Constitutional Law 2

Professor H. Harry Roque

University of the Philippines College of Law
THE BILL OF RIGHTS
I.

Due Process Clause:

Constitution ART III, Sec 1. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of
law, nor shall any person be denied of the equal protection of the laws.
A. Definition and Hierarchy
PBM Employees v. PBM,
Ermita Malate Hotel, Motel Assoc. v. City of Manila
Who Are Protected
Smith Bell Co. v.Natividad
Villegas v. HuiChiong

51 SCRA 189 (2 Bernas 423)

20 SCRA 849 (2 Bernas 34)

40 Phil 163
G.R. 112801

Meaning
Life
Teodoro v. Manalo
G.R. No. 186050 (2011)
Pestao v. GRP-Human Rights Committee
CCPR/C/98/D/1619/2007
Marcellana v. Republic of the Philippines UNHRC
CCPR/C/94/D/1560/2007
When Does Life Begin, Records of
R.C.C. No. 85 09-17-1986&
1986 Constitutional Commission Proceedings R.C.C. No. 86 09-18-1986
The Rule on the Writ of Amparo
A.M. No. 07-9-12-SC
Burgos v. Arroyo
G.R. No. 183711
Gadian v. Ibrado
G.R. No. 187652 &
CA-G.R. SP No. 00034
Buck v. Bell
274 US 200
Imbong v. Ochoa
GR No. 204819
Liberty
Rubi v. Provincial Board of Mindoro
39 Phil 660
Property
Terrace v. Thompson

263 US 197

Exclusion
Nunez v. Averia
Crespo v. Provincial Board
JMM Promotion v. CA
Pedro v. Rizal
Libanan v. Sandiganbayan

57 SCRA 726
16 SCRA 66
G.R. No. 120095 1996
G.R. No. 34163
233 SCRA 163

B. Aspects of Due Process

Police Power
Kwongsing v. City of Manila
Yu Eng Cong v. Trinidad
Layno v. Sandiganbayan
Deloso v. Sandiganbayan
Procedural
Impartial Court
* Moot Cases
** Acting Cases

41 Phil 103
271 US 500
136 SCRA 536
173 SCRA 409

Javier v. COMELEC
144 SCRA 194
Galman v. Sandiganbayan
144 SCRA 43
Marcos v. Sandiganbayan
G.R. No. 126995 (1998)
Rivera v. Civil Service
240 SCRA 43
Banco Espaol Filipino v. Palanca
37 Phil. 921 (2 Bernas 4)
AngTibay v. CIR
69 Phil. 635 (2 Bernas 6)
PHILCOMSAT v. Alcuaz
180 SCRA 218 (2 Bernas 8)
Ateneo v. CA
145 SCRA 106
Alcuaz v. PSBA
161 SCRA 7
Non v. Judge Dames
185 SCRA 523 (2 Bernas 14)
Goldberg v. Kelly 397 US 254 (1970)
Petitioners are NYC residents receiving financial aid under the federally assisted programs that were
terminated or about to be terminated without prior notice or hearing. Due process requires an adequate
hearing before, not after, the termination of welfare benefits.
Bell v. Burson 402 US 535 (1971)
Bell, a clergyman who travels as part of his ministerial duties, was involved in an accident when a child hit
his car; he was sued for damages and his license was revoked, but he was only allowed to present evidence
on his behalf during appeal, which violated due process. Except in emergency situations, the State affords
notice and opportunity for hearing appropriate to the nature of the case before terminating an interest.
UP v. Hon. Ligot-Telann 227 SCRA 342
STFAP; Ramon Nadal.
DBP v. NLRC 183 SCRA 328
Laborers filed individual complaints for backwages and separation pay from RHI whose assets were
foreclosed by DBP; the latter was ordered by the Labor Arbiter, affirmed by the NLRC, to pay RHIs debts.
Despite lack of formal hearing, DBP was given opportunity to be heard and in fact filed MFRs and appeals.
Estrada v. Sandiganbayan 369 SCRA 394
No circumvention of presumption of innocence, even in plunder cases. Guilt must be proved beyond
reasonable doubt, even if only for a number of acts sufficient to form a combination or series of activities
involving an amount of P 50M.
Read: separate opinion by Ynares-Santiago
Reyes v. COMELEC G.R. No. 207264
Jurisdiction
Ynot v. IAC
Eastern Broadcasting v. Dans
Tatad v. Sandiganbayan
Gonzales v. SCS

148 SCRA 659 (2 Bernas 21)

137 SCRA 628 (2 Bernas 261)
159 SCRA 70
226 SCRA 66

C. Old Substantive Due Process: Protection for Property Interests

Calder v. Bull 3 US (3 Dall.) 386 (1978)
Lochner v. New York 198 US 48 (1905)
Lochner is charged for permitting (note: not requiring) an employee (baker) to work more than 60 hours a
day; question on what two rights shall prevail, police power or freedom to contract. Police power requires
the limit for health considerations, which do not apply to the present case, thus it cannot prevail over
freedom to contract.
People v. Pomar 46 Phil 440
Pomar found guilty of refusing to grant maternity leave with pay to pregnant employees. The law was
found to be unconstitutional, in violation of freedom to contract.
Pakistan International Airlines v. Ople 190 SCRA 90 (1990)
NDC and AGRIX v. Phil Veterans 192 SCRA 257 (2 Bernas 48)
People v. Nazario
Balacuit v. CFI
Agustin v. Edu

165 SCRA 182 (2 Bernas 41)

163 SCRA 182 (2 Bernas 41)
88 SCRA 195 (2 Bernas 43)

D. New Substantive Due Process: Protection for Liberty interests in Privacy

* Moot Cases
** Acting Cases

Warren and Brandeis, The Right to Privacy, 4 Harv. L. Rev. 193 (1890)
Cortes I., Constitutional Foundations of Privacy, in Emerging Trends in Law (1983), pp 1-70
Olmstead v. US (Brandeis Dissent)*
Skinner v. Oklahoma*
Griswold v. Connecticut*
Eisenstatd v. Baird*
Poe v. Ullman*
Roe v. Wade*
Bowers and Hardwick
Lawrence v. Texas*
US v. Windsor*
Board of Education v. Earls
Ople v. Torres
Bayan Muna v. Ermita,
Duncan Assoc v. Glaxo Welcome*
David v. Arroyo

277 US 438
316 US 535 (1942)
381 US 479 (1965)
405 US 438
367 US 479
410 US 113 (1973)
106 S. Ct. 2841 (1986)
02-0102 (26 June 2003)
570 U.S. ___ (2013)
01-332 (27 June 2002)
141 SCRA 293
G.R. No. 167930 (2006)
G.R. 162994, (17 September 2004)
489 SCRA 160

E. Protected Interests in Property

Mere Regulation under the Due Process Clause versus Taking of Property via the Power of Eminent Domain
Churchill v. Rafferty
32 Phil 580 (2 Bernas 26)
US v. Toribio
15 Phil 85 (2 Bernas 19)
Constitution ART III, sec. 9. Private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation.
People v. Fajardo
Ynot v. CA
US v. Causby
Republic v. PLDT
Republic v. Castelvi
Bel-Air Association v. IAC
EPZA v. Dulay
NPC v. CA
RA 8974, Villar Law on the Zoning Value of Land

100 Phil 443 (2 Bernas 639)

supra
328 US 256 (2 Bernas 636)
26 SCRA 620 (2 Bernas 639)
58 SCRA 336 (2 Bernas 627)
176 SCRA 719
149 SCRA 305 (2 Bernas 655)
129 SCRA 665 (2 Bernas 655)

Takings under Eminent Domain versus Takings under the Social Justice Clause
De Knecht v. Bautista
100 SCRA 660 (2 Bernas 666)
Republic v. De Knecht
182 SCRA 441 (2 Bernas 671)
Manotok v. NHA
150 SCRA 89 (2 Bernas 674)
Ermita Malate Hotel Association v. City of Manila
supra
Constitution ART III, Sec 1
Constitution ART III, Sec 4. No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech,
Assoc. of Small Landowners v. Sec. of Agrarian Reform 175 SCRA 343 (2 Bernas 990)
Sumulong v. Guerrero 154 SCRA 461 (2 Bernas 650)
City Government v. Judge Ericta 122 SCRA 759 (2 Bernas 631)
Luz Farms v. Secretary 192 SCRA 51 (2 Bernas 1101)
Cariday v. CA (Guttierez J, Dissenting)
176 SCRA 31
RA 7279, Urban Development and Housing Act of 1992, March 24, 1992
II.

Equal Protection Clause

Constitution ART III, Sec 1. No person shall be deprive of life, liberty, or property without due process of law,
nor shall any person be denied of the equal protection of the laws.

* Moot Cases
** Acting Cases

Constitution ART II, Sec 14. The State recognizes the role of women in nation-building, and shall ensure the
fundamental equality before the law of women and men.
Constitution ART II, Sec 22. The State recognizes and promotes the rights of indigenous cultural communities
within the framework of national unity and development.
Constitution ART IV.
Section 1. The following are citizens of the Philippines:
(1) Those who are citizens of the Philippines at the time of the adoption of this Constitution;
(2) Those whose fathers or mothers are citizens of the Philippines;
(3) Those born before January 17, 1973, of Filipino mothers, who elect Philippine citizenship upon reaching
the age of majority; and
(4) Those who are naturalized in accordance with law.
Section 2. Natural-born citizens are those who are citizens of the Philippines from birth without having to
perform any act to acquire or perfect their Philippine citizenship. Those who elect Philippine citizenship in
accordance with paragraph (3), Section 1 hereof shall be deemed natural-born citizens.
Section 3. Philippine citizenship may be lost or reacquired in the manner provided by law.
Section 4. Citizens of the Philippines who marry aliens shall retain their citizenship, unless by their act or
omission, they are deemed, under the law, to have renounced it.
Section 5. Dual allegiance of citizens is inimical to the national interest and shall be dealt with by law.
Constitution ART XII, Sec 2. All lands of the public domain, waters, minerals, coal, petroleum, and other
mineral oils, all forces of potential energy, fisheries, forests or timber, wildlife, flora and fauna, and other
natural resources are owned by the State. With the exception of agricultural lands, all other natural resources
shall not be alienated. The exploration, development, and utilization of natural resources shall be under the full
control and supervision of the State. The State may directly undertake such activities, or it may enter into coproduction, joint venture, or production-sharing agreements with Filipino citizens, or corporations or
associations at least sixty per centum of whose capital is owned by such citizens. Such agreements may be for a
period not exceeding twenty-five years, renewable for not more than twenty-five years, and under such terms
and conditions as may be provided by law. In cases of water rights for irrigation, water supply fisheries, or
industrial uses other than the development of water power, beneficial use may be the measure and limit of the
grant.
The State shall protect the nation's marine wealth in its archipelagic waters, territorial sea, and exclusive
economic zone, and reserve its use and enjoyment exclusively to Filipino citizens.
The Congress may, by law, allow small-scale utilization of natural resources by Filipino citizens, as well as
cooperative fish farming, with priority to subsistence fishermen and fish- workers in rivers, lakes, bays, and
lagoons.
The President may enter into agreements with foreign-owned corporations involving either technical or
financial assistance for large-scale exploration, development, and utilization of minerals, petroleum, and other
mineral oils according to the general terms and conditions provided by law, based on real contributions to the
economic growth and general welfare of the country. In such agreements, the State shall promote the
development and use of local scientific and technical resources.
The President shall notify the Congress of every contract entered into in accordance with this provision, within
thirty days from its execution.
Constitution ART XII, Sec 14.2. The practice of all professions in the Philippines shall be limited to Filipino
citizens, save in cases prescribed by law.
Ormoc Sugar Company, Inc. v. Treasurer of Ormoc City 22 SCRA 603 (2 Bernas 78)
Dumlao v. COMELEC
96 SCRA 392 (2 Bernas 72)
People v. Cayat
68 Phil 12 (2 Bernas 58)
Ichong v. Hernandez
101 Phil 1155 (2 Bernas 61)
Korematsu v. US
323 US 214 (1944)
The Civil Liberties Act of 1988
102 Stat. 904, 50a U.S.C. 1989b et se
(Presidential Medal of Freedom to Fred Korematsu by Bill Clinton)
Plessy v. Ferguson
163 US 537 (1896)
* Moot Cases
** Acting Cases

University of California v. Bakke

438 US 265 (1978)
Gratz v. Bollinger
539 U.S. 244 (2003)
Grutter v. Bollinger
539 U.S. 244 (2003)
Bradwell v. Illinois
83 US 103 (1873)
Goesart v. Cleary
335 US 464 (1948) (2 Bernas 76)
Geduldig v. Aiello
417 US 484 (1974)
Mississippi Univ. School for Women v. Hogan 458 US 718 (1982)
Michael M. v. Superior Court
450 US 464 (1981)
Personnel Administrator v. Feeney
442 US 256 (1979)
YickWo v. Hopkins
118 US 365 (1886)
Fragante v. City and County of Honolulu*
888 F. 2d 591(1989)
Fragante v. City and County of Honolulu
110 S. Ct. 1811 (1990)
Defensor-Santiago, The New Equal Protection, 58 Phil. L. J. 1 (March 1983)

III.

International School Alliance v. Quisumbing

Board of Directors v. Rotary Club*
Boy Scouts of America v. Dale*
Sombilon v. Romulo,

33 SCRA 14 (June 2000)

481 US 537
No. 99-699 (28 June 2000)
G.R. 176051 (2009)

Goodridge v. Dept. of Public Health

Tecson v. COMELEC
Garcia v. Hon. Drilon*

440 Mass 309, 793 NE 2d 941 (18 Nov 2003)

G.R. No. 161434 (2004)
G.R. No. 179267 (June 25, 2013)

Freedom of Expression:
Constitution ART III, sec 4. No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the
press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances.
A. Protected Speech
Prior Restraint
Near v. Minnesota
New York Times v. US
Freedman v. Maryland
Chavez v. Gonzales
Estrada v. Desierto
Subsequent Punishment
People v. Perez
Dennis v. US
Abrams v. US
Eastern Broadcasting v. Dans
Speech Plus: Symbolic Speech
US v. O'Brien
Tinker v. Des Moines School District
Texas v. Johnson
Assembly and Petition
Primicias v. Fugoso (Hilado, Dissent)
Navarro v. Villegas
PBM Employees v. PBM
JBL Reyes v. Bagatsing
Malabanan v. Ramento
IBP Cadiz, Roque, Butuyan v. Atienza,

* Moot Cases
** Acting Cases

238 US 697 (2 Bernas 238)

403 US 713 (2 Bernas 243)
380 US 551 (2 Bernas 251)
G.R. No. 168338

45 Phil 599 (2 Bernas 288)

341 US 494 (2 Bernas 290)
250 US 616 (1919)
supra
391 US 367 (1968)
393 US 503 (1969)
491 US 397 (1989)
80 Phil 78
31 SCRA 731 (2 Bernas 423)
51 SCRA 189 (2 Bernas 425)
125 SCRA 553 (2 Bernas 430)
129 SCRA 359 (2 Bernas 437)
G.R. No. 172591

Free Speech and Suffrage

Gonzalez v. COMELEC
Sandidad v. COMELEC
National Press Club v. COMELEC
Adiong v. COMELEC
Bayan v. Ermita

27 SCRA 835 (2 Bernas 296)

181 SCRA 529 (2 Bernas 304)
207 SCRA 1 (2 Bernas 307)
207 SCRA 712 (2 Bernas 317)
G.R. No. 168338

Use of Private Property as a forum for others Speech

Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robbins

447 US 74 (1980)

B. Unprotected Speech
Defamatory Speech
Pre-Sullivan in Philippine Jurisprudence
Policarpio v. Manila Times
Lopez v. CA
US v. Bustos

5 SCRA 148 (2 Bernas 343)

34 SCRA 116 (2 Bernas 345)
37 Phil 371

Sullivan
New York Times v. Sullivan
Rosenbloom v. Metromedia
Garrison v. Louisiana
Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts
In Re: IML v. Utah

376 US 254 (2 Bernas 350)

403 US 29 (2 Bernas 355)
379 US 64
388 US 130
No. 20010159 (15 Nov 2002)

Sullivan in Philippine Jurisprudence

Borjal v. CA
Vasquez v. CA
Guingguing v. CA
Soliven v. Makasiar
Ayer Production v. Judge Capulong

301 SCRA 1
G.R. No. 118971 (1999)
471 SCRA 196
167 SCRA 394 (2 Bernas 147)
160 SCRA 865 (2 Bernas 254)

Reversion to Pre-Sullivan in Philippine Jurisprudence

Fermin v. People
G.R. No. 157643 (2008)
Diaz v. People
G.R. No. 159787 (2007)
Libel in UN Human Rights Committee
Adonis v. The Philippines

CCPR/C/103/D/1815/2008

Supreme Court and Freedom of Speech

In Re Jurado
In Re Macasaet
Fighting Words, Offensive Words
Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire
Cohen v. California
MVRS v. Islamic Dawah of the Philippines
Obsidian Finance Group, LLC v. Cox
Obscenity
Roth v. US
Miller v. California
Gonzalez v. KalawKatigbak
Pita v. CA
Reno v. ACLU
Ashcroft v. ACLU
Regina v. Hicklin
* Moot Cases
** Acting Cases

315 US 568 (1942)

403 US 15 (1971)
G.R. No. 80892 (1989)

354 US 476 (1957)

37 L. Ed. 2d 419 (1973) (2 Bernas 368)
137 SCRA 717 (2 Bernas 377)
178 SCRA 362 (2 Bernas 381)
521 US 844 (26 June 1997)
No. 00-1293 (13 May 2002)
L.R. 3 Q.B. 360 (1868)

Privacy
Hannover v. Germany*
Campbell v. Mirror Group Newspapers*
IV.

[2004] EMLR 379; (2005) 40 EHRR 1

[2004] UKHL 22

Church and State: The Wall of Separation

Constitution ART II, sec 6
Constitution ART III, sec 5
Constitution ART VI, sec 29(2)

Establishment Clause
Aglipay v. Ruiz
Garces v. Estenzo
Lemon v. Kurtzman
Board of Education v. Allen
County of Allegheny v. ACLU
Lynch v. Donnely
Epperson v. Arkansas
School District v. Schempp
Engel v. Vitale
Tilton v. Richardson
Newdow v. US Congress
2003)
Glassroth v. Moore
Martin v. Corporation of the Presiding Bishop

63 Phil 201 (2 Bernas 444)

104 SCRA 510 (2 Bernas 446)
403 US 602 (2 Bernas 464)
392 US 236 (2 Bernas 459)
57 LW 5045 (2 Bernas 482)
465 US 668 (1984)
393 US 97 (1968)
374 US 203 (2 Bernas 449)
370 US 421 (1962)
403 US 672 (2 Bernas 470)
No. 00-16423, 9thCir., June 26, 2002 (amended Feb 28,
335 F.3d 1282 (11th Cir. 2003)
434 Mass. 141, 727 N.E. 2d 131

Free Exercise Clause

American Bible Society v. City
Gerona v. Secretary of Education*
Ebralinag v. Division Superintendent*
Newdow v. US Congress
Anucension v. NLU
Iglecia ni Cristo v. CA
Pamil v. Teleron
McDaniel v. Paty
German v. Barangan
Cantwell v. Connecticut
Commonwealth v. Twitchell

101 Phil 386 (2 Bernas 515)

106 Phil 2 (2 Bernas 518)
219 SCRA 256 (2 Bernas 518)
00-16423 (26 June 2002)
80 SCRA 350
259 SCRA 529 (26 July 1996)
86 SCRA 413 (2 Bernas 533)
435 US 618 (2 Bernas 542)
135 SCRA 514
310 US 163 (2 Bernas 512)
416 Mass. 114 (1993)

Cassius Clay v. US
Estrada v. Escritor*

403 US 698 (1971)

492 SCRA 1

Unusual Religious Beliefs and Practices

Wisconsin v. Yoder
US v. Ballard
US v. Seeger
Clay v. US

406 US 205 (2 Bernas 524)

380 US 163 (1965)
380 US 163 (1965)
supra

V. Academic Freedom
Background Reading: Byrne, Academic Freedom: A Special Concern of the First Amendment, 99 Yale L.J. 25
(1989)
Constitution ART XIV, sec 1 and 5(2)
Garcia v. Faculty Admission Committee
Isabelo v. PerpetualHelp
* Moot Cases
** Acting Cases

68 SCRA 277 (2 Bernas 1076)

227 SCRA 591

Reyes v. CA
UP v. CA
DECS v. San Diego
Tablarin v. Gutierrez
Non v. Judge Dames
Alcuaz v. PSBA

194 SCRA 402 (2 Bernas 1084)

218 SCRA 728 (9 February 1993)
180 SCRA 534 (2 Bernas 1054)
154 SCRA 730
supra
supra

VI. Protected Interests in Liberty

A. Non-Impairment of Obligations and Contracts
Background Reading: Padilla IV-A CIVIL LAW 11-42 (1988) Discussion of ART 1306
Constitution ART III, sec 10
Civil Code ART 1306
Home Builders and Loan Association v. Blaisdell
Rutter v. Esteban
Ortigas v. Feati
Juarez v. CA
Caleon v. Agus Development

290 US 398 (2 Bernas 684)

93 Phil 68 (2 Bernas 690)
94 SCRA 533 (2 Bernas 702
214 SCRA 475 (2 Bernas 706)
207 SCRA 748

B. Involuntary Servitude
Rubi v. Provincial Board of Mindoro
Kaisahan v. Gotamco

supra
80 Phil 521

C. Imprisonment for Non-Payment of Debt

Constitution ART III, sec 20
Lozano v. Martinez

146 SCRA 323 (2 Bernas 876)

D. Right Against Self-Incrimination

US v. Navarro
Villaflor v. Summers
Beltran v. Samson
Cabal v. Kapunan
Bengzon v. Senate Blue Ribbon Committee
Galman v. Pamaran

3 Phil 143 (2 Bernas 844)

41 Phil 62 (2 Bernas 848)
53 Phil 570 (2 Bernas 851)
6 SCRA 1059 (2 Bernas 861)
203 SCRA 767
138 SCRA 294

E. Unlawful Search and Seizure

Stonehill v. Diokno
Katz v. US
Terry v. Ohio**
People v. Marti

20 SCRA 383 (2 Bernas 120)

394 US 347
392 US 1

Nala v. BarrosoJr,
Lim v. Felix**
Alvarez v. CFI
Bache & Co. v. Ruiz
Burgos, Sr. v. Chief of Staff
Roan v. Gonzales

G.R. No. 153087 August 7, 2003

194 SCRA 292
64 Phil 33
37 SCRA 823
133 SCRA 800
145 SRA 687

Nolasco v. Pano
People v. Malmstedt**
People v. Aminudin **
People v. Burgos
Chimel v. California
Manilil v. Court of Appeals**
Malacat v. Court of Appeals **

39 SCRA 152, 147 SCRA 509

198 SCRA 401
163 SCRA 402
144 SCRA 1
395 US 752
280 SCRA 400
283 SCRA 159

* Moot Cases
** Acting Cases

Papa v. Mago
People v. Aruta**

22 SCRA 657
288 SCRA 620

Aniag v. COMELEC**

237 SCRA 424

Valmonte v. de Villa

178 SCRA 211, 185 SCRA 665

In Re Umil et al v. Ramos
People v. Mengote
People v. Manlulu
VII.

187 SCRA 311

210 SCRA 174
22 April SCRA 159

Scope of Constitutional Protection

A. Who Are Entitled to Constitutional Protection
Citizenship and Alienage
Constitution ART IV
Board of Commissioners (CID) v. Dela Rosa, et al
197 SCRA 853
Qua CheeGan v. Deportation Board
9 SCRA 27
Harvey v. Defensor-Santiago
162 SCRA 840 (2 Bernas 210)
Yu v. Defensor-Santiago
169 SCRA 364 (2 Bernas 945)
Labo v. COMELEC
176 SCRA 1 (2 Bernas 952)
Aznar v. COMELEC
185 SRA 703 (2 Bernas 957)
Juridical Persons
Stonehill v. Diokno,
Central Bank v. Morfe

supra
20 SCRA 507 (2 Bernas 957)

B. Who Are Subject to Constitutional Prohibitions

State Action Requirement
People v. Marti
Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robbins
In relation to. Borjal v. CA

* Moot Cases
** Acting Cases

193 SRA 57 (2 Bernas 226)

supra
supra