CONSTI LAW 2 DOCTRINES:: MIDTERM EXAM REVIEWER

Aleezah Gertrude Regado

SECTION 1 - No reason why court should not apply rule that client is bound by the acts
 BANCO ESPANOL-FIL VS PALANCA of his counsel including his mistakes
- The jurisdiction is limited to mortgaged property based upon fact that the property  GMA NETWORK V. COMELEC
is located within district, by virtue of law, court vested with power to subject - Commercial undertaking: owners may have right to assert constitutional
property to obligation created by mortgaged right of clients: Consti right of clients to freedom of information
Jurisdiction over Person Jurisdiction over Property - Freedom of Speech, of free expression and of press: Core of Civil
Voluntary appearance + Submission to Litigation which results to seizure of
authority property under legal process: It is liberties: state have right to protect
brought to custody of law  GOVT OF HK V. OLALIA JR
- Requirement of due process satisfied - Modern trend in public international law: Primacy placed on worth of
1. Court/Tribunal with judicial power to hear & determine individual person & sanctity of human rights
2. Jurisdiction
- UDHR; ICCPR: fundamental rights to life liberty and property : courts
3. Defendant: opportunity to be heard
may grant right to bail
4. Judgment in lawful hearing
 In a foreclosure sale: Notification to a non-residen is essential - Extradition is the right of foreign power created b treties where there is
(Publication + Service of Mail) demand to surrender a convicted wihin its territory & the correlative duty
 It is the duty of non-resident to take measure to be represented. If of surrendering him to the demanding state.
he fails it is his misfortune and must abide by its consequences - There is a (1)deprivation of liberty of the potential extradite (2) Means
 ANG TIBAY VS. CIR employed to attain purpose(Criminal law) : Immediate arrest and
- CIR (not narrowly constrained by technical rules of procedure: required to acct temporary detention
according to justice and equity
- Pacta Sunt Servanda – extradite should not be deprived of right of LLP
- CIR free from rigidity to certain procedural requirements does not mean that it can
- Proof of standard (1) Not a flight risk (2) Able to abide with all orders
entirely ignore fundamental and essential requirements of due process
- Movant must be given an opportunity to present at hearing documents in his and process of extradition court
motion.  RCBC V. BDO UNIBANK
CARDINAL AND PRIMARY RIGHTS - Special alternative dispute resolution Only for serious & compelling
1. right to hearing and submission of 5.Rendered on evidene presented in reasons resulting to grave prejudice to aggrieved party
evidence hearing/in records - Evident Partiality : existence of sigs and indications that must lead to an
2. Trial must consider evidence 6.Act: Indendent consideration of laws
presented and facts identification/inference of partiality
3. Decide rights w/ support to decision 7.Render decision in manner parties - Disclosure : any dealings that might create impression of bias and avoid
4.Substantial evidence : reasonable know various issues and reasons for appearance of bias
mind—accept as adequate decision
- RULE 114: (1) Corruption (2) Evident partiality/Corruption (3) Evaded
- powers
 SHU V. DEE  ADMU V. CAPULONG
- Sufficient compliance with due process when party is given the chance to - Minimum standards in disciplinary action
be heard in a motion for reconsideration 1. Students informed in writing (Nature and cause of accusation)
- NBI I merely an investigative body and without quasi-judicial or judicial 2. Right to answer charges
power therefore incapable of providing relief ; findings are merely 3. Informed of evidence against them
recommendatory 4. Adduce evidence in own behalf
 TUPAS DOCTRINE 5. Evidence must be duly considered by investigating committee
- Petition for review being indisputably late, petitioner could not thereafter - Administrative proceeding need not be similar to judicial proceedings
ask that it be treated as petition filed within a reasonable time - Academic Freedom WHO.WHAT.HOW.WHO
 CONSTI LAW 2 DOCTRINES:: MIDTERM EXAM REVIEWER
 GO V. COLLEGIO DE SAN JUAN
- Clear intent : DECS Order 20: apply prohibition against fraternity
membership from elementary & high school (public/private)
- Letrans Rule prohibiting HS justified : Decs order + Adult oriented
- (x) Similar to hearing in the courts of justice
- Essence of due process: Opportunity to be heard
- Disciplinary proceedings may be summary
 LAO GI V CA
- Although deportation proceeding does not partake nature of a criminal
action, constitutional right of person to due process shall not be denied
- Rules on criminal procedure in ROC : Applicable to deportation cases
(Issue in this case is the very citizenship)
 MACEDA V. ENERGU REGULATORY BOARD
- ERB as an administrative agency is not bound by the strict and technical
rules of evidence governing court proceedings
- Exercising quasi-judicial functions: evidence may be presented after.
 CORONA V. UNITED HARBOR PILOTS ASSOCIATION PH
- Procedural due process : Method and manner by which law is enforced
- Substantive due process: requires that law be reasonable
- As long as parties was given opportunity to defend his interest in due
course, he cannot be said to have been denied due course of law
- Pilotage : Profession = Property right
- License is granted to the harbor pilots in form of appointment which
allows them to engage in pilotage until they retire at age of 70: vested
right
- Administrative order that provides for pre-evaluation & cancellation of
license : deprivation of property without due process of law
 SALAW V. NLRC
- Requirement of lawful dismissal : Substantive and Procedural : not only
must it be valid & authorized by law
- Rudimentary requirements of due process (Notice and hearing) must also
be observed
- Notice: inform employee: intent to dismiss + reason
- Hearing: Opportunity to answer charge + defense
- Right to counsel: very basic requirement of due process has to be
observed (cannot be waived except in writing)
 PEOPLE V. NAZARIO :
- Vague statute: one that lacks comprehensible standards that men of
common intelligence must necessarily guess as to its meaning and differ
Aleezah Gertrude Regado
as to its application. It is violates due process (1) Failure to accord
persons fair notice of conduct to avoid (2) Leaves law enforcers
unbrideled discretion in changing provisions and becomes arbitrary
flexing the government muscle
- To be declared void: it must be utterly vague on its face and cannot be
clarified by saving clause/construction
- Perfectly vague : Obscurity on its face
- Couched on imprecise language: may be saved by proper construction (x)
void
 ESTRADA V. SANDIGANBAYAN
- Legislative measure presumed to be in harmony with the Constitution
- Plunder law contains ascertainable standards and well defined parameters
which would enable accused to determine the ature of his violation
- Void for vagueness (x) not merely because terms used without defining
the, much less do we have to define every word
- Natural, Plain ad Ordinary meaning
- Test in determining whether criminal statute is void for uncertainty
(WON language conveys sufficiently gives definite warning as to
prescribed conduct measured by common understanding; not absolute in
precision/exactitude)
- Overbreadth : in terorrem?
 FEEDER V. CA
- Seizure and forfeiture proceedings under tariff and customs laws are not
criminal in nature hence proof beyond reasonable doubt is not required to
justify forfeiture of goods
- It is purely civil and administrative in character
- Right to be presumed innocent is available only to an individual in a
criminal case and cannot be invoked by corporate entity
- In a non-criminal proceeding, assistance of lawyers while desirable is not
indispensible. (Not indispensible to due process unless required by
Consti/Law)
 CBP V. CA
- Central ban through monetary board is vested with exclusive authority to
assess, evaluate and determine the condition of any bank
- Prior notice & hearing not required before placement of bank under
receivership
- Close now hear later to prevent unwarranted dissipation of bank’s assets
& valid exercise of police power to protect general public
 CONSTI LAW 2 DOCTRINES:: MIDTERM EXAM REVIEWER
Aleezah Gertrude Regado
- Absence of prior notice of hearing as valid exercise of police power of 2. Means reasonably necessary for accomplishment & not unduly
state oppressive
- Only SH can file an action for annulment of MB resolution - Provisions held not to constitute appropriation of private property interest
 PEREZ V. MADRONA to public use so as to bring them within principles of exercise by state of
- For injunction to issue two requisites must concur right of eminent domain to entitle owners of just compensation being
1. Right to be protected more than just restraint injurious to private use of property
2. Acts against which injunctions to be directed are violative of  CHURCHILL VS. RAFFERTY
said right - Unsightly advertisements or signs, signboards, or billboards which are
- Unless thing is a nuisance per se, it may not be abated summarily without offensive to the sight, are not disassociated from the general welfare of
judicial intervention the public.
- If petitioner indeed found respondents fence too have encroached:: - This is not establishing a new principle, but carrying a well- recognized
remedy is not demolition principle to further application.
 AMERICAN INTERFASHION CORP V. OFFICE OF THE - Moreover, if the police power may be exercised to encourage a healthy
PRESIDENT social and economic condition in the country, and if the comfort and
- Private respondents export quota allocation which initially was a convenience of the people are included within those subjects, everything
privilege evolved into some form of property right which shouldn’t be which encroaches upon such territory is amenable to the police power.
removed arbitrarily and without due process  PEOPLE V. FAJARDO
- While privileges, it is impressed with property rights especially since 700 - The ordinance is unreasonable and oppressive, in that it operates to
workers and P80,000 profit depends upon it permanently deprive appellants of the right to use their own property;
 BRITISH TOBACCO V. CAMACHO hence, it oversteps the bounds of police power, and amounts to a taking
- Rational Basis test of appellants property without just compensation.
1. Legitimate State Interest - While property may be regulated to the interest of the general welfare,
2. Classification is reasonable and the state may eliminate structures offensive to the sight, the state
3. Rests upon ground of difference & fair substantial object of may not permanently divest owners of the beneficial use of their property
regulation and practically confiscate them solely to preserve or assure the aesthetic
- Valid Reasonable Classification appearance of the community.(PLAZA)
1. Substantial Distinctions - An ordinance which permanently so restricts the use of property that it
2. Germane purpose of law cannot be used for any reasonable purpose goes, it is plain, beyond
3. All things be equal both as to present and future conditions regulation and must be recognized as a taking of the property.
4. Applies equally to same class  ERMITA-MALATE HOTEL & MOTEL OPERATORS V. CITY OF
MANILA
- There is no question but that the challenged ordinance was precisely
enacted to minimize certain practices hurtful to public morals,
particularly fornication and prostitution.
- Moreover, the increase in the licensed fees was intended to discourage
 US V. TORIBIO
"establishments of the kind from operating for purpose other than legal"
- To justify state in exercise of sovereign power it must appear that
and at the same time, to increase "the income of the city government."
1. Interest of public generally as distinguished from a particular class
- To hold otherwise would be to unduly restrict and narrow the scope of
police power which has been properly characterized as the most
 CONSTI LAW 2 DOCTRINES:: MIDTERM EXAM REVIEWER
essential, insistent and the least limitable of powers, extending as it does
"to all the great public needs
- Due process is not a narrow or "technical conception with fixed content
unrelated to time, place and circumstances," decisions based on such a
clause requiring a "close and perceptive inquiry into fundamental
principles of our society." Questions of due process are not to be treated
narrowly or pedantically in slavery to form or phrase.
 YNOT V. IAC
- The reasonable connection between the means employed and the purpose
sought to be achieved by the questioned measure is missing the Supreme
Court do not see how the prohibition of the inter-provincial transport of
carabaos can prevent their indiscriminate slaughter, considering that they
can be killed anywhere, with no less difficulty in one province than in
another.
- The measure struck at once and pounced upon the petitioner without
giving him a chance to be heard, thus denying due process.
 BALACUIT V. CFI
- There is nothing pernicious in demanding equal price for both children
and adults. The petitioners are merely conducting their legitimate
businesses. The object of every business entrepreneur is to make a profit
out of his venture.
- There is nothing immoral or injurious in charging the same price for both
children and adults. In fact, no person is under compulsion to purchase a
ticket. It is a totally voluntary act on the part of the purchaser if he buys a
ticket to such performances.
- So that an act prohibiting the sale of tickets to theaters or other places of
amusement at more than the regular price was held invalid as conflicting
with the state constitution securing the right of property.
 MAGTAJAS V. PRYCE PROPERTIES
- The tests of a valid ordinance are well established. A long line of
decisions has held that to be valid, an ordinance must conform to the
following substantive requirements:
1) It must not contravene the constitution or any statute.
2) It must not be unfair or oppressive.
3) It must not be partial or discriminatory.
4) It must not prohibit but may regulate trade.
5) It must be general and consistent with public policy.
6) It must not be unreasonable.
Aleezah Gertrude Regado
- The rationale of the requirement that the ordinances should not
contravene a statute is obvious.
- Casino gambling is authorized by P.D. 1869. This decree has the status
of a statute that cannot be amended or nullified by a mere ordinance.
Local councils exercise only delegated legislative powers conferred on
them by Congress as the national lawmaking body.
 BENIS V. MICHIGAN
- Government may not be required to compensate an owner for property
which it has already lawfully acquired in exercise of government
authority
- In order to abate an owner’s interest in a vehicle, Michigan does not need
to prove that the owner knew or agreed that her vehicle would be used in
a manner proscribed when she entrusted it to another
- Proof of knowledge of existence of nuisance on part of defendant/any of
them is not required
- State here sought to deter illegal activity that contributes to neighborhood
deterioration and unsafe streets
- Bennis automobile : conceded, facilitated and was used for criminal
activity
 CRUZAN V DIR OF MISSOURI
- Surrogate may make choice for incomepetent : proof : Clear and
Convincing evidence provided :wishes are expressed by patient while
competent
- Choice between life and death is a deeply personal decision
- Missouri may legitimately seek to safeguard personal elements of choice
through imposition of heightened evidentiary requirements
- Due process clause protects an interest in life as well as in refusing life
sustaining medical treatment
 CHAVEZ V. ROMULO
- Right to bear fire arms cannot be classified as fundamental under the
1987 Consti; righto bear arms is mere statutory privilege and not a
constitutional right
- License authorizing a person to enjoy certain privilege is neither property
nor a property right. It may be revoked aytime
- All property in state is he subject to its general regulations necessary to
common good and general welfare (Nationwide gun ban)
- Test to determine validity of police measure
 CONSTI LAW 2 DOCTRINES:: MIDTERM EXAM REVIEWER
1. Interest of public generally as distinguished from those of
particular class require exercise of police power
2. Means employed are reasonably necessary for the
accomplishment of the purpose and not unduly oppressive
upon individuals
 GSIS V. MONTESTCARLOS
- In a pension plan where employee participation is mandatory, previailing
view is that employees have vested right in pension where pension is part
of the terms of employment
- No law can deprive person of his pension rights without due process of
law without notice and opportunity to be heard
- Provision discriminates against a dependent spouse who contracts
marriage to pensioner within 3 years before pensioner qualified for
pension
 INSERT YUNG GRATUITOUS DAW PAG MILITARY CASE HERE
 CHAVEZ V. COMELEC
- Police power as an inherent attribute of sovereignty is the power to
prescribe regulations to promote health, morals, peace, education, good
order/safety & general welfare of the people
- COMELEC acting well within its scope of powers where it required
petitioner to discontinue the display of subject billboard
- COMELEC expressly authorized to supervise and regulate
enjoyment/utilization of all media communications/information to ensure
equal opportunity, time and space
- Contracts affecting public interest contain an implied reservation of
police power as postulate of existing legal order
- Police power can be activated at anytime to change provisions of contract
and even abrogate its entirety for the promotion/protection of general
welfare
- Regulates use to prevent premature campaigning to equalize s much as
practicable the situation of all candidates by preventing popular and rich
from gaining undue advantage
 LUCENA GRAND CENTRAL TERMINAL V. JAC LINER INC
- As with the State, LGU may be considered as having properly exercised
its police power only if there is a concurrence of lawful subject and
lawful method
- Assailed ordinance is characterized by overbreadth doctrine : Go beyond
what is reasonably necessary to solve traffic problem
Aleezah Gertrude Regado
- Due deference to rights of individual require a more careful formulation
of solutions to societal problems
 BAYAN KMP V. ERMITA
- Right to peaceably assemble and petition for redress of grievances with
freedom of speech, of eexpression and of press enjoys primacy in the
realm of constitutional protection
- BP 880 is not an absolute ban of public assemblies but a restriction that
simply regulates time, place and manner of assemblies
- Fair and impartial reading shows that it refers to all kinds of public
assemblies that would use public place.
- Permit can only be denied on ground of clear and present danger to
public order, safety, convenience morals and health
- UDHR & ICPPR allows limitation : to the recognize & respect to the
right and freedom of another
 KMU V. DIR. GENERAL OF NEDA
- EO 420 : Under constitutional power of control of president to direct all
agencies in exercise of their function
- (x) establish a national ID system ; every entity who presently issue I its
own name
- Right to privacy (x) Adoption of reasonable ID systems ; it further
provides strict safeguard and protection to confidentiality
 MIRASOL V. DPWH
- Administrative issuance have the force and effect of law
- Use of public highways by motor vehicle subject to regulation : exercise
of police power
- Toll way is not an ordinary road, it is created for a special purpose:
necessitates imposition of guideline in manner of use and operation
- Test of constitutionality: WON restriction imposed is reasonable
- Means by which government chooses to act is not jduged on terms of
what is best rather, on simply wherever it is reasonable
- Police power (x) rely on existence of definitive studies
 PERENNO V. COA
- Jurisdiction of COA over money claims againt government does nt
include power to rule on constitutionality of laws
- It is only upon retirement that military personnel acquires vested right to
retirement benefit
- Retirement benefits on military personnel are purely gratuitous matter
they are not similar to pension where employees participation is
mandatory
 CONSTI LAW 2 DOCTRINES:: MIDTERM EXAM REVIEWER
 ST.LUKES MEDICAL CENTER V. NLRC
- Police power: persons who desire to engage in learned
professions/requires scientific/technological knowledge may be required
to take an examination as a pre-requisite to engaging in chosen careers
- Regulation of field of radiologic & x-ray technology reasonable method
of protecting health & safety of public
 MMDA V. VIRON
- Police power is vested in DOTC Secretary to establish and administer
comprehensive & integrated programs for transportation and
communication & issue orders rules and regulations to implement such
mandate delegated for good and welfare of people
- By designating the MMDA as the implementing agency of the Project,
the President clearly overstepped the limits of the authority conferred by
law, rendering E.O. No. 179 ultra vires.
- There was no grant of authority to MMDA. It was delegated only to set
the policies concerning traffic in Metro Manila, and shall coordinate and
regulate the implementation of all programs and projects concerning
traffic management, specifically pertaining to enforcement, engineering
and education.
 SEC OF DND V. MANALO
Sec.1: Petition
- “Petition for writ of amparo as a remedy available to any person whose
right to life, liberty, security is violated or threatened with violation by an
unlawful act or omission of a pulic official or employee or of a provide
individual or entity.
- Writ shall cover all extralegal killings and enforced disappearances or
threats thereof.
Sec. 17 : Burden of Proof and Standard of Diligence Required
- The parties shall establish their claims by substantial evidence
Sec. 18: Judgment
- If the allegations in the petition are proven by substantial evidence, the
court shall grant the privilege of the writ and such reliefs as may be
proper and appropriate; otherwise the privilege shall be denied.
Right to Security/Security of Persons
ART III, Sec 2 : Consti
“The right of people to secure 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/ warrant of arrest shall issue except upon
Aleezah Gertrude Regado
probable cause to be determined personally by judge.
RIGHT TO LIFE
 Guarantees essentially the right to be alive, upon
which enjoyment of all other rights is
preconditioned—right to security of person is a
guarantee of the secure quality of his life.
Right to security of person yield various permutations of
exercise of this right
1.) Right to security of person is freedom from fear
 Univ. Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)
enunciates that a world In which human beings
shall enjoy freedom of speech and the belief and
freedom from fear….
 Art 9(1) of International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights (ICCPR) provides for security of
persons
PH : signatory to boh UDHR and ICCPR
Thus, in the amparo context it is more apparent that right to
security is actually freedom from fear
Violation (In the case)
 Respodents were detained, threatened that if they escape
their families including them will be killed.
 At time they escaped, condition of threat to be killed come
to pass.
 With their escape, continuing threat to life is apparent,
moreso now that they have surfaced and implicated
specific officers.
2.) Right to security of persons is a guarantee of bodily and
psychological integrity and security
Art III, Sec 12 Consti specifically proscribes bodily and
psychological invasion
: No torture, force, violence, threat or intimidation or any
other means which vitiate the free will shall be used against
him. Secret detention places, solitary, incommunicado or
other similar forms of detention are prohibited.
Violation (In the case)
 Apart from the failure of military elements to provide
for protection of respondents, they also miserably failed
in conducting effective investigation of abduction
3.) Right to security of person is a guarantee of protection of
ones rights by the government In the context of WoA,
this right is built into the guarantees of right to life and
liberty (Art III of Sec 1 of Consti) and the right to
security of persons (Art III, Sec 2 of Consti)
 WHITELIGHT V. CITY OF MANILA
 CONSTI LAW 2 DOCTRINES:: MIDTERM EXAM REVIEWER
- ordinance is null and void as it indeed infringes upon individual liberty.
It also violates the due process clause which serves as a guaranty for
protection against arbitrary regulation or seizure.
- The said ordinance invades private rights. Note that not all who goes into
motels and hotels for wash up rate are really there for obscene purposes
only.
- The SC reiterates that individual rights may be adversely affected only to
the extent that may fairly be required by the legitimate demands of public
interest or public welfare.
 ROXAS V. MACAPAGAL ARROYO
- Doctrine of Command Responsibility: rule of substantive law establishes
liability & by this account & cannot be a proper legal basis to implead
party respondent in Amparo petition
- Writ does not, fix liability for such disappearance, klling/threats whether
that may be criminal/civil/administrative
- Inapplicability of doctrine of command responsibility in an amparo
proceeding does not by any measure preclude impleading military or
police commander on ground: complaint acts: committed with their
direct/indirect acquiescence’s
- Commanders may be impleaded not actually on basis of command
responsibility but rather on account of accountability
- An order directing public respondents to retun belongings = coclusive
pronouncement as to liability
- Amparo rule which defines scope and extent of writ excludes protection
of property rights
- Writ of habeas data: judicial remedy enforcing right of privacy:: protect
person’s right to control info regarding himself:: collected through
unlawful means to achieve unlawful ends
 MERALO V. LIM
- “Section 1. Habeas Data. – The writ of habeas data is a remedy available
to any person whose right to privacy in life, liberty or security is violated
or threatened by an unlawful act or omission of a public official or
employee or of a private individual or entity engaged in the gathering,
collecting or storing of data or information regarding the person, family,
home and correspondence of the aggrieved party”
- It’s a forum for enforcing one’s right to the truth. Like amparo, habeas
data was a response to killings and enforced disappearances.
Aleezah Gertrude Regado
- Castillo v Cruz- and habeas data will NOT issue to protect purely
property or commercial concerns nor when the grounds invoked in
support of the petitions therefor are vague or doubtful.
- can be solved in the NLRC.
- There was no violation of respondent’s right to privacy. Respondent even
said that the letters were mere jokes and even conceded the fact that the
issue was labor related due to references to “real intent of management”.
 REMMAN ENTERPRISE V. PRB OF REAL ESTATE
- No right is absolute & proper regulation of profession, calling, business,
trade has always been upheld as a legitimate subject of valid exercise of
police power particularly when their conduct affects execution of
legitimate government function, the preservation of State, public health,
welfare & morals
- To pretend that licensing/accreditation requirements violate due process
clause is to ignore settled practice of regulating etry to practice of various
trades and profession
 DISINI V. SEC OF JUSTICE
- (ILLEGAL ACCESS) Nothing in said section calls for application of
strict scrutiny standard since no fundamental freedom is involved in
punishing what is essentially a condemnable act—accessing computer
system of another without right.
- (DATA INTERFERENCE) Overbreadth doctrine – a proper
governmental purpose, constitutionally subject to state regulation may
not be achieved by means that unnecessarily sweep its subject broadly,
thereby invading the area of protected freedoms at all.
- Said section does not encroach on these freedoms at all, it simply
punishes what is essentially a form of vandalism
- All penal laws, have a course of an inherent chilling effect, an in
terrorem effect
- To prevent state from legislating criminal laws because they instill such
kind of fear is to render state powerless in addressing and penalizing
socially harmful conduct
- Unsolicited advertisement are legitimate forms of expression
- The authority that Section 12 gives law enforcement agencies is too
sweeping and lacks restraint. While it says that traffic data collection
should not disclose identities or content data, such restraint is but an
illusion. Admittedly, nothing can prevent law enforcement agencies
holding these data in their hands from looking into the identity of their
sender or receiver and what the data contains. This will unnecessarily
 CONSTI LAW 2 DOCTRINES:: MIDTERM EXAM REVIEWER
expose the citizenry to leaked information or, worse, to extortion from
certain bad elements in these agencies.
 IMBONG V. OCHOA
- Every part of statute must be interpreted with reference to context, it
must be construed together with other parts
- Plain and ordinary meaning
- Religious Freedom
1.Establishment Clause: prohibits state from sponsoring any religion,
mandates strict neutrality
2.Free Exercise Clause: respect for inviolability of human conscience
- Benevolent Neutrality: accommodation of religion may be allowed not to
promote govt favored form of religion but to allow individuals and
groups to exercise religion without hinderance
- Compeling state interest: free exercise of fundamental right & laws
burdening it are subj to strict scrutiny
- No compelling state interest which could limit free exercise of
conscientious objectors however few in number
- Protection accorded to conscientious objector : apply all medical
practitioners whether from public/private sector
- Priority to poor and marginalized
 GARCIA V. DRILON
- Equal protection simply requires that all person/things similarly situated
should be treated alike both as to rights conferred and responsibilities
imposed
- Unequal power relationship between women and men
- Enactment of RA 9262 aim to address discrimination brough about by
biases and prejudice against women (CEDAW)
- Application s not limited to existing conditions when it was promulgated
but to future conditions as long as safety and security of women and
children are threatened by violence and abuse
- Protection order does not violate due process :purpose is to safeguard the
offended from future harm and minimize disruption to daily life . Time
is of essence
 CARAM V. SEGUI
- Amparo rule intended to address intractable problem of extra-legal
killings and enforced disappearances : confined to 2 instances
- Writ of Amparo remedy is available to any person whose right to LLS
are violated
- Elements : of enforced disappearances
Aleezah Gertrude Regado
1. Arrest,Detention,Abduction/Any form of deprivation of liberty
2. Carried out by / w/ authorization /support of state or political
organization
3. Followed by State/Poli Subd refusal to acknowledge
fate/whereabouts of person subject to Amparo petition
4. Intention for such refusal: remove subject person from
protection of law for a prolonged period of time
- Issue is with regard to child custody & exercise of parental rights over
child who for all intents & purposes are legally considered as ward of
state (x) Amparo rule does not apply
 MISON V. GALLEGOS
Extra-legal killings Killings committed without due process of
law
Enforced Attended by the following characteristics
Disappearances 1. Attention, Detention or Abduction of
person by a government official or organized
groups or private individuals acting with
direct or indirect acquiescence of
government
2. Refusal of state to disclose the fate or
whereabouts of the person concerned or
refusal to acknowledge the deprivation of
liberty which places such person outside
protection of law.
 Ku’s circumstances does not come under statutory definition of an enforced
involuntary disappearance
 Ku was arrested by agents of BI but there was no refusal on part of BI to
acknowledge such arrest nor was there any refusal to give information on his
whereabouts
 Neither an it be said that BI had any intention to remove Ku from protection
for a prolonged time.
 His arrest –well documented as evidenced by Return of Warrant of
Deportation and After Mission Report.
 No intent to remove Ku from protection of law for a prolonged time –Ku’s
counsel was immediately able to file Entry of appearance thereby showing
Ku’s legal rights were amply guarded and that he was never removed from
protection of law.
 CONSTI LAW 2 DOCTRINES:: MIDTERM EXAM REVIEWER
 Fundamental function of writ of amparo is to cause disclosure of details
concerning EJK or ED. Ku’s whereabouts never hidden, no need for issuance
of Writ in the case at bar.
 ZARATE V. AQUINO
 In present petition, petitioners fail to show how their right to privacy is
violated given the information contained in the list are only their
names, positions, respective organizations and photographs = public
knowledge and readily accessible even to civilians especially known
personalities.
 Although petition for writ of HD may be filed by fam member or even
relatives on behalf of aggrieved, HD presupposes that aggrieved party
is still alive to show how violation of aggrieved party’s right to
privacy, LLS violated. Heirs of Crispin Beltaran do not have legal
standing to file this petition.
 Mere membership in these organizations and sectors cannot equate to
an actual threat that would warrant issuance of writ of amparo.
 Writ of Amparo is sought individually and granted individually –
assess situation of petitioners individually. –lumping together previos
and present experiences may give of impression that indeed taken
together petitioners’ LLS are threated and violated. = but this way of
presenting the obtaining situation is misleading.
 OBERGEFELL V. GODGES DIRECTOR OF OHIO DEPARTENT OF
HEALTH ET AL
 Over time and in other contexts, Court has reiterated that right to marry is
fundamental under the Due Process clause.
 It cannot be denied that Court’s cases describing right to marry presumed
in a relationship involving opposite sex partners.
 In assessing whether the force and rationale of its cases apply to same sex
couples, court must respect the reasons why right to marry has been long
perfected.
 FOUR PRINCIPLES AND TRADITIONS: REASON FOR MARRIAGE
IS FUNDAMENTAL UNDER CONSTITUTION AND APPLY WITH
EQUAL FORCE TO SAME SEX COUPLES.
First premise
 Right to personal choice regarding marriage is inherent in the concept of
individual autonomy. Right to marry is of fundamental importance for all
individuals.
Aleezah Gertrude Regado
 Most intimate decision that an individual can make.
Second Premise
 Right to marry is fundamental because it supports two-person union
unlike any other in its importance to the committed individuals.
 Marriage responds to the universal fear that a lonely person might
call out only to find no one there.
 Same sex couples has such a right
Third Premise
 Safeguards children and families and thus draws meaning from
related rights of childrearing, procreation, and education.
 Affords permanency and stability important to children’s best interest
 Excluding same sex couples from marriage thus conflicts with a
central premise of right to marry .—without such recognition,
stability and predictability marriage offers, their children suffer the
stigma of knowing their families are somehow lesser. They also
suffer significant material cost of being raised by unmarriaged
parents relegated through no fault of their own to a more difficult
uncertain family life.
Forth Premise
 Court’s case and Nations traditions make clear that marriage is a
keystone to our social order.
 Marriage is the foundation of family and society, without which there
would be neither civilization nor progress.
 Marriage is a great public institution giving character to our whole
civil polity.
 Marriage remains a building block of our national community.
 ASPECTS OF MARITAL STATUS: Taxation, inheritance, property
rights, succession, spousal privilege, hospital access, medical
decision making authority, adoption rights, rights and benefits of
survivors, etc.
 Right of same-sex couples to marry is a part of liberty promised by the 14th
amendment is derived too from Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection
of laws.
[DUE PROCESS CLAUSE AND EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE ARE
CONNECTED IN A PROFOUND WAY THROUGH THEY SET FORTH
INDEPENDENT PRINCIPLES]
 Imposition of disability on gays and lesbians serves to disrespect and
subordinate them. And the EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE, like due
 CONSTI LAW 2 DOCTRINES:: MIDTERM EXAM REVIEWER
process clause, prohibits unjustified infringement of fundamental right to
marry.
 Illogical to think that state recognition of love and commitment between
same sex couples will alter most intimate relationships between opposite
sex.
 Court in this decision, holds same sex coupes may exercise fundamental
right to marry in all states.
 LAWRENCE V. TEXAS
 If the right to privacy means anything, it is the right of an individual, married
or single to be free from unwarranted government intrusion into matters
fundamentally affecting a person.
 . Liberty protected by the Constitution allows homosexual persons the right to
make this choice.
 Stigma this criminal statute imposes moreover is not trivial.
 Still it remains a criminal offense with all the imports of dignity of the person
charged.
 Present case does not involve minors. It does not involve persons who might
be injured or coerced r who are situated in relationships where consent might
not easily be refused. It does not involve public conduct or prostitution. It
does not involve whether government must give formal recognition to any
relationship that homosexual persons seeks to enter.
 The case involve two adults who with full and mutual consent, engage in
sexual practices common to homosexual lifestyle.
EQUAL PROTECTION
 VILLEGAS V. HIU CHIONG TSAI PAO HO
- Although the equal protection clause does not forbid classification , it is
imperative that the classification should be based on real and substantial
differences having a reasonable relation of particular legislation
- Ordinance of municipality fails to state any policy or set up any standard
to guide or limit the Mayor’s action.
- There is no logic or justification of exacting P50.00 from all aliens who
have been cleared for employment
 ORMOC SUGAR CO. INC V. TREASURER OF ORMOC CITY
- Should apply to present and future conditions
- Although it is the only sugarcentral at time of enactment of law to make
tax exclusive upon the company to the exclusion of all sugar centrals &
those belonging in same class which may subsequently be established is
void.
 CENTRAL BANK EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION V. BSP
Aleezah Gertrude Regado
o All that is required for a valid classification is that:
1. Reasonable (classification based on substantial distinctions)
2. Germane to the purpose of law
3. Not limited to existing conditions only
4.Apply equally to each member of class.
o ENACTMENT, HOWEVER OF SUBSEQUENT LAWS—EXEMPTING
ALL OTHER RANK AND FILE EMPLOYEES OF GFIs FROM THE
SSL—RENDERS THE CONTINUED APPLICATION OF
CHALLENGED PROVISION IN VIOLATION OF EQUAL
PROTECTION OF LAWS
o Statutes valid at one time, may become void because of altered circumstances.
Continued enforcement of otherwise void law would be unreasonable and
oppressive.
o A statute non-discriminatory on its face may be grossly discriminatory in its
operation.
o No difference between law which denies equal protection and law which
permits of such denial.
o It bears stressing that the exemption from SSL is a privilege fully within the
legislative to give or deny
o However its subsequent grant to other rank and file of 7 other GFIs and
continued denial to BSP’s rank and file employees breached the latter’s equal
protection..
o Equal protection clause does not demand absolute equality, but it requires all
persons shall be treated alike, under like circumstances and conditions both as
to privileges conferred and liabilities imposed.
 YRASUEGUI V. PAL
 Weight standards of PAL would lead to no other conclusion than they
constitute a continuing qualification of employees in order to keep the job
 MEIORIN TEST : Used to determine whether an employment policy is
justified --show that
1. Adopted standard for purpose rationally connected to performance of his job
2. Standard is reasonably necessary to the accomplishment of work-related purpose
(factual basis)
3. Standard reasonably necessary in order to accomplish legitimate work –related
purpose.
 Business of PAL is air transportation.
 Passenger safety goes to the core of job as a cabin attendant.
 Bill of rights is not meant to be invoked against acts of private individuals.
 PEOPLE V. SITON
 CONSTI LAW 2 DOCTRINES:: MIDTERM EXAM REVIEWER
 Power to define crimes and prescribe their corresponding penalties is
legislative in nature and inherent in sovereign power of the state to
maintain social order as an aspect of police power
 Void for vagueness doctrine: statute which either forbids or requires doing an
act in terms so vague that men of common intelligence must necessarily guess
as its meaning and differ as to its application, violates the first essential of due
process.
US Case (Jacksonville) PH CASE
Unconstitutional Constitutional
“wandering or strolling without “without visible means of support”
any lawful purpose or object” :
trap for innocent acts
Gives police unfettered discretion Requirement of probable cause provides an
to make arrest acceptable limit to police or executive authority
which may be abused in relation to
search/arrest of persons found to be violating
 Grounds for suspicion are reasonable = Arresting Officer authority + Probable
cause + Good faith in making arrest. (just my own formula, read the text if
you doubt)
 Acts are made illegal by their offensiveness to society’s basic sensibilities and
their adverse effect on quality of life of people for society.
 Dangerous streets must surrender to orderly society.
 LEAGUE OF CITIES OF THE PHILIPPINES V. COMELEC
 Congress alone and no other can enforce criteria, Fr.Bernas: authority to
created municipal corporations is essentially legislative in nature
 Cityhood laws by granting special treatment to respondent municipalities by
way of exemption does not violate equal protection of laws.
 Fundamental right to equal protection of laws does not require absolute
equality. ONLY (S.G.N.E) substantial distinctions.germane.not limited to
existing conditions. Equally: same class
 Favorable treatment accorded to 16 municipalities rests on substantial
distinctions.
 Respondent LGUs which are subjected only to erstwhile 20 M income criteria
instead of stringent income prescribed by RA 9009 are substantially different
from other municipalities desirous to be cities.
 Due to extraneous circumstances = Changing rules in the middle of the game.
 Basis for exemption : Justice and fairness. Reduce inequality
 QUINTO V. COMELEC
Elective Officials Appointive Officials
Aleezah Gertrude Regado
Occupy office by virtue of mandate of Hold office by virtue of designation
electorate thereto by appointing authority
Elected for a definite term and may Tenure: Permanent/At pleasure of
remove therefrom only upon stringent appointing authority
conditions : respect to will of electorate
::serve office until end of term
Classification Germane to the purpose of law.
 Equal protection clause does not require universal application of laws to
all persons or things without distinction.
 It simply requires equality among equals
 Test : (S.G.N.E)
 The deemed-resigned provisions substantially serve government interest
1. Efficient civil service faithful to government and people rather than to party
2. Avoidance of appearance of political justice as to policy
3.Avoidance of danger of a powerful political machine
4.Ensuring that employees achieve advancement on their merits and that they be free
from both coercion and prospect of favor from political activity.
 The avoidance of such a politically active public work force:: could give
an emerging political machine an unbreakable grasp on the reins of power
---a reason enough to impose restriction on candidacies of all appointive
public officials without further distinction as to the type of positions being
held by such employee or the degree of influence that may be attendant
thereto.
 In the case at bar, probable harm in society in permitting incumbent
appointive officials to remain in office even as they actively pursue
elective posts far outweighs less likely evil of having arguably protected
candidacies blocked by possible inhibitory effect of a potentially
overbroad statute.
 VILLANUEVA V. JBC
 JBC is burdened with great responsibility that is imbued with public
interest as it determines men and women who will sit on judicial bench.
 JBC’s ultimate goal is to recommend nominees and not simply fill up
judicial vacancies in order to promote an effective and efficient
administration of justice.
 The adoption of the 5 year requirement policy applied by JBC to
petitioner’s case is necessary and incidental to the function conferred to it
by the Constitution.
 Clearly, classification created by challenged policy satisfies rational basis
test
 CONSTI LAW 2 DOCTRINES:: MIDTERM EXAM REVIEWER
 Policy does not infringe on equal protection as it is based on reasonable
classification intended to gauge the proven competence of applicants
 PEOPLE V. JUMAWAN
o PH enshrined equality in 1987 Constitution.
Sec11: dignity of every human person and guarantees full respect to human rights
Sec 14 role of women in nation-building and shall ensure the fundamental equality
before law of women and men.
o CEDAW : part of GAPOIL
o Martial rape is not defined. All that the law makers are trying to point out is
that one cannot justify rape sex without consent just because they are married
to their wives. For as long as attendant circumstances of traditional rape are
present, it is rape.
o A married woman has the same right to control her own body, as does an
unmarried woman. She can give or withhold her consent to a sexual intercourse
with her husband and he cannot unlawfully wrestle such consent. .
FERRER JR. V. BAUTISTA
- Socialized Housing taxes are constitutional, rights to property can be
subjected to police power
- It has a valid purpose which is to uplift the underprivileged and the
homeless
- QC government is authorized to impose tax in fact UDHA grants them
authority to charge properties above P50M
- Removing slum areas in qc is beneficial to real property owners as well
- Garbage fee is unconstitutional: classification should be based on germane
purpose of law, similar schedule is more practicable
- It classifies when there is no need to make classifications
 1-UNITED KOALIYON V. COMELEC
- Posting of political advertisments on vehicles and in terminals (x) relate to
franchise but a valid act of ownership COMELEC has no authority to
regulate
- Prohibition curtails their right to free speech
SECTION 3:
SALCEDO-ORTANEZ V. CA
 These tape recordings were made and obtained when private respondent
allowed his friends from the military to wire tap his home telephone.
 Clearly, respondents trial court and Court of Appeals failed to consider the
afore-quoted provisions of the law in admitting in evidence the cassette tapes in
question. Absent a clear showing that both parties to the telephone
Aleezah Gertrude Regado
conversations allowed the recording of the same, the inadmissibility of the
subject tapes is mandatory under Rep. Act No. 4200.
ZULUETA V. CA
 There is no question that the documents and papers in question belong to
private respondent, Dr. Alfredo Martin, and that they were taken by his wife,
the herein petitioner, without his knowledge and consent.
 The case against Atty. Felix, Jr. was for disbarment.
 Acquittal of Atty. Felix, Jr. in the administrative case amounts to no more than
a declaration that his use of the documents and papers for the purpose of
securing Dr. Martins admission as to their genuiness and authenticity did not
constitute a violation of the injunctive order of the trial court.
 The intimacies between husband and wife do not justify any one of them in
breaking the drawers and cabinets of the other and in ransacking them for any
telltale evidence of marital infidelity.
 A person, by contracting marriage, does not shed his/her integrity or his right to
privacy as an individual and the constitutional protection is ever available to
him or to her.
PEOPLE V. MARTI
 In the absence of governmental interference, the liberties guaranteed by the
Constitution cannot be invoked against the State.
 The contraband in the case at bar having come into possession of the
Government without the latter transgressing appellant's rights against
unreasonable search and seizure.
 mere presence of the NBI agents did not convert the reasonable search effected
by Reyes into a warrantless search and seizure proscribed by the Constitution.
- Merely to observe and look at that which is in plain sight is not a search.
- Where the contraband articles are identified without a trespass on the part
of the arresting officer, there is not the search that is prohibited by the
constitution
 The Bill of Rights governs the relationship between the individual and the state.
Its concern is not the relation between individuals, between a private individual
and other individuals.
 The constitutional proscription against unlawful searches and seizures therefore
applies as a restraint directed only against the government and its agencies
tasked with the enforcement of the law.
 If the search is made at the behest or initiative of the proprietor of a private
establishment for its own and private purposes, as in the case at bar, and
without the intervention of police authorities, the right against unreasonable
 CONSTI LAW 2 DOCTRINES:: MIDTERM EXAM REVIEWER
search and seizure cannot be invoked for only the act of private individual, not
the law enforcers, is involved.
PEOPLE V. DAMASO
 The constitutional immunity from unreasonable searches and seizures, being
personal one, cannot be waived by anyone except the person whose rights are
invaded or one who is expressly authorized to do so in his or her behalf .
 Prosecution likewise failed to show if Luz Tanciangco has such an authority.
 Without this evidence, the authorities' intrusion into the appellant's dwelling
cannot be given any color of legality.
 They had every opportunity to get a search warrant before making the raid.
 There was absolutely no reason at all why they should disregard the orderly
processes required by the Constitution.
VEROY V. LAYAGUE .
 Permission was indeed granted by Ma. Luisa Veroy to enter the house but only
to ascertain the presence of rebel soldiers. Under the circumstances it is
undeniable that the police officers had ample time to procure a search warrant
but did not.
 Undeniably, the offense of illegal possession of firearms is malum prohibitum
but it does not follow that the subject thereof is necessarily illegal per se.
 A search warrant is still necessary. Hence, the rule having been violated and no
exception being applicable, the articles seized were confiscated illegally and
are therefore protected by the exclusionary principle.
VIVARES V. ST. THERESA’S COLLEGE
 The writ of habeas datais a remedy available to any person whose right to
privacy in life, liberty or security is violated or threatened by an unlawful act or
omission of a public official or employee, or of a private individual or entity
engaged in the gathering, collecting or storing of data or information regarding
the person, family, home and correspondence of the aggrieved party.
 The writ of habeas data, however, can be availed of as an independent remedy
to enforce one’s right to privacy, more specifically the right to informational
privacy. The remedies against the violation of such right can include the
updating, rectification, suppression or destruction of the database or
information or files in possession or in control of respondents.
b. Meaning of "engaged" in the gathering, collecting or storing of data or
information
 To "engage" in something is different from undertaking a business endeavour.
To "engage" means "to do or take part in something."
Aleezah Gertrude Regado
 To agree with respondents’ above argument, would mean unduly limiting the
reach of the writ to a very small group, i.e., private persons and entities whose
business is data gathering and storage
The right to informational privacy on Facebook
 Selecting his or her desired privacy setting:The foregoing are privacy tools,
available to Facebook users, designed to set up barriers to broaden or limit the
visibility of his or her specific profile content, statuses, and photos, among
others, from another user’s point of view.
STC did not violate petitioners’ daughters’ right to privacy
 Before one can have an expectation of privacy in his or her OSN activity, it is
first necessary that said user, in this case the children of
petitioners,manifest the intention to keep certain posts private, through the
employment of measures to prevent access thereto or to limit its visibility.
And this intention can materialize in cyberspace through the utilization of
the OSN’s privacy tools.
 Facebook user who opts to make use of a privacy tool to grant or deny access to
his or her post or profile detail should not be denied the informational privacy
right which necessarily accompanies said choice.
 We cannot give much weight to the minors’ testimonies for one key reason:
failure to question the students’ act of showing the photos to Tigol disproves
their allegation that the photos were viewable only by the five of them.
 As applied, even assuming that the photos in issue are visible only to the
sanctioned students’ Facebook friends, respondent STC can hardly be taken to
task for the perceived privacy invasion since it was the minors’ Facebook
friends who showed the pictures to Tigol. Respondents were mere recipients of
what were posted.
 In sum, there can be no quibbling that the images in question, or to be more
precise, the photos of minor students scantily clad, are personal in nature
On Cyber Responsibility
 This means that self-regulation on the part of OSN users and internet
consumers in general is the best means of avoiding privacy rights violations.
 As a cyberspace community member, one has to be proactive in protecting his
or her own privacy.
 . We cannot afford protection to persons if they themselves did nothing to place
the matter within the confines of their private zone. OSN users must be mindful
enough to learn the use of privacy tools, to use them if they desire to keep the
information private, and to keep track of changes in the available privacy
settings, such as those of Facebook, especially because Facebook is notorious
for changing these settings and the site's layout often.
 CONSTI LAW 2 DOCTRINES:: MIDTERM EXAM REVIEWER
Aleezah Gertrude Regado
Section 4 legislative interference with the initial freedom of publication, the
constitutional protection would be reduced to a mere form of words.
Near Vs. Minnesota FREEDMAN V. MARYLAND
283 US 697  First, the burden of proving that the film is unprotected expression must rest on
 First. The statute is not aimed at the redress of individual or private wrongs. the censor.
Remedies for libel remain available and unaffected. The statute, said the state  Second, while the State may require advance submission of all films, in order
court, "is not directed at threatened libel, but at an existing business which, to proceed effectively to bar all showings of unprotected films, the requirement
generally speaking, involves more than libel." It is aimed at the distribution of cannot be administered in a manner which would lend an effect of finality to
scandalous matter as "detrimental to public morals and to the general welfare," the censor's determination whether a film constitutes protected expression.
tending "to disturb the peace of the community" and "to provoke assaults and Censor will, within a specified brief period, either issue a license or go to court
the commission of crime." to restrain showing the film. Any restraint imposed in advance of a final
 Second. The statute is directed not simply at the circulation of scandalous and judicial determination on the merits must similarly be limited to preservation of
defamatory statements with regard to private citizens, but at the continued the status quo for the shortest fixed period compatible with sound judicial
publication by newspapers and periodicals of charges against public officers of resolution.
corruption, malfeasance in office, or serious neglect of duty. Such charges, by  Therefore, the procedure must also assure a prompt final judicial decision, to
their very nature, create a public scandal. minimize the deterrent effect of an interim and possibly erroneous denial of a
 Third. The object of the statute is not punishment, in the ordinary sense, but license.
suppression of the offending newspaper or periodical.  Without these safeguards, it may prove too burdensome to seek review of the
 Describing the business of publication as a public nuisance does not obscure censor's determination.
the substance of the proceeding which the statute authorizes. It is the continued NEW YORK TIME CO. V. US
publication of scandalous and defamatory matter that constitutes the business  United States seeks to enjoin the New York Times and the Washington Post
and the declared nuisance from publishing the contents of a classified study entitled "History of U.S.
 Fourth. The statute not only operates to suppress the offending newspaper or Decision-Making Process on Viet Nam Policy."
periodical, but to put the publisher under an effective censorship. When a  "Any system of prior restraints of expression comes to this Court bearing a
newspaper or periodical is found to be "malicious, scandalous, and heavy presumption against its constitutional validity."
defamatory," and is suppressed as such, resumption of publication is punishable INC v. CA
as a contempt of court by fine or imprisonment.  Freedom of religion has been accorded a preferred status by the framers of our
 This is of the essence of censorship. fundamental laws, past and present.
 Characterizing the publication as a business, and the business as a nuisance, Freedom to Believe Freedom to Act on ones belief
does not permit an invasion of the constitutional immunity against restraint. absolute as long as the belief is confined subject to regulation where the belief is
 "To prohibit the intent to excite those unfavorable sentiments against those who within the realm of though translated into external acts that affect
administer the Government is equivalent to a prohibition of the actual the public welfare.
Religion, after all, is a matter of faith. The inherent police power can be
excitement of them, and to prohibit the actual excitement of them is equivalent
exercised to prevent religious practices
to a prohibition of discussions having that tendency and effect, which, again, is inimical to society
equivalent to a protection of those who administer the Government, if they Every one has a right to his beliefs and . It is error to think that the mere
should at any time deserve the contempt or hatred of the people, against being he may not be called to account because invocation of religious freedom will
exposed to it by free animadversions on their characters and conduct. he cannot prove what he believes. stalemate the State and render it
 The danger of violent reactions becomes greater with effective organization of impotent in protecting the general welfar
defiant groups resenting exposure, and if this consideration warranted
 CONSTI LAW 2 DOCTRINES:: MIDTERM EXAM REVIEWER
Aleezah Gertrude Regado
 We thus reject petitioners postulate that its religious program is per se beyond
review by the respondent Board.
 Its public broadcast on TV of its religious program brings it out of the bosom
of internal belief. Television is a medium that reaches even the eyes and ears of
children.
 First. Deeply ensconced in our fundamental law is its hostility against all prior
restraints on speech, including religious speech. Hence, any act that restrains
speech is hobbled by the presumption of invalidity and should be greeted with
furrowed brows It is the burden of the respondent Board to overthrow this
presumption. If it fails to discharge this burden, its act of censorship will be
struck down.
 Second. so-called attacks are mere criticisms of some of the deeply held
dogmas and tenets of other religions..
 The respondent Board may disagree with the criticisms of other religions by
petitioner but that gives it no excuse to interdict such criticisms, however,
unclean they may be.
 Religious dogmas and beliefs are often at war and to preserve peace among
their followers, especially the fanatics, the establishment clause of freedom of
religion prohibits the State from leaning towards any religion.
 The bedrock of freedom of religion is freedom of thought and it is best served
by encouraging the marketplace of dueling ideas.
 Third. The respondents cannot also rely on the ground attacks against another
religion in x-rating the religious program of petitioner. Even a sideglance at
Section 3 of PD 1986 will reveal that it is not among the grounds to justify an
order prohibiting the broadcast of petitioners television program. The ground
attack against another religion was merely added by the respondent Board in its
Rules.[
 Fourth. In x-rating the TV program of the petitioner, the respondents failed to
apply the clear and present danger rule
 The constitutional guaranty of free exercise and enjoyment of religious
profession and worship carries with it the right to disseminate religious
information. Any restraint of such right can be justified like other restraints on
freedom of expression on the ground that there is a clear and present danger of
any substantive evil which the State has the right to prevent.