Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
2 | Page
3 | Page
as good as, but not better than, the position he was in before the taking occurred. (Bersamin,
J.)
8. Apo Fruits Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, 607 SCRA 200, G.R. No. 164195 December
4, 2009: The taking of property under CARL is an exercise by the State of the power of
eminent domain. A basic limitation on the States power of eminent domain is the
constitutional directive that private property shall not be taken for public use without just
compensation. Just compensation refers to the sum equivalent to the market value of the
property, broadly described to be the price fixed by the seller in open market in the usual and
ordinary course of legal action and competition, or the fair value of the property as between
one who receives and one who desires to sell. It is fixed at the time of the actual taking by the
State. Thus, if property is taken for public use before compensation is deposited with the
court having jurisdiction over the case, the final compensation must include interests on its
just value, to be computed from the time the property is taken up to the time when
compensation is actually paid or deposited with the court.
9. vda De Ouano vs. Republic [G.R. No. 168770, 2011]: In expropriation, the private owner
is deprived of property against his will; due process ought to be strictly followed. Public
use as an eminent domain concept, has now acquired an expansive meaning to include
any use that is of usefulness, utility or advantage or what is productive of general
benefit (of the public). (Velasco, J.)
NOTE that: Expropriation is one of the harshest proceedings which the state has against a
private party because it deprives the party of perpetual use of his property; requisites, how
just compensation is determined; relate to the Bill of Rights.
3. Power of Taxation
Definition: Taxation is the power by which the State raises to defray the necessary expenses
of the Government. It is the enforced proportional contributions from persons and
property, levied by the State by virtue of its sovereignty, for the support of the government
and for all public needs.
Under the lifeblood theory, taxes are imposed (1) To raise revenue
(2) As a tool for regulation
(3) To serve as protection of states interest/power to keep alive
Scope and Limitations
(1) Power to tax exists for the general welfare; should be exercised only for a public purpose.
(2) Imposition might be justified as for public purpose even if the immediate beneficiaries are
private individuals.
(3) Tax should not be confiscatory: If a tax measure is so unconscionable as to amount to
confiscation of property, the Court will invalidate it. But invalidating a tax measure must
be exercised with utmost caution, otherwise, the States power to legislate for the public
welfare might be seriously curtailed.
(4) Uniformity of taxation
General Rule: The power to tax operates with the same force and effect in every place
where the subject of it is found. This is known as geographical uniformity.
Exception: The rule on uniformity does not prohibit classification for purposes of taxation,
provided the requisites for valid classification are met. [Ormoc Sugar v. Treasurer of
Ormoc (1968)]
(5) Taxes must be equitable
As a general rule, taxes should be apportioned among the people according to their
ability to pay.
6 | Page
A law hears before it condemns, which proceeds upon inquiry and renders judgment only
after trial. [Darthmouth College v. Woodward, 4 Wheaton 518]
REQUISITES OF DUE PROCESS
Due process of law means simply that (1) There shall be a law prescribed in harmony with the general powers of the legislative
department of the Government;
(2) This law shall be reasonable in its operation;
(3) It shall be enforced according to the regular methods of procedure prescribed; and
(4) It shall be applicable alike to all the citizens of the state or to all of a class. [ Rubi v.
Provincial Board of Mindoro (1919)]
SCOPE OF DUE PROCESS
Procedural Due Process
Procedural due process is that aspect of due process which serves as a restriction on actions
of judicial and quasi-judicial agencies of the government. It refers to the method or manner
by which a law is enforced.
Substantive Due Process
Substantive due process, asks whether the government has an adequate reason for taking
away a persons life, liberty, or property. [City of Manila v. Laguio (2005)]
Publication of laws is part of substantive due process. It is a rule of law that before a person
may be bound by law, he must be officially and specifically informed of its contents. For the
publication requirement, laws refer to all statutes, including those of local application and
private laws. This does not cover internal regulations issued by administrative agencies,
which are governed by the Local Government Code. Publication must be full, or there is none
at all. [Taada v. Tuvera (1986)]
RELATIVITY OF DUE PROCESS
Not all situations calling for procedural safeguards call for the same kind of procedure. This
requires a reasonable degree of flexibility in the applying procedural due process. This does
not apply to substantive due process. [Secretary of Justice v. Lantion (2000)]
A determination of the precise nature of the government function involved as well as of the
private interest that has been affected by governmental action must be considered in
determining the application of the rules of procedure. [Cafeteria & Restaurant Workers
Union v. McElroy (1961].
To say that the concept of due process is flexible does not mean that judges are at large to
apply it to any and all relationships. Its flexibility is in its scope once it has been determined
that some process is due; it is a recognition that not all situations calling for procedural
safeguards call for the same kind of procedure. [Morrissey v. Brewer (1972)]
1. Notice of rules by publication as a prerequisite/ Notice to Party
Tanada v. Tuvera, 136 SCRA 27(Decision); 146 SCRA 446 (Resolution)
Hon. Corona v. United Harbor Pilots, G.R. No. 111953 December 12, 1997
2. Procedural Due Process
a. Due process in administrative proceedings
Requisites: Mayor Abraham Tolentino v. COMELEC, et al., G.R. Nos. 187958,
187961 and 187962, April 7, 2010, Pay attention to the cardinal rules of due process
in administrative proceedings.
SPO 1 Acuzar v. Jorolan and Hon. Apresa, PLEB, G.R. No. 177878, April 7, 2010
Dr, Fernando A. Melendres, Executive Director of Lung Center of the Philippines v.
Presidential Anti- Graft Commission, et al. . G.R. No. 163859, August 15, 2012
Effect of waiver/estoppel: The Heirs of Jolly Bugarin v. Republic, G.R. No. 174431,
August 6, 2012
Right to Counsel:
9 | Page
12 | P a g e
A governmental purpose may not be achieved by means which sweep unnecessarily broadly
and thereby invade the area of protected freedoms.
Cases:
1. Chavez v. Gonzalez, 545 SCRA 441 (2008)
2. Disini, Jr. v. Secretary of Justice, 716 SCRA 2014 and 723 SCRA 109
(2014)
3. Osmea v. Commission on Elections, 288 SCRA 447 (1998)
4. Social Weather Stations, Incorporated v. Commission on Elections, 357
SCRA 496 (2001)
5. GMA Network, Inc. v. Commission on Elections, 734 SCRA 88 (2014)
6. Diocese of Bacolod v. Commission on Elections, 747 SCRA 1 (2015)
7. 1-United Transport Koalisyon (1-Utak) v. Commission on Elections, 755
SCRA 441 (2015)
8. Social Weather Stations, Inc. v. Commission on Elections, 755 SCRA 124
(2015)
9. Southern Hemisphere Engagement Network, Inc. v. Anti-Terrorism
Council,
632 SCRA 146 (2010)
10. Pharmaceutical and Health Care Association of the Philippines v.
Duque III 535 SCRA 265 (2007) {Read Separate Opinion of C.J. Puno}
11. Bayan v. Ermita, 488 SCRA 226 (2006
12. Integrated Bar of the Philippines v. Atienza, Jr., 613 SCRA 518 (2010)
13. Re: Letter of the UP Law Faculty Entitled Restoring Integrity: A
Statement
by the Faculty of the University of the Philippines College of Law on the
Allegations of Plagiarism and Misrepresentation in the Supreme
Court, 644 SCRA 543 (2011)
14. Soriano vs. Laguardia [G.R. No. 164785. April 29, 2009]: Plain and simple insults to
another person cannot be elevated to the status of a religious speech. (Velasco, J.)
B. RIGHT TO INFORMATION
1. Right to Information, Article III, Section 7, Constitution
The constitutional right to information includes official information on on-going negotiations
before a final contract. The information, however, must constitute definite propositions by the
government, and should not cover recognized exceptions. [Chavez v. Philippine Estate
Authority (2002)]
Diplomatic secrets (Diplomatic Negotiations Privilege): Secrecy of negotiations with foreign
countries is not violative of the right to information. Diplomacy has a confidential nature.
While the full text [of the JPEPA] may not be kept perpetually confidential, it is in line with
the public interest that the offers exchanged during negotiations continue to be privileged
information. Furthermore, the information sought includes documents produced and
communicated by a party external to the Philippine government. However, such privilege is
merely presumptive, and will not apply to all cases. [Akbayan v. Aquino (2008)]
THE FOLLOWING ARE COVERED BY THE EXCEPTIONS:
1. Privileged information rooted in separation of powers
2. Information of military and diplomatic secrets (Neri v. Various Committees of the
Senate)
3. Information affecting national and economic security
4. Information on investigations of crimes by law enforcers before prosecution [Chavez v.
PEA and Amari, supra]
5. Trade secrets and banking transactions [Chavez v. PCGG (1998)]
14 | P a g e
[T]he principle of separation of Church and State is based on mutual respect. Generally, the
State cannot meddle in the internal affairs of the church, much less question its faith and
dogmas or dictate upon it. It cannot favor one religion and discriminate against another. On
the other hand, the church cannot impose its beliefs and convictions on the State and the rest
of the citizenry. It cannot demand that the nation follow its beliefs, even if it sincerely
believes that they are good for the country. [Imbong v. Ochoa (2014)]
Relevant provisions of the Constitution on the separation of the church and the state:
(1) Art. II, Sec. 6: The separation of Church and State shall be inviolable.
(2) Art. IX-C, Sec. 2(5): Religious denominations and sects shall not be registered [as
political parties].
(3) Art. VI, Sec. 5(2): For three consecutive terms after the ratification of this Constitution,
one-half of the seats allocated to party-list representatives shall be filled, as provided by law,
by selection or election from [] sectors as may be provided by law, except the religious
sector.
(4) Art. VI, Sec. 29(2): No public money or property shall be appropriated, applied, paid, or
employed, directly or indirectly, for the use, benefit, or support of any sect, church,
denomination, sectarian institution, or system of religion, or of any priest, preacher, minister,
other religious teacher, or dignitary as such, except when such priest, preacher, minister, or
dignitary is assigned to the armed forces, or to any penal institution, or government
orphanage or leprosarium.
4. Two Aspects of Freedom of Religion: Freedom to Believe and Freedom to Act on Ones
Beliefs
CASES:
1. Ang Ladlad LGBT Party v. Commission on Elections, 618 SCRA 32 (2010)
2. Estrada v. Escritor, 408 SCRA 1 (2003) 492 SCRA 1 (2006)
3.Taruc v. De La Cruz, 453 SCRA 123 (2005)
4. Imbong v. Ochoa (constitutionality of the RH Bill): Read only the portion on conscientious
objector in relation to freedom of religion
F. Academic Freedom
The right to academic freedom may only be invoked only against the state. All private
educational institutions may prescribe its own requirements to maintain the standard of
quality of academic quality.
Case: PTA of St. Mathew Christian Academy et al., v. Metrobank, G.R. No. 176518, March 2,
2010)
V. PHYSICAL LIBERTY: LIBERTY OF ABODE AND FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT
FREEDOM TO BE SECURE IN ONES PERSON, HOME AND POSSESSION
A. FREEDOM OF ABODE, FREEDOM TO CHANGE ABODE AND RIGHT TO
TRAVEL
1. Constitutional Guarantee under Section 6, Article III, Constitution
Freedom of movement includes two rights:
1) Liberty of abode
2) Liberty of travel
LIMITATIONS: In certain instances both the liberty of abode and right to travel may
be impaired.
Case: OCA v. Judge Ignacio B. Macarine, A.M. No. MTJ-10-1770, July 18, 2012
16 | P a g e
In interest of national security, public safety or public health and as may be provided by law,
both the freedom of abode and right to travel may be restricted.
Case: Gudani v. Senga, 498 SCRA 671 (2006)
The executive of a municipality does not have the right to force citizens of the Philippine
Islands to change their domicile from one locality to another. [Villavicencio vs. Lukban
(1919)]
The liberty to travel may be withheld upon order of the courts through the issuance of Hold
Departure Orders.
Case: Fr. Roberto P. Reyes v. Sec. Gonzales, G. R. No. 182161, December 31, 2009
Relocation of Manguinaes, a nomadic people, is a proper restraint to their liberty. It is for
their advancement in civilization and so that material prosperity may be assured. [Rubi vs.
Provincial Board (1919)]
Restraint on right to travel of accused on bail is allowed to avoid the possibility of losing
jurisdiction if accused travels abroad. [Manotoc vs. CA (1986)]
B. SEARCHES AND SEIZURES
1. Right against unreasonable searches and seizures, Article III, Sections 1, 2 and 3,
Constitution
Exclusion of Evidence: Stonehill v. Diokno, 20 SCRA 388 (1967)
People v. Belocura, G.R. No. 173474, August 29, 2012
Chain of Custody doctrine: People v. Ronaldo de Guzman, G.R. No. 186498, March 26,
2010
Confiscation of seized items despite acquittal under P.D. 969: Nogales v. People, G.R.
191080, November 21, 2011
Probable Cause: HPS Software and Communication Corp. and Yap v. PLDT, et al., G.R. No.
170217, 170694, December 10, 2012
Loss of protection of right: Sales v. People, G.R.No. 191023, February 6, 2013
2. Requisites for a valid search warrant and warrant of arrest
Cases: Yao, Sr. v. People 108 SCRA (2007)
People v. Nunes, G.R. No. 177148, June 30, 2009
3. Instances of valid warrantless arrest (Review relevant provisions of the Rules on Criminal
Procedure)
Case: Valeroso v. Court of Appeals, 598 SCRA 41 (2009)
4. Valid warrantless searches
Search incident to a valid arrest:
Cases: People v. Ngik Bun, Kwok Wai Cheng et al., G.R. No. 180452, January 10, 2011;
Buy Bust Operation People v. Buenaventura G.R. No. 184807, November 23, 2011
The Plain View Doctrine
Cases: Fajardo v. People, G.R. no. 190889, January 10, 2011
United Laboratories, Inc. v. Isip, 461 SCRA 574 (2005)
Checkpoints: Valmonte v. De Villa, 178 SCRA 211 (1989)
Stop and Frisk: People v. Dequina et al., G.R. no. 177570, January 19, 2011
Airport Search: People v. Johnson, 348 SCRA (2000)
Moving Vehicle Search: People v. Macarios, G.R. no. 188611, June 16, 2010
Consented Search: searches in school premises; access to parking areas; entry to malls
Searches by Private Entities: People v. Marti, 193 SCRA 57 (1991)
Administrative Searches: buildings, vessels, aircrafts -Pollo v. Chairperson ConstantinoDavid, et al., G.R. No. 181881, October 18, 2011
C. WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, WRIT OF AMPARO, WRIT OF HABEAS DATA,
WRIT OF KALIKASAN
17 | P a g e
1. Writ of Habeas Corpus Article III, Sections 13 and 15, 1987 Constitution
2. Function of the Writ of Habeas Corpus
Case: Villavicencio v. Lukban, 39 Phil. 778 (1919)
3. Suspension of the Writ of Habeas Corpus, Article III, Section 18, 1987 Constitution
4. Function of the Writs of Amparo [A.M. No.07-9-9-12-SC] and Habeas Data [A.M.
No.08-1- 16-SC]
Melissa C. Roxas v. President Macapagal- Arroyo, et al., G.R. No. 189155, September 7,
2010
Canlas v. Napico Homeowners Assn., Inc., 554 SCRA 208 (2008)
5. Writ of Habeas Data
Case: Viveres and Suzara v. St. Theresas College, G.R. No. 202666, September 29,2014
6. Writ of Kalikasan
Case: MMDA v. Concerned residents of Manila Bay G.R. Nos. 171947-48, December 18,
2008
VI. RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED AND OTHER RIGHTS RELATED TO CRIME AND
PUNISHMENT
A. FREE ACCESS TO COURTS
1. Representation before the Courts, Article III, Section 11, Constitution
Case: People v. Hon. Azarraga and Prevendido, G. R. No. 187117, October 12, 2011
2. Costs of Litigation
Re: Query of Mr. Roger C. Prioreschi re Exemption from Legal and Filing Fees of the Good
Shepherd Foundation, Inc., 596 SCRA 401 (2009)
Re: Request of IBP National Committee on Legal Aid Clients from Paying Filing, Docket and
other Fees, A.M. No. 08-11-7 SC, August 28, 2009
B. RIGHTS OF SUSPECTS
1. Custodial Investigation, Article III, Section 12, Constitution
Case: Jesalva v. People, G.R. No. 187725, January 19, 2011
2. History of Miranda Rights/What Rights are Involved
Case: People v. Marra, 236 SCRA 565 (1994)
3. When Miranda Rule applies (Information given while in custody and information is
testimonial in nature)
4. When Miranda Rule will not apply (Information gathered in non-custodial setting and
information given is non-testimonial in nature)
5. Right to Independent Counsel and Scope of Waiver, Article III, Section 12(1),
Constitution
6. Effect of Involuntary Confessions, Article III, Section 12 (2), (3) and (4), Constitution
Cases: People v. Lucero, G.R. No. 188705, March 2, 2011
Ho Wai Ping v. People, G.R. No. 176229, October 19, 2011
People v. Lauga, G.R. No. 186228, 15 March 2010
Read also The Anti-Torture Act of 2009 [R.A. No. 9745]
C. RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED
1. Basis of Right to Bail, Article III, Section 13, Constitution
When Bail is allowed
When Bail is a matter of right (Rules on Criminal Procedure, Rule 114, Section 4) or
a matter of discretion on the part of the cour (Rule on Criminal Procedure, Rule 114, Section
5)
Case: Juan Ponce-Enrile v. Sandiganbayan, August 18, 2015
2. Nature of Criminal Due Process
Jurisdiction over Criminal Offenses: Bayan Muna v. Romulo and Ople, G.R. No. 159618,
February 1, 2011
18 | P a g e
Criminal Immunity: Disini v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 180564, June 22, 2010
Rights involved in Criminal Proceedings, Article III, Section 14(1) and (4)
Right to Substantive and Procedural Due Process
Presumption of Innocence
Right to be heard by Himself and Counsel
To be informed of the Nature and Cause of Accusation against Him
Right to Have a Speedy, Impartial and Public Trial
Right to Meet the Witnesses Face to Face
To Have Compulsory Process to Secure the Attendance of Witnesses and
the Production of Evidence in his behalf
3. Speedy Trial v. Speedy Disposition of Cases, Article III, Section16, Constitution
D. THE RIGHT AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION
1. When Right may be invoked: in all Criminal Cases, Administrative Cases and
Impeachment
2. Transactional Immunity
3. Aspects covered by the Witness Protection Program and Criminal Procedure
Cases: Agustin v. Court of Appeals, 460 SCRA 315 (2005)
Tanchanco v. Sandiganbayan, 476 SCRA 202 (2005)
E. PROTECTION AGAINST DOUBLE JEOPARDY
1. Nature of Double Jeopardy, Article III, Section 21, Constitution
Nature of right: People v. Dante Tan, G.R. No. 167526, July 26, 2010
When right will not apply: Braza v. Sandiganbayan, G. R. No. 1950, February 20, 2013
Exception, when invoked: Lejano v. People, G.R. Nos. 176389 and 176864, January
18, 2011
Mistrial as ground for exception: People v. C.A.., G.R. No. 198589, July 25, 2012
2. Situations Covered: Identity of the Act and Identity of Offenses
Cases: People v. Relova, 148 SCRA 292 (1987)
Loney v. People 482 SCRA 194 (2006)
3. Requisites of Double Jeopardy
Case: Ivler v. San Pedro, G.R. No. 172716, November 17, 2010
4. Effect of Acquittal based on Demurrer to Evidence
Case: Bangayan, Jr., v. Bangayan, G.R. no. 172777, October 19, 2011
F. CRIMES AND PUNISHMENTS
1. No Detention for Political Beliefs or Aspirations, Article III, Section 18 (1),
Constitution
2. Exceptions to Involuntary Servitude, Article III, Section 18 (2), Constitution
3. Rational behind the Imposition of Death Penalty, Article III, Section19 (1),
Constitution
4. Non-imposition of Excessive Fines, Article III, Section 19 (1), Constitution
5. Prohibition against Cruel and Degrading Punishment, Article III, Section
19(1) and (2), Constitution
6. Non-Imprisonment for Debt or Poll Tax, Article III, Section 20, Constitution
Case: People v. Dacuycuy, 173 SCRA 90 (1989)
G. BAN ON EX POST FACTO LAW AND BILL OF ATTAINDER
1. Characteristics of an Ex Post Facto Law, Article III, Section 22, Constitution
Sufficiency of Information: People v. Balao, et al., G.R. 176819, January 26, 2011
2. When Retroactivity of the Law is allowed
Salvador v. Mapa, 539 SCRA 34 (2007)
Valeroso v. People, supra
19 | P a g e
20 | P a g e