C onst i t ut i ona l La w 2 R e vi e we r |1

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II Finals Reviewer

Introduction
The interpretation of the court controls. It is better to predict what the Supreme Court would do than what they should do. Article VIII majorit vote needed to declare unconstitutionalit ! ithout this ma!ority" the #overnment will win because there is a "resum"tion o# constitutionalit ! Ratio decidendi rule comin# out of the case $ rule that states how a word will be interpreted %ot a constitutional provision but an interpretation of the rule &' should be read as y( ) &' shall under the conditions of y be read as *( ) &under conditions of 'y" the conditions should be *( ) &' shall mean)shall not mean( Can endow someone with power $ standard of behavior %ormative than descriptive hen repeated" becomes doctrine Canonical ratio decidendi repeated amon# the community many times Can be about a met$od o# inter"retation on +a, what the te't means or +b, how to #o about interpretin# it -- procedural Reasonin% what leads to the ratio decidendi There is a community that thin.s in a particular way +community of lawyers, and !ud#es will thin. within those bounds. /ecause of ambi#uity" laws should be interpreted accordin# to a set of methods. $ te't has no meanin#. 0eanin# of the te't depends on the conte't. Le%al realism .now not only the methods" interpretations" and facts" but also decision1ma.ers $s opposed to Lan%del&s met$od 2 researchin# all cases on how they are interpreted +law as science,

3,U v! (R,ITA -45561 'eld2 <'ecutive 3rder =25" which directs all #overnment a#encies and #overnment1owned and controlled corporations to adopt a uniform data collection and format for their e'istin# I: systems" does not establish a national I: system" and is within the constitutional power of control of the 8resident. Si%ni#icance2 Cate#orically states that Ople v. Torres is not authority to hold that <3 =25 violates the ri#ht to privacy because in that case the assailed e'ecutive issuance" broadly draw and devoid of safe#uards" was annulled solely on the #round that the sub!ect matter re>uired le#islation. In other words" the ratio decidendi in 3ple is merely with re#ard to the 8resident?s capacity in that issuance and was declared inapplicable. 8enned by 7ustice Carpio who would be the most &senior( 7ustice of the SC once Chief 7ustice 8uno retires.
Note2 :ean hi#hli#hts the faulty lo#ic of 7ustice Carpio in !ustifyin# the unification of the I: system. 7ustice Carpio concludes that the ri#ht to privacy is not violated because we?re used to I:s. $#ain" :ean mentions that there was no satisfactory e'amination of the possible infrin#ement to the ri#ht of privacy.

IN R(2 )(TITION FOR 'A7(AS COR)US OF AL(8ANO -45591 Issue2 3% the openin# of a folded letter by a detainee throu#h counsel +as mere &courier(, to another individual violates $rticle III" Sec. 4 of the Constitution@ Court2 $rticle III" Sec. 4 is not violated by the openin# of a folded envelope by a detainee throu#h counsel -R+1 /;T may not open S<$L<: envelope +o:iter but may be persuasive, That a law is re>uired before an e'ecutive officer could intrude on a citi*en?s privacy ri#hts is a #uarantee that is available only to the public at lar#e but not to persons who are detained or imprisonedAby the very fact of their detention" pre1trial detainees and convicted prisoners have a diminished e'pectation of privacy. Rule2 ;nder different circumstances" the e'pectation of privacy is different. ;reasona:le e<"ectation o# "rivac =
Note2 habeas corpus was a wron# remedy" since they were under &lawful( custody

T'( CONC()T OF )RIVAC* AN+ AUTONO,* O)L( v! TORR(S -.//01 'eld2 $dministrative 3rder %o. 456 entitled &$doption of a %ational Computeri*ed Identification Reference System( is declared unconstitutional for involvin# a sub!ect that is not appropriate to be covered by an administrative order. There was a need for an appropriate le#islation. Si%ni#icance2 Reco#ni*ed the concept of a ri#ht to privacy as bein# the &ri#ht to be left alone.( Throu#h the ponencia of 7ustice 8uno" there is a presumption of unconstitutionality when the ri#ht to privacy is infrin#ed as a#ainst the usual presumption of constitutionality for any act of a Constitutional or#an.. $s a result" the burden to prove a &compellin# state interest( for such infrin#ement is shifted to the #overnment.
Note2 9rom the te't of the case" it was in Morfe v. Mutuc where the constitutional ri#ht to privacy was adopted or reco#ni*ed in our !urisdiction. 9urther" :ean mentions that none of the cases really problemati*ed the ri#ht to privacy" but merely imported its reco#nition from ;S cases.

,(RCA+O v! S(CURIT* 7AN3 COR)ORATION -45561 B not discussed in class about letter to Chief 7ustice :avide 7r. invo.es freedom of speech and privacy of communication

C onst i t ut i ona l La w 2 R e vi e we r |2

Si%ni#icance2 Letters addressed to individual 7ustices" in connection with the performance of their !udicial functions become part of the !udicial record and are a matter of concern for the entire court. SILA'IS Int&l 'otel v! SOLUTA -45561 B not discussed in class alle#ed dru#s in the office occupied by the hotel employees? union searched without search warrant civil case for dama#es Si%ni#icance2 %ot only public officers but also private individuals are civilly liable for violation of one?s constitutional ri#ht +a#ainst unlawful search and sei*ure in this case, as enumerated in $rticle 42 of the Civil Code. ,ARCOS v! ,AN>LA)US -./0/1 R+2 The #rant of e'ecutive power under $rticle CII" Sec. 1 shall include residual powers of the 8resident to address current situations absent le#al prohibitions. to prevent the return of a former 8resident in her discretion believin# such return accordin# to the information #iven to her shall be inimical to national security or public safety.

Si%ni#icance2 :espite the court believin# it is hi#hly probable that some violations were committed" the ma!ority declared that the remedy is not to stop all police actions. There was a brief discussion on the importance of the ri#ht a#ainst unreasonable searches and sei*ure.
What is sought to be guarded is a mans prerogative to choose who is allowed entry to his residence. In that haven of refuge, his individuality can assert itself not only in the choice of who shall be welcome but li ewise in the ind of ob!ects he wants around him. There the state, however powerful, does not as such have access...his house, however humble, is his castle. Thus is outlawed any unwarranted intrusion by government, which is called upon to refrain from any invasion of his dwelling and to respect the privacies of his life."

+ISS(NTS2 CruA Saturation drives not amon# accepted instances where search or arrest may be made without a warrant. Thus" such drives are per se unconstitutional. Sarmiento Saturation drives were not lawful and le#itimate because arrests were not accompanied by !udicial warrant despite plannin# by the police officers. 0oreover" such activities are conducted to fish for evidence and therefore a warrant is necessary. VILLAFLOR v! SU,,(RS -./451 R+2 The ri#ht a#ainst self1incrimination embodied in $rticle III" Section 1D is limited to be a#ainst testimonial compulsion. Rationale2 ith a "remise that the purpose of criminal proceedin#s is to arrive at the truth" coerced con#essions are often not truthful. STON('ILL v! +IO3NO -./6B1 &violation of Central /an. Laws" Tariff and Customs Laws" International Revenue Code" and the Revised 8enal Code( R+.2 8robable cause can only be determined when there is one specific offense. determination of probable cause for a particular offense is dependent on the evidence or proof presented if probable cause could not be determined" therefore the !ud#e could not issue the warrant R+42 The description of the ob!ects to be sei*ed ou#ht to be specific enou#h for a !ud#e to believe that it was used in the commission of an offense. main intention is to ensure a#ainst the infrin#ement of the State in the implied ri#ht of privacy)autonomy
NOT(2 $lthou#h not discussed as ratio decidendi" this case overturned the rulin# in Moncado" and adopted the e<clusionar rule in Mapp v. Ohio. Currently" we all .now that this rule has been &constitutionali*ed( in $rticle III" Section 4+2,.

)RIVAC*2 RI>'TS A>AINST UNR(ASONA7L( S(ARC'(S AN+ S(I?UR(S )(O)L( v! ,ARTI -.//.1 R+2 The ri#ht of the people a#ainst unreasonable searches and sei*ures in $rticle III" Section 2 only applies to searches done by the State and)or its a#ents. $rticle III" Section 2 applies as a restraint only a#ainst #overnment and its a#encies tas.ed with the enforcement of law" and cannot be e'tended to acts committed by private individuals. As a CONS(@U(NC(2 The inadmissibility of evidence in $rticle III" Section 4+2, +otherwise .nown as the &e'clusionary rule(, therefore will only apply when such evidence was obtained throu#h actions ta.en by #overnment. >UA?ON v! +( VILLA -.//51 B not discussed in class saturation drives on areas where alle#ed subversives were hidin# alle#ed human ri#hts abuses absence of clear facts" no permanent relief

C onst i t ut i ona l La w 2 R e vi e we r |4

7UR>OS VS! C'I(F OF STAFF -We Forum1 1. hen the address contained in the search warrant is different from that applied for and the search is done in the place of the application" it does not ma.e such warrant invalid. The warrant is not invalid simply because there is inconsistency. 2. In determinin# whether personal property can be constitutionally sei*ed" the rules to be followed are the Civil Code provisions. 4. :escription of the ob!ects to be sei*ed would be such that it would curtail the discretion of law officers" so that they cannot sei*e anythin# besides those used in the commission of the crime. =. 8robable cause shall not be found absent personal .nowled#e.
)ro:a:le cause facts and circumstances which would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense was committed" demandin# personal .nowled#e of facts upon which the issuance of warrant may be !ustified (vidences2 testimonial" documentary" ob!ects Reasona:le "erson 1 a person with a !udicial mind T$in%s to looC #or in a searc$ warrant2 1. Issued by a !ud#e +$rt III Sec 2, 2. 3ne offense only +Stonehill vs. :io.no, 4. $ddress corresponds to the address bein# raided 2 presumption overturned by showin# the application +/ur#os vs. Chief of Staff, =. :etermine probable cause. <ven if there was" the e'ecution must be reasonable.

)OSA+AS VS! CA -:uri :a% wit$ #irearm1 ;Stop and fris.( is a reasonable search and sei*ure" in which the reasonableness is determined by the police officers throu#h the &reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed.(
Rationale2 %ecessity of law enforcement )ro:lem2 It is a fi#ment of the ima#ination" only based on the minds of the policemen. 9urthermore" the man could have ran away at the si#ht of the policemen approachin# him.

NOLASCO VS! )ANO +not discussed, $ search can be made incident to arrest. )(O)L( VS! TA7AR -w$ite "ants1 Consensual search is an e'ception to the procurement of a search warrant.
The conviction was because of the incompetence of the counsel. Try to establish the circumstances surroundin# the event. In this case" havin# armed men raid one?s home couldn?t have been voluntary. Consent reEuired2 1. 8ersonal +$nia#, 2. Fnowin# and intelli#ent waiver +$ruta,

)(O)L( VS! ARUTA -travellin% :a% wit$ marijuana1 F 9or a search to be consensual" the waiver must be intelli#ently made. )(O)L( VS! *ATAR -Ciller ra"ist1 The ri#ht a#ainst self1incrimination is limited only to testimonial evidence and e'cludes :%$ samples obtained from the accused. A>USTIN VS! CA -su""ort "endente lite1 9or the Court to compel :%$ testin# is not violative of the ri#ht a#ainst self1incrimination" unless it is shown that such test is irrelevant or oppressive.

VILLANU(VA VS! @U(RU7IN -%am:lin% "ara"$ernalia1 +not discussed, The ri#ht of the people a#ainst unreasonable searches and sei*ures shall include the immunity of one?s person from interference by the #overnment and the reco#nition of a constitutionally1protected area particularly one?s own home. ,') >AR,(NTS VS! CA -%irl scout uni#orms1 The inadmissibility of evidence shall apply to those searches and sei*ures wherein there was sufficient time to obtain a warrant.
)ro:lem2 0E8 insti#ated the raid +a private entity,. The action was civil in nature" for dama#es.

FR((+O, OF (D)R(SSION )UR)OS(S Arrive at trut$ and de:ate on "u:lic issues ORFAN(L V! )(O)L( 9act1opinion dichotomy o 9actG can be proven or disproven o 9or an opinion to be protected and within the ambit of $rt 4" Sec =" it must not be made without factual basisH it should be shown that it can be inferred from the facts. In order to escape criminal responsibility for libel or slander" it is not enou#h for the party who writes a defamatory communication to another to say that the writer e'presses therein no more than his opinion or belief. IN R(2 (,IL -(,ILIANO1 8URA+O $rt 4" Sec = of the 1I6D Constitution is not violated when the !udiciary cites a newspaperman in contempt if article is baseless and he does not verify the truth of his alle#ations.

U* 3'(*TIN VS! VILLAR(AL -o"ium inside t$e ta:le1 +not discussed, $n irre#ularity in the search warrant does not !ustify the inadmissibility of the sei*ed items as evidence. 45t$ C(NTUR* FOD VS! CA -"irated V'S1 In the search and sei*ure of ille#al copies of movies" the master copy should be presented as evidence for comparison" so that the evidence would not be held as inadmissible. 1 The warrants should also be specific and not #eneral. VAL,ONT( VS! +( VILLA -c$ecC"oints1 The ri#ht a#ainst unreasonable searches and sei*ures can only be invo.ed by those whose ri#hts have been infrin#ed. ANIA> VS! CO,(L(C -%un :an1 <vidences obtained throu#h chec.points which were installed without sufficient time for a person to .now that a law had been passed bannin# firearms shall be held as inadmissible.

C onst i t ut i ona l La w 2 R e vi e we r |=

:issentG It is not falsity that brin#s speech outside the ambit of freedom of speech and e'pression but 0$LIC<. 0aliceG o /aseless o Rec.less disre#ard for the truth

A+ION> V! CO,(L(C -decals and sticCers1 hen faced with borderline situations where freedom to .now on the part of the electorate are invo.ed a#ainst actions intended for maintainin# clean and free elections" the police" local officials" and C30<L<C should lean in favor of freedom of speech. Re#ulation of communicative content must be specific enou#h so as not to affect speech unrelated to the interest of the State. )reserve )u:lic Institutions US V! 7USTOS T$e ;scal"el meta"$or=G The interest of society and the maintenance of #ood #overnment demand a full discussion of public affairs. Complete liberty to comment on the conduct of public men is a scal"el in the case of free speech. The sharp incision of its probe relieves the abscesses of officialdom. 0en in public life may suffer under a hostile and an un!ust accusationH the wound can be assua#ed with the balm of a clear conscience.
In LI/<L" su:seEuent "unis$ment is ta.en into consideration" and not the Clear and 8resent :an#er rule. 9or a libel suit to prosper" it must be proven that the statements were made with malice! W$ malice and not #alsit G 9alse speech is within the ambit of freedom of e'pression. o There?s meanin# to it. <'.G metaphor" parody There?s no such thin# as absolute proof. <ven those that have been said to be true" at one point in time" can be disproven. ;nder different conte'ts" there is no way of distin#uishin# what is true and what is false different meanin#s are involved. 9$LSITJ%3 3%< C$% /< S;R<. Eence" the test should be ,ALIC(! o /aseless o Rec.less disre#ard for the truth o 7ournalist Code of <thics +for !ournalistsG verified by at least 2 sources,

)LANAS V! >IL $rt 4" Sec = cannot be used as a defense a#ainst an investi#ation to elicit the truth or falsity of criticisms directed a#ainst the Kovernment" its administration" its policies and officials. $rt 4" Sec = is not an unbridled license that would render the Kovernment powerless to act. SANTIA>O V! FAR (AST(RN 7ROA+CASTIN> /roadcastin# Stations have a ri#ht to re>uire previous submission of manuscript of a speech to be broadcasted when there are laws and re#ulations that e'pressly authori*e them to ma.e such re>uirement.
$dditional notesG The petitioners should have attac.ed the law and re#ulations since the law and re#ulations are considered to be a "rior restraint on the freedom of speech. Compellin# state interest for the re>uirementG to protect the public Anamely the listeners and the viewers. /roadcastin# stations are considered to be an educative body. Clear and present dan#erG broadcasters can say that there is an event when in fact there is none still" they would affect the way the public thin.s.

)RI,ICIAS V! FU>OSO $ statute re>uirin# persons usin# the public streets for a parade or procession to procure a special license from the local authorities is not an unconstitutional abrid#ement of the ri#hts of assembly or of freedom of speech and press" where the licensin# authorities are strictl limited to a consideration o# t$e timeI "laceI and manner of the parade or procession" with a view to conservin# the public convenience and of affordin# an opportunity to provide proper policin#" and are not invested with arbitrary discretion to issue or refuse license.
hy is there a need to discuss restrictions@ <'pression affects several interests T$eories in a""roac$in% Art JI Sec H2 1. 8urpose 2. Tests used 2 FI%:S 39 R<STRICTI3% on Communication tests developed are different Communicative conductG incidentally" every conduct has an e'pressive content Communicative contentG punished for the meanin# of the contentH restricted because of its #rave effect that shatters the very foundation by which the freedom is e'ercised. o Eow to .now if this cause will have this #rave effect@ o <arliest testG +AN>(ROUS T(N+(NC* loo. at the cause and effect only depends on the sub!ective notion of whoever is ma.in# the !ud#ment o CL(AR AN+ )R(S(NT +AN>(R Re>uires somethin# more from whoever ma.es the !ud#ment Clarity and imminence of the evilG substantive evil 3ther distinction +concernin# time,G loo. at the restriction on the speech bein# madewhen is the restriction made@ 8rior restraintG re#ulation prior to speech o $ll prior restraints have a heavy presumption of unconstitutionality

US V! )(RF(CTO $rt 4" Sec = of the 1I6D Constitution protects opinions on the maladministration of public affairs that are based on facts" made with #ood motives and for !ustifiable ends. (S)U(LAS V! )(O)L( OF T'( )'ILI))IN(S $rt 4" Sec = does not protect seditious libel that has an immediate tendency to stir up #eneral discontent or disaffection amon# the people and induce them to resort to ille#al methods in order to redress the evils which press upon their minds.
The attac. on the 8resident has passed the furthest bounds of free speech and common decency. The Court used the :$%K<R3;S T<%:<%CJ test. 9reedom of Speech is not applied since the speech in this case had a tendenc to incite sedition -Art .H4 Revised )enal Code1!

C onst i t ut i ona l La w 2 R e vi e we r |L

Keneral ruleG Challen#er carries the burden of provin# unconstitutionalityH but for prior restraintG #overnment carries the burden of provin# constitutionality Subse>uent 8unishmentG e'. Libel o /urden does not shiftH it is still with the plaintiff o ReG content There is a re#ulation on C3%:;CT even if it seems that it re#ulates content. Test is O&7rien test2 o ithin the constitutional power o Re#ulation is unrelated to speech o Re#ulation on speech is !ust a tan#ential effect o Restriction is not #reater than what is re>uired in the #overnmental interest 3ther dimensionsG 9act1opinion dichotomy +ie 7urado and /ustos, :octrine of overbreadth restriction must be so precise that it will not affect others who ma.e the speech but don?t cause the same effect o /roader than what it wants to prohibit o This doesn?t need an actual case e'ception to the #eneral rule of the presence of actual case o So lon# as it?s patently clear that others will be affectedcalled the #acial c$allen%e as used in $dion# and Kon*ales cases o

the most corrupt Customs official and the worst I#lesia ni Fristo member. /or!al cannot be applied in this case because the prosecution produced evidence that $tty. Carlos So is the only employee .nown as :in# So in the /ureau of Customs. The Court held that an opinion should be based on factual matters for it to fall within the ambit of protected speech. The facts must be true +proven by empirical basis, and that there must be no rec.less disre#ard of the truth. ARR(?A v! >R(>ORIO ARAN(TA UNIV(RSIT* ->AUF1 The demonstration conducted by the students inside a university campus falls within the freedom of speech contemplated in $rticle III Section = of our Constitution. $ccordin# to the Court in %on vs. :ames" the students? freedom of speech should not be left at the school #ates and that the students are entitled to e'ercise such freedom throu#h rallies and other forms of demonstrations. The cases of $rre*a and %on are similar in the sense that both facts narrate that some students who !oined the rallies were denied admission in the subse>uent semester. The Court affirmed the doctrine of implied academic contract which states that the contract between the student and the university e'pires until the student finishes his course and not on a per semester basis. FILI)INAS 7ROA+CASTIN> VS! A>O ,(+ICAL -lia:ilities to societ 1 +not discussed, The doctrine of fair comment is not applicable to broadcasts which are made in rec.less disre#ard for the truth. Individual (n$ancement )'ILI))IN( 7LOO,IN> ,ILLS (,)LO*((S OR>ANI?ATION V!)'IL! 7LOO,IN> ,ILLS 9G 8/0<3 decided to sta#e a mass demonstration at 0alacanan# in protest a#ainst alle#ed abuses of the 8asi# police" to be participated in by the wor.ers in the mornin# shifts. 8etitioners were found #uilty of violation of C/$. R:G $rt. 4 Sec. = should be read to mean that the ri#hts to freedom of speech and peaceably assemble are more primordial than the ri#ht to property. To (EualiAe O""ortunities NATIONAL )R(SS CLU7 V! CO,(L(C 9G Representatives of mass media challen#ed the constitutionality of R$ MM=M which made it unlawful for publishers to sell or #ive free of char#e for political purposes e'cept that Comelec shall be the one to provide for free spaces and airtime. Court held that the challen#ed restrictions on freedom of speech bear a reasonable connection with the constitutional ob!ective set in $rt. IN +C, +=,. <>uality of opportunity was also held as an important consideration. Constitutionality upheld.

>ON?AL(S v! CO,(L(C $n amendment to the 3mnibus <lection Code" R$ =665 +1, prohibits the nomination of candidates outside the election period and +2, re#ulates or limits the campai#n period. The #overnment ar#ued that there is a clear and present dan#er of a substantive evilG that of +1, too much election e'penditures and +2, rise of election1related violence. The court held that this statute is unconstitutional as some of its provisions are va#ue. 9reedom of association as a form of free speech is impaired. A*(R )RO+UCTIONS )T*! LT+ v! CA)ULON> The movie production company wants to ma.e a docu1drama miniseries that depicts the events that transpired in the 1I6M 8eople 8ower Revolution. <nrile opposes the filmin# of the series because it violates his ri#ht to privacy. The Court held by usin# the balancin#1of1interest test citin# that the filmma.ers? freedom of speech must have #reater value over <nrile?s privacy as he is a public fi#ure whose involvement in the aforesaid revolution constitutes to a le#itimate public interest. The clear and present dan#er fails for not specifyin# the substantive evil sou#ht t be prevented as the movie series is still unfinished. 7OR8AL v! CA /or!al" a columnist in the 8hilippine Star" wrote an article about an unidentified self1proclaimed <:S$ hero who is involved in malicious financial solicitations of a convention involvin# land transportation. $lthou#h every defamatory remar. is presumed to be malicious" libel re>uires that the remar. must point to a specific person and not to a #eneric thin#. enceslao" althou#h a private individual" is deemed a public fi#ure if he wor.s for an office which is imbued with public interest. TULFO v! )(O)L( 9our counts of libel were filed by $tty. Carlos &:in#( so a#ainst <rwin Tulfo for the defamatory remar.s that the latter said a#ainst the former in his Remate column. Tulfo called so

C onst i t ut i ona l La w 2 R e vi e we r |M

R:G $rt. 4 Sec. = has to be ta.en in con!unction with $rt. IN +C, +=, durin# election periods. This produces the technical effect of non presumption of invalidity of Comelec re#ulations e'ercised for the purpose of securin# e>ual opportunity amon# candidates for political office. )'ILI))IN( )R(SS INSTITUT( V! CO,(L(C 9G 88I assailed the validity of Comelec Resolution %o. 2DD2 for it violates the Constitutional prohibition on ta.in# of private property for public use without !ust compensation. Ciolation on freedom of speech also raised +provision on undue reference to candidates)political parties,. Court held that Sec. 2 +donation of ad spaces, amounted to ta.in# of property. Sec. 6" on the other hand" does not violate the freedom of speech citin# %8C v.Comelec. R:G $rt. 4 Sec. = is not violated where a prohibition on &undue reference to candidate( +Comments favorin# a candidate and repeated reference to a candidate, does not absolutely prohibit other means of reportin# about a political candidate. In see.in# to e>uali*e opportunities" the #overnment ends up ma.in# content based choices which result in unintended conse>uences which are worse than the evil it see.s to prevent.

9G 7/L Reyes sou#ht permit from the City of 0anila to hold a public assembly from Luneta to ;S <mbassy. R:G same with /ayanH #ave #uidelines on applyin# for a permit to rallyH <ventually adopted by /8 665 >ON?AL(S V! 3ATI>7A3 -3a"it sa "atalim1 R:G 3bscenity is outside the ambit of $rt. 4 Sec. =.
%otesG Eic.lin testG hether to the avera#e person" applyin# contemporary community standards" the dominant theme of the material ta.en as a whole appeals to prurient interest. Roth test +prior to Eic.lin,G Test is the effect of an isolated e'erpt upon particularly susceptible persons. Eic.lin standardG 1, to the avera#e person 2, dominant effect +ta.en as whole, &$vera#e person( difficult to determineH lar#ely based on the !ud#e?s discretionH ta.es into consideration the conte't of populationH

Classification scheme1 form of prior restraintH heavy presumption of unconstitutionality Reason why obscenity is not protected speechG 7ustice /renan in Roth v. ;SG $ll ideas havin# even the sli#htest redeemin# social importance1 unorthodo' ideas" controversial ideas" even ideas hateful to the prevailin# climate of opinion1 have the full protection of #uaranties" unless e'cludable because they encroach upon the limited area of more important interest. 7ut im"licit in t$e $istor o# t$e .st Amendment is t$e rejection o# o:scenit as utterl wit$out redeemin% social im"ortance! Criticism2 e' cathedra

%otesG Clear and present dan#er rule and <>uali*in# of 3pportunities :istin#uished C8:G desi#ned to prevent the #overnment to do positive acts which amount prohibition absence showin# of C8:. <>uali*in# 3pportunitiesG :esi#ned for the #overnment to do affirmative actions.

(7RINALA> V SU)(RINT(N+(NT OF SC'OOLS OF C(7U R:G

1 R$ 12ML purposeG to inculcate patriotism and nationalism 1 neutral re#ulation was tan#entially affectin# reli#ion 1 overturned the Kerona doctrine which dichotomi*ed &faith 2 act(" where faith +belief, is absolutely protected while any act which violates the re#ulation is prohibited Court simply wei#hed the two interests" and didn?t e'plain further thanG &Symbolism is not as important as freedom of reli#ion( 4 As"ects o# AIII Sec! 92 1. 9ree <'ercise 2. %on1establishment 2 the State cannot support a reli#ion" no reli#ious test for e'ercise of civil and political ri#hts

7A*ANI 3ARA)ATANI 3ILUSAN> ,A>7U7U3I+ N> )ILI)INAS -3,)1 VS! (R,ITA 9G F0;" /ayan" del 8rado assailed the constitutionality of /8 665 +The 8ublic $ssembly $ct, and the C8R. /8 665 ma.es it unlawful for an or#ani*ation to rally without permit. C8R" on the other hand" allowed the #ov?t to ta.e action even before the rallyists perform their act. Court held the validity of /8 665. C8R was struc. down. R:G $rt. 4 Sec. = is not violated by a law which does not absolutely ban public assemblies and merely restricts by re#ulatin# the time" place and manner of assembly. C8R must be struc. down as it serves no purpose in lieu of &ma'imum tolerance( standard already provided for by /8 665.
%otesG Court emphasi*ed in this case that the #overnment could only modify the time" place and manner of assembly only upon showin# C8:.

(STRA+A V (SCRITOR -455J1 R+2 I! Strict scrutin test 1, whether there is sincerity to the reli#ious belief@ 3R whether there is a real burden on reli#ious belief@ 2, whether there is a compellin# state interest@ 4, whether the re#ulation is the least intrusive means@ II! Reli%ion 1. /elief in Kod)0a.er)anythin# parallel to it 2. /elief in moral code based on O1

R(*(S V! 7A>ATSIN>

C onst i t ut i ona l La w 2 R e vi e we r |D

4. =.

Sincerity of belief" effort to comply $ssociative relationship

7! (sta:lis$ment Clause Everson v. Board of Education +1I=D, o The ;S Supreme CourtPs first encounter with the <stablishment Clause. o Court adopted 7effersonPs metaphor of Qa wall of separation between church and stateQ as encapsulatin# the meanin# of the <stablishment Clause. o RecallG phrase Qseparation of church and stateQ does not appear in the ;.S. Constitution. It became part of ;.S. !urisprudence when the Court in the 16D6 case of )eynolds v. *nited #tates. Lemon test o Laid down in +emon v. ,urt-man +1ID1,. o The Lemon test re>uires a challen#ed policy to meet the followin# criteria to pass scrutiny under the <stablishment Clause. 1. The statute must have a secular le#islative purpose. 2. Its primary or principal effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits reli#ion. 4. The statute must not foster Pan e'cessive entan#lement with reli#ion.P McGowan v. Maryland +1IM1, o Illustrated that in the area of #overnment displays or affirmations of belief" the Court has #iven leeway to reli#ious beliefs and practices which have ac>uired a secular meanin# and have become deeply entrenched in history. Marsh v. Chambers +1I64, o The ma!ority opinion did not rely on the Lemon test and instead drew heavily from history and the need for accommodation of popular reli#ious beliefs :ean?s <'ercisesG 1 8uttin# up a Catholic Church inside ;8 o Start withG ;8 is the national university" by nature a #overnmental instrumentality. hat it does" the State does. o <stablishin# a church can violate $II Sec L and $III Sec L +%on1establishment clause,. $lso usin# #overnment resources. o /enevolent neutrality +<strada v <scritor,G There is a wall of separation" reli#ion is accepted as a reality o Lemon TestG Le#islative purpose +%o, <ffect on reli#ious practice +$ctual effectG :oes not favor a reli#ion. There are other lease a#reements. It will only be violative if there?s a special lease for reli#ion only., %o e'cessive entan#lement +If there are no e'istin# standards for choosin# one reli#ion over the other" there can be an e'cessive entan#lement, o Eow to structure policyG provide *onin#" #uidelines" list of members 1 $dultery case for /?Laans +1st levelG It did not happen" 2nd levelG interpret what is in the R8C" 4 rd levelG procedure" =th levelG constitutional ar#uments, o 4 parts of a constitutional ar#umentG !usticeability" 3% the #overnmental or#an has the power to try the case" transcendin# limitations provided by the Constitution 1 $ Dth :ay $dventist refuses to ta.e an e'am on Saturday +1 ST testG %o action for mandamus" 2nd testG /urden@ Jes. Least restrictive@ %o. , 1 0ale priesthood +$nsG It will infrin#e on 9ree <'ercise if State will compel Catholic Church to admit females as priests., 1 :isplay of reli#ious icons in the office of a public officerG violative of non1establishment 1 Teachin# of reli#ionG can be allowed up to secondary level +Constitutionally1protected, 1 $ moment of silenceG non1violative :ean?s adviceG Clauses do not float. To operate them" you have to as. a series of >uestions

Notes on Strict Scrutin 2 1. Secular "ur"ose when applied" will tan#entially affect free e'ercise 2. Com"ellin% interest if it?s covered by a provision in the Constitution" that?s where you find the interestH or somethin# su##ested or implied by the police power or any inherent power +eminent domain" ta'ation, 4. Least intrusive means can it correct the evil@ Fundamental "ur"ose o# reli%ious clause2 to protect the minority (volution o# Free (<ercise Clause -t$anCs (va1 .! 7elie#Faction test o The state was absolutely prohibited by the 9ree <'ercise Clause from re#ulatin# individual reli#ious beliefs" but placed no restriction on the ability of the state to re#ulate reli#iously motivated conduct. o $s lon# as the Court found that re#ulation address action rather than belief" the 9ree <'ercise Clause did not pose any problem. o The 9ree <'ercise Clause thus #ave no protection a#ainst the proscription of actions even if considered central to a reli#ion unless the le#islature formally outlawed the belief itself. o 8roved unsatisfactory since re#ulation of reli#iously dictated conduct would be upheld no matter how central the conduct was to the e'ercise of reli#ion and no matter how insi#nificant was the #overnmentPs non1reli#ious re#ulatory interest so lon# as the #overnment is proscribin# action and not belief. 4. +eli:erateFInadvertent distinction o :istinction is made between deliberate state interference of reli#ious e'ercise for reli#ious reasons which was plainly unconstitutional and #overnmentPs inadvertent interference with reli#ion in pursuin# some secular ob!ective. o Introduced in Minersville #chool $istrict v. %obitis +1I=5, o 9ree <'ercise Clause presented no problem to interference with reli#ion that was inadvertent no matter how serious the interference" no matter how trivial the statePs non1reli#ious ob!ectives" and no matter how many alternative approaches were available to the state to pursue its ob!ectives with less impact on reli#ion" so lon# as #overnment was actin# in pursuit of a secular ob!ective. o %obitis was overturned in West &irginia v 'arnette +1I=4, which held that even inadvertent interference with reli#ion must pass !udicial scrutiny under the 9ree <'ercise Clause with only #rave and immediate dan#er sufficin# to override reli#ious liberty. J! TwoF"art :alancin% test o <stablished in 'raunfeld v. 'rown +1IM1,. o Since the burden was the indirect effect of a law with a secular purpose" it would violate the 9ree <'ercise Clause only if there were alternative ways of achievin# the statePs interest o The two1part balancin# test of validityG 1. plaintiff to show that the re#ulation placed a real burden on his reli#ious e'ercise 2. burden will only be upheld if state showed that it was pursuin# an overridin# secular #oal by the means which imposed the least burden on reli#ious practices H! Strict Scrutin and Com"ellin% State Interest Test o 9irst applied in #herbert v. &erner +1IM4,. o This test was similar to the two1part balancin# test but this latter test stressed that the state interest was not merely any colorable state interest" but must be paramount and compellin# to override the free e'ercise claim. o #herbert also firmly established the e'emption doctrine. o Si#nificantly increased the de#ree of protection afforded to reli#iously motivated conductH established a stron# presumption in favor of the free e'ercise of reli#ion. o ;pheld in Wisconsin v. (oder.

C onst i t ut i ona l La w 2 R e vi e we r |6

1. 2. 4. =.

<>ual protection 2 classification or discrimination :ue process 2 procedural or substantive +purpose" measure" method is rational, 9reedom of e'pression 2 conduct" content Reli#ion 2 special content" >uite related to free e'pression

R:G 8ictures depictin# how natives dress and live in real life are not obscene" usin# the Eic.lin Test. Eic.lin Test +1, 3% the tendency of the matter char#ed to be obscene is to deprave or corrupt the minds of those whose minds are open to such immoral influences +2, That which shoc.s the ordinary and reasonable man
O:scene somethin# offensive to chastity" decency" and delicacy

In the case of <scritor" it is a facially1neutral law and the petitioner wants to carve out an e'ception based on reli#ion. $ full rationali*ation of the doctrine on e'emption.

+AVI+ V ,ACA)A>ALFARRO*O R:G 3verbreadth doctrine +chillin# effect, only applies to free speech cases" and used sparin#ly.
Theory behind the 8resident bein# suedG 8resident in clear violation of the Constitution. $n attempt to create a doctrine. Commander1in1chief powersG 1. Callin#1out 2 contemplated in 88151D 2. Suspend the writ of habeas corpus 1 ECG order to produce the bodyH a provisional remedy 4. :eclare martial law

)ITA V CA -./0/1 R:G Law enforcement officers cannot confiscate obscene materials without a warrant wherein the court must determine whether or not the materials to be confiscated is indeed obscene. 0iller v California Test +1, 3% the avera%e "ersonI a""l in% communit standardsI would #ind t$e worCI taCen as a w$oleI a""eals to t$e "rurient interest +2, 3% the wor. de"icts K descri:es in a "atentl o##ensive wa I se<ual conduct +4, 3% the wor. taCen as a w$ole lacCs serious literar I artisticI "oliticalI or scienti#ic value!
Kuidelines for $251 R8C to applyG 1. Search warrant from the !ud#e if obscenity rap is in order 2. $uthorities must convince the court that the materials indeed are obscene to warrant state interference 4. 7ud#e determines O2 =. ;pon findin# probable cause" warrant can be issued L. Suit based on $251 R8C M. Conviction is sub!ect to appeal

7A7ST V NATIONAL INT(LLI>(NC( 7OAR+ R:G %one. Case was rendered moot and academic because investi#ation proceedin#s involvin# reporters have ended. Re libel claimsG In!uction will not lie if there are other alternatives available for the defendants.
$n e'ample of the abuse of the !udiciary of its power. <'erciseG 9reedom of the press is not curtailed if a letter of invitation is sent by a military officer in relation to a failed coup d? etat. There is no infrin#ement yet.

)'CA) V +U@U( III R:G 8ublic international law

hat?s relevant@ 8uno?s concurrin# opinion on commercial speech. Test #or evaluatin% validit o# re%ulations o# commercial s"eec$ -Central 'udson Case1 1. Commercial speech must concern law#ul activit and not :e misleadin% +:eanG There are certain types which are misleadin#, 2. $sserted %overnmental interest must :e su:stantial 4. hether state re%ulation directl advances %overnmental interest asserted =. hether it is not more e<tensive t$an necessar to serve t$at interest $pplied in the caseG 1. %ot unlawful" RIRR and 0il. Code concedes that there are instances when breastmil. substitutes +I9s, may be necessary 2. Substantial interest of state in ta.in# care of the youn#" preservin# and promotin# health of its citi*ens 4. Rationale of absolute banG prevent mother from succumbin# to su##estive and misleadin# mar.etin# and propa#anda =. $bsolute ban is undul restrictive" cuts deep on free speech. Sec. = can refer even to speech of !uridical persons. 8onenciaG 2nd level of constitutional ar#ument +ultra vires ) beyond power, 8roblemG 3% the e'istin# laws allow :3E to #o beyond its power +<3L1" $dmin Code" Constitution, Test for passin# due processG +1, le#itimate purpose +2, means meet such a purpose. Total ban is unconstitutional because it #oes beyond the powers #iven to :3E. Eowever" :3E can re#ulate.

OS,(NA V CO,(L(C +R$ MM=M)C30<L<C Time" Space, R:G 3?/rien Test +test for contentFneutral re%ulations, +1, 3% the #overnmental re#ulation is within the constitutional power of the #overnment +2, 3% the re#ulation furthers a substantial #overnment interest +4, 3% the #overnmental interest is unrelated to the suppression of free speech +=, 3% the incident restriction is no #reater than is essential to the furtherance of the interest
$ppliedG 1. 2. 4. =. 8ower to re#ulate communication and information <nsurin# e>ual opportunity" time" and space ;nrelated interest to free speech Jes.

0TRC/ C $/S1C/% +8rostituition, R:G $/S1C/% C C30<L<C +<'it polls,

)(O)L( V 3OTTIN>(R -./4J1

C onst i t ut i ona l La w 2 R e vi e we r |I

R:G S S C C30<L<C R:G INC V CA R:G &$ll television pro#rams( covers all pro#rams whether reli#ious" public affairs" or documentaries. T3L<%TI%3 C S<C 39 9I%$%C< R:G <// C :< L<3% R:G S(NAT( V (R,ITA R:G
Freedom o# in#ormation co#nate of freedom of e'pression The public?s ri#ht to .now is different from the power of Con#ress to summon officials in aid of le#islation

R:G $n announcement of a public fi#ure to prohibit the media to issue a specific .ind of statement amounts to prior restraint" which is violative of the ri#ht to free press.

+U( )ROC(SS ASSOCIATION OF S,ALL LAN+OWN(RS V +AR R:G

&%o person( 2 implies a power inherent in the State since it is stated in the ne#ative &due process( 2 substantive +reasonability)absence of arbitrariness, or procedural +fairness, If the purpose is stated in the Constitution" due process is met. +@, 8olice 8ower Restriction of ri#hts 8revented from doin# liberties :eprivation suffered by the citi*en <'propriation 7uridical physical possession 8revented from usin# property for the benefit of the public

N(RI V S(NAT( R:G I. 1. 2. 4. Laid down the three elements of presidential communications privile#eG protected communication must be >uintessential and non1dele#able presidential power communication must be authored or &solicited and received( by an advisor in operational pro'imity with the president presidential communications privile#e remains a >ualified privile#e that may be overcome by a showin# of ade>uate need such that the information sou#ht li.ely contains important evidence and unavailability of the information elsewhere Claim of e'ecutive privile#e is properly invo.ed by %eri applyin# the three elements in the case authority of the 8resident to enter into e'ecutive a#reement is reco#ni*ed in 8hil. 7urisprudence %eri is considered a close advisor" bein# a member of the 8resident?s cabinet %o ade>uate showin# of a compellin# need that would !ustify the limitation of the privile#e and of the unavailability of information

0odern trendG e'propriation as a tool of police power )olice "ower 2 inherent power of the State to provide for the #eneral welfare hy need e'propriation@ The instrumentalities of the State cannot operate without resources 8ust com"ensation fair mar.et value +canonical, (minent domain can also be used for police power purposes +only test is whether there is a le#itimate purpose and the rationality of means, $r#uments in $SLG .! 8ublic land first before private land 2 not a le#al ar#ument. Cite the te't. 4! W$o decides w$at is just com"ensationG Court. 1 Full "a ment L transfer of title J! ,ode o# "a ment cash" unless there is revolutionary ta.in# +can be bonds or other forms of security,

RU7I V )ROVINCIAL 7OAR+ R:G 1. 2. The term &%on1Christian( shall mean lac. or low de#ree of civili*ation" and does not have a reli#ious connotation. The ri#ht to liberty shall not be available to individuals who are uncivili*ed.

II. 1. 2. 4.

CARINO V INSULAR >OV(RN,(NT R:G The ri#ht to property can pertain to undocumented property which was ac>uired since time immemorial.
:efinition of property for purposes of due process

AN> TI7A* V CIR R:G There are D primary ri#hts that $dministrative /odies must adhere to in complaints presented before them. These areG 1. That the ri#ht to a hearin# involves the ri#ht to present a case and adduce evidence thereof. 2. That the court must consider the evidence presented. 4. That the duty to deliberate includes the duty to determine which of the presented evidences supports a conclusion.

8;%R$L C ITCSI R:G C'AV(? V >ON?AL(S +Karci tapes,

C o n s t i t u t i o n a l L a w 2 R e v i e w e r | 15

=. That the evidence relied upon by the court is substantial. Substantial evidence is the relative evidence that a reasonable mind mi#ht accept as ade>uate in support of a conclusion. L. That the evidence relied upon by the court was presented at the hearin# or at least in the records thereof and made available to the parties. M. The court and its !ud#es must rely upon their own consideration of the law and facts and not depend upon the conclusion of its subordinates. D. The court must promul#ate a decision in a manner wherein the parties can determine the issues involved and the reasons for the conclusion.
:ue process re>uires procedural fairnessH a case concernin# administrative proceedin#s before a >uasi1!udicial a#ency. &Seven cardinal principles(

TANA+A V TUV(RA R:G 8ublication in a newspaper of #eneral circulation is an additional re>uirement for a law to meet procedural due process.
There may be laws which do not have any effect because of the re>uirements of the due process clause. %eed to publishG $s notice to the entire public" to find law whenever it is necessary.

(R,ITA ,ALAT( V CIT* OF ,ANILA R:G Re#ulation re>uirin# the re#istration of name and a#e is not unconstitutional and passes the re>uirements of substantive due process.
See hite Li#ht for test.

NON V +A,(S II R:G the imposition of disciplinary sanctions re>uires the observance of "rocedural due "rocessG a. Students must be informed in writin# of the nature and cause of any accusation a#ainst them b. They shall have the ri#ht to answer the char#es a#ainst them" with the assistance of counsel if desired c. They shall be informed of the evidence a#ainst them d. They shall have the ri#ht to adduce evidence in their own behalf e. <vidence must be duly considered by their investi#atin# committee 0oreover" "enalt must :e "ro"ortionate to t$e o##ense committed!
:ue process with respect to academic institutions

0$KT$7$S C 8RJC< 8R38<RTI<S R:G CARLOS SU)(R+RU> V +SW+ R:G $ reduction of income by #ivin# discounts to senior citi*ens does not amount to ta.in# of private property without due process of law because such reduction is merely speculative and passes the test for substantive due process.
Limits of ta.in# private propertyG 1. 8ublic use 2. 7ust compensation Substantive due process testG 1. Le#itimate purpose 2 welfare of senior citi*ens constitutionally provided 2. 0ethod 2 reasonable

00:$ C CIR;% TR$%S83RT R:G S7S C $TI<%R$ R:G W'IT( LI>'T V CIT* OF ,ANILA R:G $ city ordinance prohibitin# short1time and wash1up time in motels does not meet the rational relationship re>uired to pass the test of substantive due process.
Levels o# Anal sis em"lo ed in su:stantive due "rocess2 1. Rational relations$i" test relationship of ends to meansH more liberal" in favor of the re#ulator" least protective of ri#hts 2. Strict scrutin colorable interest compellin# enou#h 4. 'ei%$tened scrutin stricter analysis of means" allows the Court to dictate on matters of wisdom In this case" the relationship is not even rational +prohibition also applies to married couples" travelers" who may have le#itimate purposes to stay in motels,

RODAS M CO V CA R:G 8rocedural due process must also mean that whenever there is an administrative order prescribin# mechanisms for deprivation of property" the re#ulator must subscribe to that process.
Ro'as %o case 8rocedure of administrative re#ulation $n# Tibay 2 private parties 8rocedure of hearin#

Eow can procedural rules violate substantive due process@ Rules may re>uire somethin# substantive. :o all acts of authorities amount to deprivation of life" liberty" and property@ %o. 8eople vs. 0arti 2 Sec. 2 is invo.ed a#ainst the State and not private individuals %on vs. :ames 2 :ue process clause can be applied as to its effect on the individual" #overnment was empowered to decide on constitutional implications of acts of a private individual +same with IS$<, :ean?s <'erciseG Student #iven a L.5 arbitrarily 1. &%o person( 3% a person was involved 2 student is a person 2. hat is involved +li#e" liberty" or property, 4. 3% there was deprivation 1 %o =. :ue process 2 2 levels +reasonability)procedural,

(@UAL )ROT(CTION

C o n s t i t u t i o n a l L a w 2 R e v i e w e r | 11

)(O)L( V CA*AT -./J/1 R+2 <>ual 8rotection is not violated by a le#islation)re#ulation based on &reasonable classification( 1, must rest on substantial distinctions 2, must be #ermane to the purpose of the law 4, must not be limited to e'istin# conditions only =, must apply e>ually to all members of the same class ICE3%K C E<R%$%:<R R:G TATA+ V S(CR(TAR* OF +O( R:G <>ual protection does not compel the #overnment to e>uali*e situations which are already e'istin#" but wor.s on laws produced by the State.
<>ual 8rotection Clause 1. Calid classification 2 see 8 v Cayat 2. :iscrimination Court in this case did not rule on <8 but brou#ht the ar#ument on Sec. 1I of $NII +anti1trust,

ISA( V @UISU,7IN> -45551 R+2 8eople who wor. with substantially e>ual >ualification" s.ill" effort and responsibility" under similar conditions" should be paid similar salaries. &e>ual pay for e>ual wor.(
%otesG $s a #eneral rule" private sector could be discriminatory" sub!ect only to their /oard. Eowever" this case was a labor dispute where the :epartment of Labor and <mployment assumed !urisdiction which eventually reached the Supreme Court on Certiorari +Rule ML,.

0ere notice +much less implied notice, o# intention to e<"ro"riate t$e lands in t$e #uture does not :ind t$e landowner" nor bind the land itself. <'propriation must be commenced in court T'IR+2 W1))1/T O) 3O+O) O4 +.%1+ 1*T0O)IT( S FOURT'2 $.&OT.$ TO 2*'+I3 ;S< S o ;sed by the $98Aconsidered public use FIFT'2 O*#T 1/$ $.2)I&. OW/.) O4 './.4IT# o Castellvi remained the owner of the property 3ccupation was provisionalAhad to be renewed yearly o Castellvi received monthly rentals CONCLULSION2 TaCin% did NOT commence in ./HB o $ lease on a year to year basis cannot #ive rise to a permanent ri#ht to occupy o T$e ri%$t o# eminent domain ma NOT :e e<ercise sim"l : leasin% t$e "remises to :e e<"ro"riated o Republic did not need to enter into a simulated contract of leaseAIt already had the power of e'propriation Real "ur"ose2 to #et a c$ea"er price o Sec HI Rule 6B NRoCO! &!ust compensation it to be determined as of the date of the filin# of the complaint o when the e'propriation coincides with the commencement of the e'propriation proceedin#s" or ta.es place subse>uent to the filin# of the complaintA !ust compensation must be determined as of the date of the filin# Compensation must be determined as of 1ILI %3T 1I=D Same with Ko*un property o

(,IN(NT +O,AIN R()U7LIC V V+A! +( CAST(LLVI Ta.in# +<lements, o <nterin# upon private property o 9or more than a momentary period o ;nder warrant +color of le#al authority, o :evotin# it to public use o Substantially oust the owner and deprive him off all beneficial en!oyment of the same
FIRST2 ./T)( S o /y virtue of the lease a#reement S(CON+2 MO). T01/ 1 MOM./T1)( 2.)IO$ o 8eriod of 1 year" renewable from year to year o The entry was merely temporary and transitory 3ver the &intent( inferred from the stipulation that R8 should return land in the same condition /;T still allowed permanent structures to be erected thereon o Contemporaneous and subse>uent acts If R8 really intended to ta.e the land in 1I=D" it should?ve e'propriated it thenAit didn?t need to enter into lease contract

Ot$er issue2 WoN t$e recommended "rice o# ).5KsEm is just com"ensation The lands in >uestion are residentialAsteps ta.en to develop the same prior to the filin# The provisional value is :I99<R<%T from the fair value o TentativeAonly serves as basis for the immediate occupancy E3 <C<R Commissioner?s recommendation value was too hi#h o Report not bindin#H merely advisory o 9air value reduced to 8L)s>m 'eld2 :ecision appealed from is ,O+IFI(+! Lands declared e'propriated for public use 9air mar.et value is 8L)s>m R8 must pay Castellvi and Ko*un o Respective value of the land o 0inus provisional value already received o ith MT interest from the day of the deposit of the provisional value until full payment $ttorney?s lien is enforced Costs to R8

:< F%<CTE C C$ R:G R()U7LIC V TA>L( -.//01 R+2 <'propriation of real property is not the mere physical entry" occupation" or possession of land but also includes the bundle of le#al ri#hts of ownership to completely own the property.
Relevant Law2 <.3. 154L" Sec. D states that is the ministerial duty of courts to issue a writ of possession within L days from deposit of 15T of !ust compensation payable. 7rie# 7acC%round2 C0:C +#ov?t, rented land of /enite*. $fter e'piration of Lease Contract" ne#otiations were held for sale. /enite* a#reed and a#reed

C o n s t i t u t i o n a l L a w 2 R e v i e w e r | 12

that payment of rentals would cease" but when C0:C prepared :eed of $bsolute" /enite* did not si#n. $fter L years" /enite* demanded arrears in rentals and for C0:C to vacate the property within 45 days. She also filed an unlawful detainer suit. $s a result" C0:C had to file a suit for <minent :omain after depositin# the provisional value of the land. The 0otion for Issuance of rit of 8ossession was initially issued but 7ud#e Ta#le subse>uently reversed himself upon /enite*? motion for reconsideration. Eis reason for >uashin# the issued writ was because C0:C was already occupyin# said land. +is"osition2 SC reversed the rulin# of 7ud#e Ta#leH >uashin# the writ is void for bein# with #rave abuse of discretion.

N)C V '(NSON R:G Indirect e'propriation amounts to removin# an ownership ri#ht which parta.es some e'pectation on the property.
Court to determine public useG 1. 3% it can e'propriate 2. 3% property to be ta.en is for public use 4. 3% there is !ust compensation )u:lic use net benefit to the entire public )u:lic necessit no other means for the #overnment

+I+I)IO R:G Ta.in# by means of minin# concessions entered into by the #overnment can be ruled upon by the court upon showin# of an actual case.

CRU(L AN+ UNUSUAL )UNIS',(NT )(O)L( V (C'(>ARA* R:G (C'(>ARA* V S(CR(TAR* R:G Standards for crueltyG +1, 8unishment for an offense +2, 3rdinary perception of the community
:issentsG Implementin# mechanism of Lethal In!ection Law is e'traordinary" mother law is unconstitutional

/yG $2512 +Compiled by Constitutional Law 2 :i#est Kroup, raibantol.edsiebuado.!udithbunyideleon.!essacedeno.an#elafelicia. an#elasandalo.ron#arcia.loumacabodbod..ristoffermadrid.