Mindanao State University

COLLEGE OF LAW
Main Campus - Marawi City

JD 109 (CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II) COURSE SYLLABUS

2nd Semester, A.Y. 2024-2025
Atty. Jeanan Ashya M. Gubat, CPA

Subject/Section : JD 109 (Sections 1 & 2)

Descriptive Title : Constitutional Law II
Schedule : Monday (3-6 PM), Wednesday (3-6 PM)
Units/Credits : 3 units
Prerequisite : None

Course Description:
A comprehensive study of the Bill of Rights, other constitutional rights, and judicial review of
the acts affecting them.

Course Goals:
Upon completion of the course, students are expected to:

1. Gain a deep understanding of the 1987 Philippine Constitution and memorize provisions,
with particular focus on the Bill of Rights and other constitutional rights;
2. Understand the concept and the process of judicial review, and its role in interpreting
constitutional rights;
3. Have analyzed and understood landmark Supreme Court cases that have shaped the
interpretation of constitutional rights;
4. Enhance critical thinking and legal reasoning skills through analysis of constitutional issues,
particularly in the context of constitutional rights and acts affecting them; and
5. Apply knowledge acquired to real-life scenarios and hypothetical problems, demonstrating
an ability to analyze and address complex constitutional issues in a practical context.

Course Requirements:
1. Attendance. The MSU College of Law Student Handbook requires not only regular but
also punctual class attendance. A latecomer shall not be admitted to class if he/she comes in late
by 15 minutes or more. Further, the faculty concerned has the option to mark a student absent if the
student is outside the classroom without permission when the roll is called or when he is called to
recite. A student shall be dropped from the class roll if his/her absences reach 20% of the total
number of hours of class sessions in this course during the semester. (This includes hours lost by
late enrollment and excused absences.) If majority of the absences are excused, the student shall
not be given a grade of “5.0” but a grade of “Dropped”. 1 Hence, students are expected to attend all
classes but may miss up to two (2) 2 classes without any academic penalty.
2. A 60% score average in the two major exams. 3 In no case shall a student be given a final
passing grade unless his/her minimum passing score average in the major exams (midterm and
final) is 60%.

Grading System:
After complying with the two foregoing requirements, other criteria shall be factored in the
computation of the final grade of a student 4 as follows:
60% Average score of 60% in the two major exams (equivalent to 3.0)
20% Average score in excess of 60% in the two major exams
10% Recitation/reporting
5% Percentile rank 5 based on the two major exams
5% Written works, quizzes, case digests, etc.
100% Total
Grade Grade Point Equivalent Description
96-100% 1.00 Excellent
92-95% 1.25 Excellent
88-91% 1.50 Very Good
85-87% 1.75 Very Good
80-84% 2.00 Good
76-79% 2.25 Good
72-75% 2.50 Satisfactory
68-71% 2.75 Satisfactory
60-67% 3.0 Passed
59% & below 5.0 Failure
INC Incomplete
DRP Dropped

A grade of Inc (Incomplete) will be given if the midterm or final exam is not taken by the
student with valid reason, and he/she has the possibility to obtain a final passing grade.

A grade of “5.0” may be given if a student withdraws after three-fourths of the total number
of hours prescribed for the course has elapsed. Students are allowed to drop the subject before the
scheduled midterm examinations after completion of the dropping form to be signed by the faculty
and the Dean.

1 MSU College of Law Student Handbook, Chapter IV, Title III, Art. 30.
2 Based on an estimated 15-week, once-a-week schedule of a 3-unit course, considering the late start of the
COL classes.
3 MSU College of Law Student Handbook, Chapter IV, Title I, Art. 22.
4 MSU College of Law Student Handbook, Chapter IV, Title I, Article 22 (b)
5 Among all students who took the same exam(s)
 If there is any question about the final grade obtained by a student, the student may request
full disclosure of the breakdown and computation of his/her final grade. 6

Major Exam Scoring System:

The scoring system shall take into consideration the student’s (a) knowledge of law and
prevailing jurisprudence, (b) capacity for logical thinking and analysis, and (c) ability to clearly express
or present thoughts or answers in English. 7 Full credit or points shall be earned by an answer that, in
relation to the data and/or situation/s presented by a question: (1) presents the correct legal
conclusion; (2) is supported by a correct legal basis; and (3) is delivered in a complete but succinct,
clear and polished with very minimal errors in grammar. 8
The exams shall include the topics as provided in this syllabus, whether discussed in class
or not, as students are responsible for all the assigned topics or materials. Exams may also include
materials that were not part of the assigned readings but were discussed in class.

Class Content:
Class Procedure
Oral recitations are conducted every meeting on the covered topics and assigned readings and
are supplemented with discussion by the instructor. Questions are posed to elicit understanding by the
law students of legal concepts and principles and to encourage them to come up with different ways
of framing an argument and develop the ability to critically analyze and properly apply legal principles
and doctrines to a new set of facts or hypothetical scenarios.

Case digests
Students may be assigned to study cases before attending the class and are quizzed orally
during class through case method in order to highlight principles and prevailing doctrines. Students
may be required to digest cases. Additional cases aside those provided in the course outline may be
given.

Quizzes and/or Assignment

Students may be quizzed before or after the class through Google Classroom to ensure that
they have prepared for upcoming discussions, to assess their grasp of key concepts and materials
covered in the course, or to reinforce their understanding of the topics discussed. These assessments
must be completed before the set deadline to maintain a structured and timely learning environment.

Exams
There will be a midterm exam and a final exam. The final exam is cumulative. All students will
take the exams on the scheduled day and time. No exam may be taken in advance of the scheduled
dates or delayed beyond the examination period except when approved by the Dean in highly
meritorious cases.

6 The concerned faculty usually emails the individual grades of students before being entered in the AKAN.
7 MSU College of Law Student Handbook, Chapter IV, Title I, Art. 23.
8 MSU College of Law Student Handbook, Chapter IV, Title I, Art. 24.
Required Course Material(s): 9
The 1987 Philippine Constitution (Bill of Rights and other pertinent provisions)
Laws and rules on the protection and enforcement of constitutional rights (Rule on writ of
amparo, rule on writ of habeas data)
Full texts of cases assigned

Recommended book: Any textbook on Constitutional Law II with good annotations

Class Policies:

1. Attendance shall be checked before the class formally starts. The College considers regular
attendance in all classes as one of the most important obligations of the student. Students who
miss the roll call shall be considered absent on record, but may still be called for recitation.
Students who are not present when called for recitation shall be given a grade of 60 (grade
equivalent). There shall be no “excused” absences, except for emergencies, serious medical
reasons and/or matters of life and death. Students should make every effort to attend class
regularly and punctually as this will be best for them. Compliance with this standard not only
upholds our law school’s commitment to academic excellence but also emphasizes the
importance of discipline and accountability as you develop the habits necessary for success in
the legal profession.
2. As an additional guideline for online synchronous classes, students are required to keep their
cameras on at all times to ensure active participation and engagement with both the faculty
and peers, replicating a classroom environment and helping the faculty gauge students'
understanding through visual cues and provide immediate feedback. Maintaining camera
visibility promotes attentiveness, discourages distractions, and reduces the likelihood of
dishonest behavior during class activities and assessments, creating a more focused and
effective learning experience.
3. Students must behave respectfully during class. If a student is disrespectful to the faculty or
another student, he/she will be removed from class.
4. Assignments/additional requirements may be given at least 3 days before the scheduled class.
Students are expected to come to class prepared, having read the assigned topics, cases, etc.,
and shall be called randomly for recitation. A student may volunteer to recite first at the start of
the class; the rest shall be called randomly and shall wait for his/her turn to recite.
5. Any assigned work with a deadline must be submitted on time.
6. Electronic gadgets, including smartphones, shall not be used during class and must be turned
off or put in silent mode. Students are prohibited from recording (video or audio) the class
session.
7. The use of the Internet on any device during class (including web surfing, email, social media,
texting, or private messaging) is strictly prohibited. Such activities are distracting for both you

9 Available online
 and your classmates. To maintain a focused and productive learning environment, we require
your full and undivided attention throughout the class.
8. There shall be no coaching or prompting during class recitation.
9. As a law student, you must pledge that all tests and exams taken by you and all works turned
in by you are original and solely the result of your own efforts. Any form of academic dishonesty,
including cheating and plagiarism, will not be tolerated and shall be dealt with severely.
10. Cheating in this class includes using others’ work to generate one’s own essay, copying any part
of someone else’s homework, and collaborating on assignments that are meant to be individual
efforts. All course requirements must be completed individually unless otherwise provided.
11. During exams, students should avoid any suspicious action that may be considered a form of
cheating (such as talking to another examinee, handling another examinee’s questionnaire or
booklet, glancing, having any electronic gadget or any other piece of paper other than his/her
questionnaire or booklet on his/her person, etc.). Any breach of academic integrity will earn
the student a final grade of 5.0 in this course and will be brought to the attention of the Office
of the Dean.
12. No special exam shall be given. A student who fails to take any major exam shall submit an
affidavit citing among others the reason/s for the failure to take the examination. Faculty, shall,
based on such explanation, determine whether or not the failure to take the examination is
justified. If not justified, the student shall be given a failing grade for that particular exam.
13. Policies imposed by the College of Law shall also be observed and complied with. In the event
of a conflict between the policies of this class and those of the college as outlined in the Student
Handbook, the latter’s policies will take precedence. Students are strongly advised to refer to
the College of Law’s Student Handbook.

Course Outline

I. Introduction
Inherent powers of the State
Bill of rights

Cases:
Equitable PCI Bank, Inc. vs. South Rich Acres, G.R. No. 202384, May 04, 2021
NPC v. Heirs of Macabangkit Sangkay, G.R. No. 165828
Bases Conversion and Development Authority vs. Baguio City, G.R. No. 192694. February 22,
2023

II. Due Process Clause (1987 Const., Art. III, Sec. 1; Art. XIII, Sec. 1)
Procedural And Substantive Requirements
Standards Of Review
Void-For-Vagueness Rule
Judicial And Administrative Due Process
Cases:
Samahan (Spark) V. Quezon City, Aug. 8, 2017
Saunar V. Executive Secretary Ermita, G.R. No. 186502, December 13, 2017 (administrative due process)
Cudia v. The Superintendent, February 24, 2015
Republic of the Philippines v. Cagandahan, Sept. 12, 2008
Association of Small Landowners v. Sec. of Agrarian Reform, GR No. 78742, July 14, 1989 Rubi
v. Provincial Board of Mindoro, 39 Phil 660
City Government of Quezon City v. Ericta, 122 SCRA 759

For further readings:

Tatel v. Municipality of Virac, 207 SCRA 157
Villegas v. Hiu Ching Tsai Pao Hao, 86 SCRA 270
People v. Pomar, 46 Phil 440
Agustin v. Edu, 88 SCRA 195
Aquino, Jr. v. Military Commission, GR No. L-37364, May 9, 1975
Spouses Daiz v. Judge Asadon, AM No. MTJ-98-1152, June 2, 1998
Alonte v. Hon. Savellano, 92 SCAD 307
Vinta Maritime v. NLRC, etc. GR No. 113911, January 23, 1998
City of Manila v. Laguio , GR No. 118127
Anonymous v. Radam, AM No. P-07-2333, December 19, 2007
Kabataan v. Comelec, G.R. No. 221318, Dec. 16, 2015
Aquino v. Municipality of Malay, G.R. No. 211356, Sept. 29, 2014
Ocampo v. Abando 715 SCRA 673 (2014)
Ylaya v. Gacott 699 SCRA 452
Cabalit v. COA 663 SCRA 133
Heritage Hotel v. Nunhrain 639 SCRA 420
Pimentel, et al. v. LEB, G.R. Nos. 230642, 242954, Sep 10, 2019
Rosas v. Montor 772 SCRA 462 (2015)
Kabataan Party v. Comelec 777 SCRA 574 (2015)
Sps. Sinamban v. China Banking, G.R. No. 193890, March 11, 2015
Republic v. Soriano, G.R. No. 211666, February 25, 2015
Office of the Solicitor v. Ayala 600 SCRA 617 (2009)
Espina v. Zamora, 631 SCRA 17 (2010)
Rimando v. Naguilan Emission, G.R. No. 198860, July 23, 2012
Legaspi v. City of Cebu 711 SCRA 771 (2013)
Southern Luzon Drug Corp. v. DSWD, April 25, 2017
Republic v. Macabagdal, January 10, 2018
NPC v. Manalastas 782 SCRA 363 (2016)
China Banking v. City Treasure, G.R. No. 204117, July 1, 2015
Ferrer v. Bautista, G.R. No. 210551, June 30, 2015
 CIR v. Petron Corp., G.R. No. 185568, March 21, 2012
ABAKADA v. Exec. Sec., September 1, 2005
Maceda v. Macaraig, 233 SCRA 217
Tolentino v. Sec. of Finance, 235 SCRA 630 (1994)

III. Equal Protection Clause (1987 Const. Art. III, Sec. 1)

Requisites For Valid Classifications

Cases:
Southern Luzon Drug Corp v. DSWD (April 25, 2017)
Lim v. Pacquing, 240 SCRA 649
Himagan v. People, G.R. No. 113811, October 7, 1994
Villegas v. Hiu Ching Tsai Pao Hao, 86 SCRA 270
Ormoc Sugar Co. Inc., v. Treasurer of Ormoc City, 22 SCRA 603
Duncan Assoc., et al. v. Glaxo Wellcome, G.R. No. 162994, Sept. 17, 2004
Velasquez, et al., v. Hernandez, CSC v. Hernandez, GR. Nos. 150732, 151095, Aug. 31, 2004
Erece v. Macalingay, G.R. No. 166809, April 22, 2009
Dumlao v. COMELEC, 95 SCRA 392 (1980)
Ang Ladlad v. COMELEC, 618 SCRA 32 (2010)
Ricalde v. People, G.R. No. 211002, January 21, 2015
Villanueva v. JBC, G.R. No. 211833, April 7, 2015
Kabataan v. COMELEC, Dec. 16, 2015
Mosqueda v. Pilipino Banana (August 16, 2016)

IV. Arrest, Search and Seizures

Requisites; Exclusionary Rule

Cases:
People v. Salazar, 266 SCRA 607
People v. Figueroa, 248 SCRA 679
People v. Cuizon, 256 SCRA 329
People v. Sotto, 275 SCRA 191
People v. Menguin GR No. 120915, April 13, 1998
Diaz v. People GR No. 213875
Sayan v People GR No. 217097
People v Rodrigueza 205 SCRA 791
People v. Enrile 222 SCRA 586
People v Dural 223 SCRA 207
People v. Rodriguez 232 SCRA 498
People v. Hussain GR No. 126379 (1998)
Valmonte v. De Villa GR No. 83988
 Posadas v. CA GR No. 89139 (1990)
Padilla v. CA & People GR No. 121917 (1997)
People v Del Castillo GR No. 153254 (2004)
People v. Huang & Lee GR No. 13930(2004)
Guazon v. De Villa 181 SCRA 623
Pestilos v. Generoso GR No. 182603 (2014)
People v. Tonog Jr. (1992)

Further readings:
Aniag v Comelec 237 SCRA 424
People v Exala 221 SCRA 494
People v Ramos 222 SCRA 557
People v Barros 231 SCRA 557
Veroy v Judge Layague 210 SCRA 97
People v Musa 217 SCRA 597
Valdez v People 538 SCRA 611
People v Aminuddin 163 SCRA 402
Roldan v Arca 65 SCRA 361
Quelnan v People 526 SCRA 653
Uy v BIR 344 SCRA 36
Posadas v Ombudsman GR No. 131492 (2000)
People v Burgos 1986
People v del Rosario 1999
People v Gerente 1993
Estrada v. Ombudsman, January 21, 2015
Jacaban v. People, G.R. No. 184355, March 23, 2015
PDIC v. Casimiro, G.R. No. 206866, Sept. 2, 2015
Saluday v. People (2018)
People v. Jerry Sapla, G.R. No. 244045 (2020)
People v. Comprado, April 4, 2018
Dela Cruz v. People, January 11, 2016
Salvador v. People 463 SCRA 489 (2005)
People v. Degracia, 233 SCRA 716 (1994)
Miguel v. People, July 31, 2017
People v. Conde 356 SCRA 525 (2002)
Abenes v. CA, 515 SCRA 690 (2007)
People v. Salibad, G.R. No. 210616, Nov. 25, 2015
Ogayon v. People, G.R. NO. 188794, Sept. 2, 2015

V. Privacy of Communication and Correspondence (1987 Const., Art. III, Sec. 3)

Exclusionary Rule
 Informational, Decisional, Locational Privacy
Zones of privacy

See R.A. No. 4200

R.A. No. 1405

Cases:
Ople v. Torres, 293 SCRA 201 (1998)
Zulueta v. CA 253 SCRA 699 (1996)
In re Alejano 468 SCRA 188 (2005)
KMU v. Director 487 SCRA 623 (2006)
In Re Sabio 504 SCRA 214 (2006)
Ejercito v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 157294-95 (2006)

VI. Freedom of Speech and Expression (1987 Const., Art. III, Secs. 4 & 18(1))
Prior Restraint And Subsequent Punishment
Content-Based And Content-Neutral Regulations
Facial Challenges And Overbreadth Doctrine
Test For Valid Government Interference
Doctrine Of Privileged Communication (See Act No. 3815., Art. 354)

Cases:
Marcos v. Manglapus 177 SCRA 668 (1989)
Chavez v. Gonzales, G.R. No. 168338, February 15, 2008
Primicias v. Fugoso, 80 Phil 71
Navarro v. Villegas, 31 SCRA 730
Reyes v. Bagatsing, 125 SCRA 553
Bayan Karapatan, KMP v. Ermita, G.R. No. 169838, April 25, 2006
Lagunzad v. de Gonzales, 92 SCRA 476, August 6, 1976
MTRCB v. ABS-CBN, G.R. No. 155282, January 17, 2005
DIOCESE V. COMELEC, G.R. NO. 205728, JAN. 21, 2015
SWS V. COMELEC, G.R. NO. 208062, APRIL 7, 2015
MARANTAN V. DIOKNO, 716 SCRA 164 (2014)
BORJAL V. CA 301 SCRA 1 (1999)
RE: LETTER OF THE UP FACULTY 644 SCRA 543 (2011)
PHILIPPINE JOURNALISTS, INC., V. THEONEN 477 SCRA 482 (2005)
DELA CRUZ V. CA 305 SCRA 303 (1999)
OSMEÑA V. COMELEC, 288 SCRA 447 (1998)
IBP V. ATIENZA 613 SCRA 518 (2010)
SAMAHAN V. BLR. G.R. NO. 211145, OCT. 14, 2015
IGLESIA NI CRISTO V. CA, 259 SCRA 529
 EASTERN BROADCASTING CORP V. DANS 137 SCRA 647 (1985)

VII. Freedom of Religion

Non-Establishment Clause
Free Exercise Clause
Test For Valid Government Interference
Separation Of Church And State (1987 Const., Art. II, Sec. 6)

Cases:
Ebralinag v. The Division Superintendent of Schools of Cebu, reversing Gerona v. Sec. of
Education
West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette
German v. Barangan
American Bible Society v. City of Manila
Estrada v. Escritor (2006)
Taruc, et al., v. De la Cruz, G.R. No. 144801, March 10. 2005

VIII. Liberty of Abode and Right to Travel (1987 Const., Art. III, Sec. 6)
Limitations

Cases:
SAMAHAN (SPARK) V. QUEZON CITY, AUG. 8, 2017
OFFICE OF THE ADMIN. SERVICES V. MACARINE (2012)
REYES V. CA 606 SCRA 580 (2009)
MIRASOL V. DPWH 490 SCRA 318 (2006)
YAP JR. V. CA 358 SCRA 564 (2001)
Silverio v. CA, G.R. No. 94284, April 8, 1991
Marcos v. Manglapus 177 SCRA 668 (1989)
Salonga v. Hermoso, 17 SCRA 121, April 25, 1980

IX. Right to Information (1987 Const., Art. II, Sec. 28; Art. III, Sec. 7; Art. XVI, Sec. 10)
Limitations

Case:
Valmonte v. Belmonte, 170 SCRA 256

X. Right to Associations (1987 Const., Art. III, Sec. 8; Art. XIII, Sec. 3; Art. IX-B, Sec. 2(5))

XI. Taking of Private Property for Public Use

Valid exercise of eminent domain
Limitations
 Cases:
Ramirez v. CA, G.R. NO. 83972, February 14, 1991
Yujuico v. Atienza, G.R. No. 164282, October 12, 2005
Assoc. of Small Landowners v. Sec. of Agrarian Reform, G.R. No. 78742, July 14, 1989
NPC v. Heirs of Macabangkit Sangkay, G.R. No. 165828

XII. Non-Impairment of Contracts (1987 Const., Art. III, Sec. 10)

Cases:
Batangas CATV, Inc. v. CA, G.R. No. 138810, Sept. 29, 2004
PHIL RURAL V. SEC DILG, G.R. NO. 143206, 2003
PRESLEY V. BEL-AIR VILLAGE ASSOC., 201 SCRA 13 (1991)
SWS V. COMELEC, G.R. NO. 208062, APRIL 7, 2015

XIII. Free Access to Courts and Adequate Legal Assistance (1987 Const., Art. III, Sec. 11)
See R.A. No. 9999

Cases:
PEOPLE V. RIO, 201 SCRA 702 (1991)
MARTINEZ V. PEOPLE 332 SCRA 694 (2000)

XIV. Rights under Custodial Investigation (1987 Const., Art. III, Sec. 12)
Right to remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel
Right to be informed of one’s right
Requisites Of A Valid Waiver
Exclusionary Rule
See R.A. No. 7438
See MIRANDA V. ARIZONA, 348 US 436 (1966)

Cases:
People v. de la Cruz, G.R. No. 118866-68 (1997)
People v. Tomaquin, G.R. No. 133188, July 23, 2004
PEOPLE V. CHICHAN LIU, January 21, 2015
DE CASTRO V. PEOPLE, February 2, 2015
MESINA V. PEOPLE, G.R. No. 162499, June 17, 2015
PEOPLE V. POSADA, G.R. No. 196052 (2015)
PEOPLE V. GUTING, G.R. No. 205412, September 9, 2015
PEOPLE V. MENDOZA 365 SCRA 289 (2001)
PEOPLE V. GONZALEZ 382 SCRA 714 (2002)
PEOPLE V. ENAMORA, 209 SCRA 577
 PEOPLE V. JANSON 400 SCRA 584 (2003)

XV. Right to Bail

(1987 Const., Art. III, Sec. 13; Rule 114 Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure)

Cases:
Esteban v. Alhambra, G.R. No. 135012, September 7, 2004
PEOPLE V. ESCOBAR JULY 26, 2017
REVILLA V. SANDIGANBAYAN, JULY 24, 2018
TRILLANES V. PIMENTEL 556 SCRA 471 (2008)
QUI V. PEOPLE 682 SCRA 94 (2012)
GACAL V. JUDGE INFANTE A.M. RTJ-04-1845 OCT. 5, 2011
ASWAT V, GALIDOM 204 SCRA 205 (1991)
COMENDADOR V. DE VILLA, 200SCRA 80 (1991)
YAP, JR. V. CA 358 SCRA 564 (2001)
SILVERIO V. CA, 195 SCRA 760
SANTIAGO V. VASQUEZ 217 SCRA 633
LARDIZABAL V. REYES 238 SCRA 640 (1994)
PEOPLE V. PANES 303 SCRA 231 (1999)

XVI. Rights of the Accused

Criminal due process (1987 Const. Art. III, Sec. 14)
Rights before, during and after the trial
Presumption of innocence, right to be heard by himself or by counsel, right to be informed of
nature and cause of accusation, right to speedy, impartial and public trial, right to confrontation,
right to secure attendance of witnesses (1987 Const. Art. III, Secs. 14, 16; Rules of Court, Rule 21,
Sec. 10)
Trial in absentia
When presence of accused is a duty

See Annotation on the Right to Bail 647 SCRA 613 (2011)

See Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure, Rule 115, Sec. 1 (c); Rule 116 Sec. 1 (b); Rule 120, Sec.
6

Cases:
AGUINALDO V. VENTUS, G.R. NO. 176033, MARCH 11, 2015
ABS-CBN V. GOZON, G.R. NO. 195956, MARCH 2015
ESTRADA V. OMBUDSMAN, G.R. NOS. 212140-41, JAN. 21, 2015
LABAY V. SANDIGANBAYAN, G.R. NOS. 235937-40, JULY 23, 2018
LAI V. PEOPLE 761 SCRA 156 (2015)
PEOPLE V. MARAORAO 674 SCRA 151 (2012)
 IBANEZ V. PEOPLE, 782 SCRA 291 (2016)
BARCELONA V. LIM 734 SCRA 433 (2014) (Speedy trial)
GARCIA V. DOMINGO, 52 SCRA 149 (1970)
CRUZ V. ENRILE, 160 SCRA 702 (1988)
HO WAIPANG V. PEOPLE 659 SCRA 624 (2011)
BERNARDO V. PEOPLE, G.R. NO. 166980, APRIL 4, 2007

XVII. Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus (1987 Const. Art. III, Sec. 15)
Suspension of the privilege
See also The Rule on the Writ of Amparo, A.M. No. 07-9-12-SC
See also The Rule on the Writ of Habeas Data, A.M. No. 08-0-16-SC

Cases:
CASTILLO, et al. v. Cruz, G.R. No. 182165, November 25, 2009
LEE v. Ilagan 738 SCRA 59 (2014)
VILLAVICENCIO V. LUKBAN (1919)
AMPATUAN V. MACARAIG 622 SCRA 266 (2010)
ADONIS V. TESORO 697 SCRA 337 (2013)
IN RE: SHAGK KO VINGSON YU (2014)
IN RE: DATUKAN MALANG SALIBOG, APRIL 8, 2015
AGCAOILI V. FARINAS (JULY 3, 2018)
LAMEN V. DIRECTOR, 241 SCRA 573 (1995)
LANSANG V. GARCIA, 42 SCRA 488 (1971)

XVIII. Right to Speedy Disposition of Cases

1987 Const., Art. III, Sec. 18; Art. VIII, Sec. 15; Art. VII, Sec. 18, par. 3; Art. IX, A, Sec. 7
See Annotation 307 SCRA 116; 682 SCRA 724

Cases:
IN RE: JUDGE CARBONELL, 700 SCRA 806 (2013)
BARCELON V. LIM 724 SCRA 433 (2014)
SUSTENTO V. LILAGA 785 SCRA 612 (2016)
REMULLA V. SANDIGANBAYAN, APRIL 17, 2017
CAGANG V. SANDIGANBAYAN, JULY 31, 2018

XIX. Right Against Self-Incrimination (1987 Const. Art. III, Sec. 17)
Scope, applicability

Cases:
DE CASTRO V. PEOPLE, G.R. NO. 171672, FEB. 2, 2015
SJS V, DDB 570 SCRA 410 (2008) (on drug testing)
 PASCUAL V. BOARD OF MEDICAL EXAMINEERS, 28 SCRA 344 (1969)
GALMAN V. PAMARAN, 138 SCRA 274 (1985)
PEOPLE V. AYSON, 175 SCRA 216 (1989)
IN RE SABIO 504 SCRA 704 (2006)
GALMAN V. PAMARAN, 138 SCRA 274
CHAVEZ V. CA, 24 SCRA 663 (1968)

XX. Freedom of Political Belief and Right against Involuntary Servitude (1987 Const., Art. III, Sec. 18)

Case:
SARMIENTO V. TUICO 162 SCRA 676 (1988)

XXI. Right against Excessive Fines and Cruel Inhumane Punishments (1987 Const., Art. III, Sec. 19; Sec.
12 (2))

Cases:
AGBANLOG V. PEOPLE 220 SCRA 530 (1993)
LIM V. PEOPLE 390 SCRA 194 (2002)
PEREZ V. PEOPLE 544 SCRA 532 (2008)
CORPUZ V. PEOPLE (2014)
PEOPLE V. DACUYCUY 173 SCRA 90 (1989)

XXII. Non-Imprisonment for Debts (1987 Const., Art. III, Sec. 20)
Debts and civil obligations cannot be criminalized

Cases:
AGBANLOG V. PEOPLE, 220 SCRA 530 (1993)
LOZANO V. MARTINEZ, 146 SCRA 323 (1986)
PEOPLE V. NITAFAN, 202 SCRA 726 (1992)
VERGARA V. GREDORIO, JR. 402 SCRA 520 (2003)

XXIII. Protection Against Double Jeopardy (1987 Const. Art. III, Sec. 21)
See Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure, Rule 117, Sec. 7

Cases:
PEOPLE V. CITY COURT, 154 SCRA 195 (1987)
PEOPLE V. RELOVA, 148 SCRA 292 (1987)
IVLER V. MODESTO 635 SCRA 191 (2010)
BAUTISTA V. CUNETA-PANGILINAN 684 SCRA 521 (2012)
BRAZA V. SANDIGANBAYAN, 691 SCRA 471 (2013)
DISINI V. SOJ 716 SCRA 237, 723 SCRA 109 (2014)
 PEOPLE V. CHI CHAN LIU. G.R. NO. 189272, JANUARY 21, 2015
PEOPLE V. ARGUTA, G.R. NO. 213216, APRIL 20, 2015
ASSISTIO V. PEOPLE, G.R. NO. 200465, APRIL 20, 2015
MACAPAGAL-ARROYO V. PEOPLE (APRIL 18, 2017)
PEOPLE V. ALEJANDRO (JAN. 11, 2018)

XXIV. Right Against Ex Post Facto Law and Bill of Attainder (1987 Const. Art. III, Sec. 22)

Cases:
SALVADOR V. MAPA 539 SCRA 37 (2007)
PEOPLE V. CASTA 565 SCRA 341 (2008)
NASI-VILLAR V. PEOPLE 571 SCRA 202 (2008)
PEOPLE V. FERRER 48 SCRA 382 (1972)
BOCEA V. TEVES 661 SCRA 589 (2011)

XXV. Other Constitutional Rights

1987 Const., Art, XIII, Sec. 4; Art, XIII, Sec. 7; Art. XIV, Secs. 1 & 2; Art. XVIII, Sec. 20

XXVI. Protection and Enforcement of Constitutional Rights

1987 Const., Art. III, Sec. 12 (4); Art. VIII, Sec. 5(5); Art. XIII, Sec. 18 (3)
See The Rule on the Writ of Amparo, A.M. No. 07-9-12-SC
See The Rule on the Writ of Habeas Data, A.M. No. 08-0-16-SC

Cases:
CASTILLO, et al. v. Cruz, G.R. No. 182165, November 25, 2009
LEE v. Ilagan 738 SCRA 59 (2014)

Class Schedule

Week (excluding Assigned Topics to be Read Activity

exam week)
1st Week I, II Class recitation, case digest/quiz
2nd
II, III, Class recitation, case digest/quiz
3rd
II, III, IV Class recitation, case digest/quiz
4th IV, V, VI Class recitation, case digest/quiz
5th VI, VII, VIII Class recitation, case digest/quiz
6th VIII, IX, X Class recitation, case digest/quiz
7th X, XI, XII Class recitation, case digest/quiz
8th XII, XIII Class recitation, case digest/quiz
9th XIV, XV Class recitation, case digest/quiz
10th XV, XVI Class recitation, case digest/quiz
 11th XVII, XVIII Class recitation, case digest/quiz
12th XVIII, XIX Class recitation, case digest/quiz
13th XX - XXII Class recitation, case digest/quiz
14th XXIII Class recitation, case digest/quiz
15th XXIV - XXVI Class recitation, case digest/quiz

References:

Duka, Cecilio D. Constitutional Law 2. Quezon City: Rex Book Store, 2019
Suarez, Rolando A. Principles, Comments and Cases in Constitutional Law Volume II.
Quezon City: Rex Book Store, 2016

Note: This syllabus is subject to changes, modifications and corrections as deemed necessary by the faculty. Additional
materials/cases may also be given throughout the semester.

Approved:

Dean Norhabib bin Suod S. Barodi

Dean, College of Law
Mindanao State University Marawi City