CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II

Justice Oswaldo D. Agcaoili

NATURE OF THE CONSTITUTION

Amendment or revision

Santiago v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 127325, March '19, 1997 and (Resolution) June 10, 1997; 270 SCRA 106. Need for implementing provisions.

Lambino v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 174153, Oct. 25, 2006. People's initiative to propose amendments; amendment and revision distinguished.

Taada v. Cuenco, G.R. No. L-10520, Feb. 28, 1957. Amendments subject to judicial review.

CONSTITUTION AND THE COURTS

Requisites of judicial inquiry

Funa v. Manila Economic and Cultural Office, G.R. No. 193462, Feb. 4, 2014. Requisites of judicial inquiry.

Garcillano v. House of Representatives and Agcaoili v. Senate, G.R. No. 170338 & 179275, Dec. 23. 2008. Requisites of judicial inquiry.

Arigo v. Swift, G.R. No. 206510, Sept. 16, 2014. Locus standi.

Disinin v. Sec. of Justice, G.R. No. 203335, Feb. 18, 2014. Cybercrime law, requisites of

judicial inquiry.

Laurel v. Civil Service Commission, G.R. No. 183591, Oct. 14, 2008. Citizen's suit.

Araullo v. Aquino, G.R. No. 209287, July 1, 2014. Exercise of judicial review despite

the cases being rendered moot and academic by supervening events: (1) when there was a

grave violation of the Constitution; (2) when the case involved a situation of exceptional

character and was of paramount public interest; (3) when the constitutional issue raised

required the formulation of controlling principles to guide the Bench, the Bar and the

public; and (4) when the case was capable of repetition yet evading review.

Imbong v. Ochoa, G.R. No. 204819, April 8, 2014. R.A. No. 10354 (Responsible

Parenthood and Reproductive Health Act of 201 2) declared not unconstitutional except

for some provisions. Concept of locus standi.

Gonzales v. Office of the President, G.R. No. 196231, Jan. 28, 2014. Requisites of judicial inquiry; principle of checks and balances.

Dumlao v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. L-52245, Jan. 22, 1980. Requisites of

2

judicial inquiry.

Phil. Assoc. of Colleges and Universities, G.R. No. L-5279, Oct. 31, 1995, 97 Phil. 106. When question of constitutionality may be raised.

Kilosbayan v. Morato, G.R. No. 118910, July 17, 1995, and (Resolution) Nov. 16, 1995. Standing to sue.

Laurel v. Civil Service Commission, G.R. No. 183591, Oct. 14, 2008, 203 SCRA 195. Citizen's suit.

Bayan v. Zamora, G.R. No. 138570, Oct. 10, 2000, 342 SCRA 449. Locus standi.

David v. Macapagal-Arroyo, G.R. No. 171396, May 3, 2006, 489 SCRA 160. Moot and academic principle.

Oposa v. Factora n, G.R. No. 101083, July 30, 1993, 224 SCRA 792. Locus standi, right to a balanced and healthful ecology.

Legaspi v. Civil Service Commission, G.R. No. 72119, May 29, 1987, 150 SCRA 530. Right to information.

Lim v. Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 151445, April 11, 2002, 380 SCRA 739. Doctrine of locus standi relaxed.

Estrada v. Desierto, G.R. No. 146710, March 2, 2001, 353 SCRA 442. Expanded power of judicial review.

Sanlakas v. Reyes, G.R. No. 159085, Feb. 3, 2004, 421 SCRA 656. Moot and academic.

Francisco v. House of Representatives, G.R. No. 160261, Nov. 10, 2003, 415 SCRA 44. Taxpayers suit.

Lozano v. Nograles, G.R. No. 187883, June 16, 2009. Case or controversy requirement

Funa v. Ermita, G.R. No. 184740, Feb. 11, 2010. Standing, constitutional issues, issues of transcendental importance.

Macalintal v. PET, G.R. No. 191618, No. 23, 2010. Failure to raise a seasonable constitutional challenge.

De Castro v. Judicial and Ba r Council, G.R. No. 191002, March 17, 2010. Locus standi being a mere procedural technicality can be waived.

Zandueta v. De la Costa, G.R. No. 46267, Nov. 28, 1938. Estoppel.

Effects of declaration of unconstitutionality

Norton v. Shelby, 118 US 425. Unconstitutional act not a law.

In re: Cunanan, 94 Phil. 534. Reducing passing average in the Bar.

Tijam v. Sibonghanoy, G.R. No. L-21450, April 15, 1968. Estoppel, laches.

Republic v. Bantigue Point, G.R. No. 162322, March 14, 2012. Exception to Tijam v. Sibonghanoy.

3

POLICE POWER

Tests for valid exercise of police power

People v. Calantiao, G.R. No. 203984, June 18, 2014. A warrantless search and seizure incident to a lawful arrest is a reasonable exercise of the State's police power to protect (1)

law enforcers from the injury and (2) evidence from being destroyed by the arrestee.

Smart Communications v. Muncipality of Malvar, G.R. No. 204429, Feb. 18, 2014. Ordinance No. 18 does not encroach on NTC's regulatory powers.

Remnan Enterprises v. Professional Regulatory Board, G.R. No. 197676, Feb. 4, 2014. The regulation of the practice of real estate services is consistent with a valid exercise of

the State's police power.

Churchill v. Rafferty, G.R. No. 10572, Dec. 21, 1915, 32 Phil. 580. Indiscriminate use of outdoor advertising may be regulated.

Taxicab Operators v. Board of Transportation, 119 SCRA 597. Old taxis may be phased out.

Velasco v. Villegas, G.R. No. L-24153. Feb. 14, 1983, 120 SCRA 588. Ordinance prohibits any operator of barbershop to conduct the business of massaging customers in

any adjacent room to forestall possible immorality.

Bautista v. Juinio, G.R. No. L-50908. Jan. 31, 1984, 127 SCRA 329. LOI restricting the use of heavy vehicles during stated days and hours as a fuel-saving measure is justified

under the police power.

Tablarin v. Gutierrez, 152 SCRA 730. The NMAT as a measure intended to limit the

admission to i11edical schools only to those who have initially proved their competence

and preparation for a medical education is a valid police power measure. (See also DECS

v. San Diego, G.R. No. 89572. Dec. 21 , 1989, 180 SCRA 533)

Del Rosario v. Bengzon, G.R. No. 88265, Dec. 21, 1989, 180 SCRA 521. The Generics Act implements the constitutional mandate for the State "to protect and promote the ri ght

to health of the people" and "to make essential goods, health and other social services

available to all the people at affordable cost."

KMU v. Director General-NEDA, G.R. No. 167798, April 19, 2006. Adoption of a

unified multi-purpose ID system for the government within the power of the President to

promulgate, to reduce costs, increase efficiency, and in general, improve public services.

(Compare with Opie v. Torres, G.R. No. 127685 , July 23, 1998, 293 SCRA 141)

Fernando v. St. Scholasticas College, G.R. No. 161107, March 12, 2013. Test of a valid ordinance: (1) must not contravene the Constitution or any statute; (2) must not be unfair or

oppressive; (3) must not be partial or discriminatory; (4) must not prohibit but may

regulate trade; (5) must be general and consistent with public policy; and (6) must not be

unreasonable. (Citing White Light Corp. v. City of Manila, G.R. No. 122846, Jan. 20, 2009,

576 SCRA 416).

4

Lawful means

Exec. Secretary v. Forerunner Multi Resources, G.R. No. 199324, Jan. 7, 2013. The ban for the importation of used vehicles to protect the domestic industry is' a reasonable

exercise of police power. (See also Executive Secretary v. Southwing Heavy Industries,

G.R. No. 1641 71 , 164172, 168741, Feb. 20, 2006)

Agcaoili v. Felipe, G.R. No. 77224, April 29, 1987, 149 SCRA 341. Indelible marking of the forefinger as requisite or condition to the exercise of suffrage valid.

Gould v. Gould, 61 Atl. 604. Blood tests before issuance of marriage license.

Buck v. Bell, 274 US 195. Sterilization of imbeciles.

Agan v. Piatco, G.R. No. 155001, Jan. 21, 2004. The State, in times of national emergency, may take over the operation of any business affected with public interest.

Primicias v. Fugoso, G.R. No. L-1800, Jan. 27, 1948, 80 Phil. 71. The Ordinance giving unlimited power of the Mayor to grant or refuse a permit for the use of streets and other

public places for processions , parades, or meetings, is null and void.

Ichong v. Hernandez, G.R. No. L-7995, May 31. 1957, 101 Phil. 1155. Treaties subject to amendment by subsequent law.

Calalang v. Williams, G.R. No. 47800, Dec. 2, 1940, 70 Phil. 726. Resolution of the National Traffic Commission prohibiting animal-drawn vehicles from passing along

certain narrow streets valid exercise of police power. Justice Laurel defines social justice;

salus populi est suprema lex.

Phil. Assoc. of Service Exporters v. Drilon, G.R. No. 101279, Aug. 6, 1992, 163 SCRA 386. Prohibiting the temporary deployment of Filipino workers for overseas employment

valid.

Lupangco v. CA, G.R. No. 77372, April 29, 1988, 160 SCRA 848. PRC Resolution prohibiting examinees from attending review classes, receiving handout materials, tips or

the like 3 days before the date of examination is not only unreasonable and arbitrary, it also

infringes on the examinees' right to liberty.

Ortigas v. Feati Bank, G.R. No. L-24670, Dec. 14, 1979, 94 SCRA 533. Building restrictions in deeds of sale cannot prevail over zoning regulations, i.e., from residential to

commercial, to safeguard or promote the health, safety, peace, good order and general

welfare of the people in the locality.

Telecommunications and Broadcast Attorneys v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 1132922, April 21, 1998, 289 SCRA 33. Broadcast stations may be required to provide COMELEC

time free of charge.

Binay v. Domingo, G.R. No. 92389, Sept. 11, 1991, 219 SCRA 508. Resolution providing P500 burial assistance to a bereaved family is a police power measure founded on the

maxim "Sic utere tuo et alienum non laedas" and "Salus populi est suprema lex."

JMM Promotion v. CA, G.R. No. 120095, Aug. 5, 1996, 160 SCRA 319. Licensing or accreditation requirements of various professions; salus populi est suprema lex; parens

patriae, sic utero tuo et alienum non laedas.

Lucero v. City Government of Pasig, G.R. No. 132834, Nov. 24, 2006. A lease contract

5

to operate a stall may be abrogated for the protection of the general welfare.

Valcurza v. Tamparong, G.R. No. 1890874, Sept. 4, 2013. The power to establish zones for industrial, commercial and residential uses is derived from the police power. (See also

Luna v. Afable, G.R. No. 188299, .Jan. 23, 2013)

Improper exercise of police power

Perez v. Madrona, G.R. No. 184478, March 21, 2012. Respondents' fence is not a nuisance per se but at most a nuisance per accidens, hence, its summary abatement without

judicial intervention is unwarranted.

MMDA v. Bel-Air Village, G.R. No. 135962, March 27, 2000. R.A. No. 7924 does not

grant MMDA with police power, let alone legislative power, and that all its functions are

administrative in nature; it may enforce, but not enact, ordinances.

MMDA v. Viron Transportation, G.R. No. 170656, Aug. 1, 2007. MMDA cannot order the closure of respondents' terminals not only because no authority to implement the Project

has been granted nor legislative or police power been delegated to it, but also because the

elimination of the terminals does not satisfy the standards of a valid police power measure.

Lucena Grand Terminal v. JAC Liner, G.R. No. 148339, Feb. 23, 2005. Ordinance directing public utility vehicles to load and unload at a specific bus terminal is an invalid

exercise of police power and undue taking of private property.

MMDA v. Garin, G.R. No. 130230, April 15, 2005, 456 SCRA 176. MMDA is not vested with police power; it cannot confiscate/suspend/revoke a driver's license in the absence of

a traffic law or regulation validly enacted by law or ordinance.

Phil. Press Institute v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 119694, May 22, 1995. Compelling publishers to donate print space amounts to taking of private property.

People v. Fajardo, G.R. No. L-12172, Aug. 29, 1958, 104 Phil. 443. The State may not, under guise of police power, divest owners of the beneficial use of property to promote

aesthetic purposes.

Police power objective rejected for being unlawful

City of Manila v. Laguio, G.R. No. G.R. 118127, 12 April 2005, 455 SCRA 308. Ban on motels, etc., in the Ermita-Malate area.

White Light Corp. v. City of Manila, G.R. No. 122846, Jan. 20, 2009. A city ordinance prohibiting motels and inns from offering short-time admission, as well as pro-rated or

wash up rates, is unconstitutional for it needlessly restrains the operation of the

businesses of the petitioners as well as restricting the rights of their patrons without

sufficient justification. The ordinance rashly equates wash rates and renting out a room

more than twice a day with immorality without accommodating innocuous intentions.

OSG v. Ayala Land, G.R. No.177056, Sept. 18, 2009. The challenged ordinance rashly equates wash, rates and renting out a room more than twice a day with immorality without

accommodating innocuous intentions.

6

Fernando v. St. Scholastica's College, G.R. No. 161107, March 12, 2013. Prohibiting respondents from constructing a fence more than one meter in height is a clear

encroachment on their right to property.

Ynot v. IAC, G.R. No. 744357, March 20, 1987. Confiscation of carabao or carabeef being transported across provincial boundaries.

Balacuit v. CFI, G.R. No. L-38429, June 30, 1988. Ordinance requiring movie operators to charge one-half of adult fare for children between 7 and 12 unconstitutional.

EMINENT DOMAIN

Who may exercise

Metropolitan Cebu Water v. J. King, G.R. No. 175983, April 16, 2009. Power exercised by the legislature, etc.

Yusay v. CA, G.R. No. 156684, April 6, 2011. LGUs may expropriate.

Gancayco v. City Government of Quezon, G.R. No. 177807, Oct. 11, 2011. The MMDA have the power to declare a thing a nuisance. Only courts of law have the power to

determine whether a thing is a nuisance.

Necessity for exercise

Republic v. Samson-Tatad, G.R. No. 187677, April 17, 2013. Findings of ownership in an expropriation proceeding should not be construed as final and binding on the parties.

The condemnor (petitioner) merely serves notice that it is taking title to and possession of

the property, and that the defendant is asserting title to or interest in the property, not to

prove a right to possession, but to prove a right to compensation for the taking.

Cabahug v. NPC, G.R. No. 186069, Jan. 30, 2013. Any valuation for just compensation laid down in the statutes serve only as a guiding principle, hence, Section 3A of RA No.

6395 is not binding upon the Court.

Fery v. Municipality of Cabanatuan, G.R. No. 17540, July 23, 1921. When land has been acquired for public use in fee simple, unconditionally, either by the exercise of the

right of eminent domain or by purchase, the former owner retains no right in the land, and

the public use may be abandoned, or the land may be devoted to a different use. Without

any impairment of the estate or title acquired, or any reversion to the former owner.

Mactan-Cebu International Airport v. Bernardo Lozada, G.R. No. 176625, Feb. 25, 2010. The taking of private property, consequent to the Government's exercise of its power

of eminent domain, is always subject to the condition that the property be devoted to the

specific public purpose for which it was taken. Corollary, if this particular purpose or intent

is not initiated or not at all pursued, and is peremptorily abandoned, then the former owners,

if they so desire, may seek the reversion of the property, subject to the return of the amount

of just compensation received. (Fery revisited).

7

Ouano v. Republic, G.R. No. 168770, Feb. 9, 2011. With respect to the element of public use, the expropriator should commit to use the property pursuant to the purpose stated in

the petition for expropriation filed, failing which, it should file another petition for the new

purpose. If not, it is then incumbent upon the expropriator to return the said property to its

private owner, if the latter desires to reacquire the same.

Public use

Reyes v. NHA, G.R. No. 147511, Jan. 20, 2003. Concept of public use is no longer limited to traditional purposes. The idea that "public use" is strictly limited to clear cases of "use

by the public" has been abandoned. The term "public use" has now been held to be

synonymous with "public interest," "public benefit," "public welfare," and "public

convenience." Non-payment of just compensation is not a ground to recover possession of

the expropriated lots, owner is entitled to payment with interest.

Bgy. Sindalan v. CA, G.R. No. 150640, March 2, 2007. Meaning of "public use"; expropriation of private property for the benefit of a private individual is proscribed by the

Constitution, declaring that it should be for public use or purpose.

Ardoa v. Reyes, G.R. No. L-60549, Oct. 26, 1983. Taking for tourism purposes is for public use.

Republic, Rep. by Public Information Agency v. Court of Appeals and Santos, G.R. No. 146587, July 2, 2002. Expropriated property may be used for a public purpose other

than what it was originally intended.

Object of expropriation

Republic v. PLDT, 26 SCRA 620. Private property, services.

PLDT v. NTC, 190 SCRFA 717. Telephone interconnection.

Taking

US v. Lynch, 18 US 445. Inundation of farmland.

US v, Causby, 328 US 256. Planes flying low over private property.

People v. Faiardo, G.R. No. L-12172, Aug. 29, 1958. Deprivation of one's right to use property oversteps the bounds of police power, and amounts to a taking of property without

just compensation.

Phil. Press Institute v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 119694, May 22, 1995. To compel print media companies to donate "COMELEC space" amounts to "taking" of private personal

property.

NPC v. Aguirre-Paderanga, 464 SCRA 481. Transmission lines over aerial easements.

NPC v. Purefoods, G.R. No.160275, Sept. 12, 2008. Compensation for right-of-way

easement.

8

NPC v. Co, G.R. No. 166973, Feb. 10, 2009. Value of land taken for power lines.

Richards v. Washington Terminal, 33 US 546. Exhaust fan blowing into house.

Association of Small Landowners v. DAR Secretary, 175 SCRA 343. Agrarian reform.

NPC v. Sangkay, G R No. 165828, Aug. 24, 2011. NPC liable to pay not merely the

easement fee but the full compensation for the land traversed by the underground tunnel.

City Government of QC v. Ericta, G.R. No. L-34915, June 24, 1983. Ordinance requiring that at least six (6) percent of the total area of private cemeteries be set aside for

charity burial grounds is actually a taking without compensation.

Hacienda Luisita v. PARC, G.R. No. 171101, April 24, 2012. Collective ownership of farmers-beneficiaries.

Reyes v. NHA, G.R. No. 147511, Jan. 20, 2003. The low-cost housing project of the NHA on the subject Jots to be sold to qualified low income beneficiaries is not a deviation from

public purpose; it is in furtherance of social justice.

Sumulong v. Guerrero, G.R. No. L-48685, Sept. 30, 1987. Socialized housing.

Visayan Refining v. 'Camus, 40 Phil. 550. Title not transferred until after payment.

Just compensation

DPWH Secretary v. Tecson, G R No. 179334, July 2013. Where private property is taken by the Government for public use without first acquiring title thereto either through

expropriation or negotiated sale, the owner may recover his property if its return is feasible

or, if it is not, the aggrieved owner may demand payment of just compensation for the land

taken. Here, petitioners had been occupying the subject property for more than fifty years

without the benefit of expropriation proceedings. For said illegal taking, respondents are

entitled to adequate compensation in the form of actual or compensatory damages which

in this case should be the legal interest of six percent (6%) per annum on the value of the

land at the time of taking in 1940 until full payment.

Republic v. BPI. G.R. No. 203039, Sept. 11, 2013. No actual taking of the building is

necessary to grant consequential damages.

Republic v. Gingoyon, G.R. No. 166429, Dec. 19, 2005. Rule 67 and the Local Government Code merely provided that the government deposit the initial amounts

antecedent to acquiring possession of the property. In both cases, the private owner does

not receive compensation prior to the deprivation of property. But R.A. No. 8974 mandates

immediate payment of the initial just compensation prior to the issuance of the writ of

possession in favor of the government.

Republic (PIA) v. CA and Santos, G.R. No. 146587, .July 2, 2002. Respondents question the fact that expropriated property's present use differs from the purpose original l y

contemplated. The argument is of no moment. The property has assumed a public character

upon its expropriation. Petitioner, as the condemnor and as the owner of the property, is

well within its rights to alter and decide the use of that property, the only limitation being

that it be for public use, which, decidedly, it is.

Republic v. Castellvi, G.R. No. L-20620, Aug. 15, 1974. Requisites of taking.

9

PNOC v. Maglasang, G.R. No. 155407, Nov. 11, 2008. Value determined at time of taking.

Tan v. Republic, G.R. No. 170740, May 25, 2007. Just compensation is determined as of the date of the taking of the prope1iy or the filing of the complaint, whichever came first.

B. H. Berkenkotter v. CA, G.R. No. 89980, Dec. 14, 1992. Just compensation is determined at the time of taking or filing of complaint, whichever comes first; exceptions.

See Rule 67.

NPC v. Tiangco, G.R. No. 170846, Feb. 6, 2007. Time of taking is at the time of filing

of complaint, if there was no actual taking prior thereto.

EPZA v. Dulay, G.R. No. 59603, April 29, 1987. Determination of just compensation

judicial in nature.

LBP v. Escandor, G.R. No. 171685, Oct. 11, 2010. Determination of just compensation a judicial function.

Republic v. Mendoza, G.R. No. 185091, Aug. 8, 2010. Payment of just compensation proper, not ejectment.

NPC v. Manubay Agro-Industrial Corp., G.R. No. 150936, Aug. 18, 2004. Installation of power lines on an easement of right of way restricts the use of the land, hence owner is

entitled to payment of a just compensation, which must be neither more nor less than the

monetary equivalent of the land.

NPC v. Co, G.R. No. 166973, Feb. 10, 2009. Transmission lines restricts use of property, hence full market value should be paid, not only an easement fee of 10% under Sec. 3-A

of RA 6395, as amended by PD 938. See also: Marinduque Mining. Court of Appeals,

G.R. No. 16129, Oct. 6, 2008.

NPC v. Aguirre-Paderanga, G.R. No. 155065, July 28, 1005. Restricting use of property falls within the ambit of expropriation.

NPC v. Ibrahim, G.R. No. 168732, June 29, 2007. Requisites of taking; valuation of the property determined as of 1992, when respondents discovered the construction of the

huge underground tunnels beneath their lands.

NPC v. Bongbong, G.R. No. 164079, April 3, 2007. Title over the property passes to the expropriator upon payment.

TAXATION

Power to tax

Pacific Commercial Co. v. Romualdez, G.R. No. 26124, Feb. 14, 1927. Distinction between power to license and power to tax.

Manila Electric Co. v. El Auditor General, 73 Phil. 133. Taxation - primary purpose of generating revenue.

Progressive Development Corp. v. Quezon City, G.R. No. 36081, April 24, 1989.

10

Regulatory power of city to tax.

Angeles University v. City of Angeles, G.R. No. 189999, June 27, 2012, id.

Republic v. Cocofed, G.R. No. 147062, Dec. 14, 2001. Coconut levy.

Punzalan v. Manila Board, 95 Phil. 46. Double taxation.

Planters Products v. Fertiphil, G.R. No. 166006, March 14, 2008. Tax levy on sale of fertilizers.

Philippine Airlines v. Edu, G.R. No. L-41383, Aug. 15, 1988. Fees regarded as taxes.

Tax treaties

Deutsche Bank v. Comm. of Internal Revenue, G.R. No. 188550, Aug. 19, 2013. Tax conventions are drafted with a view toward s the elimination of international juridical

double taxation, which is defined as the imposition of comparable taxes in two or more

states on the same taxpayer in respect of the same subject matter and for identical periods.

Tax exemptions

Lladoc v. CIR, 14 SCRA 292. Churches.

DUE PROCESS OF LAW

Taada v. Tuvera, G.R. No. L-63915, Dec. 29, 1986. The need for publication before any

law be made effective seeks to ensure to the people their constitutional right to d ue process

and to information on matter of public concern.

CMTC v. BHAG IS lnt'I. Trading, G.R. No. 170488, Dec. 10, 2012. Where reckless or gross negligence of counsel deprives the client of due process of law, or when the interests

of justice so require, relief is accorded to the client who suffered by reason of the lawyer's

gross or palpable mistake or negligence.

Socrates v. Andok's Litson, G.R. No. 192108, Nov. 21, 2012. The essence of due process is to be found in the reasonable opportunity to be heard and to submit any evidence one

may have in support of one's defense.

Velasco v. Villegas, G.R. No. L-24153, Feb. 14, 1983. Ordinance prohibiting barber shop operators to conduct the business of massaging customers in any adjacent room a valid

exercise of police power.

People v. Soria, G.R. No. 179031, Nov. 14, 2012. To require "AAA" to identify the instrument or object that was inserted into her vagina would be contrary to the

fundamental tenets of due process.

Arroyo v. DOJ, G.R. No. 199082, Sept. 18, 2012. The conduct of preliminary investigation is, like court proceedings, subject to the requirements of both substantive and

procedural due process.

11

Park Hotel v. Soriano, G.R. No. 1711 18, Sept. 10 2012. The requisites for a valid dismissal are: (a) the employee must be afforded due process, i.e., he must be given an

opportunity to be heard and defend himself; and (b) the dismissal must be for a valid cause

as provided in Article 282 of the Labor Code.

Gonzales v. Office of the President, G.R. No. 196231, Sept. 4, 2012. Due process is

simply having the opportunity to explain one's side, or an opportunity to seek a

reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of.

Taxicab Operators v. Board of Transportation, G.R. No. L-59234. Sept. 30, 1982. Fixing a six-year ceiling for a car to be operated as taxicab is a reasonable standard adopted

to apply to all vehicles affected uniformly, fairly, and justly.

Phil. Communications Satellite Corporation v. Alcuaz, G.R. No. No. 84818. Dec. 18, 1989. Rate-fixing order, temporary though it may be, is not exempt from the statutory

procedural requirements of notice and hearing, as well as the requirement of

reasonableness.

People v. Fajardo, G R No. L-121 72. Aug. 29, 1958. The State may not, under guise of police power, permanently divest owners of the beneficial use of their property and

practically confiscate them solely to preserve or assure the aesthetic appearance of the

community.

Tabuena v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 103507, February 17, 1997, 268 SCRA 332. The "cold neutrality of an impartial judge" requirement of due process was certainly denied

Tabuena and Peralta when the court, with its overzealousness, assumed the dual role of

magistrate and advocate.

Marcos v. Manglapus, G.R. No. 88211, Sept. 15, 1989, 178 SCRA 760. The right to return to one's country is not among the rights specifically guaranteed in the Bill of Rights,

which treats only of the liberty of abode and the right to travel. But the right to return may

be considered as a generally accepted principle of international law and, under our

Constitution, is part of the law of the land.

Galman v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 72670, Sept. 12, 1986, 144 SCRA 43. Double jeopardy cannot be invoked against the Court's setting aside of the trial courts' judgment

of dismissal or acquittal where the prosecution which represents the sovereign people

in criminal cases is denied due process.

Tatad v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 72335-39, March 21, 1988, 159 SCRA 70. Inordinate delay in terminating the preliminary investigation and filing the information in

the instant case is violative of the constitutionally guaranteed right of the petitioner to due

process and to a speed y disposition of the cases against him.

Webb v. De Leon, G.R. No. 121234, Aug. 23, 1995, 247 SCRA 652. The business of the judiciary is to assure fulfillment of the promise that justice shall be done and is done and

that is the only way for the judiciary to get an acquittal from the bar of public opinion.

Deloso v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 86899-903. May 15, 1989, 173 SCRA 409. Preventive suspension of an elective public officer under Sec. 13 of RA No. 3019 should

be limited to the ninety (90) days under Sec. 42 of PD No. 807, the Civil Service Decree.

(See also Doromal v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. No. 85468. Sept. 7, 1989)

Chavez v. Romulo, G. R. No. 1 57036, June 9, 2004. The right of individuals to bear arms

12

is not absolute, but is subject to regulation.

EQUAL PROTECTION

Garcia v. Drilon, G.R. No. 179267, June 25, 2013. RA 9262 does not violate the equal protection clause. The unequal power relationship between women and men; the fact that

women are more likely than men to be victims of violence; and the widespread gender bias

and prejudice against women all make for real differences justifying the classification

under the law.

GMA Network v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 205357, Sept. 2, 2014. Computing the airtime on an aggregate basis involving all the media of broadcast communications compared to

the past where it was done on a per station basis.

Biraogo v. Phil. Truth Commission, G.R. No. 192935, December 7, 2010. The envisioned Truth Commission is to investigate and find out the truth concerning the

reported cases of graft and corruption during the previous administration. The intent to

single out the previous administration is violative of the equal protection clause.

Yrasegui v. Philippine Air Lines, G.R. No. 168081, Oct. 17, 2008. The obesity of petitioner, when placed in the context of his work as flight attendant, justifies his dismissal

from the service.

Duncan v. Glaxo, G.R. No. 162994. Sept. 17, 2004. Respondent Glaxo's policy prohibiting an employee from having a relationship with an employee of a competitor

company is a valid exercise of management prerogative.

People v. Cayat, G.R. No. 45987, May 5, 1939, 68 Phil. 12. Act No. 1639 prohibiting a non-Christian tribe to drink any ardent spirits, ale, beer, and wine, other than the so-called

native rests on a valid classification.

International School v. Quisumbing, G.R. No. 128845. June 1, 2000. There is no reasonable distinction between the services rendered by foreign-hi res and local-hires. The

practice of the School of according higher salaries to foreign-hires contravenes public

policy.

Himagan v. People, G.R. No. 113811, Oct. 7, 1994, 237 SCRA 538. The reason why the preventive suspension of members of the PNP continues until the case against them is

terminated is that policemen carry weapons and the badge of the law which can be used to

harass or intimidate witnesses against them.

Dumlao v. COMELEC, G.R. No. L-52245, Jan. 22, 1980, 95 SCRA 392. Retirement from government service may or may not be a reasonable disqualification for elective local

officials.

Almario v. Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 189028. July 16, 2013. There was a violation of the equal protection clause when the former President gave preferential treatment to

respondents Guidote-Alvarez, Caparas, Maosa and Moreno as national artists.

Goldenway v. Equitable PCI Bank, G.R. No. 195540. March 13, 2013. Sec. 47 of R.A.

8791 shortened the period of redemption for juridical persons whose properties were

13

foreclosed and sold in accordance with the provisions of Act No. 3135. This is aimed at

ensuring the solvency and liquidity of our banks.

Philippine Judges Association v. Pardo, 281 SCRA 330. The Judiciary is, like the Executive and Congress, likewise entitled to the franking privilege.

SEARCHES AND SEIZURES

Hing v. Choachuy, G.R. No. 179736. June 26, 2013. The right to privacy is "the right to be let alone."

People v. Salonga, G.R. No. 194948. September 2, 2013. The elements needed to be

proven to successfully prosecute a case of illegal sale of drugs are: (1) the identity of the

buyer and the seller the object, and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing so l

d and the payment therefor. Crucial in proving chain of custody is the marking of the seized

drugs or other related items immediately after they are seized from the accused. (See also

People v. Clara, G.R. No. 1 95528, July 24, 2013; People v. Somoza, G.R. No. 197250, Jul

y 17, 2013)

Soliven v. Makasiar, G.R. No. 82585, Nov. 14, 1988. Duty of a judge to "personally" determine the existence of probable cause: he shall: (1) personally evaluate the report and

the supporting documents submitted by the fiscal regarding the existence of probable cause

and, on the basis thereof, issue a warrant of arrest; or (2) if he finds no probable cause, he

may disregard the fiscal's report and require the submission of supporting affidavits of

witnesses to aid him in arriving at a conclusion as to the existence of probable cause.

People v. Marti, G.R. No. G.R. No. 81561, Jan. 18, 1991. The protection against unreasonable searches and seizures cannot be extended to acts committed by private

individuals. See also: Sebreo v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 160689, March 26, 2014.

Alberto v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 182130. June 19, 2013. Courts are precluded from disturbing the findings of public prosecutors and the DOJ on the existence or non-existence

of probable cause for the purpose of filing criminal information, unless such findings are

tainted with grave abuse of discretion, amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.

PLDT v. HPS Software, G.R. No. 70694, Dec. 10, 2012. Private party may participate in search warrant proceedings as in the enforcement of special penal laws.

Alih v. Castro, G.R. No. 69401, June 23, 1987. One cannot just force his way into any man's house on the illegal orders of a superior, however lofty his rank. Indeed, even the

humblest hovel is protected from official intrusion because of the ancient rule, revered in

all free regimes, that a man's house is his castle.

Sec. of National Defense v. Manalo, G.R. No. 180906, Oct. 7, 2008. Enforced disappearances. Sec. 2, Art. II of the Constitution not only limits the state's power over a

person's home and possessions, but more importantly, protects the privacy and sanctity of

the person himself.

Republic v. Eugenio, G.R. No. 174629, Feb. 14, 2008. A bank inquiry order under Sec. 11 of the AMLA (RA 9160 as amended by RA 9194) does not necessitate any form of

physical seizure of property of the account holder. What it authorizes is the examination of

14

the particular deposits or investment in banking institutions or non-bank financial

institutions.

Burgos v. Chief of Staff, G.R. No. 183713, July 5, 201 1. Meaning of probable cause.

Pita v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 80806, Oct. 5, 1989. Materials deemed "obscene" may only be seized upon determination of probable cause.

Warrantless searches and seizures

Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1. Police may conduct limited protective search for concealed weapons.

People v. Edano, G.R. No. 188133, July 7, 2014. Trying to run away when no crime has been overtly committed, and without more, cannot be evidence of guilt.

People v. Calantiao, G.R. No. 203984, June 18, 2014. A valid arrest allows the seizure of evidence or dangerous weapons either on the person of the one arrested or within the

area of his immediate control.

Callanta v. Villanueva, G.R. No. L-24646, June 20, 1977. Posting of a bail bond constitutes waiver of any irregularity attending the arrest.

Papa v. Mago, G.R. No. L-27360, Feb. 28, 1968. Customs search valid.

People v. Malmstedt, G.R. No. 91107, June 19, 1991. Bus stopped at a military

checkpoint for inspection.

People v. Aminnudin, G.R. No, 74869, July 6. 1988. Warrantless arrest based on an informer's tip.

Valmonte v. De Villa, G.R. No. 83988, May 24, 1990. When checkpoint searches deemed valid.

Garcia-Padilla v. Enrile, G.R. No. L-61388, April 20, 1983. A person may be arrested at any time for a continuing offense like subversion.

David v. Macapagal-Arroyo, G.R. No. 171396, May 3, 2006. Warrantless arrest of KMU members declared unconstitutional.

Worldwide Web Corpration v. People, G.R. No. 161106, Jan. 13, 2014. Things to be seized much be described with particularity. See also: Stonehill v. Diokno, G.R. No. L-

19550, June 19, 1967.

Instances of reasonable searches and seizures

People v. Cogaed, G.R. No. 200334, July 20, 2014. Jurisprudential instances of reasonable warrantless searches and seizures are: warrantless search incidental to a lawful

arrest; seizure of evidence in "plain view"; search of a moving vehicle; consented

warrantless search; customs search; stop and frisk; and exigent and emergency

circumstances.

15

Privacy of communication and correspondence

Disini v. Secretary of Justice, G.R. No. 203335, Feb. 18, 2014. Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 (RA .No. 10175).

Gaanan v. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. No. L-69809, Oct. 16, 1986. Use of a

telephone extension not prohibited as a "tap."

LIBERTY OF ABODE AND TRAVEL

Caunca v. Salazar, 81 Phil. 851. A maid has the right to transfer to another residence even

if she had not paid the amount advanced by the agency for her transportation from the

province.

Rubi v. Provincial Board of Mindoro, G.R. No. 14078, March 7, 1919. Respondents were justified in tequi ring members of non-Christian tribes to reside in a reservation for

better education and protection.

Manotoc v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-62100 May 30, 1986. A person out on bail cannot invoke his right to travel since his presence in court whenever required is a valid

restriction on such right.

Marcos v. Manglapus, G.R. No. 88211, Oct. 27, 1989. Court sustains refusal of

government to allow petitioner's return to the country on ground that it would endanger

national security.

Philippine Association of Service Exporters v. Drilon, G.R. No. 81958, June 30, 1988. DOLE temporary suspension of deployment of Filipino domestic and household workers

abroad valid.

FREEDOM OF RELIGION

Manosca v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 106440, Jan. 29, 1996. The purpose in setting up the marker is to recognize the distinctive contribution of the late Felix Manalo to the

culture of the Philippines, rather than to commemorate his founding and leadership of the

Iglesia ni Cristo.

German v. Barangan, G.R. No. 68828, March 27, 1985. The restriction to use Laurel St. is designed to protect the lives of the President and his family.

Ebralinag v. Division Superintendent of Schools, G.R. No. 95770, Dec. 29, 1995. The flag is not an image but a secular symbol.

Iglesia ni Cristo v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 119673, July 26, 1996. The x-rating of the shows by the Board was a suppression of petitioner's freedom of speech as much as it

was an interference with its right to free exercise of religion.

16

Estrada v. Escritor, A.M. No. P-02-1651, Aug. 4, 2003. The "compelling interest test" serves the purpose of revering religious liberty while at the same time affording protection

to the paramount interest of the State.

Board of Education v. Allen, 392 U.S. 236 (1968)

Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947)

Garces v. Estenzo, G.R. No. L-53487, May 25, 1981. Questioned resolutions did not contravene any constitutional provision since the image was purchased with private funds,

not with tax money.

American Bible Society v. City of Manila, G.R. No. L-9637. April 30, 1957. The constitutional guaranty of the free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and

worship carries with it the right to disseminate religious information.

Victoriano v. Elizalde Rope Worker's Union, G.R. No. L-25246. Sept. 12, 1974. The classification is to avoid those who cannot, because of their religious belief, join labor

unions, from being deprived of their right to work and from being dismissed from their

work because of union shop security agreements.

Islamic Da'Wah Council v. Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 153888. July 9, 2003. Classifying a food product as halal is a religious function.

FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION

NPC v. COMELEC, G.R. No. G.R. No. 102653. March 5, 1992. COMELEC space and time.

Adiong v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 03956. March 31, 1992. The COMELECs prohibition on posting of decals and stickers on "mobile" places whether public or private except in

designated areas provided for by the COMELEC itself is null and void on constitutional

grounds.

Reyes v. Bagatsing, G.R. No. L-65366. Nov. 9, 1983. Denial of permit to rally at the Luneta park invalid for lack of a "clear and present danger" that might arise from the

meeting.

Bayan v. Ermita, G.R. No. 169838, April 25, 2006. The so-called Calibrated Pre-emptive Response Policy, insofar as it purports to differ from or be in lieu of maximum tolerance

in public rallies, declared null and void. Respondents were enjoined to strictly observe the

requirements of maximum tolerance.

United Pepsi Cola Union v. Laguesma, G.R. No. 122226, March 25, 1998. Guarantee of organizational right not abridged by ban against managerial employees forming union.

Reyes v. Bagatsing, G.R. No. 97787, Aug. 1, 1996.

Ayer Productions v. Capulong, G.R. No. 82380, May 18, 1990. Enrile's role in the "Four Day Revolution" -- a dramatization of the Feb. 1986 revolution does not violate Enrile's

right to privacy but is a matter of public interest since he was a principal figure in the event.

People v. Kottinger, G.R. No. 20569, Oct. 29, 1923. Pictures which depict the non-Christian inhabitants of the Philippine Islands as they actually live, without attempted

17

presentation of them in unusual posture of dress, are not offensive to chastity, or foul, or

filthy.

Miller v. California, 37 L. ed. 2d 419. Tests of obscenity.

Malabanan v. Ramento, G.R. No. 62270, May 21, 1984. The rights to peaceable assembly and free speech are guaranteed to students of educational institutions.

Necessarily, heir exercise to discuss matters affecting their welfare or involving public

interest is not to be subjected to previous restraint or subsequent punishment unless there

be a showing of a clear and present danger to a substantive evil that the state has a right to

prevent.

Villar v. TIP, G.R. No. L-69198, April 17, 1985. The academic freedom enjoyed by institutions of higher learning includes the right to expel a student for academic deficiency.

SSS Employees Association v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 85279, July 28, 1989. SSS employees are part of the civil service and are covered by the CSC's memorandum

prohibiting strikes. Government employees may, therefore, through their unions or

associations, either petition the Congress for the betterment of the terms and conditions of

employment or negotiate with appropriate government agencies for the improvement of

those which are not fixed by law.

In re: Edillon, A.C. No. 1928, Aug. 3, 1978. Bar integration does not compel the lawyer to associate with anyone. He is free to attend or not attend the meetings of his Integrated

Bar Chapter or vote or refuse to vote in its elections as he chooses. The only compulsion

to which he is subjected is the payment of annual dues.

Legaspi v. CSC, G.R. No. No. 72119, May 29, 1987. Government agencies are without discretion in refusing disclosure of, or access to, information of public concern.

Chavez v. PCGG, G.R. No. 130716. May 19, 1999. Limitations on the right to full disclosure involving public interest: (1) national security matters and intelligence

information, (2) trade secrets and banking transactions, (3) criminal matters, and (4) other

confidential information.

Senate v. Ermita, G.R. No. No. 169777, April 20, 2006. When Congress merely seeks to be informed on how department heads are implementing the statutes which it has issued,

its right to such information is not as imperative as that of the President to whom, as Chief

Executive, such department heads must give a report of their performance as a matter of

duty. In such instances, Sec. 22, Art. VIII, in keeping with the separation of powers, states

that Congress may only request their appearance. Nonetheless, when the inquiry in which

Congress requires their appearance is "in aid of legislation" under Sec. 21, the appearance

is mandatory. The only way for department heads to exempt themselves therefrom is by a

valid claim of privilege.

Taada v. Tuvera, G.R. No. L-63915, Dec. 29, 1986. All statutes, including those of local application and private laws, shall be published in the Official Gazette as a condition for

their effectivity, which shall begin fifteen days after publication unless a different

effectivity date is fixed by the legislature.

Non v. Dames, G.R. No. 89317. May 20, 1990. Contract between a school and is student is for the entire period he is expected to complete his course.

18

Chavez v. Gonzales, G.R. No. 168338, Feb. 15, 2008. A governmental action that restricts freedom of speech or of the press based on content is given the strictest scrutiny. Only

when the challenged act has overcome the clear and present danger rule will it pass

constitutional muster, with the government having the burden of overcoming the presumed

unconstitutionality. The warning on media against airing the alleged wiretapped

conversation between the President and other personalities constitutes unconstitutional

prior restraint on the exercise of freedom of speech and of the press.

Phil. Press Institute v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 119694, May 22, 1995. To compel print media companies to donate "COMELEC space" of the dimensions specified in Section 2

of Resolution No. 2722 (not less than one-half page), amounts to "taking" of private

personal property for public use or purposes.

ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corp. v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 133486, Jan. 18, 2000. The holding of exit polls and the dissemination of their results through mass media constitute

an essential part of the freedoms of speech and of the press.

Miriam College Foundation v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 127930, Dec. 15, 2000. The power of the school to investigate is an adjunct of its power to suspend or expel and as a

necessary corollary to the maintenance of a safe and orderly educational environment

conducive to learning.

In re: Request for Radio-TV Coverage of the Trial for Plunder of Pres. Estrada, A.M. No. 01-4-03-SC. Television coverage of judicial proceedings is an inherent denial of due

process rights of an accused.

Ruiz v. Gordon, G.R. No. L-65695, Dec. 19, 1983. Guidelines on permits to hold rallies.

Lagunsad. V. Gonzales, G.R. No. L-31890, May 29, 1987. "Balancing of interests test" applied in favor of the family of Moises Padilla to have their right to privacy protected.

Malabanan v. Ranmento, G.R. No. 62270, May 21, 1984. Students do not shed their constitutional right to free speech at the schoolhouse gate.

SSS Employees Association v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 85279, July 28, 1989. The right of government employees to organize does not include the right to strike.

Alliance of Government Workers v. Ministry of Labor, G.R. No. L-60403, Aug. 3, 1983. Member of the civil service may not declare a strike to enforce their economic

demands.