CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 COURSE OUTLINE (SYLLABUS)

JOHN WESLEY SCHOOL OF LAW AND GOVERNANCE

WEEK 1
I. CONCEPT AND ORIGIN OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS
1. Main Classification
2. Classification According to Purpose
3. Doctrine of Preferred Freedom (Hierarchy of Rights)
 PBM Employees Org. v. PBM Co., Inc., 51 SCRA 189 (1973)
II. FUNDAMENTAL POWERS OF THE STATE
1. Similarities, Differences, and Limitations
a. POLICE POWER
1. Definition
 PLDT Co. v. City of Davao, 15 SCRA 244 (1965)
2. Scope/Characteristics
3. Basis
— Salus populi est suprema lex
 JMM Promotion and Management, Inc. v. CA, 260 319 (1996)
— Sic utere tuo ut alienum non laedas
Article 431 of the Civil Code
 Andamo v. IAC, 191 SCRA 195 (1990)
4. Who exercises said power?
5. Tests of Police Power
 Lozano v. Martinez, 146 SCRA 323 (1986)
 Del Rosario v. Bengzon, 180 SCRA 521 (1989)
 Tablarin v. Judge Gutierrez, 152 SCRA 730 (1987)
6. Zoning and Regulatory Ordinances
 Ermita-Malate Hotel and Motel Operators Association, Inc. v. City Mayor of
Manila, 20 SCRA 849 (1967)
 De la Cruz v. Paras, 123 SCRA 569 (1983)
 Velasco v. Villegas, 120 SCRA 568 (1983)

Page 1
  Magtajas v. Pryce Properties, 234 SCRA 255 (1994)
 Tano v. Socrates, 278 SCRA 154 (1997)
 City of Manila v. Judge Laguio, Jr., 455 SCRA 308, (2005)
7. Administrative Rules and Regulations
 Bautista v. Juinio, 127 SCRA 329 (1984)
 Taxicab Operators of Metro Manila v. BOT, 119 SCRA 597 (1982)
 Mirasol v. DPWH, 490 SCRA 318, (2006)
 Anglo-Fil Trading v. Lazaro, 124 SCRA 494 (1983)
 PPA v. Cipres Stevedoring & Arrastre, Inc., 463 SCRA 358, (2005)
 Chavez v. Romulo, 431 SCRA 534 (2004)
WEEK 2
b. EMINENT DOMAIN
1. Definition
 Napocor v. Posada, 752 SCRA 550 (2015)
2. Who exercises the power?
 City of Manila v. Chinese Cemetery of Manila, 40 Phil 349 (1919)
 Moday v. CA, 268 SCRA 368 (1997)
3. Constitutional Limitations
Art. III, Sec. 9 of the 1987 Constitution
4. Distinguished from destruction due to necessity
5. Objects of Expropriation
 Republic v. PLDT, 26 SCRA 620 (1969)
6. Where Expropriation Suit is Filed?
 Barangay San Roque v. Heirs of Pastor, 334 SCRA 127 (2000)
7. Taking
8. Requisites of Taking
 Republic v. Castelvi, 58 SCRA 336 (1974)
 City Government of Quezon City v. Ericta, 122 SCRA 759 (1983)
9. Deprivation of Use
 People v. Fajardo, 104 Phil.443 (1958)
 Napocor v. Gutierrez, 193 SCRA 1 (1991)
 Napocor v. San Pedro, 503 SCRA 333 (2006)

Page 2
 U.S. v. Causby, 328 U.S. 256 (1946)
 PPI v. Comelec, 244 SCRA 272 (1995)
10. Priority in Expropriation
 Filstream International v. CA, 284 SCRA 716 (1998)
 JIL Christian School Foundation, Inc. v. Municipality (now City) of Pasig, 466
SCRA 235 (2005)
11. Requisites for the Valid Exercise of the Power of Eminent Domain by a Local
Government Unit
12. Public use
 Heirs of Juancho Ardona v. Reyes, 125 SCRA 220 (1983)
 Sumulong v. Guerrero, 154 SCRA 461 (1987)
 Province of Camarines Sur v. CA, 222 SCRA 170 (1993)
WEEK 3
13. Recovery of Expropriated Land
 Manosca v. CA, 252 SCRA 412 (1996)
 Estate of Jimenez v. PEZA, 349 SCRA 240 (2001)
 ATO v. Gopuco, Jr., 462 SCRA 544 (2005)
 Republic v. Lim, 462 SCRA 265 (2005)
14. Genuine Necessity
 Municipality of Meycayauan v. IAC, 157 SCRA 640 (1988)
 De Knecht v. Bautista, 100 SCRA 660 (1980)
 Republic v. De Knecht, 182 SCRA 142 (1990)
 Masikip v. City of Pasig, 479 SCRA 391 (2006)
15. Just Compensation Defined
 Eslaban, Jr. v. Vda. De Onorio, 360 SCRA 230 (2001)
 Republic v. IAC, et al., 185 SCRA 572 (1990)
16. Determination of Just Compensation
 EPZA v. Dulay, 149 SCRA 305 (1987)
17. When Just Compensation Determined
 Ansaldo v. Tantuico, Jr., 188 SCRA 300 (1990)
 Napocor v. Tiangco, 514 SCRA 674 (2007)
18. Manner of Payment

Page 3
  Association of Small Landowners v. DAR, 175 SCRA 343 (1989)
 DAR v. CA, 249 SCRA 149 (1995)
19. Trial with Commissioners
 Meralco v. Pineda, 206 SCRA 196 (1992)
 Napocor v. Henson, 300 SCRA 751 (1998)
20. Legal Interest for Expropriation Cases
 Napocor v. Angas, 208 SCRA 542 (1992)
1987 Constitution, Art. XII, Sec. 18
1987 Constitution, Art. XIII, Sec. 4
1987 Constitution, Art. XIII, Sec. 9
 City of Baguio v. Nawasa, 106 Phil. 114 (1959)
 Zamboanga del Norte v. City of Zamboanga, 22 SCRA 1334 (1968)
 MCIAA v. Lozada, Sr., 613 SCRA 618 (2010)
WEEK 4
c. TAXATION
1. Definition and Nature
2. Limitations
3. Purpose
 CIR v. Algue, Inc., 158 SCRA 9 (1988)
 Commissioner of Customs v. Makasiar, 177 SCRA 27 (1989)
4. Scope - (The power to tax is the power to destroy)
5. Who exercises the power?
1987 Constitution, Art. VI Sec. 28
1987 Constitution, Art. XIV, Sec. 4 (3)
1987 Constitution, Art. X, Sec. 5
6. Tax Exemptions
 YMCA v. CIR, 33 Phil. 217 (1916)
 Lladoc v. CIR, 14 SCRA 292 (1965)
 Bishop of Nueva Segovia v. Provincial Board, 51 Phil. 352 (1927)
 Province of Abra v. Hernando, 107 SCRA 104 (1981)
 Abra Valley College v. Aquino, 162 SCRA 106 (1988)
 American Bible Society v. City of Manila, 101 Phil. 386 (1957)

Page 4
 7. Double Taxation
 Punzalan v. Municipal Board of Manila, 95 Phil.46 (1954)
8. License Fees
 Physical Therapy Org. of the Phils. v. Mun. Board of Manila, 101 Phil. 1142
(1957)
III. DUE PROCESS OF LAW
1. 1987 Constitution, Art. III, Sec. I
2. 1987 Constitution, Art. III. Sec. 14 (1)
3. Definition, Nature, and Scope
4. Purpose of the guarantee
Hurtado v. California, 110 U.S. 516 (1884)
5. Meaning of Life, Liberty, and Property
6. Substantive Due Process
 Villegas v. Hiu Chiong Tsai Pao Ho, 86 SCRA 275 (1978)
 Rubi v. Provincial Board of Mindoro, 39 Phil. 660 (1919)
7. Void for Vagueness/Overbreadth
 Ople v. Torres, 292 SCRA 141. (1998)
 Estrada v. Sandiganbayan, 369 SCRA 394 (2001)
 David v. Macapagal-Arroyo, 489 SCRA 160 (2006)
 Ong v. Sandiganbayan, 470 SCRA 7 (2005)
WEEK 5
8. Procedural Due Process (Judicial)
9. Publication Requirement
 Tañada v. Tuvera, 146 SCRA 446 (1986)
 PITC v. Angeles, 263 SCRA 421 (1996)
10. Impartial Court or Tribunal
 Tañada v. PAEC, 141 SCRA 307 (1986)
 Anzaldo v. Clave, 119 SCRA 353 (1982)
Tumey v. Ohio, 273 U.S. 510 (1997)
 People v. CA, 262 SCRA 452 (1996)
 Tabuena v. Sandiganbayan, 268 SCRA 332 (1997)
11. Prejudicial Publicity

Page 5
  Webb v. De Leon, 247 SCRA 652 (1995)
 People v. Sanchez, 367 SCRA 520 (2001)
12. Notice and Hearing
 Summary Dismissal Board v. Torcita, 330 SCRA 153 (2000)
 People v. Estrada, 333 SCRA 699 (2000)
 Lim v. CA, 387 SCRA 149 (2002)
13. Opportunity to be Heard
 Marohombsar v. Adiong, 420 SCRA 618 (2004)
14. Exceptions to Notice and Hearing Requirements
 Philcomsat v. Alcuaz, 180 SCRA 218 (1989)
 Suntay v. People, 101 Phil. 833 (1957)
 De Bisschop v. Galang, 8 SCRA 244 (1963)
 Var Orient Shipping Co., Inc. v. Achacoso, 161 SCRA 232 (1988)
15. Administrative Due Process
 Ang Tibay v. CIR, 69 Phil. 635 (1940)
16. Requisites of Administrative Due Process
 Montemayor v. Araneta University Foundation, 77 SCRA 321 (1977)
 Meralco v. PSC, 11 SCRA 317 (1964)
 Ateneo v. CA, 145 SCRA 100 (1986)
 Alcuaz v. PSBA, 161 SCRA 7 (1988)
 Non v. Dames II, 185 SCRA 523 (1990)
WEEK 6
17. Equal Protection
1987 Constitution, Art. XIII, Sec. 1 and 2 (social justice)
Art. XIII, Sec. 3 (protection to labor)
Art. XII, Sec. 10 (nationalization of business)
Art. XII, Sec. 2, par. 2 (reservation of marine resources)
Art. III, Sec. 11 (free access to the courts)
Art. VIII, Sec. 5(5) (legal aid to poor)
Art. IX-C, Sec. 10 (protection of candidates)
Art. II, Sec. 26 (public service)
Art. II, Sec. 14 (equality of women and men)

Page 6
 18. Sexual Discrimination
 Phil. Association of Service Exporters v. Drilon, 163 SCRA 386 (1988)
19. Administration of Justice
 People v. Hernandez, 99 Phil. 515 (1956)
 People v. Isinain, 85 Phil. 648 (1950)
 Chavez v. PCGG, 299 SCRA 744 (1998)
20. Public Policy
 UNIDO v. COMELEC, 104 SCRA 17 (1981)
 PJA v. Prado, 227 SCRA 703 (1993)
 Olivarez v. Sandiganbayan, 248 SCRA 700 (1995)
 PHILRECA v. DILG Secretary, 403 SCRA 558 (2003)
 ISAE v. Quisumbing, 333 SCRA 13 (2000)
 Beltran v. Secretary of Health, 476 SCRA 168 (2005)
IV. NON-IMPAIRMENT OF CONTRACT CLAUSE
1. 1987 Constitution, Art. III, Sec. 10
2. Purpose
 Goldenway Merchandising Corp. v. Equitable PCI Bank, 693 SCRA 439
(2013)
3. When impairment occurs
4. When allowed
5. Emergency Powers
 Rutter v. Esteban, 93 Phil. 68 (1953)
6. Zoning and Regulatory Ordinances
 Villanueva v. Castaneda, 154 SCRA 142 (1987)
 Sangalang v. IAC, 168 SCRA 634 (1988)
 Ortigas & Co. Ltd. v. CA, 346 SCRA 748 (2000)
WEEK 7
7. Administrative Regulations
 Tiro v. Hontanosas, 125 SCRA 697 (1983)
8. Rental Laws
 Caleon v. Agus Development Corp., 207 SCRA 748 (1992)
9. Tax Exemptions

Page 7
  Meralco v. Province of Laguna, 306 SCRA 750 (1999)
 Pagcor v. BIR, 645 SCRA 338 (2011)
V. ARRESTS, SEARCHES, AND SEIZURES
1. 1987 Constitution, Art. III, Section 2
2. 1987 Constitution, Art. III, Section 3
3. Probable Cause
 Santos v. Orda, Jr., 620 SCRA 375 (2010)
4. Purpose and Importance of the Guaranty
 Alvero v. Dizon, 76 Phil 637 (1946)
5. To Whom Directed
 People v. Andre Marti, 193 SCRA 57 (1991)
6. Who May Invoke the Right?
 Bache and Co., v. Ruiz, 37 SCRA 323 (1971)
 Stonehill v. Diokno, 20 SCRA 383 (1967)
 Zurcher v. Stanford Daily, 436 U. S. 547 (1978)
 Wilson v. Layne, 98-0083, May 24, 1999
7. Conditions for a Valid Warrant; Existence of Probable Cause
 Burgos v. Chief of Staff, 133 SCRA 800 (1984)
Chandler v. Miller, 520 U.S. 305. April 15, 1997, D-96-126
 People v. Chua Ho San, 308 SCRA 432) (1999)
 People v. Molina, 352 SCRA 174 (2001)
8. Partially Valid Warrant
 People v. Salanguit, 356 SCRA 683 2001
 Microsoft Corp. v. Maxicorp, Inc., 438 SCRA 224 (2004)
9. Personal Determination by Judge
 Sta. Rosa Mining Co., v. Fiscal Zabala, 153 SCRA 367 (1987)
 Paderanga v. Drilon, 196 SCRA 86 (1991)
 Pita v. CA, 178 SCRA 362 (1989)
 Abdula v. Guiani. 326 SCRA 1 (2000)
 People v. Mamaril, 420 SCRA 662 (2004)
WEEK 8
10. Examination of Witnesses

Page 8
  Pasion Vda. De Garcia v. Locsin, 65 Phil 68 (1938)
 Yee Sue Koy v. Almeda, 70 Phil. 141, (1940)
 Alvarez v. CFI, 64 Phil. 33 (1937)
 Mata v. Bayona, 128 SCRA 388 (1984)
11. Particularity of Description
Descriptio personae
 Olaes v. People, 155 SCRA 486 (1987)
 Prudente v. Judge Dayrit, 180 SCRA 69 (1989)
 Chia v. Coll. of Customs, 177 SCRA 755 (1989)
 20th Century Fox Film Corp. v. CA, 164 SCRA 655 (1988)
 People v. Choi, 497 SCRA 547 (2006)
 PICOP v. Asuncion, 307 SCRA 253 (1999)
 Al Ghoul v. C.A, 364 SCRA 363 (2001)
 Del Rosario v. People 358 SCRA 373 (2001)
12. Cases of Valid Warrantless Search/Seizure
Waiver/consent
Plain view doctrine
Warrantless Search incident to a lawful arrest
With warrant
Without warrant falling under certain exceptions
Moving vehicle
Airport/seaport
Emergency circumstances
Plain view
Stop and frisk
Checkpoints
Rules of Court, Rule 126
13. Warrantless Searches, Valid Waiver
 People v. Omaweng, 213 SCRA 462 (1992)
 People v. Correa, 285 SCRA 679 (1998)
 People v. Ramos, 186 SCRA 184 (1990)
 People v. Barros, 231 SCRA 557 (1994)

Page 9
  Veroy v. Layague, 210 SCRA 97 (1992)
 People v. Damaso , 212 SCRA 457 (1992)
 Lopez v. Comm. of Customs, 68 SCRA 320 (1975)
 Caballes v. CA, 373 SCRA 221 (2002)
 People v. Asis, 391 SCRA 108 (2002)
 People v. Tudtud, 412 SCRA 142 (2003)
WEEK 9
14. Incident to Lawful Arrest
Rules of Court, Rule 126
 Chimel v. California, 395 U. S. 752 (1969)
 People v. De la Cruz, 184 SCRA 416 (1990)
 People v. Kalubiran, 196 SCRA 645 (1991)
 Espano v. CA, 288 SCRA 558 (1998)
 People v. Tangliben, 184 SCRA 220 (1990)
 People v. Estrella, 395 SCRA 553 (2003)
 People v. Libnao, 395 SCRA 407 (2003)
15. Plain View Doctrine
 People v. Musa, 217 SCRA 597 (1993)
 Padilla v. CA, 269 SCRA 402 (1997)
 People v. Valdez, 341 SCRA 25 (2000)
Arizona v. Hicks, 480 U.S. 321 [1987]
 People v. Compacion, 361 SCRA 540 (2001)
 People v. Huang Zhen Hua, 439 SCRA 350 (2004)
16. Enforcement of Fishing, Customs, and Immigration laws
 Roldan v. Arca, 65 SCRA 320 (1975)
 People v. Gatward, 267 SCRA 785 (1997)
 People v. Johnson, 348 SCRA 526 (2000)
 People v. Suzuki, 414 SCRA 43 (2003)
17. “Stop and frisk”
 Terry v. Ohio, 392 US 1 (1968)
 People v. Solayao, 262 SCRA 255 (1996)
 Manalili v. CA, 280 SCRA 400 (1997)

Page 10
  Malacat v. CA, 283 SCRA 159 (1997)
Florida v. J.L., 98-1993, 529 U.S. 266, March 28, 2000
WEEK 10
18. Search of Moving Vehicles
 Papa v. Mago, 22 SCRA 857 (1968)
 People v. CFI of Rizal, 101 SCRA 86 (1980)
 Salvador v. People, 463 SCRA 489 (2005)
Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806, January 10, 1996
19. Emergency circumstances
 People v. De Gracia 233 SCRA 716 (1994)
20. Checkpoints
 Valmonte v. De Villa 185 SCRA 665 (1990)
 Aniag v. Comelec, 237 SCRA 424 (1994)
 People v. Escaño, 323 SCRA 754 (2000)
 People v. Vinecario, 420 SCRA 280 (2004)
21. Inspection of buildings
Camara v. Municipal Court, 387 U. S. 523 (1967)
VI. PRIVACY OF COMMUNICATION AND CORRESPONDENCE
1. Republic Act No. 4200
2. Art. 290, Revised Penal Code
 Gaanan v. IAC, 145 SCRA 113 (1986)
Katz v. U.S., 389 U.S. 347 (1967)
 Ramirez v. CA, 248 SCRA 590 (1995)
 Salcedo-Ortanez v. CA, 235 SCRA 111 (1994)
 Alejano v. Cabuay, 468 SCRA 188 (2005)
3. Privileged Communications
 In Re Laureta, 148 SCRA 382 (1987)
 People v. Albofera, 152 SCRA 123 (1987)
 Zulueta v. CA, 253 SCRA 699 (1996)
 Deano v. Godinez, 12 SCRA 483 (1964)
 Waterous Drug Corporation v. NLRC, 280 SCRA 735 (1997)
4. 1987 Constitution, Art. III, Sec. 17

Page 11
  Silverthorne Lumber v. US, 251 US 385 (1920)
 People v. Aruta, 288 SCRA 626 (1998)
 People v. Rondero, 320 SCRA 383 (1999)
5. Liability for damages
 Aberca v. Ver, 160 SCRA 590 (1988)
WEEK 11
VII. PRIVILEGE AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION
1. Exclusionary Rule
1987 Constitution, Art. III, Sec. 3(2)
2. Scope of Compulsory Testimonial Incrimination
 US v. Tan Teng, 23 Phil. 145 (1912)
 US v. Ong Siu Hong, 36 Phil. 735 (1917).
 People v. Otadura, 86 Phil. 244 (1950)
 Villaflor v. Summers, 41 Phil. 62 (1920)
 Bermudez v. Castillo, 64 Phil. 485 (1937)
 Beltran v. Judge Samson, 53 Phil. 570 (1929)
 People v. Tranca, 235 SCRA 455 (1994)
South Dakota v. Neville, 459 U.S. 553 (1983)
Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (1966)
 People v. Rondero, 320 SCRA 383 (1999)
 People v. Gallarde, 325 SCRA 835 (2000)
3. In What Proceedings Available
 Pascual v. Board of Medical Examiners, 28 SCRA 344 (1969)
 Galman v. Pamaran, 138 SCRA 274 (1985)
4. Use Immunity v. Transactional Immunity
1987 Constitution, Art. XIII, Section 18
Section 8, R.A. No. 1379
 Galman v. Pamaran, 138 SCRA 274 (1985)
5. Exclusionary Rule
1987 Constitution, Art. II, Sec. 12(3)
6. Effect of Denial of Privilege by Court
 Chavez v. CA, 24 SCRA 663 (1968)

Page 12
VIII. FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION
1. 1987 Constitution, Article III, Section 4
2. 1987 Constitution, Article III, Section 18
3. Purpose
 US v. Bustos, 37 Phil. 731 (1918)
 Burgos v. Chief of Staff, 133 SCRA 800 (1984)
New York Times v. Sullivan 376 U.S. 254 (1964)
WEEK 12
4. Restrictions
 Gonzales v. COMELEC, 27 SCRA 835 (1969)
5. Balancing of Interest Test
 Soriano vs. Laguardia, 615 SCRA 254 (2010)
6. Dangerous Tendency Test
7. Social Weather Station v. Comelec, 357 SCRA 496 (2001)
8. Clear and Present Danger Test
 Zaldivar v. Sandiganbayan, 170 SCRA 1 (1989)
 Sanidad v. Comelec, 181 SCRA 529 (1990)
Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. 844, June 26, 1997
 Miriam College v. CA, 348 SCRA 265 (2000)
 ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corp. v. Comelec, 323 SCRA 811 (2000)
 Chavez v. Gonzales, 545 SCRA 441 (2008)
9. Freedom of Expression, Libel, and National Security
 Babst v. NIB, 132 SCRA 316 (1984)
 Espuelas v. People, 90 Phil. 524 (1951)
 Mercado v. CFI 116 SCRA 93 (1982)
 Lopez v. CA, 34 SCRA 116 (1970)
 PJI v. Thoenen, 477 SCRA 482 (2005)
Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989)
 Borjal v. C.A., 301 SCRA 1(1999)
 Baguio Midland Courier v. CA, 444 SCRA 28 (2004)
 Cabansag v. Fernandez, 102 Phil. 152 (1957)
 People v. Alarcon, 69 Phil. 265 (1939)

Page 13
  In Re Ramon Tulfo, AM 90-4-1545-0, April 17, 1990
 Nestle Phils. v. Sanchez, 154 SCRA 542 (1987)
 In Re: Emil P. Jurado, 243 SCRA 299 (1995)
10. Freedom of Expression, Movie Censorship, Obscenity, and the Right to Privacy
11. Tests of Obscenity
Isolated Passage Test
Social Redeeming Value Test
Dominant Theme Test
Community Standard Test
National Character Test
Aggregate Character Test
WEEK 13
12. Least Regulated to Most Regulated
Print media
Films
Televisions
Radio (more pervasive)
Live shows
 Gonzales v. Kalaw Katigbak, 137 SCRA 356 (1985)
 Lagunzad v. Soto, Vda. De Gonzales, 92 SCRA 476 (1979)
 Ayer Productions v. Judge Capulong, 160 SCRA 861 (1988)
 KMU v. NEDA Director General, G.R. No. 167798, April 19, 2006
 MTRCB v. ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corp., G.R. No. 155282, January 17,
2005
Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. 844, June 26, 1997
Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973)
 Fernando v. CA. 510 SCRA 351 (2006)
Radio Broadcasts
 Eastern Broadcasting Corp. (DYRE) v. Dans, 137 SCRA 247 (1985)
IX. FREEDOM OF ASSEMBLY
1. Batas Pambansa Blg. 880
 Primicias v. Mayor Fugoso, 80 Phil. 71 (1948)

Page 14
  Ignacio v. Ela, 99 Phil. 346 (1956)
 J.B.L. Reyes v. Bagatsing, 125 SCRA 553 (1983)
 Ruiz v. Gordon, 126 SCRA 233 (1983)
 Malabanan v. Ramento, 129 SCRA 359 (1984)
 Arreza v. GAUF, 137 SCRA 94 (1985)
 Acosta v CA, 334 SCRA 486 (2000)
 Bayan v. Ermita, 488 SCRA 226 (2006)
X. FREEDOM OF INFORMATION
1. 1987 Constitution, Art. III, Sec. 7
 Baldoza v. Dimaano, 71 SCRA 14 (1976)
 Tañada v. Tuvera, 136 SCRA 27 (1985)
 Valmonte v. Belmonte, 170 SCRA 256 (1989)
 Legaspi v. CSC, 150 SCRA 530 (1987)
 Garcia v. BOI, 177 SCRA 374 (1989)
WEEK 14
XI. FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION
1. 1987 Constitution, Art. III, Sec. 8
2. 1987 Constitution, Art. IX (C), Sec. 2 (5)
3. 1987 Constitution, Art. XIII, Sec. 3, Par.2
 Occena v. COMELEC, 127 SCRA 404 (1984)
 In re Edillon, 84 SCRA 554 (1978)
Rotary Int’l v. Rotary Club, 481 U.S. 537 (1987)
XII. LIBERTY OF ABODE AND TRAVEL
1. 1987 Constitution, Art. III, Sec. 6
 Salonga v. Hermoso, 97 SCRA 121 (1980)
 Caunca v. Salazar, 82 Phil. 851 (1940)
 Manotoc v. CA. 142 SCRA 149 (1986)
 Marcos v. Manglapus, 177 SCRA 668 (1989)
 Silverio v. CA, G.R. no. 94284 April 8, 1991
 Lorenzo v. Director of Health, 50 Phil 595 (1927)
XIII. FREEDOM OF RELIGION
1. 1987 Constitution, Art. III, Sec. 5

Page 15
2. Non-Establishment Clause
3. Operation of Sectarian schools
 1987 Constitution, Art. XIV, Sec. 4(2)
4. Religions instruction in Public schools
 1987 Constitution, Art. XIV, Sec. 3(3)
 Civil Code, Art. 359(1)
5. Anti-Evolution Laws
Epperson v. Arkansas, 33 U. S. 27 (1968)
6. Prayer and Bible Reading in Public Schools
Engel v. Vitale, 370 U. S. 421 (1962)
Abington Schools Dist. v. Schempp, 374 U. S. 203 (1973)
Stone v. Graham, 449 U.S. 39 (1980)
7. Tax Exemption
 1987 Constitution, Art. VI, Sec. 28 (3)
8. Public Aid to Religion
 1987 Constitution, Art. VI, Sec. 29 (2)
 Aglipay v. Ruiz, 64 Phil. 201 (1937)
Mueller v. Allen, 463 U.S. 388 (1983)
Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 [1971]
Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38 [1985])
 Islamic Da’wah Council of the Phils. Inc. v. OES, 405 SCRA 497 (2003)
9. Intramural religious disputes
 Fonacier v. CA, 96 Phil. 417 (1955)
10. Free Exercise Clause
 Estrada v. Escritor, 492 SCRA 1 (2006)
11. Flag salute
West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U. S. 624 (1943)
 Ebralinag v. Division Superintendent, G.R. No. 96770, March 1, 1993
12. Freedom to propagate religious doctrines
 American Bible Society v. City of Manila, 181 Phil. 386 (1957)
Swaggart Ministries v. Cal Bd. Of Equalization, 493 U.S. 378 (1990)
13. Exemption from Union Shop

Page 16
  Victoriano v. Elizalde Rope Workers Union, 59 SCRA 54 (1974)
14. Religious Test
Torcaso v. Watkins 367 U.S. 488 (1961)
15. Disqualification for local government officials
 Pamil v. Teleron, 86 SCRA 413 (1978)

Page 17