Atty. Loanzon- Consti Law II January 2017.doc

DE LA SALL UNIVERSITYCOLLEGE OF LAW Constitutional Law II THE BILL OF RIGHTS Second Semester January 2017 Atty. Victoria V. Loanzon Course Objectives: At the end of the course, the students will be able: 1. To have an appreciation of the relationship of the state and its people. 2. To understand the concept of due process and its application. 3. To know the history of the Bill of Rights and how the Constitution protects the people against possible abuses of the government. 4. To understand the inherent powers of government and the interplay of such powers in the enshrined powers of the people under the Bill of Rights. 5. To appreciate the constitutionally protected rights of the people as the Supreme Court applies and interprets such rights in assigned cases. I. HISTORY AND PURPOSE OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS A. Concept of Sovereign Will: Preamble Art. II, Sections 1 and 3, Art V, Constitution B. The Concept of Separation of Powers and the Three Branches of Government: Art.VI, VII and VIII, Constitution C. Definition and Purpose of the Bill of Rights: protection of guaranteed rights to liberty, property and other freedoms. (Section 1, Article III, Constitution) The Bill of Rights: “The Bill of Rights governs the relationship between the individual and the state. Its concern is not the relation between individuals, between a private individual and other individuals. What the Bill of Rights does is to declare some forbidden zones in the private sphere inaccessible to any power holder.” [People v. Marti (1991)] It is self-executing. [Gamboa v. Teves (2011)] It also imposes safeguards against violations by the government, by individuals, or by groups of individuals. Article III of the Constitution protects the following person's fundamental civil and political rights: (1) Civil rights– rights that belong to an individual by virtue of his citizenship in a state or community. (2) Political rights– rights that pertain to an individual’s citizenship vis-à-vis the management of the government. (3) Social and economic rights – rights which are intended to insure the well-being and economic security of the individual. (4) Rights of the accused – civil rights intended for the protection of a person accused of any crime. Human rights have a primacy over property rights. The rights of free expression and of assembly occupy a preferred position as they are essential to the preservation and vitality of civil institutions. The Bill of Rights is designed to preserve the ideals of liberty, equality and security "against the assaults of opportunism, the expediency of the passing hour, the erosion of small encroachments, and the scorn and derision of those who have no patience with general principles.”[Philippine Blooming Mills Employees Organization v. Philippine Blooming Mills Co., Inc. (1973)] 1 | Page The Bill of Rights serves - (1) To preserve democratic ideals. (2) To safeguard fundamental rights. (3) To promote the happiness of an individual. General Rule: The Bill of Rights cannot be invoked against acts of private individuals. The equal protection erects no shield against private conduct, however discriminatory or wrongful. [Yrasuegui v. PAL (2008)] Exception to the Rule: The Bill of Rights was invoked and applied by the Court against a private party. (Zulueta v. C.A. , 1996) Judicial Standards of Review under the Bill of Rights 1. RATIONAL BASIS TEST: This test is applicable for economic, property, commercial legislation. [White Light Corporation v. City of Manila (2009)] 2. STRICT SCRUTINY TEST: This requires the government to show an overriding or compelling government interest so great that it justifies the limitation of fundamental constitutional rights. The courts make the decision of whether or not the purpose of the law makes the classification necessary. 3. INTERMEDIATE SCRUTINY TEST: A third standard, denominated as heightened or immediate scrutiny, was later adopted by the U.S. Supreme Court for evaluating classifications based on gender and legitimacy. While the test may have first been articulated in equal protection analysis, it has in the United States since been applied in all substantive due process cases as well. [White Light Corporation v. City of Manila (2009)] VOID-FOR-VAGUENESS DOCTRINE AND OVERBREADTH DOCTRINE VOID FOR VAGUENESS: An act is vague when it lacks comprehensible standards that men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its common meaning and differ as to its application. On the question of the constitutionality of the Anti-Terrorism Law and the creation of the Anti-Terrorism Council: A statute establishing a criminal offense must define the offense with sufficient definiteness that persons of ordinary intelligence can understand what conduct is prohibited by the statute. A statute or act may be said to be vague when it lacks comprehensible standards that men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ in its application. The statute is repugnant to the Constitution in two respects: (1) It violates due process for failure to accord persons, especially the parties targeted by it, fair notice of what conduct to avoid; (2) It leaves law enforcers an unbridled discretion in carrying out its provisions and becomes an arbitrary flexing of the Government muscle. [Southern Hemisphere v. Anti-Terrorism Council (2010)] On the question of the constitutionality of the Plunder Law: “[This doctrine] can only be invoked against that species of legislation that is utterly vague on its face, i.e., that which cannot be clarified either by a saving clause or by construction. The test in determining whether a criminal statute is void for uncertainty is whether the language conveys a sufficiently definite warning as to the proscribed conduct. It must be stressed, however, that the vagueness doctrine merely requires a reasonable degree of certainty for the statute to be upheld – not absolute precision or mathematical exactitude.” [Estrada v. Sandiganbayad] OVERBREADTH DOCTRINE The overbreadth doctrine decrees that "a governmental purpose may not be achieved by means which sweep unnecessarily broadly and thereby invade the area of protected freedoms." [Southern Hemisphere, supra] 2 | Page No. 490 SCRA 318 (2006). 167290 November 26. J. Nursery Care Corporation vs. 5. NAPOCOR is liable to pay franchise tax to the LGU 8. National Power Corporation v. taxes on idle lands and socialized housing are valid but tax on garbage collection is invalid. Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD). 7. its use. 760 SCRA 652 (2015): the Constitution allows local governments to raise their own sources of revenue but the provision of a public service is not subject to any form of tax imposition. v.) [Disini v. 693 SCRA 141 (2013): the LGU cannot compel or impose restrictions of the property rights of private persons under the guise of exercise of police powers. As a special kind of road. Jr. Exception: Said doctrines apply to penal statutes when (1) The statute is challenged as applied. Aquino v. or (2) The statute involves free speech.General Rule: Void-for-vagueness and overbreadth doctrines are inapplicable to penal statutes. 737 SCRA 145 (2014): a Mayor may exercise adjudicatory powers and order demolition of a structure which contravenes an ordinance in his jurisdiction. 4. No. 731 SCRA 280.) 2. it is but reasonable that not all forms of transport could use it. Fernando v. Ferrer. Scholastica’s College. 526 SCRA 130 (2007): validity of the Senior Citizen’s Act 3. contracts of HMO are not subject to DST and VAT. Sec. Power to Expropriate as limitations to enjoyment of rights 3 | Page . Public interest and safety require the imposition of certain restrictions on toll ways that do not apply to ordinary roads. Carlos Superdrug Corp. 2014: In Mirasol v. G. 6. 2014: There is double taxation when the same taxpayer is taxed twice when he should be taxed only once for the same purpose by the same taxing authority within the same jurisdiction during the same taxing period. 600 SCRA 413 (2009): payment of documentary taxes and VAT by way of deficiency assessment by the BIR. The Three Great Powers of Government: Police Power. Aklan. Acevedo. Toll Regulatory Board. Municipality of Malay. operation. (Bersamin. 193 SCRA 57 (1991): the right against illegal search and seizure cannot be invoked against a private person 9. St. the Court has further noted that: A toll way is not an ordinary road. Inc. Bautista. J. Power to Tax. G.) D.R. City of Cabanatuan. Department of Public Works and Highways. (Rationale: Statute may be facially challenged in order to counter the “chilling effect” of the same. and the taxes are of the same kind or character. of Justice (2014). As a facility designed to promote the fastest access to certain destinations. 737 SCRA 305 (2014): assessment of franchise tax on NAPOCOR. By their very nature penal statutes have a general in terrorem effect which are intended to discourage citizens from committing the prohibited acts. Hermano Oil Manufacturing & Sugar Corporation v. People v. on the constitutionality of the Cybercrime Law] 1. Commissioner of Internal Revenue. 742 SCRA 395. Philippine Health Care Providers. v. (Bersamin. Marti. and maintenance require close regulation. 180651 July 30. v.R. and the least limitable of powers. Courts accord the State wide latitude in the exercise of its police power to bring about the greatest good of the greatest number. a government agency cannot exercise police power. There is no grant of authority to enact ordinances and regulations for the general welfare of the inhabitants of the metropolis. Inc. Justice Isagani Cruz and Professor Rene B. has been purposely veiled general terms to underscore its comprehensiveness to meet all exigencies and provide enough room for an efficient and flexible response as the conditions warrant. the MMDA is not a political unit of government. Fr. He said that while it is the “prerogative of the State to promote the general welfare of the people thru the use of police power. (1979)] Tests for Validity of Exercise of Police Power (1) Lawful Subject (2) Lawful Means History of Police Power. extending as it does to all the great public needs.” When exercise of police power may be questioned MMDA v. in order to promote the general welfare. “Police power […] has been properly characterized as the most essential. Feati Bank and Trust Co.”-p 2. may interfere with personal liberty. insistent. Read annotations found in political/ constitutional law books written by C. Jaoquin Bernas S. [Republic v. But when its purpose is putrefied by private interest.. Gorospe 1. and is [aptly] termed the 'law of overruling necessity.Tagle (1998)]. safety and welfare of society.'” [Rubi v.J. the rights of the individual are subordinated. the use of police power becomes a farce and must be struck down just as every arbitrary exercise of government power should be stamped out. while incapable of an exact definition. 240 SCRA 649: Former Chief Justice Puno in his Dissenting Opinion in this 1995 case said that the exercise of police power is not without limit. on the opposite end is the right of an entity to have its property protected against unreasonable impairment by the State. Justice Enrique Fernando. Pacquing. The repository of eminent domain powers is lodged in the legislature which is exercised through the enactment of laws. Mayor of Manila (1967)] “Police power. Limited Partnership v. Scope and Limitations: It is well settled that eminent domain is an inherent power of the State that need not be granted even by the fundamental law. Dissenting Opinion of Chief Justice Puno in Lim v. Bel-Air Village Assn. City of Manila (2009)] Scope and Limitations: “The police power of the State […] is a power coextensive with self-protection. The Court said: “Clearly. Provincial Board (1919)] The state. 328 SCRA 836: Where is there is no explicit grant of power. v.J. Police Power Definition: Police power is the inherent and plenary power of the state which enables it to prohibit all that is hurtful to the comfort. Section 9 of Article III of the Constitution merely imposes a limit on the government’s exercise of this power. Persons may be subjected to all kinds of restraints and burdens. Power of Eminent Domain Definition: The power of eminent domain is the inherent right of the State to condemn private property to public use upon payment of just compensation. and with business and occupations. 4 | Page . with property.” [Ermita-Malate Hotel and Motel Operators Association. health and prosperity of the state and to this fundamental aim of our Government. The power delegated to the MMDA is that given to the Metro Manila Council to promulgate administrative rules and regulations in the implementation of the MMDA’s functions..” [Ortigas and Co. in order to secure the general comfort.” [White Light Corporation v. Presidential Agrarian Reform Council. 188376 December 14. 188995 August 24. 670 SCRA 392 (2012): award of land under tenancy can be done through a natural person or collectively through a juridical person. when is a party entitled to just compensation despite no apparent physical taking 7. Heirs of Saturnino Q. Pulido. Republic v. As such. No. Section 10.R. Borbon. No. 700 SCRA 243 (2013) and Resolution dated 21 April 2015. Lozada. National Power Corporation v. the liability is not the personal liability of Land Bank. a resolution of an administrative agency has the effect of a law and can be governed by the operative fact doctrine. 656 SCRA 315. In fact. It may include (1) Diminution in value. (Bersamin. v. Thus. 2. 55 Phil. and (3) Deprivation of beneficial use. Heirs of Macabangkit Sangkay. G.. – SCRA – (G. CA (2007)] Requisites for exercise of the power of eminent domain (1) Private property (2) Genuine necessity (3) For public purpose (4) Payment of just compensation (5) Due process [Manapat v. was apt and correct. J. 662 SCRA 614. NAPOCOR’s reliance on Metropolitan Water District v. CA (2007) Circumstances which may warrant “taking”- When the owner is deprived of his proprietary rights.A.) 6. To continue with the expropriation proceedings despite the definite cessation of the public purpose of the project would result in the rendition of an invalid judgment in favor of the expropriator due to the absence of the essential element of public use. Sr. 613 SCRA 618 (2010): limitation on the exercise of power. 7160 (The Local Government Code). the owner is entitled to legal interest from the time of the taking of the property until the actual payment in order to place the owner in a position 5 | Page . in addition. 776 (1931). Export Processing Zone Authority (now Philippine Export Zone Authority) vs. the retirement of the transmission lines necessarily stripped the expropriation proceedings of the element of public use. 2011: The enactments of the Legislature decreed that the money to be paid to the landowner as just compensation for the taking of his land is to be taken only from the Agrarian Reform Fund. reiterates that the satisfaction of a judgment for just compensation by writ of execution should be from the ARF in the custody of Land Bank. considering that the owner thereby immediately suffers not only the loss of his property but also the loss of its fruits or income. 745 SCRA 40 (2015): Considering that the Court has consistently upheld the primordial importance of public use in expropriation proceedings. J. Hacienda Luisita. Mactan-Cebu International Airport Authority v. De los Angeles. Cases: 1.Delegation of power to expropriate: Delegation of the power may be done through legislation. 2011: Compensation cannot be just to the owner in the case of property that is immediately taken unless there is prompt payment. the power has been be delegated to LGUs. Secretary of the Department of Public Works and Highways v. Verily. 179334.R. right of the private property owner 4. Thus under R. Other government entities through the charters creating them also enjoy the right to expropriate. Suntay. Inc.) 5. Rule 19 of the 2003 DARAB Rules of Procedure. G. 656 SCRA 60 (2011): nature of public use. but its liability only as the administrator of the ARF. Land Bank of the Philippines vs. there is taking of private property. 21 April 2015): where a private property is not entitled to “just compensation” 3. (2) Prevention of ordinary use.R. Tecson. (Bersamin. No. [Manapat v. Power of Taxation Definition: Taxation is the power by which the State raises to defray the necessary expenses of the Government. Exception: The rule on uniformity does not prohibit classification for purposes of taxation. how just compensation is determined. Court of Appeals. 6 | Page . G. [Ormoc Sugar v. the Court will invalidate it. the position he was in before the taking occurred. 2009: The taking of property under CARL is an exercise by the State of the power of eminent domain. 168770. Republic [G. 607 SCRA 200. broadly described to be the price fixed by the seller in open market in the usual and ordinary course of legal action and competition. but not better than. It is the enforced proportional contributions from persons and property.R. (3) Tax should not be confiscatory: If a tax measure is so unconscionable as to amount to confiscation of property. utility or advantage or what is productive of general benefit (of the public). if property is taken for public use before compensation is deposited with the court having jurisdiction over the case. No. (Velasco. requisites.) 8. due process ought to be strictly followed. the private owner is deprived of property against his will. levied by the State by virtue of its sovereignty. otherwise. relate to the Bill of Rights. for the support of the government and for all public needs. J. Just compensation refers to the sum equivalent to the market value of the property. J. 3. has now acquired an expansive meaning to include any use that is of “usefulness.as good as. (2) Imposition might be justified as for public purpose even if the immediate beneficiaries are private individuals. to be computed from the time the property is taken up to the time when compensation is actually paid or deposited with the court. the final compensation must include interests on its just value. It is fixed at the time of the actual taking by the State. vda De Ouano vs.R. (4) Uniformity of taxation General Rule: The power to tax operates with the same force and effect in every place where the subject of it is found. No. This is known as geographical uniformity. Public use as an eminent domain concept. 164195 December 4. A basic limitation on the State’s power of eminent domain is the constitutional directive that private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation. Treasurer of Ormoc (1968)] (5) Taxes must be equitable As a general rule. (Bersamin. 9. Thus. should be exercised only for a public purpose. taxes should be apportioned among the people according to their ability to pay. provided the requisites for valid classification are met.) NOTE that: Expropriation is one of the harshest proceedings which the state has against a private party because it deprives the party of perpetual use of his property. or the fair value of the property as between one who receives and one who desires to sell. Under the lifeblood theory. Apo Fruits Corporation vs. 2011]: In expropriation. the State’s power to legislate for the public welfare might be seriously curtailed. But invalidating a tax measure must be exercised with utmost caution. taxes are imposed - (1) To raise revenue (2) As a tool for regulation (3) To serve as protection of state’s interest/power to keep alive Scope and Limitations (1) Power to tax exists for the general welfare. Who are protected by the rights: all citizens. Inc. First. Sec. III. 558 SCRA 234(2008). 28 (4). Art. See Art. the underlying rationale for reducing the tax rate is that the Philippines will give up a part of the tax in the expectation that the tax given up for this particular investment is not taxed by the other country. Sec.] Being a mere statutory privilege.” “People” as citizens. no law granting any tax exemption shall be passed without the concurrence of a majority of all the Members of Congress [Sec. 4 7 | Page . 369 SCRA 394 (2001) II. para 2: reciprocity Poe-Llmanzares v. Art. Sec. People 1. Different meanings of words “people”: “People” as inhabitants. 1. Art. Constitution Board of Medicine v. 14.XIII. Deportation Board. Sec. the treaties make it incumbent upon the state of residence to allow relief in order to avoid double taxation. In negotiating tax treaties. S. In this case. Art. VI] Requisites: Actual. a tax treaty resorts to several methods. [Republic v. [Sec. XII. Sandiganbayan.Claim for Tax Exemptions General Rule: Tax exemptions are frowned upon. Direct and Exclusive Use by the following: (a) Educational institutions (b)Charitable institutions (c) Religious organizations If statutory. Art. aliens within the jurisdiction of the Philippines. 9 SCRA 27 (1963): The state has the right to exclude aliens in its territory. Caguioa (2009)] Exemptions may either be constitutional or statutory. Art. Sections 1 and 4. it has to have been passed by majority of all the members of Congress.II. E. 309 SCRA 87. 28(3). 7 “People” as source of sovereignty. VI] There is no vested right in a tax exemption [. Art. Sec. Doctrines governing interpretation of laws affecting guaranteed rights: ”Void for Vagueness “doctrine “Overbreadth” doctrine Estrada v. III.. it sets out the respective rights to tax of the state of source or situs and of the state of residence with regard to certain classes of income or capital. natural-born and naturalized citizens. Citizenship A. C. VI] Case: Com. Preamble. 2 Qua Chee Gan v. Art. both natural and juridical persons Review Article IV. Therefore. Ota. of Internal Revenue v. 28 (4). a tax exemption may be modified or withdrawn at will by the granting authority. The second method for the elimination of double taxation applies whenever the state of source is given a full or limited right to tax together with the state of residence. Johnson & Son. VII. COMELEC(2016): a foundling is a natural-born citizen F. Constitutional exemptions [Sec. In order to eliminate double taxation. Citizenship. The President of the Philippines is given the discretion to deport aliens who are considered “undesirable. 8 Naturalized citizens under Com. 497 SCRA 649: Overseas Filipinos qualified to vote under the R. 9225 – Citizenship Retention and Reacquisition Act of 2003 Right of Suffrage. Sec. 193636. VII. Sec. Due Process Clause (Section1. No. 18 Citizenship by legislative act Loss and Reacquisition of Citizenship. XI. and D. 2 When is the 10-year residence requirement reduced to 5 years? Sec. No.R. COMELEC. Sec. Citizenship under Art. A. No.Llamanzares v. 17 (2) Former natural born citizens as transferees of private lands. XII. Art. Kagandahan. G. 473 Who are qualified to be naturalized? Sec. 2 Dual Citizenship: R.A. 4 Declaration of Intention. Sections 7-8 When decision is executed.A. IX. 2014 B. Article V R. Art. be valid.) President and Vice President. Art. 3 Who are disqualified to be naturalized? Sec. 2012 Imbong v. 9139 – The Administrative Naturalization Law of 2000 R. Art.. Sec. Sec. VIII. Sections 3 and 6 Justices of the Supreme Court and lower collegiate courts.R. EQUAL PROTECTION AND NON-IMPAIRMENT CLAUSES A. XIII. x x x It is responsiveness to the supremacy of reason. IV and Right of Suffrage under Article V Natural-born citizens Art. in each appropriate case. (1). It is the embodiment of the sporting idea of fair play. III.B. Sec. No. Hernandez (1957)] 8 | Page . LIBERTY AND PROPERTY: SAFEGUARDS OF DUE PROCESS. Right to Life Republic v. IV. 3. 2 Poe. Art. Art. Sec. [Ichong v. 15 Denaturalization. 9189 need not have one –year actual physical residence in the Philippines to exercise their right of suffrage. 1 (1). COMELEC . Negatively pit. XII. 20 Members of Commission on Human Rights Art. Sec. July 24. 7 (1) Ombudsman and his deputies. April 8. supra Public Officers who must be natural born citizens: (Please commit to memory.Lewis v. Sec. VI. 9189 – Overseas Voting Law Nicolas. obedience to the dictates of justice. Chan. 2 Members of Congress. 204819. G.A. P/SSupt. No. 5 Procedure. Article III) Definition: Due process furnishes a standard to which the governmental action should conform in order that deprivation of life. Art. C. Ochoa. Sec. No. Sec. x x x Correctly it has been identified as freedom from arbitrariness. Sec. Act No. RIGHT TO LIFE. liberty or property. 1 Effect on wife and minor children. arbitrariness is ruled out and unfairness avoided. et al. 565 SCRA 72 (2008) Gamboa v. IV. Art. B. Sec. Sec. Sec. 8 Members of the Constitutional Commission. Sec. 1(1) Members of the Central Monetary Authority. liberty. Executive Director of Lung Center of the Philippines v. PLEB. 2010 Dr. 177878. Publication must be full. he must be officially and specifically informed of its contents. 1997 2. G. et al.R. McElroy (1961]. 136 SCRA 27(Decision). including those of local application and private laws. Pay attention to the cardinal rules of due process in administrative proceedings. [Secretary of Justice v. 174431. [Cafeteria & Restaurant Workers Union v. No. Republic.R. To say that the concept of due process is flexible does not mean that judges are at large to apply it to any and all relationships. G. Fernando A. Its flexibility is in its scope once it has been determined that some process is due. April 7. which are governed by the Local Government Code. Jorolan and Hon. Tuvera (1986)] RELATIVITY OF DUE PROCESS Not all situations calling for procedural safeguards call for the same kind of procedure. or property. Woodward. 111953 December 12. G.R. G. 2012 Right to Counsel: 9 | Page . Brewer (1972)] 1. This does not cover internal regulations issued by administrative agencies. No. April 7. “laws” refer to all statutes. No. Melendres. Procedural Due Process a.. 2012 Effect of waiver/estoppel: The Heirs of Jolly Bugarin v. and (4) It shall be applicable alike to all the citizens of the state or to all of a class. or there is none at all. 163859. SPO 1 Acuzar v.R. et al. it is a recognition that not all situations calling for procedural safeguards call for the same kind of procedure. (3) It shall be enforced according to the regular methods of procedure prescribed. [ Rubi v. Notice of rules by publication as a prerequisite/ Notice to Party Tanada v. August 15. United Harbor Pilots. Laguio (2005)] Publication of laws is part of substantive due process. This requires a reasonable degree of flexibility in the applying procedural due process. 4 Wheaton 518] REQUISITES OF DUE PROCESS Due process of law means simply that - (1) There shall be a law prescribed in harmony with the general powers of the legislative department of the Government. 187958. It refers to the method or manner by which a law is enforced. This does not apply to substantive due process. . Tuvera. Provincial Board of Mindoro (1919)] SCOPE OF DUE PROCESS Procedural Due Process Procedural due process is that aspect of due process which serves as a restriction on actions of judicial and quasi-judicial agencies of the government. Due process in administrative proceedings Requisites: Mayor Abraham Tolentino v. Lantion (2000)] A determination of the precise nature of the government function involved as well as of the private interest that has been affected by governmental action must be considered in determining the application of the rules of procedure. G.A law hears before it condemns.Graft Commission. [Morrissey v. [Tañada v. For the publication requirement. August 6. (2) This law shall be reasonable in its operation. COMELEC. Apresa. 2010.R. asks whether the government has an adequate reason for taking away a person’s life. Corona v. [Darthmouth College v. It is a rule of law that before a person may be bound by law. 187961 and 187962. Substantive Due Process Substantive due process. 146 SCRA 446 (Resolution) Hon. No. [City of Manila v. Nos. Presidential Anti. which proceeds upon inquiry and renders judgment only after trial. 468 SCRA 188(2005) Ople v. 169391. 2009 3. June 8. Torres. 2013 c. Rosal Homeowners Association. 157383.R. No. et al. Land Bank of the Philippines. Melba Tan Te. 293 SCRA (1998) C. v. G. City of Manila. 2012 Instances when no notice and hearing are required Arroyo v. G. Equal Protection Clause Definition: Equal protection requires that all persons or things similarly situated should be treated alike. G. CA. Constitution) Spouses Hing v. G. 2013 Effect when due process is not observed: Winston F. Civil Service Commission. G. Hadji-Sirad v. Article III and Article 18. Aug. Due Process and Police Power: Ermita-Malate Hotel and Motel Operators Association Inc. Oct. 169253.R. R. Jose Deleste v. G. 182267.. Hernandez (1957)] REQUISITES FOR VALID CLASSIFICATION 10 | P a g e . 20 SCRA 849(1967) Whitelight Corp. G. September 7. Article XII) Requirements for exercise of right of expropriation: taking for public purpose and just compensation Procedural Requirement: Answer required in eminent domain proceedings City of Manila v.R. 22.R. No. Chaoahuy. No. Commission on the Settlement of Land Problems.A. Due Process and Eminent Domain (Section 9. 187689. October 10. Substantive Due Process a. 282 SCRA 125 (1997) Instances when no notice and hearing are required Anillo v. No.R. Garcia v. Due process in judicial proceedings: Velasco v. G. G. 2011 b.R. Exevea. June 26. No. it merely requires that all persons shall be treated alike. 576 SCRA 416(2009) c. Colegio de San de Letran. Due Process and Property Rights Due Process and Property Rights: Heirs of Dr. 2011 d. 2010 b. Due Process and Non-Economic Liberties: Right to Privacy Concept of the Right (Section 3. No. No. both as to rights conferred and responsibilities imposed. Cabuhay. Due process in academic and disciplinary proceedings: Spouses Go and Minor Chester Go v. It does not demand absolute equality among residents. The Monetary Board of the BSP and PDIC. CSC. CA and the People of the Philippines – August 1999 Alejano v. 4200) Privileged Communication Salcedo-Ortanez v. August 10. 534 SCRA 228(2007) Pagayanan R. 169263. Sr. [Ichong v. City of Manila. Sandiganbayan and the People of the Philippines. August 7. 2010 Right to Counsel: Lumiqued v. 169913.. No. G. Molina and Velasco. No.R. on his behalf and on behalf of the shareholders of EUROCREDIT Community Bank v. 175155. 2012 Vivas. et al.28. 191424. Article III.R. Zamora Navarro v. No. Carbonel v.. 2013 When may right be invoked Anti-Wire-Tapping Act (R. Inc. Hon. v. under like circumstances and conditions both as to privileges conferred and liabilities enforced.R. and Alllan Choachuy. September 21. February 20. The guarantee means that no person or class of persons shall be denied the same protection of laws which is enjoyed by other persons or other classes in like circumstances. 179736. [Lacson v. No. or authorizes for its satisfaction something different from that provided in its terms. Equitable PCI Bank. [Philippine Rural Electric Cooperatives Association v. 195540. Concept of Vested Right 3. Article III.R. No.R. 2010 Social Equality: Forced resettlement based on ethnicity: Rubi v. G. ethnicity. 569 SCRA 467 (2008) Garcia v. Cabiles. 582 SCRA 254 (2009) Sameer Overseas Placement Agency. G. No. 39 Phil. January 18. April 7. COMELEC. sexual orientation. G. 2000 D. Inc. Constitution) Contract Clause: A law which changes the terms of a legal contract between parties. December 6. COMELEC. Gallant Maritime Services. Inc. No. G. Secretary..(1) It must rest on substantial distinctions which make real differences. No.R. 189793.. Drilon. and not with respect to non-parties. Philippine Airlines. 2010 Exclusion based on sexual orientation: Ang Ladlad v. 1165 (1957) Political Equality: Dilution of voting rights based on residence: Aquino and Robredo v. 2003] Exceptions to rule when the state may impair contracts: (1) Power of taxation: government may increase taxes covering certain transactions (2) Regulation on loans: as a matter of public interest. (2) When a law affects the rights of parties with reference to each other. Waiver of Right Vigilar v. G. gender. 699 SCRA 352 (2013) Serrano v. Executive Secretary (1999)] BASIS FOR CLASSIFICATION: age. Aquino. G.. June 10. Inc. residence. (2) It must be germane to the purpose of the law. No. 2013 11 | P a g e . 101 Phil. 660 Privilege based on ethnicity: Cruz v. or (d) authorizes for its satisfaction something different from that provided in the terms. 190582. Provincial Board of Mindoro. 143076. April 8. or dispenses with those expressed. 732 SCRA 22 (2014) Economic Equality:Filipino First Policy: classification based on alienage . economic class. either in the time or mode of performance. date of filing/ effectivity of the law Cases: Yrasuegui v. the government may impose restrictions on loans 2.R. (c) dispenses with expressed conditions.R. is law which impairs the obligation of a contract and is therefore null and void.Ichong v. v. (3) It must not be limited to existing conditions only. or imposes new conditions. CONTRACT CLAUSE / NON-IMPAIRMENT CLAUSE 1. March 13. (b) imposes new conditions. PRESUMPTION OF VALIDITY All classifications made by law are generally presumed to be valid unless shown otherwise by petitioner. 2011 Goldenway Merchandising Corporation v. and (4) Apply equally to all members of the same class. 180388. REQUISITES: (1) When there is substantial impairment which (a) changes the terms of legal contract either in time or mode of performance. economic class.R. Hernandez. Concept of Mutual Obligation (Section 10. race. religion. disability. NCIP. DILG. 135385. In the area of criminal law. [Southern Hemisphere. FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION (SPEECH AND THE PRESS) 1. the State may well be prevented from enacting laws against socially harmful conduct. both political and legal. Gonzales (2008)] 2. so as to enable members of society to cope with the exigencies of their period.Fulfillment of Citizens Speech. the transcendent value to all society of constitutionally protected expression is deemed to justify allowing attacks on overly broad statutes with no requirement that the person making the attack demonstrate that his own conduct could not be regulated by a statute drawn with narrow specificity. said doctrines apply to penal statutes when (1) The statute is challenged as applied. it is unconstitutional. of Justice (2014)] OVERBREADTH DOCTRINE 12 | P a g e . Bases for Protection: Promotion of Truth. print and assembly regarding secular as well as political causes. RELIGIOUS FREEDOM AND ACADEMIC FREEDOM A. supra] However.” The possible harm to society in permitting some unprotected speech to go unpunished is outweighed by the possibility that the protected speech of others may be deterred and perceived grievances left to fester because of possible inhibitory effects of overly broad statutes. This right was elevated to constitutional status […] reflecting our own lesson of history. if facial challenge is allowed for this reason alone. [Southern Hemisphere v. and. Enhance Principles of Democracy. The protection covers myriad matters of public interest or concern embracing all issues. and is not confined to any particular field of human interest. or (2) The statute involves free speech [Disini v.g. This rationale does not apply to penal statutes [without a free-speech aspect]. Expression of Self. expression. FREE ASSEMBLY AND PETITION. and press include: (1) Written or spoken words (recorded or not) (2) Symbolic speech (e. INTELLECTUAL LIBERTY: FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION (SPEECH AND PRESS). Anti-Terrorism Council (2010)] Exception: A facial challenge is allowed to be made to a vague statute and to one which is overbroad because of possible “chilling effect” upon protected speech. Why State Restricts and Imposes Limitations on Freedom of Expression: Maintenance of Peace. It protects speech. about which information is needed or appropriate.IV. the law cannot take chances as in the area of free speech. wearing armbands as symbol of protest) (3) Movies and other literary works 3. Criminal statutes have general in terrorem effect resulting from their very existence. The scope of freedom of expression is so broad that it extends protection to nearly all forms of communication. [Chavez v. Definition (Section 4. Constitution) NATURE AND SCOPE OF THE RIGHT: The primacy and high esteem accorded freedom of expression is a fundamental postulate of our constitutional system. Promotion of Community Morals. that freedom of speech is an indispensable condition for nearly every other form of freedom. Sec. The theory is that “[w]hen statutes regulate or proscribe speech and no readily apparent construction suggests itself as a vehicle for rehabilitating the statutes in a single prosecution. FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION. Article III. as applied to him. and Protection of Individual Dignity FACIAL CHALLENGES AND THE OVERBREADTH DOCTRINE General Rule: A party can question the validity of a statute only if. 339 US 282] 4. (iii). Unprotected Speech/Expression and Protected Speech/Expression. literary. conditional and partial abridgement of speech.A governmental purpose may not be achieved by means which sweep unnecessarily broadly and thereby invade the area of protected freedoms. Standards of Review O’Brien Test on Content-Neutral Restrictions: For validity of content-neutral regulation (1)If it is within the constitutional power of the government (2) If it furthers an important or substantial government interest (3) If the government interest is unrelated to the suppression of free expression (4) If the incidental restriction is no greater than is essential to the furtherance of that interest Miller Test to determine obscenity: (1) Whether the average person. COMELEC (1969)] BALANCING OF INTEREST TEST: When a particular conduct is regulated in the interest of public order. Obscenity. applying contemporary community standards would find that the work. 6. or scientific value [Miller v. supra: (i). v. How Government Restricts Freedom of Expression Content Based Restrictions distinguished from Content Neutral Restrictions as gleaned from Justice Carpio’s concurring opinion in Chavez v. taken as a whole. prior restraint presumes that the expression is unconstitutional. then such words are punishable. taken as a whole. Tests applied to Freedom of Speech: DANGEROUS TENDENCY TEST: If the words uttered create a dangerous tendency of an evil which the State has the right to prevent. ordinary commercial speech. and satirical speech/parody. distinguished: a. and the regulation results in an indirect. [American Communications Assoc. 5. Gonzalez. Fernandez (1957)] CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER TEST: This rule requires that “the danger created must not only be clear and present but also traceable to the ideas expressed”. overbreadth and vagueness Libel as a Criminal Offense (Article 354. artistic. CA (2006)] Doctrines of strict scrutiny. (iv). only unprotected expression is subject to prior restraint. Libelous Speech. b. Unprotected Speech/Expression: General Guidelines. the duty of the courts is to determine which of the two conflicting interests demands greater protection. any content-based prior restraint on PROTECTED expression is unconstitutional. political. False or Misleading Advertisement. sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law (3) Whether the work. Hate Speech and Contumacious Speech.government has the burden of proof every time it exercises censorship. [Gonzales v. lacks serious. Douds. [Cabansag v. (ii). Protected Speech/Expression: all those excluded from unprotected expression may include utterances critical of public conduct. appeals to prurient interest (2) Whether the work depicts or describes in a patently offensive way. and Incitement to National Security. CA (1973) also applied in Fernando v. Revised Penal Code) 13 | P a g e . Social Weather Stations. Privileged information rooted in separation of powers 2. Information of military and diplomatic secrets (Neri v. Aquino (2008)] THE FOLLOWING ARE COVERED BY THE EXCEPTIONS: 1. April 29. and will not apply to all cases.” 644 SCRA 543 (2011) 14. Social Weather Stations. the information sought includes documents produced and communicated by a party external to the Philippine government. 755 SCRA 441 (2015) 8. Commission on Elections. Southern Hemisphere Engagement Network. 734 SCRA 88 (2014) 6. Pharmaceutical and Health Care Association of the Philippines v. Commission on Elections. 545 SCRA 441 (2008) 2. Chavez v. must constitute definite propositions by the government. Secretary of Justice. J. Puno} 11. Article III. Anti-Terrorism Council. 755 SCRA 124 (2015) 9. Atienza. 488 SCRA 226 (2006 12. Duque III 535 SCRA 265 (2007) {Read Separate Opinion of C. (Velasco. 164785. 288 SCRA 447 (1998) 4. Commission on Elections. Integrated Bar of the Philippines v. [Akbayan v. While the full text [of the JPEPA] may not be kept perpetually confidential. GMA Network. Gonzalez. Commission on Elections.) B.Cases: 1. RIGHT TO INFORMATION 1. v. 632 SCRA 146 (2010) 10. Inc. [Chavez v. Information on investigations of crimes by law enforcers before prosecution [Chavez v. Philippine Estate Authority (2002)] Diplomatic secrets (Diplomatic Negotiations Privilege): Secrecy of negotiations with foreign countries is not violative of the right to information. Bayan v. Disini. 613 SCRA 518 (2010) 13. Osmeña v. No. supra] 5. v.. Various Committees of the Senate) 3. Right to Information. The information. Inc. such privilege is merely presumptive. PCGG (1998)] 14 | P a g e . Jr. However. it is in line with the public interest that the offers exchanged during negotiations continue to be privileged information. Laguardia [G. Re: Letter of the UP Law Faculty Entitled “Restoring Integrity: A Statement by the Faculty of the University of the Philippines College of Law on the Allegations of Plagiarism and Misrepresentation in the Supreme Court. Diplomacy has a confidential nature. v. Information affecting national and economic security 4.J. 2009]: Plain and simple insults to another person cannot be elevated to the status of a religious speech. PEA and Amari. 716 SCRA 2014 and 723 SCRA 109 (2014) 3. however. 357 SCRA 496 (2001) 5. Jr. 1-United Transport Koalisyon (1-Utak) v. 747 SCRA 1 (2015) 7. Commission on Elections. Diocese of Bacolod v. Trade secrets and banking transactions [Chavez v. Ermita. Soriano vs. Incorporated v. and should not cover recognized exceptions. Section 7. Commission on Elections. Constitution The constitutional right to information includes official information on on-going negotiations before a final contract. Inc. Furthermore.R. v. Constitution Scope: The right is recognized as belonging to people whether employed or unemployed. Other confidential matters (i. Offers exchanged during diplomatic negotiations [Akbayan v. Case: In Re: Atty. Access to Public Records / Transparency in the Government. or internal deliberations in the Supreme Court) [Re: Request for Copy of 2008 Statement of Assets. Right of Private Sector Employees and Government Employees. Article II. Constitution TESTS ON FREEDOM OF RELIGION: (1).R. Art. 2010 GSIS and Garcia v. 2010 C. (1974) E. Re: Request for Copy of 2008 Statement of Assets. 165036. Mayor Atienza. No. July 27. No. Article II. endorsement or disapproval of religion. No. RIGHT OF ASSOCIATION 1. Article III. RIGHT TO ASSEMBLE AND TO SEEK REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES FROM GOVERNMENT Bayan v. G. July 5. et al. executive sessions. Constitution 3.. G. Limitations Cases: Senate of the Philippines v. Chavez v. CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER 15 | P a g e . [Victoriano v. Inc. G. 2010 D.e. Constitution Case: Victoriano v. 488 SCRA 226 (2006) IBP v. Aquino (2008)] 7. Separation of Church and State. and whether employed in the government or in the private sector. societies or associations not contrary to law. Domondon. Section 6. 488 SCRA 1 (2006) Neri v. Constitution CONCEPT: The clause prohibits excessive government entanglement with. The right includes the right to form labor unions. Ermita. Section 8. Section 8. 672 SCRA 27 (2012) 2. 24.R. 672 SCRA 27 (2012)] Cases: 1. Liabilities and Net Worth [SALN] and Personal Data Sheet or Curriculum Vitae of the Justice of the Supreme Court and Officers and Employees of the Judiciary.III. Non Establishment of Religion Clause/ Free Exercise Clause/No Religious Test. Abelardo R. Senate Committees 549 SCRA 77 (2008) Antolin v. 84 SCRA 556 (1978): compulsory membership in the Integrated Bar of the Philippines 2.5.175241. Sec. 299 SCRA 744 (1998) 2. 180291. closed door Cabinet meetings. Elizalde Rope Workers Union. Marcial A. Villaviza et al. Presidential Commission on Good Government. Elizalde Rope Workers Union (1974)] 2. 6. Edillon. Article III. Right to Strike and the Right to Unionize. Liabilities and Net Worth [SALN] and Personal Data Sheet or Curriculum Vitae of the Justice of the Supreme Court and Officers and Employees of the Judiciary. Section 28.. R. FREEDOM OF RELIGION 1. RA 6713. Ermita. Feb. On the other hand.R. Two Aspects of Freedom of Religion: Freedom to Believe and Freedom to Act on One’s Beliefs CASES: 1. HOME AND POSSESSION A. No. 176518. Judge Ignacio B. VI. G. 5(2): “For three consecutive terms after the ratification of this Constitution. Ochoa (constitutionality of the RH Bill): Read only the portion on conscientious objector in relation to freedom of religion F. 6: “The separation of Church and State shall be inviolable. or of any priest. Sec. or dignitary as such. MTJ-10-1770. A. Section 2(5). for the use.” (4) Art. Sec. Sec.” (2) Art. July 18. CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTOR 3. Article VI. 29(2): “No public money or property shall be appropriated. even if it sincerely believes that they are good for the country. FREEDOM OF ABODE. 453 SCRA 123 (2005) 4. the State cannot meddle in the internal affairs of the church. sectarian institution. or employed.5 (2). paid. much less question its faith and dogmas or dictate upon it. Mathew Christian Academy et al. 2012 16 | P a g e . FREEDOM TO CHANGE ABODE AND RIGHT TO TRAVEL 1. Academic Freedom The right to academic freedom may only be invoked only against the state. Ang Ladlad LGBT Party v. VI. Case: PTA of St. IX-C. II. Commission on Elections. 2(5): “Religious denominations and sects shall not be registered [as political parties]. Generally. No. Imbong v. benefit. and Article IX C. except when such priest. It cannot demand that the nation follow its beliefs. 618 SCRA 32 (2010) 2. Macarine. preacher.(2). or government orphanage or leprosarium. or support of any sect. preacher. applied. Estrada v. one-half of the seats allocated to party-list representatives shall be filled. PHYSICAL LIBERTY: LIBERTY OF ABODE AND FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT FREEDOM TO BE SECURE IN ONE’S PERSON. BENEVOLENT NEUTRALITY-COMPELLING STATE INTEREST (3). Separation of Powers.” [Imbong v. minister.Taruc v.M. other religious teacher. the church cannot impose its beliefs and convictions on the State and the rest of the citizenry. Sec. 408 SCRA 1 (2003) 492 SCRA 1 (2006) 3. It cannot favor one religion and discriminate against another.” (3) Art.” 4. Constitution BASIS “[T]he principle of separation of Church and State is based on mutual respect. church. or system of religion. denomination. by selection or election from […] sectors as may be provided by law. Article III. Sec. Constitutional Guarantee under Section 6. Case: OCA v. Escritor. directly or indirectly. Ochoa (2014)] Relevant provisions of the Constitution on the separation of the church and the state: (1) Art. All private educational institutions may prescribe its own requirements to maintain the standard of quality of academic quality. except the religious sector. or dignitary is assigned to the armed forces. 2010) V.. Constitution Freedom of movement includes two rights: 1) Liberty of abode 2) Liberty of travel LIMITATIONS: In certain instances both the liberty of abode and right to travel may be impaired. Metrobank. March 2. v. as provided by law. or to any penal institution. minister. De La Cruz. aircrafts -Pollo v. Reyes v.In interest of national security. G.R.R. 188611. Diokno. Chairperson Constantino- David. both the freedom of abode and right to travel may be restricted. Belocura.R. 348 SCRA (2000) Moving Vehicle Search: People v. 177570.R. 193 SCRA 57 (1991) Administrative Searches: buildings.. People.D. De Villa. Roberto P. Marti. [Manotoc vs. no. Provincial Board (1919)] Restraint on right to travel of accused on bail is allowed to avoid the possibility of losing jurisdiction if accused travels abroad. G. No. Court of Appeals. 2011 United Laboratories. Ronaldo de Guzman. public safety or public health and as may be provided by law. No. 184807. 2010 Consented Search: searches in school premises. CA (1986)] B. is a proper restraint to their liberty.. Valid warrantless searches Search incident to a valid arrest: Cases: People v. 182161. Lukban (1919)] The liberty to travel may be withheld upon order of the courts through the issuance of Hold Departure Orders. 177148. 178 SCRA 211 (1989) Stop and Frisk: People v. February 6. Macarios. WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS. G. January 19. 190889. 170217. Article III.R. 191023. No. Ngik Bun. PLDT. R. 191080. [Rubi vs. No. December 10. no. 2011 The Plain View Doctrine Cases: Fajardo v. Sr. 2011 Probable Cause: HPS Software and Communication Corp. Kwok Wai Cheng et al. 461 SCRA 574 (2005) Checkpoints: Valmonte v. 598 SCRA 41 (2009) 4. WRIT OF KALIKASAN 17 | P a g e . Sec.R. Dequina et al. G. 173474. Instances of valid warrantless arrest (Review relevant provisions of the Rules on Criminal Procedure) Case: Valeroso v. Case: Fr. Senga. Gonzales. G. 2011. G. Sections 1. People 108 SCRA (2007) People v. 2012 Loss of protection of right: Sales v. G. Isip.R. a nomadic people. No. 20 SCRA 388 (1967) People v. access to parking areas. entry to malls Searches by Private Entities: People v. 2009 3. People. G. Requisites for a valid search warrant and warrant of arrest Cases: Yao. 2011 C. 181881. G. Buenaventura G. Right against unreasonable searches and seizures. WRIT OF AMPARO. No. No. vessels. No. Constitution Exclusion of Evidence: Stonehill v. 969: Nogales v. G. 170694. 2011 Airport Search: People v. 2010 Confiscation of seized items despite acquittal under P. Johnson. WRIT OF HABEAS DATA. 2009 Relocation of Manguinaes. March 26. June 30. no.R. 186498. 180452.R. et al. People. December 31. Nunes.. August 29. et al. 2 and 3. 2012 Chain of Custody doctrine: People v.No.. October 18. January 10. 2013 2. Case: Gudani v. November 21.R. June 16. v. January 10. Buy Bust Operation – People v.R. G. G. and Yap v. 498 SCRA 671 (2006) The executive of a municipality does not have the right to force citizens of the Philippine Islands to change their domicile from one locality to another. Inc. November 23. [Villavicencio vs. It is for their advancement in civilization and so that material prosperity may be assured. SEARCHES AND SEIZURES 1. v.R. Article III. et al.M. 187725.R. Concerned residents of Manila Bay G. August 28.. G.R. Inc. 1. No. Constitution When Bail is allowed When Bail is a matter of right (Rules on Criminal Procedure. Function of the Writs of Amparo [A.07-9-9-12-SC] and Habeas Data [A. Article III. 189155. Function of the Writ of Habeas Corpus Case: Villavicencio v. When Miranda Rule applies (Information given while in custody and information is testimonial in nature) 4. President Macapagal. August 18. Section 12. Nos. February 1. No. No. Section 18. Section 4) or a matter of discretion on the part of the cour (Rule on Criminal Procedure. No. 08-11-7 SC. 171947-48.R. Lukban. Writ of Habeas Data Case: Viveres and Suzara v. G. 2008 VI. No. People.16-SC] Melissa C.M. 2011 2. 2010 Canlas v.. 159618. Roxas v. 1987 Constitution 4. FREE ACCESS TO COURTS 1.R. 15 March 2010 Read also The Anti-Torture Act of 2009 [R. 596 SCRA 401 (2009) Re: Request of IBP National Committee on Legal Aid Clients from Paying Filing. 1987 Constitution 2. Constitution Cases: People v. Azarraga and Prevendido. Sandiganbayan. No.. No. G. Suspension of the Writ of Habeas Corpus. 2011 People v.A. G.2014 6. 2011 2. 778 (1919) 3. Napico Homeowners Assn. 2011 Ho Wai Ping v. (3) and (4). People. Section 12(1). Nature of Criminal Due Process Jurisdiction over Criminal Offenses: Bayan Muna v. G. Section 5) Case: Juan Ponce-Enrile v. Constitution Case: People v.M. September 29. Marra. 2015 2. October 19. No.R. December 18.Arroyo. Prioreschi re Exemption from Legal and Filing Fees of the Good Shepherd Foundation. 187117. R. RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED AND OTHER RIGHTS RELATED TO CRIME AND PUNISHMENT A. March 2. Constitution Case: Jesalva v. Docket and other Fees. Section 12 (2). Hon. 188705. G.R. Costs of Litigation Re: Query of Mr. Article III. G. Writ of Habeas Corpus Article III. Rule 114. January 19. 2009 B. 2011 18 | P a g e . Effect of Involuntary Confessions. History of Miranda Rights/What Rights are Involved Case: People v. Article III. October 12. No. Section 13. Representation before the Courts. September 7. 39 Phil.R. 186228. St. G. Roger C. Article III. Theresa’s College. Custodial Investigation. No. Romulo and Ople. 236 SCRA 565 (1994) 3. Article III. 554 SCRA 208 (2008) 5. 9745] C. Right to Independent Counsel and Scope of Waiver. Lauga. Basis of Right to Bail. No. Rule 114. No. RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED 1. Constitution 6.R. Writ of Kalikasan Case: MMDA v. A. Section 11. Inc. Lucero. 176229.. RIGHTS OF SUSPECTS 1. 202666.08-1. Sections 13 and 15. When Miranda Rule will not apply (Information gathered in non-custodial setting and information given is non-testimonial in nature) 5. Constitution D. Situations Covered: Identity of the Act and Identity of Offenses Cases: People v. PROTECTION AGAINST DOUBLE JEOPARDY 1. Section 19(1) and (2). Impartial and Public Trial Right to Meet the Witnesses Face to Face To Have Compulsory Process to Secure the Attendance of Witnesses and the Production of Evidence in his behalf 3. No. January 18. et al. 1950. 2010 When right will not apply: Braza v. No. 148 SCRA 292 (1987) Loney v. Dacuycuy. No Detention for Political Beliefs or Aspirations. Sandiganbayan. Article III. Bangayan. Jr. 476 SCRA 202 (2005) E. Non-imposition of Excessive Fines.R. Article III. Transactional Immunity 3. Section19 (1). 2012 2. October 19. Requisites of Double Jeopardy Case: Ivler v. Constitution 4. 176389 and 176864. 539 SCRA 34 (2007) Valeroso v. Nature of Double Jeopardy. Constitution Case: People v. G. Section 14(1) and (4) Right to Substantive and Procedural Due Process Presumption of Innocence Right to be heard by Himself and Counsel To be informed of the Nature and Cause of Accusation against Him Right to Have a Speedy. 167526. when invoked: Lejano v. Nos. June 22. Speedy Trial v. No. Prohibition against Cruel and Degrading Punishment. Constitution 6. Rational behind the Imposition of Death Penalty. Constitution 3. February 20.R. G. When Right may be invoked: in all Criminal Cases. Section 22. no. 2010 4. July 26. Sandiganbayan. Dante Tan. Aspects covered by the Witness Protection Program and Criminal Procedure Cases: Agustin v. Constitution 2. C. v. 180564. Court of Appeals. Section 19 (1).. Article III. 176819. supra 19 | P a g e . 2013 Exception. 173 SCRA 90 (1989) G. When Retroactivity of the Law is allowed Salvador v.R. G.R. People. Article III. Article III. January 26. Administrative Cases and Impeachment 2. CRIMES AND PUNISHMENTS 1.Criminal Immunity: Disini v. San Pedro. Constitution Nature of right: People v. Non-Imprisonment for Debt or Poll Tax. July 25. People. People 482 SCRA 194 (2006) 3. G. THE RIGHT AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION 1. 172777. Mapa. Article III. Article III. No. G.. Balao. G. BAN ON EX POST FACTO LAW AND BILL OF ATTAINDER 1. Article III. Constitution 5. G.R. 2010 Rights involved in Criminal Proceedings. Article III. No. Article III.. 2011 2. Section 18 (1). Exceptions to Involuntary Servitude. 2011 F. Section 21. Characteristics of an Ex Post Facto Law. Section16. 2011 Mistrial as ground for exception: People v. 460 SCRA 315 (2005) Tanchanco v. 172716..R. G. Constitution Sufficiency of Information: People v. 198589. November 17. R. Section 20. Section 18 (2).A. Relova. Effect of Acquittal based on Demurrer to Evidence Case: Bangayan. Sandiganbayan. Speedy Disposition of Cases.R. Cruz. Political Law Rene B. Midas Marquez. The Constitutional Philosophy of Philippine Jurisprudence (2005) Antonio B. Constitutional Law. Gorospe. Mendoza. Constitutional Law(2005) J. Fernando. The 1987 Philippine Constitution: A Comprehensive Reviewer (2011) V. The Constitution of the Philippines (1977) Isagani M. V. Volumes I and II (2006) Miriam Defensor. Joaquin G. Nachura.Santiago.References: Bernas. Outline in Political Law Review (2006) 20 | P a g e .. Bar Review Guide in Political Law (1987) Enrique M. Documents Similar To Atty. Loanzon- Consti Law II January 2017.docSkip carouselcarousel previouscarousel nextLoanzon 2016 Criminal Law Materialuploaded by MiroTAXATION_ATTY.-LOANZON.pdfuploaded by Joseph Santos GacayanLoanzon 2016 Legal Ethics Materialuploaded by MiroLoanzon 2016 Political Law Materialuploaded by MiroWilliam J. Bussinger Susan Bickley Bussinger, His Wife v. City of New Smyrna Beach, Florida, William N. Gambert, in His Capacity as Personal Representative for Clarence McMillon Deceased, Denver Fleming, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Police Chief, Frank Roberts, Individually and in His Official Capacity as City Manager, 50 F.3d 922, 11th Cir. (1995)uploaded by Scribd Government DocsSpecial Civil Actions Reportuploaded by Marian ChavezConstitutional Law 2uploaded by Rbee C. AblanExpropriation Casesuploaded by Maria Seleena Hipolito[REM] Loanzonuploaded by Daniel EstemberLoanzon 2016 Commercial Law Materialuploaded by MiroUST Consti Law II January 2017uploaded by Marvin OlidConsolidated Civil Law QQR (1)uploaded by Enerz CerillesLocgov Expropriationuploaded by Eva Trinidad7 Surigao Electric Co. vs Mun. Og Surigaouploaded by zatarra_12U.S. Prostitutes & Pimps - Eminent Domain Statutes, Ch. 73, Florida Stat.uploaded by Judicial_Fraudabaadgsuploaded by Timmy HaliliNotice of Appeal and Petition for Discretionary Review, Kirby v North Carolina Dep't of Transportation, No. ___ (Mar. 24, 2015)uploaded by RHT63032-1991-Local_Government_Code_of_1991.pdfuploaded by ganggingskiWilson v Lynch, 14-15700 (9th Cir 31 Aug 2016) OPINION, RKBAuploaded by nolu chanSps Abad Vfil-homesuploaded by Aprille S. AlviarneFull Version of Katikkiro Presentation to the Land Commission of Inquiryuploaded by Denis JjuukoAdmin (Pub Corp 42-46)uploaded by Charmaine Key Aurea06 White Light v City of Mnluploaded by Marjorie AlvarezManotok Realty vs. CLT Realtyuploaded by Teff QuibodMining Casesuploaded by Nor LitsUrban Sprawl and Decentralisationuploaded by altlawforumAgra Case Digestuploaded by YggyNarvasaLuzavuploaded by a7bknEnvi Law Casesuploaded by Nor LitsEnvi Law Casesuploaded by Nor LitsMore From Jose AdrianoSkip carouselcarousel previouscarousel nextwewwwuploaded by Jose Adrianofllof.docxuploaded by Jose AdrianoDdduploaded by Jose AdrianoBoopuploaded by Jose Adrianofoopiuploaded by Jose AdrianoEeeuploaded by Jose AdrianoJokeuploaded by Jose AdrianoWoo Bad Oobauploaded by Jose AdrianoEssayuploaded by Jose Adrianowewewuploaded by Jose Adrianopiipoouploaded by Jose Adrianofllofuploaded by Jose AdrianoPooperuploaded by Jose AdrianoBlanks Ksuploaded by Jose AdrianoStudy on Schoolsuploaded by Jose AdrianoPeople v Pincalinuploaded by Jose AdrianoCONSTI1 - Vilano vs Adriano Digest.docxuploaded by Jose AdrianoShoal Argumentsuploaded by Jose AdrianoOnARuploaded by Jose Adrianoprint.docxuploaded by Jose AdrianoBlankuploaded by Jose AdrianoMarbury Caseuploaded by Jose AdrianoLibertarian theory paper sampleuploaded by Jose Adriano..docxuploaded by Jose AdrianoSample paperuploaded by Jose AdrianoEarl Reco.pdfuploaded by Jose Adriano.uploaded by Jose AdrianoRecent uploads by Scribd usersExamen Recuepracion 4 BloueUploaded by S Alejandro Camacho MartinezModal sosialUploaded by haurathyaDaftar Tilik IvaUploaded by DOKTER OKAMaterial Fase I RiUploaded by Débo OrellanountitledUploaded by Aomine Daikia-arte-da-negociacao-michael-wheeler.pdfUploaded by roni_piuchiFooter MenuBack To TopAboutAbout ScribdPressOur blogJoin our team!Contact UsJoin todayInvite FriendsGiftsSupportHelp / FAQAccessibilityPurchase helpAdChoicesPublishersLegalTermsPrivacyCopyrightSocial MediaCopyright © 2018 Scribd Inc. .Browse Books.Site Directory.Site Language: English中文EspañolالعربيةPortuguês日本語DeutschFrançaisTurkceРусский языкTiếng việtJęzyk polskiBahasa indonesiaYou're Reading a Free PreviewDownloadClose DialogAre you sure?This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?CANCELOK