; .

:
NOVEMBER 29, 2011
University of the Philippines
College of Law
Diliman, Quezon City
Law 122D - Constitutional Law II
Second Semester, A Y 2011-2012
Prof. Gwen Vera
Syllabus and Schedule
Introduction to Course and Review of Relevant Topics I.
/.
Republic v. Sandiganbayan, 21 July 2003
v ' Philippine Blooming l'v1ills Employee Organization v. Philippine Blooming lv1ills Co.,
2
)<Inc., SO SCRA 189

II. DUE PROCESS AND EQUl1.L PROTECTION CL'\USE
(Art. III, Sec. 1)
Key Concepts:
Hierarchy of rights under the Bill of Rights
Right to life
Right to liberty
Right to property
Due process (substantive and procedural due process)
Test applied to detennine compliance w--ith substantive due process
Cardinal primary requirements of due process in adnunist:rative proceedings
Due process in academic disciplinary proceedings
Due process in labor matters
Equal protection of the laws
Test applied to detennine compliance \\ri.d1 equal protection of d1e laws
Test of valid classification
Standards of review (rational basis, strict scrutiny, intermediate scrutiny)
Due Process
Phil. Blooming Mills Employees Organization v. Phil. Blooming l"v1ills Co. Inc., supra.
Rubi v. Provincial Board of rv1indoro, 38 Phil 660
I chong v. Hernandez, 101 Phil. 1155
Yu Cong Eng v. Trinidad, 271 U.S. 500
. ' .
DECEMBER 1, 2011
Ennita-Malate Hotel & Motel Operators Ass'n v City of 2Q SCRA 849
Tanada v. Tuvera, 136 SCRl\ 27; 146 SCRA 446
v. Pomar, 46 Phil. 449
White light v. City of Manila, G.R. No:"1;22846, 20 January 2009
y!. Bitaogo v. Truth Co1lltrlission, 7 December 2010
Serrano v. NLRC, 323 SCRA 445
Agabon v. NLRC, 442 SCRA 573
DECEMBER 6, 2011
PHILCOMSA T v. Alcuaz, 180 SCR.A 218
Non v. Dames, 185 SCRA. 523
Lumiqued v. Exevea, 282 SCR..\ 125
Estrada v. Sandiganbayan, 369 SCR..'\ 394
Ang Tibay v. CIR, 69 Phil. 635
Equal Protection
I chong v. Hernandez, supra.
(CDumlao v. COMELEC, 96 SCR.A 3S'.2
People v. Cayata, 68 Phil. 12
Ormoc Sugar Central v. Ormoc City, 17 February 1968
Phil. Judges Association v. Prado, 227 SCR.\ 703
Brown v. Board of Education, 349 U. S. 294, 347 U.S. 483
Tecson v: _COMELEC, 3 March 2004
DECEMBER 8-13,2011
III. SEARCHES AND SEIZURES
(Art. III, Sec. 2)
2
Key Concepts:
Search (requirements in the issuance of search warrant)
Arrest (requirements in the issuance of arrest \Varrant)
Probable cause
Personal determination by judge
Valid warrantless search
Valid warrantless arrest
Test of reasonableness in warrantless search
Requisites of plain view search
Requisites of search of moving \ eh.icle
7
Requisites of valid stop and frisk
Requisites of valid search incident to lawful arrest
Requisites of consented search
Exclusionary rule
Katz v. U.S., 394 U.S. 347
Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1
People v. Marti, 18 January 1991
Nala v. Barroso, Jr., G.R. No. 153087, August 7, 2003
Lim v. Felix, 194 SCRA 292
.1-\lvarez v. CFI, 64 PhiL 33
Bache & Co. v. Ruiz, 37 SCRA 823
Stonehill v. Diokno, 20 SCRA 383
Burgos, Sr. v. Chief of Staff, 133 SCRA 800
Roan v. Gonzales, 145 SCKA 687
Nolasco v. Pano, 139 SCRA 152, 147 SCRA 509*
People v. Malmstedt, 198 SCRA 401
People v. Aminudin, 163 SCR.A 402
People v. Burgos, 144 SCRA 1
Chimel Y. California, 395 U.S. 752
Papa v. Mago, 22 SCRA 657
People v. Aruta, 288 SCRA 620
Aniag v. COMELEC, 237 SCRA 424
Valmonte v. de Villa, 178 SCR-A. 211, 185 SCRA 665
In Re Urnil et al v. Ramos, 187 SCRA 311
People v ~ Mengote, 210 SCRA 174
People v. Manlulu, 22 April SCRA 159
Terry v. Ohio, supra.
Manlili v. Court of Appeals, 280 SCRA 400
Malacat v. Court of Appeals, 283 SCR...A. 159
JANUARY 3, 2012
fV. PRIVACY OF COMMUNICATfON AND CORRESPONDENCE
(Art. III, Sec. 3)
Key Concepts: .
Right of privacy
2
~
_)
Privacy of correspondence and conununication
Right against unreasonable searches and.seizures
Right against self-incrimination
Exclusionary rule
Griswold v. Connecticut, 81 U.S. 479
Ople v. Torres, 293 SCRA 141
Zulueta v. Court of Appeals, 253 SCRA (567
A yer v . Capulong, 160 SCRA 861
Lagunzad v. Soto vda. de Gonzalez, 92 SORA 476
Kilusang Mayo Uno v. Director General, 487 SCRA 623
Relevant laws and issuances:
Republic Act No. 9995, A.nti-Photo and Video Voyeurism Act of 2009
A.M. No. 08-1 -16-SC, Rule on the Writ of Habeas Data
DAO No. 8 (s.2006), Data Protection Policy of the DTI
JANUARY 5 - 10, 2012
V. RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED
(Art. III, Sees. 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 19, 21 )
Key Concepts:
Custodial investigation
Rights of the accused under [custodial] investigation
Right to counsel
Competent and independent counsel
Critical stages in pre-trial criminal process
Inadmissible confession or admission
Concept of speedy trial
Concept of public trial
Right against self- incrimination
Right to be presumed innocent
Bail
Right to Bail (when a matter of right and when discretionary)
**Revised case list to be provided**
JANUARY 12, 2012
VI. WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
(An. III, Sec. 15; Art VII, Sec. 18)
2 4
Key Concepts:
Writ of habeas corpus
Privilege of writ of habeas corpus
Requisites of suspension
Effect of suspension
Available remedies
Barcelon v. Baker, 5 Phil. 87
Lansang v. Garcia, 42 SCRA 448 .. - - ~
Gumabon v. Dir of Prisons, 3 7 SCR.i\ Ll-20
\ l elasco v. Court of Appeals, 246 SCRA 677
Sombong v. Court of Appeals, 252 SCR.A 663
0 note issue involving privilege of \Vrit of habeas corpus in Villav-icencio v. Lukban,
infra.
VII. LIBERTY OF .:\BODE AND TR.A. VEL
(Art. III, Sec. 6)
Key Concepts:
Liberty of abode
Right to travel
Right to return to one's counrn
Residual powers of the Presidenr
Rubi v. Pro-Fi.ncial Board of l\ Li.ndoro, 38 Phil660
Villavicencio v. Lukban, 39 Phil 778
JANUARY i7, 2012
Lorenzo v. Dir of Health, SO Phil. 595
Salonga v. Hennosa, 97 SCR_/\ 121
Manotoc v. Court of Appeals, 142 SCIZA 149
Marcos v. Manglapus, 177 SCRA 668
VIII. CRUEL, DEGR.i\DING OR INHUMAN PUNISHMENT
(Art. III, Sec. 1 9)
2
Key Concepts:
Cruel punislunenr
Degrading puni shment
Inhuman punislunent
Excessive fines
------- - ~ - --- --- --- - -----
5
Echegaray v. Sec. of Justice, 267 SCRA 652, 297 SCRA 754
IX. FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION
(Art. III, Sec. 4)
Key Concepts:
Speech
Gitlow v. New Y ark, 268 U.S. 652
Rust v. Sullivan, 500 U.S. 173
JANUARY 19, 24 AND 26, 2012

2
a. Tests
b. Clear and Present Danger
Schenk v. U.S., 249 U.S. 47 (1919)
Abrams v. U.S., 250 U.S. 616
2. Advocacy of Abstract Doctrine
3. Imminent Action/ Direct Incitement
v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 * Concurring of Douglas
For guidacce in relevance of clear' and
present test
Salonga v. Pano, 134 SCR.t\ 438
4. Dangerous Tendency
Gitlow v. New York, supra.
5. Balancing of Interest
Gonzales v. COiviELEC, 27 SCRr\ 835
6. Grave-but-improbable danger
Dennis v. U.S. 334 U.S. 494 (Hand's formulation)
7. Content-Neutral Test: Osmena v. COMELEC, 288 SCIV\ 447
U.S. v. O'Brien, 391 U.S. 367
b. Unprotected Speech
6
2
1. Obscenity
2. Defamation
3. Infringes upon right of privacy
4. Fighting words
5. Hate speech
R.A.V. v. St. Paul, 112 S.Ct 2538
6. Seditious Speech
7. Advertising
8. Speech in Special Places
U.S. v. Bustos, 37 Phil. 731
},1utuc v. COMELEC, 36 SCRA 228
Press
Near v. Minnesota, 283 U.S. 697
Grosjean v. American Press Co. , 297 U.S. 233
1'-.TY Times v. U.S., 403 U.S. 713
Ginzburg v. U.S. 383, U.S 463
Roth v. U.S. , 354 U.S. 254
NY Times v. Sullivan, 376 U. S. 254
Newsweek Inc. v. lAC, 142 SCRA 171
In Re Jurado, 243 SCR.i\ 288
Burgos v. Chief of Staff, supra.
In Re Lozano, 54 Phil. 801
Brandenburg v. Ohio, supra.
Memoirs of a Woman of Pleasure v. Attorney General, 333 U.S. 413
EastemBroadcasting v. Dans v. 157 SCR.r'\ 647
Gonzales v. Kala'.v Katigbak, 13 7 SCRA 71 7
MTRCB v. ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corp. , 448 SCRA 575
Assembly
Pcimicias v. Fugoso, 80 Phil. 71
German v. Barangan, 135 SCRA. 514
Reyes v, Bagatsing, 125 SCRA. 553
Navarro v. Villegas, 31 SCR.t\ 7 31
PBM employees Ass'n v. PBivi, supra.
Association (Art. II , Sec 8)
NAACP v. \labama, 357 U. S. 449
People v. Ferrer, 48 SCRA 382
Dennis v. U.S. supra.
7
Yates v. U.S. 354, U.S. 298
JANUARY 31, 2012
X. ACCESS TO INFORlvfA TION
(Art. III, Sec. 7)
Key Concepts:
Right to be informed
Matters of public concern
Access to official records
Subido v. Ozaeta, 80 Phil. 383
Baldoza v. Dimaano, 71 SCRA 14
Legaspi v. Civil Service Commission, 29 May 1997
Neri v. Senate Committee, G.R. No. 180643, March 25, 2008 (read CJ Puno's
Dissenting Opinion)
Cabansag v. Fernandez, October 18, 1957
Sabio v . Gordon, 504 SCRA. 704
Akbayan v. Aquino, G .R. No. 170516, July 16, 2008
FEBRUARY 2- 9, 2012
XI. FREEDOM OFRELIGION AND NON-ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION
(Art. III, Sec. 5)
2
Key Concepts:
Free exercise cilluse
Non-establishment clause
Excessive entanglement test
Estrada 'T Escritor, August 4, 2003 and Resolution dated 22 June 2006
Non-Establislunent Clause
Aglipay v. Ruiz, 64 Phil. 201
Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971)
Board of Education v. Allen, 392 U.S. 236
Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (194 7)
Bro. Mike Velarde v. Social justice Society, G.R. No. 159357, April28, 2004
Free Exercise of Religion
...
8
American Bible Society v. City of Manila, 101 Phil. 386
Ebralinag v. Div. of Schools, 219 SCRA 256
Parnil v. Teleron, 36 SCR.A 413
Swaggart Ministries v. Board of Equalization, 493 U.S. 378
Iglesia ni Cristo v. Court of Appeals, 259 SCR.i\ 529
FEBRUARY 16, 20U
XII. EMINENT DO:t"v1AIN
(Art. III, Sec. 9)
Key Concepts:
Eminent domain
Private property
Public use
Taking
Just compensation
Diclipio Earth SaYeLS Y. Gozun, G.R. No. 157882, March 30, 2006
De Knecht v, Bautista, 100 SCRA 660
Heirs of J uancho Ardona v. Reyes, 123 SCR..,;\ 220
EPZA v. Dulay, 149 SCR/\. 305
Sumulung v. Guerrero, 154 SCRA 461
XIII. CONTRACTS CL\. USE
(Art. III, Sec. 1 0)
Key Concepts: .
Non-impairment of contract
Home Building and Loan Association v. Blaisdell, 290 U.S. 398
Rutter v. Esteban, 93 Phil. 68
Ilusorio v. Court of ~ \ g r a r i a n Reform, 17 SCR.A 25
Norman v. Baltimore, 294 U.S. 240
Caleon v. Agus Development, 207 SCRA 748
FEBRUARY 21, 20U
XIV. EX POST FACTO LEGISLATION AND BILL OF ATTAINDER
(Art. III, Sec. 22)
2
9
Key Concepts:
Ex post facto law
Bill of attainder
Republic v. Hernandez, 99 Phil. 934
People v. Vilo, 32 Phil. 529
Co v . Court of Appeals. 227 SCRA 444
People v. Ferrer, supra.
)(V. NON-IMPRISONMENT FOR DEBT AND INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE
(Art. III, Sec. 18)
Key Concepts:
Involuntary servitude
Ganaway v. Guillen, 42 Phil. 805
Serafin v. Lindayag, 87 SCRA 166
U.S. v. Cara, 41 Phil. 826
Ajeno v. Inserto, 71 SCRA 166
Lozano , .. I\1aninez, 146 SCR.c'\ 323
U. S. v. Pompeya, 31 Phil. 245
Caunca v. Salazar, 82 Phil. 851
A_nli. FREE ACCESS TO COURTS AND QUASI-JUDICIAL BODIES
(Art. III, Sec. 11)
Key Concepts:
Access to justice
Access to courts
Adequate legal assistance
(Integration Period: Febmary 23- March 1, 2012)
2
...
10