Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Page | 2
Page | 3
If the plain meaning of the word is not found to be clear, resort to other aids is
availableconstrue the Constitution from what appears upon its face. The
proper interpretation, therefore, depends more on how it was understood by the
people adopting it than in the framers understanding thereof.
In case of doubt, the provision should be considered as self-executing;
mandatory rather than directory; and prospective rather than retroactive.
Page | 4
Procedure
1. Proposal- generally made either directly by the Congress or by a constitutional
convention.
a. Direct legislative action- of all the members of the Congress is needed;
suited for a mere amendment or change of particular provisions only
b. Constitutional Convention- may be made by a 2/3 of all the members of
the Congress; suited if there is a need to overhaul the entire Constitution
o Occena v. COMELEC: the choice of method of proposal is
discretionary upon the legislature
o Imbong v. COMELEC: Congress as constituent body- may with the
concurrence of 2/3 votes call a constitutional convention; legislative
body- may pass the necessary implementing law providing the details
of the constitutional convention
c. People through Initiative- upon the petition of at least 12 per centum of
the total number of registered voters, of which every legislative district must
be represented by at least 3 percentum of the registered voters therein
(Sec. 2, Art. 17)
Position of the Constitutional Convention
o Loomis
v.
Jackson:
THEORY
OF
CONVENTIONAL
SOVEREIGNTY- the constitutional convention is supreme over
the other departments of the government because the powers it
exercises are in nature of sovereign powers.
o Woods Appeal: considers the constitutional convention inferior
to the other departments of the government since it is merely a
creation of the legislature.
o Frantz v. Autry: the constitutional convention must be
considered independent and co-equal with the other
departments of the government.
2. Ratification- any amendment to or revision shall be valid when ratified by a
majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite held not earlier than 60 days nor later
than 90 days after the approval of such change by the Congress or the
constitutional convention or after the certification by the COMELEC of the
sufficiency of the petition under Section 2.
Statue: enacted by the chosen representatives pursuant to their mandate
Constitution: approval will come directly from the people themselves
Page | 5
Chapter 3
The Constitution and the Courts
Role of Judiciary
1. ultimate guardian of the Constitution
2. to rectify the wrong
3. sacred and solemn duty: to uphold the Constitution and the laws of the land
4. to protect the individual liberties guaranteed by the Bill of Rights
Voting (see Art. 8, Sec. 4)
Requisites of a Judicial Inquiry
1. there must be an actual case or controversy;
2. the question of constitutionality must be raised by the proper party;
3. the question of constitutionality must be raised at the earliest possible opportunity;
and
4. the decision of the constitutional question must be necessary to the determination
of the case itself.
1. Actual Case - involves a conflict of legal rights, an assertion of opposite legal
claims susceptible of judicial adjudication
-must not be moot or academic or based on extra-legal or other similar
considerations not cognizable by a court of justice
Justiciable Controversy: must be definite and concrete, touching, the legal
relations of parties having adverse legal interests; real and substantial controversy
admitting a specific relief through a decree that is conclusive in character.
request for advisory opinion: not an actual case or controversy
Page | 6
Page | 7
or the
Page | 8
1. Orthodox view
o Norton v. Shelby: unconstitutional act- a. not a law, b. confers no
rights, c. imposes no duties, d. affords no protection, e. creates no office;
total nullity
2. Modern view- less stringent; it does not repeal, supersede, revoke or annul
the statute if it finds it in conflict with the Constitution.
o Manila Motors Co. vs. Flores: due to equity, the SC relaxed the
operation of the general rule.
Partial Unconstitutionality (separability clause)
Requisites
1. the legislature is willing to retain the valid portions even if the rest of
the statute is declared illegal;
2. that the valid portions can stand independently as a separate statute.
o Bar Flunkers Case: the law was sustained in so far as it amended the Rules
of Court prospectively but reducing the passing average in the bar exam was
declared unconstitutional; Rationale: encroachment upon judicial
functions.
o Macalintal Case: unconstitutional- Congress interfering with COMELECs
duties.
Chapter 4
The Fundamental Powers of the State
3 Powers of the State
1. Police Power- power of the State to regulate liberty and property for the
promotion of the general welfare.
2. Power of Eminent Domain- enables the State to forcibly acquire private
property, upon payment of just compensation, for some intended public use.
3. Power of Taxation- the State is able to demand from the members of society
their proportionate share or contribution in the maintenance of the Government.
Similarities
1. They are inherent in the state and may be exercised by it without need of
express constitutional grant
2. They are not only necessary but indispensable. The State cannot continue or
be effective unless it is able to exercise them.
3. They are methods by which the State interferes with private rights.
4. They all presuppose an equivalent compensation for the private rights
interfered with.
5. They are exercised primarily by the legislature.
Differences
Police Power
Power of Eminent
Power of Taxation
Page | 9
Domain
affect only property of rights -same with PED
may be exercised by some
private entities
intended for a public use or
purpose and is therefore
wholesome
-same with PP
P a g e | 10
P a g e | 11
P a g e | 12
P a g e | 13
Taking- may include trespass without actual eviction of the owner, material impairment
of the value of the property or prevention of the ordinary uses for which the property was
intended.
o U.S v. Causby: there is no diverstiture of title rather merely an intrusion into the
superjacent rights of the owner.
o Ayala de Roxas v. Vity of Manila: there must be a just compensation for the
imposition of ones property
o P. v. Fajardo: a just compensation must be given to the owner affected with the
ordinance prohibiting the construction of the building which would destroy the view
of the public plaza.
o NAPOCOR v. Aguirre-Paderanga: right-of-way easement falls within the ambit of
the term expropriation.
Taking may be justified under police power- aimed at improving the
general welfare, and whatever damages are sustained by the property
owners are regarded as merely incidental to a proper execution of such
power; loss- damnm obsque injuria; recompensation- altruistic feeling
special injury- if he suffers more than his aliquot part of the damages, he
will be entitled to payment of the corresponding compensation.
o Richards v. Washington Terminal: if the petitioner sustained more than the
damage incurred bu the other houses in the vicinity, he is entitled to just
compensation.
o Republic v. Castellvi: the just compensation shall commence during the actual
occupancy and deprivation which was in 1959; mere notice of the intention to
expropriate a particular property does not bind its owner and inhibit him from
disposing of it or otherwise dealing with it.
Requisites of Taking in Eminent Domain
1. The expropriator must enter a private property.
2. The entry must be for more than a momentary period.
3. The entry must be under warrant or color of legal authority.
4. The property must be devoted to public use or otherwise informally
appropriated or injuriously affected.
5. The utilization of the property for public use must be in such a way as to
oust the owner and deprive him of beneficial enjoyment of the property.
o Amigable v. Cuenca: the owner may immediately file a complaint with the proper
court for payment of his property as the arbitrary action of the government shall
be deemed a waiver of its immunity from suit.
o City Government of Quezon City v. Ericta: if it is intended for public use, then
the principle that governs is eminent domain.
o Philippine Press Institute v. COMELEC: compulsory donation was a taking of
private property without payment of the just compensation required in
expropriation cases.
Public Use- any use directly available to the general public as a matter of right and not
merely of forbearance or accommodation.
res communes- subject to direct enjoyment by any and all members of the
public indiscriminately
telephone or light companies- such services are demandable as a matter of
right by any one prepared to pay for them.
P a g e | 14
Any member of the general public, as such, can demand the right to use the
converted property for his direct and personal convenience.
If the lot is transferred already, it ceases to be public property and come under the
exclusive ownership of the transferees; the promotion of social objectives is more
paramount.
slum clearance- valid object of expropriation under the modern expanded
interpretation of public use.
o Province of Camarines Sur v. CA: if it is for public purpose, expropriation
can take place.
Just Compensation-full and fair equivalent of the property taken from the private
owner by the expropriator; intended to indemnify the owner fully for the loss he has
sustained as a result of the expropriation.
- if it is prejudicial to rge public, it will not satisfy the requirement
of just compensation.
o Knetch v. CA: owner- refers to all those who have lawful interest in the
property to be condemned, eg. mortgagee, lessee, vendee
P a g e | 15
Nature
Taxes- the enforced proportional contributions from persons and property, levied
by the State by virtue of its sovereignty, for the support of government and for all public
needs
Taxation- method by which tax contributions are exacted
obligation to pay taxes- not a contract; it is a duty imposed upon the individual
by the mere fact of his membership in the body politic and his enjoyment of the benefits
available from such membership. Exceptions-poll taxes
Taxes
License
-are levied to raise revenues
- are imposed for regulatory purposes only
-justified under the police power
-the amount of fees required is usually
limited only to the cost of regulation
Exception: if the business licensed is nonuseful and is sought to be discouraged by
the legislature
Scope
1. citizen abroad and his income earned from sources outside his State
P a g e | 16
P a g e | 17
Public Purpose- include even indirect public advantage or benefit; as long as some link
to the public welfare is established
Tax Exemptions
Constitutional- religious and charitable institutions
o Lladoc v. CIR: gift tax- an excise tax imposed on the transfer of property by way
of gift inter vivos, the imposition of which on property used exclusively for religious
purposes does not constitute an impairment of the Constitution.
Statutory- granted in the discretion of the legislature
1. granted gratuitously
2. in pursuant to economic policy
3. General Rule- it may be validly revoked at will, with or without cause;
Exemption- granted for valuable consideration, it is deemed to partake of
the nature of a contract and obligation thereof is protected against
impairment
o Casanova v. Hord: if the contract was impaired by the enactment of Section 134
of the Internal Revenue Law thereby infringing the impairment clause.
Chapter 8
Due Process of Law
Origin of Due Process
1. Magna Carta- wrung by the barons from Prince John in 1215; No man shall be
taken or imprisoned or disseized or outlawed, or in any manner,
destroyed; nor shall we go upon him, but by the lawful judgment of his
peers or by the law of the land.
2. King Edward IIIs Statute 28 (1355)- it was declared that no man, of what state
or condition whoever he be shall be put out of his lands, or tenements,
nor taken, nor imprisoned, nor indicted, nor put to death without he be
brought in to answer by due process of law.
Evolution of Due Process
o Darthmouth College Case: law of the land- the general law, a law which hears
before it condemns, which proceeds upon inquiry and renders judgment only after
trial; due process- has a dual aspect: the substantive and procedural
Meaning of Due Process- No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property
without due process of law.
P a g e | 18
P a g e | 19
P a g e | 20
o
o
o
o
by law.
eg. RTC- murder case; MTC- violation of municipal ordinance, SCreview a decision of the COA, CA-jurisdiction over ordinary appealed cases involving only
questions of fact
B. Jurisdiction
1. actions in personam- acquired by the court by the voluntary appearance of
the defendant or through service of summons upon him; may be effected
personally, or by substituted service, or n exceptional cases, by publication.
2. action in rem or quasi in rem- the jurisdiction of the court is derived from the
power it may exercise over the property; notice by publication is sufficient;
Rationale- property is always presumed to be in the possession of the
owner or his agent, who may be safely held under certain conditions to know
that proceedings have been instituted against it.
C. Hearing
Notice to party- essential to enable it to adduce its own evidence and to meet
and refute the evidence submitted by the other party.
o David v. Aquilizan: a decision rendered without a hearing is null and void ab
initio and may be attacked directly or collaterally.
o A decision could not bind an individual if his right to be heard was denied.
o Lorenzana v. Cayetano: the respondent must be a party in the ejectment
proceedings so that the judgement will bind him
o Caoile v. Vivo: the law does not require another notice and hearing for a
review of the decision of the board of special inquiry on the basis of evidence
previously presented.
P a g e | 21
P a g e | 22
objectionable under some but not all circumstances; the right thing in
the wrong place
General Rule- it may be abated only upon judicial authorization as it
is difficult to ascertain or identify this kind of nuisance; ExceptionLawton v. Steele: if the legislature has authorized its summary
abatement, provided the nuisance per accidens is of trifling value only.
b. Presumptions- a statutory presumption does not deny the right to a hearing
insofar as the person affected is precluded from introducing evidence to rebut
presumption provided there is a rational or natural connection between the
fact proved and the fact ultimately presumed from such fact.
D. Judgment- due process requires that the judgment must be
based upon the lawful hearing previously conducted.
Article VIII, Sec. 14- no decision shall be rendered by any court without
expressing therein clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which it is based.
(2)
Administrative Due Process
Requisites:
1. The right to a hearing, which includes the right to present ones case and submit
evidence in support thereof.
2. The tribunal must consider the evidence presented.
3. The decision must have something to support itself.
4. The evidence must be substantial.
5. The decision must be rendered on the evidence presented at the hearing, or at
least contained in the record and disclosed to the parties affected.
6. The tribunal or body of any of its judge must act on its own independent
consideration of the law and the facts of the controversy and not simply accept the
views of a subordinate in arriving at a decision.
7. The board or body should, in all controversial questions, render its decision in such
a manner that the parties to the proceeding can know the various issues involved,
and the reason for the decision rendered.
o Zambales Chromite v. CA: mockery of justice- the Director of Mines
affirmed his own decision.
o Anzaldo v. Clave: approval is withheld if the respondent as presidential
executive assistant affirmed his own decision as chairman of the CSC when it
was appealed to Malacanang.
P a g e | 23
Chapter 9
Equal Protection
Definition
1. All persons or things similarly situated should be treated alike, both as to the rights
conferred and responsibilities imposed.
Substantive quality is not enough. It is also required that law be enforced and
applied equally.
o Yick Wo v. Hopkins: application to license for the establishment of
laundries shall not be denied to Chinese applicants.
o P v. Vera: probation system shall not be applicable only in those
provinces in which the respective provincial boards have provided for
the salary of the probation officer; a law may appear to be fair on its
face and impartial in appearance, yet, if permits of unjust and illegal
discrimination, it is within the constitutional prohibition.
Persons Protected
Artificial persons are entitled to the protection re their property.
Classification- the grouping of persons or things similar to each other in certain
particulars and different from all others in the same particulars
(1)
Requirements
1. It must be based upon substantial distinctions.
2. It must be germane to the purpose of the law.
3. It must not be limited to the existing conditions only.
4. It must apply equally to all members of the class.
A.
Substantial Distinctions
o Ceniza v. COMELEC: the practice of allowing the voters in one component city or
vote for provincial officials and denying the same privilege to voters in another
component city is a matter of legislative discretion which violates neither the
Constitution nor the voters right of suffrage.
o Nunez v. Sandiganbayan: PD 1606- no discrimination against persons convicted
by the Sandiganbayan in giving the persons only the remedy of certiorari with the
SC as distinguished from those convicted by the other trial courts, who could
appeal to CA and SC.
o Phil. Association of Service Exporters v. Drilon: Filipino female domestic
workers are distinguishable from other Filipino female workers.
o Intl School of Alliance of Educators v. Quisimbing: persons who work with
substantially equal qualifications, skill, effort and responsibility, under similar
conditions, should be paid in similar salaries, regardless if the school is its
international character.
o DECS case: three-flunk rule in NMAT does not violate equal-protection clause.
o Phil. Judges Association v. Prado: franking privilege must also be afforded by
the Judiciary.
P a g e | 24
P a g e | 25
(1)
P a g e | 26
personally evaluating the report and the supporting documents submitted by the
prosecutor.
o Ho v. P: the judge should not rely on the recommendations alone of the prosecutor
but must independently arrive at his own conclusions based not only on the bare
report of the prosecutor but also on other relevant documents.
o Morano v. Vivo: warrant of arrest may be issued by administrative authorities only
for the purpose of carrying out a final finding of a violation of law and not for the
purpose of investigation or prosecution is valid. eg. order of deportation, order of
contempt
o Salazar v. Achacoso: the Secretary of Labor, not being a judge may no longer
issue search or arrest warrants to cause the arrest and detention of any unlicensed
recruiter for oversees employment.
(3) Examination of Applicant
Rule 126, Sec. 4 of the RC- the judge, before issuing the search warrant, must
personally examine in the form of searching questions and answers, in writing and
under oath the complainant and any witnesses he may produce on facts personally
known to them, and attach to the record their sworn statements together with any
affidavits submitted.
hearsay- not allowed
o Alvarez v. CFI: the facts must be based upon his knowledge and not upon the
information received by him from a reliable person.
o Burgos Case: our unit- invalid search warrant
o Yee Sue Koy v. Almeda: if declared under oath- valid issuance of search
warrant
o Mata v. Bayona: mere affidavits- not enough; the judge must take depositions in
writing and attach them to record; Rationale- necessary to enable the court to
determine the existence of probable cause.
o Ponansica v. Ignalaga: if there had been no searching interrogation of witnesses,
invalid!
(4)
o
o
o
o
o
Particularity of Description
General Rule: If the warrant is issued without a name or with the name in
blank such that it can be enforced against any person, it is unquestionably
void; Exception: if there is some description personae that will enable the
officer to identify the accused.
P v. Veloso: if J was described as occupying and in control of a building at a
specified address, valid!; if no more adequate and detailed description could have
been given, valid!
Stonehill Case: if violation of various laws in general, invalid!
Burgos Case: general warrants- the properties sought to be seized were not
described with particularity; eg. re publication of subversive materials- invalid!
Nolasco v. Pano: search warrants of similar description were considered null and
void for being too general.
20th Century Fox Film Corp. v. CA: if no indication that the properties sought to
be seized were being used in violation of Anti-Piracy Law, invalid!
P a g e | 27
P a g e | 28
Chapter 11
Liberty of Abode and Travel
P a g e | 29
o Caunca v. Salazar: a maid has the right to transfer to another residence even if
she had not yet paid the amount advanced by an employment agency; human
dignity is not merchandise appropriate for commercial barters or business bargains
(see Art. III, Sec. 6)
Purpose- to further emphasize the individuals liberty as safeguarded in general terms
by the due process clause.
Limitations
1. upon lawful order of the court
2. national security
3. public safety
as may be provided by law
4. public health
o Rubi v. Provincial Board of Mindoro: non-Christian tribes to reside in a
reservation- legitimate exercise of the police power
o Villavicencio v. Lukban: ill-repute women are entitled of constitutional
guarantees; hence they cannot be compelled to their domicile from Manila to
another locality.
o Salonga v. Hermoso: if the permit to travel abroad was issued before the case
could be heard, the case becomes moot and academic; issuance of the travel
certificate is a recognition of ones right to travel
o Manotoc v. CA: a condition of the bail bond that he would be available at anytime
the court should require his presence was a valid restriction on his right to travel.
o Service Exporters Case: deployment of Filipino female domestics- valid!
Rationale- public safety
o Marcos v. Manglapus: endangerment of national security is a valid ground for
refusal of the government to allow the petitioners return.
Chapter 12
Freedom of Religion
Religion- any specific system of belief, worship, conduct, etc., often involving code of
ethics and philosophy; embraces matters of faith and dogma, as well as doubt,
agnosticism and atheism.
Religion in the Constitution (Art. III, Sec. 5)
Separation of Church and State [Article VI, Sec. 29 (2)]
Rationale: strong fences make good neighbors; to delineate the boundaries
between the two institutions and thus avoid encroachments by one against the
P a g e | 30
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
(1)
P a g e | 31
o Fonacier v. CA: where the dispute involves the property rights of the religious
group or the relations of the members where property rights are involved, the civil
courts may assume jurisdiction.
o Gonzales v. Archbishop of Manila: where a civil right depends upon some
matter pertaining to ecclesiastical affairs, the civil tribunal tries the civil right only.
Religious Profession and Worship
(1)
Freedom to Believe- absolute as long as the belief is confined within the
realm of thought.
(2)
Freedom to Act at Ones Belief- subject to regulation where the belief is
translated into external acts that affect the public welfare.
Justine Frankfurter: The constitutional provision on religious freedom
terminated disabilities; it did not create new privileges. It gave religious liberty,
not civil immunity. Its essence is freedom from conformity to religious dogma,
not freedom from conformity to law because of religious dogma.
As long as it can be shown that the exercise of the right does not impair the
public welfare, the attempt of the State to regulate or prohibit such right would
be an unconstitutional encroachment.
o Cantwell v. Connecticut: solicitation for religious purposes, even if abrasive,
could not be validly prohibited.
o Marsh v. Alabama: between the Constitutional rights of owners of property and
those people who enjoy freedom of the press and religion, the latter is preferred.
o American Bible Society v. City of Manila: the required payment of license fee
for conducting the business of general merchandise cannot be applied if it would
impair the free exercise and enjoyment of the religious profession and worship of
the society, as well as its rights of disseminating of religious belief.
o VAT Case: the registration fee is a mere administrative fee, one not imposed on
the exercise of a privilege, much less a constitutional right.
o West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette: such compulsory measures
toward national unity is the basis of national security, hence constitutional.
o Gerona v. Secretary of Education was reversed by The Division
Superintendent of Schools of Cebu: forcing the members of Jehovas Witnesses
to participate in a ceremony that violates their religious beliefs, will hardly be
conducive to love of country or respect of duly constituted authorities.
o German vhe. Barangan: the petitioners were not sincere to their profession of
religious liberty and were using it to express their opposition to the government.
Religious Tests
o In re Summers: men could not be excluded from the practice of law, or indeed
from following any other calling, simply became they belong to any of religious
groups.
o P v. Zosa: upheld Art. II, Sec. 4
Chapter 13
Freedom of Expression
Wendell Philips: at once the instrument and the guaranty and the bright
consummate flower of all liberty.
P a g e | 32
Importance
o Abraham v. US: there must be a free trade of ideas
Scope
Voltaire: I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your
right to say it.
right to an audience- the State cannot prohibit the people from hearing what a
person has to say, whatever the quality of his thoughts.
Socrates: This freedom was meant not only to protect the minority who want to
talk but also to benefit the majority who refuse to listen.
Modes of Expression
1. language- oral or written
2. symbolisms
3. novels
4. pamphlets
5. articles
6. placards
7. graffiti
8. slogans
9. battlecries
10.
poems and song lyrics
11.
speeches and orations
12.
movies
13.
stage plays
14.
television
and
presentation
radio
15.
o
o
o
o
o
16.
Elements (Art. III, Sec. 4)
1. freedom from previous restraint or censorship
2. freedom from subsequent punishment
(1)
Freedom from Censorship
Authority is anathema in a free society.
o Near v. Minnesota: a periodical should not be suppressed on the basis of its past
issues, to be obscene, malicious, scandalous or defamatory.
o Kingsley Books v. Brown: the law which authorized the suppression of any issue
of any periodical if and such issue was found to be objectionable after judicial
hearing, but without affecting the right of the periodical to continue publication
was upheld
o Grosjean v. American Press Co.,: a tax imposed upon all periodicals publishing
more than 2, 000 copies is invalid because it limits the circulation of any periodical.
o New York Times v. U.S: the free press must be protected so that it could fulfill its
essential role in democracy; among the responsibilities of a free press is the
duty to prevent any part of the government from deceiving the people
o Gonzales v. COMELEC: prohibition of soliciting or undertaking of any campaign or
propaganda except during the prescribed election period; Rationale- the
inordinate preoccupation of the people with politics tended toward the neglect of
the other serious needs of the nation and the pollution of its suffrages.
o Iglesia ni Cristo v. CA: the MRTCB has no power to banned the telecast programs
because they did not attack but merely criticized the other religions in the exercise
by the INC of its freedom and expression and religion.
Santigao v. Far East Broadcasting: the petitioner must not refuse to submit the
manuscript or even the gist thereof because a speech may endanger public safety,
hence it may be censored and disapproved for broadcasting; Note- this is a strange
obiter.
Primacias v. Fugoso: the respondent could only reasonably regulate, not absolutely
prohibit, the use of public places for holding a public meeting.
Mutuc v. COMELEC: the petitioner must not be prohibited to use taped jingles in the
mobile units for
his election campaign.
Burgos Case: free, alert and even militant press is essential for the political
enlightenment and growth
of the citizenry.
NPC v. COMELEC: Sec. 11 (b), RA 6646 is valid; Rationale- to promote equal
opportunity, and equal
time and space, for political candidates.
Adiong v. COMELEC: the prohibition of posting decals and stickers on mobile
places whether public
or private except in authorized areas designated by the
COMELEC becomes censorship which cannot
be justified by the Constitution.
17.
18.
(2)
Freedom from Punishment
freedom of expression- does not cover the ideas offensive to public order
or decency or the reputation of persons, which are entitled to protection by
the State.
19.
3 MAJOR CRITERIA
a) the clear and present danger rule
b) the dangerous tendency doctrine
c) the balancing test
20.
A. The Clear and Present Danger Rule- whether the words used are used in
such circumstances and are of such nature as to create a clear and present
danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that the State has a
right to prevent.
the most libertarian tests
it is question of proximity and degree
o Schenck Case: having caused insubordination in the armed forces of the U.S and
obstructing enlistment and recruitment services had created a clear and present
danger to the national security.
Rule: the danger created must not only be clear and present but also
traceable to the ideas expressed.
clear- a casual connection with the danger of the substantive evil arising from
the utterances questioned; present- refers to the time element; the danger
must not only be probable but very likely inevitable.
the substantive evil must be extremely serious and the degree of imminence
extremely high before utterances can be punished
o Terminiello v. City of Chicago: it is only through free debate and free exchange of
ideas that the government remains responsible to the will of the people and peaceful
change is effected; speech- often provocative and challenging, it may strike at
prejudices and preconceptions and have profound unsettling effect as it presses for
acceptance of an idea.
o Feiner v. New York: picketing may be validly prohibited and penalized when set in
a background of violence
o Primacias Case: fear of serious injury cannot alone justify suppression of free speech
and assembly; there must be a reasonable ground to believe that 1) serious evil will
result if free speech is practiced, 2) the danger apprehended is imminent, 3) the evil
to be prevented is a serious one; there must be probability of serious injury to the
state.
o Navarro v.Villegas: the speeches planned to be delivered at Plaza Miranda which is
the most sensitive place in the city could in the view of the Court ignite the
turbulence the mayor wanted to prevent.
o Reyes v. Bagatsing: the title of the public streets had always been vested in the
people and that the authorities could not prohibit but only regulate their proper use.
o Ruiz v. Gordon: to hold an assembly, the applicant must inform the licensing
authority of the date, the public place where and the time when it will take place; if
private place, the consent of the owner or the one entitled to its legal possession
must be obtained.
B. The Dangerous Tendency Doctrine
o Cabansag v. Fernandez: if the words uttered create a dangerous tendency which
the State has the right to prevent, then such words are punishable; a mere tendency
toward the evil was enough.
o P v. Perez: tendencies- 1) to instigate others to cabal and meet together for unlawful
purposes, 2) to incite rebellious conspiracies, 3) to stir up the people against the
lawful authorities, 4) to disturb the peace of the community and safety or order of the
government.
o Gitlow v. New York: speakers enthusiasm- difference between the expression of
an opinion and an incitement
o Rosenbloom v. Metromedia: even a private individual may be subject of public
comment even if he is not a public official or at least a public figure, as long as he is
o
o
35.
Rule- they should be respected by the legislature and not tampered
with by subsequent laws that will change the intention of the parties or modify
their rights and obligations; the will of the obligor and the obligee must be
observed and the obligation of their contract must not be impaired.
36.
37.
Contract- 1) refers to any lawful agreement on property or property
rights- whether real or personal, tangible or intangible; agreement-either
executed or executory; parties involved- private persons, natural or artificial, or
private persons and the government or its agencies; 2) includes franchise or
charters granted to private persons or entities, e.g authorization to operate a
public utility; 3) does not cover licenses; 4) does not include marriage contract
General Rule: public office cannot be the subject of a contract between the
incumbent and the government; Exception- where the salary has already been
earned, in which case it will be deemed a vested property right that cannot be
withdrawn or reduced by retroactive legislation.
38.
39.
Law- 1) includes statutes enacted by the national legislature, executive
orders and administrative regulations promulgated under a valid delegation of
power, and municipal ordinances passed by the local legislative bodies; 2) does not
include judicial decisions or adjudications made by administrative bodies in the
exercise of their quasi-judicial powers.
40.
to impair- the law must retroact so as to affect the existing contracts
concluded before its enactment.
41.
no impairment- if the law is made to operate prospectively only, to
cover contracts entered into after its enactment.
42.
43.
Obligation- vinculum juris, the tie that binds the parties to each other; the
obligation of a contract is the law or duty which binds the parties to perform their
undertaking or agreement according to its terms and intent.
44.
s
the efficacy of the contract; degree of diminution- immaterial,
Rationale- as long as the original rights of either of the parties are changed to his
prejudice
45.
eg. General Rule- there is impairment when there is withdrawal of all
the remedies with the result that either of the parties will unable to enforce his
rights under the original agreement; Exception- if substantial and efficacious
remedy remains even if the remedy retained is the most difficult to employ and it
is the easier ones that are withdrawn.
46.
47.
Limitations
General Rule: The legislature cannot bargain away the police power through the
medium of a contract. Neither may private parties fetter the legislative authority by
contracting on matters essentially within the power of the lawmaking body to
regulate.
o Stone v. Mississippi: the government has the right to revoke franchise for the
operation of a lottery if the legislature subsequently imposed a prohibition on
all kinds of gambling within the State although the term of the franchise had
not yet expired.
o Gold Clause Cases: the subject of the contract which is currency is within the
exclusive power of the legislature, hence it can be modified by the State in the
exercise of its police power.
(2)
6. Every law which deprives persons accused of crime of some lawful protection
to which they have become entitled, such as the protection of a former
conviction or acquittal, or of a proclamation of amnesty.
Characteristics
Requisites
1. refer to criminal matters
2. be retroactive in its application
3. to the prejudice of the accused
56.
o Republic v. Fernandez: ex post facto law applies only to criminal or
penal matters and not to laws which concern civil matters or proceedings
generally or which affect or regulate civil or private rights.
o Bayot v. Sandiganbayan: ex post facto law applies only to punitive and
not those merely preventive.
- does not apply to habeas corpus proceedings as well as to the
proclamation suspending the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus
o U.S v. Gomez Coronel: amendatory law permitting the prosecutor to initiate
the charge of adultery despite of the fact that prosecution could be commenced
only on complaint of the offended spouse at the time of the alleged commission
of the offense is an ex post facto.
o P v. Vilo: Exception- if the amendment is merely procedural in nature
-does not apply if it does not operate to the disadvantage of the accused
o P v. Ferrer: Anti-Subversion Act must be applied only to acts committed after
the approval of the said Act.
o Rodriguez v. Sandiganbayan: PD 1606 is not an ex post facto law;
Rationale- its disadvantage or inconvenience was only limited and
unsubstantial
o Katigbak v. Solicitor General: penalty of forfeiture prescribed by R.A No.
1379 cannot be applied to acquisitions made prior to its passage without
running afoul of the Constitutional provision condemning ex post facto laws or
bills of attainder.
57.
Bill of Attainder
o Ferrer Case: if a statute is a bill of attainder, it is also an ex post facto law but if it
is not an ex post facto law, the reasons that establish that it is not are persuasive
that it cannot be a bill of attainder.
58.
(1)
Characteristics
59.
-legislative act that applies either to named individuals or to
easily ascertainable members of a group in such a way to inflict punishment without a
judicial trial, its essence being the substitution of legislative fiat for a judicial
determination of guilt
60.
61.
Note: punishment is a prerequisite
62.
o U.S v. Lovett: Section 304- the punishment of named individuals without judicial
trial.
o Garner v. Board of Public Works of Los Angeles: it is an agency of the State
from inquiring its employees as to matters that may prove relevant to their fitness
and suitability for the public service; Rationale- past conduct may well relate to
present fitness, past loyalty may have a reasonable relationship to present and
future trust
63.
64.
Question to consider: Whether legislative action curtailing a
privilege previously enjoyed amounts to punishment depends upon circumstances
attending and the causes of deprivation.
65.
66.
Chapter 16
67.
Non-Imprisonment for Debt
68.
69.
Debt- refers to any civil obligation arising from contract, expressed or
implied.
o Gabaway v. Quillen: it includes even debts obtained through fraud; civil actionremedy for recovery of unpaid debt; Rationale- the obligation to pay arises ex
contractu, it is considered a private matter between the creditor and debtor and
the punitive arm of the State cannot be employed in a criminal action to enforce
ones right.
o Serafin v. Lindayag: a warrant for the arrest of defendant due to his failure to
pay debt in spite of due notice is violative of the prohibition against imprisonment
for debt.
o Sura v. Martin: failure to pay past and future support should not be in effect to
authorize imprisonment for debt.
70.
71.
Crime
72.
General Rule: a debtor cannot be imprisoned for his failure to pay his
debt.
73.
Exception: he can be validly punished in a criminal action if he
contracted his debt through fraud; Rationale- his obligation does not arises ex
contractu, instead ex delicto
o Lozano Case: BP 22- punishes the act of making and issuing a worthless check or
a check that is dishonored upon its presentation of payment; Rationale- issuing
bouncing checks is an offense against public disorder.
o P v. Merillo: a law requiring employers to pay the salaries of their employees at
least once every two weeks and providing that failure to do so shall constitute
evidence of fraud is valid; Rationale- what is being punished is the fraud or deceit
of the employer who, being able to make payment shall abstain or refuse to do so
without justification.
suspension of a civil servant due to failure to pay a just and admitted debt is
valid; Rationale- it is an administrative sanction
74.
75.
Poll Tax
General Rule: failure to pay a tax is punishable with imprisonment;
Rationale- it is not a debt but arises from the obligation of the person to
contribute his share in the maintenance of the government
Exception: failure to pay a poll tax- specific fixed sum levied upon every
person belonging to a certain class without regard to his property or
occupation
76.
77.
Chapter 17
78.
Involuntary Servitude
79.
80.
(Article III, Sec. 18)
81.
82.
Definition
the condition of one who is compelled by force, coercion, or imprisonment, and
against his will, to labor for another, whether he is paid or not
slavery- civil relation in which one man has absolute power over life, fortune and
liberty of another
peonage- a condition of enforce servitude by which the servitor is restrained of his
liberty and compelled to labor in liquidation of some debt or obligation, real or
pretended, against her will.
83.
84.
General Rule: restraint of the individual so he can be compelled to
work for another, be it the government or private party, violates the constitutional
guaranty.
85.
Exceptions
1. punishment for a crime whereof the party has been duly convicted
2. General Rule- a person may not be compelled to accept a public appointive
office; Exception- if the position is intended for the defense of the State (Art.
II, Sec. 4)
86.
Examples:
a.
P v. Zosa: able-bodied 21-year old males to undergo military training
in preparation for their duty to defend the State
b. Robertson v. Baldwin: naval enlistment
c.
U.S v. Pompeya: service under the posse comitatus for the
apprehension of criminals; the authorities might command all the male
inhabitants of a certain age to assist them; Rationale- police power
3. Kaisahan ng Manggagawa sa Kahoy v. Gotamco Sawmills: striking
workers in industries affected with public interest; Rationale- to prevent
disruption, to the detriment of the public, of essential services being
performed by the strikers
4. unemancipated minors come under the patria potest; Rationale- they are
obliged to obey their parents so long as they are under parental power, and
to observe respect and reverence toward them always
87.
88.
Application
89.
There is involuntary servitude in the following:
o Caunca v. Salazar: a housemaid who was being detained and required to render
domestic services in payment for the money advanced for her transportation from
the province.
o RPC- anyone who would compelled a debtor to work for him as a household
servant or farm laborer as a payment of a debt
o Pallock v. Williams: any person who receives an advance payment as a promise
to perform some work
90.
91.
Chapter 18
92.
The Writ of Habeas Corpus
93.
prerogative writ of liberty employed to test the validity of a persons detention
may be filed by a person restrained of his liberty to secure his release
directed to the person detaining another, commanding him to produce the body
of the prisoner at a designated time and place, with the day and cause of his
caption and detention, to do, to submit to, and receive whatever the court or
judge awarding the writ shall consider in his behalf
94.
95.
When Available
1. where he is subjected to physical restrain, eg. arbitrary detention
2. moral restraint
3. if a prisoner is convicted by a court without jurisdiction or where his sentence has
become invalid
4. if a person sentenced to a longer penalty than that subsequently meted out to
another person convicted of the same offense
5. may be resorted in case of unlawful denial of bail
6. if the error alleged denies the right to a speedy trial
ordinary appeal- if the decision is tainted with only errors of law
96.
97.
Procedure
it is not the writ itself but its privilege that may be suspended
1. an application for habeas corpus is filed
2. if the court finds the petition in proper form, it will issue the writ as a matter
98.
The court will:
a) order the production of the person allegedly detained
b) require the respondent to justify the detention
99.
The court will dismiss the petition if:
a) the return of the respondent shows that the person in custody is being held for
a crime covered by the proclamation suspending the privilege of the writ of
habeas corpus; and
b) in a place where it is effective
General Rule: the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus may not be suspended
and the individual shall be entitled to the full protection of the writ against any
attempt to restrain him.
Exception: 1) invasion, 2) rebellion, 3) when the public safety requires it
100.
101.
102.
Grounds for Suspension
103.
General Rule: the President is entrusted the power to suspend the
privilege of the writ of habeas corpus.
104.
Exception: it may be revoked by the Congress or the SC in proper
cases (Art. VII, Sec. 18)
o Montenegro v. Castaneda: imminent danger of insurrection or rebellion is a valid
ground of suspension of writ of habeas corpus.
o Barcelon v. Baker: the determination by the President of the Philippines of the
existence of any of the grounds prescribed by the Constitution for the suspension f
the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus should be conclusive upon the courts;
Rationale- the President, with all the intelligence sources available to him as
commander-in-chief, was in a better position than the SC to ascertain the real state
of peace and order in the country.
o abandoned in Lansang v. Garcia: the SC had the power to inquire into the factual
basis of the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus if no legal
ground could be established.
115.
2)
The
presumption
that
official duty has been
validly
performed
applies in favor of the
respondent.
life,
liberty
security
of
desaparacido.
and
the
116.
2) The courts
can
order
the
respondent to exert
more and actual effort
in locating the missing
person and showing
that he is in good
condition and has not
been maltreated by
the authorities.
requiring
the
respondent
to
produce
the
necessary information
to locate the missing
persons or such data
about him that have
been
gathered
in
secret to support the
suspicion that he has
been
taken
into
custody in violation of
his
constitutional
rights or, worse has
been
salvaged
without
benefit
of
lawful trial.
117.
2) It may also
be sought to secure
destruction of such
secret
information
gathered in violation
of the persons right
to privacy to justify
summary
action
against him by the
government or any
private entity.
118.
119.
Chapter 19
120.
Speedy Disposition of Cases
121.
(see Art. III, Sec. 14 and 16); Rationale- justice delayed is justice denied
122.
123.
124.
Article VIII, Section 5(3)- the SC is now expressly permitted to
temporarily assign a judge from one station to another when the public interest so
requires; par. 5- the Rules of Court to be promulgated by the SC shall provide for
the speedy disposition of cases; Sec. 15- submission for decision: SC- 24 months,
lower collegiate courts- 12 months, other lower courts- 3 months
125.
126.
if the period expires- state the reason for failure to submit such
resolution or decision; the Court will still continue to decide or resolve the case
despite its expiration
127.
128.
Chapter 20
129.
Rights of the Accused
130.
131.
I. Criminal Due Process (Art. III, Sec. 14)- restricted to criminal cases only
and purely to their procedural requirements.
133.
II. Self- Incrimination (Art. III, Sec. 17)
134.
Characteristics
a) Humanitarian- it is intended to prevent the State, with all its coercive powers,
from extracting from the suspect testimony that may convict him.
b) Practical- a person is subjected to such compulsion is likely to perjure himself for
his own protection
c) available not only in criminal prosecutions but also in all other government
proceedings, including civil actions and administrative or legislative investigations
d) may be claimed not only by the person accused of an offense but by any witness
to whom an incriminating question is addressed
(1) Scope
General Rule: if the question will tend to incriminate, the witness is
entitled to the privilege.
Exceptions: a) if the question is relevant and otherwise allowed even if
the answer may tend to embarrass him or subject him to civil liability, b) if
the question asked relates to a past criminality for which the witness can
no longer be prosecuted due to prescription, acquittal or conviction, c) if
he has been previously granted immunity under a validly enacted statute
against testimonial compulsion only
o U.S v. Tan Teng: a person may be compelled to submit to a physical examination of
his body to determine his involvement in an offense which he is accused, i.e if he
transmitted the gonorrhea of the victim
o Villaflor v. Summers: to determine if a woman accused of adultery is pregnant
o Holt v. U.S: Justice Holmes- the prohibition compelling a man in a criminal court to
be a witness against himself is a prohibition of the use of physical or moral compulsion
to extort communications from him, not an exclusion of his body as evidence when it
may be material
General Rule: the prohibition applies to the compulsion for the
production of documents, papers and chattels that may be used as
evidence against the witness
Exception: if the State has the right to inspect the same, such as the
books of corporations, under the police power
o Beltran v. Samson: the privilege also protects the accused against any attempt to
compel him to furnish a specimen of his handwriting in connection with his prosecution
for falsification
(2) When Available
General Rule: a witness may invoke the privilege against selfincrimination only when and as the