CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II (BILL OF

RIGHTS)
UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS
Working Syllabus
Atty. Paula Bianca C. Bayon

City of Manila vs. Laguio, Jr., 455 SCRA

308(2005);
Property Rights v. Fundamental Rights
White Light Corporation vs. City of Manila,
576 SCRA 416(2009)

1st Semester SY 2016-2017

paula.bayon@yahoo.com.sg

Void-for-Vagueness Rule
P. v. Siton, 600 SCRA 476 (2009)
II. BILL OF RIGHTS

I. INTRO: POLICE POWER

A. Definition
Ermita-Malate Hotel & Motel Operators Assn.
V. Mayor of Manila L-24693, 7/31/67

General Coverage
Rubi v. Provincial Board (1919)
Ortigas and Co., Limited Partnership v. Feati
Bank and Trust Co. (1979)
Ichong v. Hernandez, 101 Phil 1155
Noble State Bank v. Haskell, 219 U.S. 412
PNB v. Office of the President (1996)

B. DUE PROCESS
SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS
With Violation:
Ynot v. IAC, 148 SCRA 659 (1987)
People v. Fajardo, 100 Phil 443 (1958)
Balacuit v. CFI, 163 SCRA 182 (1988)
Traffic Command v. Gonong, 7/13/90

Churchill v. Rafferty, 32 Phil 580

Binay v. Domingo, 9/11/91
Lutz v. Araneta, 98 Phil 148
Association of Small Landowners v. Sec. ,
7/14/89
Cruz v. Paras, 123 SCRA 569
PASEI v. Sec Drilon, 163 SCRA 386
OSMENA v. COMELEC, 3/31/98 (RA 6646)

Without Violation:
US vs. Toribio, 15 Phil 85 (1910)
Ichong v. Hernandez, 101 Phil 1155
Layno v. Sandigan, 136 SCRA 536

C. Test of Reasonability

Publication Requirement
Tanada v. Tuvera, GR 63915, 12/29/86

US v. Toribio, 15 Phil 85
Lawful subject
Taxicab Operators v. BOT, 119 SCRA 597
Velasco v. Villegas, 120 SCRA 568
Bautista v. Juinio, 127 SCRA 597
Lozano v. Martinez, 146 SRA 323
DECS v. San Diego, 180 SCRA 533
Sangalang v. IAC, GR. 71169
Del Rosario v. Bengson, 180 SCRA 521

PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS

In General
Cojuangco v. PCGG, 10/2/90
People v. Alcantara, 240 SCRA 122
Alonte v. Savellano, 287 SCRA 245
Marcos v. Sandigan, 10/6/98
Govt. of USA v. Purganan, GR No. 148571,
9/29/02

Lawful means
Planters Products v. Fertiphil Corp. (2008)
Ynot v. IAC, 148 SCRA 659
People v. Chan, 65 Phil 611
City Govt. V. Ericta, 122 SCRA 759
NIDC v. PVB, 12/10/90
the

Philippines

Before Judicial Bodies

Requisites
Banco Espanol v. Palanca, 37 Phil. 921

v.

General Welfare v. Property Rights

Carlos Superdrug Corporation v. DSWC et al.
(2007)
Public Safety
Agustin v. Edu, (1979)

A. Concepts:
Due Process
Life, Liberty, Property
Equal Protection

B. Scope and Limitations

Morfe v. Mutuc (1968)

Miners Association of
Factoran (1995)

Section 1. No person shall be deprived of

life, liberty or property or property without
due process of law, nor shall any person be
denied the equal protection of the laws.

Impartial and competent court

Paderanga v. Azura, 136 SCRA 266
People v. CA, 262 SCRA 452
People v. Adora, 275 SCRA 441
Webb vs. People, 276 SCRA 243
People v. Teehankee, 249 SCRA 54
Not Impartial
Javier v. Comelec, 144 SCRA 194
Galman v. Sandigan, 144 SCRA 43
Tabuena v. Sandigan, 268 SCRA 332 [1997]

People V. Opida, 142 SCRA 295

Lupo v. AAD 190 SCRA 69

7.

Jurisdiction
Banco Espanol, supra
Rabino v. Cruz, 222 SCRA 493
Lawful Hearing
David v. Aguilizan, 94 SCRA 707
Pagasian v. Azura, 184 SCRA 391
People v. Beriales, 70 SCRA 361
Lorenzana v. Cayetano, 78 SCRA 485
Surea v. Juntereal, 84 SCRA 5
Combate v. San Jose, 135 SCRA 693
No Denial Lost Opportunity
Sequin v. People, 3/13/89
DBP/APT v. CA, 1/29/99
Amil v. CA, 10/7/99
Valid judgment - Appeal
DIONA v. BALANGUE, GR 173559, 07 Jan.
2013.
DUE PROCESS - ADMINISTRATIVE BODIES
Fabella v. CA, 283 SCRA 256 [1997]
REQUIREMENTS:
ANG TIBAY V. CIR, 69 PHIL. 635
1.

Right to a hearing which includes

the right to present one's case and
submit evidence in support thereof.
Alliance of Democratic Free Labor Org. v.
Laguesma, 254 SCRA 565;
Office of the Court Administrator v.
Pascual, 259 SCRA 604;
Go v. Napolcom, 271 SCRA 447

2. The
tribunal
must
consider
the
evidence presented.
Baguio Country Club v. NLRC, 119 SCRA
557; Planters Products v. NLRC, 1/20/89
3.

The decision must have something

to support itself

4. The evidence must be substantial and

substantial
evidence
means
such
evidence as a reasonable mind must
accept as adequate to support a
conclusion
5. The decision must be based on the
evidence presented at the hearing; or
at least contained in the records and
disclosed to the parties affected.
Go v. Napolcom, 271 SCRA 447
6. The tribunal or body or any of its judges
must act on its own or his own
independent consideration of the law
and the facts of the controversy and not
simply accept the views of a subordinate.

The board or body should in all

controversial
questions, render its decision in such
manner that the parties to the proceeding
can know the various issues involved, and the
reason for the decision rendered.
Specific Cases
SERRANO vs. NLRC, 323 SCRA 445
De Leon v. NLRC, 100 SCRA 691
Berina v. PMI, 117 SCRA 581
Guzman v. NU, 142 SCRA 699
Mabuhay Textile v. Ongpin, 2/28/86
Gonzales v. CSC, 9/2/93
Necessity of Actual Hearing
Ong v. Parel, 156 SCRA 768
Var Orient v. Achacoso, 161 SCRA 732
St. Marys College v. NLRC, 181 SCRA 62
Board of Regents v. Telan, 10/21/93
Joson v. Exec. Sec. , 5/20/98
ALU v. NLRC, 9/29/90
Simpao v. CSC, 11/15/90
Valderama v. Drilon, 181 SCRA 308
Additional
Phil. Consumer v. Sec. of DECS, 153 SCRA
622
Padua vs. Ranada, GR no. 141949, 10/14/02.
PHILCOMSAT v. Alcuaz, 180 SCRA 218 (1989)
Zambales Chromite v. CA, 94 SCRA 261
In re: Atty. Asoy, 152 SCRA 45
Yu v. Santiago, 169 SCRA 364
Mendoza v. NHA, 111 SCRA 637
Sumulong v. Guerrero, 154 SCRA 461
Lumiqued vs. Exenea, 11/18/97
Alba v. Nitorreda, 254 SCRA 75
ROXAS vs. VASQUEZ, GR No. 114944,
5/29/02)
CSC V. LUCAS, 301 SCRA 560
ROXAS & CO. v. CA, 12/17/99
GOVERNMENT OF USA vs. HON. PURGANAN,
GR No. 148571, Sept. 24, 2002
C. EQUAL PROTECTION
Requirements VALID CLASSIFICATION
1. It must be based upon substantial
distinctions
No valid distinctions
Villegas v. Hiu Chiong, 86 SCRA 270
People v. Vera, 65 Phil. 56
Gumabon v. Director, 37 SCRA 420
PJA v. Pardo, 11/11/93
Chavez v. SANDIGAN, 12/9/98
BIRAOGO v. Phil Truth Commission, 637
SCRA 78 (2010)
Valid Distinctions

People v. Cayat, 68 Phil 12

Sison v. Ancheta, 130 SCRA 654
Dumlao v. Comelec, 95 SCRA 392
Nunez v. Sandigan, 111 SCRA 433
Taxicab Operators v. BOT, 117 SCRA 597
PASEI v. Drilon, 6/30/88
Bautista v. Juinio, 127 SCRA 329
Sison v. Ancheta, 130 SCRA 654
Himagan v. People, GR 113811 10/7/94
Tiu v. CA, 301 SCRA 278
Aguinaldo v. Comelec, 308 SCRA 770
TELEBAP v. Comelec, 289 SCRA 337
Farinas v. Exec. Sec., 417 SCRA 503
(2003) Quinto v. Comelec, 613 SCRA 385
(2010)
Relative constitutionality
Central Bank Employees Association, Inc.
vs. Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas, 446 SCRA
299(2004)
Imbong v. Ochoa
2. It must be germane to the purpose of the
law
3. It must not be limited to existing
conditions only. Ormoc Sugar v. City of
Ormoc, 22 SCRA 603
4. It must apply equally to all members of the
class
Marcos v. CA, 9/5/97
Nolasco v. Comelec, 275 SCRA 762
Regala v. Sandigan, 262 SCRA 122
Others
Olivarez v. Sandigan, 248 SCRA 700
Soriano v. CA, 304 SCRA 231

Section 2. The right of the people to be

secure in their persons, houses, papers, and
effects against unreasonable searches and
seizures of whatever nature and for any
purpose shall be inviolable, and no search
warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except
upon probable cause to be determined
personally by the judge after examination
under oath or affirmation of the complainant
and the witnesses he may produce, and
particularly describing the place to be
searched and the persons or things to be
seized.
Section 3. (1) The privacy of communication
and correspondence shall be inviolable
except upon lawful order of the court, or
when public safety or order requires
otherwise as prescribed by law.
(2) Any evidence obtained in
violation of this or the preceding section shall
be inadmissible for any purpose in any
proceeding.

A. EXTENT - to protect the privacy and

sanctity of the person, his/her home,
possessions against arbitrary invasion or
intrusion by the state, and extends to all
persons, natural or juridical.
Rule: Searches and Arrests without warrant
are presumed unreasonable and that all
unreasonable searches/arrests are illegal.
B. WARRANTS - REQUISITES
Probable Cause
NALA vs. Judge Barroso, Jr., GR No. 153087,
Aug. 7, 2003
Probable cause requires that in offenses
involving a negative ingredient (like illegal
possession of firearms), the best proof
obtainable (certification of lack of license)
must be presented to support the issuance of
the warrant.
Search
When is there a search? P. V. BOLASA,
12/22/99
Stonehill vs. Diokno, 20 SCRA 383Bache vs. Ruiz, 37 SCRA 823Viduya vs. Berdiago, 73 SCRA 553
Sec. Vs. Marcos, 76 SCRA 301
Columbia Pictures, Inc. vs. CA.,261 SCRA 944
Geronimo vs. Ramos, 136 SCRA 435
Probable cause must be
personally by the judge

determined

Soliven vs. Makasiar, 167 SCRA 393Mata vs. Bayona, 128 SCRA 388.
Amarga vs. Abbas, 98 Phil. 739
Placer vs. Villanueva, 126 SCRA 463
People vs. Inting, 187 SCRA 788
Lim vs. Felix, 2/19/91
Roberts v. CA., 3/5/96Ho vs. People/Sandigan, 10/9/97
Reyes v. Montessa, 247 SCRA 85.
Co vs. Republic, 539 SCRA 147(2007)]
The determination must be made after
examination under oath or affirmation of the
complainant and the witnesses he may
produce
Examination of witnesses
Bache vs. Ruiz, 37 SCRA 823;
Castro vs. Pabalan, 70 SCRA 477;
Luna vs. Plaza, 26 SCRA 313;

Marinas vs. Siochi, 104 SCRA 423

Prudente vs. Dayrit, 12/14/89 ;
Pendon vs. CA, 11/16/90
Silva vs. Presiding Judge, 10/21/91
Alvarez vs. CFI, 64 Phil. 33
Quintero vs. NBI, 162 SCRA 467.
Issuance of warrant of arrest in extradition
proceedings.
Govt. of USA v. Purganan, GR 148571,
9/24/02
It must particularly describe the place to be
searched and the persons or things to be
seized.
Description of the place to be search:
Cupcupin vs. People, GR 132389, 11/19/02)
No Descriptio Personae
People vs. Veloso, 48 Phil 169
Pangandaman v. Caesar, 159 SCRA 599.
General warrants/ Roving
Stonehill vs. Diokno, supra
Burgos vs. Chief of Staff
Bache vs. Ruiz, 37 SCRA 823
20th Century Fox Films vs. CA,
PICOP v. Asuncion, 307 SCRA 253
Columbia Pictures v. Flores, 223 SCRA 761
Kho v. Makalintal, 306 SCRA 70
Columbia Pictures vs. CA., 262 SCRA 219
C. WARRANTLESS SEARCHES AND
SEISURES
People v. Burgos, 144 SCRA 1, 9/4/86
P. V. Cuison, 4/18/96
Chambers v. Maroney, 399 US 42
WARRANTLESS SEARCH
1. SEARCH incidental to a valid arrest
Valid
Moreno vs. Ago Chi, 12 Phil 439People vs. Malmstedt, 6/19/91
People vs. Claudio, 160 SCRA 646
People vs. Tangliben, 184 SCRA 229
(4/6/90)
People v. Figueroa, 248 SCRA 679
Padilla vs. CA/People, 3/12/97
COURT ADM. v. BARRON, AM RTJ 981420, 10/8/98; PEOPLE V. VALDEZ, 304
SCRA 140; OBRA v. CA, 10/28/99
Not valid
Luz v. People, 667 SCRA 421, citing
Knowles v. IOWA, 525 US 113 (1998)
People vs. Aminnudin, 163 SCRA 402
People v. Encinada, GR No. 116720
10/21/97
Search must be in the place of arrest:
Nolasco v. Pano, 147 SCRA 509
Search must be in the premises within
his reach: P. V. Santos, 236 SCRA 689.

Within his immediate control:

P. V. Musa, 217 SCRA (586 citing Chimel
v. State of CA, 395 US 752[1969]
People v. Leangsiri, 252 SCA 21
ESPANO V. CA, 288 SCRA 558
But see: P. vs. Cuenco, 11/16/98
Valeroso vs. Court of Appeals, 598 SCRA
41(2009)
2. MOVING VEHICLES
Carrol vs. US, 267 US 132
People vs. Malmstedt, supra
People vs. Bagista, 214 SCRA 63
People vs. Lo Ho Wing, 2/21/91
People v. Balingan, 241 SCRA 277
People v. Que, 265 SCRA 721
Caballes vs. CA, 373 SCRA 221
3. Enforcement of CUSTOMS and TARIFF
laws
Papa vs. Mago, 22 SCRA 857
4. EVIDENCE IN PLAIN VIEW
Harris vs. US, 390 US 23
People vs. Musa, 217 SCRA 597
Requisites:
1) Prior valid intrusion;
2) Evidence inadvertently discovered;
3) Evidence immediately apparent;
4) Plain view justified seizure without
further search.
P. v. Figueroa, 248 SCRA 679;
P. v. Que Ming Kha, GR 133265, 5/29/02;
P v. Rondero, 320 SCRA 383 (1999)
5. WAIVER
Valid
P. Vs. Tabar, 222 SCRA 144
P. V. Ramos, 222 SCRA 557
P. V. Cruz, 165 SCRA 134
Lopez vs. Commissioner of Customs,
68 SCRA 320
People vs. Asis, GR 1425331,
10/15/02
Limited consent: Veroy vs. Layague,
210 SCRA 97People vs. Sotto, 275 SCRA 191
People vs. Lising, 275 SCRA 804
People vs. Laserna, GR No. 109250,
9/5/97
P. v. MONTILLA 284 SCRA 703
P. v. CORREA, 285 SCRA 679
Not Valid
De Garcia vs. Locsin, 65 Phil 689
People v. Encinada, GR No. 116720
10/2/97
P. v. CHUA HO SAN, 308 SCRA 432

P. v. ARUTA, 288 SCRA 626

6. STOP & FRISK
TERRY V. OHIO, 392 US 1
Posadas vs. CA, 188 SCRA 288 (1990)
People v. Mengote, GR No. 87059 6/22/92
People v. Solayao, 262 SCRA 255
Manalili vs. CA., GR No. 113447, 10/9/97
Malacat vs. CA., GR No. 123595, 12/12/97
Valdez v. People, 538 SCRA 611 (2007)
7.

AIRPORT SEARCHES
People vs. Gatward, 267 SCRA 785
People vs. CANTON, 179 SCAD 585, (2002)
Exigent circumstances:
P. v. De Gracia, 7/6/94 233 SCRA 716 (1994)
Limited search
Checkpoints: Valmonte vs. De Villa, 9/29/89
Valid
People vs. Exala, 221 SCRA 494
Posadas vs. CA, 188 SCRA 288
Not Valid
Aniag vs. Comelec
Warrantless search or seizures may be
justified in case of:
a. Danger, physical harm to the officer
b. Destruction of evidence
c. Danger to third persons
d. Driving while intoxicated
e. Searches in hot pursuit
People v. Hernandez, 12/21/94
WARRANTLESS ARREST
Sec. 5, Rule 113- When lawful.
A peace officer or a private person may,
without a warrant, arrest a person:
(a) When, in his presence, the person to be
arrested
has
committed,
is
actually
committing, or is attempting to commit an
offense;
(b) When an offense has just been committed
and he has probable cause to believe based
on
personal
knowledge
of
facts
or
circumstances that the person to be arrested
has committed it; and
(c) When the person to be arrested is a
prisoner who has escaped from a penal
establishment or place where he is serving
final judgment or is temporarily confined
while his case is pending, or has escaped
while being transferred from one confinement
to another.
People vs. Dela Cruz, 4/18/90
People vs. Maspil, 8/20/90 (compare with
Amminudin case)
People vs. Sucro, 3/18/91
Espiritu vs. Gen. Lim, 10/3/91 (see dissents)
Cayao v. Del Mundo, 9/15/93

People
People
People
People
People

vs. Enrile, 222 SCRA 586

v. Monda, 11/22/93
v. Burgos, 144 SCRA 1
v. Castiller, 188 SCRA 376
v. Cendana, 190 SCRA 538

Recent Commission of a Crime

Umil v. Ramos, 202 SCRA 251 [1991]
Padilla vs. CA/People, 3/12/97People vs. alok, 266 SCRA 154
People vs. Sinoc, 275 SCRA 357
People vs. Jayson, GR No. 120330, 11/18/97
Three hours People vs. GERENTE, 219 SCRA
756
People vs. Vinalon, 384 SCRA 623 (2002)
Not recent
One day- P. V. Del Rosario, 305 SCRA 740
Void - Not committing a crime
People vs. Cuizon, 256 SCRa 325
Malacat vs. People, 12/15/97
P. vs. Chua Ho San, 305 SCRA 433
P. vs. Bansil, 304 SCRA 432 (eating halo-halo
No personal knowledge of arresting officers
People vs. Sequino, 264 SCRA 79
People vs. Mahusay, GR No. 91483 11/18/97
People vs. Doria, 301 SCRA 668
Continuing Offenses
Garcia Padilla vs. Enrile, 121 SCRA 472
Umil vs. Ramos, 136 SCRA 435
Hot pursuit arrest
People vs. Recepcion, 391 SCRA 558 (2002)
Non-judicial officers cannot issue warrant
Commissioner of immigration- Moreno v. Vivo,
20 SCRA 562- order of deportation
Harvey vs. Santiago, 6/26/88 (compare with
Moreno case);
Fiscal-Lim vs. Ponce DeLeon, 66 SCRA 299
Sec. of Labor- Salazar vs. Achacoso, 3/14/90Sec. of Finance- Pres. Task Force vs. CA., 171
SCRA 348
PCGG- Republic vs. Sandiganbayan, 255
SCRA 438
Under what circumstance may the president
issue orders of arrest? May they be the
subject of judicial review?
Moyer v. Peabody, 212 US 78 (1909)
Garcia-Padilla v. Enrile, GR 61388, 4/20/83
Morales v. Enrile, GR 61016, 4/26/83
Additional
Rizal Alih vs. Castro, 6/23/87
MHP vs. CA, 236 SCRA 227
C. PROPERTIES SUBJECT TO SEIZURE
Rule 126 , Sec. 2
Proceeds/fruits of the crime
Means in the commission of the crime
Item/s not indicated in the search warrant
cannot be seized
Tambasen v. People, 246 SCRA 184
Disposition of illegally seized properties

a. Subject to return: Uykhetin vs.

Villareal, 42 Phil 886
b. Pending determination, firearms
remain in custodia legis: Roan vs.
Gonzales, 145 SCRA 687; Alih vs.
Castro, supra.

c. Must be returned even if intended

to be used by the prosecution.
Bagalihog v. Fernandez 6/27/91
P. v. Dichoso, 223 SCRA 714