Consti 2 Notes 1E Dean Bautista

ATENEO LAW SCHOOL
1E
L.T.J.F.
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II
[DEAN BAUTISTA]
1st Semester S.Y. 2011-2012
ARTICLE III BILL OF RIGHTS
Section 1 Due Process and Equal Protection
Acebedo Optical Co. v. CA - Local governments may regulate business such as the selling
of eyeglasses but may not engage in the licensing of or regulation of professions.
Phil Blooming Mills Employees Organization v. Phil Blooming Mills Co, Inc. - A valid
infringement on human rights requires a more stringent criterion, namely existence of a
grave and immediate danger of a substantive evil which the State has the right to prevent.
Duncan Association of Employees v. Glaxo Wellcome - A company has the right to protect
its trade secrets thus the rule on dismissing an employee on the ground of marrying an
employee of a competitor company is a valid one.
Banco Espanol Filipino v. Palanca - The essential requirements of procedural due process in
courts for non-criminal cases are the following:
1. A tribunal clothed with judicial power to hear the matter
2. Jurisdiction is lawfully acquired over the person or property, which is the subject of
the proceedings
3. Defendant is given an opportunity to be heard
4. Judgment is rendered upon lawful hearing
Secretary v. Judge Lantion - During the executive phase of an extradition proceeding, an
extraditee does not have the right of access to evidence only during the judicial phase.
Fabella v. CA The requirements of due process in administrative cases are the following:
1. Right of notice of the institution of proceedings
2. Opportunity to be heard
3. Tribunal clothed with competent jurisdiction
4. A finding supported by substantial evidence
Philippine Press Institute v. Comelec - Comelec cannot compel print media to donate
advertisement spaces since this is the taking of property without just compensation
TELEBAP v. Comelec - Broadcast media may be compelled to donate airtime since: a)
media networks do not own the airwaves and frequencies; b) they are given franchises to
operate which is a privilege given by the government.
US v. Toribio To satisfy substantive due process, the laws must appear:
1. that the interest of the public require such interference
2. the means are reasonable necessary
Ynot v. ICA The confiscation of carabaos or carabeef is not reasonably related to the
purpose of the executive order, which is the preserving the carabaos for the benefit of
small farmers.
People v. Cayat Requisites for a classification to be reasonable (equal protection clause):
1. Must rest on substantial distinctions
2. Germane to the purpose of the law
3. Must not be limited to existing conditions only
4. Must equally apply to all members of the same class
International School Alliance of Educators v. Quisimbing The practice of giving higher pay
for foreign hires than Filipinos of equal rank violate the principle of equal pay fpr equal
work. But giving the foreign hires more benefits such as transportation and housing
Sources:
Bernas, Joaquin G., S.J., The 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines: A Commentary (2009 ed.).
Bernas, Joaquin G., S.J., The 1987 Philippine Constitution: A Comprehensive Reviewer (2011 ed.).
Page 1 of 26
ATENEO LAW SCHOOL

1E
L.T.J.F.
[DEAN BAUTISTA]
allowances are allowed.

Farinas, et al. v. Executive Secretary Appointive officials and elective officials do not
belong to the same class.
Central Bank Employees v. Bangko Sentral A provision of law, initially valid, may become
subsequently unconstitutional on th ground that its continued operation would violate the
equal protection of the law (relative unconstitutionality)
Ormoc Sugar Central v. Ormoc City The city, in passing an ordinance imposing a tax on
Ormoc Sugar Central by name, violates the equal protection clause.
US Cases
Block v. Rutherford - Restrictions on contact visits does not violate the military detainees'
right to liberty. It is a reasonable exercise of the State's police power.
Goesart v. Cleary A state law prohibiting women to become licensed bartenders is valid.
The distinctions made between men and women are reasonably related to the purpose of
the law. (Note: this case was overruled by Craig v. Boren in 1976)
Lochner v. New York A law which limited the hours a bakery employee could work
abridged the liberty of contract.
Meyer v. Nebraska a law restricting the teaching of a foreign language violated the due
process clause.
Roe v. Wade the trimester approach to abortion: The decision to conduct abortion is left
to the mother during the 1st three months of pregnancy. The State cannot prohibit this.
(decision was criticized for judicial legislation)
Pennsylvania v. Casey abortion is no longer a fundamental right (overturned Roe v.
Wade decision). States may restrict abortion so long as they do not place undue burdens
on the womans right to choose.
Buck v. Bell The procedure of compulsory sterilization ran counter to the due process
clause, yet the US Supreme Court upheld the legitimization of the practice.
Furman v. Georgia Death penalty constituted as cruel and unusual punishment and
violated the constitution. It also focused on how the penalty was applied with racial bias. It
was imposed more often to black defendants.
Section 2 Search and Seizure
Sony Music v. Judge Espanol A liberal construction in search and seizure cases is given in
favor of the individual.
People v. Marti Restrictions on unlawful searches and seizures are directed only against
the government.
Valmonte v. Genral de Villa checkpoints and routine inspections are reasonable forms of
searches. But if the inspection becomes more thorough or invasive, there must be probable
cause. Such search is justifiable as a warrantless search of a moving vehicle.
People v. Escano checkpoints need not be announced. It defeats the purpose by
forewarning potential violators of the law.
Microsoft Corp v. Maxicorp probable cause is concerned with probability and not
Sources:
Page 2 of 26
ATENEO LAW SCHOOL

1E
L.T.J.F.
[DEAN BAUTISTA]
certainty. There is no need to present proof beyond reasonable doubt.

Qua Chee Gan v. Deportation Board Commissioner on Immigration may not issue an
arrest warrant but may order the arrest of an alien in carrying out an order which has
become final.
Harvey v. Santiago arrests, for purposes of deportation, need no warrant. There is no
probable cause needed only a specific charge against the aliens. The legal basis for the
warrantless arrest is the mission order.
Soliven v. Judge Makasiar What is required of the judge is the personal determination of
probable cause and not the personal examination of the reports. (but the judge must still
look at the supporting documents since it is his responsibility to satisfy himself of the
existence of probable cause. Relying on the Prosecutor's certification alone is never enough
Lim v. Felix)
People v. Veloso A John Doe warrant (warrant directed to a person whose name is
uncertain or unknown) is valid provided it contains adequate description to enable the
officer to identify the accused.
Malacat v. CA For a warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest, there must be a
lawful arrest first before a search can be made this process cannot be reversed.
People v. Evaristo Elements of seizure of evidence in plain view:
1. A prior valid intrusion
2. Evidence was inadvertently discovered by the police
3. Legality of evidence is immediately apparent
4. Evidence is noticed without further search
De Garcia v. Locsin Elements of a consented warrantless search:
1. The right exists
2. The person involved had knowledge of such right
3. The person had actual intention to relinquish such right
Papa v. Mago Customs search is included in allowable forms of warrantless searches.
People v. Aruta Even for warrantless searches, the requisite of probable cause must still
be satisfied (exception is stop and frisk where it can only be based on reasonable ground of
suspicion)
People v. Hernandez accused is estopped from assailing the illegality of his arrest if he
fails to move for the quashing of the Information before his arraignment.
US Cases
Henry v. US probable cause would mean such facts and circumstances which would lead
a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense had been committed
(arrest) and/or the objects sought in connection with the offense are in the place sought to
be searched (search and seizure)
Camara v. Municipal Court A person may refuse to permit city housing inspectors to
conduct an administrative search (safety inspection) of one's house in the absence of a
warrant.
US v. Tarazon Border (in this case, the US-Mexico border) searches are one of the few
exceptions to the general rule of prohibiting warrantless searches.
Katz v. US Protection of a person's property from intrusion or search extends to
Sources:
Page 3 of 26
ATENEO LAW SCHOOL

1E
L.T.J.F.
[DEAN BAUTISTA]
intangible properties such as electronic communication.

California v. Greenwood the 4th amendment does not prohibit warrantless searches &
seizures of garbage left outside the house.
Terry v. Ohio the stop-and-frisk is an instance of a valid warrantless search. The officer is
entitled to conduct a carefully limited search of the suspect's outer clothing for the
protection of himself and others in the area.
California v. Ciraolo The method of flying over respondent's backyard to confirm the
presence of marijuana was a valid form of search since the observations were non-intrusive
and were conducted within public airspace.
Oliver v. US - Police found marijuana being grown in an open field a mile away from
petitioners house. The 4th amendment does not extend to open fields. Privacy in open
fields is not recognized as reasonable since open fields are accessible to the public.
Minnesota v. Olson even if the person is only a guest (not the owner of the house), he is
still protected by the 4th amendment from warrantless arrests.
Minnesota v. Carter Observations conducted on a commercial property does not violate
the 4th amendment since the expectation of privacy in a commercial property, where
business is conducted, is different from, and less than, a similar expectation in a home.
Payton v. New York A warrantless arrest or search may be done under exigent
circumstances, but absent such circumstances this manner of intrusion may not be done.
California v. Acevedo A warrantless search of a moving vehicle includes searching any
closed containers within an automobile.
New York v. Belton searching the respondent's jacket for contraband was lawful since it
was incidental to his arrest and within arrestee's immediate control.
Illinois v. Lafayette a warrant or probable cause is immaterial when the belongings of the
arrested individual is incidental to the process of booking and jailing the suspect.
Chimel v. California For warrantless searches incidental to a person's arrest, the search is
only limited to the area within the arrestee's immediate control. For the routine search of
rooms and other concealed areas, a search warrant is required.
Maryland v. Buie - A "protective sweep" is a quick and limited search of a premises,
incident to an arrest and conducted to protect the safety of police officers or others. It is
narrowly confined to a cursory visual inspection of those places in which a person might be
hiding. There is no need for a warrant for this kind of search.
Section 3 Exclusionary Rule
Stonehill v. Diokno things to be seized improperly or vaguely described were considered

inadmissible evidence.
People v. Andre Marti the right against unreasonable searches and seizures cannot be
invoked against the State if the act of intrusion is committed by a private individual.
Marquez v. Hon. Aniano Desierto Exceptions on the Law on Secrecy of Bank Deposits:
1. examinations authorized by the Monetary Board on grounds of bank
fraud/irregularity
2. examination by an independent auditor and results are for the exclusive use of the
bank
Sources:
Page 4 of 26
ATENEO LAW SCHOOL

1E
L.T.J.F.
3.
4.
5.
6.
[DEAN BAUTISTA]
upon written permission of the depositor

impeachment cases
upon court order in cases of bribery or dereliction of duty of a public official
where the money deposited is the subject matter of litigation
US Cases
Wong Sun v. US Purged Taint Exception: the search was illegally done but over time,
such evidence becomes valid if additional factors link the illegal search and the final
discovery of evidence. Such factors cleanse the illegal search and validates the evidence.
US v. Leon Good Faith Exception: officers relying in good faith on a warrant but was
found later to be unsupported by probable cause.
Section 4 Freedom of Speech and of the Press
Adiong v. Comelec the placing of stickers on mobile places posed no substantial danger
to government interest. Prohibiting such acts constitutes an unreasonable restriction.
ABS-CBN v. Comelec the ban on exit polls does not satisfy the clear and present danger
rule because the evils envisioned are merely speculative.
Ayer Productions Ltd. v. Judge Capulong The right to privacy cannot be invoked to resist
publication of matters of public interest. Such right protects the right against unwarranted
intrusions and wrongful publication of private affairs which are outside the sphere of
legitimate public concern.
Policarpio v. Manila Times to enjoy immunity, a publication containing derogatory
information must not only be true but also fair and it must be made in good faith.
PCIB v. Philnabank Employees Peaceful picketing is constitutionally protected and the
guarantee of free speech (statements on placards) protects the strikers.
US Cases
New York Times v. US Any system of prior restraint comes to court bearing a heavy
presumption of unconstitutionality.
Freedman v. Maryland the State Board of Censors can only approve a film and had no
power to ban it. Any restraint imposed must be limited to preservation of the status quo
compatible with sound judicial resolution.
Pittsburgh Press Co. v. Human Relations Commission - To enjoy protection, commercial
speech must not be false or misleading and should not propose an illegal transaction.
Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp v. Public Service Comm of NY Commercial speech
may be regulated if:
1. Government has substantial interest to protect
2. the regulation directly advances that interest
3. it is not more extensive than is necessary to protect that interest
US v. O'Brien O'Brien Test is used to justify a regulation:
1. it is within the power of government
2. furthers an important government interest
Sources:
Page 5 of 26
ATENEO LAW SCHOOL

1E
L.T.J.F.
[DEAN BAUTISTA]
3. government interest is unrelated to the suppression of free expression

4. restriction to the freedom is no greater than to the furtherance of the interest
Miller v. California Miller Test is used to test for obscenity:
1. the average person, applying contemporary standards, find that the work appeals to
the prurient interest
2. the work depicts, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct
3. the work lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value
Section 5 Freedom of Religion
Estrada v. Escritor Benevolent Accommodation Doctrine: freedom to carry out one's

duties to a Supreme Being is an inalienable right, not dependent on the grace of
legislature. Any law in conflict with a violator's sincerely held religious beliefs must pass a
strict scrutiny test in order to be enforceable. The burden shifts to the government to
demonstrate that the law is necessary to protect its interests.
Victoriano v. Elizalde Rope Workers Union in closed shop agreements, employees may be
exempted from compulsory membership in a union if their religious belief prohibits it. The
free exercise of religious profession or belief is superior to contract rights. In case of
conflict, the latter must yield to the former.
US Cases
Cantwell v. Connecticut the freedom to believe is absolute but the freedom to act is not.
McDaniel v. Paty the disqualification of ecclesiastics from public office violates their
fundamental rights. If elected, the clergy will not create too close an alliance between
church and state.
Goldman v. Weinberger the amendment of religious freedom (wearing headgears as
required by religious beliefs) does not require the military to accommodate such practices
in view of the army's interest and need for uniformity and regulation.
Employment Division v. Smith (peyote case) the religion clause does not relieve an
individual of the obligation to comply with a law that incidentally forbids (or requires) the
performance of an act that his religious beliefs requires (or forbids) if the law is not
specifically directed to religious practice.
Lemon v. Kurtzman government aid is permissible if:
1. it has a secular legislative purpose
2. the primary effect that neither advances nor inhibits religion
3. it does not require excessive entanglement with recipient institutions
Wisconsin v. Yoder children could not be placed under compulsory education if it is
against their religious beliefs.
Section 6 Liberty of Abode and Right to Travel
Yap, Jr. v. Court of Appeals releasing a petitioner on bail contemplates such lawful
order of regulating the right to travel to ensure that petitioner will make himself available
at all times whenever the court requires his presence.
Sources:
Page 6 of 26
ATENEO LAW SCHOOL

1E
L.T.J.F.
[DEAN BAUTISTA]
Marcos v. Manglapus The right to travel and liberty of abode are distinct from the right to
return to one's country. It is not covered by Section 6 thus the prescribed requirements do
not apply.
Manotoc, Jr. v. CA Preventing a person from leaving the country is a consequence of a
bail bond.
Section 7 Right to Information
Chavez v. PCGG the right of the public to information does not attach to information
regarding confidential matters or those that are still in the exploratory stage.
Chavez v. PEA and AMARI once a committee makes its official recommendation, there
arises a definite proposition on the part of the government and the public's right to
information attaches.
Valmonte v. Belmonte, Jr. - the Constitution gives the public right to access official
records but it does not give them the right to compel custodians to furnish lists, studies or
any processed information other than what is already available.
Lantaco v. Llamas While public officers in control of public records have the discretion to
regulate the manner in which such records may be inspected, it does not carry with it the
authority to prohibit access.
Section 8 Right of Association
United Pepsi Cola Supervisory Union (UPSU) v. Laguesma the ban of managerial
employees from joining a labor union is valid because if these managerial employees would
belong to a Union, there would be conflict of interest. The Union can become companydominated with the presence of managerial employees thus defeating the purpose of a
labor union.
Occena v. Comelec the law prohibiting Barangay Candidates from representing or
receiving aid from a political party is a valid one since the law intends to prevent the
danger of disenabling barangay officials from performing their functions as agents of a
neutral community.
Tanduay Distillery Labor Union v. NLRC Closed shop agreements are legal since it is a
valid form of union security.
SSS v. CA Government employees have the right to form unions but do not have the
constitutional right to strike.
Section 9 Eminent Domain

Definition
Charles River Bridge v. Warren Bridge - Eminent Domain is the ultimate right of sovereign power
to appropriate public and private property within the territorial sovereignty for public purposes.
Constitutional provisions on eminent domain:
ART III sec 9 just compensation
ART XII sec 18 public utilities
Sources:
Page 7 of 26
ATENEO LAW SCHOOL

1E
L.T.J.F.
Types
[DEAN BAUTISTA]
ART XIII sec 4 land reform

ART XVIII sec 22 idle agricultural lands
of Public Use
Socialized Housing
Irrigation Systems
Tourism Attractions
Historical Landmarks
Republic v Vda. De Castellvi - requisites of taking for purposes of eminent domain

Expropriator must enter the private property
Entrance must be permanent
Entry must be under color of legal authority
Property must be devoted for public use
Utilization must deprive owner of all beneficial enjoyment of the property
Just Compensation
General Rule: In determining just compensation, trial by commissioners is a substantive right,
which a judge may not dispense with.
Exception: Trial by commissioners is not mandatory in agrarian reform cases.
Basis of the value of the expropriated property when a case is filed after the time of taking and
the property's value increased:
2. When the expropriator has increased its value by its own acts value at the time of the
earlier taking.
3. When the value increased independently value at the time of the later filing
Note: The
2.
3.
4.
Court may only substitute value if:

commissioners applied illegal principles to evidence submitted
disregarded a clear preponderance of evidence
amount is grossly inadequate or excessive
LGUs and Power of Inferior Domain

Requisites for Local Government Units to exercise expropriations:
2. Ordinance
3. Public use
4. Just compensation
5. A previous offer has been made but offer was not accepted by the property owner
Notes:
LGU's require to make a previous offer before the taking, whereas the State need not
make a previous offer
LGU's cannot expropriate on the strength of a resolution
Expropriation proceedings may be resorted to only as a last means of acquisition
Philippines Cases
Sources:
Page 8 of 26
ATENEO LAW SCHOOL

1E
L.T.J.F.
[DEAN BAUTISTA]
Barlin v Ramirez - In the hands of Congress, power of eminent domain is plenary. It can
reach private property already dedicated for public use or even property devoted to
religious worship.
Republic v Juan An executive order cannot limit the right of eminent domain of the
Republic.
NAPOCOR v Misericordia v Gutierez Acquisition of mere right-of-way is an exercise of the

power of eminent domain (suspending transmission lines over private property). Just
compensation is still required.
Garcia v Court of Appeals If entry, by permission to occupy, was without the intention of
expropriation, there is no technical taking.
City Government v. Judge Ercita By police power, property is regulated and there is no
transfer of ownership. By power of eminent domain, property is taken, ownership is
transfered and there must be just compensation.
City of Baguio v NAWASA - Property acquired by the municipality with its private funds in
its corporate or private capacity (Patrimonial Property) requires compensation.
Salas v Jarenico Public buildings held by the municipality on behalf of the State requires
no compensation.
Municipality of Makati v Court of Appeals Just compensation includes not only the correct
amount but also the payment being made within a reasonable period of time.
Republic v Sarabia - Value of the compensation must be determined as of the time the
expropriating authority takes possession of the property and not as of the institution of the
proceedings.
Municipality of Paranaque v VM Realty Corp A final judgment dismissing an expropriation

suit on the ground of incomplete requirements, cannot bar the State from exercising its
power of eminent domain over the same property again after complying with the
requirements.
Noble v City of Manila - When there is a valid existing contract, expropriation is not a valid
substitute. The enforcement of the contract is preferred.
Bel-Air Village Association v IAC - the order of opening a private road (removing the gate)
was in the nature of the exercise of police power (regulation) and not eminent domain.
Compensation is not due.
US Cases
United States v Causby Establishing an easement through the airspace over private
Sources:
Page 9 of 26
ATENEO LAW SCHOOL

1E
L.T.J.F.
[DEAN BAUTISTA]
property, resulting to damages, is considered compensable taking.
Pennsylvania Central Transportation Co v New York City A law designating certain

buildings or areas as landmark sites is a type of zoning legislation. It does not constitute a
taking of property as contemplated by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment since it is
merely a regulation.
Pennsylvania Hospital v Philadelphia The State cannot enter into a contract not to
exercise its power of eminent domain.
Section 10 Non-impairment of Contracts
La Insular v Machuca Go-Tanco Laws imposing a sales tax does not change the relation
between buyers and sellers, thus there is no impairment. It merely imposes an obligation
to the seller to one not a party to the contract, the government.
Co v PNB New laws regulating contracts (eg: bank loan and mortgage laws) cannot be
applied retroactively or else they will violate the non-impairment clause.
Rutter v Esteban the non-impairment clause is not absolute. Contracts may be impaired
through the valid exercise of police power.
Del Rosario v Bengzon The Generics Act does not impair the obligation of contracts. No
contract results from the consultation between physician and the patient.
C&M Timber Corp v Alcala licenses and permits are not contracts but are instruments
subject to the State's power to regulate.
Section 11 Free Access to Courts
Acar v Rosal - Indigent persons are those who have no property or sources of income
sufficient for their own support aside from their own labor.
Martinez v People - Motion to litigate pauper litigants may be entertained by the Appellate
Court.
Section 12 Rights Under Custodial Investigation
Guarantees and Availability:
Miranda v Arizona A person under custodial investigation has the following rights:
2. remain silent
3. consult with a lawyer and if he is indigent, a lawyer will be appointed to represent him
4. to be informed of the said rights
Notes:
Right to remain silent:
Sources:
Page 10 of 26
ATENEO LAW SCHOOL

1E
L.T.J.F.
[DEAN BAUTISTA]
2. To uphold the right against self-incrimination

3. It is the responsibility of the State to prove its case against the accused even without
the participation of the best source of evidence, which is the accused himself.
4. People v Gamboa Right to remain silent extends only to testimonial compulsion and
not physical evidence
Right to counsel:
People v Layuso It is not intended to stop the accused from saying anything that may
incriminate him but to preclude the slightest coercion.
Miranda v Arizona The moment the person under investigation asks for a lawyer, the
interrogation must cease until an attorney is present
People v Mojello The suspect has the final choice as he may reject the counsel chosen for
him by the police and ask for another one.
People v Galit In localities where there are no lawyers, the State must bring the
individual to a place where there is one
Gamboa v Judge Cruz The right to counsel does not apply to situations where a person is
in a police line-up. But the moment investigators tries to extract admissions, the rights will
activate.
Right to be informed:
People v Nicandro There must be a meaningful transmission or communication of the
rights, which includes the explanation of their effects
People v Tolentino There is no presumption of regularity to in-custody confessions.
Prosecution has the burden of proving that the Constitutional Safeguards were observed
Art III sec 12 Violation of the rights will render evidence (confessions or admissions)
obtained as a result of interrogation inadmissible
Art III sec 12 These rights may only be waived in the presence of counsel
Confessions and Admissions

People v Deniega Requisites for an extrajudicial confession to be admissible:
1. Voluntary confession
2. Made with the assistance of counsel
3. Express
4. In writing
5. Signed or thumbmarked
People v Cabiles Spontaneous statements, those that were not elicited by the authorities,
are not covered by Art III sec 12, thus are admissible evidence.
People v Tawat This rule does not apply to confessions made to private individuals since
the situation is not a custodial investigation.
Note:
Under US jurisprudence, evidence obtained, where the Miranda rights were not observed, are
curable under the Purged Taint Exception. But if the Miranda rights were observed but evidence is
Sources:
Page 11 of 26
ATENEO LAW SCHOOL

1E
L.T.J.F.
[DEAN BAUTISTA]
obtained through force, violence and intimidation, it is not curable.

Cases
Escobedo v Illinois - These rights become available after a person has been taken into
custody and the police conduct a process of interrogation (US jurisprudence).
People v Loveria These rights become available after a person has been taken into
custody or deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way (Philippine
jurisprudence).
People v Domantay RA 7438 extended this guarantee and these rights to situations
where an individual has merely been invited for questioning.
People v Taylaran The rights are not available when a person voluntarily presents himself
to the police and makes his admissions.
Sebastian, Jr v Garchitorena Administrative investigations are not covered by Art III sec
12.
People v Ayson Section12 does not apply to persons under preliminary investigation or
already charged in court.
Section 13 Right to Bail
General Rule: All persons, before conviction, have the right to bail
Exceptions:
When the charge is punishable by reclusion perpetua
when evidence of guilt is strong
Cases
Comendador v de Villa - Soldiers under court martial do not have the right to bail
People v Donato Agreeing to remain in legal custody is a waiver of his right
Marcos v Cruz Merely filing a reclusion perpetua case against a person does not make
him lose his right to bail. Loss of right depends on the quantum of evidence and can be
determined only after hearing.
Almeda v Villaluz Bail bonds need not be strictly in cash form or else it can be
unconstitutionally excessive.
Cardines v Rosete The 1994 rules of court has placed Life Imprisonment on the same
level as Reclusion Perpetua (No Bail)
US v Judge Puruganan Extradition is not a criminal proceeding thus a respondent in such

Sources:
Page 12 of 26
ATENEO LAW SCHOOL

1E
L.T.J.F.
[DEAN BAUTISTA]
a proceeding is not entitled to bail. Bail is also not available in deportation proceedings.
Manotoc, Jr v CA Consequences of a bail bond may prevent a respondent from leaving

the country.
Section 14 Criminal Due Process
Definition
US v Ocampo If the procedure fully protects life, liberty and property of the citizens, it
will be held to be due process of the law.
Nunez v Sandiganbayan Due process is satisfied of the accused is informed of the

charges against him, conviction being made to rest on evidence, and decision is rendered
by a competent court.
Presumption of Innocence
Marquez, Jr v Commission on Elections Disqualification of fugitives from justice from
running for public office does not violate the presumption of innocence. It is a reasonable
qualification prescribed by Congress.
Banares v CA Presumption of Innocence is not absolute. Legislature may provide for

prima facie evidence of guilt and shift the burden of proof of innocence to the accused
provided there be a rational connection between the facts.
US v Luling The State has the right to declare what proof shall constitute prima facie
evidence of guilt and shift the burden of proving innocence to the defendant.
Impartial Trial
People v Narajos There is no legal impediment when a judge, who has partly heard the
case, is replaced by his successor. It is sufficient that the decision of the case is solely
based on the cold record or evidences before him.
Ignacio v Villaluz A judge, who previously convicted a petitioner, and is trying the same
petitioner for a different offense should disqualify himself on the ground of partiality.
People v Sendaydiego A judge who determined probable cause and conducted the trial
on that same case is presumed to be impartial in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
Right to Counsel
Johnson v Zerbst The right to counsel is the realistic recognition that the average
defendant does not have the professional skill to protect himself before a tribunal.
US v Gimeno The right to counsel is a right, which a defendant should not be deprived of,
and the failure of the court to observe it would be sufficient cause for the reversal of the
case.
Sources:
Page 13 of 26
ATENEO LAW SCHOOL

1E
L.T.J.F.
[DEAN BAUTISTA]
Libuit v People Duty of the court to appoint a counsel de oficio is mandatory only at the
time of arraignment. Appointment during cross-examination would be discretionary with
the trial court.
People v Agbayani There is presumption of regularity in the court's compliance with the
procedural requirements imposed by law. It can only be overcome by an affirmative
showing to the contrary.
Amion v Judge Chiongson The preference in the choice of counsel pertains to a person
under custodial investigation (Art III sec 12 par 1) rather than one in a criminal procedure
(Art III sec 14 par 2)
Right to Speedy Trial
Martin v Gen. Fabian Ver Delay of the trial begins only after the filing of information and
not the time of detention.
Right to a Public Trial
Garcia v Domingo Exception to the right: when the evidence is characterized as
offensive to decency or public morals, the proceeding may be limited to friends, relatives
and counsel.
Right to Meet Witness Face to Face
2-fold purpose:
to give the accused the opportunity ti test the testimony of the witness by crossexamination
to allow the judge to observe the deportation of the witness
Exceptions:
Admissibility of dying declarations
Trial in absentia
Parada v Veneracion Requisites of Trial in Absentia:
2. Accused has been arraigned
3. He has been duly notifed
4. His failure to appear is unjustifiable
People v Seneris Partial testimony already covered by an incomplete cross-examination, when
failure to complete the examination was neither the fault of the defense nor the prosecution,
should be admissible.
Dequito v Arellano This right is not available during preliminary investigation but only during
trial.
Section 15 Habeas Corpus
Sources:
Page 14 of 26
ATENEO LAW SCHOOL

1E
L.T.J.F.
[DEAN BAUTISTA]
Definitions
Writ of Habeas Corpus writ directed to a person detaining another, commanding him to
produce the body of the prisoner at a designated time and place.
Privilege of Writ of Habeas Corpus Right to have immediate determination of the legality
of the deprivation of physical liberty.
2. The issuance of the writ is never suspended.
3. The privilege of the writ may be suspended in cases of invasion, rebellion or when
public safety requires it.
Dizon v Eduardo If respondents has not sufficiently proved that they have released the
detainees, petitioners may refer the case to the Commissioner on Human Rights.
Section 16 Speedy Disposition of Cases
General Rule: All persons have the right to a speedy disposition of their cases
Exception: reasonable or justifiable delay
Section 14 covers only the trial phase of criminal proceedings
Section 16 covers all phases of any judicial, quasi-judicial or administrative proceedings
Cases
Guerrero v CA a rehearing of the case is justified since the delay was neither the fault of the
defense nor that of the prosecution.
Roque v Ombudsman - the remedy for unreasonable delay is dismissal of the case through
mandamus.
Section 17 Right Against Self Incrimination
Art III Sec 1 Right to privacy: covers papers, houses and effects
Art III Sec 17 Self Incrimination: covers testimonies only
US v Navarro Purposes:
2. Witness is placed under the strongest temptation to commit perjury
3. It would prevent extorting of confession by duress
Cases
US v Tan Teng What is prohibited is the use of compulsion to extort communication from
the witness and not an inclusion of his body in evidence (physical evidence).
Beltran v Samson A person may not be compelled to produce a sample of his handwriting
to be used as evidence. Writing involves the application of intelligence and attention. There
is participation on the part of the witness.
Bagadiong v Gonzales In civil cases, the petitioner must wait until the incriminating
Sources:
Page 15 of 26
ATENEO LAW SCHOOL

1E
L.T.J.F.
[DEAN BAUTISTA]
question is asked before raising the right.
Cabal v Kapunan, Jr. - The right against self-incrimination is available in administrative

hearings if the penalty that may be imposed partakes of the nature of a criminal
proceeding
Evangelista v Jarencio This right is not available during a fact-finding investigation.

Boyd v United States compulsory production of private books and papers of the owner is
compelling him to be a witness against himself.
Hale v Henkel Juridical persons (corporations) are not covered by this right thus can be
compelled to submit incriminating corporate papers.
Shapiro v United States Not all personal papers are protected by the self-incrimination
clause. This right cannot cover papers that are subject to government regulations.
Section 18 Involuntary Servitude
General Rule: No involuntary servitude in any form shall exist
Exceptions:
2. for a punishment of a crime
3. render service in the interest of national defense
4. return to work order
Sarmiento v Tuico A return to work order must be obeyed even if his inclination is to strike. The
worker who refuses to obey still has the option to give up his work.
Section 19 Cruel and Inhuman Punishment
General Rule: Death Penalty shall not be imposed
Exception: Congress restores it for compelling reasons involving heinous crimes
Note:
Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 20-2005 (April 19, 2005) - despite the aforementioned
amendments, criminal cases on automatic review or on appeal where the penalty imposed by the
trial courts is either death, reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment are still forwarded to the
Supreme Court by lower courts.
Cases
Furman v Georgia Guidelines for determining cruel and unusual punishments:

1.
2.
3.
4.
punishment not be so sever as to degrade human dignity

must not be applied arbitrarily
must not be unacceptable to contemporary society
must not be excessive
Sources:
Page 16 of 26
ATENEO LAW SCHOOL

1E
L.T.J.F.
[DEAN BAUTISTA]
People v Echegaray the power of Congress to re-impose the death penalty is not
subsumed under its plenary legislative power. It is subject to clear and compelling reasons
involving heinous crimes.
People v Mercado Punishment is cruel and unusual if it involves torture or a lingering

death and something more than the mere extinguishment of life.
People v Vinuya If an accused pleads guilty to a capital offense, the judge must still look
into the evidence to see if the death penalty is the proper punishment.
Section 20 Non-Imprisonment for Debt
General Rule: Imprisonment for debt by virtue of an oder in a civil proceeding is prohibited
Exceptions:
if there is a crime arising from a contractual debt (fraudulent debt: estafa) and imposed in
a proper criminal proceeding
Subsidiary Imprisonment conversion of monetary indemnity imposed as part of a criminal
penalty
Section 21 Double Jeopardy
General Rule: No person shall be twice put in jeopardy of punishment for the same offense
Exceptions:
Same act violates two different statutes or results in two distinct offenses, prosecution
under one is not a bar to prosecution for the other.
4. Exception to the exception: if the act is punished by a law and an ordinance (two
different statutes), conviction or acquittal under either shall constitute a bar to
another prosecution for the same act (Art III sec 21).
Supervening Events after the first prosecution, a new face supervenes for which the
defendant is responsible, which changes the character of the offense and constitutes a new
and distinct offense.
Example: Initial charge was physical injuries but when the injury developed into a more
serious one (from a scar to a permanent deformity), which could not have been
foreseen.
Exception to the exception: If the exact nature of the injury could not have been
discovered because of the incompetence of the physician (misdiagnosis), the
supervening fact doctrine will not apply. If it is a proximate cause absent human error,
it can be a supervening event.
Requisites for a valid defense of double jeopardy:

Attached first jeopardy must have attached prior to second one
Terminated first jeopardy must have terminated
Second Offense second jeopardy must be for the same offense as the first
Sources:
Page 17 of 26
ATENEO LAW SCHOOL

1E
L.T.J.F.
[DEAN BAUTISTA]
Attachment of Jeopardy
Jeopardy of punishment attaches:
Upon a good indictment
Before a competent court (one with jurisdiction)
After arraignment
After plea
When Jeopardy Does Not Attach
When plea is filed when court is not in session, it is not a valid plea, thus no jeopardy
After pleading guilty, the evidence amounts to complete self defense and the court acquits
accused. The presentation of evidence of complete self defense amounted to a withdrawal
of his original plea.
A defective complaint (before amendment) did not place the accused in first jeopardy
A motion to quash a valid information is a waiver of right against double jeopardy. This
includes motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.
If the first court has no jurisdiction, first jeopardy cannot attach
When the accused had been acquitted after pre-trial, and no proper trial took place, double
jeopardy did not attach.
Termination of First Jeopardy
1. Acquittal
2. Final Conviction
3. Dismissal without express consent of the accused
4. Dismissal on the merits
Denial of the right to a speedy trial can be a dismissal on the merits and may amount to an
acquittal if granted by the court.
Verbal dismissals do not amount to termination of jeopardy. They are not final until written
and signed by the judge.
Cause of delays of the trial must be unreasonable to be dismissed on ground of violation of
right to a speedy trial. Delays beyond the control of the prosecution and defense are not
considered unreasonable.
Dismissal of the court to give way to the filing of a proper complaint is not a dismissal on
the merits of the case. Jeopardy did not terminate.
If dismissal clearly constitutes grave abuse of discretion, it is not a bar to the refiling of the
case.
Decisions of a Military Tribunal are merely recommendatory. The case does not terminate
since it is a continuing process.
Dismissal of a preliminary investigation does not terminate a case.
Consenting to the provisional dismissal by the accused is a waiver of his right to the
defense of double jeopardy.
Same Offense
One is identical with (or is an attempt or frustration of) the other OR necessarily includes
the other.
Ex: Physical injury is the same as attempted homicide for purposed of double jeopardy
Sources:
Page 18 of 26
ATENEO LAW SCHOOL

1E
L.T.J.F.
[DEAN BAUTISTA]
Offense need not be the same provided they flow from the same act.
Appeals
General Rule: A judgment of acquittal is immediately final even though the discharge was a
result of the court's error (State v Rook)
Exception: when prosecution has not been given due process.
An appeal by the prosecution from the order of dismissal (not acquittal) shall not constitute
double jeopardy if:
1. Dismissal is made upon motion or express consent of defendant
2. Dismissal is based on the merits of the case (not an acquittal)
3. Appeal is purely a question of law (ex: whether dismissal was correct or not?)
A judgment of conviction is final when:
1. period of appeal has lapsed
2. sentence has been totally or partially served
3. there is express waiver of the right to appeal
Note: A penalty higher than that of the original conviction could be imposed by the higher court.
Section 22 Bill of Attainder and Ex-post facto law
General rule: Retroactive effect of penal laws are prohibited
Exceptions: The retroactive effect is only applicable if it is favorable to the accused
Note: Non-penal laws are not prohibited by the clause. It only covers penal laws.
Definitions:
Ex-post Facto Law
1. Law which makes an innocent action criminal before the passage of such law
2. Aggravates a crime than when it was committed
3. Inflicts a greater punishment than when it was committed
4. Requires less evidence in order to convict a defendant
5. Deprives an accused of some lawful protection to which he becomes entitled to
6. Shortening the prescription period of a crime
Bill of Attainder
A legislative act which inflicts punishments without judicial trial (Cummings v Missouri).
Elements
1. There is a law
2. The law imposes a penal burden on a named individual or easily ascertainable members of
a group
3. Burden is imposed directly by law without judicial trial
Cases
Lacson v Executive Secretary a law which dilutes the chances of a plaintiff to appeal, by
Sources:
Page 19 of 26
ATENEO LAW SCHOOL

1E
L.T.J.F.
[DEAN BAUTISTA]
granting them one chance for appeal (from Sandiganbayan to Supreme Court) instead of
the two-tiered appeal (from RTC to CA to SC), is not an ex-post facto law. The law is a
substantive law on jurisdiction and not a penal one. The right to appeal is statutory in
nature which can be regulated by law.
Pascual v Board of Medical Examiners A law is a penal law if it prescribes a burden

equivalent to a criminal penalty (eg: disqualification from practicing a p0rofession) even if
it is imposed in an administrative proceeding.
Calder v Bull A law on criminal procedure (eg: altering rules on evidence) can be an expost facto law.
Bayot v Sandiganbayan - Suspension of public officers during a pending trail is not a

penalty but merely a preventive measure.
ARTICLE IV CITIZENSHIP
Default Rule: Jus Sanguini*
Exception: If the nation's laws specify jus soli citizenship
* Note:
Births given outside a jus soli country follow the jus sanguini rule on citizenship. If a child is born
outside the US, he is a US citizen provided both parents are US citizens as well. Different rules
and qualifications apply if only one parent is a US citizen.
Definition
Personal membership in a political community
Possession of full civil and political rights
Imposes duty of allegiance to the political community
Modes
1.
2.
3.
of Acquiring
Jus Sanguinis blood relationship
Jus Soli place of birth (embassies in foreign countries are not included)
Naturalization
Natural Born Citizens

General Rule: Citizens from birth without having to perform any act to acquire their citizenship
Exception: Those born before January 17, 1973, of Filipino mothers who elect Philippine
citizenship are deemed natural-born. (Art IV sec 1 and 2)
Note: Requirement of electing Philippine citizenship applies only to legitimate children.
Jus Sanguinis
Does not make distinctions between legitimate and illegitimate children
As long as one of the parents is Filipino, the child is a Filipino
If the mother had lost Philippine citizenship by the time of the birth of the child, the child
has no right of election
Sources:
Page 20 of 26
ATENEO LAW SCHOOL

1E
L.T.J.F.
[DEAN BAUTISTA]
Naturalization
Laws and Procedures
1. Judicial Process
2. Act of Legislation or a Presidential Decree
3. Mass Naturalization Law (Philippine Bill of 1902)
4. General Law: administrative process + presidential legislative process
5. RA 9139 Administrative Naturalization Law
Procedural Requirements
1. Declaration of intention
2. Filing of petition
3. Initial hearing and judgment
4. Probation period
5. Rehearing and final judgment
RA 9139 Administrative Naturalization Law of 2000
Effects of the Naturalization of the:
Husband the lawful alien wife and minor children may file for petition for cancellation of
their alien certificates of registration.
Wife only the minor children may file a petition but the alien husband will not be
benefited.
Repatriation
Recovery of original citizenship will depend on what is lost: either natural-born or
naturalized citizenship
Courts have no jurisdiction over repatriation only the local civil registry and Bureau of
Immigration.
Effective date of repatriation is the date of application, not approval.
Repatriation may be availed of when citizenship is lost due to:
1. Desertion of the armed forces
2. Service in the armed forces of allied forces during WWII
3. Service in the US armed forces at any other time
4. Political and economic necessity
RA 9225 Dual Citizenship Law
Retention of Philippine citizenship by natural born citizens who become citizens of a foreign
country after effectivity of the act.
Those seeking elective or appointive office must renounce foreign citizenship
The doctrine of implied renunciation upon filing of a Certificate of Candidacy does not apply
under RA 9225. Candidate must expressly renounce his foreign citizenship and allegiance.
Voting for dual citizens must meet requirements of Oversees Voters Act
Cases
Willie Yu v Defensor-Santiago A person's actions can constitute implied renunciation of

Sources:
Page 21 of 26
ATENEO LAW SCHOOL

1E
L.T.J.F.
[DEAN BAUTISTA]
his naturalized citizenship. Continuously declaring foreign citizenship in commercial

documents, even after naturalization, is a renunciation of Philippine citizenship.
Labo, Jr. v COMELEC A foreign citizenship invalidly acquired is not the concern of the
Philippines. As long as there is renunciation of Philippine citizenship, that citizenship is lost.
Bengzon v Cruz Repatriation is the recovery of the original citizenship. If what is lost is
Naturalized Citizenship, what is recovered is Naturalized Citizenship. If what is lost is
Natural-Born Citizenship, what is recovered is Natural-Born Citizenship.
Aznar v COMELEC Renunciation must be express in order that citizenship may be lost. An
application for an alien certificate of registration is not tantamount to renunciation of
Philippine Citizenship.
Mercado v Manzano the fact that respondent was holding an American Passport were just
assertions of his American Citizenship before the termination of his American nationality.
ARTICLE V SUFFRAGE
Qualifications
1. Citizens not otherwise disqualified by law
2. At least 18 years of age
3. Resided in the Philippines for at least 1 year
4. Resided in the place where they proposed to vote at least 6 months preceding the election
Disqualifications
1. Any person sentenced by final judgment to suffer an imprisonment of not less than one
year. Such person shall automatically re-acquire right to vote upon expiration of 5 years
after service of sentence.
2. Persons who violated his allegiance to the Republic
3. Insane or feeble-minded persons
Overseas Absentee Voting Act RA 9189
Qualified citizens abroad may vote for:
1. President
2. Vice President
3. Senators
4. Party List Representatives
General Rule: Immigrants or permanent residents of foreign countries are disqualified
Exceptions and conditions:
1. If voter executes an affidavit declaring that he or she shall resume actual permanent
residence in the Philippines not later than 3 years from approval of registration
2. Voter must not have applied for citizenship in another country by the time affidavit is
executed
3. Failure to return will cause permanent disqualification to vote in absentia.
Sources:
Page 22 of 26
ATENEO LAW SCHOOL

1E
L.T.J.F.
[DEAN BAUTISTA]
Cases
Akbayan v COMELEC the right to suffrage is still subject to the State's power to regulate
the act of voter's registration for the purpose of conducting honest and orderly elections.
Ceniza v COMELEC A law prohibiting voters in a city from voting provincial officials does
not impose a substantial requirement that violates Art V sec 1. The law does not impose a
burden as contemplated by Art V sec 1.
Gonzales v COMELEC A referendum is a consultative process and not an election. The

voting age qualifications do not apply.
ARTICLE XIII SOCIAL JUSTICE AND HUMAN RIGHTS
Social Justice
2 principal activities:
1. More economic opportunities
2. Regulation of property and a more equitable distribution of wealth
National Federation of Sugar Workers v Ovejera when the law can be interpreted in more
ways than one, an interpretation in favor of the underprivileged must be favored.
Federation of Free Farmers v CA the 13th month pay requirement under PD 851 is not
applicable to a company already giving Christmas bonuses. Laws must be interpreted in
favor of the underprivileged but not to the point that it does injustice to the employers.
Injustice to the more affluent sectors of society must be avoided as much as injustice to
labor and the poor.
Astudillo v Board of Directors Provisions on social justice do not legalize squatting. The
State's solicitude for the destitute does not mean it should tolerate usurpations of property.
Estrada v NLRC a mere technicality (failure to follow a procedural requirement) is not a

sufficient ground to reverse the decision against a laborer. It should yield to the
constitutional demand for social justice.
Labor
Employers Confederation v National Wages and Productivity Commission The

Constitution has not fully embraced the concept of laissez faire. The Constitution is
primarily a document of social justice but it also recognized the importance of the private
sector.
SSS v CA The right to strike has gained constitutional stature but it is qualified by the
phrase in accordance with law. The law currently denies the right to strike to SSS
employees and to public school teachers.
PLDT v NLRC an employer may not be required to give separation pay when the
employee is dismissed due to serious misconduct.
Sources:
Page 23 of 26
ATENEO LAW SCHOOL

1E
L.T.J.F.
[DEAN BAUTISTA]
Agrarian Reform
Objectives:
1. Efficient production
2. Equitable distribution of land
3. Just share in the fruits of the land
Method of redistribution:
1. Voluntary sale
2. Expropriation and resale
Theory behind agrarian reform:
Agrarian reform should unlock idle wealth hidden in land to improve the economy and the
lives of the farmers.
The proceeds land owners receive should be invested in non-agricultural ventures and
promote industrialization.
The industrialization shall generate employment and absorb farmworkers released from
farms because of mechanization.
Just compensation
Land owners have the right to receive just compensation but the farmer will only pay the
government what he can afford even if it is not equivalent to the amount paid to the land owner.
Hence, it will be necessary for the State to subsidize the program.
Vinzons-Magana v Estrella Mere issuance of the certificate of land transfer does not vest
in the farmer ownership of the land. It merely evidences the qualification of the party to
avail of the process for the acquisition of land ownership.
Luz Farms v Secretary of Agrarian Reform Agricultural land devoted to raising livestock is
not included in the Agrarian Reform Law. The Constitutional Commission did not intend to
include them.
Association of Small Landowners v Secretary of Agrarian Reform The law guarantees that
landowners can retain a certain area of their land. The imposition of retention limits is an
exercise of police power of the State. But when it comes to the deprivation of land, it is an
exercise of eminent domain.
Danan, et al. V CA As long as the area to be retained does not exceed the retention limit
of 5 hectares, a landowner's choice of the area must prevail.
Urban Land Reform
Eviction and demolition must be done with due process and in a just and humane manner
People v Judge Leachon for due process to be satisfied:
the unlawful occupation must be proven
the occupant be sufficiently notified before actual eviction or demolition is done
Sources:
Page 24 of 26
ATENEO LAW SCHOOL

1E
L.T.J.F.
[DEAN BAUTISTA]
no loss of lives, injuries or unnecessary loss of properties
Commission on Human Rights

Members:
1. Chairman
2. 4 Members
Majority must be members of the Philippine Bar
All must be natural-born citizens
Powers and Functions
Commission's power is only investigative. It has no prosecutorial power.
Limited to investigating human rights violations involving civil and political rights.
Socio-economic rights are not included but it may be included if the commission's scope is
expanded in the future.
Protect the human rights of all persons within the Philippines as well as Filipinos residing
abroad
ARTICLE XIV E.S.T.A.C.S.
Education
General Rule: Every citizen has the right to education
Exceptions: The right is subject to fair and reasonable regulations. Imposing admission and
academic requirements is a valid exercise of police power.
Note: Schools also have the right to dismiss students for disciplinary reasons provided due
process is observed.
Characteristics:
1. Quality education
2. Affordable
3. Relevant to the needs of society
Programs:
System of scholarship grants and student loan programs
Indigenous learning system
Out-of-school study programs
Institutions and Academic Freedom:
General Rule
Educational institutions shall be owned by
citizens of the Philippines or Corporations,
which are at least 60% Filipino-owned.
Exception
Those established by religious groups and
mission boards
No educational institution shall be

Schools for foreign diplomatic personnel and
established exclusively for aliens and no
their dependents
group of aliens shall comprise more than 1/3
of the student population
Sources:
Page 25 of 26
ATENEO LAW SCHOOL

1E
L.T.J.F.
[DEAN BAUTISTA]
All revenues are exempted from taxes
Revenues not used directly and exclusively

for educational purposes are not exempted
from taxes
Institutes of higher learning has the right to

determine:
a. who may teach
b. what may be taught
c. how it shall be taught
d. who may be admitted to study
The courts may not interfere with the

University's academic freedom unless there
is clear evidence that the latter arbitrarily
and capriciously exercised its judgment.
Cases
Abra Valley College Inc v Aquino - Exclusive use includes incidental use. The school
president's residence , which is part of the school building, qualifies under such incidental
use thus exempted from taxes.
Guingona, Jr. v Carague the provision to give highest priority to education does not
deprive Congress of the power to respond to other matters of national interest
ARTICLE XV THE FAMILY
The State recognizes the family as the foundation of the nation.

It recognizes marriage as an inviolable social institution and shall be protected by the
State.
This, however, is not an absolute prohibition for divorce.
But any doubt should be resolved in favor of the validity of the marriage.
Sources:
Page 26 of 26

Consti 2 Notes 1E Dean Bautista

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Consti 2 Notes 1E Dean Bautista

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Consti 2 Notes 1E Dean Bautista

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ATENEO LAW SCHOOL

Section 1 Due Process and Equal Protection

ATENEO LAW SCHOOL

allowances are allowed.

Section 2 Search and Seizure

ATENEO LAW SCHOOL

certainty. There is no need to present proof beyond reasonable doubt.

ATENEO LAW SCHOOL

intangible properties such as electronic communication.

Section 3 Exclusionary Rule

Stonehill v. Diokno things to be seized improperly or vaguely described were considered

ATENEO LAW SCHOOL

upon written permission of the depositor

Section 4 Freedom of Speech and of the Press

ATENEO LAW SCHOOL

3. government interest is unrelated to the suppression of free expression

Section 5 Freedom of Religion

Estrada v. Escritor Benevolent Accommodation Doctrine: freedom to carry out one's

Section 6 Liberty of Abode and Right to Travel

ATENEO LAW SCHOOL

Section 7 Right to Information

Section 8 Right of Association

Section 9 Eminent Domain

ATENEO LAW SCHOOL

ART XIII sec 4 land reform

Republic v Vda. De Castellvi - requisites of taking for purposes of eminent domain

Court may only substitute value if:

LGUs and Power of Inferior Domain

ATENEO LAW SCHOOL

NAPOCOR v Misericordia v Gutierez Acquisition of mere right-of-way is an exercise of the

Municipality of Paranaque v VM Realty Corp A final judgment dismissing an expropriation

ATENEO LAW SCHOOL

property, resulting to damages, is considered compensable taking.

Pennsylvania Central Transportation Co v New York City A law designating certain

ATENEO LAW SCHOOL

2. To uphold the right against self-incrimination

Confessions and Admissions

ATENEO LAW SCHOOL

obtained through force, violence and intimidation, it is not curable.

US v Judge Puruganan Extradition is not a criminal proceeding thus a respondent in such

ATENEO LAW SCHOOL

Manotoc, Jr v CA Consequences of a bail bond may prevent a respondent from leaving

Nunez v Sandiganbayan Due process is satisfied of the accused is informed of the

Banares v CA Presumption of Innocence is not absolute. Legislature may provide for

ATENEO LAW SCHOOL

ATENEO LAW SCHOOL

ATENEO LAW SCHOOL

question is asked before raising the right.

Cabal v Kapunan, Jr. - The right against self-incrimination is available in administrative

Evangelista v Jarencio This right is not available during a fact-finding investigation.

Furman v Georgia Guidelines for determining cruel and unusual punishments:

punishment not be so sever as to degrade human dignity

ATENEO LAW SCHOOL

People v Mercado Punishment is cruel and unusual if it involves torture or a lingering

Requisites for a valid defense of double jeopardy:

ATENEO LAW SCHOOL

ATENEO LAW SCHOOL

ATENEO LAW SCHOOL

Pascual v Board of Medical Examiners A law is a penal law if it prescribes a burden