of the US embassy. Bagatsing pointed out that it was
his intention to provide protection to the US embassy from such lawless elements in The SC further held that the rights to peaceably assemble and free speech are guaranteed
pursuant to Art 22 of the VIENNA CONVENTION ON DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS. Reyes for students and their exercise to discuss matters affecting their welfare or involving public
filed a suit for mandamus. The SC held that free speech is identified with the liberty to interest cannot be subject to prior restraint or subsequent punishment, unless there is a
discuss publicly and truthfully matters of public concern without censorship or punishment. showing of a clear and present danger to a substantive evil. But even so, the utmost
Freedom of assembly connotes the right of the people to meet peaceably for consultation leeway and scope is accorded the content of the placards displayed or utterances made. If
and discussion of matters of public concern. Thus, the general rule is that a permit should the assembly is to be held in school premises, permit must be sought from the school
recognize the right of the applicants to hold their assembly at a public place of their choice, authorities, who are devoid of the power to deny such request unreasonably or arbitrarily.
but another place may be designated by the licensing authority, if it be shown that there is In granting such permit, there may be conditions as to the time and place of the assembly
a clear and present danger of a substantive evil. In this case, there was no compelling to avoid disruption of classes or stoppage of work of the non-academic personnel. But
justification to deny the exercise of peaceful assembly. Fear of disorder or injury alone should there be a violation of the terms, the penalty incurred should be proportionate to the
cannot justify a denial. The SC further held that there is freedom of access to public offense. In this case, it was conceded that there was a violation of the permit, but the
places, especially parks and streets, which have immemorially been held in trust for the penalty of 1-year suspension was too harsh, so the SC lowered it to 1-week instead.
use for purposes of assembly to communicate thoughts between citizens. Finally, the SC BAYAN V. ERMITA - BP 880 (public assembly act valid; calibrated preemptive response
held in applications to hold an assembly: invalid) Petitioners assailed the PUBLIC ASSEMBLY ACT of 1985, which requires a permit
The applicant must inform the licensing authority of the date, the public place to be issued by the Mayor, who must be informed of the date, time, and place of the rally.
where, and the time when the rally will take place The mayor may deny the issuance of the same if, to his judgment, there exists a clear and
present danger. It also mandates the designation of freedom parks where protesters may
The application should be filed well ahead in time organize peaceful actions without the need of a permit. The CALIBRATED PREEMPTIVE
The standard or indispensable condition to a refusal or modification is the test of RESPONSE was also implemented by the Executive Department to strictly enforce the
clear and present danger provisions of BP 880, particularly the no permit-no rally policy, but it resulted to the violent
26 | M i k e e Retirado 1-C
CONSTI 2: Bernas Casebook 2010 ed.
Updated Darvins Digest

dispersal of various protest actions and assemblies, which led to the assault upon its such stamps for violating separation of church and State. The law contemplates
constitutionality. The SC held that petitioners standing cannot be seriously challenged no religious purpose; the stamps were not sold for the benefit of the Catholic
because their rights as citizens to engage in peaceful assembly and petition are directly Church but merely to advertise the Philippines as the seat of the Eucharistic
affected by BP 880. The SC also held that jurisprudence has upheld the primacy of Congress. Resulting propaganda possibly in favor of the church is merely
freedom of speech over comfort and convenience in the use of streets and parks. incidental and should not frustrate the main purpose of the law to generate
However, the right is not absolute and it may be regulated so that it shall not be injurious to profit and boost tourism.
a) the equal enjoyment of others having equal rights and b) the rights of the community or
society. The SC further held that it has been recognized that a statute requiring persons TARUC vs BISHOP Taruc, a lay member of the Phil Independent Church, clamored for
using the public streets for assemblies to procure a special license from local authorities is the transfer of their parish priest, Fr. Rustom Florano for the reason that Fr. Florano's wife
valid when: belonged to the political party that opposed him. Things worsened when Taruc conducted
The licensing authorities are strictly limited to a consideration of the time, place, an open mass without the consent of Bishop Dela Cruz during the town fiesta. Bishop Dela
and Cruz declared petitioners expelled/excommunicated from the PIC on the following
manner of the assembly grounds: disobedience to duly constituted authority in the church, inciting dissension and,
for threatening to forcibly occupy the Parish Church causing anxiety and fear among the
With a view to conserve public convenience general membership The expulsion/excommunication of members of a religious institution
With a view to provide proper policing or organization is a matter best left to the discretion of the officials, and the laws and
The licensing authority is not vested with arbitrary discretion canons, of said institution or organization.
In this case, BP No. 880 is not an absolute ban on public assemblies, but is merely a
content neutral restriction that regulates the time, place, and manner of assemblies to GARCES vs. ESTENZO quarrel over San Vicente Ferrer idol / no favor to church /
avoid clear and present danger. Its reference to lawful cause is not content-based private funds In preparation for the town fiesta, the Barangay Council enacted
because assemblies really have to be for lawful causes, otherwise they would not be resolutions (ratified through plebiscite) authorizing the purchase of a wooden image
entitled to constitutional protection. There is no prior restraint because the content of the of San Vicente Ferrer, patron saint of Valencia, Ormoc. The image was to be
speech is not relevant to the regulation. The clear and present danger stated in Section acquired through sale of tickets and cash donations and was to be placed in the
6(a) is substantially the same as imminent and grave danger of a substantive evil in custody of the hermana mayor. It was temporarily placed at the altar of the church
Section 6(c) and is consistent standard. BP 880 requires maximum tolerance, which is the but the parish priest Osmea refused to return the image to the barangay claiming
highest degree of restraint that the peacekeeping authorities must observe during that it was property of the church; hence the barangay filed a Replevin case.
assemblies. Dispersal should be the last resort and all peaceful means of conciliation Osmea countered by assailing the constitutionality of the said resolutions. The
between the police and the protesters must first be pursued. Thus, the CPR serves no resolutions were not enacted for the purpose of favoring the church or any
valid purpose if it means the same thing as maximum tolerance and it is illegal if it means religion, nor did it authorize the allocation of public funds for religious
something else because what is to be followed is that which is mandated by BP 880 itself. purposes. In fact, private funds were used to purchase the image. Since the
The SC also required the designation of freedom parks from the various LGUs, as Barangay is the owner of the said image, then it has the right to determine who
provided for in BP 880, otherwise all public parks within the said LGUs will be. shall exercise custody over it.

Section 5. No law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion, or SCHOOL DISTRICT vs. SCHEMPP mandatory prayers / violation of neutrality and
prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The free exercise and enjoyment rights Various states required the reading of certain verses from the Bible as well
of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or as the recitation of The Lords Prayer to begin each school day; thus some students
preference, shall forever be allowed. No religious test shall be required represented by their parents assail the constitutionality of the said policies. The
for the exercise of civil or political rights. government should be neutral about religion; it protects all but cannot
promote or favor any. The State cannot forbid but it cannot likewise aid in the
performance of religious functions. Ceremoniously reading from the Bible and
reciting The Lords Prayer are clearly exercises of religion, and to require
Non-Establishment Clause
their performance would violate the rights of the students. Objective study of
the Bible for academic purposes such as for its historic or literary qualities may be
AGLIPAY vs. RUIZ Eucharistic Congress stamps / no religious purpose / made part of the curriculum as a secular activity, but the aforesaid activities clearly
incidental effect Act No. 4052 authorized the Director of Posts to issue postage partake of a religious exercise and cannot be made mandatory w/o violating
stamps commemorating the Eucharistic Congress celebrated in Manila and constitutional rights.
organized by the Catholic Church. The government appropriated money for it and
expected to generate around P 1.6 million from the sale of such stamps. Gregorio
Aglipay of the Phil. Independent Church sought to prohibit the issuance and sale of
27 | M i k e e Retirado 1-C
CONSTI 2: Bernas Casebook 2010 ed.
Updated Darvins Digest

LEMON vs. KURTZMAN LEMON TEST / salary subsidy to parochial schools / already be used for religious purposes; this is a violation of the Establishment
excessive entanglement Rhode Island statutes provide a salary subsidy of 15% Clause. The grace period should thus be struck down.
of the teachers annual wage in favor of non-public elementary schools including
parochial schools. Pennsylvania, on the other hand, provides financial support for ZOBREST vs. CATALINA FOOTHILLS SCHOOL interpreter - valid / child is the
salaries reimbursement, textbooks, and other instructional materials to such beneficiary The respondent school district refused to provide an interpreter for a
schools. There are 3 thin evils sought to be avoided by the Establishment deaf student as allowed by the Individuals w/ Disabilities Education Act because he
Clause: sponsorship, financial support, and active involvement. There are attends a Roman Catholic school. The school district claimed that it would promote
likewise 3 requisites that must be satisfied so as not to run afoul to the his religious development and benefit the parochial school at the expense of the
Establishment Clause: Establishment Clause. Government programs that neutrally provide benefits to
citizens w/o reference to religion do not violate the Establishment Clause.
1. the statute must have a secular legislative purpose The child is the primary beneficiary, not the school; and whatever benefit may
2. its principal effect must neither advance nor inhibit religion accrue to the latter is merely incidental.
3. it must not foster excessive entanglement of government w/
religion AGOSTINI vs. FELTON public school teachers in parochial schools valid /
neutral / no presumption NY Citys program sent public school teachers to
The parochial schools have a significant religious mission; they foster an parochial schools to provide remedial education to disadvantaged children. It was
atmosphere of religious instruction and vocation. They maintain substantial declared unconstitutional in Aguilar vs. Felton and the petitioners pray that the court
religious activity and are under church supervision and control; and the teachers re-examine the ruling. Such government-funded programs are neutral and are
therein have, in an understatement, the difficulty of being religiously neutral. In made to favor the disadvantaged children regardless of their religion;
order not to run afoul to the Establishment Clause, the teachers subsidized presence of public school teachers in parochial schools does not violate the
must not inculcate religion, and ensuring compliance would cause the Establishment Clause provided that adequate safeguards are in place. The
government to be excessively entangled w/ the church. presumption that the presence of public employees in parochial institutions tends to
benefit the latter has been abandoned, hence, pervasive monitoring is no longer
required. Overall, the program does not result in indoctrination, it does not
They likewise provide financial aid directly to church-related schools clearly discriminate based on religion, and it does not create excessive entanglement;
in violation of the Constitution, and to ascertain if the proceeds are dedicated to hence it is not abhorrent to the Establishment Clause.
secular purposes would likewise entail further excessive entanglement.
MITCHELL vs. HELMS materials and educational aids valid / neutral application
TILTON vs. RICHARDSON construction grants is valid / 20 yr. limitation void / / no indoctrination The Education Consolidation and Improvement Act (ECIA)
less entanglement The Higher Education Facilities Act authorized federal grants channels federal funds to schools lending educational, media, and library materials
and loans to colleges and universities for the construction of various buildings and including software and computers to implement secular, neutral, and non-
facilities such as libraries, laboratory, theatre, and science buildings subject to the ideological programs. Around 30% of the funds spent have benefited religiously
condition that they must be used for secular purposes only for the period of 20 affiliated schools, thus the program was challenged for violating the Establishment
years after construction. Should this condition be violated, then the State is Clause. Just because some of the beneficiaries of the program are religiously-
entitled to recover the amount proportionate to its grant based on its present value. affiliated, it does not automatically make it a law respecting an establishment
As opposed to that of Lemon vs. Kutzman where teachers were subsidized, of religion. It passes the Agostini Test; it does not result in governmental
the facilities themselves are religiously neutral; hence there is less tendency indoctrination (religious indoctrination attributable to governmental action), it is
for entanglement as inspection requires minimal contact. made available neutrally and equally among beneficiaries regardless of
religious affiliation, and it neither impairs nor promotes the same, and it allocates
Further, evidence disclosed that the colleges and universities are more inclined to aid based on the private choices of the students as to w/c schools to attend.
providing the students w/ secular education, unlike the primary and secondary
parochial schools that require participation w/ religious activities; hence there is less ZELMAN vs. SIMMONS-HARRIS tuition aid program valid / neutral application
risk of support for religious activities. Ohios Pilot Project Scholarship Program provided tuition aid for certain students
who chose to remain enrolled in public schools; both religious and secular schools
However, the 20 year restriction opens the door for religious use after the were participants but a significant majority (82%) of the participating private schools
grace period; hence it violates the Establishment Clause. After the 20 year was religiously-affiliated. The purpose of the law was to provide educational
grace period, the properties partially or fully subsidized by the government may assistance to poor students. The law was neutral regarding all aspects towards
religion and confers assistance to a broad class of persons regardless of

28 | M i k e e Retirado 1-C
CONSTI 2: Bernas Casebook 2010 ed.
Updated Darvins Digest

their religious affiliation. Whatever incidental advancement of the religious deemed illegal. The Islamic Dawah Council is a non-government organization
missions of the parochial schools cannot be attributed to the government whose engaged in the issuance of such certifications (among other social functions).
sole aim was to distribute benefits among the students. Manufacturers stopped seeking their certifications resulting to loss of income,
hence the petition for prohibition. Classifying food products as halal is a
COUNTY OF ALLEGHENY vs. AMERICAN CLU Christmas & Chanukah greeting religious function drawn from the Koran and other Islamic beliefs; hence the
signs / affiliation The County Courthouse displayed a nativity scene crche government, in granting the OMA exclusive authority to perform the said act,
(invalid) donated by Holy Name Society w/c bore the words (in Latin) Glory to clearly encroached upon the free exercise of religion. Infringement of religious
God, while the City-County Building displayed an 18-foot Chanukah menorah freedom can only be curtailed on the basis of a compelling State interest w/c in this
(valid) beside a Christmas tree and a sign bearing the mayors name. The case is not present.
American Civil Liberties Union sought to enjoin the county and the city from
displaying the said symbols invoking the Establishment Clause. The DD: The issuance of halal certificates is a religious practice and the government
Establishment Clause prohibits the government from appearing to take has no business meddling with the exercise.
positions regarding religious belief. The government must remain secular; it may
recognize the holidays secular aspects but it cannot go as far as to suggest that SORIANO vs LAGUARDIA see section 4
the people praise the Christian God for the birth of Jesus Christ.

Free Exercise of Religion


Consolidated Dissents:
The symbols merely recognize that both Christmas and Chanukah are part of the
winter season and have attained a secular status in the society; it merely CANTWELL vs. CONNECTICUT annoying people w/ a phonograph / council
recognizes cultural diversity. The Christmas Tree is widely viewed today as a approval / restraint Newton Cantwell and his 2 sons, allegedly Jehovahs
secular symbol of the Christmas Holiday, and such symbols cannot be interpreted Witness ministers, were walking from house-to-house soliciting and carrying books
as an endorsement of Christianity or Judaism. There is no apparent risk of and pamphlets and a phonograph record w/c they played upon permission of their
establishment and there also is no coercion. If opening prayers are allowed interviewees. Entitled Enemies, the content attacked other religions, especially
before convening Congress, there should be no obstacle to displaying the said Catholicism. Around 90% of the residents of the neighborhood were Catholics.
symbols. They annoyed many people along the way. They were charged for inciting breach
of the peace under a Connecticut statute prohibiting solicitation for alleged
religious or charitable purposes w/o the approval of the Public Welfare Council. It
CAPITOL SQUARE REVIEW & ADVISORY BOARD vs. PINETTE The Klan! / was enacted for the purpose of protecting the citizens against solicitation for bogus
protected speech / reasonable observer The Ku Klux Klan applied w/ the religious, philanthropic, or charitable purposes.
petitioner Board for a permit to display an unattended cross in Capitol Square, a
forum for public questions and discussions the use of w/c was regulated by the
latter according to Ohio State Law. They were denied based on the theory that, The statute sweeps though a vast array of conduct, renders an indefinite
given the proximity of the square to the seat of government, the symbol could be characterization therefor, and gives the Council too much discretion in its
interpreted to mean that the government was endorsing a said religion. application; it is obnoxious to the free exercise of religion. It also amounts to
prior restraint. The functions of the Council (in approving or denying authorization)
were not merely ministerial but were discretionary. There was no apparent threat
The display sought by the Kluxers belongs to protected speech as a secular or menace to the public peace and order; there was only an attempt to persuade
private expression. Given the fact that Capitol Square is a public forum, the willing listeners to embrace, or at least, contribute to his religious cause.
expression sought should be allowed therein. Further, it is private expression,
not one made by the government. The reasonable observer could not possibly
interpret the symbol to be endorsed by the government given the public US vs. BALLARD I am St. Germain! / fraud / false powers / no proof needed /
nature of the place. Also, other alternative means could have been sought w/c will good faith is the only question Guy Ballard organized the I Am Movement and
not infringe upon the free exercise of religion and of expression, such as the claimed to be some sort of divinity, or master or the medium through w/c St.
posting of disclaimers. Germain would transmit his message to mankind or something to that effect. He
claimed to have cured various persons w/ ailments and performed such other
supernatural deeds. He was convicted for conspiring to use the mails to commit
ISLAMIC DAWAH COUNCIL vs. EXEC. SECRETARY halal certification / religious fraud, by making 18 different misrepresentations, and the trial court ruled that such
act EO NO. 46 created the Philippine Halal Certification Scheme, w/c designated claims were false and were concocted mainly to defraud other persons. The ONLY
the respondent OMA to oversee its implementation granting it exclusive authority question that must be resolved is whether or not Ballard honestly and in
to issue halal certificates to guarantee that food products do not contain pork or good faith believed such things. It is not for the Jury, as a trier of facts, to test the
any of its derivatives. All other halal certificates not issued by the OMA were
29 | M i k e e Retirado 1-C
CONSTI 2: Bernas Casebook 2010 ed.
Updated Darvins Digest

veracity of his claims, but merely to determine if he acted in good faith. No man LONG & ALMERIA vs. BASA expulsion from church / conclusive upon courts A
may be put to the proof of his religious beliefs or doctrines. The law knows person was expelled from his Church, hence he seeks reprieve in the civil courts.
no heresy. Case is remanded for further proceeding. The by-laws of the Church merely require that the Board of Directors be informed
that a member has failed to observe any of the regulations and by-laws or has
AMERICAN BIBLE SOCIETY vs. CITY OF MANILA Bibles for sale / non-profit / conducted himself in any manner dishonorable to the Church; then they shall issue
prior restraint The Acting Treasurer of Manila informed the American Bible the corresponding Resolution for his expulsion. No prior notice was required. The
Association (ABA), w/c was selling bibles and pamphlets for 25 and 5 internal rules of churches and other denominations may be peculiar, but
respectively, that it was engaging in the business of general merchandise w/o decisions of church authorities pertaining to such internal matters are
Municipal License and Mayors Permit and assessed certain taxes against them. conclusive upon the civil courts. There is usually no room for dissent in a
The right to the free exercise of religion carries w/ it the right to disseminate religious corporation.
its beliefs. Any restraint can only be justified by clear and present danger. In
this case, the sale of bibles and pamphlets was clearly not for business, even if the DD: Admission to or excommunication from churches is a matter left entirely upon
prices were a bit higher, but rather for the purpose of dissemination, w/c cannot their discretion and the State has no business meddling therewith. This doctrine
be subjected to prior restraint in this case, the procurement of a license or was later affirmed in the Philippines in the case of Taruc vs. Bishop.
permit. Hence, the Ordinances requiring for permits as well as imposing taxes for
such exercise cannot be applied in this case. AUSTRIA vs. NLRC pastor terminated from service / employer-employee relation /
secular matter Dionisio Austria was a pastor for the Seventh Day Adventist
DD: But if the sale of religiously-inspired merchandise is for profit, reasonable taxes Church. He was terminated after 28 years of service for misappropriation of funds,
may be imposed. breach of trust, gross misconduct, and habitual neglect of duties, among other
reasons. A fact-finding committee was created to investigate him prior to his
EBRALINAG vs. SUPERINTENDENT salute to the flag / no clear & present danger termination. He sued the Adventist Church before the NLRC for reinstatement and
/ exceptions Students who were members of the Jehovahs Witness were backwages plus damages. The Adventist Church invokes the separation of church
expelled from school for refusing to take part in the flag ceremony, where they and state. The principle of separation of church and state does not apply in this
supposed to salute the flag, sing the national anthem, and recite the patriotic case. The case does not concern purely ecclesiastical or religious affairs, but
pledge. They claim that it contradicts their religious beliefs. They were expelled on rather that of employer and employee, w/c is governed by labor laws. It is a
the basis of RA No. 1265 and Order No. 8 of the DECS. The SC has decided to purely secular matter. It is not as if Austria was expelled or excommunicated; he
abandon the Gerona Ruling. The only justification for restraints or limitations was terminated from his employment. The act of terminating Austria was an
upon the free exercise of religion is the presence of a clear and present exercise of management prerogatives, not religious prerogatives. The provisions
danger. of the Labor Code apply to all establishments, whether religious or not.

In this case, the students did not manifest any disrespect and merely stood silently CENTENO vs. VILLALON-PORNILOS poor old men / religious vs. charitable /
and in attention. Forcing the children to salute the flag violates their right to religion incidental effect The Samahang Katandaan ng Nayon ng Tikay is an
and is hardly conducive to fostering love of country. Expelling them on the basis of organization composed of elderly men who engaged in solicitation for the
such conduct will likewise violate their right to receive education. When the laws renovation of their barrio chapel. They did not have the necessary permit from the
conflict w/ the scruples of conscience, certain exceptions may be granted, DSWD. They tried to solicit from Judge Adoracion Angeles who sued them for
provided that no compelling state interest intervenes. violating PD No. 1564 (Solicitation Permit Law). The said law, however, mentioned
only solicitations for charitable or public welfare purposes and requires a permit
therefor, w/o making any mention of religious purposes. The terms religious
EMPLOYMENT DIVISION vs. SMITH drug-use during a ritual / law is neutral Smith purpose and charitable purpose are separate and cannot be interchanged.
and Black were both fired by the Private Drug Rehabilitation Organization for The acts of the elderly men cannot be punished under the said law because the law
ingesting a hallucinogenic drug called peyote, for sacramental purposes during a does not contemplate solicitation for religious purposes.
ceremony at the Native American Church. They were likewise denied
unemployment compensation. They invoke the free exercise clause. The
dangerous drugs law is not specifically directed to religious practice and is Nevertheless, the State has the right and duty to protect its people from fraudulent
applied equally to all, regardless of whether they do the act for religious or solicitations, and a general law w/c does not involve any religious test cannot
non-religious purposes. Hence, the law does not offend the free exercise clause. be deemed invalid even if there are some incidental effects upon the free
To hold otherwise would create an extraordinary right to ignore general laws in the exercise of religion. The concurring opinion goes as far as to state that requiring a
name of religion for as long as no compelling state interest intervenes. permit before solicitation for religious purposes would amount to prior restraint.

30 | M i k e e Retirado 1-C
CONSTI 2: Bernas Casebook 2010 ed.
Updated Darvins Digest

WISCONSIN vs. YODER compulsory education / free exercise prevails / no McDANIEL vs. PATY constitutional delegate / exercise of right conditioned upon
compelling reason Members of the Old Amish Religion and the Conservative religion Paty, a constitutional commission candidate, sought the disqualification of
Amish Mennonite Church were charged under a Wisconsin law on compulsory McDaniel, a Baptist minister and a rival candidate, for the same position, invoking
school attendance for refusing to send their children to school after graduating the the Tennessee Constitution w/c disqualifies ministers of whatever denomination
8th grade. They claim that it violates their beliefs and endangers their salvation. The from holding the said office. While it may be said that the Tennessee
Amish religion and community believe in seclusion from the modern life and disqualification targets not religious belief but rather the status, and conduct of the
recourse to the simple country life as part of their religious beliefs; and they have clergy, it nevertheless violates the free exercise clause. It has the effect of
sufficiently established their sincerity towards such beliefs. The States claim of conditioning the exercise of his right upon the surrender of his religious
parens patriae cannot prevail over the free exercise claim of the Amish vocation. It thus, establishes a religious classification w/c inhibits religion in
Community in the absence of a compelling state interest. The Amish Sect has violation of the Free Exercise Clause.
established that there is no apparent danger to the welfare of the children should
they be deprived of the 2 years of additional education. GOLDMAN vs. WEINBERGER skullcap / uniformity in military Goldman was an
Orthodox Jew and member of the US Air Force. He was prohibited from wearing his
DD: Take note that the duty of the State to raise and educate the youth is only yarmulke (a skullcap of sorts), indoors in accordance w/ Air Force regulations.
subsidiary to the primary right and duty of their parents. According to their beliefs, it serves to cover their heads before the Omnipresent
God. Goldman spent most of his duty indoors. The Free Exercise Clause does
PAMIL vs. TELERON priest-slash-mayor / religious test / religion vs. profession not require the military to accommodate such practices as wearing the
Fr. Margarito Gonzaga (priest) was elected to the position of municipal mayor of yarmulke at the expense of its policy to evenhandedly regulate dress in the
Albuquerque, Bohol. A suit for quo warranto was filed against him for violating the interest of military uniformity.
separation of church and the state. The court rendered a divided decision hence
the vote is indecisive. The Revised Admin. Code expressly disallows ecclesiastics, Dissenting Opinion of Justice Brennan:
soldiers, contractors engaged w/ the government, among others, from holding The rules of the Air Force itself nevertheless allow expressions of individuality;
public office. The required majority to nullify the assailed provision, however, was excluding however those extreme, unusual, or fad forms of expression. The rules
not attained. tolerate manifestations of religious diversity such as wearing of crosses, some
forms of religious garments, among others. There is no reasonable and striking
DD: Under the 1973 Constitution, it requires a majority of all members of the basis for prohibiting the wearing of yarmulkes.
Supreme Court to declare a law unconstitutional; under the 1987 Constitution, it
only requires majority vote of all members who took part in the deliberations and LEE vs. WEISMAN rabbi invited to graduation day - invalid / coercion / State
voted thereon. cannot support religion Lee, a middle school principal, invited a Jewish rabbi to
offer a prayer during the graduation ceremony of his public middle school;
Majority Opinion: Weisman, a father of one of the students, sought to enjoin the practice, during the
The ban imposed by the Admin. Code is incompatible w/ the Constitution because present case, and for future cases. The government may not coerce anyone to
it amounts to a religious test for the exercise of a political right. However, the support any religion or participate in any of its ceremonies w/o violating the
prohibition against appointment to public office remains valid. Establishment Clause. The actions of the principal are attributable to the State,
w/c cannot place the dissenter in the dilemma of silent participation or protest. A
graduation ceremony, w/c is a personal milestone, cannot be equated w/ routine
Separate Opinion of Justice Makasiar: sessions of Congress w/c have opening prayers.
The separation of church and state shall be inviolable. The assailed provision does
not impose a religious test; it merely defines a disqualification. One is not Dissenting Opinion of Justice Scalia:
disqualified from office on the basis of his beliefs or religion, but rather
based on his profession or vocation. The contractors, soldiers, and other Prayer has been a prominent and accepted part of ceremonies and
persons disqualified therefrom all somehow profess a certain religion. There is even proclamations. It has been a long established practice in public events, such as
a provision in the Constitution that prohibits religious organizations from registering graduations. There is likewise no reasonable and discernible trace of coercion
as political parties. This manifests the intent of the Constitution to bar religious in the absence of any threat of penalty. Hence, the practice should be allowed.
organizations from holding office in the government. There is a dangerous
tendency for such officials to use the government to further whatever CHURCH OF THE LUKUMI vs. CITY OF HIALEAH animal sacrifices allowed / not
interests their respective churches or religions may have. neutral and general The Church of the Lukumi practices the Santeria religion, w/c
practices animal sacrifices. After leasing some property in the respondent city and

31 | M i k e e Retirado 1-C
CONSTI 2: Bernas Casebook 2010 ed.
Updated Darvins Digest

signifying their intent to establish a chapel therein, the City suddenly enacted 3. The means adopted by the State should be least restrictive of free
ordinances prohibiting animal sacrifices, or the unnecessary and cruel slaughter of exercise
animals during rituals or for purposes other than for food. A law that burdens
religious practice can only be justified if it is neutral and is of general The case is thus REMANDED to the Office of the Court Administrator to determine
applicability. In such a case, it need not be justified by a compelling the case based on the above considerations. The Solicitor General is likewise
governmental interest. In this case, the Ordinances, though seemingly neutral, ordered to intervene.
were actually targeted towards repressing the Santeria practices hence, they
violate the free exercise clause. There is likewise no compelling state interest
enough to justify the restriction.
Consolidated Dissents:
LAMBS CHAPEL vs. CENTER MORICHES use of school premises for film Escritors conduct constitutes the felony of concubine clearly w/in the provisions
allowed / rule must be neutral NY Law authorizes school boards to regulate the of the Revised Penal Code. Religious beliefs, no matter how sincere, cannot
use of school facilities after school hours and for purposes other than religious exempt from liability under the RPC for criminal acts.
purposes. Lambs Chapel evangelical church made requests for the use of the said
premises for the purpose of showing a film about family values and such topics.
The school board denied them access based on the statute. Denying the church BILL OF RIGHTS
access to public school premises violates the Freedom of Speech Clause. It
discriminates based on viewpoint. It permits the use of such school premises for SECTION 6
other purposes but denies the same to religious groups. The film was to be shown
after school hours and would have been open to the public, hence, there is nothing Section 6. The liberty of abode and of changing the same within the limits
there to indicate that the State endorses or benefits any religion. Access to such prescribed by law shall not be impaired except upon lawful order of the
forum can be based on subject matter, but the distinction must be religiously court. Neither shall the right to travel be impaired except in the interest
neutral. of national security, public safety, or public health as may be provided
by law.
ESTRADA vs. ESCRITOR concubinage / church approval / sincerity / compelling
state interest / benevolent neutrality Soledad Escritor was an interpreter for the
Las Pias RTC, who was charged administratively for immoral conduct for co- Liberty of Abode & Right to Travel
habiting w/ Quilapio w/o the benefit of marriage over the last 20 years, their union
bearing a child. At the time they started co-habiting, Escritor was still married, but at
the time she entered the judiciary, she was already a widow. Escritor and Quilapio MARCOS vs. MANGLAPUS right to return to ones country / residual powers /
were members of the Jehovahs Witness. They secured a Declaration of Pledging paramount interest In his deathbed, the deposed President Ferdinand Marcos
Faithfulness signifying their churchs approval of their union in accordance w/ their signified his intention to return from exile and die in his native country. At that time,
religious beliefs. the local situation was rather volatile, given the repeated coup attempts, the
secessionist movement in Mindanao, communist insurgency, accumulated foreign
debt, and the devastated economy. President Aquino thus refused to allow Marcos
Indeed, the case at bar has put a burden upon her free exercise of religion, to re-enter the country. The case is in a class by itself; it should not create any
and she likewise appears to be sincere in her religious beliefs. She procured precedent.
the certificate 10 years after their union began, and not merely after being
implicated or before entering the judiciary. Apparently nothing from her
actuations would constitute grossly disgraceful and immoral acts so much as The Marcoses invoke the constitutional guarantee of liberty of abode and freedom
to warrant administrative sanction. to travel, as well as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the
International Convention on Civil and Political Rights, w/c both provide for the right
against being arbitrarily deprived of right to enter his own country. They also
The State undertakes the burden of satisfying the compelling state interest invoke the incorporation clause. The President, on the other hand, invokes her
test to justify any possible sanction to be imposed upon Escritor. There are 3 residual powers as well as her duty to maintain peace and order and the protection
tests that have to be determined in this case: of the people.

1. The sincerity and centrality of religious beliefs


2. The right to free exercise may only be overcome by a compelling state
interest
32 | M i k e e Retirado 1-C
CONSTI 2: Bernas Casebook 2010 ed.
Updated Darvins Digest

This is how the Supreme Court decided the issue. The right to return to ones Section 7. The right of the people to information on matters of public concern
own country guaranteed under International Law is separate and distinct shall be recognized. Access to official records, and to documents and
from the constitutional right to liberty of abode and travel. The Bill of Rights papers pertaining to official acts, transactions, or decisions, as well as
makes no mention of the right to return to ones own country. to government research data used as basis for policy development
shall be afforded the citizen, subject to such limitations as may be
Such guarantees are not inflexible and may be subject to limitation should prescribed by law.
the paramount national interest so require. The President possesses residual
powers inherent in her duty to protect the general welfare. The extent of her powers
is not limited to those expressly conferred by the Constitution. The prohibition The Right to Information
imposed by the President is thus sustained.
LEGASPI vs. CSC eligibility of sanitarians / / right to info / only Congress may
Dissenting Opinion of Justice Gutierrez: deny such right Valentin Legaspi requested from the Civil Service Commission
Interpreting the Constitution for only one person smacks of unequal protection. The info regarding the civil service eligibilities of certain government sanitarians. The
liberty of abode and of changing the same cannot be impaired except upon CSC refused to divulge the information, thus Legaspi filed a case for mandamus.
lawful order of the COURT. This provision speaks of the Judiciary, not the The people have the right to information on matters of public concern, and
Executive. access to official records shall be allowed to citizens as may be provided by
law. It is a self-executing provision. The right to information is a public right
Furthermore, the right to travel cannot be impaired except in the interest of and every citizen is entitled thereto. Civil service eligibility is a matter of public
the national security, public safety, or public health, AS MAY BE PROVIDED concern; there is nothing secret about it.
BY LAW. This speaks of the Legislature, not the Executive. There has bee no law
passed for this particular purpose. Limitations upon the right to access information are discretionary upon the
Legislature, not the agency in question. Administrative agencies may only
Likewise, the deposed president is in life-support. There may be local disturbances regulate, but may not prohibit access, unless otherwise authorized by law. Granting
present, but not to such an extent as to compel the Supreme Court to ignore a plea access is not discretionary upon the agencies of the government but only upon the
under the Bill of Rights. Also, the Legislature, although recognizing the Presidents Legislature.
residual powers, nevertheless proposed, through a Resolution, for the President to
allow entry in the spirit of reconciliation and goodwill. VALMONTE vs. BELMONTE GSIS loans / public funds / no law authorizing
confidentiality Valmonte, among other petitioners, was a member of the press
DD: This is a very exceptional case. For the purpose of deciding future cases (or who requested from the GSIS a list of Batasang Pambansa who have been able to
answering exam questions), I suggest that the rules laid down in the dissenting avail of loans, through the intervention of Imelda Marcos. They also asked for
opinion must be followed unless the case is as extraordinary as the Marcos Case. access to the official records. The GSIS refused to prepare the list and denied them
access thereto invoking right to privacy and privileged confidentiality. There is no
such law granting the GSIS confidentiality w/ regard to its documents.
Also, the right to travel may be impaired or regulated even by administrative Likewise, corporations such as the GSIS have no right to privacy. They cannot
agencies, for as long as the regulation is provided for or allowed by the law and invoke the right to privacy of their borrowers because such right is personal in
is in the interest of national security, public safety, or public health. Restrictions on nature. Further, the funds of the GSIS assume a public character. It is a matter
the liberty of abode or of changing the same, however, require court order. of public interest; information pertaining thereto cannot be denied unless
provided by law.
See the case of Villavicencio vs. Lukban where the Manila Mayor deported
the Ermita prostitutes to somewhere in Mindanao. It was deemed a violation of their The petitioners are thus entitled to access official records pertaining thereto.
liberty of abode. However, the right to information does not confer upon the citizens the right
to compel agencies to prepare lists, summaries, or other such documents.
Only access to the records is permitted. Otherwise, they would unduly burden the
agencies w/ the preparation of their requested lists or summaries.
BILL OF RIGHTS
SECTION 7

33 | M i k e e Retirado 1-C
CONSTI 2: Bernas Casebook 2010 ed.
Updated Darvins Digest

AQUINO-SARMIENTO vs. MORATO MTRCB voting / public nature, functions, and 1. Military and diplomatic secrets
character Sarmiento is an employee of the MTRCB who requested from the latter 2. Information affecting national security
permission to examine the voting slips made by the board members in rating the 3. Information on investigation of crimes before prosecution of the accused
films submitted for review. Chairman Manoling Morato denied her request claiming
that the manner of voting should be kept confidential as they are supposedly 4. Presidential communications and correspondences during closed-door
conscience votes. The rest of the board members agreed w/ Morato; hence this Cabinet meetings
petition. It is the general policy of the state to adopt full public disclosure of all 5. Internal deliberations of the courts
transactions involving matters of public interest. The very existence of the 6. Executive sessions of Congress
MTRCB is public in nature thus, there can be no valid claim to privacy. 7. Other limitations w/c Congress may impose by law

The decisions of the board are made in the exercise of public functions; The right to information includes official info on on-going negotiations before
hence they assume a public character. Access to records pertaining thereto final contract as long as there is already a definite offer or proposition.
must thus me allowed. As a matter of public right, access to information or official However, the right does not include that of compelling the government to
records cannot be made dependent upon the discretion of the agency involved, prepare lists, reports, summaries, or other documents.
unless the law itself provides otherwise.
DD: Take note that the constitutional right is conferred to citizens.
GONZALES vs. NARVASA multiple positions / self-executing / matters of public
concern Gonzales requested Exec. Secretary Zamora to answer his letter, asking
who are the officials holding multiple positions in the government, and for copies of DD: Under the recent case of Hilado vs. Judge, the right to access public records
their appointments, receipts of luxury vehicles seized by the Bureau of Customs, covers orders and decisions or verdicts of the courts, but not accesses to the
among other pieces of information. The right to information is self-executing pleadings upon w/c decisions are based.
and may be invoked by any citizen before the courts. For as long as the
information pertains to matters of public concern, the public must be HILADO V. JUDGE REYES - Access to court records (access to official records vs.
allowed access thereto. Zamora thus has the responsibility and the duty to good cause; purpose
answer the letter and to allow inspection of official records and documents. of access and prejudice to parties) Julita, the surviving spouse of the deceased Roberto
Benedicto, was appointed administratrix of the latters estate. Petitioners filed 2 complaints
CHAVEZ vs. PEA negotiations / official recommendation / cannot compel for damages against Roberto. For a while, the RTC allowed petitioners to regularly
agencies to make lists Petitioner Chavez seeks to compel the Public Estates examine the records of the case and to secure certified true copies, but the associate of
Authority (PEA) to disclose information regarding its negotiations with potential petitioners counsel was denied access to the last folder-record of the case. The SC held
holders of the said estates even prior to final agreement. The PEA refuses to that in determining whether particular information is of public concern, there is no specific
disclose the information claiming that the right to info does not include intra-agency test because, ultimately, it is for the courts to determine on a case to case basis. The SC
communications and recommendations. Chavez thus filed a case to compel the also held that decisions and opinions of a court are matters of public concern
PEA to divulge the same. While evaluations and reviews are on-going, there because the same are the authorized expositions and interpretations of the laws.
are still no official acts, transactions, or decisions. However, the moment the But pleadings and other documents filed by parties need not be matters of public
committee makes its official recommendation, there is now a definite interest, as the same are filed for the purpose of establishing the basis upon which
proposition, and the right to information begins to attach. It does not require judgment may be rendered. Thus, not all judicial records are matters of public
that the contracts be consummated first before the right to information to be interest. The SC further held that the right to access public or official records may be
invoked. restricted on a showing of good cause. To determine good cause, the judge must balance
the rights of parties based on the particular facts of each case. In other words, access to
judicial records may be permitted at the discretion and subject to the supervisory power of
The right covers 3 categories of information: the court after considering:
The actual use or purpose for which access is sought
1. Official records
The obvious prejudice to any of the affected parties
2. Documents pertaining to official acts, transactions, and decisions
In this case, the petitioners are interested parties who have a legitimate purpose for
3. Research data used in formulating policies accessing the said records, which was to monitor prompt compliance with the Rules
governing the preservation and proper disposition estates assets.
On the other hand, the following are not covered by the right to information:

34 | M i k e e Retirado 1-C
CONSTI 2: Bernas Casebook 2010 ed.
Updated Darvins Digest

BA-RA 7941 V. COMELEC - Party-list nominees According to COMELEC, Section 7 of assist, or form labor organizations; supervisory employees are not allowed to
RA 7941 prohibits the appearance of the names of the party-list nominees on the certified join rank-and-file organizations, but may form their own unions.
list, not to mention that party-list elections must not be personality-oriented. The SC held
that the right to information and the right to access to official records are not absolute and Managerial employees are generally classified into 3 groups
are limited to: matters of public concern and matters that are not regarded by law as
confidential. The SC also held that the policy of full public disclosure is limited to: state
transactions involving public interest and subject to reasonable conditions prescribed by 1. Top Managers, who are policy-determining and are in charge of overall
law. In this case, no national security concern or the like is involved in the disclosure of the management
names of the nominees of the party-list groups. Also, the prohibition under RA 7941 2. Middle Managers, who direct the conduct of other managers and
extends only to the certified list and there is absolutely nothing to prevent balance the demands of superiors and workers, and
COMELEC from disclosing the names through another medium. 3. First-line Managers, who directly supervise the workers and are
deemed the supervisory employees.
GUINGONA, JR V. COMELEC - May 2010 elections (invalid denial to access;
mandamus of public right) Several media reports divulged that the preparations for the Route managers are, by all means, managerial employees; they hold a great
May 2010 elections were fraught with controversies, among others. deal of responsibility in determining the success of the company through
SMARTMATIC supplied the wrong ultraviolet ink, but COMELEC still shouldered planning, operation, and evaluation. They belong to the category of middle
the replacement managers.
2 million ballot secrecy folders were bought at an overpriced rate and without
public bidding The Constitution only intended to restore the right of supervisory employees
The indelible ink of TEXAS RESOURCES was immediately washable, but to form unions. It does not confer the same right to middle managers. The
COMELEC still awarded the contract to the same ruling was based on the observation that Delegate Lerum made repeated
Certain PCOS machines in HK for the overseas absentee voting failed to accept reference to supervisory employees (as well as government employees and
the ballots security guards) in proposing for the restoration of the right to unionize. The
rationale supposedly was that managerial employees act in a confidential capacity
The SC held that for mandamus to be successful. The information must be a matter of and may thus lead to conflict of interest; the unions might also become company-
public concern. In this case, the May 2010 elections, as well as the alleged wastage of dominated. The route managers being managerial employees, are not eligible to
public funds brought about by bungled contracts attendant therein, is a matter of public unionize; and the assailed Labor Code provision remains valid.
concern.The information must not be among those exempted by law. In this case,
COMELEC failed to cite any law exempting the info sought from the Constitutional
command. Thus, due to the Constitutional provisions, relevant jurisprudence, and various Dissent of Justice Davide:
Election Laws, COMELEC must accede to petitioners requests. Delegate Lerum expressly stated that he intended Articles 245 (assailed
provision) and 246 of the Labor Code to be automatically abolished. There
BILL OF RIGHTS is no ambiguity or vagueness in his statements that would warrant implying
anything else. The intent was clearly to grant to all persons, whether rank-and-file
SECTION 8 or managerial, the right to associate and form unions. Where the intent is clear,
there is no room for interpretation.
Section 8. The right of the people, including those employed in the public and
private sectors, to form unions, associations, or societies for purposes TUCP vs. NHC right to unionize granted to government employees The NHC is a
not contrary to law shall not be abridged. government-owned and controlled corporation w/o an original charter. Questioned
in this decision is the application by the NHC workers for a Certification Election for
the purpose of forming a union. The Constitution explicitly recognizes the right
Right to Form Associations, Unions, or Societies of the people employed in both government and private sectors to form
unions, associations, or societies for purposes not contrary to law. Further,
under Art. 9-B Sec. 2 of the Constitution, the right to self-organization shall not be
UNITED PEPSI COLA SUPERVISORY UNION vs. LAGUESMA managerial denied to government employees. The government is an employer is every sense,
employees not covered The petitioner (United Pepsi) is a union of supervisory and the unions have in fact, functioned as effective watchdogs against graft and
employees filing for Certification Election on behalf of the route managers of Pepsi- corruption. They have also served as effective forums where dialogue as well as
Cola. Their petition was denied by the Secretary of Labor based on Art. 245 of the professional and self-development are promoted.
Labor Code w/c provides that managerial employees are not eligible to join,
35 | M i k e e Retirado 1-C
CONSTI 2: Bernas Casebook 2010 ed.
Updated Darvins Digest

SSS EMPLOYEES vs. CA no right to strike for government employees Employees


of the SSS staged a strike; the RTC enjoined the said employees and ordered them Dissent of Justice Feliciano
to return to work; thus this petition before the Supreme Court. The Constitution is The prohibition on strikes is not even statutory in nature; it is only administrative
silent as to whether government employees have the right to strike. Reference to and regulatory in character. The Constitution itself is silent on the matter. It could
the Deliberations as well as to applicable laws (RA No. 875) reveals that the right not be made an absolute rule. The court failed to balance the rights and
to form organizations does not include the right to strike. legitimate interests of the teachers on the one side, against the effective
maintenance of government on the other.
Art. 13 Sec. 3 of the Constitution guarantees the rights of workers to self-
organization, negotiations, xxx including the right to strike in accordance w/ the Dissent of Justice Padilla
law. For as long as there is no law allowing government employees to strike
and regulating the same, any strike made by them is illegal. Relations between There is also a violation of procedural due process. The dismissals and
private employers and employees rest on a voluntary basis subject to certain suspensions were handed out in rapid succession characterized by
requirements provided by law, but public employees are governed by Civil arbitrariness and undue haste. Further, the court dismissed the case because it
Service Laws. It is the government that, by law, fixes the terms and supposedly involved a question of fact, but proceeded, on the other hand to declare
conditions of their employment not any collective bargaining agreement. that it was illegal and his could only be done if the facts were duly considered.

EO No. 180 allows public employees to negotiate the terms and conditions of Dissent of Justice Sarmiento
employment not fixed by law. If negotiations fail, their unions may bring the matter There was clearly grave abuse of discretion on the part of the DECS, and the
before the Public Sector Labor Management Council. They may likewise lobby in court should not shirk based on the handy excuse that it cannot try facts. It
Congress for the terms they want; but they do not have the right to stage strikes, must be resolved before the court whether there was indeed due process or
walk-outs, or other temporary work stoppages. arbitrariness in handing out their suspensions and dismissals. There is no harm in
listening to our educators.
MANILA PUBLIC SCHOOL TEACHERS vs. LAGUIO teachers on strike / SSS ruling
/ dissents A strike was staged by Manila public school teachers praying for
decent wages and protesting against the general lack of concern of the government
for their pressing grievances. The DECS summarily dismissed 20 teachers, 40 BILL OF RIGHTS
were suspended for 1 year, 33 for 9 months, 122 for six months. Many teachers
SECTION 9
were placed on preventive suspension beyond the 90-day statutory limit. The
majority of the court applied the doctrine laid down in SSS Employees vs.
Court of Appeals in enjoining the strike. It was met by a barrage of dissenting Section 9. Private property shall not be taken for public use without just
opinions. compensation.

Dissent of Justice Gutierrez


The suspensions meted against the teachers were cruel, arbitrary, and punitive, Eminent Domain
being beyond the allowable 90-day period. This amounts to denial of substantive
due process. The SSS Ruling remains good law; however, what was involved Nature
here was the right of the teachers to peaceful assembly, to free speech, and
to petition the government for redress of grievances not the right to strike.
BARDILLON vs. BARANGAY MASILI RTC jurisdiction / legality & necessity The
jurisdiction of the MTC questioned over the course of expropriation proceedings.
Dissent of Justice Cruz Expropriation suits are w/in the jurisdiction of the RTC, regardless of the
The teachers should be ordered reinstated in the meantime pending their value of the property. The subject of the action is the governments exercise
administrative investigations. They should not be indefinitely suspended. The SSS of eminent domain w/c is beyond pecuniary estimation. It does not involve the
Ruling should not be used as an excuse by the government to flatly ignore recovery of a sum of money. The question that must be resolved in such cases is
the legitimate complaints of its employees. Just because teachers are governed the propriety of the expropriation whether it complies w/ the requisites for the valid
by Civil Service Law, it doesnt mean that they are deprived of their rights to free taking of private property. The Local Government Code provides requisites for
speech and to peaceably assemble. Further, the prohibition against strikes valid immediate entry as follows:
made by government employees must be re-examined.

36 | M i k e e Retirado 1-C
CONSTI 2: Bernas Casebook 2010 ed.
Updated Darvins Digest

1. Filing of a complaint, sufficient in form and substance, for the purpose of


expropriation 1. The expropriator must enter the property
2. Deposit of the amount equivalent to 15% of the fair market value (FMV) of 2. Entry must be for more than a momentary period
the property based on its current tax declaration 3. Entry should be under warrant or color of authority
4. The property must be devoted to a public use, informally appropriated, or
The RTC has authority to inquire about the legality as well as the genuine injuriously affected
necessity for expropriation. The amount is then determined only after the RTC is 5. Utilization of the property for public use must be to such an extent
satisfied w/ the validity and legality of the expropriation. as to oust the owner and deprive him of all beneficial enjoyment
thereof
ESTATE OF JBL REYES vs. CITY OF MANILA statutory requisites / order of
priorities Heirs of JBL Reyes filed a case for unlawful detainer against Abiog & The 2nd and 5th elements are missing. The entry was by virtue of a contract of
Maglonso; they obtained a writ of execution. However, during the pendency of the lease, renewable every year; it is for a momentary or limited period only.
case, the City of Manila sought to expropriate the same properties. The CA issued Possession was merely transitory. Further, Castellvi remained the owner of the land
protective orders, requiring the parties to maintain the status quo until the and was not deprived of any benefit therefrom she was paid rentals. The taking
expropriation is resolved. The heirs question the legality and validity of the of the property commenced from the time the complaint for expropriation was
expropriation. The Local Government Code and the Charter of the City of filed (1959 and not 1949); just compensation must be determined based on
Manila empower the same to expropriate private property for its urban land the date of the filing of such complaint.
reform and housing program; however there are other laws to be complied
with. RA No. 7279 (Urban Development & Housing Act) lays down the mandatory
priority in the acquisition of lands: CITY GOVERNMENT vs. ERICTA - cemetery lots for paupers / police power /
confiscation The City of Quezon City passed Ordinance No. 6118; Sec. 9 thereof
provides that the at least 6% of memorial parks or cemeteries should be set aside
1. Those owned by the government for the burial of paupers who have been residents of QC for more than 5 years. The
2. Alienable lands of the public domain City Council then issued a Resolution ordering the City Engineer to stop the selling
3. Unregistered, idle, or abandoned lands of such memorial park lots for failure to donate the said 6% portion. Among those
4. Those w/in declared Areas of Priority Development, Zonal Improvement, ordered was Himlayang Pilipino Inc. w/c assailed the constitutionality of the said
Slum Improvement, or Resettlement Program sites Ordinance. The City argues that it is a valid exercise of police power.
5. Bagong Lipinan Improvement Sites and Services (BLISS) w/c have not
been acquired The power to regulate does not include the power to prohibit or confiscate. It
6. Privately owned lands (last in the priority) does not include the power to take private property for public use. If property
is to be taken under the authority of the police power, it must for the purpose
of being destroyed for the protection of the public welfare. The case at bar is
Further, the same Act provides that expropriation is to be resorted to only not one of regulation, but one of outright confiscation and w/o any just
when other modes of acquisition (community mortgage, land swapping, land compensation. The Ordinance must be struck down for warranting deprivation of
assembly or consolidation, land banking, donation, joint venture, negotiated property w/o due process of law and w/o just compensation.
purchase) have already been exhausted. The City of Manila failed to comply w/
any of the aforesaid requirements. The exercise of eminent domain cannot override
the guarantees of due process conferred upon the property owners. DD: If property is seized in the exercise of police power, then it must be destroyed
and no compensation is due. If property is taken for public use, then it is the power
of eminent domain that is exercised and just compensation must be made.
Elements of Taking

US vs. CAUSBY too near the runway / deprived of any use / indirect intrusion
REPUBLIC vs. CASTELLVI requisites for taking / computation from date of filing Causby owned 2.8 acres of land situated very near to an airport used by the
Castellvi was the owner of real properties w/c she leased to the AFP the year 1949. government. The path of glide of the said airport passed directly over his property.
On the year 1959, the government sought to expropriate the properties, but Various forms of aircraft used the airport, from bombers, to transport aircraft, to
contended that actual taking commenced during 1949; hence, just compensation fighters. They fly low enough to barely miss the top of the trees and blow the leaves
should be based on the value of the property in 1949, not 1959. off; the noise is startling and the glare from the planes is disturbing. Causby was
forced to close his chicken business because many of his chickens were killed. He
The following are the requisites of a valid taking of property:
37 | M i k e e Retirado 1-C
CONSTI 2: Bernas Casebook 2010 ed.
Updated Darvins Digest

and his family have been deprived of sleep and the value of the property has Obviously, parties cannot be compelled to enter into contracts. The courts
greatly depreciated. cannot make contracts for the parties where there is none.

If by reason of the frequency and altitude of the flights, Causby could not use However, the government may exercise the power of eminent domain and
his land for any reasonable purpose, the loss would be complete and it is as require the PLDT to permit interconnection w/ the government telephone
if the government entered into the land and took possession of it altogether. system subject to the payment of just compensation. It even imposes a mere
It was as if the lands were used as runways themselves. Even assuming that the burden w/o loss of title and possession; the more should it reasonably be allowed.
airspace is deemed a public highway, still the landowner must have exclusive The lower court should have just treated the case as one for expropriation.
control over the immediate atmosphere. The fact that the planes do not touch the
surface is immaterial because there was intrusion nonetheless w/c was so NPC vs. JOCSON procedure / amount of deposit no longer discretionary /
immediate and deprives the owner of any beneficial use of his property. The flights assessed value This case enunciates the proper procedure for filing complaint
of the planes were the direct and immediate cause for depreciation of his properties and deposit of corresponding amount of compensation. Under the OLD RULE, for
as well. the purpose of expropriation, the court has authority to determine the provisional
value w/c must be deposited to the Treasurer before possession may be effected.
PEOPLE vs. FAJARDO view of the plaza / deprivation of property Juan Fajardo Under the NEW RULE, the courts no longer have such discretion. What is to be
was convicted for having constructed a building, w/o permit from the Municipal deposited was the amount equivalent to the assessed value for taxation
Mayor, that obstructs the view of the Plaza from the Highway, contrary to an purposes as reflected in the tax declaration. No hearing is required for the
Ordinance enacted for that matter. He assails the validity of the Ordinance. The purpose but the owner of the property must be duly notified. After the filing of
ordinance is unreasonable and oppressive. The purpose of the law may be valid; the complaint and compliance w/ the abovementioned deposit, the government can
however, the means employed is arbitrary. An ordinance w/c permanently now take possession of the property.
restricts the use of property such that it can no longer be used for any
reasonable purpose, is beyond regulation and constitutes taking of property. BENNIS vs. MICHIGAN confiscated car / police power / no compensation due
It clearly oversteps the boundaries of the exercise of police power and amounts to The car jointly owned by the Bennis spouses was confiscated by the Michigan
confiscation and deprivation of property w/o just compensation. The use and Court as a public nuisance because the husband, John, used it to engage in sexual
enjoyment of the property is an element of ownership. activity with a prostitute along a Detroit City street. He was convicted for gross
indecency. The wife, Tina, claims that, being the co-owner and innocent spouse,
DD: If the City Government wishes to deprive Fajardo of any beneficial use of his without knowledge or consent to her husbands illegal activity, she has been
property to preserve the view of the plaza from the highway, then the city will have deprived of her property w/o due process of law. It is a well settled rule in
to expropriate the property. jurisprudence that the acts of the possessor bind the interests of the owner,
whether he is innocent or not.
Take note that for a LGU to expropriate private property, an Ordinance for that
matter is necessary; mere Resolution is insufficient. This is according to the Local The government is NOT required to compensate the owner of the property it
Government Code. has lawfully taken unless the taking was done in the exercise the power of
eminent domain. In this case, the forfeiture was exercised through the police
REPUBLIC vs. PLDT telephone service disputes / expropriation of services The power. The confiscation of the said property is in the nature of a penalty, hence no
PLDT entered into a contract w/ RCA Communications for the reception / compensation is due.
transmission of telephone messages to and from the US. The Bureau of
Telecommunications set up its own telephone system and rented the trunk lines of PENN CENTRAL vs. NEW YORK landmark designation / office over the terminal /
the PLDT subject to the condition that their use was not to be dedicated to private mere regulation The Landmarks Preservation Law created the Landmark
use. Later the Bureau contracted w/ RCA for a joint overseas service; PLDT Preservation Commission w/c was empowered to designate buildings as
objected stating that the Bureau was using their own trunk lines to compete w/ landmarks, and particular areas as landmark sites. Before alterations to such
them. PLDT threatened that should the Bureau refuse to desist therefrom, in landmarks may be made, the owner must acquire approval from the Commission.
violation of the agreement, PLDT would sever the telephone connections. The Penn Central was the owner of Grand Central Terminal, w/c was designated as a
Bureau refused to comply; thus, the PLDT severed the connections. The landmark, and the area around it as a landmark site. Penn Central sought to build a
Philippines was thus disconnected from the rest of the world except from the US. multi-story office building over the terminal but was refused permission by the
As the PLDT and the Bureau failed to arrive at a compromise, the Bureau sought to Commission. Thus, Penn Central claims that such law deprives them of the use of
compel the PLDT to enter into a contract for the lease of the said trunk lines. their property w/o due process of law.

38 | M i k e e Retirado 1-C
CONSTI 2: Bernas Casebook 2010 ed.
Updated Darvins Digest

There was no taking because the City did not take possession or control of of her property, as there is already an established sports development and recreational
the premises, but only regulated the exploitation of it. It simply prohibits Penn activity center in PASIG CITY. The SC held that judicial review of the exercise of eminent
Central from occupying certain features of the space above it, but allowing the use domain is limited to the following areas of concern:
of the other portions. The law does not interfere w/ the terminals present use The adequacy of the just compensation
nor does it prevent Penn Central from any reasonable use and benefit
The necessity of the taking
therefrom, as opposed to US vs. Causby, where the owner was almost completely
deprived of any reasonable benefit from his property. There is no showing that a The public use character for the purpose of the taking
smaller and more harmonizing structure cannot be authorized. The SC also held that the right to take private property for public purposes a)
necessarily originates from the necessity and b) the taking must be limited to the
Public Use said necessity. In other words, the very foundation of the right to exercise eminent
domain is a genuine necessity, which must be of a public character, provided that the
ascertainment of the necessity must precede the taking of the property and not following it.
SUMULONG vs. GUERRERO socialized housing / public purpose The NHA The SC further held that necessity does not mean an absolute, but only a reasonable or
sought to expropriate 25 hectares of land in Antipolo, Rizal; among those sought practical necessity, such as would combine the greatest benefit to the public with the least
were properties of Sumulong & Balaoing. They assail the validity of the inconvenience and expense to the condemning party and the property owner consistent
expropriation, alleging that it does not satisfy the public use requirement since it with such benefit. In this case, PASIG failed to establish that there is genuine necessity to
would benefit only a handful of people. The public use requirement is a expropriate MASIKIPs property, as there already an established facility and the intended
flexible, comprehensive, and evolving concept. Whatever may be beneficially beneficiary is the MELENDRES COMPOUND HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATION, not the
employed for the general welfare satisfies the requirement; the construction residents of CANIOGAN, such that the purpose is not clearly and categorically public. Last
of low-cost housing (socialized housing) is recognized as a public purpose. but not least, the SC held that the right to own and possess property is one of the most
The fact that not all of the public but only some beneficiaries may avail thereof does cherished rights of men and unless the requisite of genuine necessity for the expropriation
not deprive the expropriation of its public character. It is made pursuant to the of ones property is clearly established, then it shall be the duty of the courts to protect the
States mandate to promote social justice in all phases of national development. rights of individuals to their private properties. The purpose of the taking of private property
The NHA is likewise vested w/ broad discretion to designate particular properties to must be specified and the genuine necessity for the taking must be shown to exist.
be taken for socialized housing purposes.
MACTAN CEBU INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT V. LOZADA, JR. - Lahug Airport ceased
CAMARINES SUR vs. CA pilot farm & housing / public use / no need for DAR to exist (constructive trust; commit to the use) Subject of the proceeding is a lot located in
approval Camarines Sur sought to expropriate certain parcels of land contiguous Lahug, Cebu which was owned by Anastavio Deiparine when the same was subjected to
to the capitol site to establish a pilot farm for non-food and non-traditional crops and expropriation proceedings for the expansion and improvement of the Lahug Airport. The
a housing project for government employees. It was assailed on the basis of public projected expansion and improvement was not pursued so respondents requested to
use; the Solicitor General further opined that Camarines Sur should first secure the repurchase the land, the Civil Aeronautics Administration however replied that the lot might
approval of the Dept. of Agrarian Reform to convert the subject land from still be needed as an emergency DC-3 airport but reiterated that should it not be used for
agricultural to non-agricultural lands. Under the old concept of public use the the said purpose, the respondents will have the right to repurchase. President Aquino
condemned property must actually be open to use by the general public; issued an order directing the transfer of aviation operations of the Lahug airport to the
however, under the new concept, public use simply means public Mactan airport and so it became clear that the lot would no longer be used for the purpose
advantage or benefit or that it is intended to contribute to the general welfare agreed upon by the parties. The rights of the respondents may be enforced based on a
and prosperity. constructive trust constituted on the property held by the government in favor of the
respondents. Since the Republic failed to keep its bargain, it may be compelled to
The pilot farm and housing project more than satisfy this requirement by enhancing reconvey the land because if not then the respondents will be deprived the right to use
livelihood of farmers and fishermen and for benefiting government employees. their properties because of a purpose that was not contemplated when the expropriation
While the power of local governments to exercise eminent domain may be was granted.
limited by the legislature, such limitation must be made expressly. There is
nothing in the Local Government Code that requires approval from the DAR before Just Compensation
properties may be expropriated by local government units. EPZA vs. DULAY just compensation / court discretion The Export Processing
Zone Authority (EPZA) sought to expropriate certain properties and presented tax
MASIKIP V. CITY OF PASIG - Sports and recreational facility (no genuine necessity) assessments made by the city assessor during martial law (way back) as basis
PASIG CITY sought to expropriate property of MASIKIP to construct a sports facility for the for computing just compensation. The EPZA further claims that the owners are
poor residents of BARANGAY CANIOGAN. MASIKIP, although conceding that the same is estopped from questioning the said assessments because they had prior
for a public purpose, claimed that there is no genuine necessity to justify the condemnation
39 | M i k e e Retirado 1-C
CONSTI 2: Bernas Casebook 2010 ed.
Updated Darvins Digest

opportunities to do so. EPZA invokes PD Nos. 76, 464, 794, and 1533 claiming that landowners. To allow government to discount the value of the bonds would
the courts no longer have discretion to determine just compensation. augment the sacrifice of the landowners; thus, they must be accepted at face value.

Under the Rules of Court, the estimation of just compensation is discretionary upon NAPOCOR vs. CA computed based on date of filing of complaint / exception
the courts. The assailed PDs have later been enacted taking away this discretion, Facts of the case are not provided. At issue in this case is the point from w/c just
stating that the basis for determining just compensation shall be the market value compensation is to be computed. The general rule is that the taking coincides
declared by the owner, or determined by the assessor, whichever is lower. w/ the filing of the complaint for expropriation. Thus the value of the property
at the time of the filing of the complaint serves as basis. The same applies if
The said Decrees are unconstitutional. They encroach upon judicial the complaint is made prior to entry into the property.
prerogatives. Final determination of just compensation is incumbent upon
the courts. The PDs deprive the courts of discretion to determine what is just and The exception to the rule is when such would give undue incremental
fair. Just compensation means the value of the property at the time of its advantages to the landowner arising from the use by the government of the
taking; it requires a full equivalent of the loss sustained. In order to arrive at said property. In this case, just compensation is computed on the basis of the
such value, all the pertinent facts and circumstances, as well as entry or the taking of the property, not from the filing of the complaint.
improvements must be considered. The rule laid down by the PDs can serve as
a guideline at most but cannot bind the courts. Due process also requires that the DD: If the entry took place before the filing of the complaint, and as a result the
owners be given the chance to dispute the valuations made in the tax assessments value of the property increased, then the value of the property at the time of the
w/c no longer reflect the true value of the lands. taking shall be basis for computing just compensation, plus legal interest. In all
other cases, the value of the property at the time of the filing of the complaint
DD: Determination of amount of just compensation is a judicial function. shall be basis.

CITY OF MANILA vs. ESTRADA determining just compensation / present and Under the present state of law, the State must make a down payment of 15% of
future use Facts of the case are not provided. Determining the amount of just the fair market value based on the tax declaration before entering the property.
compensation is usually a difficult task. The market value is attained by a Full payment is not required before entry to the property can be effected (Iloilo vs.
consideration of all those facts w/c make it commercially valuable. The same Legaspi).
considerations are to be regarded as in a sale of property between private
parties in the regular course of business. The present use of the properties must MERALCO vs. PINEDA Board of Commissioners is mandatory Respondent judge,
be considered as well as the possible future uses to w/c it is suitable. during the expropriation proceedings, arrived at the valuation of P 40.00 per sq.m.
based on a Joint Venture Agreement submitted before him and w/o the reception of
MADDUMBA vs. GSIS Land Bank bonds / must be accepted at face value A Land evidence before a Board of Commissioners. There are 2 stages in an
Bank bondholder purchased a residential house from the GSIS using the said bond expropriation proceeding:
(acquired as just compensation). He seeks to compel the GSIS to accept the said
bonds in their face value; GSIS seeks to negotiate and secure a discount 1. Determination of legality of the exercise of eminent domain, and
therefrom. The Land Bank bonds are fully-guaranteed by the government and
their values cannot be diminished directly or indirectly. They are not ordinary 2. Determination of just compensation.
commercial papers subject to discounting. The mere acceptance of Land Bank
bonds as just compensation already entails some sacrifice on the part of the A trial before the Board of Commissioners is a mandatory requirement. It is
landowner; to reduce their value would impose yet another burden. The purpose of indispensable and allows parties to present evidence regarding just
the law (RA No. 3844) is precisely to cushion the impact of dispossession upon the compensation. The court should appoint 3 competent and disinterested persons to
landowner. That there is no explicit provision regarding the matter is immaterial; the act as the Board upon the entry of the order of condemnation. The court may rely
intent of the law prevails. GOCCs such as the GSIS thus may be compelled under upon the report of the Board or may reject the same, but nevertheless cannot
the law to accept such bonds at their face value. dispense w/ the said requirement w/o violating the right of the landowners to due
process and just compensation. The Joint Venture Agreement relied upon is
DD: Generally, just compensation must be made in cash; however, the Supreme incompetent to determine just compensation.
Court made an exception in case the property is expropriated under the Agrarian
Reform Program. In this case, the SC allowed compensation in the form of Land DE KNECHT vs. BAUTISTA EDSA extension / into residential district / arbitrary
Bank bonds, among other modes. This entails sacrifice on the part of the The government, through the DPWH sought to extend EDSA to Roxas Boulevard;

40 | M i k e e Retirado 1-C
CONSTI 2: Bernas Casebook 2010 ed.
Updated Darvins Digest

the said extension was to pass through Cuneta Avenue. However, subsequently, payments or the propriety of the expropriation. The value of the property should
the DPWH decided to change the course of the extension to make the same pass also be determined in appropriate proceedings. There is no showing that the
through Fernando Rein & Del Pan Streets, w/c are lined w/ old and substantial said premises are even blighted areas other than the declaration of the President.
houses among the owners was Cristina de Knecht who sought to enjoin the
government from proceeding w/ the expropriation. It is not disputed that the Expropriation must be exercised based on public necessity. There is no
government may take private property for public use upon just showing why the said properties were singled out for expropriation. At least,
compensation; however, this power cannot be exercised capriciously or expropriations in Congress are attended by debates and deliberations; this was
arbitrarily. The landowners are covered by the mantle of protection of due process. issued by the President w/o justification for the choice of properties sought. Also,
private property may not be expropriated for private use, even despite full
It is odd why the DPWH decided to suddenly change the course of the extension compensation. The government cannot just take private property and transfer
when the previous course through Cuneta Avenue was subject to careful study and ownership thereof to another private individual. The government has to justify the
consideration. Likewise, the Human Settlements Commission, tasked by the expropriation on the basis of public use and necessity.
President to investigate the matter, found that the choice of Fernando Rein and Del
Pan Streets was indeed arbitrary and ill-advised.

REPUBLIC vs. DE KNECHT last man standing / supervening events / no longer


arbitrary A few years after the ruling in De Knecht vs. Bautista, the legislature
enacted BP No. 340 expropriating the same properties along the Fernando Rein-
Del Pan Streets. However, certain factual changes have taken place. The
government has already acquired, though negotiated sale 80% to 85% of the said
lands from their respective landowners; only a few landowners including De Knecht
vigorously opposed. The social impact w/c persuaded the court to consider the BILL OF RIGHTS
extension arbitrary under the previous ruling has already disappeared. De
Knecht remains as the sole obstacle to the project. SECTION 10

De Knecht even offered armed resistance through her private guards. If the said
property was not to be taken, traffic will continue to clog EDSA and Taft Section 10. No law impairing the obligation of contracts shall be passed.
intersections and the drainage and flood control programs would be paralyzed. The
Legislature thus no longer acts w/ arbitrariness in deciding to expropriate De
Knechts property. According to Justice Cruz, BP No. 340 is not a reversal of the
The Impairment Clause
ruling in De Knecht vs. Bautista because this case was tried under a different set of
facts.
HOME BUILDING & LOAN ASSOC. vs. BLAISDELL mortgage moratorium /
remedies modified / reserved powers In order to address an economic crisis,
MANOTOK vs. NHA expropriated by Presidential Decree / no proceedings
the Minnesota Mortgage Moratorium Law was passed allowing parties to a contract
whatsoever LOI No. 555 & 557 declared the Tambunting Estate and Estero de
to judicially avail of postponement of auction sales or extensions of periods of
Sunog-Apog blighted communities. PD No. 1669 & 1670 declared the said
redemption; effective only during the existence of the emergency. It was assailed
properties expropriated, and authorized the NHA to immediately possess and
for allegedly impairing the obligation of contracts. The means of enforcing the debt
control them. The President declared that the actions of the NHA pursuant thereto
is material to the obligation; but while the obligation may generally not be
are beyond review by the courts. The said PDs decreed maximum compensation
impaired, the remedy may certainly be modified as the wisdom of the
at P 17 million and P 8 million for the respective properties, payable in 5 annual
legislature may direct, provided substantive rights are not diminished.
installments. The 1st annual installments were deposited w/ the PNB; notice was
given to the owners of the said properties. Manotok, one of the landowners,
assailed the validity of the said PDs. The assailed PDs suffer several The prohibition against impairment of obligations of contracts is not
constitutional defects. absolute. Certain powers are reserved to the State to protect public safety, or
in this case, the economic interests. The legislature cannot bargain away the
public health or the public morals. They cannot be removed from the regulative
The estates were summarily declared blighted areas and expropriated w/o
powers of the State. The test is whether the legislation is addressed to a
any proceedings whatsoever. This violates due process for many reasons.
legitimate end, and the measures taken are reasonable and appropriate. In
The landowners are not afforded the opportunity to be heard, or question the
41 | M i k e e Retirado 1-C
CONSTI 2: Bernas Casebook 2010 ed.
Updated Darvins Digest

this case, there was indeed an economic emergency to be addressed, threatening and 14 years respectively, both promoted to the position of Cabo. As her lease
the massive loss of homes and lands. The law was enacted for the interest of the expired, Abella closed her business and terminated the services of Dionele and
society and was effective for a limited period only, w/c by all means is not Quitco, who then demanded overtime pay, reinstatement, and separation pay
unreasonable. The integrity of the mortgage was not impaired; the conditions and based on Art. 284 of the Labor Code. The NLRC sustained separation pay but
terms attendant to mortgage are preserved except that the remedies are slightly since the cessation of the business was a valid cause for termination, the other
modified. remedies were denied. Abella alleges that when she leased the Hacienda, she and
the lessor never contemplated any separation pay to workers at the end of the
DD: Since impairment of the obligation of contracts is necessarily an exercise of the lease.
police power, the standards of substantive due process are applicable. The
impairment must be for a valid and lawful purpose, and the means must be The impairment clause is not absolute; it only prohibits impairment that is
reasonable, not arbitrary or oppressive. unreasonable. Appropriate legislation may modify or abrogate contracts
already in effect, provided that there is a lawful purpose to justify it, and the
RUTTER vs. ESTEBAN debt moratorium / 8-year period is oppressive / no means employed is legitimate. The purpose of the law, in this case, is obvious: to
emergency RA No. 342 provides debtors in contracts entered into prior to World afford protection to the workers. The means employed is likewise not unreasonable
War 2, who have suffered from the ravages of the said war, a period of 8 years to or oppressive. Also, to come under the prohibition, the law must affect the
settle their debts upon filing a claim before the Phil. War Damage Commission. The rights of the parties among each other and not w/ reference to third parties.
debts cannot be enforced until after the lapse of the said period. The purpose Even though Dionele and Quitco were absorbed by the new management, there is
allegedly was to enable the pre-war debtors to rehabilitate themselves and to keep no showing that the new management absorbed the responsibilities of the former;
them from being victimized by their creditors. thus they are deemed terminated from previous employment and employed as new
workers under the new management. Thus they are entitled to separation pay.

The 8-year period is unreasonable and oppressive. The application of the


reserved powers of the State may postpone the enforcement of the VETERANS BANK EMPLOYEES vs. PHIL. VETERANS BANK power to regulate
obligation, but the restriction must not be unduly burdened w/ conditions or banking system The Phil. Veterans Bank, created under special law, was placed
the extensions should not be so piled-up as to make the remedy a shadow. under receivership by virtue of Res. No. 334 of the Monetary Board, w/c eventually
Some of the investments were pending as early as 1941, and the law would require ordered its liquidation. It was opposed by the Phi. Veterans Bank Employees as
the creditors to wait for some 12 years before they may claim what is due to them. well as the Veterans Federation of the Phils. alleging that the Bank was created
The debtor is not even required to pay legal interest. Further, in the context of the under special law and a contract now exists between the government and its
prevailing circumstances, development has spurred after the war as evidenced by stockholders (veterans), and to disturb that relation would violate the Impairment
national economic developments. The contemplated emergency thus is no longer Clause.
existent. The said law should thus be struck down.
Even assuming that the charter created a contract between the government
DEL ROSARIO vs. DE LOS SANTOS tenancy-leasehold agreements / social and the stockholders, it does not follow that the relationship cannot be
justice Victorino & Tomas de los Santos, as farmer-tenants of landlord Ernesto altered altogether. The Central Bank Act expressly empowered the Central
del Rosario, filed petitions before the Court of Agrarian Relations to take advantage Bank to regulate the banking system and to step in and salvage the
of Sec. 14 of the Agricultural Tenancy Act, w/c empowers the tenant to change the remaining assets of the Bank to prevent their further dissipation. Contracts
tenancy contract from share tenancy to leasehold and vice versa, and from one cannot, by express agreement, fetter the authority of Congress. It is the duty of
crop sharing agreement to another. Del Rosario assailed the validity of the said law the government to preserve the public faith in the banking system. The mere
for violating the impairment clause. The obligation of contracts must yield to the fact that the Bank was created under special law does not confer upon it
proper exercise of the police power for a lawful and reasonable purpose extraordinary privileges above those granted to other banks w/ similar charters.
provided that the means used are not arbitrary and oppressive. The validity of
the measure is beyond question; it is for the improvement of the conditions of the DD: Non-impairment is now actually the exception rather than the general rule,
oppressed farmer-tenants. It is mandated by the social justice provisions of the because all contracts somehow affect the public interest and thus cannot be
Constitution. Those who have less in life should have more in law. The means severed from the police power. Better stated, the rule now is that Congress may
adopted was not arbitrary, capricious, or oppressive. impair any obligation, provided that it is done for a lawful purpose and carried out
through reasonable means.
ABELLA vs. NLRC hacienda employees / separation pay / protection of workers
Abella leased Hacienda Danao-Ramona for a period of 10 years extended for ORTIGAS & CO. vs. FEATI BANK zoning regulation / valid purpose and means
another 10 years. She hired Dionele and Quitco, who have been employed for 33 Ortigas & Co. was selling lots, particularly those of Highway Subdivision Hills, along
42 | M i k e e Retirado 1-C
CONSTI 2: Bernas Casebook 2010 ed.
Updated Darvins Digest

EDSA. It sold Lots 5 & 6 to Augusto Padilla, who transferred his rights to Emma result 3 billboards were erected along the Balintawak Interchange of North
Chavez. The sale was subject to the condition that the said lots were to be used Expressway bearing his name and picture endorsing the products of the said
exclusively for residential purposes. The conditions were annotated in the companies. Based on Res. No. 6520, the COMELEC ordered Chavez to remove
respective TCTs. The lots later were acquired by Feati Bank w/c started to build a the said billboards. The said provision requires the removal of posters, streamers,
Bank; Ortigas sought to enjoin the construction. Feati alleges that Resolution No. and other forms of media bearing the name or picture of candidates for public office
27 of the Municipal Council of Mandaluyong declared the said area (including Lots w/in 3 days after its effectivity. The objective of the Resolution is to prevent pre-
5 & 6) a commercial and industrial zone. Ortigas asserts that the Resolution impairs mature campaigning and to level the playing field between candidates w/
the obligation of contracts. substantial war chests and those who are less wealthy. Chavez assails the validity
of the said Resolution based on the impairment clause (among other grounds).
The non-impairment clause is not absolute; it must be reconciled w/ the
exercise of the police power of the State. The Local Autonomy Act The impairment clause is not absolute and must be reconciled w/ the police
empowered the LGUs to adopt zoning and subdivision ordinances and power of the State. In this case, the Legislature, through the Omnibus
regulations. It does not even require an ordinance for a mere resolution Election Code, expressly empowered the COMELEC to prohibit pre-mature
suffices. The Resolution was enacted for a valid purpose, w/c was to promote the campaigning, either directly or indirectly. The moment Chavez filed his
development of the area into a commercial district; and the means used to carry it certificate of candidacy, the billboards featuring his name and image assumed a
out were neither arbitrary nor oppressive. In fact, the lots front EDSA, where partisan political character; and brought Chavez under the coverage of the
industrial and commercial complexes have flourished already. prohibition. It amounts to indirect campaigning.

JUAREZ vs. CA rental regulation / housing problem / public interest BP No. 877 The Omnibus Election Code and the Implementing Rules of the COMELEC are
was enacted regulating rental rates, especially in urban areas. It prevents the lessor enacted for a valid purpose, w/c is to preserve the integrity of the electoral process
from increasing the rentals arbitrarily, and at the same time prevents the lessee and to level the playing field among candidates for public office; this particular
from insisting on paying inordinately low rentals. It covered all residential units w/ a means to carry out the objective is neither arbitrary nor oppressive.
monthly rental less than P 480 and applied retroactively. Juarez assails its
constitutionality on the basis of the impairment clause. Housing is one of the
most serious social problems of the country and the lease of residential units
affects the public welfare; thus the police power prevails over the impairment BILL OF RIGHTS
clause in this case in the absence of arbitrariness. Most private contracts SECTION 11
nowadays have for their subject matter things necessarily imbued w/ public interest
and are thus subject to the police power of the State.
Section 11. Free access to courts and to quasi-judicial bodies and adequate
CITY OF SAN PABLO vs. MERALCO franchise tax / local autonomy / taxing legal assistance shall not be denied to any person by reason of
power San Pablo imposed a local franchise tax upon Meralco through Ordinance poverty.
No. 56. Meralco asserts that it enjoys tax exemptions based on its franchise. The
Local Government Code empowers the LGUs to impose franchise taxes
notwithstanding any exemption granted by law. The franchise tax is thus
imposable in spite of any exemption either under general or special law. The Free Access to Courts, Quasi-Judicial Bodies, and Adequate Legal Assistance
purpose of the LGC is to further the constitutional policy of local autonomy and to
enable the LGUs to attain the fullest development as self-reliant communities. Thus MIJARES vs. JAVIER-RANADA P 472 million docket fee! The petitioners in this
it does not violate the impairment clause; franchises are subject to alterations case represent the human rights victims during martial law. They were able to
through the reasonable exercise of the police power. Further, the power to secure a favorable judgment in the US District Court of Hawaii, w/c rendered a final
tax, like police power, cannot be bargained away by the legislature. judgment awarding them some $ 1.9 billion from the Marcos Estate. They thus filed
a petition before the Makati RTC praying for the execution of the said judgment.
They paid P 410.00 in docket and filing fees; the Marcos heirs contested invoking
SC Circular No. 7 pertaining to the proper computation of filing fees. On the basis
Additional Case thereof, the Makati RTC assessed and required the petitioners to pay a
whopping filing fee of P 472 million. Thus, they appeal to the Supreme Court.
CHAVEZ vs. COMELEC product endorsements / pre-mature campaigning Frank
Chavez entered into endorsement contracts w/ the 96 North, Konka International
Plastics, and G-Box companies for the advertisement of the latters products. As a
43 | M i k e e Retirado 1-C
CONSTI 2: Bernas Casebook 2010 ed.
Updated Darvins Digest

The ruling is patently unjust. To preclude the filing an action for enforcement of refusal to talk may suggest guilt. The person is deprived of any outside support; his
a foreign judgment due to exorbitant assessment of docket fees runs afoul to will is undermined and he is led into affirming a preconceived story concocted by
the general principles of justice as well as international law. The respondent the police. Many people succumb to this tactic and render self-incriminating
judge should have relied on Rule 141 of the Rules of Civil Procedure in assessing statements. The US Supreme Court laid down the following rules to be
the docket fees, the action falling under the category all other actions not involving observed during custodial investigation:
property. Thus, only the minimal blanket filing fee should be required.
1. The person must be informed of his right to remain silent
The free access to courts and quasi-judicial bodies and adequate legal 2. That any statement he makes may be used as evidence against him
assistance shall not be denied to any person by reason of poverty. This is 3. That he has the right to the presence of an attorney, either retained or
provision gives rise to a demandable right as part of the guarantees under appointed
the Bill of Rights.
4. Any waiver should be made voluntarily and knowingly

Evidence obtained in violation thereof is inadmissible. The said rules intend to


protect the person against self-incrimination and to keep the arresting officers from
taking short-cuts to secure convictions. The rules intend to preserve the publics
faith in the justice system.
BILL OF RIGHTS
SECTION 12 MAGTOTO vs. MANGUERA prospective effect Two persons under custodial
investigation were not informed of their right to remain silent and to counsel; extra
Section 12. (1) Any person under investigation for the commission of an judicial admissions were obtained therefrom. The said investigation took place
offense shall have the right to be informed of his right to remain before the effectivity of the 1973 Constitution where no such right had yet existed.
silent and to have competent and independent counsel preferably of The Constitutional provisions on the right to remain silent and to counsel, as
his own choice. If the person cannot afford the services of counsel, well as the right to be informed of such, are to be applied prospectively. Since
he must be provided with one. These rights cannot be waived except the confessions were obtained before the effectivity of the 1973 Constitution, then
in writing and in the presence of counsel. the admissions are still admissible as evidence, even if they were presented
thereafter. Had the admissions been obtained after the effectivity of the 1973
Constitution, they would have been inadmissible.
(2) No torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation, or any other
means which vitiate the free will shall be used against him. Secret
detention places, solitary, incommunicado, or other similar forms of PEOPLE vs. MAHINAY Updated set of rights The following rules must be complied
detention are prohibited. with while the accused is under custodial investigation, he must be informed of:

(3) Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this or 1. The reason for his arrest and must be shown the warrant
Section 17 hereof shall be inadmissible in evidence against him. 2. His right to remain silent
3. His right to counsel, preferably of his own choice
(4) The law shall provide for penal and civil sanctions for violations 4. That if he has no lawyer, one will be provided for him
of this section as well as compensation to the rehabilitation of 5. That no custodial investigation can be conducted except in the presence
victims of torture or similar practices, and their families. of counsel
6. That at any time he is allowed to confer w/ his lawyer, immediate family,
Rights under Custodial Investigation priest, etc.
7. That he may waive the said rights knowingly and intelligently
MIRANDA vs. ARIZONA The Miranda Rights In this case, the US Supreme Court 8. That should he waive such right, it must be made in writing and in the
examined and discussed the common practice of ominously securing extra-judicial presence of counsel
and incriminating confessions from persons under custodial investigation. The 9. That he may refuse, at any stage of the process, to answer interrogations
accused was placed in a secluded room w/ no access to the outside, in an 10. That any previous waiver of such rights is not a bar to invoking them
obviously police-dominated atmosphere. Interrogators are often directed to use again
trickery or threat to extract confessions. The persons are misinformed that their
44 | M i k e e Retirado 1-C
CONSTI 2: Bernas Casebook 2010 ed.
Updated Darvins Digest

11. That any evidence obtained in violation of such rules is inadmissible self-defense. He was not assisted by counsel nor was he informed of his Miranda
against him Rights. The admissibility of the admission was thus questioned in this case.

PEOPLE vs. TAYLARAN the granny killer / voluntary surrender / no custodial Marra was not under custodial investigation when he made the statement;
investigation yet Taylaran surrendered to the police and admitted to Pat. Basilad thus they are admissible in evidence even if Marra has not been informed of
that he killed a certain Ofremia Atup (an old woman) because of her alleged vow to his rights. He was never subjected to any form of restraint. Marra could have
kill him through witchcraft. The confession was made even before the police validly refused to answer the questions from the very start, instead he the
investigation could be initiated. He now questions the admissibility of the said statement spontaneously; De Vera was merely probing the possibilities.
confession for not having complied w/ the constitutionally mandated procedure. The
statement was not made while under custodial investigation; hence the DD: Take note that Marra was not deprived of liberty and he made the confession
statement is admissible and Section 12 does not yet operate. The spontaneously.
constitutional safeguards thus cannot yet be invoked. He voluntarily admitted the
killing for the exact purpose of surrendering to the police.
PEOPLE vs. MAQUEDA Miranda Rights / any time prior to arraignment /
admission vs. confession Maqueda was prosecuted for the commission of an
PEOPLE vs. JUDGE AYSON statement during administrative proceedings Felipe offense; evidence adduced against him included (1) a Sinumpaang Salaysay as
Ramos was a PAL ticket freight clerk. He was investigated for irregularities in the well as (2) extra-judicial admissions made by Maqueda to Prosecutor Zarate
sale of plane tickets. He executed a handwritten statement during the investigation for the purpose of negotiating his privileges as a possible state witness. The
saying that he is willing to settle the irregularities charged against him. It was not Sinumpaang Salaysay was not made in the presence of counsel and was executed
executed in the presence of or w/ the assistance of a lawyer, nor was he informed after Maqueda has been arrested and prior to arraignment.
of his right to remain silent. He was then charged for estafa. He assails the validity
of the statements he made during the administrative investigation for violating
his right against self-incrimination and his Miranda Rights. While the right against As opposed to the ruling in People vs. Judge Ayson, the Miranda Rights cover
self-incrimination may be invoked during civil, administrative, or criminal not only custodial investigations, but also apply to persons not in custody at
proceedings, the Miranda Rights apply only to persons under custodial any time prior to arraignment. Thus the Sinumpaang Salaysay, executed prior
investigation for the commission of offenses. The person must be taken into to arraignment, is inadmissible as evidence for not having been executed w/
custody or must otherwise be deprived of liberty in a significant way. The assistance from counsel. The Sinumpaang Salaysay, however, was merely an
abovementioned statement was not made under custodial investigation; thus is extra-judicial admission, NOT an extra-judicial confession. An admission pertains
not protected by the Miranda Doctrine. Ramos even voluntarily answered the said only to pertinent facts, while a confession is a declaration by the accused of
questions during the administrative investigation. his own guilt.

There is a different set of rights for persons once the case is filed in court, The admissions before the prosecutor, however, are admissible. They were made
such as follows: freely and voluntarily and not during the course of an investigation but merely for
the purpose negotiating immunity as a state witness. They are not covered by the
exclusionary rule under the Bill of Rights.
1. Right to refuse to testify
2. Right not to be prejudiced as a result of his refusal
PEOPLE vs. BALISTEROS Miranda Rights are personal Galvante executed a
3. Right to testify in his own behalf subject to cross examination sworn statement under pressure categorically admitting guilt w/o the assistance of
4. Once he testified, the right against self-incrimination for other offenses counsel and in the presence of the opposing counsel, the brothers of the deceased
than those for w/c he is being prosecuted (whom he allegedly killed), and a stranger. The appellants (not Galvante, but other
accused) assail the validity of Galvantes confession as having been made in
DD: The rights under prosecution are discussed extensively under Section 14. violation of the Miranda Rights. The objection can only be raised by the
confessant or the person whose rights have been violated, and not by other
persons. The right is a personal right.
PEOPLE vs. MARRA spontaneous statement / admissible Sgt. De Vera reported to
crime scene to conduct an investigation and was informed that a man wearing a
security guards uniform perpetrated the incident. He was directed to Marra who DD: Simply put, an extra-judicial admission or confession made by the confessant
was eating in a nearby carinderia. Marra informed him that his gun was at his in violation of the Miranda Rights is inadmissible as evidence against him
house. They proceeded to the house. De Vera asked Marra why he killed Tandoc, (confessant), but is admissible against other persons.
but the later initially denied. Eventually though, he admitted the same and claimed
45 | M i k e e Retirado 1-C
CONSTI 2: Bernas Casebook 2010 ed.
Updated Darvins Digest

GAMBOA vs. JUDGE CRUZ police line-up / vagrancy / no interrogation Gamboa result, what purported to be a mere identification was actually a
was arrested and detained w/o warrant for vagrancy. He was lined up w/ 5 confrontation; hence Hassan had the right to counsel. No such facts are
detainees and the complainant pointed to him saying that ones a companion. He attendant in this case.
was then made to sit down in front of the complainant while the latter was being
interrogated. The line-up was made w/o the presence of counsel; thus its validity In short, the Hassan Case was attended by exceptional and anomalous
is being assailed. The right to counsel attaches upon the start of investigation, circumstances. In this case, there was nothing to show that during the police line-
when the officers start to interrogate and elicit information or confessions up, the police sought to extract any information from Frago; hence his right to
from the accused. The police line-up is not a part of the custodial inquest, counsel had yet to accrue.
hence no right to counsel yet attaches. Gamboa did not have to give any
statement to the police nor was he interrogated. It was actually the complainant
who was being interrogated by the police. However, the moment that there is DD: From the foregoing we deduce the general rule that police lineups are not part
even a slight move to elicit information, then the accused should then be of custodial investigation because the accused is not asked questions. He just has
assisted by counsel. to be identified. But from the moment he is interrogated or asked questions
pertaining to the crime, the right to counsel attaches.
PEOPLE vs. LOVERIA police line-up / hold-up men / no custodial investigation
Upon learning that certain hold-up men were being detained, Manzanero PEOPLE vs. GAMBOA paraffin test / not testimonial compulsion / no right to
proceeded to the detention facility and identified to Pat. Bill Ayun the perpetrator counsel Gamboa was subjected to a paraffin test to determine if he indeed had
Loveria during a police line-up. He made a sworn statement to that effect w/c was fired a gun. The results turned out positive. He asserts that he should have been
presented in court. Loveria was not entitled to counsel yet when he was in the assisted by counsel and that it amounts to self-incrimination. The rights against
process of being identified, because at that time he was not being self-incrimination as well as the right to counsel extend only to testimonial
interrogated. The Miranda Rights may only be invoked by a person under compulsion, and not when the body of the accused is examined.
custodial investigation, w/c Loveria was not.
PEOPLE vs. LINSANGAN marked money / not basis for liability / no self-
PEOPLE vs. DIMAANO same thing A confrontation was arranged by the Caloocan incrimination Linsangan initialed the P 10.00 bills found tucked in his waist w/o
City Police between the complainant and her witnesses and the alleged the presence of counsel. He acquired the marked money for the sale of marijuana
perpetrators for the purpose of identification. The person had not yet been held during a buy-bust operation. His possession of the marked bills did not
to answer for a criminal offense; there was still no confrontation between the constitute the crime; what constituted the crime was his act of selling
State and the individual. A police line-up is not a part of the custodial inquest; marijuana. Thus his right against self-incrimination was not violated by his
hence no right to counsel yet accrues. possession of the marked bills. Law enforcers are presumed to have performed
their duties in a regular manner in the absence of convincing evidence to the
contrary.
PEOPLE vs. HATTON line-up / may be part of custodial investigation / but not in
this case Hatton was subjected to a police line-up and invokes US vs. Wade in
asserting that his Miranda Rights, particularly to counsel, were violated. In the case PEOPLE vs. DE LAS MARIAS Receipt signed by accused / right to remain
of US vs. Wade, a lawyer was present during the police line-up to be identified by silent De Las Marias and Torres were made to sign a Receipt for Property
the prosecution witness. In the Wade Case, even if he was subjected to a police Seized, acknowledging that they are the owners of the things seized in connection
line-up, such line-up was already part of the custodial investigation because w/ the commission of a felony. It was a clear violation of the right to remain
Wade was also being interrogated; thus his right to counsel accrued. It was silent because it had the effect of an extrajudicial confession of the
conducted already 15 days after his arrest. In this case, Hatton was only brought commission of the offense albeit not verbally expressed. They practically
for the purpose of identification by a witness for the killing of Algarme; hence he admitted possessing certain articles in connection w/ an offense. It should be the
was not yet under custodial investigation. police who should have signed the receipts, not the accused. It was merely a clever
ploy to incriminate the suspects.
PEOPLE vs. FRAGO line-up / exception inapplicable / no peculiar circumstances
here Orlando Frago was identified by a certain Jicelyn during a police line-up
composing of 10 men; most of them were mustachioed. He invokes People vs. PEOPLE vs. ENRIQUE signed name in marijuana sticks/ tantamount to
Hassan asserting that he ought to have been assisted by counsel during the police admission During investigation, Enrique was made to sign his name on rolled
line-up. In the Hassan Case, there was a peculiar factual milieu. Hassan was the marijuana cigarettes w/o the assistance of counsel. The arresting officers did not
only person brought for identification, w/c was held in the funeral parlor, amidst the even inform him of his Miranda Rights. In effect, the act was obviously
grieving relatives of the victim. It is as tainted as an uncounselled confession. As a tantamount to an admission in clear violation of the Constitution.

46 | M i k e e Retirado 1-C
CONSTI 2: Bernas Casebook 2010 ed.
Updated Darvins Digest

been informed of his Miranda Rights already. Given that the extra-judicial
PEOPLE vs. BANDIN Booking Sheet / mere record / not basis for conviction confession is inadmissible, the accused must be acquitted.
Bandin was arrested for possession of drugs. He signed the Booking Sheet and
Arrest Report at the Station. He also signed the Receipt of Property Seized w/o DD: From the moment the accused is in any way significantly deprived of liberty, he
the assistance of counsel. The Booking Sheet is merely a statement of the cannot be asked questions unless he is assisted by counsel and was well informed
accuseds being booked as well as the date of his arrest. It cannot, by any of his rights. Otherwise, any confession or admission made by him is inadmissible.
stretch of the imagination, be the basis for a judgment of conviction.
PEOPLE vs. LUCERO left by lawyer during interrogation / denial of right to
The accuseds signature on the Receipt (seizure of drugs) was tantamount to an competent counsel While Lucero was under custodial investigation, he was
admission because mere possession of drugs is a crime in itself. It was an extra- provided w/ a lawyer from the CIS Legal Department (Atty. Peralta). Peralta
judicial and uncounselled admission made in clear violation of the Bill of Rights. explained all his rights under custodial investigation and stated that even had he
made certain statements therein, he could still refuse to sign the same. Atty. Peralta
ESTACIO vs. SANDIGANBAYAN waiver of rights / last minute arrival of lawyer / gathered the impression that Lucero understood. When the investigation started,
ratified While Estacio was under investigation, he was briefed by the investigator Atty. Peralta then left to attend the wake of his friend and gave word that should he
of his rights under custodial investigation. When asked if he wished to waive the be needed, he could be reached at his residence. The next day, Lucero,
said rights, he agreed and signed a waiver. He then proceeded to make certain accompanied by CIS agents arrived at Peraltas residence carrying a signed
extra-judicial statements. Then, his lawyer, at the last minute, arrived, read the statement by Lucero. Peralta explained the implications of such statements but
waiver, and confirmed w/ Estacio whether indeed he sought to waive his rights. Lucero nevertheless consented thereto. Later, Lucero claimed that he signed the
Estacio confirmed the waiver. While the accused was validly informed of his statement under duress and in the absence of his lawyer.
rights, the waiver was initially invalid for having been made w/o the presence
of counsel. However, when his counsel arrived at the last minute and Estacio When the Constitution requires the right to counsel, it means effective and
signed the waiver in his presence, the defect was cured. The statements were vigilant counsel. Peralta left the accused during the most crucial point of the
thus held admissible as evidence. investigation. The result was an uncounselled confession. The right to counsel
attaches from the start of the investigation. In this case, Lucero was practically
DD: This ruling no longer holds under the present state of law. Counsel must be denied his right to competent legal counsel.
present at every stage of the investigation, not only during the closing stages as
will be illustrated by the next cases. PEOPLE vs. PAJORINOG choice of lawyer / acquiescence Pajorinog, who was
arrested for triple murder, claims that the lawyer assigned to him, Atty. Fuentes,
PEOPLE vs. DE JESUS reduced to writing w/ counsel / right accrues at start of was not of his choice and was only forced upon him. The evidence however reveals
investigation Tupaz and De Jesus were turned over to the investigating officer by that Atty. Fuentes was nevertheless w/ him throughout the investigation; he
the CID for investigation. They were interrogated w/o the presence of counsel for a complained regarding the matter only during trial. While the initial choice of a
certain robbery hold-up w/ homicide. The facts and statements were reduced in lawyer is naturally lodged in the police investigators, the accused has the
writing and signed in the presence of a CLAO lawyer, Atty. Saldivar. The right to final choice and may reject the same and ask for a new lawyer. However, in
counsel attaches from the START of the custodial investigation, when the this case, all throughout the proceedings, the accused never voiced any
investigating officer starts to ask questions to elicit information or objection as to the choice of his counsel. He thus acquiesced to the choice of
confessions from the accused. Thus, there was a clear violation of the accuseds the investigators and raised the matter only during trial, which was too late.
right to counsel in this case and the evidence obtained therefrom is inadmissible.
The Constitutional requirement was not sufficiently satisfied. DD: From the foregoing, it is clear that while generally the choice of counsel
devolves upon the accused, the investigators may provide him w/ counsel if he
DD: This is the more accurate rule as opposed to the Estacio Case provided above. consents thereto. If he distrusts the counsel appointed, he has the right to refuse
and may request counsel of his own choosing. However, if he acquiesces or does
not object to the counsel appointed, and the latter performs his duties properly, the
PEOPLE vs. BOLANOS confession on board police jeep / already custodial accused cannot, all of a sudden, aver that his right to choice of counsel was
investigation While Bolanos and Magtibay were boarded in the police jeep, and violated. Definitely, the matter cannot be raised only during trial.
on their way to the station, Bolanos confessed killing the victim. This was the only
evidence relied upon to convict him. As Bolanos was already on board the
police jeep, he was already under custodial investigation and should have PEOPLE vs. PAMON lawyer appointed by investigator / conformity of confessor /
valid confession Pamon asserts that Atty. Ligorio was not his choice of counsel

47 | M i k e e Retirado 1-C
CONSTI 2: Bernas Casebook 2010 ed.
Updated Darvins Digest

and that he was merely forced to sign a paper w/c turned out to be a letter to Atty. DD: Simply put, an extra-judicial admission or confession made by the confessant
Ligorio. Atty. Ligorio, however, was present during the time when Pamons in violation of the Miranda Rights is inadmissible as evidence against him
confession was made and sworn to and has participated nonetheless during the (confessant), but is admissible against other persons.
investigation. If the counsel is appointed by the investigators, generally,
admissions made before said counsel are inadmissible unless the PEOPLE vs. GUILLERMO cavalier treatment of constitutional requirements
appointment was made w/ the conformity of the confessor. The rule is Guillermo was sentenced to death for the murder of a certain Keyser. Upon being
otherwise if the accused acquiesced to the choice of counsel. Pamon never arrested he was only made to read his rights posted in the wall, he was not
signified that he had a lawyer of choice, hence he was merely provided w/ one and provided counsel (allegedly because it was a Sunday and there were no lawyers in
he clearly acquiesced thereto. touch), and there was no showing of any waiver of the said rights other than the
fact that he said that he regrets nothing. These facts are actually affirmed upon
PEOPLE vs. BAELLO failure to ask for new counsel While Baello was under testimony by the arresting officer SPO1 Reyes. In short, the arresting officers
custodial investigation, he stated that he could not afford the services of a lawyer; made no serious effort to comply w/ the constitutional requirements. A
hence he was provided w/ one in Atty. Generoso. No objection was voiced by confession, in order to be admissible must be:
Baello during the entire proceedings. Atty. Generoso informed him in detail of his
rights and the implications of his confessions. He even advised against such but 1. Voluntarily made
Baello insisted in confessing to robbery. Baello later on asserts that he was not fully
and duly assisted by counsel engaged by him. Every lawyer is presumed to be 2. Made w/ the assistance of counsel
knowledgeable about the law as well as training in procedure. Baellos failure 3. Expressly made
to request for new counsel during the proceedings negates his claim for 4. It must be in writing
denial of the right to choose his lawyer.
There was no showing that Guillermo waived his rights; but even if he so intended,
PEOPLE vs. AGUSTIN Ilocano farmer / lawyer foisted upon accused / associate of the waiver is still invalid because it was not made in the presence of counsel. The
the fiscal Agustin, a farmer who understood only Ilocano, was unlawfully arrested right to be informed likewise entails an obligation on the part of the
by military officers and was taken into custody for investigation. He asserted that he investigators to explain the said rights and ensure that the accused
wished to be assisted by counsel; automatically Atty. Cajucom was foisted upon understood the same. However, even assuming that his extra-judicial admissions
him and was to represent him. Atty. Cajucom was an associate of the prosecutor during custodial investigation are inadmissible, Guillermo spontaneously made
in charge of interrogating him. Cajucom informed him of his rights in English and confessions to private individuals. Such evidence is admissible.
Tagalog. He was interrogated in the presence of military officers. An extra-judicial
confession was extracted from him under threat where he attested that he knew a PEOPLE vs. MOJELLO right to counsel / final choice / acquiescence When the
certain Jun and Sonny and had participated in the crime.
accused is granted the right to counsel preferably of his own choice it does not
preclude other equally competent lawyers from handling his case. Otherwise, the
Atty. Cajucom could not have possibly been voluntarily and intelligently accused could impede the progress of investigations. The initial choice is lodged w/
accepted by the accused. Atty. Cajucom was merely foisted upon him. It is even the investigators, but the final choice is the accuseds. If the accused fails to
doubtful if he understood Atty. Cajucoms briefings in English and Tagalog and object to the appointment of his lawyer during the course of the investigation,
there are likewise special circumstances w/c cast doubt upon the integrity of his or subscribes to the veracity of the statement before the swearing officer,
representation being a close associate of the fiscal. The extra-judicial admissions then the accused is deemed to have acquiesced thereto.
(not confessions) are thus inadmissible as evidence and they being the sole basis
for conviction, the accused must be acquitted.
PEOPLE vs. SAYABOC silent lawyer / violation of right to competent counsel
Sayaboc was convicted for the murder of Joseph Galam. During the custodial
PEOPLE vs. BALISTEROS Miranda Rights are personal Galvante executed a investigation, he was represented by PAO lawyer Atty. Cornejo who remained silent
sworn statement under pressure categorically admitting guilt w/o the assistance of during the entire proceedings. As a result, Sayaboc made extra-judicial admissions
counsel and in the presence of the opposing counsel, the brothers of the deceased that led to his conviction. Extra-judicial confessions are presumed to be
(whom he allegedly killed), and a stranger. The appellants (not Galvante, but other voluntary provided that the prosecution establishes that all constitutional
accused) assail the validity of Galvantes confession as having been made in safeguards are complied with.
violation of the Miranda Rights. The objection can only be raised by the
confessant or the person whose rights have been violated, and not by other
Sayaboc was not afforded his right to competent legal counsel. It is Atty.
persons. The right is a personal right. Cornejos task to make Sayaboc aware of the consequences of his actions at
each stage of the proceeding. He should be aware when his client ought to
48 | M i k e e Retirado 1-C
CONSTI 2: Bernas Casebook 2010 ed.
Updated Darvins Digest

remain silent and advise the same. Instead. Atty. Cornejo just remained silent all counsel, the same may be ratified when the lawyer arrived at the closing stage of
throughout. If the advice given is useless, then the voluntariness of the accuseds the investigation and verified w/ the accused whether or not he understood the
confession is impaired. implications and the accused nevertheless decided to proceed w/ the admission.

The court likewise found a violation of the right to be informed. The investigating DD: Under the present state of law, counsel must be present at every stage of the
officers merely mechanically recited the said rights to the accused w/o investigation.
making sure if the latter understood the same. It should allow the suspect to
contemplate the consequences of his actions. The same especially applies in the BILL OF RIGHTS
case at bar, where Sayaboc finished only Grade 4.
SECTION 13

PEOPLE vs. MARLENE OLERMO absent lawyers / right to choose counsel not
absolute Marlene Olermo was first represented by Atty. Domingo, since Atty.
Yuseco, her counsel of choice, was in Cagayan. During subsequent trials, she was Section 13. All persons, except those charged with offenses punishable by
represented de officio by Atty. Perez, because her preferred lawyers were likewise reclusion perpetua when evidence of guilt is strong, shall, before
unavailable. This prejudiced her case; and she then asserts that she was deprived conviction, be bailable by sufficient sureties, or be released on
her right to competent legal counsel because her lawyers were not familiar w/ her recognizance as may be provided by law. The right to bail shall not
case. When the accused is granted the right to counsel preferably of his own be impaired even when the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is
choice it does not preclude other equally competent lawyers from handling suspended. Excessive bail shall not be required.
his case. Otherwise, the accused could impede the judicial process by
choosing lawyers who are unavailable just as in the present case. Right to Bail

PEOPLE vs. PINLAC right to information / must be explained and understood


The right to be informed is complied w/ not merely by mechanically and PEOPLE vs. NITCHA appeal / right vs. discretion Facts are not provided. Even if
ceremonially reciting to the accused the constitutional provisions, the investigator the accused has posted bail, once the decision of conviction is promulgated, the
must also explain the effects of the same in simple and practical terms. The
accused is subject to re-incarceration. Bail must not be granted during the
accused must be made to understand the implications of his actions. The rights of pendency of appeal, because it implies that the trial court established guilt
persons under custodial investigation are reiterated:
beyond reasonable doubt. Rules to remember:

1. The reason for his arrest and must be shown the warrant 1. Bail is a matter of right if the offense charged is punishable by any
2. His right to remain silent penalty lower than reclusion perpetua.
3. His right to counsel, preferably of his own choice 2. If the offense is punishable by reclusion perpetua or higher, bail is a
4. That if he has no lawyer, one will be provided for him matter of discretion depending on whether evidence of guilt is
5. That no custodial investigation can be conducted except in the presence strong.
of counsel
6. That at any time he is allowed to confer w/ his lawyer, immediate family, DD: Under the present state of law, when the case is on appeal, bail becomes a
priest, etc. matter of discretion.
7. His right to waive the said rights knowingly and intelligently
8. That should he waive such right, it must be made in writing and in the CARDINES vs. ROSETE illegal recruitment / life imprisonment / bailable under
presence of counsel 1985 Rules Judge Rosete is being charged for misconduct and ignorance of the
9. That he may refuse, at any stage of the process, to answer interrogations law for granting bail to Erlie & Emilio Claro, both charged for illegal recruitment in
10. That any previous waiver of such rights is not a bar to invoking them large scale constituting economic sabotage, punishable by life imprisonment under
again the Labor Code. The applicable law then was the 1985 Rules of Criminal
Procedure. Under the said rules, the only exceptions for denying the right to bail are
11. That any evidence obtained in violation of such rules is inadmissible offenses punishable by capital punishment, or reclusion perpetua in both cases
evidence of guilt must be strong. There was no mention of life imprisonment.
PEOPLE vs. ROUS right to remain silent / waiver w/o counsel / may be ratified Reclusion perpetua and life imprisonment are not synonymous. Reclusion
Even if the waiver of the right to remain silent was not made in the presence of perpetua is covered by the Revised Penal Code, has a definite duration, and has
49 | M i k e e Retirado 1-C
CONSTI 2: Bernas Casebook 2010 ed.
Updated Darvins Digest

accessory penalties; life imprisonment is covered by special laws, and has neither a bail. The prosecution objects. In order to determine whether evidence of guilt is
definite duration nor accessory penalties. Thus the accuseds are entitled to bail. strong, a hearing is necessary whether summary or otherwise. This affords
the prosecution the opportunity to submit the evidence before the court. Ten
DD: Administrative Circular No. 12-94 amended the said rules; life imprisonment is minutes could not have possibly been sufficient to receive or evaluate any
no longer bailable provided evidence of guilt is strong, but the same cannot apply evidence. The judge practically denied the complainant the opportunity to be
retroactively as it is not favorable to the accused. heard, in violation of due process. The following are the duties of the trial judge in
an application for bail when the offense is punishable by reclusion perpetua, capital
punishment, or life imprisonment:
PADERANGA vs. CA must be under custody / constructive custody When Ely
Roxas was implicated for multiple murder, his counsel was Miguel Paderanga, his
former employer. Strangely, Roxas implicated Paderanga alleging that he was the 1. To inform the prosecution or require him to submit a recommendation
mastermind behind the Bucag Massacre. An arrest warrant was issued for 2. To conduct a hearing, even if the prosecution refuses or fails to present
Paderanga but before the same can be served, he filed a Motion for Admission to evidence
Bail. He was, however, then confined in a hospital and manifested that he was 3. Decide if evidence of guilt is strong based on the evidence presented
submitting himself to the custody of the law; the prosecution offered no objection. 4. Approve or deny provisional liberty based on the strength of the evidence
He managed to appear before the court to post bail as well as attend the hearings.
Bail cannot be posted unless custody is acquired, either through arrest or
voluntary surrender. Its purpose is to relieve the accused from the rigors of PEOPLE vs. CABRAL evident guilt / great presumption / reviewable by the SC
imprisonment until his conviction, and yet secure appearance during trial. Cabral was charged w/ rape qualified w/ the use of deadly weapon w/c is
punishable by reclusion perpetua to death. The grant of bail is thus discretionary
upon the court depending on whether evidence of guilt is strong. The test is not
While it is true that Paderanga posted bail before he was actually arrested, proof beyond reasonable doubt but rather whether the evidence shows
nevertheless, given the factual circumstances, he was constructively under evident guilt or great presumption of guilt depending on the facts,
custody. He voluntarily submitted himself to the custody of the law and the circumstances, and evidence presented. While the same is discretionary upon
jurisdiction of the trial court. Given that the offense is punishable by reclusion the trial courts, the SC will not hesitate to overturn the decision of there is grave
perpetua or higher, the grant of bail is discretionary upon the court depending on abuse of discretion.
the strength of evidence. A trial, summary in nature, must thus be held so that the
prosecution may present evidence, and the court must justify the grant or denial of
bail based on the evidence. Evident proof means clear and strong evidence w/c leads a well-guarded and
dispassionate judgment to the conclusion that the offense has been committed and
the accused is the guilty agent and that he will be punished capitally if the law is
YAP vs. CA P 5.5 million bail / excessive Francisco Yap was convicted by the trial administered. Presumption great exists when the circumstances manifest a
court for estafa; he appealed the decision and prayed for provisional liberty pending strong and convincing inference of guilt excluding any other probable conclusion.
appeal. The court required him to post bail amounting to P 5.5 million
corresponding to the amount he allegedly embezzled. He was also required to
secure a certification from the mayor that he was a resident of that area, and that SERAPIO vs. SANDIGANBAYAN arraignment is not a prerequisite to bail The
should he transfer, he should inform the court and the complainant. He prays that Sandiganbayan erred in ordering the arraignment of Serapio before proceeding w/
the amount be reduced to P 40,000 according to the Bail Bond Guide, but the the hearing for bail. As soon as a person is deprived of liberty, either through
appellate court denied his petition. arrest or surrender, the right to bail accrues. He need not await arraignment
before filing a petition for bail. In case the offense is punishable by reclusion
perpetua, capital punishment, or life imprisonment, the petition for bail may
The apparent rationale is to prevent him from leaving the country during the be heard ahead of arraignment.
pendency of the case considering that he himself admitted having gone out several
times. While the condition requiring him to present a mayors certification is
reasonable, the amount of bail is clearly excessive. Imposing excessive bail LEVISTE vs CA - In the exercise of the discretion in the grant of bail pending appeal to
renders illusory the right to bail altogether. The Supreme Court reduced the those convicted by the trial court, the proper courts are to be guided by the
amount of the bail to P 200,000.00. fundamental principle that the allowance of bail pending appeal should be
exercised NOT with laxity BUT with grave caution and only for strong reasons,
considering that the accused has been in fact convicted by the trial court. Pending
NARCISO vs. STA. ROMANA-CRUZ parricide / hearing is mandatory / duties of appeal of a conviction by the trial court of an offense not punishable by
the judge Narciso was charged w/ parricide, punishable by reclusion perpetua. He death, reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment, admission to bail is
was granted bail by the trial court only 10 minutes after he filed his motion to post expressly declared to be discretionary. The discretion to allow or to disallow

50 | M i k e e Retirado 1-C
CONSTI 2: Bernas Casebook 2010 ed.
Updated Darvins Digest

bail pending appeal in a case such as the one at bar where the decision of the of arrest for extradition cases because it would only tip the extraditee and cause
trial court convicting the accused changed the nature of the offense from him to flee, the same principle does not apply here.
non-bailable to bailable is exclusively lodged in the appellate court.
Special circumstances must be considered. Imelda is in her sixties and under
US vs. JUDGE PURUGANAN Mark Jimenez / extradition is not criminal in nature / medical treatment, she offered herself for voluntary extradition, she surrendered her
no bail While his case was pending in the US, Mark Jimenez fled to the Phils. passport and there is an existing hold-departure order against her.
Thus, the US seeks to extradite him. During the extradition proceedings, Jimenez
applied for bail. Extradition proceedings are sui generis. They are not criminal She falls clearly w/in the 2 exceptions where a bail may be granted to an extraditee:
proceedings w/c call into operation the rights of the accused under the Bill of (1) she is not a flight risk, and (2) the attendance of special and humanitarian
Rights. Thus the right to bail does not accrue. The only question that has to be considerations such as her health and age.
resolved in such proceedings is whether he is extraditable and the extraditing
country complied w/ the treaty. It is only a measure of international judicial
assistance, usually summary in nature, and requires merely a prima facie case. DD: A flight risk is a person who demonstrates the capacity and the will to escape.
Final discretion lies w/ the President. It is not concerned w/ his guilt or innocence,
w/c will be tried separately by the extraditing country. Further, Jimenez has
demonstrated the capacity and will to flee, w/c is precisely what the Extradition PEOPLE vs. JUDGE DONATO & RODOLFO SALAS if matter of right, no hearing
Treaty guards against. needed / waiver Rodolfo Salas, along w/ Josefina Cruz & Jose Conception were
arrested and charged for robbery. At that time, the applicable law prescribed a
The general rule is that in extradition proceedings, bail is NOT a matter of penalty of reclusion perpetua to death. EO No. 187 was enacted w/c reduced the
right. It may only be granted as an exception if: penalty to prision mayor, thus making the same a bailable offense. In this case, bail
has become a matter of right. If bail is a matter of right, the prosecution loses
1. The defendant can demonstrate that he is not a flight risk, and the right to present evidence for the denial thereof. The court has also
repeatedly held that the right to bail may be availed even during the pendency
2. Exceptional, humanitarian, or compelling circumstances. of the appeal. However, the court erred in fixing the bond to P 30,000 and then
later changing it to P 50,000 w/o hearing the prosecution. There are guidelines that
Jimenez bears the burden of proving the existence of any of the 2 exceptions. must be complied with. To this extent, a hearing should be held but only for the
purpose of determining the amount of bail.
Dissent of Justice Puno
From the moment a person is arrested, the guarantees under the Bill of However, the right to bail can be waived; and there is such a waiver in this
Rights operate, including his right to bail. This is more in accord w/ the case made by Rodolfo Salas. A compromise was entered into whereby the arrest
Universal Declaration of Human Rights as well as the Covenant on Civil and warrants for Cruz & Conception were to be lifted but Salas was to remain in legal
Political Rights. custody. Custody means nothing less than physical custody. Such a waiver is not
contrary to law, good customs, public order, and public policy and is not
prejudicial to any third person. The right to bail is a personal right. The waiver
RODRIGUEZ vs. JUDGE extradition / cancellation of bail, notice & hearing / not was intelligently and knowingly entered into and w/ the assistance of counsel.
flight risk / special circumstances Eduardo and Imelda Rodriguez offered
themselves for voluntary extradition; they posted a cash bond worth P 1 million
each. They were granted bail by the trial court. The US government moved for DE LA CAMARA vs. ENAGE mayor / murders / excessive bail / guidelines for
reconsideration; the SC directed the trial court to decide the matter based on the computing Mayor Ricardo de la Camara of Magsaysay, Misamis was arrested for
outcome of the Mark Jimenez Case. Following the ruling therein, the trial court multiple murder and multiple frustrated murder. He applied for bail claiming that
cancelled the bail without prior notice and hearing and issued the there was no evidence to link him to the crime. The prosecution failed to present
corresponding warrants of arrest. Eduardo, meanwhile was already in the US evidence but Judge Enage fixed the bail at some P 1.2 million. De la Camara
attending to his case, thus the case is moot as far as he is concerned. It is Imeldas assailed the order of the judge; however, he later escaped from jail. His petition to
case that stands to be affected by this decision. nullify the said order has thus become moot. Nevertheless, the court found that the
amount of bail fixed was clearly excessive. It has the effect of rendering
nugatory or illusory the right to bail. At most, the bail should have been fixed at
The cancellation of Imeldas bail, w/o prior notice and hearing, is a violation P 50,000.00, P25,000.00 for each charge.
of her right to due process. She is not a flight risk and does not pose any danger
to the community; hence her bail could not be cancelled w/o notice and hearing.
While, it is true that notice and hearing is not required before issuance of a warrant The following rules must be considered in fixing the amount of bail:
51 | M i k e e Retirado 1-C
CONSTI 2: Bernas Casebook 2010 ed.
Updated Darvins Digest

functioning otherwise the rights of the accuseds to due process are


1. Ability of the accused to give bail violated.
2. Nature of the offense
3. Penalty for the offense charged The lifting of Martial Law effectively divested the Military Tribunals of any supposed
4. Character and reputation of the accused authority. Further, the grave national emergency that once justified their existence
no longer exists. Thus, all cases pending under such tribunals should be
5. Health of the accused transferred to the civil courts.
6. Character and strength of evidence
7. Probability for the accused to appear on trial TAN vs. BARRIOS acquitted by military tribunals / operative fact Pursuant to the
8. Forfeiture of other bonds rulings in Olaguer as well as Cruz vs. Enrile, declaring the military tribunals functus
9. Whether accused was a fugitive when arrested officio and the proceedings therein null and void, several persons convicted by the
10. If the accused is under bond for appearance in other cases military tribunals during martial law prayed for a re-trial of their case. The courts
thus directed the Secretary of Justice to file the necessary informations in the
proper civil courts. However, pursuant thereto, Fiscal Barrios re-filed informations
against Tan and other persons who have been ACQUITTED by the military
BILL OF RIGHTS tribunals. The lower courts then issued the warrants for their arrest. The ruling in
SECTION 14 Cruz vs. Enrile should not prejudice persons who are not parties thereto;
otherwise it could be used as an instrument for oppression. The military
tribunal hearings as to the following cases should stand:
Section 14. (1) No person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense without
due process of law.
1. Persons who had finished serving their sentences thereunder
(2) In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed 2. Persons who have been granted amnesty
innocent until the contrary is proved, and shall enjoy the right to be 3. Persons who have been acquitted by the said tribunals
heard by himself and counsel, to be informed of the nature and
cause of the accusation against him, to have a speedy, impartial, Thus, the rule laid down in Cruz vs. Enrile should be applied prospectively.
and public trial, to meet the witnesses face to face, and to have Even assuming that proceedings under military tribunals are void, operative
compulsory process to secure the attendance of witnesses and the fact applies. This bars the re-filing of informations against the herein accuseds; to
production of evidence in his behalf. However, after arraignment, rule otherwise would violate their rights against double jeopardy and the enactment
trial may proceed notwithstanding the absence of the accused: of ex post facto laws or rulings.
Provided, that he has been duly notified and his failure to appear is
unjustifiable.
US vs. LULING prima facie evidence of guilt / legislative power of the State Luling
was a wharf watchman who was charged under Act. No. 335 for having solicited
and received the sum of P 100 from Rufino Elord so that he may secure the
Rights under Prosecution delivery and importation of certain rolls of paper containing opium. He assails the
validity of Sec. 316 of the said law for making the mere receiving of certain gifts
OLAGUER vs. MILITARY COMMISSION military tribunals / judicial power / due from importers or exporters prima facie evidence of violation, alleging that it violates
process Olaguer and several others were arrested and charged for subversion his right to presumption of innocence by transferring the burden of proof to the
and several other crimes before a Military Tribunal created under martial law. The accused. Since the State has the right to declare what constitute criminal acts,
military tribunal found them guilty only after a 25 minute recess and sentenced it likewise has the right to define what proof constitutes prima facie evidence
them to death. They filed a case for habeas corpus and sought to enjoin the military of guilt and to pass the burden to the defendant to prove that his acts were
tribunal from trying their case. The due process clause of the Constitution innocent. The constitutional provision on presumption of innocence is not violated
contemplates trial by JUDICIAL process. The military tribunals are not part of by such statutes.
the judicial system but rather fall under the Executive Branch. Court Martial
proceedings are intended primarily for ensuring military discipline. Judicial power PEOPLE vs. MINGOA malversation / overcome by contrary presumption /
resides in the courts, not the Executive. Even during the existence of martial reasonable Mingoa, a public officer entrusted w/ funds, failed to account for the
law, military tribunals have no jurisdiction to try civilians for offenses same alleging that the said monies were lost. He was charged for malversation.
properly cognizable by the civil courts for as long as the same are Under the Revised Penal Code, mere failure to account for public funds or property
52 | M i k e e Retirado 1-C
CONSTI 2: Bernas Casebook 2010 ed.
Updated Darvins Digest

amounts to prima facie evidence that he has put the said funds or property to 3. If he chooses to avail but is unable to employ an attorney, the court must
personal use. He assails Art. 217 of the RPC for violating the constitutional assign an attorney de oficio to defend him
guarantee of presumption of innocence. There is no constitutional objection to 4. If the defendant chooses to procure an attorney of his own, the court must
the passage of a law providing that the presumption of innocence may be grant him reasonable time to do so
overcome by a contrary presumption and what evidence suffices to raise
such presumption. Further, the law establishes a mere presumption; it affords the
accused the opportunity to present evidence to rebut it. The presumption is None of these duties have been complied with. The right to be heard would be
reasonable and founded upon experience of human conduct. of little avail if it does not include the right to be heard by counsel.

DUMLAO vs. COMELEC election disqualification / charged vs. convicted / not DD: If the victim is a woman, the offense should be serious illegal detention, not
synonymous BP No. 52 disqualifies a candidate CHARGED either before the civil merely slight illegal detention.
or military tribunals for acts of disloyalty, subversion, insurrection, rebellion, and
such other crimes. There is a distinction between a person who is charged and US vs. ASH history of right to counsel / stages of proceedings Under the old
a person who is convicted. The same cannot be equated. A person merely English Common Law Rule, the right to counsel was limited to trial; however, this
charged cannot be put in the same footing as a person already convicted. The notion has been gradually disregarded. There was a growing recognition of the
law violates the constitutional right to presumption of innocence. Further, evidence fact that an unaided layman, even if educated or learned, may not be able to
regarding such acts of disloyalty should be presented before the courts, not the defend himself intelligently given the intricate procedural system. Thus counsel
administrative bodies such as the COMELEC. Legislative or administrative was necessary as a guide through the complex legal technicalities. The creation of
determination of guilt cannot substitute for judicial determination of guilt. the Office of the Prosecutor further necessitated the presence of counsel. The
(This is the same case under Section 1) prosecutor was dedicated primarily for the purpose of prosecuting defendants and
is incomparably more familiar w/ procedures, idiosyncrasies of juries, and the
MARQUEZ vs. COMELEC fugitive from justice / disqualification Defeated personnel of the court. There was thus the need to minimize the imbalance.
candidate Bienvenido Marquez sought the disqualification of Edgardo Rodriguez for
the governorship of Quezon Province for being a fugitive from justice based on The development of pre-trial proceedings further necessitated the assistance of
Sec. 40 (e) of the Local Government Code. Rodriguez was charged for 10 counts of counsel; otherwise trials could become mere formalities. These involve critical
insurance fraud and grand theft in a Municipal Court of Los Angeles, but he fled stages where the accused may make mistakes or his reasoning dimmed by
from the US to evade prosecution. The term fugitive from justice embraces emotional tension; thus he needs a spokesman or advisor in his lawyer. Counsel
not only those who flee after conviction to avoid punishment, but also those was further extended to police line-ups under the Wade Case to prevent the
who flee to avoid prosecution. It is well supported in jurisprudence. prosecution from taking advantage of the accused during such stages. The more so
that during trial the accused must be aided by counsel so as to be able to plead
Concurring Opinion of Justice Davide his case intelligently w/o surrendering his right against self-incrimination.
The said prohibition does not infringe upon the right to presumption of
innocence because one is not being disqualified for his guilt (or the lack of PEOPLE vs. LIWANAG effective counsel / reasonableness Liwanag was provided
it), but rather for his act of fleeing from justice. As opposed to Dumlao vs. w/ counsel de oficio in Atty. Uy who assisted him during arraignment and trial, and
COMELEC, the person was disqualified due to a presumption of guilt even when he who cross-examined the prosecution witnesses. Liwanag contends that Atty. Uy
was merely charged; the same does not attend in this case. was not intelligent counsel for not being able to safeguard his right against
unreasonable searches and seizures for not having contested his warrantless
arrest, and that Atty. Uy failed to secure a reversal of his conviction. He contends
PEOPLE vs. HOLGADO duties of the judge Holgado was charged for slight illegal that this in fact amounts to a violation of his right to counsel. The right to counsel
detention for kidnapping and detaining Artemia Fabreag for 8 hours w/o justifiable under the Constitution simply means effective counsel. The Supreme Court found
reason. During arraignment, he was asked Do you have an attorney or are you that the services of Atty. Uy were sufficiently effective. In the Philippine setting,
going to plead guilty? He did not have an attorney and pleaded guilty, saying that a counsel assisting the accused is presumed to be providing all the necessary
certain Mr. Ocampo had instructed him to do so. During arraignment, if the legal defenses w/c are reasonable under the circumstances in accordance w/
accused is unaccompanied by counsel, the court has the following duties: the said norms. The Strickland Standards cannot be applied in our jurisdiction.
The proper standard here is mainly reasonableness under prevailing professional
1. Inform the defendant of his right to counsel norms.
2. Ask him if he desires the aid of an attorney

53 | M i k e e Retirado 1-C
CONSTI 2: Bernas Casebook 2010 ed.
Updated Darvins Digest

PEOPLE vs. LARRAAGA choice of counsel / counsel de oficio / prevent dilatory murder, the other for violation of RA No. 6539 (Anti-Carnapping Act). She was
tactics During trial, Larraagas counsel de parte unceremoniously withdrew. He convicted of the complex crime of robbery w/ double homicide, combining and
asked for a continuance of 3 weeks to 1 month wanting to procure counsel of his complexing the two crimes alleged in separate informations. While the court can
own choice. In order to prevent any dilatory maneuvers on the part of the defense hold a joint trial of two or more cases and can render a consolidated
counsel, the court appointed counsel de oficio and refused to suspend the trial. decision, the court cannot combine 2 crimes charged in 2 separate
Thus, Larraaga contests that he was denied the right to counsel. The preference informations to form a complex crime and convict the accused therefor. It
of counsel pertains more aptly to persons under custodial investigation, but violates the right of the accused to be informed of the nature and cause of the
nevertheless, such preferential discretion is not absolute so as to allow the accusations against him.
accused to choose a particular counsel to the exclusion of all others equally
capable. Otherwise, it allows the accused to dictate the tempo of the PEOPLE vs. DE LA CRUZ conclusions of law De La Cruz was charged for
prosecution and delay the resolution of the case. Further, the period of committing sexual abuse on his daughter, either by raping her or committing acts
extension requested was unreasonably long. The right to counsel is, to some of lasciviousness on her. The validity of the information was questioned. The
extent, subject to the supervision of the trial court, especially after the trial has information contained conclusions of law, not averments of facts. It does not
already commenced. cite w/c provisions of RA No. 7610 were violated by De la Cruz. It did not state
the acts and/or omissions constituting the offense of the attending
PEOPLE vs. REGALA assault / knowledge not alleged in information / cannot circumstances.
convict Regala and Flores were charged for murder w/ assault upon an agent of a
person in authority for having stabbed and killed Sgt. Desilos. However, the DD: The information went ahead to conclude that he committed the felony of acts of
information failed to allege the crucial element of knowledge that the accuseds lasciviousness w/o mentioning what particular acts he committed constituting the
had knowledge of the fact that the victim was indeed an agent of a person in same as well as the applicable provisions of law violated. Conclusions of law are for
authority. Thus, the accuseds cannot be convicted of the said crimes. The fact that the judge to make.
the victim was engaged then in the exercise of his duties does not suffice.
Knowledge must be alleged in the information. There are no other allegations in
the information that would clearly point to the fact that the accuseds had PEOPLE vs. ESPERANZA qualifying circumstances must be alleged Nelson was
knowledge. The fact that the accuseds did not object thereto likewise does not cure charged for the rape of his 13 year old niece. Supposedly, minority (under 12 years
the defect. To rule otherwise would be to convict the accuseds of a crime not of age) and relationship (w/in 3rd civil degree of consanguinity) are qualifying
properly alleged in the body of the information. This would violate his right to circumstances in the crime of rape. However, the information does not allege that
be informed of the nature and cause of the accusations against him. he is related to her w/in the 3rd civil degree of consanguinity, and he was charged
under paragraph 1 of Art. 335 of the RPC (intimidation), not under paragraph 2 or 3
(minority / deprivation of reason). While the victim turned out to be 11 years old as
DD: The facts must be alleged in the information so as to allow the defense to proved during trial, the crime cannot be qualified by minority (under 12 years of
prepare evidence or arguments to contradict the same. The defense should not be age) because the information alleged that she was then 13 years old. To
surprised by the introduction of new averments during trial that they were not given appreciate these qualifying circumstances against Nelson w/o having
the chance to prepare for. properly alleged the same in the information would violate his right to be
informed of the nature and cause of the accusations against him.
ENRILE vs. SALAZAR alleged: simple rebellion Sen. Enrile was arrested and
charged w/ the complex crime of rebellion w/ murder and multiple murder DD: Qualifying circumstances must be alleged in the information and proved during
committed during the failed coup attempt. He alleges that he is being charged for trial.
an offense that does not exist in the statute books. The Supreme Court held in the
case of People vs. Hernandez that rebellion cannot be complexed w/ murder or
homicide. However, the information does charge a crime defined and PEOPLE vs. PURAZO time not an essential element of rape / need not be alleged
punished by the Revised Penal Code: simple rebellion. accurately Purazo was charged and convicted of rape (incestuous). He alleged
that the information failed to state w/ particularity the time when the rape was
committed, thus violating his right to be informed of the nature and cause of the
DD: Simply put, the facts averred in the information suffice to form the elements of accusations against him. It provided merely sometime in the Month of March
simple rebellion. The information should contain statements of fact, not conclusions 1997. Date is not an essential element in the crime of rape; thus it need not
of law w/c are for the courts to decide. be accurately stated. It satisfies the 2 requirements that: (1) it is as near to the
actual date of commission as permissible, and (2) the time ultimately proved
PEOPLE vs. LEGAZPI 2 separate informations / separate crimes complexed w/ should be alleged in the complaint.
each other Pamela was charged under 2 separate informations, one for double
54 | M i k e e Retirado 1-C
CONSTI 2: Bernas Casebook 2010 ed.
Updated Darvins Digest

GARCIA vs. PEOPLE basis is nature of the crime, not the designation Garcia was IN RE: OLIVER public trials Secret trials are a menace to liberty. They are
charged for estafa under Art. 315, Section 2 (a), w/c penalizes false manifestations instruments for the repression of religious and political heresies and allow the
or fraudulent machinations, but was convicted based on Art. 315 Section 2 (d) for government to act arbitrarily. An effective restraint on possible abuse of judicial
having issued post-dated checks that were not funded or insufficiently funded. The power is the knowledge that every criminal trial is subject to
real nature of the crime is determined by the facts alleged in the information contemporaneous review in the forum of public opinion. Besides the accused
and not by the title or the designation of the offense contained therein. should at least be entitled to have his friends, relatives, or counsel present no
matter what offense is charged.
CONDE vs. RIVERA unreasonable delays / mandamus to dismiss the case
Aurelia Conde had to respond to 5 separate informations and had to make court GARCIA vs. DOMINGO trial in the chambers of the judge / public trial / public not
appearances for over a year already. Even so, there has still yet to be any precluded The trials in this case, on 14 separate instances, were held in the air-
resolution of the case. Thus she came before the SC to seek redress. When the conditioned chambers of the trial court judge, for the purpose of convenience. The
prosecuting officer secures postponements of trials beyond reasonable time, defendants offered no objection. Later on, they assert that their right to a public trial
the accused may file a case for mandamus to compel the dismissal of the has been violated. Generally, trials should be held in public in order to offset
case. It is also a bar to another prosecution for the same offense; it is practically an any danger of conducting them in an illegal or unjust manner. This only
acquittal. She may likewise petition for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus to means that any person interested in observing the proceedings may do so,
obtain freedom is her liberty s retrained. Every person has the right to have a even if not a party to the case or a relative of any party thereto. In this case,
speedy trial. there is nothing to show that other persons are prohibited from observing the
proceedings; hence there is no violation of such right. It even suffices that the
NEPOMUCENO vs. SEC. OF DEFENSE own fault / delay must be unreasonable relatives, friends, or counsel of the accused are allowed to be present.
Nepomuceno along w/ several others have yet to be arraigned for their respective
offenses before the Military Tribunal. This is due to the fact that they filed a Motion FAJARDO vs. GARCIA written interrogatories / not embraced by compulsory
to Quash, and then a Supplemental Motion questioning the constitutionality of the process Fajardo, along with other accuseds, were charged for murder. Evidence
Military Commissions, and even asked for preliminary injunction to suspend the of the prosecution disclosed that during the night of the murder, the accuseds were
trials. Then they assert that their right to a speedy trial is violated and seek the wounded. They presented medical certificates issued by Dr. Academia. However,
dismissal of the case. Any delay in the disposition of Nepomucenos case is when the judge asked where the doctor was, it turned out that he left for the United
attributable to his own actions. Further any delay in filing the charges was States. Counsel for the accuseds asked the judge to allow them to send
brought about by the exigencies of martial law and by the circumstances of the interrogatories to Dr. Academia in the United States, invoking the expanded
case. What the constitution prohibits are unreasonable and capricious delays. guarantee of compulsory process to produce evidence. The judge refused, and
The delays in this case are neither unreasonable nor capricious and were brought thus they appeal alleging grave abuse of discretion.
about by the accuseds own actions. Further, the right may be waived.
The service of written interrogatories is worlds apart from the compulsory
MATEO vs. VILLALUZ notarized by judge / under intimidation / to be decided by process guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. Such is not embraced therein.
him Mateo, among others, was tried before Judge Villaluz for robbery in a band w/ Evidence of their stay in the hospital, besides, could be easily obtained from the
homicide. Later on, a certain Rolando Reyes executed an extra-judicial statement testimony of nurses or the records of the hospital w/o having to resort to sending
implicating Mateo; the statement was subscribed and sworn to before Judge the interrogatories all the way to the United States to Dr. Academia.
Villaluz. However, Reyes later repudiated the said statement claiming that he
made the statement under intimidation from a government agent. In short, it is CARREDO vs. PEOPLE waiver of right / duty to appear Carredo was charged for
possible that Judge Villaluz had something to do about it. Mateo thus prayed that malicious mischief. After arraignment, he posted bail and waived his right to appear
Judge Villaluz disqualify himself from the case to w/c the latter refused. Due during trial. During trial, the prosecution witnesses were presented but hearing was
process requires that every litigant be entitled to nothing less than the cold postponed because they could not identify the accused; thus the trial judge
neutrality of an impartial judge. Through the exercise of sound discretion, a summoned Carredo. After his failure to appear during trial, the judge ordered his
judge may disqualify himself from a case. arrest and the forfeiture of his cash bond. In the bail system under our constitution,
the accused is granted provisional liberty subject to the condition that he appears
While discretion lies w/ the judge, the Supreme Court exercises corrective during trial; his failure to do so would make the previous warrant of arrest sufficient
authority. In this case, clearly the refusal of the judge to inhibit himself amounts to for his re-confinement.
grave abuse of discretion. He is being called upon to decide a matter w/ w/c he is
involved; this casts serious doubts upon his impartiality. The accused may waive his right to meet the witnesses face to face, but he
cannot waive his duty to appear in court for the purpose of being identified by
55 | M i k e e Retirado 1-C
CONSTI 2: Bernas Casebook 2010 ed.
Updated Darvins Digest

the prosecution witnesses. It is possible that the witnesses do not know him by 6. Insurrection is no longer a ground for the suspension of the privilege of the
name but only by appearance. Further, if he is to be allowed to be absent during all writ
hearings, he may, in his defense, say that he was never identified as the person
charged in the information and thus entitled to acquittal. 7. Imminent danger of rebellion, insurrection, or invasion is no longer a ground
for the suspension

8. The grounds for suspension are now limited to:


BILL OF RIGHTS
SECTION 15 a. ACTUAL INVASION
b. ACTUAL REBELLION, when the public safety requires it
Section 15. The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended
except in cases of invasion or rebellion, when the public safety 9. In case the privilege is suspended, the suspension shall apply only to persons
requires it. judicially charged for rebellion or offenses inherent in or directly connected
with invasion, such as Crimes against National Security and the Law of Nations.
Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus Examples: treason, espionage, communication in wartime w/ hostile country, and
giving information to hostile country.
WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS a writ directed to a person detaining another commanding
him to produce the body of the prisoner at a designated time and place, with the 10. Simply put, for a person to lose the privilege of the writ, he must first be
day and cause of his caption (capture) and detention, to do, submit to, and receive judicially charged.
whatever the court or judge awarding the writ shall consider in that behalf.
11. The person must be judicially charged w/in 3 days after being arrested or
detained, otherwise he shall be released. The purpose is simple: to require all
Limitations on the Power to Suspend the Privilege of the Writ under the 1987 those detained to be immediately turned over to the judicial authorities.
Constitution
12. Even if the person is arrested on the basis of a valid warrant, he must still be
1. The President may suspend the privilege for a period not exceeding 60 days, judicially charged w/in the said 3 day period, otherwise he must be released

2. Congress may revoke the suspension w/c the President cannot set aside 13. The suspension of the privilege of the writ DOES NOT SUSPEND THE
(Congress may also extend the suspension upon the initiative of the President) RIGHT TO BAIL

3. The Supreme Court, at the instance of ANY CITIZEN may review the
sufficiency of the factual basis of the suspension and must promulgate its Additional Notes from the Isagani Cruz Book:
decision w/in 30 days from its filing.
1. The purpose of the writ is to test the validity of a persons detention
4. The suspension is reviewable by the Supreme Court. The power of the SC is
no longer restricted to determining if the President acted w/ arbitrariness; the SC 2. A Petition for Habeas Corpus takes precedence in the calendar of courts and
is now empowered to: must be acted upon immediately

a. review the sufficiency of the factual basis 3. Even moral restraint is a ground for the issuance of the writ, such as when a
b. determine whether the public safety requires the suspension housemaid is prevented from leaving her employ because of the person
detaining her
5. The only requisite for standing to challenge the validity of the suspension is that
the challenger is a CITIZEN; he need not even be a taxpayer 4. Habeas corpus may also be resorted to in case of unlawful denial of bail, or in
case of denial of the right to speedy trial
56 | M i k e e Retirado 1-C
CONSTI 2: Bernas Casebook 2010 ed.
Updated Darvins Digest

Notes on Speedy Disposition:


5. After the lapse of 60 days, unless otherwise extended by Congress at the
instance of the President, the suspension is automatically lifted 1. The guarantee covers the period before, during, and after trial

6. There is a catch. Since Congress may extend the period of the suspension at the 2. It is a flexible concept and various factors must be considered, such as the length
initiative of the President, the extension may be indefinite depending on the will of delay, reason for the delay, assertion of the right or failure to assert it, and the
and discretion of the legislature. The Supreme Court then would be the only hope prejudice caused by the delay
depending upon the courage of that body.
3. The right is deemed violated only when the proceedings are attended by
vexatious, capricious, and oppressive delays, or when unjustified
Additional Reminders: postponements are asked for and secured, or when an unreasonable time
elapses without the partys case being tried. Not all delays are unreasonable.
1. In revoking the suspension of the privilege, the Congress votes jointly. A
majority vote is required and it may be conducted during regular or special 4. The remedy in case of unreasonable delay is dismissal obtained through
session. Mandamus

2. If Congress is not in session, it is mandated by the Constitution to convene w/in


24 hours after the suspension of the privilege of the writ
BILL OF RIGHTS
3. The imposition of Martial Law does not automatically suspend the privilege SECTION 17
of the writ

4. During the suspension of the writ, any person arrested or detained must be Section 17. No person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.
charged w/in 3 days, otherwise he must be released.

Right against Self-Incrimination


BILL OF RIGHTS
SECTION 16
US vs. NAVARRO guilt due to mere silence / presumption of innocence Subject
to review in this case were 2 provisions of the Penal Code. Art. 481 punishes
Section 16. All persons shall have the right to a speedy disposition of their unlawful deprivation of liberty, while Art. 483 provides that a person who detained
cases before all judicial, quasi-judicial, or administrative bodies. another, who fails to give info as to his whereabouts or does not prove that the
same has been set free shall be punished by a higher penalty. Therefore, in order
Speedy Disposition of Cases for the accused to lessen the penalty he stands to incur, he is forced to divulge the
whereabouts of the detainee or declare that the same has been set free this is
practically an admission that he in fact detained another. If he opts not to speak, he
LOPEZ vs. OMBUDSMAN Certain complaints have been pending before the incurs a more severe criminal liability. Simply put, the evidence required to absolve
Sandiganbayan for almost 4 years. This interval prior to the resolution finding the him under Art. 483 has the effect of convicting him under Art. 481.
existence of probable cause came w/o any explanation; thus the accused therein
prayed for its dismissal invoking his right to speedy disposition of his case.
Eventually, after the prolonged delay, the appropriate informations were filed. The This violates the right against self-incrimination. Under Art. 483, the fact of guilt
subsequent filing of the information does not cure or correct the unexplained follows the mere silence of the accused; this cannot be permitted. Refusal to
delay in the resolution of the criminal complaints. There has been, in this testify should not create a presumption against the accused otherwise it
case, an unreasonable delay in the resolution of the case, thus the right amounts to a law adjudging w/o evidence. The accused has the right to rely
accrues. The case is thus ordered Dismissed. on the presumption of innocence until the prosecution establishes his guilt
beyond reasonable doubt.

57 | M i k e e Retirado 1-C
CONSTI 2: Bernas Casebook 2010 ed.
Updated Darvins Digest

US vs. TAN TENG physical test for gonorrhea / only testimonial evidence
Prosecuted for rape, Tan was physically examined after his arrest and a substance Writing is something more than a mechanical act; it requires application of
was taken from his body for the purpose of testing him for gonorrhea. He tested intelligence and attention. Compelling a person to produce a specimen of his
positive. He assails the admissibility of the evidence claiming that it was obtained in handwriting is treated more seriously that compulsion to produce mere documents
violation of his right against self incrimination. The right against self-incrimination and chattels which themselves are covered by the privilege. Here the person is
is a prohibition against extracting from the defendants own lips, against his compelled to produce evidence that previously did not even exist evidence
will, an admission of guilt. It does not cover all forms of compulsion but only that causes him to be identified as a falsifier. He is being compelled to
testimonial compulsion. The examination does not call upon the accused to be a perform a positive and testimonial act. The respondent judge and fiscal are thus
witness, nor does it compel him to render testimony or answer questions; the ordered to cease and desist therefrom.
evidence obtained from him is not testimonial in nature and is not covered by the
right.
BERMUDEZ vs. CASTILLO expanded right The right against self incrimination has
been expanded to cover other forms of proceedings or compulsion, such as:
By analogy, a physical examination for evidence is similar to introducing stolen
property taken from the person of the thief. Also, Tan never objected to the
extraction from his body of said substances. It now extends to all proceedings sanctioned by law
It now extends to both accused as well as mere witnesses in a
prosecution
VILLAFLOR vs. SUMMERS examination of womans privates / dura lex sed lex
Emetria Villaflor and Florentino Souingco were charged for adultery. The trial court It protects equally in civil cases when incriminating questions are
ordered Villaflor to be examined by physicians to determine if she was pregnant; asked
the latter refused, thus she will be cited for contempt. She invokes her right against It covers litigious or non-litigious proceedings
self-incrimination. While to compel a woman to submit to the examination of It covers proceedings ex parte or otherwise
her private parts indeed amounts to great embarrassment and shame,
nevertheless, the court must apply the constitutional provision in accord w/ It covers all forms of interrogation before the courts
the policy and reason thereof, undeterred by sentimental influences. The It now extends to investigations conducted by legislative bodies
prohibition against self-incrimination is, and remains to be, limited to It now prohibits rendering incriminatory handwriting specimens (Beltran vs.
compulsory testimonial self-incrimination. Physical examinations are not Samson)
covered by the right. However, due care must be exerted at least not to embarrass
the accused any more than necessary in carrying out the test.
CHAVEZ vs. CA accused cannot be compelled to take the witness stand Chavez,
along w/ several others, was charged for qualified theft of a motor vehicle. During
US vs. ONG SIU HONG morphine in the mouth / not testimonial compulsion Ong trial, the fiscal called upon Chavez to testify as an ordinary witness (not a state
was forced to discharge a certain amount of morphine from his mouth. The witness), to w/c the trial judge acceded amid strong objection by the defense
substance was appreciated as evidence against him. He thus assails the counsel and the refusal of Chavez. The judge said that the act of testifying, by itself,
admissibility of such evidence, invoking his right against self-incrimination. The does not necessarily incriminate him, and it is the right of the prosecution to ask
purpose of the constitutional prohibition against self-incrimination is to anybody to act as witness including the accused. Thus the accused was
prohibit testimonial compulsion by oral examination, in order to extort compelled to take the witness stand. The accused occupies a greater degree of
unwilling confessions implicating the accused. The case of Ong was no protection than an ordinary witness. He may altogether refuse to take the
different from the Tan Case where the accused was subjected to a test to obtain witness stand or answer any questions. After all, the purpose of the prosecution
substances from his body as evidence to prove his guilt. The evidence is obviously for calling a witness to the stand is to secure a conviction. This rule applies even to
admissible. a co-accused in a joint trial. The damaging facts forged in the decision of the lower
court were drawn directly from the lips of Chavez and are inadmissible.
BELTRAN vs. SAMSON handwriting specimen / testimonial act Beltran was
ordered by the respondent judge to appear before the fiscal for the purpose of Forcing the accused to testify likewise violates his right to remain silent.
taking a sample of his handwriting to determine if he was the one who wrote certain Actual violence need not be employed to amount to compulsion; moral coercion, as
falsified documents. There was yet no information filed against him; it was merely in this case, is sufficient. Chavez did not waive his rights to remain silent and
an investigation, not a prosecution. Nevertheless, he invokes his right against self- against self-incrimination. His objection in the beginning is a continuing one; waiver
incrimination. The prohibition is not limited to declaration, but rather to be a must be unequivocal and certain, and should be made willingly and
witness against oneself or to give or furnish evidence. Any pressure intelligently. The courts indulge every presumption against waiver of constitutional
towards relaxing the said prohibition must be appreciated w/ suspicion. rights.
58 | M i k e e Retirado 1-C
CONSTI 2: Bernas Casebook 2010 ed.
Updated Darvins Digest

DD: A witness can also invoke his right against self-incrimination, but only when an BILL OF RIGHTS
incriminating question is already asked. As stated above, the accused, on the other SECTION 18
hand, can refuse to take the witness stand altogether.
Section 18. (1) No person shall be detained solely by reason of his political
CABAL vs. KAPUNAN forfeiture proceedings / criminal in nature / rights accrue beliefs and aspirations.
Col. Jose Maristela of the Army filed a letter-complaint to the Sec. of National
Defense, charging Chief of Staff Manuel Cabal for graft and corruption, unexplained
wealth, and other reprehensible acts. Maristela did not seek the removal of Cabal (2) No involuntary servitude in any form shall exist except as a
but rather the forfeiture of Cabals unexplained wealth. The President ordered the punishment for a crime whereof the party shall have been duly
formation of a Committee to investigate the matter. The Committee then ordered convicted.
Cabal to take the witness stand, but the latter refused to be sworn and invoked his
right against self-incrimination. Forfeiture is imposed by way of punishment. It is
a penalty. While technically civil in nature, such proceedings are actually BILL OF RIGHTS
criminal in nature thus the rights to remain silent and against self-
SECTION 19
incrimination accrue. In criminal proceedings, the accused may refuse to take
the witness stand altogether.
Section 19. (1) Excessive fines shall not be imposed, nor cruel, degrading or
inhuman punishment inflicted. Neither shall death penalty be
Generally, forfeiture proceedings are civil in nature; but when the forfeitures are imposed, unless, for compelling reasons involving heinous crimes,
imposed as a vindication of the public justice as in this case the proceedings the Congress hereafter provides for it. Any death penalty already
acquire a criminal nature. The properties may be forfeited only by proving a breach imposed shall be reduced to reclusion perpetua.
of the laws. The same rule applies to administrative cases where the person
charged is sought to be dismissed.
(2) The employment of physical, psychological, or degrading
punishment against any prisoner or detainee or the use of
PASCUAL vs. BOARD OF MEDICAL EXAMINERS medical malpractice substandard or inadequate penal facilities under subhuman
proceedings Pascual was being tried administratively before the Board for conditions shall be dealt with by law.
alleged immorality and malpractice. The result could be the cancellation of his
license to practice his medical profession. He was then ordered by the Board to
take the witness stand; he refused and invoked his right against self-incrimination. Right against Excessive Fines
The ruling in Cabal vs. Kapunan is applicable in this case. The Board, in an Cruel & Degrading Punishment
administrative proceeding that could result to the loss of the privilege to Death Penalty
practice the medical profession, cannot compel the respondent therein to
take the witness stand w/o his consent. The cancellation of license to practice
medicine, as a consequence, acquires the nature of a penalty; thus the right
against self-incrimination and the right to refuse to take the witness stand accrue. PEOPLE vs. ESTOISTA possession of firearms / standard for cruel & excessive
As punishment for illegal possession of firearms, the term of imprisonment for 5 to
10 years is neither cruel nor unusual, especially considering the prevalent
The provision on self-incrimination should be liberally construed in favor of the
circumstances such as rampant lawlessness, and the promiscuous carrying of
person invoking the same. The guarantee also protects the right to remain
weapons. Just because the punishment imposed is severe, it does not mean
silent. Silence should not be used to raise a presumption of guilt.
that the same is cruel and degrading. To fall under the ban, the punishment
must be flagrantly and plainly oppressive and wholly disproportionate to the
DD: Remember that the right against self-incrimination extends to all proceedings nature of the offense so as to shock the moral sense of the community. If in a
sanctioned by law, w/c include investigations conducted by special boards or given case the imposition of the full extent of the penalty would be too harsh
committees. If the proceedings are criminal in nature and may result to the considering the degree of malice of the perpetrator, the courts are allowed to
imposition of penalties, the accused may refuse to take the witness stand recommend to the Chief Executive for clemency.
altogether.
Guides in determining whether punishment is cruel and unusual (Furman vs.
Georgia):
59 | M i k e e Retirado 1-C
CONSTI 2: Bernas Casebook 2010 ed.
Updated Darvins Digest

2. Congress must penalize by death only those crime that qualify as


1. It must not be so severe as to be degrading to human dignity heinous, and
2. It must not be applied arbitrarily 3. Congress must be motivated by compelling reasons.
3. It must not be unacceptable to contemporary society
4. It must not be excessive Heinous crimes are those crimes w/c by their wickedness or viciousness, are
completely repugnant and outrageous to the common standards of decency
and morality. The provisions on the aggravating circumstances under the RPC
Note: Fines are excessive when, given the circumstances, they are subsist and affect criminal liability. Rape, especially one perpetrated against ones
disproportionate to the offense. own daughter, is an intrinsically evil act and is outrageous to dignity and decency
and deserves to be punished by death.
Criteria according to Justices Marshall and Brennan:
PEOPLE vs. PURAZO consolidated separate opinions RA No. 7659 and its single
1. There are certain forms of punishment w/c involve too much mandatory penalty of death for certain offenses should not preclude the courts, in
pain and suffering that civilized people cannot tolerate them the exercise of sound judicial discretion, from considering the facts and
2. There are unusual punishments in the sense that they have circumstances and to determine whether the crime committed is heinous, and
never before been known whether there are compelling reasons to impose the death penalty. The SC must
vote twice in reviewing cases where the death penalty was imposed:
3. A penalty may be cruel and unusual because it is excessive
and serves no legislative purpose
4. A punishment that is not excessive and possessed of a 1. First, to decide whether the accused is guilty beyond reasonable
legislative purpose may nevertheless be invalid if popular doubt of the heinous crime charged, and
sentiment abhors it 2. Second, to decide whether to impose the death penalty.

DD: Notice that under the 1987 Constitution, the prohibition against unusual If less than a majority of the court choose to impose the death penalty, then
punishment has been removed to allow the government some leeway in reclusion perpetua will be automatically imposed.
developing penology.

PEOPLE vs. MUOZ computation in the absence of death penalty The 1987
Constitution had the effect of barring the imposition of the death penalty until the BILL OF RIGHTS
same is reactivated by the Congress. The manner of computing penalties was
discussed in this case in case the range of the penalty adjudged includes the death SECTION 20
penalty. The only thing to remember is that the death penalty cannot be
imposed. The three-grade scheme of the original penalty (such as reclusion Section 20. No person shall be imprisoned for debt or non-payment of a poll
temporal to death) is maintained, except that the maximum penalty of death tax.
cannot be imposed. After all the death penalty was not abolished. It was merely
ordered not to be imposed subject to the wisdom and subsequent enactment of Imprisonment for Debt
Congress.

LOZANO vs. MARTINEZ BP No. 22 / bouncing checks / liability ex delicto In this


There is no need to adjust the 2 remaining periods by dividing them into 3 shorter case, the constitutionality of BP No. 22, otherwise known as the Bouncing Checks
periods. Its just that the maximum penalty of death will not be imposed. Law, was assailed for violating the Constitutional prohibition against imprisonment
for non-payment of debt. It is allegedly a bad debt law rather than a bad check
PEOPLE vs. ECHEGARAY rape / heinous crimes / power of Congress The law. The debts covered by the constitutional prohibition are debts arising
Constitution confers upon the Congress the power to re-impose the death penalty from contractual relations; they are liabilities arising from actions ex
subject to certain requisites: contractu. The inhibition was never meant to include damages and
imprisonment arising from actions ex delicto, or those arising from crimes.
1. Congress must define what are heinous crimes Such fines are imposed as punishment for a crime and do not arise out of
contractual obligations

60 | M i k e e Retirado 1-C
CONSTI 2: Bernas Casebook 2010 ed.
Updated Darvins Digest

Requisites for the defense of Double Jeopardy:


What the law punishes w/ imprisonment is not the failure to pay the debt, but
rather the act of making and issuing worthless checks. The purpose of the law 1. A first jeopardy must have attached prior to the second
is to protect the public interest from the deleterious effects of the proliferation of bad 2. The first jeopardy must have been terminated
checks which then amounted to some P 200 million worth in circulation per day.
Acceptance of checks is based on confidence; they are not legal tender. Thus, if 3. The second jeopardy must be for the same offense as the first
that confidence is shaken, the usefulness of checks as substitutes for currency
would be greatly diminished. A check flasher injures not only the payee but also the DD: To determine if the offenses charged are the same, it is important to observe if
public interest. the offense alleged is merely an ingredient or element of the other, or is merely an
attempt for frustration of the other.
BP No. 22 was enacted by Congress as a valid exercise of the police power. It is a
valid law and does not infringe upon the Constitutional prohibition against PEOPLE vs. YLAGAN when does jeopardy attach For a person under prosecution
imprisonment for debt. to be placed in jeopardy, he must be placed on trial under the following conditions:

IN RE: PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS (GR No. 154037) rentals / civil debt / 1. Court of competent jurisdiction
covered The petitioners were tenants of a land. They were ordered by the court to 2. Upon a valid complaint or information (sufficient in form and substance)
pay their rentals to Eleuteria Bolano the Administratrix of the estate of the late
3. After he has been arraigned
Anselma Allers. They failed to pay the necessary rentals because they were then
uncertain as to the rightful person to whom they should pay. Thus, Bolano sought to 4. After he has pleaded to the complaint or the information (issue is properly
have them cited for contempt for their failure to comply w/ the orders of the judge to joined)
pay the appropriate rentals.
Purpose: the right against double jeopardy protects the accused not against the
The debt covered by the Constitutional prohibition against imprisonment for peril of second punishment, but rather against the burden of being tried again
debt pertains to civil debt. It means any liability to pay arising out of a for the same offense so that after being notified of the dismissal of his case, the
contract express or implied. The payment of rent is covered by the accused can rest assured that he will not have to prepare for yet another litigation
prohibition. It is a contractual debt, not one arising from a crime. Thus, or prosecution.
petitioners cannot be imprisoned for their failure to pay rent w/o violating their
constitutional right against imprisonment for non-payment of debt. PEOPLE vs. BALISACAN plea of guilty but acquitted / no valid 1st jeopardy
Aurelio Balisacan was charged for homicide for attacking and stabbing one Leoncio
DD: Poll taxes are no longer allowed under the Constitution; it amounts to a Bulaoat. Upon being arraigned, he pleaded guilty. Upon motion of his counsel de
property qualification for the exercise of the right to vote w/c is prohibited under oficio, he was allowed to present evidence to mitigate liability. Thereafter, he
Article 5. claimed that he merely acted in self-defense and alleged voluntary surrender. On
the basis thereof, the trial judge rendered a decision acquitting him; the prosecution
thus appealed. Balisacan invokes his right against double jeopardy.

A plea of guilty is an unconditional admission of guilt and leaves the court no


alternative but to impose the appropriate penalty. Balisacan was allowed to
BILL OF RIGHTS testify only to present evidence to mitigate liability thus such testimony cannot be
SECTION 21 taken as a trial on the merits. What the trial judge should have done was to take the
defendants plea anew because his testimony of self defense had the effect of
vacating his pervious plea of guilty.
Section 21. No person shall be twice put in jeopardy of punishment for the
same offense. If an act is punished by a law and an ordinance,
conviction or acquittal under either shall constitute a bar to another There was thus no valid plea one of the requisites for jeopardy to attach at
prosecution for the same act. the time the court rendered its decision of acquittal. The acquittal is null and
void. Jeopardy did not attach the first time in the absence of a valid plea; thus
appeal by the prosecution cannot violate the accuseds right against double
Right against Double Jeopardy jeopardy. Further, the prosecution was deprived of its day in court an evident
violation of the right of the People to due process.
61 | M i k e e Retirado 1-C
CONSTI 2: Bernas Casebook 2010 ed.
Updated Darvins Digest

part of the accused. This time, he pleaded not guilty and raised the defense of
DD: What element is lacking? A valid plea. double jeopardy.

PEOPLE vs. ESPINOSA conditional arraignment / waiver must be clear and The decision becomes final upon:
express Espinosa, among others, was charged before the Sandiganbayan for
estafa and attempted corruption of public officers. Espinosa motioned to have his 1. The expiration of the period to perfect an appeal, or
case re-investigated before the Ombudsman, and then later filed a motion for leave 2. When the offense has been partially or totally satisfied, or
to travel abroad. The Sandiganbayan had the accused conditionally arraigned
where the latter pleaded not guilty. The condition apparently was for the accused to 3. When the defendant expressly waived his right to appeal.
waive his right against double jeopardy for him to be allowed to travel abroad
pending re-investigation. The Ombudsman then moved to withdraw the charges ex In this case, Gregorio has already begun serving sentence; thus the decision has
parte. Later on, the Ombudsman filed w/ the same court informations for become final. A judgment of conviction can only be modified or set aside
Malversation of Public Funds; Espinosa argued double jeopardy. before it has acquired finality. The act of re-opening a case that has already
become final violates the accuseds right against double jeopardy. The trial
Conditionally arraigning an accused is a practice not recognized in regular judge thus erred in not accepting the plea of double jeopardy; and considering that
rules of procedure. Arraignment, being an indispensable element of due process, Gregorio has already served the full term, he is entitled to be released already.
cannot be regarded lightly or be brushed aside. Espinosa made a simple and
unconditional plea of not guilty. There was no express or manifest intention on PEOPLE vs. OBSANIA rice fields / motion to dismiss / estoppel / no jeopardy
his part to waive his right against double jeopardy; such waiver cannot be Willy Obsania was charged for having raped a 14-year old girl, while armed w/ a
implied or assumed from the proceedings. It must be clear and categorical. dagger, and in the rice fields along the street. The information failed to expressly
The dismissal of the case was likewise secured by the Ombudsman w/o the allege the existence of lewd designs w/c is inherent in all crimes against chastity.
consent of Espinosa; this bars a subsequent prosecution. Obsania was arraigned, pleaded not guilty, and moved for the dismissal of the
case due to a defective information, averring that the subsequent info filed by the
BULAONG vs. PEOPLE rebellion & subversion / first jeopardy is still pending fiscal did not cure the defect in the first information. The court granted the motion
Agaton Bulaong, a.k.a. Ka Era, was charged for rebellion before the CFI of Laguna. and dismissed the case. First of all, lewd designs need not be expressly alleged
Trial did not proceed until 1958 because he remained at large. The Anti-Subversion in the information it is a mere superfluity because lewd designs are manifest from
Act took effect the year 1957, and he was charged before the CFI of Manila for the the very act of rape. Thus, the initial complaint is valid.
crime of subversion. While his case for subversion was pending, he was convicted
of the crime of rebellion; he thus invokes his right against double jeopardy alleging If the dismissal of the case was upon motion of the accused, this is not a bar
that the facts alleged in both charges were the same. The defense of double to subsequent prosecution. He is barred by estoppel from raising the defense
jeopardy is available to the accused only where he was either convicted or of double jeopardy. In such a case there is no trial on the merits. The accused
acquitted or the case against him was terminated or otherwise dismissed w/o cannot question the jurisdiction of the court in moving for the dismissal of the case
his consent. Ka Era was not convicted or acquitted of subversion, neither and then later invoke double jeopardy w/c requires among others that the case be
was the case terminated or dismissed w/o his consent. Thus, double jeopardy brought before a court of competent jurisdiction. In this case, the accused motioned
does not attach. for the dismissal of the case; he cannot now raise the defense of double jeopardy,
because the dismissal of the case was w/ his consent in fact, at his instance.
DD: Simply put, when Bulaong was convicted for Rebellion, his jeopardy for
Subversion has yet to be terminated. One of the requisites for invoking the right If the dismissal was due to failure to prosecute or due to a violation of the
against double jeopardy is that the first jeopardy must have terminated. right to a speedy trial, then it amounts to an acquittal and double jeopardy
can be invoked. Such a circumstance does not attend in this case.
BUSTAMANTE vs. MACEREN service of sentence / finality / bar to re-opening of
case Albaro Gregorio was charged for serious physical injuries caused through RIVERA vs. PEOPLE verbal order / must be written / may still be set aside Rivera
reckless imprudence. He was found guilty and was sentenced to 1 month and 1 day was arrested for allegedly attempting to transport marijuana to Manila. Upon
imprisonment. That same day, he paid the necessary fines and he began serving arraignment, he pleaded not guilty. During trial, no witnesses were available;
his sentence. Decision has become final and executory due to his service of neither was the confiscated marijuana presented. Capt. Sarmiento, the Forensic
the sentence. On that same day also, the trial judge rescinded the decision and re- Chemist, on repeated occasions, failed to appear during trial. On the 3 rd instance
assigned the case for a new trial allegedly based on new findings of fraud on the that Capt. Sarmiento failed to appear, the respondent judge verbally granted
the motion to dismiss and ordered Riveras immediate release. Barely an hour
62 | M i k e e Retirado 1-C
CONSTI 2: Bernas Casebook 2010 ed.
Updated Darvins Digest

later, Capt. Sarmiento arrived, and upon satisfactory explanation, the judge set PEOPLE vs. PANFILO LACSON Kuratong Baleleng Panfilo Lacson, among others,
aside the verbal dismissal and ordered the case re-scheduled. Rivera now invokes was charged for multiple murder for the annihilation of the Kuratong Baleleng Gang
double jeopardy. particularly 11 members thereof. The case was provisionally dismissed by Trial
Judge Agnir on the basis of Sec. 8 of Rule 117 of the Revised Rules of Criminal
For the order of dismissal to become final. it should be reduced in writing and Procedure. The said rule was about provisional dismissal. It provides that a case
signed by the judge. Generally, an order of dismissal due to failure of the shall not be provisionally dismissed, except:
prosecution to present witnesses has the effect of acquittal and becomes
immediately executory; however, it must be reduced in writing to attain the status of 1. With the express consent of the accused, and
finality. In this case, the judge still had the power to set aside the verbal order; 2. Due notice to the offended parties (or their heirs, since the
double jeopardy has yet to attach. victims here were all killed).

PEOPLE vs. SANDIGANBAYAN & VELASCO insufficiency of evidence / same If the offense is punishable by imprisonment of more than 6
effect as acquittal Velasco was charged before the Sandiganbayan. After the years (as in this case), the provisional dismissal shall become
prosecution had rested its case, he filed a Demurrer seeking to dismiss the case permanent if the case is not revived w/in 2 years after the
based on insufficiency of evidence; it was initially denied but eventually granted issuance of the order.
upon his Motion for Reconsideration. He now invokes double jeopardy to bar
subsequent prosecution. The prosecution contends that the dismissal was void for
failing to state a summary of facts. The trial court (or Sandiganbayan) may Thus, the People move for reconsideration. The prosecution seeks to revive the
dismiss a case based on insufficiency of evidence and such dismissal case, even despite the lapse of the 2 year period, and pray that the Resolution of
amounts to an acquittal. Thus even if the same has been granted at the Judge Agnir dismissing the case be set aside, contending that the abovementioned
instance of or w/ the consent of the accused, it serves as a bar to subsequent requisites for provisional dismissal are not present; hence, according to them, Ping
prosecution for the same offense. Double jeopardy attaches. Lacson should not be entitled to the immunity granted after 2 years from the
provisional dismissal, since the provisional dismissal was invalid in the first place.

CONDRADA vs. PEOPLE temporary dismissal Condrada was charged w/ rape.


Upon arraignment he pleaded not guilty. On two separate occasions, the Lacson did not pray for the provisional dismissal; he never consented thereto
complainant and the witnesses failed to appear during trial. On the third instance and never sought it neither expressly nor impliedly. What he sought in his
the court ordered the sub poenae to be coursed through the NBI, but still the motion was merely judicial determination of probable cause and examination of the
complainant and the witnesses failed to appear; the prosecution yet again witnesses so that should the court find the absence of probable cause, the arrest
requested for postponement. The court denied the accuseds motion to dismiss warrants should then be cancelled. Thus, the 1st element is missing.
based on the right to a speedy trial; but allowed the temporary dismissal of the
case subject to revival w/in 30 days therefrom, otherwise, it shall be dismissed Likewise, no notice of the motions for provisional dismissal were ever served
permanently. Upon revival of the case, Condrada invokes double jeopardy. A to the heirs of the victims, at least 3 days before the said hearing as required by
provisional dismissal is a dismissal w/o prejudice to reinstatement or revival the rules of court; thus the 2nd element is likewise missing. The rationale behind
before the order becomes final, or w/o prejudice to the subsequent filing of a such rule is to afford the victims or their heirs the chance to object to the motion on
new information. It is not a permanent dismissal w/c bars subsequent valid grounds.
prosecution or revival based on double jeopardy.
Since none of the elements required above attend, then the Rule on Provisional
Dismissal bars subsequent prosecution when: Dismissal does not apply. The dismissal does not fall w/in the aforesaid rule on
Provisional Dismissals; therefore the case may be revived beyond the
1. There was conviction or acquittal (trial on the merits) prescribed 2 year period subject to the right of the accused to oppose the
same on the basis of Double Jeopardy or the Statute of Limitations.
2. Dismissal due to failure to prosecute
3. Dismissal due to unreasonable delays in violation of the right to speedy
trial DD: I believe that even though the Rule on Provisional Dismissal does not apply,
nevertheless, the accused should be entitled to the defense of double jeopardy.
4. Dismissal without the consent of the accused The case was dismissed clearly w/o his consent; and by no stretch of the
5. Dismissal due to insufficiency of evidence (People vs. Sandiganbayan & imagination can his motion for judicial determination of probable cause be taken as
Velasco) consent to the dismissal w/c must be given unequivocally, positively, and clearly.
If dismissal was made w/o the consent of the accused, it acquires the status of
63 | M i k e e Retirado 1-C
CONSTI 2: Bernas Casebook 2010 ed.
Updated Darvins Digest

finality, and such dismissal bars subsequent prosecution for the same offense in based on the same act, double jeopardy applies. In this case, there is obviously
accord w/ the right against double jeopardy. only one act sought to be punished although different offenses are alleged. Thus,
double jeopardy protects the accused.
Dissent of Justice Puno:
The underlying reason why Sec. 8 of Rule 117 was formulated, in the first place, MELO vs. PEOPLE supervening event / offense acquires new character /
was to prevent the prosecution from arbitrarily reviving or re-animating an case that amended complaint Conrado Melo was charged for frustrated homicide for
has become dormant due primarily to the prosecutions own failure or inaction w/o stabbing and inflicting fatal wounds to one Benjamin Obillo. He pleaded not guilty.
justification. It confers new rights independent of but related to the rights to a Subsequently, the victim died; thus, the next day, an amended information was filed
speedy trial and against double jeopardy. The prosecutors should thus be against him charging him this time w/ consummated homicide. Melo invokes double
constrained to work within the prescribed timeline and not unduly burden the jeopardy. In this case, the second offense was not in existence during the time
accused w/ the hassles of prolonged and protracted prosecutions. of the 1st prosecution because the accused could not possibly have been
convicted of an offense that was still inexistent. The victim then was still alive;
thus no case for consummated homicide could prosper. It was at most frustrated
PEOPLE vs. CA (GR No. 142051) review disguised as certiorari / acquittal is final homicide.
Respondents Francisco and Pacao were acquitted by the Court of Appeals. The
People, through a writ of certiorari, allege errors of judgment or misappreciation of
evidence on the part of the CA, not errors of law or jurisdiction. This is an erroneous Even assuming that the second offense is identical to the first the first being a
application of the extraordinary writ of certiorari because the Supreme Court cannot mere frustration of the second nevertheless, the right against double jeopardy is
inquire into factual matters unless there is a blatant abuse of authority on the part of not violated by the filing of the amended complaint in this case. Supervening
the lower court. Regardless of its nomenclature, the petition is actually one for events took place that changed the character of the offense, thus the accused
an ordinary review of the factual findings of the lower court. It was practically cannot be said to be placed under double jeopardy for being prosecuted for
an appeal disguised as a petition for certiorari and for the SC to entertain the new offense. The amended complaint should thus be allowed to stand. His
such would violate the constitutional right against double jeopardy. Unless service of the first penalty however should be credited in case of conviction of the
there is a mistrial, a judgment of acquittal is final and unappealable pursuant to second offense.
double jeopardy. This is regardless of whether it is decided by the trial court or the
CA. DD: Take note also that the first jeopardy has not yet terminated; thus no double
jeopardy can attach.
DD: A decision of acquittal becomes final immediately and bars the re-opening of
the case. The exception is when the prosecution was denied due process. PEOPLE vs. BULING fractures later discovered / no supervening events
Buenaventura Buling was charged for less serious physical injuries for having
PEOPLE vs. RELOVA ordinance & law / if based on same act, double jeopardy inflicted wounds upon Isidro Balaba. The findings of the medical examination
applies Manuel Opulencia was charged for violating Ordinance No. 1 Series of showed that the Balaba was to be incapacitated and would require medical
1974 of Batangas City for having made unauthorized installations and wirings in his attendance for some 10 to 15 days. Buling pleaded guilty and served sentence that
ice plant to lower his power bill fraudulently (typical jumper). He pleaded not guilty same day. Prior to the filing of the subsequent amended complain, he has in
although he admitted to the presence of such unauthorized installations w/in his ice fact fully served his sentence. Later on, Balabas wounds did not heal. A second
plant. However, given the fact that the case against him has prescribed the trial medical exam was committed, this time an x-ray machine was used; fractures were
court was constrained to dismiss the case against him on the ground of found in the victims hand w/c would take him some 90 days to heal. An amended
prescription. Being a light felony, it prescribed 2 months after the discovery the information was filed against Buling, this time for serious physical injuries. The
asst. fiscal filed the case 9 months thereafter, way beyond the prescriptive period. prosecution invoked supervening events to justify the filing of the new complaint.
Later on, the fiscal filed a case against Opulencia, this time for Theft of electric
power, punishable under the Revised Penal Code. Opulencia answered w/ a There were no supervening events here that would justify the filing of an
Motion to Quash. amended complaint. The fractures already existed during the time of the first
examination; it is just that they were only discovered during the subsequent
Double jeopardy operates when an ACT is prosecuted under an ordinance, examination. Thus, an amended complaint cannot be validly filed against the
and then later the same act is prosecuted under a statute and vice versa. accused w/o violating his constitutional right against double jeopardy. In this
The 2nd sentence of the provision makes reference to ACTS, not offenses as case, the court warns that before filing appropriate informations in such cases,
provided in the 1st sentence. Conviction or acquittal under either constitutes a bar thorough medical examinations must be conducted to avoid such circumstances
to prosecution for the same act. Thus, even if the offenses charged under the where the accused could not be held liable for the more severe but rightful liability
ordinance and the law are different, if the charges under the law and ordinance are as he is shielded by the guarantee against double jeopardy.
64 | M i k e e Retirado 1-C
CONSTI 2: Bernas Casebook 2010 ed.
Updated Darvins Digest

allege that the law is an ex post facto law because the new law deprives them of
DD: Take note that the first jeopardy has already terminated; the accused had, in the two-tiered appeal before recourse to the SC.
fact, fully served his sentence.
It is w/in the power of Congress to define the jurisdiction of courts subject to certain
constitutional limitations. RA No. 8249 is not a penal law; it is merely a
Important reminders: substantive law on jurisdiction. Even though the law deprives the accuseds
of the two-tiered appeal, it nevertheless preserves the right of the accuseds
to appeal before the Supreme Court. The SC still has the power to review the
Always take note of the elements of double jeopardy. If the first jeopardy has yet case to determine if the presumption of innocence is overcome. It thus is not an ex
to attach due to the lack or defect of any of the elements (court of competent post facto law.
jurisdiction, valid information, arraignment, valid plea), then double jeopardy
cannot yet be invoked.
DD: Cases decided by the Sandiganbayan may be appealed to the Supreme Court;
while cased decided by the RTC may be reviewed first by the Court of Appeals
Even if the first jeopardy has attached, the same would have to terminate, before being reviewed by the Supreme Court. It must be noted, however, that the
otherwise to invoke double jeopardy would be premature (Bulaong vs. People). CA may determine questions of fact; the SC generally may only rule upon
questions of law.
If the dismissal of the case is with the consent of the accused, the dismissal
does not bar a subsequent prosecution, unless, the dismissal was based on the PEOPLE vs. FERRER Anti-Subversion Act The Anti-Subversion Act outlaws the
merits such as failure to prosecute or lack of evidence. Communist Party of the Philippines and other subversive organizations, and
punishes any person who knowingly and by obvert acts affiliates himself, becomes,
or remains a member of the said Party or any similar subversive organization. It is
If the dismissal of the case was due to a violation of the right to speedy trial, it
alleged to be a bill of attainder. A Bill of Attainder is a law w/c inflicts
amounts to an acquittal and bars a subsequent prosecution for the same offense.
punishment w/o trial. It substitutes a legislative act for a judicial
determination of guilt. The issues are resolved as follows:

1. The mere fact that it singles out the CPP and imposes a burden upon it is
BILL OF RIGHTS insufficient to deem it as a Bill of Attainder nevertheless, the said law
SECTION 22 does not apply solely to the CPP but to any other organization organized
for the purpose of overthrowing the government. Under the law, the guilt
of the accuseds must still be judicially determined. The court must
Section 22. No ex post facto law or bill of attainder shall be enacted.
still prove that the accused joined knowingly and w/ intent to
attain its specific objective to overthrow the government; hence it is
Ex Post Facto Law & Bill of Attainder not an ex post facto law.

LACSON vs. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY two-tiered appeal / right to appeal 2. The judgment expressed in the legislation regarding the criminal nature
preserved / SC reviews The accuseds in this case are being prosecuted as of the CPP is so universally acknowledged as to be certain and
accessories for multiple murder w/ regard to the Kuratong Baleleng rubout. Under judicially noticeable. The SC on many occasions has found the CPP to
the old law, the case falls under the jurisdiction of the RTC; however, RA No. 8249 be an illegal organization, engaged in armed struggle for the purpose of
was enacted expanding the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan. Before only overthrowing the government, etc.
principals for offenses cognizable by the Sandiganbayan may be tried by it; under
the new law, accomplices and accessories may also be tried by the
3. If a statute is a Bill of Attainder, it is necessarily also an ex post
Sandiganbayan, not only principals.
facto law. The said law, however, punishes acts committed AFTER the
enactment of the law. It applies prospectively, not retroactively. Members
RA No. 8249 was made to apply to cases pending in any court over w/c trial has of the CPP have the opportunity to renounce their affiliation or discontinue
not yet begun such as the case of the accuseds where evidence has yet to be their criminal acts; hence the penalties are not inescapable. The law is
presented. Their case was thus transferred to the Sandiganbayan; they now not an ex post facto law; neither is it a bill of attainder.

65 | M i k e e Retirado 1-C
CONSTI 2: Bernas Casebook 2010 ed.
Updated Darvins Digest

PEOPLE vs. SANDIGANBAYAN (GR No. 101724) longer prescriptive period /


cannot retroact Paredes committed a violation of the Anti-Graft & Corrupt ARTICLE 4
Practices Act (RA No. 3019) for w/c he was prosecuted. He committed the said CITIZENSHIP
offense the year 1976. The prescriptive period then under existing law was 10
years. Subsequently, BP No. 195 was enacted (1982) w/c extends the prescriptive
period for offenses punishable under RA No. 3019 from 10 years to 15 years. Section 1. The following are citizens of the Philippines:
Paredes is now being prosecuted due to the extended prescriptive period, although [1] Those who are citizens of the Philippines at the time of the adoption
under the old law, his liability therefrom must be extinguished. of this Constitution;
[2] Those whose fathers or mothers are citizens of the Philippines;
The provisions of BP No. 195 regarding the longer prescriptive period for [3] Those born before January 17, 1973, of Filipino mothers, who elect
prosecution of offenses cannot be applied retroactively against Paredes Philippine citizenship upon reaching the age of majority; and
because it is not favorable to him as the accused. To do so would make it an [4] Those who are naturalized in accordance with law.
ex post facto law, contrary to the Constitution. It would punish him for a crime
w/c should have already been extinguished through prescription.
Section 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
CO vs. CA rubber checks / operative fact I have arranged the facts chronologically Philippine citizenship. Those who elect Philippine citizenship in
as follows: accordance with paragraph (3), Section 1 hereof shall be deemed
natural-born citizens.
YEAR 1981: The Ministry of Justice issued a Circular declaring that the issuance
of rubber checks was not covered by BP No. 22 (Anti-Bouncing Section 3. Philippine citizenship may be lost or reacquired in the manner
Checks Law). Hence it was NOT PROHIBITED by law. provided by law.

YEAR 1983: Albino Co issued the rubber check subject of this Section 4. Citizens of the Philippines who marry aliens shall retain their
prosecution. He relied upon the Circular of the Ministry of citizenship, unless by their act or omission, they are deemed, under
Justice. the law, to have renounced it.

YEAR 1984: The said Circular was reversed by the Ministry of Justice declaring Section 5. Dual allegiance of citizens is inimical to the national interest and shall
that the issuance of rubber checks was covered by BP No. 22 and be dealt with by law.
hence IS PUNISHABLE under the said law.
DD: RA No. 9225, otherwise known as the Citizenship Retention and Re-acquisition
YEAR 1987: The Supreme Court ruled in the case of Que vs. People that the Act allows former Filipinos who have been naturalized in foreign countries to re-
issuance of rubber checks was indeed prohibited by law and acquire their Filipino citizenship by simply taking an oath of allegiance and the
PUNISHABLE under BP No. 22. registration thereof. The irony is that the Constitution deemed dual allegiance
inimical to the public interest and mandated Congress to deal with the matter. What
Co is now being prosecuted for the issuance of the said rubber the Congress did in response was to legalize dual allegiance!
check in violation of BP No. 22.

VALLES vs. COMELEC jus sanguinis / waiver must be express Rosalind Ybasco
Not only laws must be applied prospectively. Administrative issuances Lopez was a candidate for public office. Her eligibility was challenged on the basis
interpreting the laws, as well as judicial decisions laying down new doctrines of citizenship. She was born in Australia to a Filipino father (Telesforo) and an
must also be applied prospectively. They cannot retroact especially if Australian mother. She was born the year before the 1935 Constitution took effect
prejudicial to the accused. In this case, Co relied upon the interpretation of the thus the Philippine Bill and Philippine Autonomy Act were the applicable laws.
Minister of Justice; the Que vs. People Ruling was promulgated already after his Under both Acts, all inhabitants of the Phils. who were Spanish subjects on April
act of issuing the rubber check. Thus the same cannot retroact and apply to his 11, 1899 and who resided therein, including their children, are deemed Filipino
case because it is not favorable to him as an accused. Citizens. Telesforo, her father, qualifies as a citizen under the said laws.

66 | M i k e e Retirado 1-C
CONSTI 2: Bernas Casebook 2010 ed.
Updated Darvins Digest

The Philippines adheres to the jus sanguinis doctrine, where the citizenship Balinquit and Co, his losing competitors, challenge his natural-born citizenship
is determined based on blood relationships. Rosalind, thus, being a child of a before the HRET, w/c upheld the same, hence this petition for certiorari. Family
Filipino father, is deemed a Filipino citizen. The mere fact that she was born history goes as follows:
in Australia does not suffice to make her lose her citizenship. Assuming that
Australia adheres to the jus soli doctrine, then she is at most a dual-citizen. Ong Te (grandfather) arrived from China the year 1895, established residence in
Samar, and was able to obtain a Certificate of Residence under the Spanish
Even assuming that Rosalind possesses an Australian Passport and Alien Colonial Administration. He qualified as a Filipino citizen under the Phil. Bill of 1902.
Certificate of Registration, this does not suffice to amount to a waiver of her Even so, his citizenship was questioned in this case in a collateral approach. An
citizenship, because waiver must be made expressly. Further, when the Local attack upon a persons citizenship can only be done through direct action for
Government Code disqualifies dual-citizens from office, it speaks of dual nullity not collaterally.
allegiance. Even so, by her act of filing her certificate of candidacy, Rosalind
in effect renounced her Australian citizenship, because she declared herself a Jose Ong Chuan (father) on the other hand was brought to the Phils. the year
Filipino citizen and swore to uphold the Constitution and maintain true faith and 1905 and married a natural born Filipina (mother). The CFI of Samar, after trial,
allegiance thereto. Thus, she satisfies the citizenship requirements for eligibility for declared him a Filipino Citizen. Jose Ong (respondent) was then born the year
local public office. 1948 under the 1935 Constitution.

TECSON v. COMELEC = FPJ - FPJ filed his CoC for President in the 2004 election, Emil Ong (brother) was a delegate of the 1971 Constitutional Convention, which
where he represented himself to be a natural-born citizen. FORNIER sought to affirmed his citizenship and other qualifications as a member of the said body.
disqualify FPJ on the ground that he is not a natural-born citizen because (a) his
parents were both foreigners, as his mother was an American and his father was
Spanish and (b) even assuming that his father was Filipino, the same could not Jose Ong was thus born of both a Filipino father and mother. There is thus no
transmit the citizenship to FPJ because he was an illegitimate child. Under the question that he was a Filipino citizen. However, even assuming that he was
history on citizenship, during the Spanish occupation, there was no such term as born merely to a Filipino mother and under the 1935 Constitution, and that he would
Philippine citizens, but only Spanish subjects and it was only upon the have to elect or choose to be a natural born Filipino citizen, he likewise satisfies the
ratification of the TREATY OF PARIS that the native inhabitants of the Philippines requirement albeit not expressly. To expect Ong to elect his citizenship
ceased to be Spanish subjects, as the Philippine Bill of 1902 described the same expressly would be a mere superfluity (after all he was already a Filipino citizen).
as Citizens of the Philippine Islands. Natural-born citizens are those who are
citizens of the Philippines from birth without having to perform any act to acquire or Election is both a formal and INFORMAL process. He exercised his right to
perfect their Philippine citizenship. The SC held that, in this case, FPJ was born vote, lived in the Philippines since birth and established a life here, held
during the time when 1935 Constitution prevailed, which meant that the sensitive positions in the government (Central Bank), exercised a profession
concept of jus sanguinis was the primary basis of citizenship. Thus, FPJs (CPA) reserved only to Filipinos, and embraced the Philippine customs and
citizenship would depend on whether or not ALLAN, his father, was a Filipino values. He was voted for overwhelmingly by his constituents. These acts in
citizen. In this case, the citizenship of LORENZO POU (grandfather) could be themselves suffice to constitute electing to be a citizen of the Philippines.
drawn from the presumption that, having died in 1954 in PAMPANGA, he Having elected citizenship and being of a Filipina mother, then he is deemed as a
wouldve have been born in 1870 when the RP was still under Spanish rule NATURAL BORN Filipino citizen and thus eligible for public office. The HRET did
and, thus, LORENZO would have benefitted from the en masse Filipinization not commit grave abuse of discretion.
that the PHILIPPINE BILL enacted in 1902. In turn, that citizenship, if
acquired, would extend to his son, ALLAN, the father of FPJ. The SC also held
that the supposed doctrine that an illegitimate child follows the citizenship of the DD: The Constitution requires that a person must be natural-born in order to be
mother has not been duly established as a doctrine because the same is merely eligible as a Representative in Congress. Take note, however, that only the
obiter dictum from past decisions. BERNAS, as amicus curiae, opined that such a Constitution can distinguish between natural-born and naturalized citizens in
doctrine would have no textual foundation in the Constitution and is violative of the conferring rights and privileges. Naturalized citizens are, after all, not second class
equal protection clause, making an unreasonable distinction between a legitimate citizens and possess the same rights as a natural-born citizen.
and illegitimate child. Thus, the 1935 Constitution confers citizenship to all persons
whose fathers are Filipino, regardless of whether they are born legitimate or YU vs. DEFENSOR-SANTIAGO actions manifest renunciation / executive
illegitimate. process Willie Yu was originally issued a Portuguese Passport the year 1971. He
was naturalized as a Filipino citizen the year 1978, but by the year 1981, he once
CO vs. HRET born of Filipino mother, still natural born / election through actions again applied for and was issued a Portuguese Passport. As a naturalized Filipino,
Jose Ong Jr. was proclaimed Representative of the 2nd District of Northern Samar; he even declared his nationality as Portuguese in public and commercial
67 | M i k e e Retirado 1-C
CONSTI 2: Bernas Casebook 2010 ed.
Updated Darvins Digest

documents, despite his oath to maintain true allegiance to the Republic of the being bigamous. He applied for Immigrant Cert. of Registration. The COMELEC
Philippines. Yu pleads that he has never formally renounced his Filipino citizenship. affirmed his citizenship stating that the said acts were all mistakes, while the CID
All the foregoing acts, such as procurement of a foreign passport, or declared that he was not a citizen. He invokes res judicata. The doctrine of res
representing oneself as a citizen of another country, all suffice as an express judicata obviously does not apply to questions of citizenship.
renunciation of Philippine citizenship acquired through naturalization. The
decision in this case was summarily rendered by the Executive Branch (I believe by The fact that his marriage to the Aussie was declared void and had the effect of
the Commission on Immigration & Deportation) in an executive proceeding, not a divesting him of his Aussie citizenship is a matter between him and the State of
judicial proceeding. Australia. It does not automatically restore him to his status as a Filipino
citizen. The fact is that he lost his Filipino citizenship by committing all of the
Consolidated Dissents: following acts:
The pieces of documentary evidence, which consist primarily of photocopies of
certain documents, are insufficient to indicate a categorical and unequivocal 1. Naturalization in a foreign country
renunciation of citizenship. Further, Yu deserved to have his day in court; a 2. Express renunciation, and
judicial proceeding must be held to afford him his right to due process. A
summary executive proceeding is not sufficient. The proper procedures laid 3. Subscribing an oath of allegiance to a foreign country.
down by law must be observed.
He must thus first re-acquire his lost citizenship through the processes
FRIVALDO vs. COMELEC loss of US citizenship / no automatic restoration to Phil. required by law, such as by:
citizenship Juan Frivaldo was proclaimed governor elect of Sorsogon. His
eligibility was challenged before the COMELEC on the ground that he was not a 1. Act of Congress,
Filipino citizen, having been naturalized as an American the year 1983, and that he 2. Naturalization, or
has not re-acquired his Filipino citizenship on the day of the elections. He claims
3. Repatriation
that he acquired American citizenship only to protect himself from the Marcos
Regime and that the same was merely forced upon him to avoid persecution that
it was not impressed w/ voluntariness. This feeble excuse must be rejected He has not complied w/ any of the modes for re-acquiring citizenship. The fact that
outright. If he really wanted to disavow his US citizenship and re-acquire he was elected by his constituents does not cure the defect. He was ineligible
Philippine citizenship, he should have done so in accordance w/ the law according to the Local Government Code and should thus be ordered to vacate his
either by act of Congress, naturalization, or repatriation. position as Mayor.

He claims to have been repatriated by participating in the elections in the DD: An example of naturalization by an Act of Congress is the case of Ronnie
Philippines and filing his Certificate of Candidacy, but assuming that he may have Nathanielsz, who was naturalized by virtue of a Presidential Decree, w/c has the
lost his American citizenship through such acts, this does not automatically force and effect of law.
restore him to his Filipino citizenship w/c he had earlier renounced. He must
still comply w/ the requirements of the law. He is thus at most a stateless ANZAR vs. OSMEA Alien Registration / does not follow that there is
person. Considering that public officials owe allegiance to the State at all times, the renunciation Lito Osmea was a candidate for governor for the Province of Cebu.
court cannot tolerate the anomaly of having an incumbent governor who owes Aznar, sought to disqualify him as candidate alleging that he was an American
allegiance to another country. citizen based on a Statement issued by the CID affirming the existence of the
following documents: (1) Application for Alien Registration, (2) Alien Certificate of
LABO vs. COMELEC Aussie naturalization / res judicata / no compliance w/ Registration, (3) Permit to Re-enter the Philippines, and (4) Immigration Cert. of
procedures Labo was proclaimed Mayor of Baguio City. According to an Clearance all under the name of Osmea, who was eventually proclaimed as
unrefuted statement from the Australian Embassy, it turns out however, that winning candidate. From the get go, the case may be dismissed for not being filed
sometime prior to his election, he married an Australian woman and acquired w/in the 25-day period required by law from the filing of the Cert. of Candidacy;
Australian citizenship by naturalization. He was required to swear an oath or make nevertheless, the Court decided to decide the case based on the merits.
an affirmation renouncing all other allegiance. He also swore true allegiance to the
Queen of Australia. There is no substantial and convincing evidence to find that Osmea is not a
Filipino citizen. There was no proof that Osmea lost his citizenship by (1)
He even categorically stated that he was an Australian in a number of sworn naturalization in a foreign country, (2) express renunciation, or (3) by subscribing to
statements. Subsequently, his marriage to his Aussie wife was declared void for an oath of allegiance to a foreign country. Osmea vehemently denied having taken
68 | M i k e e Retirado 1-C
CONSTI 2: Bernas Casebook 2010 ed.
Updated Darvins Digest

an oath of allegiance to the US. Being the son of a Filipino father, Osmea was not a grant of new citizenship. RA No. 2630 indicated repatriation; it did not require
presumed to be a Filipino, and Aznar failed to discharge the burden. the long and tedious process of naturalization. All that it required was for Cruz to
once again swear allegiance to the Philippines, renounce any other allegiance, and
From the mere fact that Osmea possessed a Certificate of Alien Registration for the same to be recorded in the Civil Registry.
as an American, it does not follow that he is no longer a Filipino. It is a
classic case of non sequitur. It is possible that he possesses both nationalities. It There are thus only 2 classifications of citizens: (1) natural born citizens, and
cannot be implied that he actually renounced his Filipino citizenship. The statement (2) naturalized citizens. Only naturalized citizens are deemed not natural
under the Constitution against dual allegiance has no retroactive effect and is to born.
be dealt w/ by law; but no law has yet to be enacted.
Dissent of Justice Sandoval-Gutierrez:
Consolidated Dissents: If citizenship is gained through naturalization, repatriation, or legislation, the
When a person voluntarily registers as an alien, he is in effect affirming that citizenship cannot be considered natural-born. The person would still have to
he is not a citizen. Simply put, how can a person claim to be both an alien and a make an express and unequivocal act of formally rejecting his adopted state
citizen at the same time? Obtaining an Alien Certificate is a clear and unambiguous and reaffirming is allegiance to the Philippines. The patriotic intent of the
act of declaring that one is not a citizen. It was a voluntary act for the purpose of Constitution is to impose a more stringent requirement for those aspiring to hold
insulating oneself from the jurisdiction of the State over its nationals. Express high offices in the government particularly Congress. The majority has adopted a
renunciation on the one hand and naturalization on the other are separate liberal and cavalier approach to the meaning and import of natural-born citizenship.
modes of losing citizenship. One need not be naturalized to actually have to
renounce his citizenship. DD: Take note that for Repatriation to be effective, it must be registered w/ the Civil
Registrar as well as the Bureau of Immigration (Altajeros vs. COMELEC). It is
All the documents that Osmea requested from the CID are predicated upon the likewise not a matter of right but merely a privilege granted by the State.
fact that he is an alien under Philippine laws especially his Permit to Re-enter.
Entry to the country is a right conferred to citizens; if he believed himself to
be a citizen, seeking permission would not be necessary. Osmea also made
several sworn statements declaring himself to be a US citizen. Treating Osmea ARTICLE 5
different from Frivaldo and Labo smacks of unequal treatment. SUFFRAGE

Citizenship is like a jealous wife. When a person rejects and divorces his wife to Section 1. Suffrage may be exercised by all citizens of the Philippines not
enter into a second marriage, he cannot say that he still loves her despite his otherwise disqualified by law, who are at least eighteen years of age,
desertion. Isagani Cruz and who shall have resided in the Philippines for at least one year, and
in the place wherein they propose to vote, for at least six months
immediately preceding the election. No literacy, property, or other
substantive requirement shall be imposed on the exercise of suffrage.
BENGZON vs. CRUZ US Marine service / repatriation / restores old status
Teodoro Cruz was born the year 1960 of Filipino parents. He was a natural born
Filipino citizen. However, in 1985, he enlisted in the US Marine Corps and took an Section 2. The Congress shall provide a system for securing the secrecy and
oath of allegiance to the US. He thus lost his Filipino citizenship. He was then sanctity of the ballot as well as a system for absentee voting by
naturalized as a US citizen the year 1990. However, by 1994, Cruz had reacquired qualified Filipinos abroad.
his Filipino citizenship by virtue of Repatriation under RA No. 2630. Then he ran The Congress shall also design a procedure for the disabled and the
for and was elected as Representative of 2nd District of Pangasinan. Bengzon, his illiterates to vote without the assistance of other persons. Until then,
losing competitor, assailed his citizenship qualification claiming that he is no longer they shall be allowed to vote under existing laws and such rules as the
a natural born citizen because he had to perform an act to acquire or perfect his Commission on Elections may promulgate to protect the secrecy of
citizenship. the ballot.

A person who, at the time of birth was a citizen of a particular country, is a


natural born citizen thereof. In repatriation, the person recovers his AKBAYAN vs. COMELEC two-day extension Akbayan, along with other civic
ORIGINAL citizenship. In this case, since Cruz was once a natural-born organizations and claiming to represent the youth sector, requested the COMELEC
citizen, repatriation had the effect of restoring his natural-born status. It is for a two-day extension to register as voters especially for those who have
69 | M i k e e Retirado 1-C
CONSTI 2: Bernas Casebook 2010 ed.
Updated Darvins Digest

failed to register before the deadline of Dec. 27, 2000. After deliberating the issue, 3. Intention to abandon the old domicile
the COMELEC denied their request, claiming that under Sec. 8 of RA No. 8189, no 4. The change of residence must be voluntary
voters registrations shall be conducted w/in 120 days before the election, and that
the conduct of the said registration was now operationally impossible to be
accomplished before the 120 day bar arrives. Thus, Akbayan filed a case for In this case, their sudden departure from the country is hardly voluntary and
certiorari and mandamus, claiming that the COMELEC undermined their right to cannot constitute abandonment of residence. They went into self-exile under
vote and that Sec. 8 of RA No. 8189 was unconstitutional for disenfranchising fear for their safety, which is perfectly understandable. Thus, their residence,
voters. which is Tolosa, remains the same. It cannot be said that they intended to abandon
it in the absence of convincing proof to the contrary. Romualdez is thus eligible to
vote in Tolosa, Leyte.
The right to vote is not absolute and must be exercised w/in the framework of
the Constitution and applicable laws providing for procedural and
substantive requirements. One of the indispensable procedural requirements MACALINTAL vs. COMELEC Absentee Voting / exception to the residency
is registration. The State, in the exercise of police power, may enact laws to requirement Atty. Romulo Macalintal, through certiorari and prohibition, and as a
safeguard the credibility of elections. The aforesaid provision serves to secure the lawyer and taxpayer, sought to declare certain provisions of the Absentee Voting
elections against flying-voters, non-qualified registrants and the like; to void the Act of 2003 (RA No. 9189) unconstitutional claiming that it circumvents the
same would compromise the integrity of the voters list and the entire election. residency requirement of the Constitution for the exercise of the right to vote.
Under the said law, Filipinos residing abroad who are not otherwise disqualified,
even immigrants or permanent residents, may vote for the national elections
Although RA No. 8436 allows the COMELEC to fix other dates and periods for provided that they execute an affidavit stating:
activities regarding suffrage, such as registration, registration must still be done
before the 120 day period laws must be harmonized. The law likewise does not
require that the impossible be done and aids the vigilant, not those who slumber on 1. That they will return to the Philippines not later than 3 years from the
their rights. The petitioners had every opportunity to register, but they were approval of their voters registration under the said Act
remiss and slumbered on their rights. 2. That they have not applied for citizenship in a foreign country
3. Failure or refusal to return w/in the said period shall be penalized by
ROMUALDEZ vs. RTC asylum / no intent to abandon / hardly voluntary / no perpetual disenfranchisement
change of residence Phillip Romualdez, son of Former Leyte Gov. Kokoy
Romualdez and nephew of Imelda Marcos, established his residence in Bgy. The presumption of constitutionality prevailed.
Malbog, Tolosa, Leyte sometime in the early 1980s. He once served as Bgy.
Captain and was campaign manager for Kilusang Bagong Lipunan. After the EDSA
While Section 1 provided for a residency requirement (1 year in the Philippines and
Revolution, and fearing for their safety, the Romualdezes fled to the US where they 6 months in the locality where one will vote), the doctrine of necessary
sought asylum. In the year 1991, he was ordered to depart from the US by the implication was applied. The strategic location of Section 2, mandating
Immigration Dept. He arrived in the Philippines December, 1991 and went back Congress to provide for a system of absentee voting for qualified Filipinos
to his residence in Tolosa. He then registered to vote for the May 1992 abroad, makes Absentee Voting the exception to the general rule under
Elections; Donato Advincula filed a petition to exclude Romualdez from the voters Section 1. The residency requirement was thus not applicable to Absentee
list; Romualdez had been physically present in Tolosa for only around 5 months Voting.
while the Constitution requires at least 6 months residence in the place where he
proposes to vote.
Assuming arguendo that the residency requirement applies, the concepts of
residence and domicile are synonymous for purposes of Election Law. By their act
In election cases, domicile and residence are treated synonymously. It of executing the affidavit, the Absentee Voter manifests that he intends to
imports not only an intention to reside in the place, but also personal return to his original residence in the Philippines thus, he is presumed to
presence coupled w/ conduct indicative of that intention. Domicile connotes a have retained his domicile in the Philippines despite his physical absence.
fixed permanent residence to w/c when absent for business or pleasure, one
Failure to return w/in the 3-year period is a ground for perpetual
intends to return. In order to change domicile, the following requisites must disenfranchisement.
concur:

The intent of the Constitution is to confer the right to vote to as many Filipinos
1. Residence or bodily presence in the new locality abroad and grant Congress the power to define the parameters for the exercise of
2. Intention to remain there (indefinitely) such right.

70 | M i k e e Retirado 1-C
CONSTI 2: Bernas Casebook 2010 ed.
Updated Darvins Digest

Filipino citizens living abroad who have not abandoned their domicile of origin and
DD: How can a person be a PERMANENT resident of one country and still be manifest their intention to return to the same. RA No. 9225 merely expanded the
domiciled in another? scope of the Absentee Voting Law to include the dual-citizens.

Notes: JAPZON vs COMELEC- Japzon filed a petition to disqualify Tys Certificate of Candidacy
on the ground of material misrepresentation when the latter falsely represented therein that
he was a resident Eastern Samar, for one year before 14 May 2007, and that he was not a
Qualifications for the exercise of the right of suffrage: permanent resident or immigrant of any foreign country. Ty admitted that he was a natural-
born Filipino who went to the USA to work and subsequently became a naturalized
1. Philippine citizenship American citizen. He further claims that he had reacquired his Philippine citizenship
2. Age of 18 years or over (at the time of the election) through Ra 9225, which grants dual citizenship to natural-born Filipinos, and subsequently
3. Residence in the Philippines for at least 1 year (domicile) renounced his American citizenship through an execution of a duly notarized Renunciation
of Foreign Citizenship. Ty complied with the requirements for a natural-born Filipino who
4. Residence in the place where they propose to vote for at least reacquired or retained his Philippine citizenship under RA 9225 to run for public office.
6 months preceding the election (may be temporary
residence)
ARTICLE 13
5. Freedom from disqualifications prescribed by law
SOCIAL JUSTICE & HUMAN RIGHTS
Reminders: (Pertinent Sections & Cases Only)

Section 1. The Congress shall give highest priority to the enactment of measures
The right to vote beings on a citizens 18th Birthday
that protect and enhance the right of all the people to human dignity, reduce
A person may register even if not yet 18 years old, provided social, economic, and political inequalities, and remove cultural inequities by
he is 18 years old at the time of the date of election equitably diffusing wealth and political power for the common good.
Registration of a voter in a place other than his residence To this end, the State shall regulate the acquisition, ownership, use, and
of origin does not suffice to cause the loss or disposition of property and its increments.
abandonment of such residency
Section 2. The promotion of social justice shall include the commitment to create
DD: If a person has resided in one locality for 6 months or more and is at the same economic opportunities based on freedom of initiative and self-reliance.
time domiciled in another, come election time, he has the option to choose the
place where he will vote whether his current residence or his domicile.
LABOR
Section 3. The State shall afford full protection to labor, local and overseas,
organized and unorganized, and promote full employment and equality of
NICOLAS-LEWIS vs. COMELEC dual-citizens / absentee voting RA No. 9225, employment opportunities for all.
otherwise known as the Citizenship Retention & Re-acquisition Act allowed citizens It shall guarantee the rights of all workers to self-organization, collective
who have been naturalized in other countries to re-acquire their Filipino citizenship bargaining and negotiations, and peaceful concerted activities, including the
by taking the oath of allegiance, among other requirements. It restores them to right to strike in accordance with law. They shall be entitled to security of
their civil and political rights. Loida Nicolas-Lewis, a dual-citizen under the said tenure, humane conditions of work, and a living wage. They shall also
law, among other persons, applied for registration to be an Absentee Voter. The participate in policy and decision-making processes affecting their rights and
COMELEC wrote them through the Philippine Embassy that the Absentee Voting benefits as may be provided by law.
Law was not intended for them and thus, they are not eligible to vote unless they
comply w/ the residency requirement in Sec. 1 of Art. 5 of the Constitution. The State shall promote the principle of shared responsibility between
workers and employers and the preferential use of voluntary modes in
settling disputes, including conciliation, and shall enforce their mutual
For as long as they comply w/ the requirements under the Absentee Voting compliance therewith to foster industrial peace.
Act (such as the affidavit requirement), the dual-citizens may avail of their The State shall regulate the relations between workers and employers,
right to vote through the said law. They need not satisfy the residency recognizing the right of labor to its just share in the fruits of production and
requirement, Absentee Voting being the exception to the general rule
requiring residency. The intent of the Constitution and the law is to enfranchise all
71 | M i k e e Retirado 1-C
CONSTI 2: Bernas Casebook 2010 ed.
Updated Darvins Digest

the right of enterprises to reasonable returns to investments, and to


expansion and growth. DE VERA vs. NLRC separation for cause but w/ separation pay / compassion De
Labor Vera violated Company Rules by hitting Ocampo in the head. He was thus
SSS EMPLOYEES vs. CA no right to strike for government employees Employees dismissed. While it is true that the company was itself prejudiced by De Veras
of the SSS staged a strike; the RTC enjoined the said employees and ordered them conduct and disturbed its peace, the penalty of dismissal was not commensurate to
to return to work; thus this petition before the Supreme Court. The Constitution is the offense committed. De Vera has been working w/ the company for 14 years and
silent as to whether government employees have the right to strike. Reference to performed well and seemed to have patched up his differences w/ Ocampo.
the Deliberations as well as to applicable laws (RA No. 875) reveals that the right Nevertheless, since reinstatement would not be practical, the court sustained his
to form organizations does not include the right to strike. dismissal but required the Company to render separation pay. In certain
cases, the award to the employee of separation pay would be sustainable
under the social justice policy in even if his dismissal was for cause. The
Art. 13 Sec. 3 of the Constitution guarantees the rights of workers to self- social justice policy mandates a compassionate attitude towards the working class
organization, negotiations, xxx including the right to strike in accordance w/ the in its relations w/ management and urges a moderation of sanctions. However, if
law. For as long as there is no law allowing government employees to strike the cause of separation is serious, then the generosity of the law must be more
and regulating the same, any strike made by them is illegal. Relations between discerning.
private employers and employees rest on a voluntary basis subject to certain
requirements provided by law, but public employees are governed by Civil
Service Laws. It is the government that, by law, fixes the terms and AGRARIAN AND NATURAL RESOURCES REFORM
conditions of their employment not any collective bargaining agreement.
Section 4. The State shall, by law, undertake an agrarian reform program founded on
EO No. 180 allows public employees to negotiate the terms and conditions of the right of farmers and regular farmworkers who are landless, to own directly or
employment not fixed by law. If negotiations fail, their unions may bring the matter collectively the lands they till or, in the case of other farmworkers, to receive a just
before the Public Sector Labor Management Council. They may likewise lobby in share of the fruits thereof. To this end, the State shall encourage and undertake the
Congress for the terms they want; but they do not have the right to stage strikes, just distribution of all agricultural lands, subject to such priorities and reasonable
walk-outs, or other temporary work stoppages. retention limits as the Congress may prescribe, taking into account ecological,
developmental, or equity considerations, and subject to the payment of just
compensation. In determining retention limits, the State shall respect the right of
small landowners. The State shall further provide incentives for voluntary land-
REPUBLIC vs. CA (180 SCRA 428) The National Parks Development Committee sharing.
(NPDC) is a government agency; hence its employees are governed by Civil
Service Rules & Regulations. Therefore, the disputes between the NPDC and its
employees are cognizable by the Public Sector Labor-Management Council, Section 5. The State shall recognize the right of farmers, farmworkers, and
NOT the Dept. of Labor and Employment. landowners, as well as cooperatives, and other independent farmers' organizations
to participate in the planning, organization, and management of the program, and
shall provide support to agriculture through appropriate technology and research,
EAGLE SECURITY vs. NLRC contractor & employer liable for unpaid wages Phil. and adequate financial, production, marketing, and other support services.
Tuberculosis Society Inc. (PTSI) contracted the services of Eagle Security Agency
for the service and assignment of security guards. Eagle security failed to pay the
16 guards assigned thereto their wages and allowance increases according to Section 6. The State shall apply the principles of agrarian reform or stewardship,
Wage Orders 2, 3, 5, and 6, thus the latter filed a case before the labor arbiter who whenever applicable in accordance with law, in the disposition or utilization of other
ruled in favor of the guards. It held both PTSI and Eagle solidarily liable to the natural resources, including lands of the public domain under lease or concession
security guards for the payment of the latters wages. The PTSI argues that suitable to agriculture, subject to prior rights, homestead rights of small settlers,
liability for unpaid wages should be born exclusively by Eagle as per their contract. and the rights of indigenous communities to their ancestral lands. The State may
resettle landless farmers and farmworkers in its own agricultural estates which shall
be distributed to them in the manner provided by law.
The Labor Code provides that in case of failure by the contractor or sub-
contractor to pay wages to their workers, the employer (as well as any person
or association employing such services) shall be liable with the contractor as Section 7. The State shall protect the rights of subsistence fishermen, especially of
indirect employer thereof. The purpose of the law is to afford protection to the local communities, to the preferential use of the communal marine and fishing
workers; the law was enacted in the exercise of the police power of the State and resources, both inland and offshore. It shall provide support to such fishermen
does not violate the Impairment Clause. through appropriate technology and research, adequate financial, production, and
marketing assistance, and other services. The State shall also protect, develop, and
72 | M i k e e Retirado 1-C
CONSTI 2: Bernas Casebook 2010 ed.
Updated Darvins Digest

conserve such resources. The protection shall extend to offshore fishing grounds of title thereto. The contention that the government must first pursue
subsistence fishermen against foreign intrusion. Fishworkers shall receive a just public lands before expropriating private agricultural lands is a
share from their labor in the utilization of marine and fishing resources. POLITICAL QUESTION. The SC refuses to interpose its authority unless
the acts were clearly illegal w/c supposedly is not the case here. The
Section 8. The State shall provide incentives to landowners to invest the proceeds public use requirement was also obviously satisfied.
of the agrarian reform program to promote industrialization, employment creation,
and privatization of public sector enterprises. Financial instruments used as The fact that determination of just compensation is initially vested in
payment for their lands shall be honored as equity in enterprises of their choice. the DAR does not amount to usurpation of judicial powers. It is only
an initial determination w/c may be brought to the proper court in case of
Agrarian Reform disagreement.

ASSOC. OF SMALL LANDOWNERS vs. SEC. OF AGRARIAN REFORM CARP The said laws require the landowners to accept compensation not in the
case Agrarian Reform in the Philippines underwent a steady evolution through form of cash money. Only the initial deposit was required to be in cash.
various enactments including: (1) PD No. 27, requiring the compulsory acquisition While jurisprudence, both local and US, is consistent in stating that
of private agricultural lands for distribution to farmer-tenants and specifying compensation must be in the form of cash, the Agrarian Reform
retention limits, (2) EO No. 228 declaring full ownership in favor of the beneficiaries Program is an exceptional circumstance, a revolutionary
of PD No. 27, (3) Proc. No. 131 & EO No. 229 instituting the Comprehensive expropriation, w/c would require a more pragmatic approach. The
Agrarian Reform Program, and (4) the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law or Constitution supposedly left it to Congress to determine the manner of
CARL (RA No. 6657). It was subjected to bitter attacks against its constitutionality payment. Payment in LBP bonds, tax credits, shares of stock, etc. were,
in several cases. The issues raised are resolved as follows: after all, not oppressive.

The President did not usurp legislative powers in enacting EO No. 228 & While jurisprudence was likewise consistent in stating that
229 as well as Proc. No. 131. The said enactments were made during ownership only vests upon the full payment of just compensation,
the time when the President enjoyed extraordinary legislative the SC nevertheless sustained the said laws. While not totally in cash,
powers under the Freedom Constitution and before Congress was ownership transfers upon the deposit of the compensation in cash or
convened. They were later authorized by the Transitory Provisions of the bonds w/ the accessible bank. Until then, title remains w/ the owner.
1987 Constitution.
DD: Basically, in this case, we see how the Supreme Court was willing to
PD No. 27 was likewise enacted by Pres. Marcos in the exercise of his make considerable exceptions even to well-settled rules, all in the interest of
then legislative powers during Martial Law. The enactments will continue social justice.
to be in force until repealed or declared unconstitutional.

The enactments were not appropriation measures; hence they are not MADDUMBA vs. GSIS Land Bank bonds / must be accepted at face value A Land
bound by the more stringent requirements of appropriation. Even if it Bank bondholder purchased a residential house from the GSIS using the said bond
creates a Fund and the appropriations therefor were uncertain (at least P (acquired as just compensation). He seeks to compel the GSIS to accept the said
50 billion) the same is nevertheless valid. Appropriation was not the main bonds in their face value; GSIS seeks to negotiate and secure a discount
objective of the law, which is agrarian reform. therefrom. The Land Bank bonds are fully-guaranteed by the government and
their values cannot be diminished directly or indirectly. They are not ordinary
commercial papers subject to discounting. The mere acceptance of Land Bank
There is no violation of the equal protection clause. All the requisites bonds as just compensation already entails some sacrifice on the part of the
have been satisfied. The argument that not only landowners but also landowner; to reduce their value would impose yet another burden. The purpose of
owner so of other property must suffer the burden must be outright the law (RA No. 3844) is precisely to cushion the impact of dispossession upon the
rejected. landowner. That there is no explicit provision regarding the matter is immaterial; the
intent of the law prevails. GOCCs such as the GSIS thus may be compelled under
The CARL was enacted in the exercise not only of the police power the law to accept such bonds at their face value.
but also of eminent domain thus just compensation is due. It
requires the surrender of the physical possession of the land as well as

73 | M i k e e Retirado 1-C
CONSTI 2: Bernas Casebook 2010 ed.
Updated Darvins Digest

TANAKA vs. JAPAN for comparison only In Japan, the amount of just ARCHBISHOP vs SECRETARY
compensation is not equivalent to the fair market value of the land in the free Facts:
market. Rather, the amount of compensation is fixed by law. It is not calculated
Roman Catholic Archbishop of Caceres is the registered owner of several
based on the existing economic conditions and does not always correspond to the
properties in Camarines Sur, with a total area of 268.5668 hectares. Of that land,
value so determined. In the interest of public welfare, the use of private
249.0236 hectares are planted with rice and corn, while the remaining 19.5432
property may be regulated; the use of farm lands cannot be for any other purpose
hectares are planted with coconut trees.
than agriculture and the rent is fixed by law. However, payment of just
compensation must be in the form of CASH and based on the fixed standard. It is Archbishop filed with the Municipal Agrarian Reform District Office petitions for
important to take note of the scarcity of agricultural land in Japan. exemption from the coverage of Operation Land Transfer (OLT) under
Presidential Decree No. 27. Two of these petitions were denied.
LUZ FARMS vs. SEC. OF AGRARIAN REFORM livestock & poultry lands not Archbishop appealed and sought exemption from OLT coverage of all lands
included in CAR Pursuant to the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL) planted with rice and corn which were registered in the name of the Roman
the DAR promulgated its implementing rules and regulations regarding Production Catholic Archdiocese of Caceres.
& Profit Sharing. The CARL included poultry and livestock in the term agriculture, This appeal was denied by then DAR Secretary Ernesto D. Garilao and a
equated commercial farms w/ the private agricultural lands, and the Implementing subsequent motion for reconsideration was also denied.
Rules and called upon such farms to execute a production sharing plan allocating The matter was then raised to the CA via Petition for Review on Certiorari.
3% of gross sales and 10% of net profits to their workers as additional The petition was dismissed by the CA. Archbishop filed a motion for
compensation. Lutz Farms, a corporation engaged in livestock and poultry, assailed reconsideration, but was also denied.
the validity of the said regulation as well as the pertinent provisions of the CARL.
Issue:
Whether or not as administrator of the Roman Catholic properties, these subject
It was never the intention of the framers of the Constitution to include properties should have been exempt from the OLT?
livestock and poultry w/in the coverage of the Agrarian Reform Program.
There is simply no reason to include them in the coverage, w/c covers only Held:
arable and suitable agricultural lands. Further, the required production and profit The laws simply speak of the "landowner" without qualification as to under what
sharing scheme was arbitrary and confiscatory. title the land is held or what rights to the land the landowner may exercise. There
is no distinction made whether the landowner holds "naked title" only or can
exercise all the rights of ownership. To do so would be to frustrate the
DAR vs. DECS not dedicated to education but rather to business / not exempt
revolutionary intent of the law, which is the redistribution of agricultural land for
The late Esteban Jalandoni donated a portion of the Hacienda Fe to the DECS, w/c
the benefit of landless farmers and farmworkers.
then leased the lands to Agro Agricultural Corp. initially for 10 years but was
renewed for another 10 years. Alpar and other farm workers filed a Petition for The provisions of PD 27 and RA 6657 are plain and require no further
Compulsory Agrarian Reform Program w/ the Municipal Agrarian Reform Office w/c interpretation there is only one right of retention per landowner, and no
was later approved by the DAR. The DECS contends that the said land was not multiple rights of retention can be held by a single party.
covered by the CARL. Archbishop makes much of the conditional donation, that he does not have the
power to sell, exchange, lease, transfer, encumber or mortgage the transferred
The general policy of the law is to cover as much lands suitable for properties. He claims that these conditions do not make him the landowner as
agriculture as possible. It includes all alienable and disposable lands of the contemplated by the law. This matter has already been answered in Hospicio de
public domain devoted to or suitable for agriculture. The subject lands are San Jose de Barili, Cebu City (Hospicio) v. Department of Agrarian Reform. In
clearly w/in the coverage of the law and there is no legislation or presidential act that case, wherein Act No. 3239 prohibited the sale under any consideration of
converting it to residential, commercial, or industrial classification. For the subject lands donated to the Hospicio, a charitable organization, the Court found that the
lot to be exempt, it must be absolutely necessary for national defense or for lands of the Hospicio were not exempt from the coverage of agrarian reform.
school sites and campuses, including experimental farm stations operated by Archbishop's claim that he does not have jus disponendi over the subject
public or private schools for educational purposes. The subject lands were properties is unavailing. The very nature of the compulsory sale under PD 27 and
not exclusively dedicated for educational or research purposes but rather for RA 6657 defeats such a claim. Other less scrupulous parties may even attempt
business purposes; thus it is not exempt. creating trusts to prevent their lands from coming under agrarian reform, and say
that the trustee has no power to dispose of the properties. The disposition under
PD 27 and RA 6657 is of a different character than what is contemplated by jus
DD: The Agrarian Reform Law allows the owners to retain certain portions of land
disponendi, wherein under these laws, voluntariness is not an issue, and the
and the choice of which portions to retain is exclusively vested to them.
disposition is necessary for the laws to be effective.

74 | M i k e e Retirado 1-C
CONSTI 2: Bernas Casebook 2010 ed.
Updated Darvins Digest

Under PD 27 and RA 6657, Archbishop cannot claim that the alleged conditions Establish a continuing program of research, education, and information to
of the donations would have primacy over the application of the law. This forced enhance respect for the primacy of human rights;
sale is not even a violation of the conditions of the donation, since it is by Recommend to Congress effective measures to promote human rights and
application of law and beyond Archbishop's control. The application of the law to provide for compensation to victims of violations of human rights, or their
cannot and should not be defeated by the conditions laid down by the donors of families;
the land. If such were allowed, it would be a simple matter for other landowners Monitor the Philippine Government's compliance with international treaty
to place their lands without limit under the protection of religious organizations or obligations on human rights;
create trusts by the mere act of donation, rendering agrarian reform but a pipe
Grant immunity from prosecution to any person whose testimony or whose
dream.
possession of documents or other evidence is necessary or convenient to
Archbishop's contention that he is merely an administrator of the donated determine the truth in any investigation conducted by it or under its authority;
properties will not serve to remove these lands from the coverage of agrarian
Request the assistance of any department, bureau, office, or agency in the
reform. The lands in Archbishop's name are agricultural lands that fall within the
performance of its functions;
scope of the law, and do not fall under the exemptions.
Appoint its officers and employees in accordance with law; and
Archbishop would claim exemption from the coverage of agrarian reform by
stating that he is a mere administrator, but his position does not appear under Perform such other duties and functions as may be provided by law.
the list of exemptions under RA 6657. His claimed status as administrator does
not create another class of lands exempt from the coverage of PD 27 or RA Section 19. The Congress may provide for other cases of violations of human rights
6657, and The Roman Catholic Apostolic Administrator of Davao, Inc. does not that should fall within the authority of the Commission, taking into account its
create another definition for the term "landowner." recommendations.
Petition Denied. Commission on Human Rights

HUMAN RIGHTS CARIO vs. CHR teachers on strike / CHR cannot adjudicate / it can only
Section 17. investigate Some 800 public school teachers staged mass actions calling for
There is hereby created an independent office called the Commission on redress of their grievances but elicited no response from the DECS. They were
Human Rights. instead ordered to return to work or face dismissal. For failure to heed the
The Commission shall be composed of a Chairman and four Members who instruction, certain teachers were dismissed or preventively suspended by DECS
must be natural-born citizens of the Philippines and a majority of whom shall be Sec. Cario. The Supreme Court likewise dismissed a similar petition w/o prejudice
members of the Bar. The term of office and other qualifications and disabilities of to appeal before the Civil Service Commission (CSC). The teachers then submitted
the Members of the Commission shall be provided by law. affidavits to the Commission on Human Rights (CHR) w/c scheduled a dialogue
and then, in an Order, adjudicated and decided the case on the merits declaring
Until this Commission is constituted, the existing Presidential Committee that the DECS had committed human rights violations against the dismissed and
on Human Rights shall continue to exercise its present functions and powers. suspended teachers. The CHR manifested that it was not bound by the SCs
The approved annual appropriations of the Commission shall be Resolution dismissing the case contending that the same was based on a
automatically and regularly released. different set of facts.

Section 18. The Commission on Human Rights shall have the following powers and The CHR does not have the power to resolve cases on the merits, which is a
functions: judicial function. It only has investigative powers. It cannot decide cases like
Investigate, on its own or on complaint by any party, all forms of human the courts or quasi-judicial bodies. The proper remedy for the teachers is to
rights violations involving civil and political rights; appeal their case to the DECS on a motion for reconsideration. If denied, they have
Adopt its operational guidelines and rules of procedure, and cite for recourse to the Civil Service Commission, and eventually to the SC. The CHR has
contempt for violations thereof in accordance with the Rules of Court; no place in the scheme of things.
Provide appropriate legal measures for the protection of human rights of all
persons within the Philippines, as well as Filipinos residing abroad, and provide for EPZA vs. CHR The President in Cavite is Governor Remulla! RA No. 1980
preventive measures and legal aid services to the under-privileged whose human designated the Cavite Export Processing Zone (CEPZ). A parcel belonging to
rights have been violated or need protection; Phase 4 thereof was bought by Filoil Refinery Corp. but later was resold to the
Exercise visitorial powers over jails, prisons, or detention facilities; EPZA. However, before the EPZA could take possession thereof, several
individuals unscrupulously intruded thereupon and planted their crops. In order to
convince the intruders to leave, they were paid P 10,000 and made to sign
75 | M i k e e Retirado 1-C
CONSTI 2: Bernas Casebook 2010 ed.
Updated Darvins Digest

quitclaims. 10 years later they filed a Joint Complaint w/ the CHR claiming that their DD: Take note also that the CHR does not enjoy the same degree of Fiscal
human rights were violated. They allege that Engr. Damondamon and his armed Autonomy as the other Constitutional Commissions.
group accompanied by the PNP brought a crane and bulldozer and threatened
them. When they showed an Order from the President to postpone the bulldozing,
the same was crumpled and thrown to the ground by one of Damondamons men
who remarked, The President in Cavite is Governor Remulla! ARTICLE 14
EDUCATION, SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
The media men invited by the squatters were likewise beaten and their cameras ARTS, CULTURE, & SPORTS
were taken and destroyed. The CHR issued an ORDER commanding Gov. Remulla (Pertinent Sections & Cases Only)
to desist from the demolition, but 2 weeks later, they bulldozed the area again. The
CHR issued yet another Order for the same purpose. The provision in the Section 1. The State shall protect and promote the right of all citizens to quality
Constitution allowing the CHR to provide preventive measures and legal aid education at all levels, and shall take appropriate steps to make such education
services cannot be construed as including the power to issue Temporary accessible to all.
Restraining Orders or Writs of Injunction. If that were the intent of the Section 2. The State shall:
Constitution, it would have expressly provided for it. Jurisdiction is conferred by the 1. Establish, maintain, and support a complete, adequate, and integrated
Constitution or by law. The CHR may petition the court for the writ of injunction but system of education relevant to the needs of the people and society;
has no power to be the one to issue the same. Its powers are merely 2. Establish and maintain, a system of free public education in the elementary
investigatory in nature, not judicial. and high school levels. Without limiting the natural rights of parents to rear
their children, elementary education is compulsory for all children of
SIMON Jr. vs. CHR no judicial power / no power to issue writs of injunction / school age;
contempt power The Local Government of Quezon City sent notices of 3. Establish and maintain a system of scholarship grants, student loan
Demolition to members of the North EDSA Vendors Association giving them 3 days programs, subsidies, and other incentives which shall be available to
to vacate the sidewalks to give way for the construction of the Peoples Park. The deserving students in both public and private schools, especially to the
CHR, at the instance of the hawkers, issued an Order directing Mayor Simon and under-privileged;
the City Government to desist from conducting the demolition while the complaint 4. Encourage non-formal, informal, and indigenous learning systems, as well
was pending resolution w/ the CHR. The City Government ignored the Order and as self-learning, independent, and out-of-school study programs
proceeded w/ the demolition; thus the CHR issued another Order citing the particularly those that respond to community needs; and
responsible officials in contempt for violating the Order directing them to desist from 5. Provide adult citizens, the disabled, and out-of-school youth with training
the demolition charging each of them a fine of P 500.00. in civics, vocational efficiency, and other skills.
Section 3.
1. All educational institutions shall include the study of the Constitution as
Once again, it has been well settled that the CHR was not intended by the part of the curricula.
Constitution to be another judicial or quasi-judicial tribunal. It has no 2. They shall inculcate patriotism and nationalism, foster love of humanity,
business issuing Writs of Injunction. Its powers are merely vinvestigatory in respect for human rights, appreciation of the role of national heroes in the
nature. Writs of Injunction may only be issued by the court in w/c an action is historical development of the country, teach the rights and duties of
pending. It is an ancillary remedy available only in a pending principal action. Thus citizenship, strengthen ethical and spiritual values, develop moral
the Order to desist being null and void, the Order of Contempt has no leg to character and personal discipline, encourage critical and creative thinking,
stand on. The contempt power of the CHR must be utilized in relation to its broaden scientific and technological knowledge, and promote vocational
investigatory powers such as refusal of persons to heed summons, or unduly efficiency.
withholding information. It cannot be utilized for purposes not w/in the power of the 3. At the option expressed in writing by the parents or guardians, religion
CHR to pursue. shall be allowed to be taught to their children or wards in public elementary
and high schools within the regular class hours by instructors designated
Reference to the deliberations of the Constitutional Commission reveal that the or approved by the religious authorities of the religion to which the
creation of the CHR was meant to investigate SERIOUS human rights children or wards belong, without additional cost to the Government.
violations, such as protection of rights of political detainees, prevention of tortures, Section 4.
disappearances, and the like although Congress may, by law, provide for other 1. The State recognizes the complementary roles of public and private
cases cognizable by the CHR, taking into account its recommendation. institutions in the educational system and shall exercise reasonable
supervision and regulation of all educational institutions.

76 | M i k e e Retirado 1-C
CONSTI 2: Bernas Casebook 2010 ed.
Updated Darvins Digest

2. Educational institutions, other than those established by religious groups


and mission boards, shall be owned solely by citizens of the Philippines or While the intent of the law is valid, the means employed is arbitrary. It
corporations or associations at least sixty per centum of the capital of infringes upon the right to liberty w/c includes the right of parents and
which is owned by such citizens. The Congress may, however, require teachers to instruct the children as they deem proper. Further, mere knowledge
increased Filipino equity participation in all educational institutions. The of the German language cannot be said to be harmful. No emergency has arisen
control and administration of educational institutions shall be vested in that would require such a drastic prohibition.
citizens of the Philippines.
No educational institution shall be established exclusively for aliens and no
group of aliens shall comprise more than one-third of the enrollment in any PIERCE vs. SOCIETY OF SISTERS compulsory public schooling / violates liberty
school. The provisions of this sub section shall not apply to schools of parents The Compulsory Education Act required that every parent or guardian
established for foreign diplomatic personnel and their dependents and, of a child between 8-16 years old to send their children to a public school for a
unless otherwise provided by law, for other foreign temporary residents. certain period; violation thereof amounts to a misdemeanor. The purpose of the law
3. All revenues and assets of non-stock, non-profit educational institutions is to compel general attendance in public schools by normal children who have yet
used actually, directly, and exclusively for educational purposes shall be to complete the 8th grade. The Society of Sisters, a corporation w/c engages in the
exempt from taxes and duties. Upon the dissolution or cessation of the business of primary and secondary schooling and w/c owns considerable
corporate existence of such institutions, their assets shall be disposed of educational facilities, assails the validity of the law for violating the parents right to
in the manner provided by law. rear their children. They also stand to lose considerable profits due to the
Proprietary educational institutions, including those cooperatively owned, enforcement of the law.
may likewise be entitled to such exemptions, subject to the limitations
provided by law, including restrictions on dividends and provisions for The law unreasonably interferes w/ the right of the parents and guardians to
reinvestment. direct the upbringing and education of their students. The idea of standardizing
4. Subject to conditions prescribed by law, all grants, endowments, children by forcing them to accept public instruction militates against the
donations, or contributions used actually, directly, and exclusively for fundamental principle of liberty.
educational purposes shall be exempt from tax.
Section 5.
DD: The duty to educate and rear children is primarily vested in their parents; the
1. the State shall take into account regional and sectoral needs and State merely has the subsidiary duty to educate and rear the same. The parents
conditions and shall encourage local planning in the development of
have the right to choose between public schools and private schools for their
educational policies and programs. children.
2. Academic freedom shall be enjoyed in all institutions of higher learning.
3. Every citizen has a right to select a profession or course of study, subject
to fair, reasonable, and equitable admission and academic requirements. WISCONSIN vs. YODER Amish Community Jonas Yoder and the other defendants,
4. The State shall enhance the right of teachers to professional advancement. were members of the Amish Religion who, against a Wisconsin compulsory
Non-teaching academic and non-academic personnel shall enjoy the attendance law, refused to send their children to igh school either private or
protection of the State. public school after finishing the 8th grade. According to them and their expert
5. The State shall assign the highest budgetary priority to education and witness, their religious dogmas mandate a return to the old Christian life, de-
ensure that teaching will attract and retain its rightful share of the best emphasizing competitiveness and success, and requiring aloofness from the
available talents through adequate remuneration and other means of job material world. They allege that high school education goes against their dogmas
satisfaction and fulfillment. favoring manual work and devotion to a life in harmony w/ nature, and so on and so
forth. In fairness, the Amish have demonstrated to be law abiding and productive
members of the society. It is true that the State has a paramount interest and
EDUCATION responsibility for the education of its citizens; however, it must be subjected
MEYER vs. NEBRASKA teaching German / prohibition is arbitrary / right of to a balancing process whenever it conflicts w/ other fundamental rights.
parents to educate A Nebraska statute prohibited the teaching of foreign
languages to students unless they have already passed the 8th grade; violation of
such rule amounts to a misdemeanor and is punishable by fine and imprisonment. In order to outweigh a legitimate claim to the free exercise of religion and the
The intent of the law apparently was to curb the baneful effects of the settlement of right of parenthood, the State must establish that there is a compelling
foreigners who rear their children in their native tongue and inculcate ideas interest of great magnitude. That burden has not been discharged in this
inconsistent w/ American ideals. Meyer, an instructor at the Zion Parochial School, case. There is no proof that the Amish alternative education causes any harm to
was convicted under the said law for teaching the German language to a 10 year the students; and any argument that it deprives the children of choice as well as the
old child. chance to be competent is largely speculative. Despite their strangeness, the
Amish have proven that adherence to their beliefs has allowed the Amish to survive
77 | M i k e e Retirado 1-C
CONSTI 2: Bernas Casebook 2010 ed.
Updated Darvins Digest

for the last 3 centuries as productive and self-reliant citizens. There is no cannot be compelled to re-admit the student because the courts cannot make
compelling state interest involved here. contracts for the parties. Non seeks a re-examination of the said ruling. The
following doctrines have been laid down or reiterated:
GINSBERG vs. NEW YORK Girly Mags! Ginsberg was operating Sams Stationery
and Luncheonette w/c also sold some magazines. He was charged and convicted The student does not shed his constitutionally protected rights at the school
for having sold girlie magazines on 2 separate occasions to children less than 17 gate. The protection in favor of free speech, as well as to due process, among
years old in violation of the NY Penal Law. He attacks the validity of the said law for other rights, is similarly guaranteed to students. While the authority of the school
impairing the right to liberty. At the onset, obscenity is not protected speech; what to discipline students is recognized, it cannot go as far as to violate
may be protected expression for adults may not be considered protected constitutional safeguards. The exercise of free expression and assembly cannot
expression for dissemination to children. The State has a legitimate interest in be used as basis for denying re-enrollment.
the well-being of its youth; and while it is true that the custody and care of
children reside first in their parents, the State nevertheless has the The imposition of disciplinary sanctions requires observance of procedural
responsibility to protect the youth from things that may impair their moral or due process. The following must be observed:
ethical development.

1. students must be informed in writing of the nature & cause of the


There is nothing in the statute to prevent a parent from purchasing the magazine accusations
and allowing his child to read it. But since parents cannot always be expected to
monitor the children, reasonable regulation of the sale of such material by the State 2. they shall have the right to answer the charges, w/ counsel should they so
is justified. choose
3. they shall be informed of the evidence against them
DECS vs. SAN DIEGO NMAT Flunker San Diego, a graduate of Zoology from UE, 4. they shall have the right to adduce evidence in their own behalf
four times took the NMAT for entry to med school. He flunked the exam as many 5. school authorities must decide based on evidence
times. He was barred by the DECS from taking the NMAT the fifth time on the basis 6. penalty imposed must be proportional
of the Three Flunk Rule laid down in MECS Order No. 12 w/c allows students to
take the NMAT only 3 times. Should they fail the 3rd time, they will no longer be
The contract between the school and the student is not an ordinary contract;
allowed to take the exam. In fact he has already been able to take the exam more it is imbued w/ public interest. The State has power to supervise and regulate
times than allowable. He challenges the constitutionality of the Three Flunk Rule for
educational institutions pursuant to its constitutional mandate. Assuming that the
violating his right to academic freedom and quality education, as well as equal contract was only for 1 semester, it does not mean that the re-enrollment of the
protection. The Three Flunk Rule was laid down as a valid exercise of the student is a matter entirely discretionary upon the school. BP No. 232 likewise
police power of the State as a reasonable method of protecting the health and recognized the right of the student to continue his course up to graduation,
safety of the public. except in cases of (1) academic deficiency, or (2) violation of disciplinary
regulations.
In order to achieve its goal of upgrading the selection of applicants to the medical
schools, the State may reasonably prescribe such admission tests. It is the duty of In this case, the penalty of refusing re-enrollment is disproportionate to the
the State to ensure that the medical profession, w/c affects the very lives of
offenses committed. Considering that 5 of the students did not have failing marks,
the people, is not infiltrated by incompetents to whom patients may unwarily they should be entitled to re-enrollment. 2 students had only 1 or 2 failures w/c
entrust their lives. It likewise does not violate equal protection because the cannot be sufficient deficiency. Since the academic standards of the school were
medical profession requires more careful and vigilant regulation. While San Diegos never pleaded, Non, and the 3 others who had several failures are to be re-
persistence is noteworthy, to say the least, it is certainly misplaced, like a hopeless admitted w/o prejudice to any appropriate action if it is shown that they have indeed
love failed to satisfy the schools academic requirements.

NON vs. JUDGE DAMES rallying students / student-school contract / re- SUPERINTENDENT v. AZARCON
enrollment Ariel Non and 12 other students of the Mabini College were denied re-
enrolment for having participated in unruly mass actions w/o permits from the Respondents AZARCON and ANONUEVO were public school teachers at
school authorities resulting to the disruption of classes in violation of school GENERAL HIZON ELEMENTARY SCHOOL (GMHES), who joined an
disciplinary rules. The SC previously held in Alcuaz vs. PSBA that when a college unauthorized mass action of public school teachers
student enrolls for one semester, the contract between him and the school is only
for that semester and terminates by the end of the said semester. The school
78 | M i k e e Retirado 1-C
CONSTI 2: Bernas Casebook 2010 ed.
Updated Darvins Digest

DECS SECRETARY CARINO filed charges against the participants and


respondents were among those charged, placed under preventive suspension, COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. COURT OF APPEALS
and eventually dismissed YMCA, a welfare, educational, charitable, and non-profit corporation, sought to
Respondents elevated the case to the CSC, which modified the penalty to 6 remove from the coverage of the income tax its profits derived from the rentals of
months suspension without pay and on the basis of the said ruling, respondents its real property
requested the YMCA invoked both Section 28(3), Article 6 and Section 4(3), Article 14
SUPERINTENDENT to reinstate them in GMHES The SC held that under Section 28(3), Article 6 of the Constitution, what is
But since there were no more vacancies in the said school, the respondents were exempted is not the institution itself, but real estate or property taxes of lands,
assigned to other schools buildings, and improvements actually, directly, and exclusively used for religious,
Respondents refused to accept their new assignments and moved for charitable, or educational purposes
implementation of the CSC Decision o Moreover, the exemption created by the said provision pertains only to
The SC held that under Section 6 of the MAGNA CARTA for PUBLIC SCHOOL property taxes
TEACHERS, it is provided that no teacher shall be transferred without his The SC also held that laws allowing tax exemptions are construed strictissimi
consent from one station to another, except for cause and as otherwise provided juris and to be granted a tax exemption for revenues and assets under Section
in the MAGNA CARTA 4(3), Article 14 of the Constitution:
For a transfer or reassignment of a public school teacher to be valid: o The entity must fall under the classification of non-stock, non-profit
o The transfer or reassignment was undertaken pursuant to the educational institution
exigencies of the service. Educational institution refers to schools that of a school
In this case, SUPERINTENDENT not only implemented the system, which is normally associated with formal education
CSC decision by reinstating the teachers, but also addressed Under the EDUCATION ACT of 1982, private auspices, such
the lack of other teachers in other stations as foundations and civic-spirited organizations are ruled out
o The school superintendent previously notified the teacher concerned of Educational institution, when used in laws granting tax
his transfer or reassignment exemptions refer to school seminaries, colleges, or
In this case, the teachers were able to extensively and educational establishments
exhaustively question the legality of their transfers It means a place where systematic instruction in any
o The teacher concerned was informed of the reason(s) for his transfer or all of the useful branches of learning is given by
In this case, the teachers were apprised of their transfers and methods common to schools and institutions of
the reasons therefor learning
o That transfer was not made 3 months before a national or local election o In this case, YMCA had not given any
proof that it is an educational institution
In this case, the teachers were effectively transferred more
than 3 months before the proximate election o The income the entity seeks to be exempted from taxation is used
actually, directly, and exclusively for educational purposes
The SC also held that the appointment of public school teachers does not refer to
any particular school or station, as the same are not entitled to stay permanently In this case, YMCA failed to prove that its rent income from
in one station because their assignments are subject to the exigencies of their the lease of its property is actually, directly, and exclusively
service used for education purposes, as it is not a school
o The exigencies of the service should be viewed in light of the
Constitutional mandate of Section 1, Article 15, which provides that the BOARD OF MEDICAL EDUCATION vs. JUDGE ALFONSO grossly inadequate med
State shall protect and promote the right of all citizens to quality school The Phil. Muslim-Christian College of Medicine, later re-named Rizal
education at all levels and shall take appropriate steps to make such College of Medicine, was ordered by the DECS to be closed down based on
education accessible to all several findings of the Commission on Medical Education. The Commission,
o Thus, the accessibility of quality education determines the exigencies of through several tests and surveys, found that the school suffered from serious
the service deficiencies and lack of facilities and full-time faculty, among others in short,
inadequate in every imaginable aspect. The College was able to obtain an
Assignments undertaken for purpose of improving the injunction from respondent judge enjoining the DECS from closing down the
educational system and/or making education more accessible school.
are valid

79 | M i k e e Retirado 1-C
CONSTI 2: Bernas Casebook 2010 ed.
Updated Darvins Digest

The courts have no business substituting its judgment against that of the
DECS and the Medical Board regarding matters clearly w/in its competence, Academic freedom for the institution is distinguished from the academic freedom of
unless there is grave abuse of discretion. The records clearly indicate that there the scholar w/c is the freedom to discover, publish, and teach the truth as he sees
is nothing to support the idea that the DECS committed grave abuse of discretion; fit in the field of ones competence. Academic freedom likewise includes discretion
in fact it was the respondent judge that was guilty thereof. The evaluating teams as to the tenure of the academic staff as well as the allocation of income among
came from different sectors of the medical field and have conducted several different categories of expenditure.
studies, all approved by the Office of the President. They also afforded the College
ample opportunities to improve its facilities but the latter repeatedly failed.
LUPANGCO vs. CA no reviewing before the exams! / academic freedom The
Professional Regulatory Commission (PRC) issued Res. No. 105, w/c prohibits
CAPITOL MEDICAL CENTER vs. CA school closes down / no obligation to remain examinees from attending review classes or briefings or from receiving handouts,
open Teachers of the Capitol Medical Center College (CMCC) demanded from tips, or review materials from their schools or review centers w/in 3 days before the
the latter vacation & sick leave privileges. Upon being denied, they postponed the licensure examinations. The examinees thus sue to annul the said Resolution. The
final semestral exam and influenced the students to boycott the school and conduct Resolution is arbitrary and unreasonable and infringes upon academic
mass demonstrations. The school, upon due notice to the DECS and DOLE was freedom. The PRC had no authority to dictate upon the examinees how to
forced to close down after the 1st semester. Thereafter, the students and the prepare themselves for the exams, or to restrain them from taking lawful
teachers filed an action to compel the school to re-open and admit them for the 2nd steps to fulfill their ambitions.
semester alleging that it was a contractual obligation of the school to allow them Nor can they interfere w/ the conduct of reviews by the schools unless the
enrollment for the next semester. instructions are found to be impractical or riddled w/ corruption. The PRC
While it is true that the school may not unduly expel a student or refuse the latter should find the sources of the leakages and stop them right then and there; but they
enrollment w/o a valid cause (academic deficiency or violation of rules), cannot interfere w/ the legitimate means of preparing for exams.
nevertheless there is no contract between the school and the students for the
former to remain open for the entire duration of the students courses.
Further, the contract between the school and the student creates reciprocal rights UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS vs. CA cum laude through mandamus / academic
and obligations that is for the school to educate the student, and for the student to freedom Jennifer Lee filed a case for mandamus to compel the University of San
comply w/ the rules and standards of the school. Carlos to confer upon her the Degree of BS Commerce major in Accounting, cum
laude. She, in fact, earned a grade of 5 (failure) in 2 of her subjects, more than
It was improper for the trial court judge to have issued an injunction for the school enough to disqualify her from honors; although she was able to have her grade
to re-open. Injunctions mandate maintenance of the status quo the status quo in changed through manifold maneuvers. Schools are given ample discretion to
this case was that the school was closed down. formulate rules and guidelines in granting honors for graduation. This is
guaranteed by their academic freedom and their discretion may not be
GARCIA vs. FACULTY ADMISSION COMMITTEE seminary / no obligation to admit disturbed by the courts unless there is grave abuse of discretion.
/ academic freedom Epicharis Garcia was admitted for certain summer classes Even assuming that she had her failing grades removed, it is still discretionary
for credits in the Loyola School of Theology, a seminary. When she applied for upon the school whether they it should confer upon her academic honors.
enrollment for the 1st semester, the Faculty decided to bar her admission, thus she
filed a case for mandamus to compel the school to admit her. It must be noted that
the Loyola School merely allowed certain lay persons to attend its classes but REYES vs. CA 3 agonizing years of uncertainty The UP College of Medicine
admission to the school rests upon the discretion of the Assistant Dean of the (UPCM) prescribed a passing rate of 70% in the NMAT as the cut-off score for
Graduate School of Ateneo. It is only upon the admission by the Asst. Dean admission to the College of Medicine; it was approved by the University Council
that the student is deemed admitted to the degree or program. There was (UC). Later on, the UPCM changed the passing score to 90% w/o the approval of
clearly no obligation on the part of the School to admit Garcia. After all, it is a the UC. Upon appeal to the Board of Regents (BOR) by the respondent-students
seminary and she is a woman. the BOR reverted to the 70% NMAT cut-off score, and the students who attained
scores between 70% and 90% were thus ordered admitted. The Dean of the
All institutions of higher learning enjoy academic freedom. It includes UPCM as well as the Faculty did not heed the directive for them to admit the
discretions as to students. The students filed a case for Injunction before the RTC, and while the
same was pending, they were admitted and had, in fact, completed 3 years
1. Who may teach, already.
2. What may be taught, The students then wrote to the UPCM manifesting that they never intended to
3. How it is to be taught, and question the facultys right to academic freedom and left the case for the
4. Who may be admitted to study. humanitarian consideration of the same; they also sought the dismissal of the case
before the RTC.
80 | M i k e e Retirado 1-C
CONSTI 2: Bernas Casebook 2010 ed.
Updated Darvins Digest

The BOR, invoking its plenary power regarding matter affecting university affairs, TAN vs. CA severely strained relations / practical approach There was a bitter
approved the admission of the respondent-students in the interest of equity and conflict between parents and school administration to such an extent that one of the
justice. The Dean and the Secretary of the UPCM, again, refused to follow the parents spit in the face of the Vice Principal. The school refused to admit the
directive. Under the UP Charter, the power to determine the admission children of the adversarial parents. Where relations between parents and
requirements belonged to the UC. When the UPCM fixed the cut-off grade to children on the one hand and school administrators and teachers on the
90%, it did not have the approval of the UC. The 90% cut-off rate fixed by the other have deteriorated to the level here exhibited, the private school may, in
faculty was thus inefficacious. The UC alone, not the Dean or the UPCM, has the the interest of everyone, including the adversarial parents and their children,
right to protest against any unauthorized exercise of its power. This is by virtue of require that their students be enrolled elsewhere.
an express provision of law.
To rule otherwise would unduly jeopardize the morally conducive and orderly
MIRIAM COLLEGE vs. CA Libog article / power to investigate inherent in educational environment, to the detriment of the students. It is comparable to
academic freedom Members of the editorial board of Chi-Rho, the school certain labor disputes where relations have become so strained as to make
publication of Miriam College, published the article Libog w/c was described by reinstatement an unfeasible solution.
the Miriam College community as obscene, sexually explicit, vulgar, and the like.
Complaints against the students responsible for the article have been filed; the PARENT TEACHERS ASSOCIATION v. METROBANK
students invoke Sec. 7 of the Campus Journalism Act, w/c states that a student
shall not be expelled or suspended solely on the basis of the article he/she has In 2001, the SPOUSES ILAGAN applied for and were granted a loan by the
written. They likewise aver that the investigation should be conducted by the METROPOLITAN BANK and TRUST COMPANY, which was secured by a real
DECS. estate mortgage and upon default thereof, the latter was allowed to foreclose on
the said property
Imposing discipline is not only the right but also the duty of the school. It is
inherent in academic freedom that the school be allowed to determine who The PARENT-TEACHERS ASSOCIATION assailed the foreclosure, alleging that
among its students deserve sanction and to establish rules and regulations the same violated the right of the students to quality education, as well as
therefor. The power to investigate is adjunct to the power to suspend or academic freedom
expel. It is inherent in academic freedom. Thus Miriam College has the right to The SC held that the Constitutional mandate to protect and promote the right of
hear and decide the case. all citizens to quality education at all levels is directed to the State and not to the
Also, it is axiomatic that the right to free expression is not absolute, whether schools
exercise w/in school premises or elsewhere. Sec. 7 of the Campus Journalism Act In this case, PTA cannot prevent MBTC from acquiring possession of the school
should thus be harmonized w/ the Constitution to mean that students should not be premises by virtue of a valid writ of possession
expelled or suspended solely on the basis of the articles they write, provided, they The SC also held that the academic freedom granted under the Constitution did
do not materially disrupt class work or provoke substantial disorder. not go beyond the concept of freedom of intellectual inquiry:
o The freedom of professionally qualified persons to inquire, discover,
UP BOARD OF REGENTS vs. CA plagiarism A. William Margaret Celine was a publish, and teach the truth as they see it in the field of their
candidate for Ph.D. from UP. Dean Paz requested from the Board of Regents competence, subject to no control or authority, except of rational
(BOR) the exclusion of her name from the list of graduating students pending methods by which truths and conclusions are sought and established in
clarifications about her dissertation, but her letter did not reach the BOR on time; these disciplines
thus Celine was able to graduate. Upon thorough investigation by the External o The freedom of institutions of higher learning to decide for itself, its
Review Panel composed of senior faculty, it was found out that her dissertation aims and objectives, and how best to attain them free from outside
contained at least 90 instances of plagiarism. The College Assembly and University coercion or interference, save possibly when the overriding public
Council unanimously approved the withdrawal of her Ph.D. She then filed a case for welfare calls for some restraint
mandamus before the RTC of Quezon City to compel UP to restore her Ph.D.
Under the Constitution, the recipients of the said academic freedom are
institutions of higher learning, which means that the school or college is
A writ of mandamus cannot issue against UP w/o violating its right to possessed of the said right
academic freedom. The university has the right to determine upon whom it o In this case, PTA failed to show the relevance of the right to quality
can confer the honor and distinction of being its graduates. If it is shown that education and academic freedom and how the same were violated by
the conferment was obtained through fraud, the university has the right to the Order granting the writ of possession
withdraw or revoke the honor. Celine was likewise afforded her right to be heard
because she was present during the investigations.

81 | M i k e e Retirado 1-C