CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II DLSU COL ATTY.

BUTCH JAMON

PLACE OF JUDICIAL POWER What constitutes grave abuse of discretion?
- Capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of
Const. Art. VIII Sec. 1 jurisdiction. The abuse of discretion must be patent and gross as to amount
The judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in such lower to an evasion of positive duty enjoined by law, or to act at all in contemplation
courts as may be established by law. of law, as where the power is exercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner
Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual by reason or passion or hostility.
controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable, and to
determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack Marbury v. Madison
or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government. o Congress cannot pass a law encroaching on the functions of the
judiciary. Such act will be a violation of the doctrine on separation
Const. Art. VIII Sec. 2 of powers.
The Congress shall have the power to define, prescribe, and apportion the o The judiciary can exercise judicial review on acts of the different
jurisdiction of the various courts but may not deprive the Supreme Court of its jurisdiction branches of government.
over cases enumerated in Section 5 hereof. Angara v. Electoral Commission
No law shall be passed reorganizing the Judiciary when it undermines the o The SC has jurisdiction over actions of different branches and
security of tenure of its Members. instrumentalities of the government.
Garcia v. Board of Investments
Const. Art. VIII Sec. 4 Par. 2 o The state has the duty to regulate and exercise authority over
All cases involving the constitutionality of a treaty, international or executive foreign investment
agreement, or law, which shall be heard by the Supreme Court en banc, and all other Oposa v. Factoran
cases which under the Rules of Court are required to be heard en banc, including those o In matters of transcendental importance, the SC can relax the
involving the constitutionality, application, or operation of presidential decrees, requirement of locus standi from the parties.
proclamations, orders, instructions, ordinances, and other regulations, shall be decided o Parties in this case were minors.
with the concurrence of a majority of the members who actually took part in the Manila Prince Hotel v. GSIS
deliberation on the issues in the case and voted thereon. o The Manila Hotel is considered part of our national patrimony and
should be protected from foreign control.
Const. Art. VIII Sec. 5 Par. 2 o Filipino first policy.
Review, revise, reverse, modify, or affirm on appear or certiorari, as the law Kilosbayan v. Guingona
of the Rules of Court may provide, final judgments and orders of lower courts in: o Kilosbayan was allowed to challenge the validity of the lotto
(a) All cases in which the constitutionality or validity of any treaty, international or contract of PCSO on the argument that the case was of
executive agreement, law, presidential decree, proclamation, order, transcendental importance.
instruction, ordinance, or regulation is in question. Kilosbayan v. Morato
(b) All cases involving the legality of any tax, import, assessment, or toll, or any o The principles in Art. II of the Constitution are not self-executing
penalty imposed in relation thereto. provisions and need further legislation to take effect.
(c) All cases in which the jurisdiction of any lower court is in issue. Tanada v. Angara
(d) All criminal cases in which the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua or o The signing of the WTO agreement is not detrimental to the
higher. Philippine economy and society. It does not steal sovereignty away
(e) All cases in which only an error or question of law is involved. from the Philippines because sovereignty is not absolute, it is
subject to conditions, regulations and restrictions.
What are political questions? o The provisions of Art. II of the Constitution are not self-executing
- Those questions which, under the Constitution, are to be decided by the and need further legislation to be implemented.
people in their sovereign capacity, or in regard to which full discretionary Santiago v. Bautista
authority has been delegated to the legislative or executive branch of the o Judicial power is the authority to determine what the law is and
government. what the legal rights of the parties are with respect to the matter in
- The SC does not decide on political questions. If they do, it would be a controversy.
violation of the separation of powers. o For judicial or quasi-judicial acts to be exercised, the ff. must be
present:

TET VALEZA
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II DLSU COL ATTY. BUTCH JAMON
A law that gives rise to some specific rights of persons or
property;
Adverse claims are made resulting in a controversy;
Same controversy is brought before a body or officer
clothed with authority to make a determination of law and
adjudication of rights.
CASE OR CONTROVERY REQUIREMENT: ELEMENTS
1. Actual controversy ripe for adjudication
2. Party must have legal standing
o Locus standi v. Legal standing
Locus standi
Used in Remedial Law
Found in the Rules of Court
Legal standing
Used in Constitutional Law
3. Issue of constitutionality must be raised at the earliest possibility
STANDING
- A person has standing to challenge the validity of governmental acts only if
he has a personal and substantial interest in the case such that he has
sustained, or will sustain, direct injury as a result of its enforcement.
- A citizen will be allowed to raise a constitutional question if the ff. requisites
concur:
o He has personally suffered some actual or threatened injury as a
result of the alleged illegal conduct of government;
o The injury is fairly traceable to the challenged action;
o The injury is likely to be redressed by a favorable action.
- For a taxpayers suit to pursue, the ff. requisites must concur:
o Sufficient interest in preventing the illegal expenditure of money
raised by taxation;
o That he will sustain direct injury as a result of the enforcement of
the questioned statute.
PACU v. Secretary
o Petitioners do not have standing because there is no justiciable
controversy as of filing the petition. The Secretary of Education has
not revoked or denied permits.
Gonzalez v. Hechanova
o Petitioner has legal standing and sufficient interest by virtue of RA
3452 which states that the government policy is to purchase basic
food directly from farmers in the Philippines.
Gonzalez v. Marcos
o A taxpayer has no legal standing to question executive acts that do
not involve the use of public funds.
TET VALEZA
People v. Vera
o As a general rule, only parties to the suit can question the validity
of a law. But in this case, the government is a proper party because
it is a probation hearing.
o The people, represented by the Solicitor General is a proper party
because if Act 4221 (Probation Law) was indeed unconstitutional,
the state has the proper standing and interest to augment it.
Flast v. Cohen
o 2 aspects that must be proven for a taxpayers case to pursue:
Establish a logical link between status and type of
legislative enactment attacked.
A taxpayer will be considered a proper party if
he is able to allege that there is
unconstitutionality on the part of Congress in
exercising its power, following the taxing and
spending clause of the Constitution.
Establish a link between status and precise nature of
alleged constitutional infringement.
The challenged law must exceed specific
constitutional limitations imposed upon the
congressional taxing and spending power.
Francisco v. House of Representatives
o The rules on legal standing is relaxed by the SC if the case is of
transcendental importance.
o The second impeachment complaint against former CJ Davide was
filed within the one year ban and therefore cannot pursue.
RIPENESS
- There must be an actual controversy at the time the petition was filed,
otherwise it would be premature and the SC does not have jurisdiction over
the case.
Tan v. Macapagal
o There is no actual controversy for the SC to decide on because at
the time the petition was filed, the Constitutional Convention has
not yet finalized any resolutions that would alter the 1935
Constitution.
Poe v. Ullman
o There is no justiciable controversy since the party failed to show
that the statute is not only invalid, but that he has sustained or is
immediately in danger of sustaining some direct injury as the result
of its enforcement.
o Justiciability is not a legal concept with a fixed content or
susceptible of scientific verification. The ff. factors should be
considered:
Appropriateness of the issues for decision by the court
Actual hardship to the litigants of denying them the relief
sought.
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II DLSU COL ATTY. BUTCH JAMON
US v. Richardson
o Petitioner failed to meet the doctrine in Flast v. Cohen namely:
Logical link between the status as a taxpayer and the
challenged legislative enactment.
Nexus between the plaintiffs status and a specific
constitutional limitation imposed on the taxing and
spending power.
MOOTNESS
- As a general rule, the SC will pass on deciding cases that have been rendered
moot and academic by the circumstances. The exceptions are:
o There is grave violation of the Constitution
o The exceptional character of the situation and the paramount public
interest is involved
o When the Constitutional issue raised requires formulation of
controlling principles to guide the bench, the bar and the public
o The case is capable of repetition yet evading review
Lacson v. Perez
o The case is rendered moot and academic since the state of
rebellion has already been lifted by the President.
Sanlakas v. Executive Secretary
o In cases where they are capable of repetition yet evading review,
the SC will still decide on the case even if it is moot and academic.
The reason for this is that this case is essentially a repeat of Lacson
v. Perez
De Funis v. Odegaard
o The case is moot and academic because De Funis was already in
his last term and would be allowed to finish his degree.
o Judicial review may only be done if there is an actual controversy.
Such is not present in this case.
DUE PROCESS CLAUSE
Const. Art. III, Sec. 1
No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of
law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws.
PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS
- Relates chiefly to the mode of procedure which government agencies must
follow in the enforcement and application of laws.
- It is a guarantee of procedural fairness
- A law which hears before it condemns
Banco Espanol Filipino v. Palanca
o Due process requisites:
TET VALEZA
There must be a court or tribunal clothed with judicial
power to hear and determine the matter before it;
Jurisdiction must be lawfully acquired over the person of
the defendant or over the property which is the subject of
the proceeding;
Defendant must be given an opportunity to be heard;
Judgment must be rendered upon lawful hearing.
Ang Tibay v. CIR
o Requirement for due process in administrative or quasi-judicial
proceedings:
Right to hearing including right to present case and
submit evidence;
Tribunal must consider evidence presented;
Decision must have something to support itself;
The evidence must be substantial;
Decision must be based on evidence presented or at
least contained in the record;
Tribunal or body must act on its own independent
consideration;
Board or body must render its decision in a manner
where parties can know the various issues and the
reason for decision.
Ateneo v. Court of Appeals
o Due process in administrative procedure requires an investigation
of the incident, a consideration of the evidence presented and the
decision must be based on the evidence presented.
o The opportunity to be heard was afforded by the university, but the
choice of the respondent to remain silent was not the fault of the
university.
Non v. Judge Dames
o The protection to the cognate rights of speech and assembly
guaranteed by the Constitution is available to students, however
there are limitations. The permissible limitation on Student Exercise
of Constitutional Rights within the school presupposes that the
conduct of the student should not materially disrupt class work or
must not involve substantial disorder or invasion of the rights of
others.
o In this case it was held that the students were not afforded due
process because the decision not to accept them was just a mere
afterthought. The students received failing grades as disciplinary
actions.
Goldberg v. Kelly
o Due process requires an adequate hearing before termination of
welfare benefits.
o It is stated in jurisprudence that where governmental action
seriously injures an individual, and reasonableness of the action
depends on fact findings, evidence used to prove government case
must be disclosed to the individual so that he has an opportunity to
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II DLSU COL ATTY. BUTCH JAMON
show that it is untrue. This is applicable to both criminal and
administrative cases.
UP v. Hon. Ligot Telan
o Admission to an academic institution falls under the ambit of
academic freedom. In this case, UPs rules do not require the
attendance in BOR meetings of individuals whose cases are
included in the agenda, hence it cannot be stated that there was no
due process in this case.
DBP v. NLRC
o DBP cannot contend that it was deprived of due process because
it was given the opportunity to be heard and to present evidence.
In face, it even filed an opposition to the Motion of LAND.
Estrada v. Sandiganbayan
o Anti-Plunder Law is constitutional. It does not suffer any defect of
vagueness and overbreadth, and still afford the accused due
process in criminal procedure.
MEMORY AID FOR DIFFERENT KIDS OF PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS:
In Judicial Proceedings (Banco Fil v. Palanca)
o Court or tribunal with judicial power to hear and determine the case.
o Jurisdiction must be lawfully acquired over the person or property
o Opportunity to be heard
o Judgment rendered upon a lawful hearing
In Administrative or Quasi-Judicial Proceedings (Ang Tibay v. CIR)
o Right to hearing including the right to present case and submit
evidence
o Tribunal must consider evidence presented
o Decision must have something to support itself
o Evidence must be substantial
o Decision must be based on evidence presented
o Tribunal or body must act on its own independent consideration
o Board of body must render its decision in a manner where the
parties know the reason for the decision
In Extradition Proceedings
o Entitled to notice and hearing before issuance of warrant
o Entitled to notice and hearing during proceedings
o As a general rule, bail is not given except for special circumstances
In Academic Cases (AdMU v. Capulong)
o Informed in writing of the nature of the accusation
o Right to answer charges, optionally with counsel
o Right of accused to be informed of evidence against them
o Right to adduce own evidence
o Evidence must be considered
In Deportation Proceedings
o Preliminary investigation
o Warrant of arrest upon a finding of probable cause
o Charge must specify the act or omission
o Right to be heard and present evidence upon lawful hearing
TET VALEZA
o Final declaration of deportation with basis
OLD SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS: PROTECTION FOR LIBERTY INTEREST IN
PRIVACY
Lochner v. New York
o A statute that limits the options best suited for different types of
contracts is in violation of the due process clause.
o Although the state reserves the right to exercise its police power for
the general welfare of the citizens, the act/statute must have a
direct relation to the states police power.
o The statute doe not validly establish that public health will be
compromised in limiting the work hours of bakers.
NDC and Agrix v. Phil Veterans
o PD 1717 is invalid because it only benefits a special group of
investors.
o The said PD violates the due process clause because it arbitrarily
destroys the rights of the creditors of AGRIX. Sec. 4 of the PD
abolishes all the mortgages and liens granted to them by Agrix.
Balacuit v. CFI
o An ordinance regulating ticket prices is invalid and is in violation of
the due process clause.
o The means used in this case were clearly unreasonable.
NEW SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS: PROTECTION FOR LIBERTY AND
PROPERTY
Olmstead v. US
o The SC held that wiretapped phone conversations are admissible
th
as evidence and is not in violation of the 4 Amendment since there
was no search of the person nor his property.
Skinner v. Oklahoma
o When a law lays an unequal hand on those who have committed
intrinsically the same quality of offense and sterilizes one and not
the other, it has made an offensive discrimination as if it had
selected a particular race for an oppressive treatment.
Griswold v. Connecticut
th
o A statute against the use of contraceptives violates the 14
amendment and ones right to privacy.
o The Connecticut statute seeks to achieve a goal of forbidding the
use of contraceptives by having a maximum destructive impact to
the relation of married couples.
o The government cannot allow the police to search the sacred
precincts of marital bedrooms to look for contraceptives.
Eisenstadt v. Baird
o The use of contraceptives is a personal choice and a statute that
bans and penalizes the use of such is in violation of the
Constitution.
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II DLSU COL ATTY. BUTCH JAMON
Roe v. Wade
th
o The right of privacy under the 14 amendment is broad enough to
encompass a womans decision regarding the termination of her
pregnancy.
1-3 months of pregnancy: The woman and physician are
free to terminate the pregnancy
4-6 months of pregnancy: Abortion can only happen
upon garnering a valid court order. This must be on the
ground of promoting the health of the mother.
7-9 months of pregnancy: The woman can no longer
terminate the pregnancy.
Bowers v. Hardwick
o Sodomy is not within the contemplation of the rights guaranteed by
the constitution. Doing such in the privacy of their homes does not
warrant any consideration.
Lawrence v. Texas
o Reversed the doctrine of Bowers v. Hardwick
o The Constitution grants homosexuals the right to choose their
relationships in the confines of their homes and remain with dignity
as free persons.
Board of Education v. Earls
o The random and mandatory drug testing in public schools is
constitutional. The state had a reasonable cause to order such and
it cannot disregard the public schools custodial responsibility for
children.
o The court ruled that it did not violate the childs right to privacy
because there was only minimal intrusion by the policy.
Ople v. Torres
o A national ID system is unconstitutional because it violates the
peoples right to privacy.
o Although the proposed system makes use of biometrics, the law
did not provide sufficient protection to ensure that ones right to
privacy will not be violated.
What information will be collected was not specifically
stated
Unknown who has the control and access over the data
collected
The information can be used against the person if not
guarded properly.
KMU v. NEDA
o A common ID system among the government offices under the
Office of the President is not in violation of the constitution. It
contains information that is already given by the employee and
such information is only kept for identification purposes.
Duncan Assoc v. Glaxo Welcome
o The clause prohibiting one to be involved in a relationship with
someone from a competitor company is not in violation of the
constitution.
TET VALEZA
o What the company seeks to avoid is a conflict of interest between
the employee and the company that may arise out of such
relationship. The company has the right to guard its trade secrets
and other confidential information from its competitors.
PROTECTED INTERESTS IN PROPERTY
Const. Art. III, Sec. 9
Private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation.
Churchill v. Rafferty
o The regulation of billboards and their restriction is not as much a
regulation of private property as it is a regulation of the use of the
streets and other public thoroughfares.
o The classification of the billboard as a nuisance per se and its
removal was a valid exercise of police power.
US v. Toribio
o Rights of property are subject to such reasonable limitations in their
enjoyment as shall prevent them from being injurious, and to such
reasonable restraints and regulations established by law, as the
legislature, under the governing and controlling power vested in
them by the constitution, may think necessary and expedient.
o The statute was considered to be for the general welfare of the
citizens and is thus a valid exercise of eminent domain.
People v. Fajardo
o An ordinance which permanently so restricts the use of property
that it cannot be used for any reasonable purpose must be
recognized as a taking of the property and if there is no just
compensation, it must be struck down as invalid.
o The ordinance gives the mayor absolute discretion to issue permits
without setting standards, purpose, conditions etc for the issuance
of such.
Ynot v. CA
o EO 626-A is unconstitutional since it authorized the confiscation of
carabaos without proper trial.
o The original intent of EO 626 before it was amended was to prohibit
the slaughter of carabaos except under special conditions. There
is no relation between the transportation of carabaos and the
prevention of their slaughter.
US v. Causby
o There can be taking of property without physical intrusion if it can
be proven that it resulted to total or partial loss of the property. It
can also be said that there is taking of property when the use of
airspace immediately above the land would limit the utility of the
land diminution of its value.
Republic v. PLDT
o For there to be just compensation, it must ce shown that one party
is burdened by the usage of his property by a different party. In this
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II DLSU COL ATTY. BUTCH JAMON
case, there was no showing that PLDT was so burdened by the
Bureaus usage of its facilities.
Republic v. Castellvi
o Taking of property starts upon the filing of complaint for eminent
domain.
o Requisites for taking under eminent domain:
Expropriator entered private property
Entry to property is for an indefinite period
Entry was under warrant or color of authority
Devoted to public use
Owner of the property is deprived of all beneficial
enjoyment of the property
Bel-Air Associaltion v. IAC
o The gate is a public nuisance because it hinders the use of property
and causes heavier traffic. The demolition by the mayor of Makati
was a valid exercise of police power. Since it was not an exercise
of eminent domain, there should be no just compensation.
EPZA v. Dulay
o Just compensation is the fair and full equivalent for the loss of
property sustained by the owner. The owner of the property is
entitled to recover from the expropriating authority the fair and full
value of the lot, from the time of it was actually taken, plus
damages.
o The determination of just compensation for property taken is a
judicial function. The court appoints commissioners to determine
just compensation because the owner of the property expropriates
is entitled to recover from the expropriating authority.
NPC v. CA
o The value of just compensation is the value lost at the actual taking,
not the projected value of the property.
De Knecht v. Bautista
o Government may not capriciously or arbitrarily choose what private
property should be taken.
o When there is expropriation by another government or municipal
corporation, the court can come in and enforce its provisions as to:
Adequacy of compensation
Necessity of taking
Public use character of the purpose
o There was a social impact factor which the court heavily relied on
to decide that the extension of EDSA should not be done over the
said property.
Republic v. De Knecht
o Former decision does not bar the legislature to make its
independent assessment of the circumstances and propriety of
undertaking expropriation.
o The social impact factor in the previous case was no longer
present.
TET VALEZA
Manotok v. NHA
o Notice and the opportunity to be heard should be given to protect
property rights.
o The expropriating authority must show the reason why eminent
domain is necessary. Such was not done in this case.
Ermita Malate Hotel and Morel Operations v. City of Manila
o The ordinance in question is constitutional since its purpose is to
minimize practices hurtful to public morals and the means done to
further the purpose were legal.
o There is a correspondence between the undeniable existence of
an undesirable situation and the legislative attempt at correction.
Association of Small Landowners v. Sec.
o CARP is both police power and eminent domain
Police power: Merely prescribes retention limits for
landowners
Eminent domain: Necessary to carry it out is to deprive
owners of whatever lands they may own in excess of the
maximum amount allowed
Luz Farms v. Secretary
o RA 6657 should not include commercial livestock, poultry and
swine in the definition of commercial farms
Cariday v. CA
o The restriction is valid because it avoids overcrowding in the
houses and the subdivision. It is one of the means that ensures the
effective sanitation and security of the subdivision.
EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE
Const. Art. III Sec. 1
No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of
law, nor shall any person be deprived of equal protection of the law.
Const. Art. II Sec. 14
The State recognizes the role of women in nation-building, and shall ensure
the fundamental equality before the law of women and men.
Const. Art. II Sec. 22
The State recognizes and promotes the rights of indigenous cultural
communities within the framework of national unity and development.
- Equal protection of the law guarantees legal equality of all before the law
- Rest on reasonable classifications:
o Must rest on substantial distinctions
o Must be germane to the purpose of the law
o Must not be limited to existing conditions only
o Must apply equally to all members of the same class
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II DLSU COL ATTY. BUTCH JAMON
Ichong v. Hernandez
o The equal protection clause does not demand absolute equality
among residents. It merely requires that all persons shall be treated
alike, under like circumstances and conditions both as to privileges
conferred and liabilities enforced.
Korematsu V. US
o A compelling state interest is a valid reason to pass a law that
deprives certain people of a number of rights.
o In this case, the US Government was suppressing the possibility of
espionage of Americans with Japanese descent.
Plessy v. Ferguson
o A statute that allows the segregation of whites and blacks is valid
following the doctrine of separate but equal as there was no
oppression involved.
Brown v. Board of Education
o Reversed Plessy Decision
o A statute that allows the segregation of whites and blacks is
unconstitutional and violates the Equal Protection clause.
o Segregation of races causes psychological turmoil.
University of California v. Bakke
o The creation of a quota system for admission based on the color of
ones skin is unconstitutional and in violation of the equal protection
clause.
Gratz v. Bollinger
o The color of ones skin should not be the lone or decisive factor for
educational admission.
Bradwell v. Illinois
o Women were disqualified from the practice of law because it was
held that the practice of law is a privilege which belongs to a citizen
of the US.
o Women were believed to be prone to corruption.
Goesart v. Cleary
o Preventive measures are not in themselves violations of the equal
protection clause.
Geduldig v. Aiello
o An insurance system that allows distinction to those who are
benefited is constitutional. The insurer has the choice as to who it
can award the insurance.
Mississippi Univ. School for Women v. Hogan
o A school that only offers admission to a school only to females is in
violation of the equal protection clause.
Michael M. v. Superior Court
o The provision for statutory rape that punishes only men is not in
violation of the equal protection clause.
o The effect of pregnancy of the victim of statutory rape is too grave
and the woman should be given ample protection.
TET VALEZA
Personnel Administrator v. Feeney
o Veterans statute is deemed valid. There was no discrimination as
to gender, and a veteran can be either female or male.
o It was just a consequence that there are more male veterans than
female veterans.
Yick Wo v. Hopkins
o The guarantees of equal protection are universal in their application
to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction, without regard to any
differences of race, of color, or of nationality; and the equal
protection of the laws is a pledge of the protection of equal laws
Fragante v. City and County of Honolulu
o An adverse employment decision may be predicated upon an
individuals accent when it interferes materially with job
performance
International School Alliance v. Quisimbing
o There is no evidence in a difference of workload nor of
performance, so the presumption is that all the employees are
performing at equal levels. There is no evidence of the foreign hires
being 25% more efficient.
Board of Directors v. Rotary Club
o A statute that requires California Rotary Clubs to admit women
members does not violate the First Amendment. Women members
would not prevent the club from carrying out its purposes.
Boy Scouts of America v. Dale
o The freedom of association presupposes the freedom not to
associate
o Forcing a group to accept certain members may impair the ability
of the group to express the only views it intends to express
Goodridge v. Department of Public Health
o Same sex couples have the right to marry.
o Licenses previously issued stay valid.
Tecson v. COMELEC
o The distinction between legitimate children and illegitimate children
rests on real defferences. But real differences alone do not justify
invidious distinction.
o If FPJ would be disqualified, it would violate the equal protection
clause twice. Illegitimate v. legitimate and illegitimate child of
Filipino father v. illegitimate child of Filipino mother.
FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION
Const. Art. III Sec. 4
No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or of
the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government
for redress of grievances.
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II DLSU COL ATTY. BUTCH JAMON
PRIOR RESTRAINT
- Official government restrictions on the press or other forms of expression in
advance of actual publication or dissemination like licensing or censorship.
Near v. Minnesota
o A statute authorizing restraint before publication is unconstitutional.
New York Times v. US
o Since publication would not cause an inevitable, direct and
immediate event imperiling the safety of American forces, prior
restraint was unjustified
Freedman v. Maryland
o The administration of a censorship system for motion pictures
presents peculiar dangers to constitutionally protected speech.
o A censorship proceeding puts the initial burden on the exhibitor or
distributor
Exceptions to Prior Restraint:
1. When a nation is at war -> Publication which may obstruct government
recruitment
2. Publication of obscene materials
3. Materials inciting to acts of violence to overthrow the government
Standard for Censorship to be Valid:
1. The burden of proving that the film is unprotected expression must rest on the
censor.
2. While the State may require advance submission of films, in order to proceed
effectively to bar all showings of unprotected films, the requirement cannot be
administered in a manner which would lead an effect of finality to the censors
determination whether a film constitutes a protected expression.
3. The procedure must also assure a prompt final judicial decision to minimize
the deterrent effect of an interim and possibly erroneous denial of a license.
SUBSEQUENT PUNISHMENT
- Limits to the power of the government to impose rules or regulations
penalizing the exercise of the right of freedom of expression
People v. Perez
o Criticism is permitted to penetrate even to the foundations of
Government. Criticism, no matter how severe is within the range of
liberty of speech unless the intention and effect be seditious.
o If the intention is seditious, the constitutional guaranties and
freedom of speech and press and of assembly and petition must
yield to punitive measures designed to maintain the prestige of
constituted authority, the supremacy of the Constitution and the
laws, and the existence of the State.
Dennis v. US
o The question in every case is WON the words used in such
circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and
TET VALEZA
present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that
Congress has a right to prevent.
Abrams v. US
o Men must be held to have intended, and to be accountable for, the
effects which their acts were likely to have produced. The possible
effect of their acts was the defeat of the US War Program.
Eastern Broadcasting v. Dans
o All forms of media are entitled to freedom of speech as long as they
pass the clear and present danger rule.
3 Tests for Subsequent Punishment:
1. Dangerous Tendency Rule
o There must be a rational connection between the speech and evil
apprehended
2. Clear and Present Danger Rule
o The court must inquire whether in each case the gravity of the evil,
discounted by its improbability, justifies an invasion of free speech
to avoid danger.
3. Balancing of Interest
o It is the courts function to balance public interest and the freedoms
affected by it, and to arrive at a judgment where the greater weight
shall be placed.
SPEECH PLUS: SYMBOLIC SPEECH
US v. OBrien
o When speech and non-speech elements are combined, a
sufficiently important governmental interest in regulating the non-
speech element can justify incidental limitations on First
Amendment freedoms.
o Government regulation of time, space and manner is sufficiently
justified:
If it is within the constitutional powers of the Government
If it furthers an important or substantial governmental
interest
If the governmental interest is unrelated to the
suppression of free expression
If the incident restriction on alleged First Amendment
freedoms is no greater than is essential to the
furtherance of that interest
Tinker v. Des Moines School District
o In our system, undifferentiated fear or apprehension is not enough
to overcome the right to freedom of expression.
o There is no finding and showing that engaging in of the forbidden
conduct would materially and substantially interfere with the
requirements of appropriate discipline in the operation of the
school.
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II DLSU COL ATTY. BUTCH JAMON
ASSEMBLY AND PETITION
PBM Employees v. PBM
o The demonstration held by petitioners before Malacaang was
against alleged abuses of some Pasig policemen, not against their
employer. The demonstration was purely and completely an
exercise of their freedom of expression in general and of their right
of assembly and petition for redress of grievances.
Primicias v. Fugoso
o Applications are subject to reasonable discretion to determine
which areas to use to avoid confusion and minimize disorder.
Navarro v. Villegas
o Mayor possesses reasonable discretion to determine the streets or
public places to be used in order to secure convenient use thereof
and provide adequate and proper policing to minimize the risk of
disorder and maintain public safety and order.
JBL Reyes v. Bagatsing
o The general rule is that a permit should recognize the right of the
applicants to hold their assembly at a public place of their choice.
However, another place may be designated by the licensing
authority if it be shown that there is a clear and present danger.
Malabanan v. Ramento
o The applicants for a permit to hold an assembly should inform the
licensing authority of the date, the public place and the time when
it will take place. If it were a public place, only the consent of the
owner or the one entitled to legal possession is required.
Rules on Assembly and Petition:
1. Inform the licensing authority of the date, the public place where and the time
when it will take place;
2. Application filed ahead of time to enable public officials concerned to appraise
WON there are valid objections;
3. Must pass the clear and present danger test;
4. If the public authority believes that there is an imminent and grave danger of
substantial evil, applicants must be heard on the matter;
5. Decision must be transmitted at the earliest opportunity.
FREE SPEECH AND SUFFRAGE
Gonzalez v. COMELEC
o Even with such evils present, the clear and present danger doctrine
rightly viewed required not only should there be an occasion for the
imposition of such restriction but also that they be limited in scope.
Sanidad v. COMELEC
o Neither Art IX of the Consti nor Sec. 11 of RA 6646 can be
construed to mean that the COMELEC has been granted the right
to supervise and regulate the exercise by media practitioners
themselves of their right to expression during plebiscite periods.
TET VALEZA
National Press Club v. COMELEC
o The rights of free speech and free press are not unlimited rights for
they are not the only important and relevant values even in the most
democratic of policies, equality of opportunity to proffer oneself for
public office, without regard to the level of financial resources that
one may have at ones disposal is also an important value
Adiong v. COMELEC
o The posting of decals and stickers in mobile places like cars and
other moving vehicles does not endanger any substantial
government interest. There is no clear public interest threatened by
such activity so as to justify the curtailment of the cherished
citizens right of free speech and expression
USE OF PRIVATE PROPERTY AS A FORUM FOR OTHERS SPEECH
Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins
o As to a private owners right not to be forced by the State to use his
property as a forum for the speech of others, the shopping center
by choice of its owner is not limited to the personal use of appellants
or the owners themselves. It is a business establishment thats
open to the public.
DEFAMATORY SPEECH
Policarpio v. Manila Times
o To enjoy immunity, a publication containing derogatory information
must be not only true, but also fair, and it must be made in good
faith without any comments or remarks.
Lopez v. CA
o Criticism is justified in the interest of society and the maintenance
of good government. Liberty to comment on public affairs creates
a full discussion and public officers should not be onion skinned.
Newspapers have the legal right to have and express opinions on
legal questions.
New York Times v. Sullivan
o Criticism of their official conduct does not lose its constitutional
protection merely because it is effective criticism and hence
diminishes their official reputations. If neither factual error nor
defamatory content suffices to remove the constitutional shield
from from criticism of official conduct, the combination of the two
elements is no less inadequate.
Rosenbloom v. Metromedia
o Drawing a distinction between public and private figures makes no
sense in terms of the First Amendment guarantees. While the
argument that public figures need less protection because they can
command media attention to counter criticism may be true for some
very prominent people, even then it is the rare case where the
denial overtakes the original charge.
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II DLSU COL ATTY. BUTCH JAMON
Ayer Production v. Judge Capulong
o The right to privacy is not absolute. Allowable is a limited intrusion
where the person is a public figure and the information is of public
interest.
Soliven v. Hon. Makasiar
o The president is immune from suit, but if she institutes a case
herself, she is waiving such immunity.
MVRS v. Islamic Dawah Council
o Defamation is an invasion of a relational interest since it involves
the opinion which others in the community may have, or tend to
have, of the plaintiff. Words which are merely insulting are not
actionable as liber or slander per se, and mere words of general
abuse do not constitute a basis for an action for defamation in the
absence of an allegation for special damages.
US v. Bustos
o The guaranties of a free speech and a free press include the right
to criticize judicial conduct. The administration of the law is a
matter of vital public concern. Whether the law is wisely or badly
enforced is, therefore, a fit subject for proper comment. If the
people cannot criticize a justice of the peace or a judge the same
as any other public officer, public opinion will be effectively
muzzled.
FIGHTING WORDS, OFFENSIVE WORDS
Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire
o The word offensive is not to be defined in terms of what a particular
addresses thinks. The test is what men of common intelligence
would understand would be words likely to cause an average
addressee to fight.
Cohen v. California
o States are free to ban the simple use of so-called fighting words,
those personally abusive epithets which when addressed to the
ordinary citizen are as a matter of common knowledge, inherently
likely to provoke violent reaction.
OBSCENITY
Roth v. US
o All ideas having even the slightest redeeming social importance
have the full protection of the guaranties, unless excludable
because they encroach upon the limited area of more important
interests. But implicit in the history of the First Amendment is the
rejection of obscenity as utterly without redeeming social
importance.
Miller v. California
o Test for Obscenity:
Whether the average person, applying contemporary
community standards would find that the work, taken as
a whole, appeals to the prurient interest;
TET VALEZA
Whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently
offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the
applicable state law;
Whether the work, taken as a whole lacks serious
literary, artistic, political or scientific value
Gonzalez v. Kalaw-Katigbak
o Obscene material is that which deals with sex in a manner
appealing to prurient interest. What is seen or perceived by an
artist is entitled to respect, unless there is a showing that the
product of his talent rightfully may be considered obscene. This
ruling however, is limited to motion pictures. A less liberal
approach is given for television since everyone; including children
have easier access to television.
Pita v. CA
o Apply the doctrine in Miller v. California
DEFAMATION AND DISCRIMINATION
Reno v. ACLU
o The CDA lacks the precision that the First Amendment requires
when a statute regulates the content of speech. Although the
government has an interest in protecting children from potentially
harmful materials the CDA pursues that interest by suppressing a
large amount of speech that adults have a constitutional right to
send and receive.
Ashcroft v. ACLU
o COPAs reliance on community standards to identify material that
is harmful to minors does not by itself render that statute
substantially overbroad.
CHURCH AND STATE: THE WALL OF SEPARATION
Const Art II Sec. 6
The separation of Church and State shall be inviolable.
Const Art III Sec. 5
No law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting
the free exercise thereof. The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and
worship, without discrimination or preference, shall forever be allowed. No religious test
shall required for the exercise of civil or political rights
Const Art VI Sec. 29 Par 2
No public money or property shall be appropriated, applied, paid or employed,
directly or indirectly, for the use, benefit, or support of any sect, church, denomination,
sectarian institution, or system of religion, or of any priest, preacher, minister, or other
religious teacher or dignitary as such, except when such priest, preacher, minister or
dignitary is assigned to the armed forces, or to any penal institution, or government
orphanage or leprosarium.
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II DLSU COL ATTY. BUTCH JAMON
ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE
- Neither a state nor a federal government can set up a church, pass laws which
aid one religion or prefer one religion over another, nor can it openly or
secretly participate in the affairs of any religious organizations.
- Sets up a wall between the church and the state.
Aglipay v. Ruiz
o Religious freedom as a constitutional mandate is not inhibition of
profound reverence for religion and is not a denial of its influence
in human affairs.
o The propaganda resulting from the issuance and sale of the staff
might redound to the benefit of the Roman Catholic Church but this
was not the intention and is only incidental to the original purpose.
Garces v. Estenzo
o If there is nothing unconstitutional or illegal in holding a fiesta and
having a patron saint for the barrio, theny any activity intended to
facilitate the worship of the patron saint cannot be branded as
illegal.
o The ownership of the statue belongs to the barangay as private
funds were used to purchase it.
Lemon v. Kurtzman
o Government aid is allowable when:
There is a secular legislative purpose;
Must have a primary effect that neither advances nor
inhibits religion;
Must not require excessive entanglement with recipient
institution
Board of Education v. Allen
o The States interest in education would be served sufficiently by
reliance on the secular teaching that accompanied religious
training in the schools maintained by a religious order.
o If the State must satisfy its interest in secular education through the
instrument of private schools, it has a proper interest in the manner
in which those schools perform their secular educational function.
County of Allegheny v. ACLU
o Government use of religious symbolism is unconstitutional if it has
the effect of endorsing religious beliefs.
o Effect of the governments use of religious symbolism depends
upon its context
Lynch v. Donnely
o The city has a secular purpose for including the crche in its
Christmas display and has not impermissibly advance religion or
created an excessive entanglement between religion and
government.
Epperson v. Arkansas
o The Arkansas law cannot be defended as an act of religious
neutrality. Arkansas did not seek to excise from the curricula of its
schools and universities all discussion of the origin of man.
TET VALEZA
School Distrcit v. Schempp
o Public schools are organized on the premise that secular education
can be isolated from all religious teaching so that the school can
inculcate all needed temporal knowledge and also maintain strict
and lofty neutrality as to religion.
o The neutrality of which the Courts cases speak thus stem from the
recognition from history of the tendency of religious sects to fuse
governmental and religious functions or cause a concert of
dependence of one upon the other placing State support behind
the tenets of one or all orthodoxes.
Engel v. Vitale
o The constitutional prohibition against laws respecting an
establishment of religion must at least mean that in this country it
is no part of the business of government to compose official prayers
for any group of the American people to recite as a part of a
religious program carried on by government.
Zelman v. Simmons-Harris
o A government aid program is not readily subject to challenge under
the Establishment Clause if it is neutral with respect to religion and
provides assistance directly to a broad class of citizens who in turn
direct government aid to religious schools wholly as a result of their
own genuine and independent private choice.
Tilton v. Richardson
o The free establishment clause seeks to protect sponsorship,
financial support, and active involvement of the sovereign in
religious activity.
Velarde v. Society for Social Justice
o There is no factual allegation that SJS rights are being subjected
to any threatened, imminent and inevitable violation that should be
prevented by the declaratory relief sought.
FREE EXERCISE CLAUSE
1. Freedom to believe
o Compulsion of law the acceptance of any creed or the practice of
any form of worship.
2. Freedom to act on that belief
o Free exercise of the chosen religion
American Bible Society v. City of Manila
o The constitutional guaranty of the free exercise and enjoyment of
religious profession and worship carries with it the right to
disseminate religious information.
Gerona v. Secretary of Education
o Whenever a man enjoys the benefits of society and community life,
he becomes a member and must give up some of his rights for the
general welfare just like everybody else.
o The practice of religion is subject to reasonable and non-
discriminatory regulation by the state.
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II DLSU COL ATTY. BUTCH JAMON
Ebralinag v. Division Superintendent
o In the absence of a grave and present danger which is the sole
justification for a prior restraint on the exercise of religious freedom,
there is no warrant to justify their expulsion.
Pamil v. Teleron
o The religious freedom enshrined in the Bill of Rights simply
means that no public office may be denied to any person, by
reason of his religious belief, including his non-belief. When he
becomes an ecclesiastic, he becomes the official minister of his
church with distinct duties and responsibilities which may not be
always compatible with the posture of absolute indifference and
impartiality to all religious beliefs.
McDaniel v. Paty
o The right to the free exercise of religion unquestionably
encompasses the right to preach, proselyte, and perform other
similar religious functions, or, in other words, to be a minister of
the type McDaniel was found to be. Under the clergy-
disqualification provision, McDaniel cannot exercise both rights
simultaneously because the State has conditioned the exercise of
one on the surrender of the other.
German v. Barangan
o If the exercise of said religious belief clashes with the established
institutions of society and with the law, then the former must yield
and give way to the latter.
Cantwell v. Connecticut
o The constitutional inhibition on legislation on the subject of religion
has a doubt aspect:
It forestalls compulsion by law of the acceptance of any
creed or the practice of any form of worship.
It safeguards the free exercise of the chosen form of
religion.
Newdow v. US Congress
o The phrase under God in the Pledge of Allegiance is
unconstitutional as it fails the Lemon Test. See Lemon v. Kurtzman
Anucension v. NLU
o The right to religious freedom is above rights arising from contracts.
Iglesia Ni Cristo v. CA
o The freedom to act to one's belief is subject to regulation where
the belief is translated into external acts that affect the public
welfare. Therefore, the religious program is not beyond review by
the Board
Commonwealth v. Twitchell
o STP provides no complete protection to a parent against a charge
of involuntary manslaughter that is based on the parents wanton
or reckless failure to provide medical services to a child.
Estrada v. Escritor
o Benevolent neutrality recognizes the religious nature of the Filipino
people and the elevating influence of religion in society; at the same
TET VALEZA
time, it acknowledges that the government must pursue its secular
goals. In pursuing these goals, however, the government might
adopt laws or actions of general applicability, which inadvertently
burden religious exercise. It allows these breaches in the wall of
separation to uphold religious liberty, which after all is the integral
purpose of the religion clauses.
UNUSUAL RELIGIOUS BELIEFS AND PRACTICES
Wisconsin v. Yoder
o Respondents have amply supported their claim that enforcement
of the compulsory formal education requirement after the eighth
grade would gravely endanger if not destroy the free exercise of
their religious beliefs. Only the interest of the highest order and
those not otherwise served can overbalance legitimate claims to
the free exercise of religion.
US v. Ballard
o Amendment embraces two concepts: freedom to believe and
freedom to act. The first is absolute but, in the nature of things, the
second cannot be. Freedom of thought, which includes freedom of
religious belief, is basic in a society of free men.
US v. Seeger
o Conscientious Objector
Individual belief, rather than membership in a church or
sect, determined the duties that God imposed upon a
person in his everyday conduct; and that 'there is a
higher loyalty than loyalty to this country, loyalty to
God.' Thus, while shifting the test from membership in
such a church to one's individual belief the Congress
nevertheless continued its historic practice of excusing
from armed service those who believed that they owed
an obligation, superior to that due the state, of not
participating in war in any form.
Cassius Clay v. US
o Test to be classified as a conscientious objector:
1. The he is conscientiously opposed to war in any form;
2. That this opposition is based upon religious training and belief;
3. Objection is sincere
UNLAWFUL SEARCHES AND SEIZURES
Const Art. III Sec. 2
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and
effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any
purpose shall be inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except
upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after examination under
oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and
particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II DLSU COL ATTY. BUTCH JAMON

David v. Macapagal 5. Customs searches;
o Warrantless searches and seizures are valid under a state of 6. Stop and frisk;
emergency 7. Exigent and emergency circumstances;
Katz v. US 8. Suspicionless drug tests
o Conversations done inside a phone booth are protected
communication. Valid Warrantless Arrests:
o Cannot be considered as a valid warrantless search. 1. In flagrante delicto;
Papa v. Mago 2. When an offense has in fact been committed and the police officer has
o BOC acquires exclusive jurisdiction over imported goods, for the personal knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be arrested has
purposes of enforcement of customs laws, from the moment the committed it;
goods are actually in possession or control. 3. Criminal in hot pursuit.
People v. Marti
o Section 2 is protection against unlawful searches by the ACADEMIC FREEDOM
government and its agencies and does not protect citizens from
unlawful searches and seizures by private individuals. Const Art. XIV Sec. 1
Stonehill v. Diokno The State shall promote the right of all citizens to quality education at all levels
o The legality of a seizure can be contested only by the party whose and shall take appropriate steps to make such education accessible to all.
rights have been impaired thereby, and that the objection to an
unlawful search and seizure is purely personal and cannot be Const Art. XIV Sec. 5 Par 5
availed of by third parties. The State shall assign the highest budgetary priority to education and ensure
Terry v. Ohio that teaching will attract and retain its rightful share of the best available talents through
o The prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures is not adequate remuneration and other means of job satisfaction and fulfillment.
violated when a police offices stops a suspect on the street and
searches him without probable cause to arrest, if the police officer Garcia v. Faculty Admission Committee
has a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is o Academic Freedom consists of the ff:
committing, or is about to commit a crime. What to teach
o Requisites: Who to teach
Police officer observes unusual conduct; Who may be taught
Reasonable suspicion that the person is engaged in How to teach
some type of criminal activity; Isabelo v. Perpetual Help
Identifies himself as a policeman upon approach; o The contract between student and school is not one that is only on
Makes reasonable inquiries; a semestral basis, but the student has a right to be enrolled for the
Reasonable fear for his own or others safety. entire period in order to complete his course.
Aniag v. COMELEC Reyes v. CA
o Aside from a search incident to a lawful arrest, a warrantless search o Under the UP Charter, the power to fix admission requirements is
had been upheld in cases of moving vehicles and the seizure of vested in the University Council of the autonomous campus. The
evidence in plain view, as well as the search conducted at police or UC has the final say in admission requirements provided that they
military checkpoint. conform with law, rules and regulations of the university.
o The warrantless search is not violative of the Constitution for as UP v. CA
long as the vehicle is neither searched nor its occupants subjected o UPs intervention did not hold any weight as there were insufficient
to a body search, and the inspection of the vehicle is merely limited allegations in the complaint.
to a visual search. DECS v. San Diego
o The right to quality education invoked by the private respondent is
Valid Warrantless Searches: not absolute. The Constitution also provides that every citizen has
1. Incidental to a lawful arrest; the right to choose a profession of course of study, subject to fair,
2. Plain view; reasonable and equitable admission and academic requirements
3. Moving vehicle; Tablarin v. Gutierrez
4. Consented warrantless search; o The three flunk rule is a valid exercise of police power.

TET VALEZA
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II DLSU COL ATTY. BUTCH JAMON
o NMAT is constitutional and is a measure intended to limit the
admission to medical schools only to those who have initially
proved their competence and preparation for a medical education.
NON-IMPAIRMENT OF OBLIGATIONS OF CONTRACTS
Const. Art. III Sec. 10
No law impairing the obligation of contracts shall be passed.
Civil Code Art. 1306
When does the law impair obligations of contracts?
- If it changes the terms and conditions of a legal contract whether as to the
time or mode of performance
- If it imposes new conditions or dispenses with those expressed
- If it authorizes for its satisfaction something different from that provided in its
terms
Home Builders and Loan Association v. Blaisdell; Rutter v. Esteban
o A mere change in procedural remedies which does not change the
substance of the contract and which still leaves a remedy for
enforcement does not impair obligations of contracts.
Ortigas v. Feati
o Municipal resolution like a zoning regulations is a measure of police
power which the municipality has the power to pass.
Juarez v. CA
o A law providing new grounds for the ejectment of tenants cannot
be applied retroactively to existing contracts but is deemed to be
read into the contracts when the lease is renewed.
Caleon v. Agus Development
o It must be remembered that the social justice cannot be invoked to
trample on the rights of the property owner, who under our
constitution and laws are also entitled to protection. The social
justice consecrated in our constitution was not intended to take
away the rights from a person to give them to another who is not
entitled thereto.
INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE
Const. Art. III Sec. 18 Par. 2
No involuntary servitude in any form shall exist except as a punishment for a
crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted.
Exceptions:
1. If such is punishment where the party is convicted
2. In the interest of national defense, citizens may be compelled to render
personal military or civil service
3. A return to work order
4. Merchants and marines compelled to remain until the end of voyage
TET VALEZA
5. Posse Comitatus A male at a certain age may be validly pressed into service
for the apprehension of criminals through legitimate exercise of police power
6. Parental authority
Rubi v. Provincial Board
o Slavery and involuntary servitude denote a condition of enforced,
compulsory service of one to another. In the reservation, the
Manguianes are working for no other but for themselves.
Kaisahan v. Gotamco
o It cannot be involuntary servitude if a person voluntarily contracts
employment.
IMPRISONMENT FOR NON-PAYMENT OF DEBT
Const. Art. III Sec. 20
No person shall be imprisoned for debt or non-payment of poll tax.
Lozano v. Martinez
RIGHT AGAINST SELF INCRIMINATION
US v. Navarro
o A penal law that provides for a higher penalty against the accused
who refuses to testify or make statements that would be tantamount
to an admission of guilt violates the right against self-incrimination.
The accuseds silence cannot be taken against him.
Villaflor v. Summers
o What is prohibited by the constitutional guarantee is the use of
physical or moral compulsion to extort communication from the
witness, not an inclusion of his body. Substance emitting from the
body of the defendant can be received as evidence.
People v. Vallejo
o The presence of a lawyer is not intended to stop an accused from
saying anything which might incriminate him. It was adopted in our
Constitution to preclude the slightest coercion as would lead the
accused to admit something false.
Beltran v. Samson
o Writing is not a purely mechanical act because it requires the
application of intelligence and attention and therefore constitutes
evidence against the accused.
Cabal v. Kapunan
o Compelling the accused in an anti-graft proceeding to take the
stand for the prosecution against him and against his will is a
violation of his right against self-incrimination.
Bengzon v. Senate Blue Ribbon Committee
o One of the basic rights guaranteed by the Constitution to an
individual is the right against self incrimination. This right
construed as the right to remain completely silent may be availed
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II DLSU COL ATTY. BUTCH JAMON

of by the accused in a criminal case and may be invoked by other WHO ARE SUBJECT TO CONSTITUTIONAL PROHIBITIONS
witnesses as questions are asked to them. Borjal v. CA
Galman v. Pamaran o It is essential in a libel suit that the victim be identifiable although it
o The right not to be compelled to be a witness against himself may is not necessary that he be named. It is also not sufficient that the
be invoked not only in criminal proceedings, but also in all other offended party recognized himself as the person attacked but it
types of suits, including forfeiture cases. must be shown that at least a third person could identify hi as the
o Should a person be compelled to be a witness against himself, that object of the libelous publication.
person should be provided with immunity.
Immunity from using the testimony and its fruits in any
manner in connection with the criminal prosecution
Immunity from prosecution for an offense to which his
testimony relates

WHO ARE ENTITLED TO CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION

Board of Commissioners (CID) v. Dela Rosa et al
o Commissioner of Immigration cannot issue warrants of arrest in aid
merely of his investigatory power. However, he may order the
arrest of an alien in order to carry out a deportation order that has
already become final.
Qua Chee Gan v. Deportation Board
o EO 398 insofar as it empowers the Deportation Board to issue
warrant of arrest upon the filing of formal charges against an alien
or aliens and to fix bond and prescribe the conditions for the
temporary release of said aliens is declared illegal.
Harvey v. Defensor-Santiago
o Under the circumstances, the CID agents had reasonable ground
to believe that petitioners had committed pedophilia.
Yu v. Defensor-Santiago
o A naturalized Filipino who continues to declare Portugese
citizenship in commercial documents and subsequently obtains a
Portugese passport is deemed to have expressly renounced his
Philippine citizenship by continuing to represent himself as an alien.
Labo v. COMELEC
o The doctrine of res judicata does not apply to citizenship.
Aznar v. COMELEC
o Philippine Courts are only allowed to determine who are Filipino
citizens.
o By virtue of being the son of a Filipino father, the presumption that
private respondent is a Filipino remains.
Central Bank v. Morfe
o The failure of the witness to mention particular individuals does not
necessarily prove that he had no personal knowledge of specific
illegal transactions of the organization, for the witness might be
acquainted with specific transactions, even if the names of the
individuals concerned were unknown to him.

TET VALEZA