Person covers aliens

1.Villegas v. Hiu Chong, 86 SCRA 270

Liberty to procreate covered by DP clause
2. Buck v. Bell, 274 US 200
Substantive DP
3. Kwong Sing v. Manila, 41 Phil 103
4. Yu Cong Eng v. Trinidad, 271 U.S. 500
5. Ichong v. Hernandez, 101 Phil 1155
Notice and hearing
6. Vinta Maritime v. NLRC, 284 SCRA 656
Impartial & competent court
7Ynot v. IAC, 148 SCRA 659
8Javier v. COMELEC, 144 SCRA 194
9Padrangga v. Azura, 136 SCRA 266
Notice and hearing
10David v. Aquilizan, 94 SCRA 707
11DBP v. Bautista, 26 SCRA 366
12Lorenzana v. Cayetano, 78 SCRA 485
13Pp. v Beriales, 70 SCRA 361
14Republic v. Sandiganbayan, 239 SCRA 529 (1994)

Minimum appellate jurisdiction of the SC

15Calano v. Cruz, 94 Phil. 230
Requisites of administrative DP
16Ang Tibay v. CIR, 60 Phil 635
Review of decision by the same officer
17Zambales Chromite v. CA, GR L-49711, 11/7/79
18Anzaldo v. Clave, GR L-54597, 12/ 15/82
19Better Buildings v. NLRC, GR 109714 12/ 15/97
20Carag v. NLRC, GR 147590, 4/2/07
Definition of Equal Protection
21Quinto v. Comelec, G.R. No. 189698, December 1, 2009, dissent of CJ Puno
22Ichong v. Hernandez, 101 Phil 1155

Requirements of valid classification

23Pp. v. Cayat, 68 Phil 12
24Victoriano v. Elizalde, G.R. No. L-25246, September 12, 1974
25Biraogo v. Truth Commission, GR 192935, 12/7/2010, the concurrence of CJ Corona and
dissent of J Sereno
Substantial distinctions
26Ichong v. Hernandez, supra
27Dumlao v. COMELEC, 95 SCRA 392 (Read also the dissent of Teehankee, J)
28Ceniza v. COMELEC, 96 SCRA 763
29Nunez v. Sandiganbayan, 111 SCRA 433(Also the dissent of Makasiar, J)
30PASE v. Drilon, 163 SCRA 386
31ISAE v. Quisumbing, 333 SCRA 13
32DECS v. San Diego, 180 SCRA 533
33Phil Judges Assn. v. Prado, 227 SCRA 703
34Quinto v. Comelec, supra, dissent of Carpio, J.
35Biraogo v. Truth Commission, supra, dissent of Justice Carpio
36Tatad v. Secretary, GR 124360, 11/ 5/97
Germane to the purpose of the law
37Pp v. Cayat, supra
38Dumlao v. COMELEC, supra
39PASEI v. Drilon, supra
40Ichong v. Hernandez, supra
41Quinto v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 189698, December 1, 2009, main opinion per Nachura, J.;
also include the dissents of Puno, CJ and Carpio-Morales, J
Duration of the classification
42Pp. v. Cayat, supra
43Ormoc Sugar v. Treasurer, 22 SCRA 603
44Tatad v. Secretary, supra
Applicability to all
45Villegas v. Hiu Chiong, 86 SCRA 270
46Tatad v. Secretary of Energy, supra
Levels of scrutiny in EP analysis
47Biraogo v. Truth Commission, supra, dissent of Nachura, J
Classification vs. prioritization
48Biraogo v. Truth Commission, supra, dissents of Sereno and Carpio, JJ
The inclusiveness trap
49Biraogo v. Truth Commission, supra, ponencia of Mendoza, J and concurring and dissenting of
Nachura J.
50Quinto v. COMELEC, supra, dissent of Puno, J.

51Abakada Guro v. Ermita, GR 168056, 9/1/05 (Decision); 10/18/05 (Resolution)

Scope of right against unreasonable S&S
53Moncado v. Peoples Court, 80 Phil 1
54Stonehill s. Diokno, 20 SCRA 383
55Alih v. Castro, 151 SCRA 279
Meaning of search
56Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347
Probable cause in S&S
57Burgos v. Chief of Staff, 133 SCRA 800
58Stonehill v. Diokno, supra
59Asian Surety v. Herrera, 54 SCRA 312
60Castro v. Pabalan, 70 SCRA 477
61Pita v. CA, 178 SCRA 362
62Pp v. Salanguit, G.R. 133254-55, 4/19/01
Personal determination of PC by a judge
63Placer v. Villanueva, 126 SCRA 463
64Soliven v. Makasiar, supra
65Ho v. Pp, 280 SCRA 365
66Webb v. de Leon, 247 SCRA 652
67Roberts v. CA, 254 SCRA 307
PC determined by admin officials
68Morano v. Vivo, 20 SCRA 562
69Harvey v. Santiago, 162 SCRA 840
Unconstitutional determination of PC Valid by administrative officials
70Salazar v. Achacoso, 183 SCRA 145
Examination of SW applicant by the judge
71Alvarez v. CFI, 64 Phil 33
72Burgos v. Chief of Staff, supra
73Mata v. Bayona, 128 SCRA 388
74Ponsica v. Ignalaga, 152 SCRA 647
Particularity of description
75Stonehill v. Diokno, supra
76Alvarez v. CFI, 64 SCRA 33
77Burgos v. Chief of Staff, supra
78Nolasco v. Pano, 139 SCRA 152
7920th Century Fox v. CA, 164 SCRA 655
80Columbia v. Flores, 223 SCRA 761

81Pp v. Tee, GR 140546-47, 1/ 20/03

82Microsoft v. Maxicorp, GR 140946, 9/ 13/04
One particular offense
83Prudente v. Dayrit, G.R. No. 82870 December 14, 1989, 180 SCRA 69
Other forms of search: drug test
84SJS v. DDB, GR 157870, 11/ 3/08
Properties subject to search
85Pp v. Marcos, 117 SCRA 999
86Uy Khetin vs. Villareal, 42 Phil 886
87Burgos v. Chief of Staff, supra
Admissibility of illegally-seized evidence
88Stonehill v. Diokno, supra
89Alih v. Castro, supra
90Pp v. Exala, 221 SCRA 494
91Pp v. Zaspa, 340 SCRA 752
Search incident to lawful arrest
92Pp v. Figueroa, 248 SCRA 679
93Pp v. Salazar, 266 SCRA 607
94Espano v. CA, 288 SCRA 588
95Pp v. Chua Ho San, 308 SCRA 432
Stop and frisk
96Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1
97Malacat v. CA, 283 SCRA 159
Consented search
98Pp v. Tabar, 222 SCRA 144
99Pp v. Aruta, 288 SCRA 626
Custom search
100Roldan v. Arca, 65 SCRA 336
Search of moving vehicle
101Papa v. Mago, 22 SCRA 857
Extra-judicially-determined PC justifying warrantless search
102Pp v. Malmstedt, 198 SCRA 401 (read the dissent of Narvasa and Cruz, JJ.)
103Pp v. Aruta, GR 120915, 4/ 3/98

Constitutionality of checkpoints
103Valmonte v. de Villa, 173 SCRA 211 (read also the dissents of Cruz and Sarmiento, JJ.)
When to question the validity of the arrest
104Pp v. Salvatierra, 276 SCRA 55
Other important rulings
105Umil v. Ramos, 187 SCRA 311 (read the dissents of Cruz and Sarmiento, JJ.)
106David v. Arroyo, 489 SCRA 160
107Pollo v. Constantino-David, G.R. No. 181881, Oct. 18, 2011
108OConnor v. Ortega, 480 U. S. 709
Privacy of communications
109Olmstead v. U.S., 227 U.S. 438 (Also: dissents of Holmes and Brandeis, JJ.)
110Goldman v. U.S., 316 U.S. 29 (ditto)
111Katz v. U.S., 389 U.S. 347 (Also: dissent of J. Black)
Right to privacy
112Griswold v. Connecticut,
113Morfe v. Motuc, citing Griswold
Ople v. Torres, citing both Griswold and Morfe
Wire-tapping
114Gaanan v. IAC, 145 SCRA 112
Liberty of above/right to travel
115Rubi v. Provincial Board, 39 Phil 660
116Villavicencio v. Lukban, 39 Phil 778
117Manotoc v. CA, 142 SCRA 149
118PASE v. Drilon, supra
119Marcos v. Manglapus, 177 SCRA 669 (read also the dissenting opinions)
120Santiago v. Vasquez,
121Siverio v. CA,
Separation of the church and the state
122Engel v. Vitale, 370 US 421
123Everson v. Board of Education 330 US 1
124Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 US 602
125School District v. Schempp, 374 US 203
126Tudor v. Board of Education, 14 NJ 31
127Zurach v. Clauson, 343 US 306
128Board of Education v. Allen, 392 US 236
129Aglipay v. Ruiz, 64 Phil 201
130Garces v. Estenzo, 104 SCRA 510

Intramural religious dispute

131Fonacier v. CA, 96 Phil 417
132Gonzales v. Archbishop, 51 Phil 420
Religious profession and worship
133West Virginia v. Barnette, 219 US 624
134Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 US 296
135Marsh v. Alabama, 66 US 276
136American Bible Society v. City of Manila, 101 Phil 386
137Tolentino v. Secretary (re validity of registration fee in the VAT law), 235 SCRA 630
138Ebranilag v. Division Superintendent, 219 SCRA 256 (1993)
139German v. Barangan, 135 SCRA 514 (see also the dissent of Teehankee, J.)
Religious test
140In re Summers, 325 US 561 (read also the dissent of Black, J.)
Importance & scope of FOE
141Abrams v. US, 250 US 610 (read also the dissent of Holmes, J. Compare his dissent in this
case with his ponencia in Schenck vs. US, infra)
Freedom from censorship
142Grosjean v. American Press, 297 US 233
143NY Times v. United States, 403 US 713 (Read also the concurrence of Black, J.)
144Iglesia ni Cristo v. CA, 259 SCRA 529 (read also the concurring and dissenting opinion of
Kapunan, J.)
145Primicias v. Fuguso, 80 Phil 71
146Mutuc v. COMELEC, 36 SCRA 228
147Burgos v. Chief of Staff, supra
148National Press Club v. Comelec, ___ (Also the dissents of Paras & Cruz, JJ)
149Adiong v. COMELEC, 207 SCRA 713
Clear and present danger rule
150Schenck v. US, 249 US 97
151Gonzales v. COMELEC, 27 SCRA 835
152Primicias v. Fuguso, supra (citing Whitney vs. California, 274 US 357)
153Reyes v. Bagatsing, 125 SCRA 553
154Navarro v. Villegas, 31 SCRA 731
155Ruiz v. Gordon, 126 SCRA 233
Dangerous tendency rule
156Bayan v. Executive Secretary, 488 SCRA 226, citing U.S. vs. Apurado, differentiating
between DISORDERLY and SEDITIOUS, and between essentially peaceable assembly and a
tumultuous uprising
157Cabansag v. Fernandez, 102 Phil 152
158Gitlow v. NY, 268 US 652, dissent of Holmes, J criticizing the dangerous tendency doctrine

Balancing of interests
159American Communications Association v. Douds, 339 US 282
160Lagunzad v. Sotto, 92 SCRA 476
Criticism of official conduct
161US v. Bustos, 37 Phil 731
162Rosenbloom v. Metromedia, 403 US 29
163Lagunzad v. Sotto, 92 SCRA 476
Art and obscenity
164Pp v. Go Pin, 97 Phil 418
165Pp v. Padan, 101 Phil 749
166Gonzales v. Katigbak, 137 SCRA 717
167Freedman v. Maryland, 380 US 51
168Miller v. California, 37 L. ed. 2d 419
169Pita v. CA, supra
The auspices test
170Evangelista v. Earnshaw, 57 Phil 255
The purpose test
171De Jonge v. Oregon, 229 US 353
172Reyes v. Bagatsing, supra (affirming Primicias vs. Fuguso)
173Dela Cruz v. Ela, 99 Phil 346
174Navarro v. Villegas, supra
175Tanada v. Bagatsing, GR 68273, 8/18/84 (Also the dissent of Teehankee, J., and separate
opinion of Abad Santos, J.)
176US v. Apurado, 7 Phil 422
177Malabanan v. Ramento, 129 SCRA 359
178Villar v. TIP, 135 SCRA 706
179Non v. Dames, 185 SCRA 523
180Aquino v. Bagatsing, GR 68318, 8/18/84
181PBM Employees v. PBM, 51 SCRA 589
Right of association
182Alliance of Government Workers v. Ministry of Labor, 124 SCRA 1
183SSS Employees v. CA, 175 SCRA 686
184Victoriano v. Elizalde,
185Villar v. Inciong, 121 SCRA 444
186Liberty Flour Mills Employees Assn v. Liberty Flour Mills Inc., 180 SCRA 668
187Occena v. COMELEC, 127 SCRA 404
188In re Edillon, 84 SCRA 554
189Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) (Also the concurrence of J. Douglas, especially how he traced
the evolution of the application of the clear-and-present-danger rule coined by Justice Holmes in
190Schenck vs. US, supra)

Access to information
191Subido v. Ozaeta, dissent of Briones, J., 80 Phil 383
192Baldoza v. Dimaano, 71 SCRA 14
193Legazpi v. Civil Service Commission, 150 SCRA 530 (1987)
194Valmonte v. Belmonte, 170 SCRA 256
195Chavez v. PCGG, 299 SCRA 744
196Kapisanan ng mga Brodkaster ng Pilipinas, 360 SCRA 744 (read also the dissent of Puno, J.)
197Senate v. Ermita, 488 SCRA 1
198Echegaray v. Secretary, 297 SCRA 754
199Tanada v. Tuvera (resolution of the MR), 146 SCRA 446
200Neri v. Senate Committee, G.R. No. 180643, March 25, 2008
Covered by the non-impairment clause: franchise/charter of private entity
201Darthmond v. Woodward, 4 Wheat. 518
NOT covered by the non-impairment clause:
202Pedro v. Provincial Board, 53 Phil 123
203Maryland v. Hill, 125 US 129
Limitations of the non-impairment clause
204Stone v. Mississippi, 101 US 814
205Norman v. Baltimore, 294 US 240
206Rutter v. Esteban, 93 Phil 68
207Ilusorio v. CAR, 17 SCRA 25
208Ortigas & Co. v. Feati Bank, 94 SCR 533
209Lozano vs. v. Martinez, 146 SCRA 323
210Tiro v. Hontanosas, 125 SCRA 697
211Ganzon v. Inserto, 123 SCRA 713
212Long Island Water Supply v. Brooklyn, 166 US 685
Characteristics of ex post facto law
213Republic v. Fernandez, 99 Phil 934
214Bayot v. Sandiganbayan, 128 SCRA 383
215Nunez v. Sandiganbayan, 111 SCRA 433
216Montenegro v. Castaneda, 91 Phil 882
217US v. Gomez Coronel, 12 Phil 279 (Read, however, Pp v. Vilo, 82 Phil 529, including the
dissent)
218Pp v. Ferrer, 48 SCRA 382
219Rodriguez v. Sandiganbayan, 120 SCRA 659
220Katigbak v. Solicitor General, 180 SCRA 540
Characteristics of bill of attainder
221Pp v. Ferrer, supra
222US v. Lovett, 323 US 323

223Garner v. Board of Public Works, 341 US 717

Meaning of debt
224Sura v. Martin, 26 SCRA 286
225Lozano v. Martinez, supra
226US v. Cara, 41 Phil 826
Involuntary servitude
227Pp v. Soza, 38 OG 1676
228Robertson v. Baldwin, 165 US 275
229US v. Pompeya, 31 Phil 245
230Kaisahan ng Manggagawa v. Gotamco Sawmills, 45 OG Supp. No. 9, p.147
231Caunca v. Salazar, supra
232Pollock v. Williams, 322 US 4
Writ of habeas corpus: when available
233Caunca v. Salazar, supra
234Alcantara v. Dir. of Prisons, 75 Phil 749
235Gumabon v. Dir. of Prisons, 37 Phil 420
236Zafra v. City Warden, 97 SCRA 771
EXC: priv. of WOHC N/A in errors of law
237Celeste v. People, 31 SCRA 391
EXC to EXC: priv. of WOHC available if there is violation of right to speedy trial
238Conde v. Rivera, 45 Phil 650
Suspension of the privilege of WOHC
239Lansang v. Garcia, 42 SCRA 448
240Garcia-Padilla v. Enrile, 121 SCRA 472
241Ilagan v. Enrile, 139 SCRA 349 (Also dissents of Teehankee & Concepcion, JJ.)
Criminal due process
242Sales v. Sandiganbayan, ___
243Salonga v. Pano, supra
244Galman v. Sandiganbayan (resolution on the 2nd MR), 144 SCRA 43
245Rochin v. California, 34 US 165 (compare with Breithanpat v. Abram, 352 US 432),
246Marteliano v. Alejandrino, 32 SCRA 106
247Patanao v. Enage, 121 SCRA 228
248Bunye v. Sandiganbayan, 205 SCRA 92
Scope of right vs. self-incrimination
249. U.S. v. Tan Teng, 23 Phil 145
250. Beltran v. Samson, 53 Phil 570

Right vs. SI: when available

251. Chavez v. CA, 24 SCRA 663
252. Pp v. Rondero, GR 125687, 12/ 9/99
253. Pp v. Gallarde, GR 133025, 2/ 17/00
254. Galman v. Pamaran, 138 SCRA 274 (1985)
Custodial rights
255. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436
256. Pp v. Buscato, 74 SCRA 30
257. Pp v. Ramos, 122 SCRA 312
258. Pp v. Galit, 135 SCRA 465
259. Pp v. Barros, 122 SCRA 34 (requirement of examination by independent doctor)
260. Pp v. Cabrera, 134 SCRA 362
261. Pp v. Macam, 238 306
262. Dela Torre v. CA, 294 SCRA 196
263. Pp v. Compil, 244 SCRA 135 (re the operative act in custodial investigations)
264. Pp v. Lucero, 244 SCRA 425
265. Pp v. Suarez, 267 SCRA 119 (re-enactment in absence of counsel, inadmissible)
266. Pp v. Lugod, GR 136253, 2/21/01
267. Pp v. Uy, GR 157399, 11/17/05
268. Pp v. Escordial, GR 138934, 1/16/02
269. Pp v. Piedad, GR 131923, 12/5/02
270. Pp v. Samus, GR 135957-58, 9/ 17/02
271. Pp v. Tomaquin, GR 133138, 7/ 23/04
272. Pp v. Bagnate, GR 133685-86, 5/20/04
273. Pp v. Gallardo, GR 113684, 1/25/00
274. Pp v. Morial, GR 129295, 8/15/01
275. Pp v. Endino, GR 133026, 2/ 20/01
276. Pp v. Ordono, GR 132154, 6/ 29/00
277. Pp v. Guillermo, GR 147786, 1/20/04
278. Pp v. Malngan, GR 170470, 9/26/06
Right to bail
279. Garcia-Padilla v. Enrile, 121 SCRA 472
280. Enrile v. Salazar, supra
281. Pp v. Cortez, GR 92560, 10/21/91
282. Yap v. CA, 358 SCRA 564
283. Lavides v. CA, GR 129670, 2/1/00
284. Pp v. Gako, GR 135045, 12/ 15/00
285. Magudadatu v. CA, GR 139599, 2/23/00
286. Cabaero v. Caon, A.M. No. MTJ-01-369, September 20, 2001
287. Victory Liner v. Belosillo, 425 SCRA 79
288. Lavides v. CA, GR 129670, 2/1/00
289. Government v. Judge Puruganan, GR 148571, 12/ 17/02
290. Government of Hongkong v. Olalia, GR 153675, 4/ 19/07 (modifying Purganan)

Presumption of innocence
291. Pp v. Sunga, 123 SCRA 327
292. Pp v. Tempongko, 144 SCRA 583
293. Dizon-Pamintuan v. Pp, GR 111426, 7/11/94, citing Cruz on presumptions, Pp v. Labara,
April 20, 1954
294. Pp v. Mirantes, 209 SCRA 170
295. Pp v. Regulacion, 121 SCRA 40
296. Pp v. Arciaga, 99 SCRA 1
297. Pp v. Solis, 128 SCRA 217
298. Pp v. Resano, 132 SCRA 711
299. Pp v. Besonia, GR 151284-85, 2/ 5/04
300. Pp v. Murillo, GR 134583, 7/14/04
Right to be heard
301. Pp v. Lumague, 111 SCRA 515
302. Pp v. Magsi, 124 SCRA 69
303. Pp v. Malunsing, 63
304. Estrada v. Sandiganbayan, 369 SCRA 394
305. Pp v. Alcalde, GR139225, 5/ 29/02
306. Pp v. Dy, GR 115236, 1/ 29/02
307. Pp v. Valdesancho, GR 137051, 5/30/01
308. Pp v. Ostia, GR 131804, 2/ 26/03
309. Pp v. Flores, GR 128823-24, 12/ 27/02
310. Pp v. Cachapero, GR 153008, 5/ 20/04
Speedy trial
311. People v. Rivera, GR 139180, 7/ 31/01
312. Solar Team Entertainment v. How, GR 140863, 8/ 22/00
313. Valencia v. Sandiganbayan, GR165996, 10/ 17/05
314. Domondon v. Sandiganbayan, GR 166606, 11/ 29/05
315. Perez v. Estrada, A.M. No. 01-4-03-SC, June 29, 2001
316. Pp. v. CA, GR 140285, 9/ 27/06
The Right of Confrontation; Right to Compulsory Process
317. Pp v. Ramos, 122 SCRA 312
318. Combate v. San Jose, 135 SCRA 693
319. Talino v. Sandiganbayan, 148 SCRA 598
320. Pp v. Bardaje, 99 SCRA 388
Prohibited punishments
321. Echegaray v. Secretary, 297 SCRA 754
322. Pp v. Dionisio, 22 SCRA 1299
Double jeopardy
323. Olaguer v. Military Commision, 150 SCRA 144 (See however, Tan v. Barrios, 190 SCRA
686)

324. Toyoto v. Ramos, 139 SCRA 316

325. Pp v. City of Manila, 121 SCRA 637
326. Pp v. Saley, 291 SCRA 715
327. Pp v. Tac-an, 182 SCRA 601 (See however, RA 8294)
328. Perez v. CA, 168 SCRA 236
329. Pp v. Relova, 148 SCRA 292