UNIVERSITY OF NEGROS OCCIDENTAL-RECOLETOS

SCHOOL OF LAW
unorlawschl@gmail.com
COURSE TITLE : CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II
COURSE CODE : CONLAW230
COURSE CREDIT : THREE (3) UNITS
COURSE TERM : Second Semester, 2019 -2020
PROFESSOR : Dean JOHN PAOLO A. VILLASOR
COURSE SCHEDULE : Tuesdays, 5:30-8:30 p.m. @SA101
COURSE TEXTBOOK :AGPALO, R. Philippine Constitutional Law (2006 Ed.); Bernas, J. The 1987
Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines: A commentary (2009 Ed.)
CASEBOOK : BERNAS, J. Constitutional Rights and Social Demands Part II (2010 Ed.)
REFERENCE BOOKS : CRUZ, I. Philippine Political Law (2002 Ed.); SINCO, V.G. Philippine Constitutional
Law (1949 Ed.); SINCO V.G. Philippine Government and Political Law (4th Ed., 1936)
COURSE DESCRIPTION: A comprehensive study of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and judicial review by the
courts of act affecting individual rights against the coercive power of the state.

The only real security for social well-being is the free exercise of men’s minds.

- Harold Joseph Laski, Professor of Government at the London School of Economics

and Member of the British Labour Party, in his book Authority in the Modern State
(1919).

COURSE SYLLABUS

PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS

THE BILL OF RIGHTS: CONCEPT AND PURPOSE

Philippine Blooming Mills Employees Organization v. Philippine Blooming Mills, 51 SCRA 189 (1973)
Simon v. Commission on Human Rights, 229 SCRA 117 (1994)
Republic v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 104768, July 21, 2003

Alston, Philip. PROMOTION AND PROTECTION OF ALL HUMAN RIGHTS, CIVIL, POLITICAL, ECONOMIC,
SOCIAL AND CULTURAL RIGHTS, INCLUDING THE RIGHT TO DEVELOPMENT: Report of the Special
Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions (Mission to the Philippines), 12-21 February 2007.

THE CONSTITUTION OF LIBERTY:

BILL OF RIGHTS IN ACTION

I. THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE

CONST., Art. III, §1

Due Process in General

Metro Manila Development Authority v. Bel-Air Village Association, 328 SCRA 836 (2000)
Metro Manila Development Authority v. Garin, 456 SCRA 176 (2005)
Corona v. United Harbor Pilots, 283 SCRA 31 (1997)
Army & Navy Club v. Court of Appeals, 271 SCRA 36 (1997)
Acebedo Optical Company v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 100152, March 31, 2000
Secretary of Justice v. Judge Lantion, G.R. No. 139465, 343 SCRA 377 (2000)
Summary Dismissal Board v. Torcita, 330 SCRA 153 (2000)
Lanzetta v. State of New Jersey, 306 U.S. 451 (1939)
People v. De la Piedra, G.R. No. 121777, January 24, 2001
Estrada v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 148560, November 19, 2001
Jose “Jinggoy” Estrada v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 148965, February 26, 2002
Gonzales v. National Labor Relations Commissions (NLRC) & Ateneo de Davao, G.R. No. 125735, August 26, 1999
Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507 (2004)

Legal Article:
Karst, Kenneth L. The Liberties of Equal Citizens: Groups and the Due Process Clause, 55 UCLA L. REV. 99 (2007)

Procedural Due Process

Constitutional Due Process

Dartmouth College v. Woodward, 17 U.S. 518 (1819)

Administrative Due Process

Ang Tibay v. Court of Industrial Relations, 69 Phil. 635 (1940); per Laurel, J., fot the Court.
Zambales Chromite v. Court of Appeals, 94 SCRA 261 (1979)
 2

Anzaldo v. Clave, 1419 SCRA 353 (1982)

Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976)

Contra Statutory Due Process

Agabon v. National Labor Relations Commission, 442 SCRA 573 (2004); per Ynares-Santiago, J. for the Court
JAKA Food Processing Corporation v. Paacot, 454 SCRA 119 (2005)

Substantive Due Process

Traditional Approach to Substantive Due Process qua Constitutional Protection on Property Interests

Modern Approach to Substantive Due Process qua Constitutional Protection on Privacy Interests

Watkins v. United States, 354 U.S. 178 (1957)

Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965)
Ople v. Torres, 293 SCRA 141 (1997) (Constitutionality of Admin. Order No. 308); per Puno, J. for the Court.

Compare KMU v. Director-General of the NEDA and DBM Secretary, G.R. No. 167798, April 19, 2006; Bayan
Muna v. Executive Secretary, G.R. 167930, April 19, 2006 (Constitutionality of Exec. Order No. 420) (See Ynares-
Santiago, J., dissenting)

Whalen v. Roe, 429 U.S. 589 (1977)

Justice Department v. Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, 489 U.S. 749 (1989)
Pollo v. Constantino-David, 659 SCRA 189 (2011)
Spouses Imbong v. Ochoa, G.R. No. 204819, 08 April 2014
Vivares v. St. Theresa’s College, G.R. No. 202666, 29 September 2014

Legal Articles:
Warren and Brandeis, The Right to Privacy, 4 Harv. L. Rev. 193 (1890)
L.D. Lopez, The Right to Privacy in Inquiries in Aid of Legislation, 78 PHIL. L. J. 162 (2003)
M.P.T. Sison III, The Self as Information: The Global Limitations of the Right to Privacy, 84 PHIL. L. J. 687
(2010)

Ynot v. Intermediate Appellate Court, 148 SCRA 659 (1987)

Acebedo v. Court of Appeals, 329 SCRA 314 (2000)
Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003)
Ermita-Malate Hotel and Motel Operators v. City of Manila, 20 SCRA 849 (1967)
City of Manila v. Judge Laguio, 455 SCRA 308 (2005)
White Light Corporation v. City of Manila, 576 SCRA 416 (2009)

II. THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE

CONST., Art. III, §1

See also Id. at Art. II, §§14 & 22, Art. IV, Art. XII, §§2 & 14 (2)

Legal Article:
Defensor-Santiago, The “New” Equal Protection, 58 PHIL. L.J. (1983)

Frontiero v. Richardson, 411 U.S. 677 (1973)

Tiu v. Court of Appeals, 301 SCRA 278 (1999)
De Guzman, Jr. v. Commission on Elections, 336 SCRA 188 (2000)
Philippine Telegraph & Telephone Company v. NLRC, 272 SCRA 596 (1997)
International Alliance of Educators v. Quisumbing, 333 SCRA 13 (2000)
Quinto and Tolentino v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 189698, 22 February 2010; per Puno, C.J. for the Court
Ang Ladlad v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 190582, 08 April 2010
Biraogo v. The Philippine Truth Commission of 2010, G.R. No. 192935, 07 December 2010; See Sereno, J.,
dissenting.

III. THE RIGHT AGAINST UNREASONABLE SEARCHES AND SEIZURES

CONST., Art. III, §2

Search in General
Roan v. Gonzales, G.R. No. 71410, 25 November 1986, 145 SCRA 687 (1986)

Electronic searches
See dissenting opinion of Brandeis, J. in Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438 (1928)
Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967)
Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27 (2001)
United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 10 (2012) per Scalia, J.; See also Alito and Sotomayor, JJ., concurring

Cybercrime Law
Disini v. Secretary of Justice, G.R. No. 203335, 11 February 2014 (main decision by Abad, J.). Read also the
concurring and dissenting opinion by Sereno, C.J., the concurring and dissenting opinion by Carpio, J., and the
dissenting and concurring opinion by Leonen, J.

John Doe Warrant

People v. Veloso, 48 Phil 169 (1925)

Probable Cause
Stonehill v. Diokno, G.R. No. 19550, 19 June 1967, 20 SCRA 383
 3

Columbia Pictures v. Court of Appeals, 26 SCRA 144 (1996)

Description
People v. Court of Appeals, 291 SCRA 400 (1998)
People v. Tee, 395 SCRA 419 (2003)

Bank Secrecy
Marquez v. Desierto, 359 SCRA 772 (2001)

Search of Moving Vehicles

Caballes v. Court of Appeals, 373 SCRA 221 (2002)
Obra v. Court of Appeals, 367 SCRA 594 (1999)

Plain View Doctrine

People v. Compacion, 361 SCRA 540 (2001)
People v. Valdez, 341 SCRA 25 (2000)

Checkpoints
People v. Escaño, G.R. Nos. 129756-58, January 28, 2000
Valmonte v. de Villa, 185 SCRA 665 (1989)
People v. Suzuki, 414 SCRA 43 (2003)
People v. Canton, 394 SCRA 478 (2002)

Exigent Circumstances
People v. De Gracia, 233 SCRA 716 (1994)
Board of Education v. Earls, 536 U.S. 822 (2002)
People v. Aruta, 288 SCRA 626 (1998)

Arrests
Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 (1969)
United States v. Robinson, 414 U.S. 218 (1973)
People v. Bolasa, 321 SCRA 459 (1999)
People v. Escordial, 373 SCRA 585 (2002)
People v. Jason, 282 SCRA 166 (1997)
People v. Salvatierra, 276 SCRA 77 (1997)
People v. Hernandez, 282 SCRA 387 (1997)

Entrapment
People v. Doria, 301 SCRA 668 (1999)

Stop & Frisk; The Terry patdown

Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968)
Malacat v. Court of Appeals, 283 SCRA 159 (1997)
People v. Chua, 396 SCRA 657 (2003)

Legal Articles:
Mendoza, V.V. Reflections on the Constitutional Law of Arrest, Search and Seizure, 63 Phil. L. J. 223 (1988)
Malilong, I.R.P. and Santos, M.A. Fruits of the Poisonous Tree? A Discussion on the Constitutionality of Civil Search
and Seizure, 79 PHIL. L.J. 709 (2004)
Kerr, O.S. Searches and Seizures in a Digital World, 119 Harv. L. Rev. 531 (2005)
Hutchins, R.M. tied Up in Knotts? GPS Technology and the Fourth Amendment, 55 UCLA L. REV. 409 (2007)

Legal Notes:
Ziff, D.J.S. Fourth Amendment Limitations on the Execution of Computer Searches Conducted Pursuant to a
Warrant, 105 Colum. L. Rev. 841 (2005)
The Fourth Amendment’s Third Way, 120 Harv. L. Rev. 1627 (2007)

THE EXCLUSIONARY RULE

Fruit of the Poisonous Tree

Nardone v. United States, 308 U.S. 338 (1939)
People v. Eglipa, 174 SCRA 1 (1989)
People v. Fabro, 227 SCRA 19 (1997)
People v. Basay, 219 SCRA 404 (1993)
People v. Alicando, 251 SCRA 293 (1995)
People v. Gomez, 270 SCRA 432 (1997)

IV. PRIVACY OF COMMUNICATION AND CORRESPONDENCE

CONSTI., Art. III, §3

Gaanan v. Intermediate Appellate Court, 145 SCRA 112 (1989)
Ex Parte Jackson, 96 U.S. 727 (1877)
People v. Matti, 193 SCRA 57 (1991)

V. FREEDOM OF SPEECH, OF EXPRESSION AND OF THE PRESS

I may not totally agree with what you write, but I shall fight to the death for your right to continue writing it.

- Attributed to Voltaire

CONST ., Art. III, §4

 4

Freedom of expression
ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation v. COMELEC, 323 SCRA 811 (2000)
Social Weather Station v. COMELEC, 354 SCRA 496 (2001)
Re: Request Radio-TV Coverage of the Trial in the Sandiganbayan of the Plunder Cases against the former
President Joseph E. Estrada, 360 SCRA 248 (2001)
United States v. O’Brien, 391 U.S. 367 (1968)
Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corporation v. Public Service Commission of New York, 447 U.S. 557 (1980)
In re: Emil Jurado, 243 SCRA 299 (1995)
Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U.S. 844 (1997)
Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, 535 U.S. 234 (2002)
United States, et al. v. American Library Association, Inc., et al., 539 U.S. 194 (2003)
United States v. Grace, 461 U.S. 171 (1983)
In re: Petition to Annul 98-7-02 SC, (Resolution En Banc), 296 SCRA xi (1998)

Diocese of Bacolod v. Comelec, G.R. No. 205728, 21 January 2015

GMA Network, Inc. v. Comelec, G.R. No. 205357, 02 September 2014

Protected Speech

Legal Article:
Khaldoun, S. Speech Restraints for Converged Media, 52 UCLA L. REV. 333 (2004)

Legal Essay:
White, J.B. Free Speech and Valuable Speech: Silence, Dante, and the “Marketplace of Ideas,”51 UCLA L. REV.
799 (2004)

Prior Restraint
Near v. Minnesota, 283 U.S. 697 (1931)
New York Times Co. v. United States, 493 U.S. 713 (1971)

Libel; Public Official

New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964)

Freedman v. Maryland, 380 U.S. 51 (1965)

Chavez v. Gonzales, G.R. No. 168338, February 15, 2008; per Puno, C.J. for the Court.

Group Libel
MVRS Publications v. Islamic Da’wah Council of the Philippines, 396 SCRA 210 (2003)
Newsweek v. Intermediate Appelate Court, 142 SCRA 171 (1986)

Public Figure Doctrine

Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323 (1974)
Dun & Bradstreet, Inc. v. Greenmoss Builders, 472 U.S. 749 (1985)
Borjal v. Court of Appeals, 301 SCRA 1 (1999)

Political Speech
Abrams v. United States, 250 U.S. 616 (1919); See Holmes and Brandeis, JJ., dissenting
Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652 (1925); see Holmes, J., dissenting
Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 (1927)

Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438 (1928); See Brandeis, J., dissenting; Holmes, J., separate
opinion
Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919); per Holmes, J., for the Court.
Dennis v. United States, 341 U.S. 494 (1951); See Black and Douglas, JJ., dissenting.

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310 (2010)

Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, 561 U.S. 1 (2010)
Snyder v. Phelps, 562 U.S. 443 (2011)

Protection of dangerous speech

Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969).
N.B. Brandenburg overruled Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 (1927). But see Brandeis, J.,
Concurring, joined by Holmes, J. in Whitney.

Symbolic speech
United States v. O’Brien, 391 U.S. 367 (1968)
Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989)

Unprotected Speech

Defamatory Speech
Policarpio v. Manila Times, 5 SCRA 148 (1962)
Lopez v. Court of Appeals, 34 SCRA 116 (1970)
New York Times v. Sullivan, supra
Rosenbloom v. Metromedia, 403 U.S. 29 (1971)
Ayer Production v. Judge Capulong, 160 SCRA 86 (1988)
Beltran v. Hon. Makasiar, 167 SCRA 293 (1988)

“Fighting Words” (Personally Abusive Epithets)

Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568 (1942)
 5

Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15 (1971)

Obscenity

Legal Article:
Gonzalez, G.M. The Public Interest v. The “Prurient Interest”; Obscenity in the Movies, 58 PHIL. L.
J. 88 (1983)

Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973)

Roth v. United State, 354 U.S. 476 (1957)
Gonzalez v. Kalaw Katigbak, 137 SCRA 717 (1985)
Pita v. Court of Appeals, 178 SCRA 362 (1989)
Hustler Magazine v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46 (1988)

VI. ACADEMIC FREEDOM

CONST., Art. XIV

Legal Articles:
Byrne, Academic Freedom: A “Special Concern: of the First Amendment, 99 Yale L. J. 25 (1989)
Horwitz, P. Universities as First Amendment Institutions: Some Easy Answers and Hard
Questions, 54 UCLA L. REV. 1497 (2007)
Karlan, Pamela S. Compelling Interests/Compelling Institutions: Law Schools as Constitutional
Litigants, 54 UCLA L. REV. 1613 (2007)

Case Comment:
Saunders, T. The Limits on University Control of Graduate Students Speech, 112 Yale L.J. 1295
(2003)

State Policy on the Right of All Citizens to Quality Education

Tablarin v. Gutierrez, 154 SCRA 730 (1987)
Department of Education, Culture & Sports v. San Diego, 180 SCRA 534 (1989)
Professional Regulations Commission v. De Guzman, 432 SCRA 505 (2004); per Tinga, J., for the
Court.
Philippine Merchant Marine School v. Court of Appeals, 383 SCRA 175 (2002)

From the Standpoint of the Educational Institution

Sweezy v. State of New Hampshire, 354 U.S. 234 (1957); per Frankfurter, J., for the Court.
Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265 (1978); See Powell, J., concurring.
Miriam College Foundation v. Court of Appeals, 348 SCRA 265 (2000)
Gratz v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 244 (2003); per Rehnquist, C.J., for the Court.
Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003); per O’Connor, J., for the Court.

From the Standpoint of Members of the Academe

Camacho v. Coresis, 387 SCRA 628 (2002)

Limitations
1. The dominant police power of the State; and
2. The social interests of the community

Garcia v. The Faculty Admissions Committee, Loyola School of Theology, 68 SCRA 277 (1975)
Montemayor v. Araneta University, 77 SCRA 321 (1977)
Araneta University v. Argel, 96 SCRA 55 (1980)
Malabanan v. Ramento, 129 SCRA 359 (1984)
Tangonan v. Paño, 137 SCRA 245 (1985)
Villar v. Technological University of the Philippines, 135 SCRA 706 (1985)
Arreza v. Gregorio Araneta University Foundation, 137 SCRA 94 (1985)
Lupangco v. Court of Appeals, 160 SCRA 848 (1988)
Board of Medical Education v. Judge Alfonso, 176 SCRA 304 (1989)
Tan v. Court of Appeals, 199 SCRA 212 (1991)
Isabelo v. Court of Appeals, 227 SCRA 591 (1993)
Angeles v. Judge Sison, 112 SCRA 26 (1982)
Department of Education, Culture and Sports v. San Diego, supra
Non v. Judge Domes, 185 SCRA 523 (1990)
Ateneo de Manila University v. Court of Appeals, 145 SCRA 100 (1986)
Guzman v. National University, 142 SCRA 699 (1986)
University of San Carlos v. Court of Appeals, 166 SCRA 570 (1988)
University of the Philippines v. Judge Ayson, 175 SCRA 216 (1989)
Licup v. University of San Carlos, 178 SCRA 637 (1989)
Reyes v. Court of Appeals, 194 SCRA 402 (1991)
Cagayan Capitol College v. National Labor Relations Commission, 189 SCRA 658
Region v. Pangasinan College of Technology, G.R. No. 156109, November 18, 2004
U.P. Board of Regents v. Court of Appeals and William, 313 SCRA 404 (1999)
University of the Philippines & Alfredo de Torres v. Civil Service Commission, 356 SCRA 57 (2001)
Morales v. Board of Regents, 446 SCRA 227 (2004)
Id. At §17
Protection of rights of indigenous cultural communities
Cruz v. Secretary of the Environment and Natural Resources, 347 SCRA 128 (2000)

VII. RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE PEACABLY TO ASSEMBLE AND PETITION OF THE GOVERNMENT FOR REDRESS OF
GRIEVANCES
 6

CONST., Art. III, §4

DeJonge v. Oregon, 299 U.S. 353 (1937)

Primicias v. Fugoso, 80 Phil. 71 (1948)
Navarro v. Villegas, 31 SCRA 730 (1970)
Philippine Blooming Mills Employees Organization v. Philippine Blooming Mills, supra
J.B.L. Reyes v. Bagatsing, 125 SCRA 553 (1983)
Malabanan v. Ramento, supra
BAYAN, KARAPATAN, Kilusang Magbubukid ng Pilipinas (KMP) v. Ermita, 487 SCRA 623 (2006); per Azcuna, J.
for the Court.

VIII. FREEDOM OF RELIGION

CONST., Art., III, §5

See also Id. At Art. III, §6, Art. VI, §29 (2)

Legal Note:
Children as Believers: Minors’ Free Exercise Rights and the Psychology of Religious Development, 115 HARV. L.
REV. 2205 (2002)

America Bible Society v. City of Manila, 181 Phil. 386 (1957)

Ebralinag v. Division Superintendent of Cebu, 219 SCRA 276 (1993)
German v. Barangan, 135 SCRA 514 (1985)
Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296 (1940)
Islamic Da’wah Council of the Philippines v. Office of Muslim Affairs, 405 SCRA 497 (2003)
Estrada v. Escritor, 408 SCRA 1 (2003); Resolution En Banc, 492 SCRA 1 (2006); per Puno, C.J. for the Court.
Iglesia ni Cristo v. Court of Appeals, 259 SCRA 529 (1996)
Employment Division, Oregon Department of Human Resources v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990)
Long & Almeria v. Basa, et al., 366 SCRA 113 (2001)
Austria v. NLRC, 310 SCRA 293 (1999)
Zobrest, et al. v. Catalina Foothills School District, 509 U.S. 1 (1993)
Agostini, et al. v. Felton, et al., 521 U.S. 203 (1997)
Zelman, et al. v. Simmons-Harris, et al., 536 U.S. 639 (2002)

IX. FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT: LIBERTY OF ABODE AND OF TRAVEL

CONSTI., Art. III, §6

Marcos v. Manglapus, 177 SCRA 669 (1988)

X. THE RIGHT OF PEOPLE TO INFORMATION ON MATTERS OF PUBLIC CONCERN

CONST., Art. III, §7

Gonzales v. Narvasa, 337SCRA 773 (2000)

Chavez v. Public Estates Authority, 384 SCRA 152 (2002)
Neri v. Senate Committee on Accountability, March 25, 2008; See Puno, C.J., dissenting.

Exceptions

XI. THE RIGHT OF ASSOCIATION

CONST., Art. III, §8

In re Edillon, 84 SCRA (1979)

Occeña v. Commission on Elections, 127 SCRA 404 (1985)
Rotary International v. Rotary Club, 481 U.S. 537 (1987)
United Pepsi Cola Supervisor Union v. Laguesma, 288 SCRA 15 (1998)

XII. CONTRACT CLAUSE

CONST., Art. III, §10

Home Building and Loan Association v. Blaisdell, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)
Rutter v. Esteban, 93 Phil. 68 (1953)
Del Rosario v. De los Santos, 22 SCRA 1196 (1968)
Abella v. National Labor Relations Commission, 158 SCRA 140 (1987)
Philippine Veterans Bank Employees v. Philippine Veterans Bank, 189 SCRA 14 (1994)

Annulment of Contract
Agan, Jr. v. PIATCO, 402 SCRA 612 (2003)

XIII. FREE ACCESS TO COURTS, QUASI-JUDICIAL BODIES AND ADEQUATE LEGAL ASSISTANCE

CONST., Art. III, §11

Martinez v. People, 332 SCRA 694 (2000)

XIV. CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF PERSONS FROM CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION TO THE POST-TRIAL STAGE

In General
 7

Legal Article: Mendoza, V.V. The Bill of Rights of Accused Persons, 63 PHIL. L.J. 59 (1988)

ROUNDING UP THE USUAL SUSPECTS:

RIGHTS OF PERSONS OF INTEREST UNDER CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATIONS

MIRANDA RIGHTS: RIGHTS OF A PERSON TO COMPETENT AND INDEPENDENT COUNSEL PREFERABLY

OF HIS OWN CHOICE; IF A PERSON CANNOT AFFORD SERVICES OF COUNSEL, HE MUST BE PROVIDED
WITH ONE

CONST., Art. III, §12 (1)

Legal Article: Mendoza, V.V. The Right to Counsel in Custodial Interrogation, 61 PHIL. L.J. 409 (1986)

Legal Note: Juvenile Miranda Waiver and Parental Rights, 126 Harv. L. Rev. 2359 (2013)

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966); per Warren, C.J., for the Court in a 5-4 majority decision.
Gideon v. Wainright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963)
Magtoto v. Manguera, 63 SCRA 4 (1975)
People v. Loveria, 187 SCRA 47 (1980)
People v. Galit, 135 SCRA 465 (1985)
Gamboa v. Judge Cruz, 162 SCRA 642 (1988)
People v. Judge Ayson, 175 SCRA 216 (1989)
People v. Pinlac, 165 SCRA 675 (1988)
People v. Mahinay, 302 SCRA 455 (1999)
People v. Mojello, 425 SCRA 11 (2004); per Ynares-Santiago, J. for the Court.

NO TORTURE OR OTHER MEANS TO VITIATE THE FREE WILL SHALL BE USED AGAINST A PERSON
UNDER CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION; PROHIBITION AGAINST SECRET OR SOLITARY DETENTION
PLACES OR OTHER SIMILAR FORMSOF DETENTION ARE PROHIBITED

CONST., Art. III, §12(2)

THE EXCLUSIONARY RULE

CONST., Art. III, §12(2)

“Fruit of the Poisonous Tree”

Nardone v. Uniter States, supra
People v. Alicando, supra

CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED DURING TRIAL

DUE PROCESS IN CRIMINAL CASES

CONST., Art. III, §14 (1)

PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE IN ALL CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS

CONST., Art. III, §14 (2)

REASONABLE DOUBT STANDARD

Lejano v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 176389, 14 December 2010. Per Abad, J. for the Court; See also Sereno and
Carpio-Morales, JJ., concurring

SUFFICIENCY OF INFORMATION
People v. Liwanag, 363 SCRA 62 (2001)
People v. De la Cruz, 359 SCRA 667 (2002)

RIGHT TO BAIL

CONST., Art. III, §13

People v. Cabral, 303 SCRA 361 (1999)
Narciso v. Sta. Romana-Cruz, 328 SCRA 505 (2000)
Secretary of Justice v. Judge Lantion, 343 SCRA 377 (2000)
Yap, Jr. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 141529, June 6, 2001
Government of the United States of America v. Purugganan, 389 SCRA 623 (2002)
Serapio v. Sandiganbayan, 396 SCRA 443 (2003)

Ponce Enrile v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 213847, 18 August 2015

Per Bersamin, J., for the majority of the Court:
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/pdf/web/viewer.html?file=/jurisprudence/2015/august2015/213847.pdf

Per Leonen, J., dissenting:

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/pdf/web/viewer.html?file=/jurisprudence/2015/august2015/213847_leonen.pdf

LIMITATIONS ON THE SUSPENSION OF THE PRIVILEGE OF THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CONST., Art. III, §15; Writ of Amparo; Writ of Habeas Data; 2007 Rules on the Writ of Amparo; 2007 Rules on
the Writ of Habeas Data
 8

The Secretary of National Defense v. Manalo, G.R. No. 180906, 07 October 2008

SPEEDY DISPOSITION OF CASES

CONST., Art. III, §16

Lopez, Jr. v. Office of the Ombudsman, 364 SCRA 569 (2001)

RIGHT AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION

CONST., Art. III, §17

Legal Article: Narvasa, A.R. Revisiting the Law on the Right to Silence and to Counsel, 61 Phil. L.J. 194 (1986)

FREEDOMOF POLITICAL BELIEF AND PROHIBITION AGAINST INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE

CONST., Art. III, §18

CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF PERSONS IN THE POST-TRIAL STAGE

PROHIBITION AGAINST CRUEL, DEGRADING OR INHUMAN PUNISHMENT AND EXCESSIVE FINES

CONST., Art. III, §19

Weems v. United States, 217 U.S. 349 (1910)
People v. Echegaray, 267 SCRA 682 (1997)
Condrada v. People, 398 SCRA 482 (2003)

NON-IMPRISONMENT FOR DEBT OR NON-PAYMENT OF POLL TAX

CONST., Art. III, §20

United States v. Cara, 41 Phil. 828 (1917)

Ganaway v. Guillen, 42 Phil. 805 (1922); per Malcolm, J., for the Court.
Sura v. Martin, 26 SCRA 286 (1969)
Serafin v. Lindayag, 67 SCRA 166 (1975)
Flores v. Tatad, 95 SCRA 676 (1980)
Lozano v. Martinez, supra

RIGHT AGAINST DOUBLE JEOPARDY

CONST., Art. III, §21

XV. PROHIBITION AGAINST EX-POST FACTO LAW OR BILL OF ATTAINDER

CONST., Art. III, §22

Ex-Post Facto Law

Calder v. Bull, 3 U.S. 386 (1798)
People v. Ferrer, 48 SCRA 382 (1972); Motion for Reconsideration denied in 56 SCRA 793 (1974)
Bayot c. Sandiganbayan, 128 SCRA 383 (1984)
People v. Sandiganbayan, 211 SCRA 241 (1992)
Wright v. Court of Appeals, 235 SCRA 341 (1994)
Sesbreno v. Central Board of Assesment Appeals, 270 SCRA 360 (1997)
Lacson v. Executive Secretary, 301 SCRA 298 (1999)
People v. Judge Nitafan, 302 SCRA 424 (1999)
Fajardo v. Court of Appeals, 302 SCRA 503 (1999)

Bill Attainder
People v. Ferrer, supra