Freedom of Speech, Expression
and of the Press (SEP) and the
Rights to Peaceful Assembly and
Petition
Section 4. No law shall be passed
abridging the freedom of speech,
of expression, or the press, or the
right of the people peaceably to
assemble and petition the
government for redress of
grievances.
1. What rights are covered by Section
4?
- The are 5 rights covered by Section
4 which are the rights to speech,
expression, the press, peaceful
assembly, and to petition the
government for redress of
grievances.
2. What is the nature of the freedom
of speech, expression and press?
- “The right to freely utter, print and
publish any statement without
previous censorship of the
government. (U.S. vs. Sotto, 38
Phil. 666).
3. What is the scope of the Freedom
of SEP?
- Freedom of expression is usually
exercised through language, oral
and written. Symbolisms may also
be used, like the clenched fist, the
bended knee, the salute to the flag,
the flag itself, the mace of the
legislature, the picket line,
pictures, caricatures and cartoons.
Wordless, the articlulate. (Cruz,
2015).
- The scope of the guarantee of free
expression takes into consideration
the constitutional respect for
human potentiality and the effect of
speech. It valorizes the ability of
human beings to express and their
necessity to relate. On the other
hand, a complete guarantee must
also take into consideration the
effects it wil have in a deliberative
democracy. Skewed distribution of
resources as well as the cultural
hegemony of the majority may have
the effect of drowning out the
speech and the messages of those
in the minority. In a sense, social
inequality does have its effect on
the exercise and effect ofteh
guarantee of free speech. Those
who espouse the more popular
ideas will have better reception
than the subversive and the
dissenters of society. To be really
heard and understood, the
marginalized view normally
undergoes its own degree of
struggle. (Diocese of Bacolod, vs.
Commission on Elections, G.R. No.
205728).
- Right to SEP seem to be all
embracing covering almost all
cases like political speech, self-
expression (arts), advertising
(commercial).
4. What are not covered?
- There are forms of speech or
expression that are not covered by
the Constitutional guarantee such
as “law-value expressions which
include “libellous statements,
obscenity or pornography, false or
misleading advertisement, insulting
or ‘fighting’ words,’ i.e., those
which by their very utterance inflict
injury or tend to incite an
immediate breach of peace and
expression endangering national
security.” They constitute
unprotected speech.” (Soriano vs.
Laguardia, G.R. No. 164785, April
29, 2009)
5. Why are the Rights to SEP
important?
- There are several theories and
school of thought that strengthen
the need to protect the basic right
to freedom of expression. The first
pertains to what is referred to as
“deliberative democracy” which
would include the right of the
people to participate in public
affairs, including the right to
criticize government actions. The
second considers free speech as
being “under the concept of a
market place of ideas,” and should
therefore be “encouraged.” A third
theory provides that free speech
 likewise “involves self-expression stringent criterion, namely existence
that enhances human dignity. This of a grave and immediate danger of a
right is ‘a means of assuring substantive evil which the State has
individual self-fulfillment,’ among the right to prevent.
others.” A fourth theory considers
free expression as “a marker for 8. Is the Right to Speech, Expression
group identity.” “Fifth, the Bill of and of the Press a preferred right?
Rights, free speech included, is - Yes. Freedom of expression has
supposed to ‘protect individuals gained recognition as a
and minorities against majoritarian fundamental principle of every
abuses perpetrated through the democratic government, and given
framework of democratic a preferred right that stands on a
governanace.” “Lastly, free speech higher level than substantive
must be protected under the safety economic freedom or other
value theory. This provides that liberties. (Chavez vs. Gonzales, G.R.
“non-violent manifestations of No. 168338, February 15, 2008).
dissent reduce the likelihood of
violence.x-x-x” 9. Is the Right to SEP absolute?
- Freedom of expression is not
6. Is the rights available to absolute. There are laws that
everybody? regulate this freedom. It is subject
- Yes. It may also be invoked by to regulation to protect the
aliens. (Ayer vs. Capulong, 160 community from injurious exercise
SCRA 861) of said right, and to the police
power of the state on the need to
7. What does it mean by preferred promote public welfare, public
right? safety, public morals and national
- This means that the right is a security.
fundamental right and plays a vital
role in the existence of the 10. What are the aspects of
democratic state. A preferred right Freedom of SEP?
is not ordinarily subject to State’s - The following are the four aspects
police power. of Freedom of SEP:
a. Freedom from prior restraint.
In the case of Philippine Blooming b. Freedom from subsequent
Mills vs. CA: In the hierarchy of civil punishment.
liberties, the rights of free expression c. Freedom of access to
and of assembly occupy a preferred information.
position as they are essential to the d. Freedom of circulation.
preservation and vitality of our civil
and political institutions;  and such 11. What is the freedom from prior
priority "gives these liberties the restraint?
sanctity and the sanction not - There should be no restrictions or
permitting dubious intrusions."  conditions in advance of actual
publication or dissemination.
The superiority of these freedoms over (meaning: before the speech, press
property rights is underscored by the or expression will be made). In
fact that a mere reasonable or rational Chavez vs. Gonzales: “Prior
relation between the means employed restraint refers to official
by the law and its object or purpose — governmental restrictions on the
that the law is neither arbitrary nor press or other forms of expression
discriminatory nor oppressive — in advance of actual publication or
would suffice to validate a law which dissemination. Freedom from prior
restricts or impairs property restraint is largely freedom from
rights. 12 On the other hand, a governmental censorship of
constitutional or valid infringement of publications, whatever the form of
human rights requires a more censorship, and regardless of
 whether it is wielded by the
executive, legislative or judicial
branch of the government.”
12. Give examples of the forms of
prior restraint?
- The following are the examples:
requiring prior permit, submission
of copy of speech, submission of
clearance before publication,
censorship, closure of
establishment, and injunction.
13. Are “prior restraint” actions
invalid?
- They are not considered invalid,
per se. Rather, they are disputably
presumed invalid, unless the State
dispenses with the burden of proof
to establish its validity. Burden of
proof is on the legislature to prove
that the law is constitutional.
14. What does it mean by
SUBSEQUENT PUNISHMENT
actions?
- One may be allowed to do
anything subject to punishment.
15. What are the forms of
subsequent punishment?
- The following are forms of
subsequent punishment:
1. Prosecution (sedition)
2. Damages
3. Contempt
16. Why is prohibition against
subsequent punishment important?
- If prior restraint were all that the
constitutional guarantee prohibited
and government could impose
subsequent punishment without
restraint, freedom of expression
would be a mockery and a delusion.
Hence, freedom of expression also
means that there are limits to the
power of government to impose
rules or regulations curtailing
freedom of speech and of the press.
17. What is reverse presumption?
- Any law that may be passed
regulating or affecting a preferred
right, like the freedom of SEP, will
not enjoy the presumption of
regularity. Usually, an ordinary law
will enjoy the presumption of
validity, and only requires the
ordinary test of substantive due
process (valid purpose + valid
means). But this rule will not apply
to a preferred right because such
law will be subject to a more
stringent test.
18. When is reverse presumption
not applicable?
- Reverse presumption will not apply:
(a) During war times.
(b)The regulation/action is
allowed by the Constitution,
such as the power of Comelec
to regulate political ads.
(c) Content-Neutral restrictions.
19. What is Content-Neutral
Regulation?
- A content-neutral restraint intends
to regulate the time, place and
manner of the expression under
well-defined standards tailored to
serve a compelling state interest,
without restraint on the message of
the expression. (Soriano vs.
Laguardia, G.R. No. 164785, April
29, 2009). It is content-neutral
regulation if it is merely concerned
with the incidents of the speech, or
one that merely controls the time,
place, or manner, and under well-
defined standards. (New Sounds
Broadcasting vs. Dy, April 2, 2009).
Content-Neutral regulations of
speech or of conduct that may
amount to speech, are subject to
lesser but still heightened scrutiny.
(Id). When the prior restraint
partakes of a content-neutral
regulation, it is subjected to an
intermediate review. (Chavez vs.
Gonzales, February 15, 2008).
20. What does it mean by
intermediate review?
- When the speech restraints take
the form of a content-neutral
regulation, only a substantial
governmental interest is required
for its validity. Because regulations
of this type are not designed to
suppress any particular message,
they are not subject to the strictest
form of judicial scrutiny but an
 intermediate approach – pass constitutional muster, with the
somewhere between the mere
rationality that is required of any
other law and the compelling
interest standard applied to
content-based restrictions. The test
is called intermediate because the
Court will not merely rubberstamp
the validity of a law but also
require that the restrictions be
narrowly-tailored to promote an
important or significant
governmental interest that is
unrelated to the suppression of
expression. For the regulation to be
valid, the following requisites must
concur:
(a) The government regulation is
within the constitutional
power of the Government.
(b)It furthers an important or
substantial governmental
interest.
(c) The governmental interest is
unrelated to the suppression
of free expression.
(d)The incidental restriction on
freedom of expression is no
greater that is essential to
the furtherance of that
interest. (1-United Transport
vs. Comelec, April 14, 2015).
21. Distinguish Content-Based (CB)
Restrictions from Content-Neutral
(CN) Restrictions.
- CB restrictions are imposed on the
content or substance itself, while
CN restrictions are imposed on
time, mode, and manner of the
expression. CB restrictions are
subject to the test of clear and
present danger to be valid, while
CN restrictions are only subject to
intermediate approach.
22. What is a Content-Based
Regulation?
- A government action that restricts
freedom of speech or of the press
based on the substance or content
of the expression (what to speak or
express) is given the strictest
scrutiny in the light of its inherent
and invasive impact. Only when the
challenged act has overcome the
clear and present danger test will it
government having the burden of
overcoming the presumed
constitutionality. The interest of the
government must be compelling.
There is a presumption of illegality
or unconstitutionality in CB
restrictions.
A content-based restraint is aimed at
the contents or idea of the
expression (New Sounds vs. Dy).
Content-based regulations can
either be based on the viewpoint of
the speaker or the subject of the
expression. (Chaves vs. Gonzales).
23. Examples of Content-Based
regulations:
a. Burgos vs. Chief of Staff: The
padlocking of Metropolitan Mail
and We Forum was declared
invalid.
b. Eastern Broadcasting vs. Dans: The
arbitrary closure of radio station
was held invalid.
c. Viva Productions vs. CA and Hubert
Webb: The injunction issued by the
court was declared illegal for lack
of any clear and present danger.
d. Mutuc vs. Comelec: The prohibition
against taped jingles is invalid for
being in the nature of censorship.
e. Sanidad vs. Comelec: RA2167 is
void restricting journalists to
publish about the plebiscite.
f. Adiong vs. Comelec: The
prohibition on public exhibition of
propaganda in any place private or
public except the common poster
area are considered invalid. Free
speech has a status of preferred
freedom. Balancing of interest
between individual freedom on the
one hand and public interest on the
other. The posting of decals and
stickers in mobile places does not
endanger any substantial
government interest.
g. SWS vs. Comelec: The prohibition
of publication of surveys of national
position 15 days before election,
and of local position 7 days before
election was declared an invalid
prior restraint.
h. New Sounds Broadcasting vs. Dy:
An ordinance converting the
location of a radio station critical of
the local government officials was
annulled by the SC for being a
content-based regulation.
24. What are the tests on the
restrictions? How can a Supreme Court, when the inferior
governmental regulation be
considered valid?
- Restraints on freedom of speech
and expression are evaluated by
either or a combination of the
three tests:
a. Dangerous Tendency Doctrine: This
permits limitations on speech once
a rational connection has been
established between the speech
restrained and the danger
contemplated. This was mostly
used during American period. It
punishes the tendency, hence easy
for the government to restrict. This
is no longer favored. It was used
once in the case of Umil vs. Ramos
(1991)
b. Balancing of Interest Test: Used as
a standard when the courts need to
balance conflicting social values
and individual interests, and
requires a conscious and detailed
consideration of the interplay of
interest observable in a given type
of situation.
“When particular conduct is
regulated in the interest of public
order, and the regulation results in
an indirect, conditional, or partial
abridgment of speech, the duty of
the courts is to determine which of
the two conflicting interests
demands the greater protection
under the particular circumstances
presented.”
This test was used in Lagunzad vs.
Sotto, involving the Licensing
agreement for the movie entitled
“The Moises Padilla Story”,
wherein Mrs. Sotto’s right to
delete, change and alter scenes
under the Licensing Agreement
was upheld in order to protect the
right to privacy.
This was also used in the cases of
Ayer vs. Capulong and Gonzales vs.
Comelec.
According to Bernas, balancing of
interest was also applied in
contempt cases involving the
courts are involved, the SC will
apply the clear and present danger
test.
c. Clear and Present Danger Rule:
Speech may be restrained because
there is a substantial danger that
the speech will likely lead to an evil
the government has a right to
prevent. This rule requires that the
evil consequences sought to be
serious and the degree of
imminence extremely high.
In Gonzaga vs. Gonzales, The term
“clear” seems to point to a causal
connection with the danger of
substantive evil arising from the
utterance questioned; while the
present refers to the time element
identified with imminent and
immediate danger. (there must be
some extremely serious threat, not
a mere possibility. It is difficult to
satisfy.)
(e.g. shouting fire inside the
moviehouse.)
The question in every case is
whether the words are used in such
circumstances and are of such a
nature as to create a clear and
present danger that will bring
about the substantive evils that
Congress has a right to prevent. It
is a question of proximity and
degree.
More recent decisions have
preferred the “clear and present
danger” rule. In addition, the
“balancing of interests” test has
also been given clear recognition.
Such tests must be satisfied so that
government regulations that are
content-based may be justified.
 It should also be noted that these
tests apply not only to freedom of
speech and press, but also to other
preferred freedoms: freedom of
association, right of assembly and
petition, and freedom of religion.
25. What are the unprotected
speeches?
- It has been established in this
jurisdiction that unprotected
speech or low-value expression
refers to libelous statements,
obscenity or pornography, false or
misleading advertisement, insulting
or fighting words, i.e., those which
by their very utterance inflict injury
or tend to incite an immediate
breach of peace and expression
endangering national security.
(Soriano vs. Laguardia).
26. What is libel? Why is it
unprotected? And what are
defences?
- Libel is the public and malicious
imputation of a crime, or a vice or
defect, real or imaginary, or any
act, omission, condition, status, or
circumstance tending to cause
dishonor, discredit, or contempt of
a natural or juridical person, or to
blacken the memory of one who is
dead.
- Two possibilities – private person
and public person.
- When directed against private
individual, one is not entitled to
constitutional protection since
there is no advancement of public
interest. There is a presumption of
malice.
- Presumption of malice will not
apply in the following instances:
1. Private communication
made by any person to another
in the performance of any legal,
moral or social duty.
2. A fair and true report,
made in good faith, without any
comments or remarks, of any
judicial, legislative, or other
official proceedings, which are
not of a confidential nature, or of
any statement, report or speech
delivered in said proceedings, or
of any act performed by public
officers in the exercise of their
functions.
- When directed against public
official, Section 4 may be invoked
because official should be open for
criticism to enhance public service.
The criticism must be of his public
function and not to his private life.
If it has nothing to do with the
public function, freedom of
expression cannot be invoked.
- In Vasquez vs. CA: Petitioner
criticized the barangay captain as a
landgrabber. The SC reversed the
conviction of Vasquez. According to
SC, when the public official
charged one with libel related to
his function, it is his burden to
prove that the statement is false.
The imputation must be related to
the official function. It must also be
proved that the statement was
made maliciously.
- How to prove malicious statement:
First, knowledge of the falsity.
Second, reckless disregard of what
is true.
- In Borjal vs. CA (1988), Public
officials are public figures. One
need not be a public official to be a
public figure.
- New York Times vs. Solivan – A
public figure is one who, by his
accomplishment, fame, mode of
living, or by adopting a profession
or calling which gives the public
interest in his doings, affairs and
his character.
- For a public figure, the
presumption will be reversed.
27. What is Contempt? Why is it
unprotected? What is the coverage
of the concept?
- CONTEMPT is disrespect directed
against the court. Contempt applies
 usually when there is a pending
case, but recently, even without
pending cases.
- In SWS vs. Asuncion: Contempt can
be imposed even if there is no
pending case to safeguard the
respect of the people for the courts.
- In re: Column of Ramon Tulfo: Tulfo
accused SC as “sangkatutak na
bobo”. It was declared
contumacious. Freedom of the
press is subordinate to the
decision, authority, integrity and
independence of the judiciary and
the proper administration of
justice.
- In Re: Emil Jurado (1995) – Judges
were accused of corruption. Jurado
was cited for contempt. He was
found guilty. (Reverse presumption
was not applied even if the persons
involved were judges, hence, public
officers).
28. What is obscenity? Why is it
unprotected? What is the test of
obscenity?
- PITA vs. CA. Bagatsing (1989) –
The established basic guidelines to
determine obscenity are as follows:
a. Whether the average person,
applying contemporary
standards, would find the work,
taken as a whole, appeals to the
prurient interest;
b. Whether the work depicts or
describes, in a patently offensive
way, sexual conduct specifically
defined by the applicable state
law;
c. Whether the work, taken as a
whole, lacks serious literary,
artistic, political, or scientific
value.
U.S. vs. Kottinger, 45 Phil. 352 –
accused was acquitted from the
charge of offering for sale half-clad
members of non-christian tribes,
holding that he had only presented
them in their native attire.
People vs. Go Pin – Accused exhibited
nude paintings and pictures. He was
declared as the purpose was
commercial for charging admission
fee.
Pita vs. Court of Appeals – the issue of
obscenity is a judicial function.
Gonzales vs. Katigbak – The power of
the Board of Review was upheld.
Power to review is only for
classification and not for censorship.
RIGHT TO ASSEMBLY AND
PETITION
29. What is the Right to Assembly?
- Right to assembly is the right to
meet peaceably and discuss or
consult one another on matters
of public concen.
30. What is the Right to Petition?
- This means the right to address
grievances.
31. What is the nature of the right to
assembly and petition?
- These rights are preferred rights.
In PBM Employees Association vs.
PBM Steel Mills, the right to free
assembly and petition prevails over
economic rights. However, in Dela
Cruz vs. Court of Appeals – the
education of the youth occupies a
preferred position over – or at the
very least, equated with – the
freedom of assembly and petition.
32. What are the salient features of
BP880?
BP 880 – An Act ensuring Free
Exercise By the People of Their Right
Peaceably to Assemble and Petition
the Government and For Other
Purposes.
Salient Features:
1. Public Assembly means any
rally, demonstration, march, parade,
procession, or any other form of mass
or concerted action held in a public
place for the purpose of presenting a
lawful cause; or expressing an opinion
to the general public on any particular
issue; or protesting or influencing any
state of affairs whether political,
economic, or social; or petitioning the
government for redress of grievances.
2. The definition shall not include
picketing and other concerted action
in strike areas by workers and
employees resulting from a labor
dispute as defined by the Labor Code,
etc.
3. Public Place shall include any
highway, boulevard, avenue, road,
street, bridge or other thoroughfare,
park, plaza, square, and/or any open
space of public ownership where the
people are allowed access.
4. Maximum tolerance means the
highest degree of restraint that the
military, police and other peace
keeping authorities shall observe
during a public assembly or in the
dispersal of the same.
5. Permit – written permit is
required to hold public assembly in a
public place. No permit is required for
assemblies in freedom park, in private
property, in campus of a government
educational institution. Political rallies
are not covered by the Act.
In Reyes vs. Bagatsing (1983) – Reyes
applied for permit to rally in front of
the gate of US Embassy. Mayor
Bagatsing denied it. SC ruled that
Mayor cannot deny the application. If
there is clear and present danger, he
should suggest for another place.
There must be proof of sufficient
weight to satisfy clear and present
danger test.
In Malabanan vs. Sarmiento (1984) –
right to assembly is not subject to
prior restraint. However, the
peaceable character of the assembly
could be lost, however, by an advocacy
of disorder under the name of dissent.
If there are violations to the permit,
the penalty incurred should not be
disproportionate to the offense.
In Nestle vs. Sanchez (1987) – picket
was held in front of the SC to pressure
it to render a favorable decision. The
SC prohibited the holding of rallies in
the vicinity of any and all courts. Also
fundamental is the right of every
citizen to have justice administered by
the courts under the protection and
form of law free from outside coercion
and interference.
Miriam College Foundation vs. Court
of Appeals (2000) – (Campus
Journalism Act) - students may not be
suspended or expelled solely on the
basis of the articles written, except
when such article materially disrupts
class, work or involves substantial
disorder or invasion of right of others.
Dela Cruz vs. CA (1999) – Public
school teachers were dismissed from
service for joining a mass action. SC
held that the mass action amounted to
a strike. No constitutional right was
involved. The acts were prejudicial to
the best interest of the service by
staging protest during school days.
Bayan vs. Ermita (2006) –
Constitutionality of BP 880. It merely
regulates the time, place and manner
of the assemblies. This is a content-
neutral restriction that applies to all
kinds of assemblies. Lawful cause does
not make it content-based, otherwise
the assembly would not be peaceable.
CPR – in view of the maximum
tolerance mandated by BP 880, CPR
serves no valid purpose if it means the
same thing as maximum tolerance,
and is illegal if it means something
else. It confuses the people.
“The terms of the application cannot
be modified if there is no clear and
present danger.
FACIAL CHALLENGES
33. What is a facial challenge?
- A facial challenge may be raised
against any restraint upon freedom
of expression. Such restraint may
be suppressed if found to be
 overbroad or vague. (White Light
Corporation vs. City of Manila, 576
SCRA 416). (The term facial means
“on its face” or based solely on its
contents that is even before the
provisions of the law can be
applied. The opposite of facial
challenge is “as applied” challenge,
the latter requiring an actual case
or controversy so that the law may
be applied).
34. What is the overbreadth
doctrine?
- Under this doctrine, a proper
governmental purpose,
constitutionally subject to state
regulation, may not be achieved by
mean that unnecessarily sweep its
subject broadly, thereby invading
the area of protected speech.
(Disini vs. Secretary, 2014).
- The so-called overbreadth doctrine
has been applied when a statute
needlessly restrains even
constitutionally guaranteed rights.
- By its nature, the overbreadth
doctrine has to necessarily apply a
facial type of invalidation in order
to plot areas of protected speech,
inevitably almost always under
situations not before the court, that
are impermissibly swept by the
substantially overbroad regulation.
- When the law sweeps unnecessarily
broadly and invades an area of
protected freedom.
The overbreadth doctrine decrees
that a governmental purpose to
control or prevent activities
constitutionally subject to state
regulations may not be achieved by
means which sweep unnecessarily
broadly and thereby invade the
area of protected freedoms.
35. What is the vagueness test?
- The void-for-vagueness doctrine
holds that a law is facially invalid if
men of common intelligence must
necessarily guess at its meaning
and differ as to its application.
- It is best to stress that the
vagueness doctrine has a special
application only to free-speech
cases. They are not appropriate for
testing the validity of penal
statutes. (Lagman vs. Medialdea
(2017).
- The vagueness doctrine is an
analytical tool developed for testing
“on their faces” statutes in free
speech cases xxx. A facia challenge
is allowed to be made to a vague
statute and also to one which is
overbroad because of possible
“chilling effect” on protected
speech that comes from statutes
violating free speech. A person who
does not know whether his speech
constitutes a crime under
overbroad or vague law may be
simply restrain himself form
speaking in order to avoid being
charged a crime. The overbroad or
vague law thus chills him into
silence. (Lagman vs. Medialdea)
- A statute can be impermissibly
vague for either of two independent
reasons. First, if it fails to provide
people of ordinary intelligence a
reasonable opportunity to
understand what conduct it
prohibits, Second, if it authorizes or
- even encourages arbitrary and
discriminatory enforcement.
(Chicago vs. Comelec)
FREEDOM OF RELIGION
Section 5. No law shall be made
respecting an establishment of
religion, or prohibiting the free
exercise thereof. The free exercise
and enjoyment of religious
profession and worship, without
discrimination or preference, shall
forever be allowed. No religious
test shall be required for the
exercise of civil and political
rights.
1. What is religion (for purpose of
Section 5)?
- Religion is acknowledged as
referring to any specific system of
 belief, worship, conduct, etc., often
involving a code of ethics and a
philosophy; also defined as “a
profession of faith to an active
power that binds and elevates man
to his Creator.” (Aglipay vs. Ruiz).
The existence of a Divine Being is
not inherein in religion (Cruz,
2015).
2. What rights are guaranteed by
Section 5?
- The right against the establishment
of religion by the State, the right to
free exercise of religion by
individual, the right against
religious test in the exercise of civil
and political rights.
3. Is facial challenge available to
challenge laws that curtail
freedom of religion?
- Yes. Facial challenge expanded its
scope to cover statutes not only
regulating freedomof speech, but
also those involving religious
freedom and other fundamental
rights. (Romualdez vs. COmelec,
2008)
4. What it the principle of the
separation of church and state?
- The 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 it if sincerely believes
that they are good for the country.
(Imbong vs. Ochoa, April 8, 2014).
- The (church) can neither impose its
beliefs and convictions on the State
and the rest of the citizenry nor can
it demand that the nation follow its
beliefs, even if it sincerely believes
that they are good for the country.
(Republic vs. Manalo, April 24,
2018).
5. What is the non-establishment
of religion clause?
- What the non-establishment of
religion calls for is government
neutrality in religious matters.
Such government neutrality may be
summarized in four general
propositions: (1) Government must
not prefer one religion over
another, or religion over irreligion;
(2) Government funds must not be
applied to religious purposes; (3)
Government action must not aid
religion; (4) Government action
must not result in excessive
entanglement with religion.
- The establishment clause
"principally prohibits the State
from sponsoring any religion or
favoring any religion as against
other religions. It mandates a strict
neutrality in affairs among religious
groups." Essentially, it prohibits the
establishment of a state religion
and the use of public resources for
the support or prohibition of a
religion.
- In the same breath that the
establishment clause restricts what
the government can do with
religion, it also limits what religious
sects can or cannot do with the
government. They can neither
cause the government to adopt
their particular doctrines as policy
for everyone, nor can they not
cause the government to restrict
other groups. To do so, in simple
terms, would cause the State to
adhere to a particular religion and,
thus, establishing a state religion.
6. How to determine that
government action which
appear to be religious is
permissible?
- LEMON TEST (Based on Lemon vs.
Kurtzman, 403 US 602).
- All requisites must be present:
1. The statute has a secular
legislative purpose.
2. Its principal or primary
purpose is one that neither
 advances nor inhibits
religion.
3. The action must not promote
nor foster excessive
government entanglement
with religion.
- Aglipay vs. Ruiz: Commemorative
stamps of the 33rd International
Eucharistic Congress. Secular
purpose: the budget was used only
to promote the Philippines as the
venue to attract more tourist to
visit the country. Purpose is
publicity. The religiosity of the
purpose is merely incidental.
- Garces vs. Estenzo: (Wooden Image
of San Vicente purchased from
contribution of the people to be
used for fiesta. The hermano mayor
was made the custodian of the
image. After the fiesta, the parish
priest refused to return the image
to the council. Held: No violation
of the constitution since the funds
used was private, and the purpose
was socio-religious. It was for the
purpose of the fiesta and not for
favoring any religion.
- Manosca vs. CA: NHI declared the
site of birth of Felix Manalo to be a
national historical landmark. Held:
the idea that public use is strictly
limited to clear cases of “use by the
public” has long been discarded.
The purpose in setting up the
marker is essentially to recognize
the distinctive contribution of the
late Felix Manalo to the culture of
the Philippines, rather than to
commemorate his founding and
leadership of INC. The practical
reality that greater benefit may be
derived by members of the INC
than by most others could well be
true, but such a peculiar advantage
still remains to be merely incidental
and secondary in nature.
- Victoriano v. Elizalde Rope
Worker’s Union – joining a union
is prohibited by the Iglesia ni Cristo
under closed shop agreement –
freedom of religion takes
precedence over the right against
impairment of contracts. Victoriano
was dismissed from employment for
his refusal to join the union
mandated by the closed-shop
agreement. Held: the exemption
from the effects of closed shop
agreement does not directly
advance, or diminish, the interest
of any particular religion.
- Islamic Da’wah Council vs. OMA:
EO465 was issued by the Office of
the Executive Secretary creating
the Philippine Halal Certification
exclusively under the OMA. Held:
OMA deals with the societal, legal,
political and economic concerns of
the Muslim Community as a
“national cultural community” and
not as a religious group. Classifying
a food product as halal is a
religious function because the
standards used are drawn from the
Qu’ran and Islamic beliefs. By
giving OMA the exclusive power to
classify food products as halal, EO
46 encroached on the religious
freedom of Muslim organizations
like herein petitioner to interpret
for Filipino muslims what food
products are fir for Muslim
consumption. Also, by arrogating to
itself the task of issuing halal
certifications, the State has in
effect forced Muslims to accept its
own interpretation of the Qu’ran
and Sunnah on halal food.
4. What is the free exercise of
religion clause?
- FREE EXERCISE CLAUSE pertains
to freedom to believe and to
freedom to act in accordance with
one’s belief. The distinction is very
important because freedom to
believe is absolute while freedom to
act on one’s belief is subject to
restrictions.
- Corollary to the guarantee of free
exercise of one's religion is the
principle that the guarantee of
religious freedom is comprised of
two parts: the freedom to believe,
and the freedom to act on one's
belief. The first part is absolute. As
 explained in Gerona v. Secretary of
Education: The realm of belief and
creed is infinite and limitless
bounded only by one's imagination
and thought. So is the freedom of
belief, including religious belief,
limitless and without bounds. One
may believe in most anything,
however strange, bizarre and
unreasonable the same may appear
to others, even heretical when
weighed in the scales of orthodoxy
or doctrinal standards. But between
the freedom of belief and the
exercise of said belief, there is
quite a stretch of road to travel.
The second part however, is limited
and subject to the awesome power
of the State and can be enjoyed
only with proper regard to the
rights of others. It is "subject to
regulation where the belief is
translated into external acts that
affect the public welfare." (Imbong
vs. Ochoa)
- Ebralinag vs. Division
Superintendent: The right to
religious profession and worship
has a two-fold aspect, vis., freedom
to believe and freedom to act on
one's belief. The first is absolute as
long as the belief is confined within
the realm of thought. The second is
subject to regulation where the
belief is translated into external
acts that affect the public welfare
(J. Cruz, Constitutional Law, 1991
Ed., pp. 176-177).
- Petitioners were expelled for
refusing to salute the flag, sing the
national anthem, and recite the
patriotic pledge. Held: Religious
freedom is a fundamental right
which his entitled to the highest
priority and the amplest protection
among human rights, for it involves
man’s relationship to his Creator.
Two-fold aspect of religious
freedom. Freedom to believe and
freedom to act in accordance with
one’s belief. The sole justification
for a prior restraint or limitation on
the exercise of religious freedom is
the existence of a grave and
present danger of a character both
grave and imminent, of a serious
evil to public safety, public morals,
public health, or any other
legitimate public interest, that the
state has a right to prevent. Absent
such a threat to public safety, the
expulsion of the Petitioners from
the schools is not justified.
- American Bible Society vs. City of
Manila: License tax cannot be
imposed on sale of religious articles
because that is a restraint to
freedom of exercise.
- Tolentino vs. Secretary: Religious
articles may be taxed. Sales tax can
be imposed to everyone including
religious materials.
- INC vs. Court of Appeals” MTRCB
x-rated the INC program on the
ground that they offend and
constitute an attack against other
religions which is expressly
prohibited by law. Held: Prior
restraint on speech, including
religious speech, cannot be justified
by hypothetical fears but only by
showing of a substantive and
imminent evil which the state has
the right to prevent.
- Victoriano vs. Elizalde: Victoriano
was dismissed from employment for
his refusal to join the union
mandated by the closed-shop
agreement. Held: the exemption
from the effects of closed shop
agreement does not directly
advance, or diminish, the interest
of any particular religion.
- Centeno vs. Villalon-Pornillos:
Petitioner questions the
applicability of PD 1564 (No
solicitation law) for solicitations for
contributions intended for religious
purposes. Held: Freedom to act in
accordance with one’s belief can be
subject to regulation by the state.
The state has the authority under
the exercise of police power to
determine whether or not there
shall be restrictions on soliciting by
unscrupulous persons or for
unworthy causes. However, in the
case, what is being regulated is the
 “solicitation for charitable purpose”
which does not necessarily include
“religious purpose.
- Ang Mga Kaanib vs. Iglesia: Ang
mga Kaanib ng Iglesia ng Diyos kay
Kristo Hesus, Haligi at Saligan ng
Katotohanan sa Bansang Pilipinas,
Inc., was compelled by SEC to
change its name for being similar
to IDKH-Haligi at Suhay ng
Katotohanan. Held: The name is no
a violation of the constitutionality
guaranteed right to religious
freedom. The SEC merely
compelled the Petitioner to abide
by one of the SEC guidelines in the
approval of partnership and
corporate names, namely its
undertaking to manifest its
willingness to change its corporate
name in the event another person,
firm, or entity has acquired a prior
right to the use of the said firm
name or one deceptively or
confusingly similar to it.
5. What is the approach of the
State towards the Free Exercise
of Religion?
- In Estrada vs. Escritor, this court
ruled that in religious freedom
cases, the test of benevolent
neutrality should be applied.
Under the test of benevolent
neutrality, religious freedom is
weighed against a compelling state
interest: Benevolent neutrality
recognizes that government must
pursue its secular goals and
interests but at the same time
strives to uphold religious liberty to
the greatest extent possible within
flexible constitutional limits. Thus,
although the morality contemplated
by laws is secular, benevolent
neutrality could allow for
accommodation of morality based
on religion, provided it does not
offend compelling state interests.
- Our Constitution adheres to the
benevolent neutrality approach that
gives room for accommodation of
religious exercises as required by
the Free Exercise Clause. Thus, in
arguing that respondent should be
held administratively liable as the
arrangement she had was "illegal
per se because, by universally
recognized standards, it is
inherently or by its very nature
bad, improper, immoral and
contrary to good conscience," the
Solicitor General failed to
appreciate that benevolent
neutrality could allow for
accommodation of morality based
on religion, provided it does not
offend compelling state interests.
6. What is intramural dispute?
- Intramural Disputes are within the
walls of religion, or dispute
between two religions, or among
members of a religion.
7. What should be the approach of
the government toward
intramural disputes?
- Hands-off policy. Intervention can
only be done in case of clear and
present danger. Courts cannot
review the decision of church
authorities except when:
1. There is a violation of its
internal (quorum) rules.
2. It involves question on
property. Property issue is a
civil issue. There would be a
violation of due process if the
state will not intervene.
- A conflict between two persons
with respect to the leadership of
their church, and control over its
properties, is to be resolved in
accordance with pertinent laws and
internal rules of said church.
(Fonacier, vs. CA).
- Only issues pertaining to civil
rights pertinent to ecclesiastical
matters can be taken cognizance of
civil courts. (Gonzales vs.
Archbishop of Manila)
- The amendments of the
constitution, restatement of articles
of religion and abandonment of
faith or abjuration, having to do
with faith, practice, doctrine, form
of worship, ecclesiastical law,
custom and rule of a church and
 having reference to the power of
excluding from the church those
allegedly unworthy of membership,
are unquestionably ecclesiastical
matters which are outside the
province of the civil courts. (Taruc
vs. Bishop De La Cruz).
- Matters dealing with faith, practice,
doctrine, form of worship,
ecclesiastical law, custom and rule
of a church, are unquestionably
ecclesiastical matters which are
outside the province of civil courts
(Estrada vs. Escritor).
- An ecclesiastical affair involves the
relationship between the church
and its members and relate to
matters of faith, religious doctrines,
worship and governance of the
congregation. To be concrete,
examples of this so-called
ecclesiastical affairs to which the
State cannot meddle are
proceedings for excommunication,
ordinations or religious ministers,
administration of sacraments, and
other activities with which attached
religious significance (Austria vs.
NLRC).
8. What is the standard of morality
that should be applied by
courts?
- When the law speaks of immoral, or
necessarily, disgraceful conduct, it
pertains to public and secular
morality; it refers to those conducts
which are proscribed because they
are detrimental to conditions upon
which depend the existence and
progress of human society (Leus vs.
St. Scholastica’s College).
- Prohibition against immorality
should be based on a purpose that
is independent of religious beliefs.
When it forms part of our laws,
rules, and policies, morality must
be secular. Laws and rules of
conduct must be based on a secular
purpose (Perfecto vs. Judge
Esidera)
- Jurisprudence has already set the
standard of morality with which an
act should be gauged - it is public
and secular, not religious. Whether
a conduct is considered disgraceful
or immoral should be made in
accordance with the prevailing
norms of conduct, which, as stated
in Leus, refer to those conducts
which are proscribed because they
are detrimental to conditions
upon which depend the
existence and progress of
human society. The fact that a
particular act does not conform to
the traditional moral views of a
certain sectarian institution is not
sufficient reason to qualify such act
as immoral unless it, likewise, does
not conform to public and secular
standards. More importantly, there
must be substantial evidence to
establish that premarital sexual
relations and pregnancy out of
wedlock is considered disgraceful
or immoral (Capin-Cadiz vs. Brent
Hospital)
- Morality refers to what is good or
right conduct at a given
circumstance. In Estrada v.
Escritor, this court described
morality as "‘how we ought to live’
and why." Morality may be
religious, in which case what is
good depends on the moral
prescriptions of a high moral
authority or the beliefs of a
particular religion. Religion, as this
court defined in Aglipay v. Ruiz, is
"a profession of faith to an active
power that binds and elevates man
to his Creator." A conduct is
religiously moral if it is consistent
with and is carried out in light of
the divine set of beliefs and
obligations imposed by the active
power. Morality may also be
secular, in which case it is
independent of any divine moral
prescriptions. What is good or right
at a given circumstance does not
derive its basis from any religious
doctrine but from the independent
moral sense shared as humans.
9. Who may get the property in
case of split of membership?
- One who still believes in the
doctrine. Supposing there is no
quarrel on the doctrine, then the
Church must follow the majority
rule. If there is no majority, it will
remain with the duly constituted
authority.
10. What are the issues that the
courts should not come in?
- Matters of faith, doctrine, form of
worship, church and custom. Why,
because of lack of standards. There
is no law that determines what is
right.
- Austria vs. NLRC: Petitioner is an
SDA pastor. He has figured in a
conflict with fellow pastors over a
certain debt. He was eventually
dismissed from service. He alleged
that the dismissal was without just
or lawful cause. Held: Separation of
church and state does not apply in
this case. This does not involve
matters of faith but of the
relationship between employer and
employee. Petitioner was
terminated from service without
just cause. He is entitled to
reinstatement.
- Taruc vs. Dela Cruz: The bishop of
Philippine independent church
excommunicated several members
who disobeyed to his orders
denying the replacement of a
parish priest. Petitioner contend
that their expulsion was without
due process. Held: The court has no
jurisdiction. The civil courts must
not allow themselves to intrude
unduly on matters of an
ecclesiastical nature.
- Fonacier vs. CA: Supreme Bishop
Fonacier ousted two bishops for
alleged insubordination. The ousted
bishop alleged violation of due
process as they were not furnished
with a copy of the complaint
against them. There was also no
hearing conducted in violation of
the church’s constitution. They
were excommunicated. Held: the
Court can intervene. The
amendments of the constitution,
restatement of articles of religion,
and abandonment of faith or
abjuration are outside the province
of the civil courts. However, where
a decision of an ecclesiastical court
plainly violated the law it possesses
to administer, or is in conflict with
the laws of the land, it will not be
followed by the civil courts. In some
instances, not only have the civil
courts assumed the right to inquire
into the jurisdiction of religious
tribunals and the regularity of their
procedure, but they have subject
their decisions to the test of
fairness or to the test furnished by
the constitution and laws of the
church. Thus, it has been held that
expulsion of a member without
notice or an opportunity to be
heard is not conclusive upon the
civil court when a property right is
involved.
RIGHT TO TRAVEL AND
ABODE:
Section 6. The liberty of abode and
of changing the same within the
limits prescribed by law shall not
be impaired except upon lawful
order of the court. Neither shall the
right to travel be impaired except
in the interest of national security,
public safety, or public health, as
may be provided by law.
11. What are the rights
guaranteed by Section 6?
- They are the right to travel and the
liberty of abode.
12. Who may avail of these
rights?
- These rights are available to
everyone, including aliens.
13. What is the liberty of abode?
- Liberty under the foregoing clause
includes the right to choose one’s
residence, to leave it whenever he
pleases and to travel wherever he
wills. (Villavicencio vs. Lucban).
14. What are the restrictions to
the right to abode?
- The liberty of abode can be limited
by law and upon lawful order of the
court.
- Health officers may restrict access
to contaminated areas and also
quarantine those already exposed
to the disease sought to be
contained. (Lorenzo vs. Director of
Health)
- Where there is a volcanic eruption,
residents in the affected area may
be forced to evacuate and
prevented from returning until the
danger is over.
- In Caunca vs. Salazar, the right of
the maid to transfer to another
residence even if she had not yet
paid the amount advanced by an
employment agency, who was then
detaining her, for her
transportation from the province
was sustained by the Supreme
Court.
- In Rubi vs. Provincial Board, the
respondents were justified in
requiring the members of certain
non-christian tribes to reside in a
reservation, for their better
education, advancement and
protection.
15. What does the right to travel
mean?
- This right refers to the right to
move freely from the Philippines to
the other countries or within the
Philippines. It is a right embraced
within the general concept of
liberty. Liberty – a birthright of
every person – includes the power
of locomotion and the right of
citizens to be free to use their
faculties in lawful ways and to live
and work where they desire or
where they can best pursue the
ends of life. (SPARK vs. Quezon
City, 2017).
16. Is this right absolute?
- No. the State may impose
limitations on the exercise of this
right, provided that they: (1) serve
the interest of national security,
public safety, or public health; and
(2) are provided by law. (SPARK vs.
Quezon City).
- Other limitations to the right to
travel are: (1) restrictions to
persons charged of crimes before
the courts, (2) restrictions on
person subpoenaed or ordered
arrested by the Senate or House of
Representatives pursuant to their
power of legislative inquiry, (3)
restrictions on government
employees and officials.
- Special laws also restrict the right
to travel like the Human Security
Act, Philippine Passport Act of
1996, Migrant Workers and
Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995, Act
on Violence Against Women and
Children, Inter-Country Adoption
Act, among others.
- Santiago vs. CA – Courts can
restrict the right to travel.
- Silverio vs. CA – Courts can limit
the right to travel notwithstanding
the silence of the Constitution. An
accused released on bail may be
rearrested without the necessity of
a warrant if he attempts to depart
from the Philippines without prior
permission of the Court where the
case is pending. It should by no
means be construed as delimiting
the inherent power of the Court to
use all means necessary to carry
their orders into effect.
17. When restriction not
arbitrary?
- When in pursuance to the interest
of national security, public safety
and public health, and in
accordance with law.
18. Does the right to travel
include the right to return?
- The right to return to one’s country
is not among the rights specifically
guaranteed in the Bill of Rights,
which treats only of liberty of
abode and the right to travel, but it
is a well-considered view that the
 right to return may be considered,
as a generally accepted principle of
international law and, under our
Constitution, is part of the law of
the land. However, it is distinct and
separate from the right to travel
and enjoys a different protection
under the International Covenant of
Civil and Political Rights, i.e.,
against being arbitrarily deprived
thereof. (Marcos vs. Manglapus)
19. Does the right to travel
include the right to choose the
vehicle to use?
- Mirasol vs. DPWH: There was a
total ban on motorcycles along the
entire breadth of toll expressways.
The right to travel does not mean
the right to choose any vehicle in
traversing a toll way. The right to
travel refers to the right to move
from one place to another.
Petitioners can traverse the toll
way any time they choose using
private or four-wheeled vehicles.
The right to travel does not entitle
a person to the best form of
transport or to the most convenient
route to this destination.
20. What are the limits to the
right to abode?
- The right to abode can be exercised
within the limits prescribed by law
and/or by lawful order of the court.
Hence, the law and the lawful order
of the court can limit the exercise
of the right.
21. Cite examples of such
limitations.
- Examples: In Yap vs. CA –
Condition of bail not to change
residence is valid. Also, Executive
officials and military commanders
cannot restrict liberty of abode.
RIGHT TO INFORMATION AND
TO ACCESS TO OFFICIAL
RECORDS
Section 7. The right of the people to
information on matters of public
concern shall be recognized. Access
to official records, and to
documents, and papers pertaining
to official acts, transactions, or
decisions, as well as to government
research data used as basis for
policy development, shall be
afforded the citizen, subject to such
limitations as may be provided by
law.
22. What are the rights
guaranteed by Section 7?
- They are the right to information
and the right to access to official
records.
23. What is the distinction
between the two?
- The right to information is available
to all people, while the right to
access is only for Filipinos.
24. What is the relevance of the
right to information to the right
to free expression?
- The right to information supports
and strengthens the right to free
expression.
- Armed with the right to
information, citizens can
participate in public discussions
leading to the formulation of
government policies and their
effective implementation. An
informed citizenry is essential to
the existence and proper
functioning of any democracy.
(Initiatives for Dialogue vs. PSALM,
October 9, 2012)
- In a democratic society like ours,
the free exchange of information is
necessary, and can be possible only
if the people are provided the
proper information on matters that
affect them (Sereno vs. Committee
on Trade, February 1, 2016).
25. What is the nature and scope
of the right to information?
- The right to information is self-
executory, hence, there is no need
of legislation to be enforceable.
This right is also called as “public
right” which any citizen can assert.
It is also a fundamental right
whereby the government must
prove compelling state interest
before it may be curtailed. Non-
 disclosure is presumed to be Constitution does not accord the
invalid. For the scope, the right people the right to compel
covers matters which directly affect custodians of official records to
the lives of citizens; those which prepare lists, abstracts, summaries
naturally arouse the interest of and the like in their desire to
ordinary citizen. acquire information on matters of
- This right is complemented by the public concern. (Belmonte vs.
policy of public full disclosure. Valmote).
Intended as a splendid symmetry to
the right to information is the - Although citizens are afforded the
policy of public disclosure under right to information and, pursuant
Section 28, Article I of the thereto, are entitled to "access to
Constitution (Province of North official records," the Constitution
Cotabato vs. GRP, October 14, does not accord them a right to
2008). compel custodians of official
records to prepare lists, abstracts,
26. What is a matter of public summaries and the like in their
concern? desire to acquire information on
- It is a matter of public concern if it matters of public concern.
directly affects one’s life, or the (Belmonte vs. Valmonte)
matter arouses the interest of
citizens. However, there are 28. What information are
matters which are excluded by law exempt?
such as military information and - In Chavez vs. PCGG, the following
secrets, diplomatic matters, are the limitations to the right: (a)
national security matters, cabinet national security matters, (b) trade
matters, court deliberations, secrets and banking transactions,
identities of crime informants, (c) criminal matters, (d) other
trade secrets and banking confidential information, (e)
transactions, other confidential diplomatic
information. matters/correspondence, (f) closed
door cabinet meetings, (g)
- There is no rigid test in executive sessions of either house,
determining whether or not a (h) internal deliberation of the
particular information is of public Supreme Court.
concern or public interest. Both
terms cover a wide-range of issues - Excutive privilege, whether
that the public may want to be asserted against Congress, courts,
familiar with either because the of the public, is recognized only in
issues have a direct effect on them relation to certain types of
or because the issues "naturally information of a sensitive
arouse the interest of an ordinary character. The extraordinary
citizen." As such, whether or not character of the exemption
the information sought is of public indicates that the presumption
interest or public concern is left to inclines heavily against executive
the proper determination of the secrecy and in favor of disclosure.
courts on a case to case basis. (Senate vs. Ermita).

27. Does the right to access - Every claim of exemption, being a

include the right to demand to limitation on a right constitutionally
be given photocopies, abstracts, granted to the people, is liberally
summaries, among others, free construed in favor of disclosure and
of charge? strictly against the claim of
- No, production shall be at the confidentiality. (Sereno vs.
expense of the person who Committee)
requested, and is subject to
reasonable regulation. The
29. Can GSIS deny the request of
information by invoking the
right to privacy of its members
who are public officials?
- No, the right to privacy is a
personal right that may only be
invoked by the members
themselves. More so, the
information is a matter of public
concern because it involved the
loans obtained by Members of the
Batasang Pambansa who were duty
bound to ensure that GSIS
performs it duty with utmost
degree of fidelity. (Valmonte vs.
Belmote).
30. Can the Lethal Injection
Manual be kept confidential and
denied to the convict?
- The contents of the manual are
matters of public concern which the
public may want to know.
(Echegaray vs. Secretary)
31. Does the right to information
include access to the terms of
government negotiations, prior
to their consummation or
conclusion?
- Considering the intent of the
Constitution, it is incumbent upon
the government to disclose
sufficient public information on any
proposed settlement that was
decided but such information,
though, must pertain to definite
propositions of the government, not
necessarily to intra-agency or inter-
agency recommendations or
communications during the stage
when common assertions are still in
the process of being formulated or
are in the "exploratory" stage.
There is a need to observe the same
restrictions on disclosure of
information in general, as
discussed earlier — such as on
matters involving national security,
diplomatic or foreign relations,
intelligence and other classified
information. (Chavez vs. PCGG)
32. Can Congress provide for
reasonable conditions upon the
access to information?
- Yes. Example is that provided
under RA6713 which provides that,
in the performance of their duties,
all public officials and employees
are obliged to respond to letters
sent by the public within fifteen
(15) working days from receipt
thereof and to ensure the
accessibility of all public documents
for inspection by the public within
reasonable working hours, subject
to the reasonable claims of
confidentiality. (Gonzales vs.
Narvasa).
33. What are the regulations that
may be provided by Congress?
- The right to information is only
limited to matters of public
concern, and is subject to
limitations as may be provided by
law. Likewise, the State’s policy of
full public disclosure is restricted to
transactions involving public
interest, and is further subject to
reasonable conditions prescribed
by law. (Sereno vs. Committee on
Trade, February 1, 2016)
- The Court notes the valid concerns
of the other magistrates regarding
the possible illicit motives of some
individuals in their requests for
access to such personal information
and their publication.  However,
custodians of public documents
must not concern themselves with
the motives, reasons and objects of
the persons seeking access to the
records.  The moral or material
injury which their misuse might
inflict on others is the requestor’s
responsibility and lookout. Any
publication is made subject to the
consequences of the law.  While
public officers in the custody or
control of public records have the
discretion to regulate the manner
in which records may be inspected,
examined or copied by interested
persons, such discretion does not
carry with it the authority to
prohibit access, inspection,
examination, or copying of the
records.  After all, public office is a
public trust. Public officers and
employees must, at all times, be
 accountable to the people, serve
them with utmost responsibility,
integrity, loyalty, and efficiency, act
with patriotism and justice, and
lead modest lives. (Re: Request of
PCIJ, June 13, 2012)
- It bears clarification that the
Court‘s denial herein should only
cover petitioners‘ plea to be
furnished with such schedule/list
and report and not in any way deny
them, or the general public, access
to official documents which are
already existing and of public
record. Subject to reasonable
regulation and absent any valid
statutory prohibition, access to
these documents should not be
proscribed. (Belgica vs. Executive
Secretary, Novembe 19, 2013)
34. Does the right to information
apply to court records?
- Decisions and opinions of a court
are of course matters of public
concern or interest for these are
the authorized expositions and
interpretations of the laws, binding
upon all citizens, of which every
citizen is charged with knowledge.
Justice thus requires that all should
have free access to the opinion of
judges and justices, and it would be
against sound public policy to
prevent, suppress or keep the
earliest knowledge of these from
the public. Unlike court orders and
decisions, however, pleadings and
other documents filed by parties to
a case need not be matters of
public concern or interest for they
are filed for the purpose of
establishing the basis upon which
the court may issue an order or a
judgment affecting their rights and
interests. In thus determining
which part or all of the records of a
case may be accessed to, the
purpose for which the parties filed
them is to be considered. (Hilado
vs. Reyes).
35. What are the remedies in
case of denial of the right to
information?
- The following remedies may be
resorted: (a) Mandamus, (b)
administrative case.
36. How can a Petition for
Mandamus prosper?
- Two requisites must concur. First,
the information sought must be in
relation to matter of public concern
or public interest. And, secondly, it
must not be exempt by law from the
operation of the constitutional
guarantee. (Sereno vs. Committee)
RIGHT TO ASSOCIATION
Section 8. The right of the people,
including those employed in the
public and private sectors, to form
unions, associations, or societies
for purpose not contrary to law
shall not be abridged.
37. Distinguish right to
assembly from right to
association?
- Right to assembly only refers to the
gathering of people, while right to
association goes more than
assembly, such as organizing,
formation, and structure of the
association. The right to association
includes the right not to associate.
38. What is the nature of the
right to association?
- The right to form a union or
association or to self-organization
comprehends two notions, to wit:
(a) the liberty or freedom, that is,
the absence of restraint which
guarantees that the employee may
act for himself without being
prevented by law; and (b) the
power, by vitue of which an
employee may, as he pleases, join
or refrain from joining an
association (Knitjoy vs. Ferrer-
Calleja)
39. Is compelling a lawyer to be a
member of the IBP a violation of
the right to association?
- Bar integration does not compel the
lawyer to associate with anyone. He
is free to attend or not attend the
 meetings of his IBP Chapter. The possession and exercise of which
only compulsion to which he is registration is required to protect
subject is the payment of annual both labor and public against
dues. The Supreme Court, in order biases, fraud, impostors who pose
to further the State’s legitimate as organizers, although not truly
interest in elevating the quality of accredited agents of the union they
professional legal services, may purport to represent. (Paflu vs.
require that the cost of improving Secretary)
the profession in this fashion be
share by the subjects and - The right to organize does not
beneficiaries of the regulatory equate to the state’s obligation to
program – the lawyers.(In re: accord official status to every single
Edillon) association that comes into
existence. It is one thing for
40. Can the “Collective individuals to galvanize themselves
Bargaining Agreement” restrict as a collective, but it is another for
the freedom of association? the group that they formed to not
- Yes. The closed-shop agreement is only be formally recognized by the
a valid form of union security, and state, but also bedecked with all
such provision in the CBA is not a the benefits and privileges that are
restriction of the right to attendant to official status. In
association guaranteed by the pursuit of public interest, the state
Constitution. Unions are important can set reasonable regulations—
for the welfare of the workers. procedural, formal, and substantive
(Lirag vs. Blanco). —with which organizations seeking
state imprimatur must comply.
41. What is the exception to the (Quezon City PTCA vs. Deped)
rule that the CBA may impose
restriction on the right to - The court has sustained the validity
associate? not only of those requirements
- When it is contrary to one’s relating to the establishment and
religious belief (religious objector). registration of associations, but
Right to religion is preferred than also the substantive standards
the right to associate. (Victoriano delimiting who may join
vs. Elizalde) organizations, like under the Labor
Code which prohibits managerial
42. Does the denial of employees from joining the union of
registration by SEC in violation the rank and file employees (United
of right to association? Pepsi Cola vs. Laguesma)
- No. The registration is not a
limitation to the right of assembly 43. Can a person refuse to
or association, which may be comply with the payment of
exercised with or without association dues on the pretext
registration. The latter is merely a that he did not apply for
condition sine qua non for the membership of the association?
acquisition of legal personality by - When the person voluntarily bought
labor organization, association or a parcel of land from the
unions and the possession of the subdivision, it was understood that
rights and privileges granted by he took the same free of all
law to legitimate labor encumbrances except notation at
organizations. Such requirement is the back of the certificate of title,
a valid exercise of police power. among them, that he automatically
The constitution does not becomes a member of the
guarantee these rights and respondent association. One of the
privileges, much less said obligations of a member of the
personality, which are mere respondent association is to pay
statutory creation, for the certain amounts for the operation
 and activities of the association
which is being collected by the
association. The transaction
between the buyer and seller is one
of sale, and the conditions have
been validly imposed by the said
seller which is not contrary to law,
public order or public policy. The
fact that it has been approved by
the Land Registration Commission
did not make it a governmental act
subject to the constitutional
restriction against infringement of
the right of association. The
constitutional proscription that no
person can be compelled to be a
member of an association against
his will applied only to government
acts and not to private transactions
like the one in question. If he does
not desire to comply with the
annotation or lien in question he
van at any time exercise his
inviolable freedom of disposing of
the property and free himself from
the burden of becoming a member
of the association. (Bel Air vs.
Dionisio)
44. What if there was no
annotation in the title, nor any
condition in the Deed of Sale, of
automatic membership in a
homeowner’s association, can
the person be compelled to be a
member of the said association?
- NO. The constitutionally
guaranteed freedom of association
includes the freedom not to
associate. The right to choose with
whom one will associate oneself
with is the very foundation and
essence of that partnership. It
should be noted that the provision
guarantees the right to form an
association. It does not include the
right to compel others to form or
join one. (Sta. Clara vs. Spouses
Gaston)
45. What standard should be
used in restricting the right to
association?
- It depends upon the purpose of the
association. If the purpose is
related to a preferred right like the
right to religion, then the standards
should be “clear and present
danger” before a law may be
considered valid. If the purpose is
related to property, then the
ordinary test of police power
(substantive due process) may be
applied.
46. Can high school student be
prohibited from joining fraternities?
- Yes. The rule prohibiting high
school students from joining
fraternities is a reasonable
regulation, not only because of the
reasons stated in DECS Order No.
20, but also because of the adult-
oriented activities often associated
with fraternities. (Go vs. Colegio)
47. Can the rights of members of
association be restricted/prescribed
by law?
- Yes. Example is the employees of
the public sector. While they
may form unions or association
not contrary to law, they cannot
declare a strike to enforce their
economic demands being
prohibited by law. (Alliance vs.
Ministry of Labor)
EMINENT DOMAIN
Section 9. Private Property shall
not be taken for public use
without just compensation.
48. What is eminent domain?
- It is the power of the State to take
private property for public use after
payment of just compensation.
49. What is the nature of the
power of eminent domain?
- The power of eminent domain is
inherent in the State. This means
that this power can be exercised by
the State despite lack of express
conferment by law of the
Constitution. More so, this power is
essentially legislative or inherent in
the legislature, but the latter may
delegate the exercise of such
power.
- The exercise of this power is based
on the State’s primary duty to serve
 the common need and advance the
general welfare. It is inalienable
and no legislative act or agreement
can serve to abrogate the power of
eminent domain when public
necessity and convenience require
its exercise. (Republic vs. Mupas)
50. Who may exercise the power of
eminent domain?
- The power of eminent domain is
lodged primarily in the national
legislature, but its exercise may be
validly delegated to other
governmental entities and, in fact,
public corporations, like the so-
called quasi-public corporations
serving essential public needs or
operating public utilities.
(Metropolitan Cebu Water District
vs. J. King)
- The power of eminent domain is
essentially legislative in nature but
may be validly delegated to local
government units. (Municipality of
Cordoba vs. Pathfinder)
51. Does Comelec have the power
to expropriate?
- No. The power to expropriate is
inherent in Congress. There is no
provision which delegates this
power to Comelec. (PPI vs.
COmelec)
52. Can Congress require TV
stations to give free airtime?
- Yes. Airtimes is not a finished
product which becomes the
property of the company. Airwave
frequencies have to be allocated as
there are more individuals who
want to broadcast than there are
frequencies to assign. A franchise is
thus a privilege subject, among
other things, to amendment by
Congress in accordance with the
Constitution If the common good
requires. (Telecom vs. Comelec)
53. How can a local government
unit exercise the power of
eminent domain?
- The following requisites must
concur before an LGU can exercise
the power of eminent domain:
a. An ordinance is enacted by
the local legislative council
authorizing the local chief
executive, in behalf of the
LGU, to exercise the power of
eminent domain or pursue
expropriation proceedings
over a particular private
property;
b. The power of eminent domain
is exercised for public use,
purpose or welfare, or for the
benefit of the poor and the
landless;
c. There is payment of just
compensation, as required
under Section 9, Article III of
the Constitution, and other
pertinent laws;
d. A valid and definite offer has
been previously made to the
owner of the property sought
to be expropriated, but said
offer was not accepted.
The power of eminent domain
necessarily involves a derogation of
a fundamental right of the people.
The Local Government Code
expressly and clearly requires an
ordinance or a local law for the
purpose.
54. What are the phases of an
expropriation proceeding?
- Expropriation proceedings involve
two (2) phases. The first phase end
either with an order of
expropriation (where the right of
Plaintiff to take the land and the
public purpose to which they are to
be devoted are upheld), or an order
of dismissal. Either order would be
a final one since it finally disposes
of the case. The second phase
concerns the determination of just
compensation. Once the first order
become final and no appeal thereto
was taken, the authority to
expropriate and its public use
cannot anymore be questioned.
(Estate of Salud Jimenez vs. Phil.
Export)
- Every expropriate proceeding has
two stages. The first focuses on the
determination of the validity of the
expropriation. The second pertains
 to the determination of just
compensation. It has accordingly
been ruled that the determination
of the necessity of an expropriation
is a justiciable question which can
only be resolved during the first
stage of an expropriation
proceeding. A claim that the
expropriated property is too small
to be considered for public use can
only be resolved during that stage.
(Metropolitan Cebu vs. J. King)
- Whenever the court affirms the
condemnation of private property
in the first phase of the
proceedings, it merely confirms the
Government’s lawful right to take
the private property for public use
or public purpose. The transfer of
property title from the property
owner to the Government is not a
condition precedent to the taking of
property. The State may take
private property prior to the
eventual transfer of title of the
expropriated property to the State.
(Republic vs. Mupas)
55. What is inverse
condemnation proceedings?
- Inverse condemnation is a cause of
action against a governmental
defendant to recover the value of
property which has been taken in
fact by governmental defendant,
even though no formal exercise of
the power of eminent domain has
been attempted by the taking
agency. While the typical taking
occurs when the government acts
to condemn property in the
exercise of its power of eminent
domain, the entire doctrine of
inverse condemnation is predicated
on the proposition that a taking
may occur without such form
proceedings. The phrase “inverse
condemnation”, as a common
understanding of the phrase would
suggest, simply describes an action
that is inverse or reverse of a
condemnation proceeding.
(Napocor vs. Heirs of Sangkay)
- The reckoning value is the value at
the time of the filing of the
complaint, as the RTC provided in
its decision. Compensation that is
reckoned on the market value
prevailing at the time either when
NPC entered or when it completed
the tunnel, as NPC submits, would
not be just, for it would compound
the gross unfairness already caused
to the owners by NPC’s entering
without the intention of formally
expropriating the land, and without
the prior knowledge and consent of
the owners. NPC’s entry denied
elementary due process of law to
the owners since then until the
owners commenced the inverse
condemnation proceedings. The
Court is more concerned with the
necessity to prevent NPC from
unjustly profiting from its
deliberate acts of denying due
process of law to the owners. As a
measure of simple justice and
ordinary fairness to them,
therefore, reckoning just
compensation on the value at the
time the owners commenced these
inverse condemnation proceedings
is entirely warranted.
- In National Power Corporation v.
Court of Appeals, a case that
involved the similar construction of
an underground tunnel by NPC
without the prior consent and
knowledge of the owners, and in
which it was held that the basis in
fixing just compensation when the
initiation of the action preceded the
entry into the property was the
time of the filing of the complaint,
not the time of taking, as there was
no taking when the entry by NPC
was made "without intent to
expropriate or was not made under
warrant or color of legal authority."
(Napocor vs. Heirs of Sangkay)
56. What private property may be
expropriated?
- Anything that can come under the
dominion of man is subject to
expropriation. This will include real
and personal, tangible and
intangible properties. A franchise is
a property right and may therefore
be expropriated. Churches and
 other religious properties are
likewise expropriable
notwithstanding the principle of
separation of church and state. And
while it has been said tha the
wheels of commerce must stop at
the grave, even cemeteries may
when necessary be taken under the
power of eminent domain. (Cruz,
2019)
57. What may not be
appropriated?
- Money and choses in action.
Expropriation of money would be a
futile act because of the
requirement for the payment of just
compensation, usually in money. A
chose in action is “a personal right
not reduced into possession but
recoverable by a suit at law, a right
to receive, demand or recover a
debt, demand or damages on a
cause of action ex contractu or for
a tort or omission of duty. (Cruz,
2019).
- Services are considered embraced
in the concept of property subject
to taking, as in the case of Republic
vs. PLDT which involved the
interconnection line, so that the
government can use the lines and
facilities of PLDT. (Republic vs.
PLDT)
- Property already devoted to public
use is still subject to expropriation,
provided this is done directly by the
national legislature or under a
specific grant of authority to
delegate. A mere general authority
may not suffice. (City of Manila vs.
Chinese Community)
58. What is “taking”?
- Taking implies transfer of
possession/ownership. The owner is
deprived of ownership and/or
possession. There is also taking
when there is impairment of
ordinary use. The owner cannot use
the property in a manner that he
wants to.
- Taking imports a physical
dispossession of the owner,
deprivation of al beneficial use and
enjoyment of his property. (Cruz,
2015)
59. What are the requisites of
taking?
- All of the following requisites must
be present: (Republic vs. Castelvi)
a. The expropriator must enter
the property. This is a
physical act.
b. The entrance into the
property must be for more
than a limited or momentary
period, that is, must be
indefinite.
c. The entrance should be under
warrant or color of legal
authority. Color of title means
that one has the legal right to
be there, such as the consent
of the owner, or a court
order.
d. The property is devoted to
public use, or otherwise
informally appropriated or
injuriously affected.
e. The utilization of the property
for public use must be in such
a way that ousts the owner or
deprive him of all the
beneficial enjoyment of the
property.
- It is settled that the taking of
private property for public use, to
be compensable, need not be an
actual physical taking or
appropriation (Napocor vs. Sps.
Malijian)
- Jurisprudence teaches us that
“taking”, in the exercise of power
of eminent domain, “occurs not
only when the government actually
deprives or dispossesses the
property owner of his property or
of its ordinary use, but also when
there is a practical destruction or
material impairment of the value of
his property.
60. Cite some examples of taking.
- The following are considered
taking:
a) The permanent inundation of a
farmland because of the
construction of a dam nearby
(US vs. Lynch)
b) When the government planes
constantly fly over private
 property at very low altitudes
(US vs. Causby)
c) An ordinance prohibiting the
construction of any building
which would obstruct the view of
a plaza from a highway (People
vs. Fajardo)
d) A Comelec Resolution requiring
newspaper to provide it with
free space of not less than ½
page for the common use of
political parties and candidates
(PPI vs. Comelec)
e) An easement over a three-meter
strip of private property (Ayala
de Roxas vs. City of Manila)
f) Right of way (aerial) easements,
resulting in the restriction on
property rights over land
traversed by transmission lines
(NPC vs. Aguirre-Paderanga)
g) The installation of an exhaust
fan in a tunnel directly blowing
smoke into a house (Richards vs.
Washington)
h) Agrarian Reform (Association vs.
Secretary)
i) Construction of tunnel
underneath agricultural land
(NPC vs. Heirs of Sangkay)
j) Ordinance requiring private
cemeteries to reserve 6% of
their total areas to paupers (City
Government vs. Ericta)
k) An effort to prohibit malls from
collecting parking fees (OSG vs.
Ayala Land)
l) An ordinance requiring
setback requirement for walls
(to make available more parking
space for free for the general
public (Fernando vs.
Sholastica). An ordinance
imposing a setback requirement
for walls to provide more
parking spaces which
general public may use for free
has likewise been considered as
an exercise of the power of
eminent domain, which may not
be done without
compensation. (Fernando vs. St.
Scholastica)
- The following are not considered
taking:
a) Demolition of building in the
verge of collapse in the interest
of public safety.
b) If a street is closed for repairs
and all the business
establishments thereon suffer
considerable loss as a result
c) Establishment of buffer zone for
the purpose of minimizing the
effects of aerial spraying within
and near plantations. (Mosqueda
vs. PBGEA)
d) Requiring establishment to give
discounts to senior citizens. The
imposition only affect the right
to profit, and not earned profit.
The right to profit is not a vested
right or an entitlement that has
accrued on the person or entity
such that its invasion or
deprivation warrants
compensation. Vested rights are
“fixed, unalterable, or
irrevocable. (Southern Luzon
Drug vs. DSWD)
61. If the date of taking does not
coincide with the date of the
filing of the case, what is the
reckoning period in computing
just compensation?
- The general rule in determining
just compensation in eminent
domain is the value of the property
as of the date of the filing of the
complaint. Normally, the time of
the taking coincides with the filing
a of the complaint for expropriation.
The general rule. However, admits
of an exception: where the Court
fixed the value of the property as of
St. the date it was taken and not at the
date of the commencement of the
expropriation proceedings. The
exception finds application where
the the owner would be given undue
incremental advantages arising
from the use to which the
government devotes the property
expropriated. (Napocor vs.
just Mangondato)
62. Can there be taking without
transfer of ownership?
- Yes, if the person is deprived of
beneficial enjoyment of his property
despite the fact that there is no
 transfer of ownership, he is entitled
to just compensation. However, the
amount of just compensation shall
be adjusted to the extent of the
impairment. (Napocor vs.
Gutierrez)
63. Can the expropriator
immediately enter the property
upon the filing of the Petition?
- Yes, the expropriator can enter the
property without need of court
approval subject to the following
requirements: (a) The complaint
must have been filed; (b) Notice
must be given to the property
owner; (c) Deposit of the amount
equivalent to the assessed value of
the property for tax purposes. The
deposit shall be made in a
government depository bank.
(Robern vs. Quitain).
- The full payment of just
compensation is not a prerequisite
for the government’s effective
taking of the property. RA 8974
allows the government to enter the
property and implement national
infrastructure projects upon the
issuance of the writ of possession
(Republic vs. Mupas)
64. What is public use?
- The traditional meaning of the
word is use by the public. The
expanded meaning includes
indirect utility to the public. Public
use can be equated to public
benefit, even if private persons may
enjoy directly the benefits of the
expropriation. (Sumulong vs.
Guerero).
- What is important is the principal
objective of, not the casual
consequences that might follow
from, the exercise of the power.
The purpose in setting up the
marker is essentially to recognize
the distinctive contribution of the
late Felix Manalo to the culture of
the Philippines rather than to
commemorate his founding and
leadership of the INC. Indeed, that
only a few would actually benefit
from the expropriation of the
property does not necessarily
diminish the essence and character
of public use. (Manosca vs. CA)
- Public use refers to any use directly
available to the general public as a
matter of right and not merely as a
forbearance or accommodation.
Examples would be parks which are
res communes; property devoted to
public services administered by
privately-owned public utilities, like
telephone or light companies
(demandable as a matter of right by
anyone prepared to pay for said
services. (Danieter vs. Florida, 128
SO 402)
- When the Constitution prescribes
the public use of the taking, it is no
longer subject to judicial review by
the Courts, as in the case of
Agrarian Reform. As earlier
observed, the requirement for
public use has already been settled
for us by the Constitution itself. No
less than the 1987 Charter calls for
agrarian reform, which is the
reason why private agricultural
lands are to be taken from their
owners, subject to the prescribed
maximum retention limits. The
purposes specified in P.D. No. 27,
Proc. No. 131 and R.A. No. 6657
are only an elaboration of the
constitutional injunction that the
State adopt the necessary
measures "to encourage and
undertake the just distribution of
all agricultural lands to enable
farmers who are landless to own
directly or collectively the lands
they till." That public use, as
pronounced by the fundamental law
itself, must be binding on us.
(Association of Small Landowners
vs. Secretary)
-  It is now settled doctrine that the
concept of public use is no longer
limited to traditional purposes.
Here, as elsewhere, the idea that
"public use" is strictly limited to
clear cases of "use by the public"
has been abandoned. The term
"public use" has now been held to
be synonymous with "public
interest," "public benefit," "public
 welfare," and "public convenience."
(Reyes vs. NHA)
65. Is there a right to due
process in expropriation
proceedings?
- Yes. The due process clause cannot
be rendered nugatory everytime a
specific decree or law orders the
expropriation of somebody's
property and provides its own
peculiar manner of taking the
same. Neither should the courts
adopt a hands-off policy just
because the public use has been
ordained as existing by the decree
or the just compensation has been
fixed and determined beforehand
by a statute. (Manotok vs. NHA)
66. What is the scope of the right
to due process in expropriation
proceedings?
- The decision of the government to
acquire a property through eminent
domain should be made known to
the property owner through a
formal notice wherein a hearing or
a judicial proceeding is
contemplated as provided for in
Rule 67 of the Rules of Court. This
shall be the time of reckoning the
value of the property for the
purpose of just compensation.
(Manotok vs. NHA). The necessity
of the taking of the property, the
public use character of the taking,
the value of just compensation, are
questions that should be
determined in a proper forum.
67. Can the owner recover the
property expropriated?
- If the land is expropriated for a
particular purpose with the
condition that when that purpose is
ended it shall return to the former
owner, then the former owner
reacquires the property. If the
decree of appropriation gives the
entity a fee simple title, then the
land becomes the absolute property
of the State. The public use may be
abandoned without impairment of
the right of title or reversion to the
former owner. (Heirs vs. Moreno)
68. What is the basis of Just
Compensation?
- Just compensation is based on the
fair market value of the property at
the time of taking, or at the time of
the filing of the expropriation case,
whichever comes first, except when
the expropriator is a local
government unit, in which case, the
fair market value at the time of
taking pursuant to the Local
Government Code.
- Just compensation simply means
the property’s fair market value at
the time of the filing of the
complaint, or that sum of money
which a person desirous but not
compelled to buy, and an owner
willing but not compelled to sell,
would agree on as price to be given
and received therefor. (NPC vs.
Bagui)
- The purpose of just compensation is
not to reward the owner for the
property taken, but to compensate
him for the loss thereof. (Republic
vs. Macabagdal)
- While disparity in the above
amounts is obvious and may appear
inequitable to respondents-movants
as they would be receiving such
outdated valuation after a very long
period, it should be noted that the
purpose of just compensation is not
to reward the owner for the
property taken but to compensate
him for the loss thereof. As such,
the true measure of the property,
as upheld by a plethora of cases, is
the market value at the time of the
taking, when the loss resulted.
(Secretary vs. Sps. Tecson)
69. Can Congress or the
Executive Department fix the
amount of just compensation?
- Legislative enactments, as well as
executive issuances, fixing or
providing for the method of
computing just compensation are
tantamount to impermissible
encroachment of judicial
prerogatives. They are not binding
on courts and, at best, are treated
 as mere guidelines in ascertaining
the amount of just compensation.
(Republic vs. Mupas)
70. Should just compensation be
paid in cash?
- The general rule is that payment
should be in cash. But in the case of
Santos vs. LandBank, the Supreme
Court allowed payment through
bonds or other form, because of the
extraordinary nature of the
expropriation.
71. Can the owner recover the
property if the government
failed to pay?
- Yes, when there is a deliberate or
unreasonable refusal to pay just
compensation. (Republic vs. Lim).
But in Republic vs. CA, the
Supreme Court held that the
owners may not demand the return
of the property but may only
demand for the fair value. It is of no
moment that the present property
use differs from the original
purpose of the expropriation.
Surely, the government as
condemnor and owner of the
property, is well within its rights to
alter and decide the use, the only
limitation being that it is for public
use. The compensation for the
property should be computed at its
market value at the time it was
taken and appropriated by the
State. However, the owners are
entitled to an interest of 12% per
annum, computed from the date of
the taking of the property until the
due amount shall have been fully
paid.
72. What are the guidelines for
courts relative to just
compensation?
- The Courts are directed to observe
the following guidelines:
a) Just compensation must be
valued at the tie of taking, or the
time when the owner was
deprived of the use and benefit
of his property.
b) Just compensation must be
arrived at pursuant to the
guidelines set forth in Section 17
of RA 6657, as amended, prior to
its amendment by RA9700.
c) Interest may be awarded as may
be warranted by the
circumstances of the case and
based on prevailing
jurisprudence. In
73. What are the factors in
determining the fair market
value?
- Among the factors to consider in
arriving at the FMV of the property
are the cost of acquisition, the
current value of like properties at
the time of its taking (Landbank vs.
American Rubber)
- The value of the land and its
character at the time it was taken
by the government are the criteria
for determining just compensation.
(PNOC vs. Maglasang)
- It shall be the actual use and not
the potential use of the property
expropriated at the time of its
taking which shall be determinative
of the just compensation to be paid.
- Consequential damages consist of
injuries directly caused on the
residue of the private property
taken by reason of the
expropriation. Where, for example,
the expropriator takes only part of
a parcel of land, leaving the
remainder with an odd shape or
area as to be virtually unusable, the
owner can claim consequential
damages. On the other hand, if the
remainder is as a result of the
expropriation placed in a better
location, such as fronting a street
where it used to an interior lot, the
owner will enjoy consequential
benefits which should be deducted
from consequential damages.
Consequential benefits, like
consequential damages, must be
direct and particular and not
merely shared with the rest of the
properties in the area, as where
there is a general appreciation of
land values because of the public
use to which the condemned
properties are devoted. (Cruz,
2015)

74. When is just compensation
ascertained?
- Just compensation is ascertained as
of the time of taking, which usually
coincides with the commencement
of the expropriation proceedings.
Where the institution of the action
precedes entry into the property,
the just compensation is to be
ascertained as of the time of the
filing of the complaint. (NPC vs.
Diato-Bernal)
- There are instances, however,
where the expropriating agency
takes over the property prior to the
expropriation suit, as in this case
although, to repeat, the case at bar
is quite extraordinary in that
possession was taken by the
expropriator more than 40 years
prior to suit. In these instances,
this Court has ruled that the just
compensation shall be determined
as of the time of taking, not as of
the time of filing of the action of
eminent domain.
- Repetitive as it may be, the SAC is
reminded that the valuation shall
be based at the time of taking of
the subject property, not the date
of the filing of or period of
pendency of the suit, or the
rendition of judgment. While the
valuation may prove outdated, it
should be stressed that the purpose
of payment is not to reward the
owners for the property taken but
to compensate them for the loss
thereof. (Mateo vs. DAR)
75. When it comes to
appropriation, what are the
things that can be reviewed by
the Courts?
- The following can be subject to
judicial review:
a. The necessity of expropriation.
b. Is the property expropriated
for public purpose?
c. Is the choice of property
appropriate?
d. Is the amount of just
compensation sufficient?
- But when the expropriation is made
by Congress, the issue of public
purpose and choice of property is
not readily tackled by the courts on
account of the doctrine of
separation of powers. (Cruz, 2015)
- But where the questions are
decided by a delegate only of the
national legislature, the Supreme
Court has adopted amore
censorious attitude. Conformably to
the rule that the power of eminent
domain should be interpreted
liberally in favor of the private
property owner, the judiciary has
assumed the power to inquire into
whether the authority conferred
upon such delegate has been
correctly or properly exercised by
it. This will involve looking into
whether the expropriation
contemplated by the delegate is
necessary or wise. (Cruz, 2015)
- The power of eminent domain
should be construed liberally in
favor of the property owner; courts
can look into whether the
expropriation by the delegate is
necessary or wise, unless there is
specific, as opposed to a general,
grant of authority to expropriate.
(City of Manila vs. Chinese
Community)
76. Distinguish power of eminent
domain from police power?
- In police power, the property is
condemned or destroyed for
general welfare, public safety,
public health, and the like, and the
owner will not get just
compensation. In eminent domain,
the property is taken for public use
but the owner must be paid just
compensation. (Carlos Superdrug
vs. DSWD).
77. Can the principle of laches
and prescription apply in
expropriation cases?
- Neither laches nor prescription
may bar a claim for just
compensation for property taken
for public use. (Eusebio vs. Luis)
- The failure for a long time of the
owner to question the lack of
expropriation proceedings covering
a property that the government had
taken constitutes a waiver of his
right to gain back possession. The
remedy would be an action for the
payment of just compensation, not
ejectment. (Republic vs. Mendoza)
- The non-filing of the case for
expropriation will not necessarily
lead to the return of the property to
the landowner. What is left to the
landowner is the right of
compensation (Forfom vs. PNR).
NON-IMPAIRMENT OF
CONTRACT
Section 10. No law shall be passed
impairing the obligation of
contracts shall be passed.
78. What is the non-impairment
of contract clause?
- Congress cannot pass a law that
impairs or adversely affects a
contract.
- The non-impairment clause is
limited in its application to laws
that derogate from prior acts or
contracts by enlarging, abridging
or in any manner changing the
intention of the parties. (Padpao vs.
Comelec)
- The purpose of the impairment
clause is to safeguard the integrity
of valid contractual agreements
against unwarranted interference
by the State.
79. What is a pre-existing
contract?
- It means that a contract has been
in existence prior to the passage of
the law that affects them. So then,
the law will have retroactive effect
on contract.
80. What is meant by law?
- As used in the impairment clause,
“law” includes statutes enacted by
the national legislature, executive
orders and administrative
regulations promulgated under a
valid delegation of power, and
municipal ordinances passed by the
local legislative bodies. (Lim vs.
Register of Deeds)
81. Can Congress pass a law
affecting future contracts?
- Yes, there is no prohibition as to
future contracts. Despite the
impairment clause, a contract valid
at the time of its execution may be
legally modified or even completely
invalidated by a subsequent law. If
the law is a proper exercise of
police power, it will prevail over the
contract. (Cruz, 2015)
- Into each contract are read the
provisions of existing laws, and
always, a reservation of the police
power as the agreement deals with
a matter affecting the public
welfare. Such a contract, it has
been held, suffers a congenital
infirmity, and this is its
susceptibility to change by the
legislature as a postulate of the
legal order. (Home Bldg. vs.
Blaisdel)
82. What are the limitations of
the right to non-impairment of
contracts?
- The right is inferior to police
power, eminent domain and
taxation powers. It is also inferior
to the right to religion (Victoriano
vs. Elizalde). This right does not
apply to judicial or quasi-judicial
acts because courts and quasi-
judicial bodies may decide if the
contract is valid or not, or there is
no contract.
83. When is the contract
considered impaired?
- Impairment is anything that
diminishes the efficacy of the
contract (Clements vs. Nolting).
- The following instances are
considered to be impairment of
contracts: (a) when the law
changes the time or mode of
performance; (b) when the law
imposes new conditions; (c) When
the law dispenses with those
already expressed; (d) when the
law authorizes its satisfaction of
something different.

- But in the case of remedies, there
will be impairment only if all of
them are withdrawn, with the
result that either of the parties will
be unable to enforce his rights
under the original agreement.
There will be no impairment, in
other words, as long as a
substantial and efficacious remedy
remains. And this rule holds true
even if the remedy retained is the
most difficult to employ and it is the
easier ones that are withdrawn.
(Manila Trading vs. Reyes)
84. Is the revocation of permit a
violation of the non-impairment
clause?
- No. A permit is not a contract but a
mere privilege (Gonzalo vs. Central
Bank).
85. Is a zoning ordinance that
changes the purpose of the
property from residential to
commercial a violation of the
non-impairment clause, when
the annotation in the title of the
property indicates that the
property shall be for residential
purpose only?
- No. The zoning ordinance is
pursuant to the police power of the
local government which is superior
to the non-impairment clause.
86. What does it mean by
“contract”?
- The term contract as used in the
impairment clause refers to any
lawful agreement on property or
property rights, whether real or
personal, tangible or intangible.
The agreement may be executed or
executor.
- Contracts which relate to rights not
considered property, such as a
franchise or permit, are also not
protected by the non-impairment
clause. The reason is that the
public right or franchise is always
subject to amendment or repeal by
the State, the grant being merely a
privilege.
- Marriage contract is not included in
the term “contract”, which is a
social institution and more than a
mere agreement.
- Contracts for public offices or
salaries, are not included, except
those already earned.
- Excluded from the concept are
special contracts imbued with
public interest such as stock
distribution optin agreements in
connection with the agrarian
reform program of the government.
FREE ACCESS TO COURTS
Section 11. Free access to the
courts and quasi-judicial bodies and
adequate legal assistance cannot be
denied to any person by reason of
poverty.
87. Is this right available to
natural persons?
- This guarantee of free access to the
courts is extended to litigants who
may be indigent by exempting them
from the obligation to pay docket
and filing fees. But not everyone
who claims to be indigent may
demand free access to the courts.
In Re: Query of Mr. Roger C.
Prioreschi Re Exemption from
Legal and Filing Fees of the Good
Shepherd Foundation, Inc. the
Court has declared that the
exemption may be extended only to
natural party litigants; the
exemption may not be extended to
juridical persons even if they
worked for indigent and
underprivileged people because the
Constitution has explicitly premised
the free access clause on a person's
poverty, a condition that only a
natural person can suffer.
88. What does it mean by
indigent litigant?
- Indigent party. A party may be
authorized to litigate his action,
claim or defense as an indigent if
the court, upon an ex
parte application and hearing, is
satisfied that the party is one who
has no money or property sufficient
and available for food, shelter and
basic necessities for himself and his
family.
89. What is the rule on indigent
litigant?
- If the applicant for exemption
meets the salary and property
requirements under Section 19 of
Rule 141, then the grant of his
application is mandatory. On the
other hand, when the application
does not satisfy one or both
requirements, then the application
should not be denied outright;
instead, the court should apply
the indigency test under Section 21
of Rule 3 and use its sound
discretion in determining the
merits of the prayer for exemption.
-