Constitutional Law II

Article III Bill of Rights: Case Doctrines Section 1 Due Process and Equal Protection

Acebedo Optical Co. v. CA - Local governments may regulate business such as the selling
of eyeglasses but may not engage in the licensing of or regulation of professions.

Phil Blooming Mills Employees Organization v. Phil Blooming Mills Co, Inc. - A valid

infringement on human rights requires a more stringent criterion, namely existence of a grave and immediate danger of a substantive evil which the State has the right to prevent. Duncan Association of Employees v. Glaxo Wellcome - A company has the right to protect its trade secrets thus the rule on dismissing an employee on the ground of marrying an employee of a competitor company is a valid one. Banco Espanol Filipino v. Palanca - The essential requirements of procedural due process in courts for non-criminal cases are the following: 1. A tribunal clothed with judicial power to hear the matter 2. Jurisdiction is lawfully acquired over the person or property, which is the subject of the proceedings 3. Defendant is given an opportunity to be heard 4. Judgment is rendered upon lawful hearing Secretary v. Judge Lantion - During the executive phase of an extradition proceeding, an extraditee does not have the right of access to evidence only during the judicial phase. Fabella v. CA The requirements of due process in administrative cases are the following: 1. Right of notice of the institution of proceedings 2. Opportunity to be heard 3. Tribunal clothed with competent jurisdiction 4. A finding supported by substantial evidence Philippine Press Institute v. Comelec - Comelec cannot compel print media to donate advertisement spaces since this is the taking of property without just compensation TELEBAP v. Comelec - Broadcast media may be compelled to donate airtime since: a) media networks do not own the airwaves and frequencies; b) they are given franchises to operate which is a privilege given by the government. US v. Toribio To satisfy substantive due process, the laws must appear: 1. that the interest of the public require such interference 2. the means are reasonable necessary Ynot v. ICA The confiscation of carabaos or carabeef is not reasonably related to the purpose of the executive order, which is the preserving the carabaos for the benefit of small farmers. People v. Cayat Requisites for a classification to be reasonable (equal protection clause): 1. Must rest on substantial distinctions 2. Germane to the purpose of the law 3. Must not be limited to existing conditions only 4. Must equally apply to all members of the same class International School Alliance of Educators v. Quisimbing The practice of giving higher pay for foreign hires than Filipinos of equal rank violate the principle of equal pay fpr equal

2nd Semester S.Y. 2011-2012

L.T.J.F.

Constitutional Law II
work. But giving the foreign hires more benefits such as transportation and housing allowances are allowed. Farinas, et al. v. Executive Secretary Appointive officials and elective officials do not belong to the same class. Central Bank Employees v. Bangko Sentral A provision of law, initially valid, may become subsequently unconstitutional on th ground that its continued operation would violate the equal protection of the law (relative unconstitutionality) Ormoc Sugar Central v. Ormoc City The city, in passing an ordinance imposing a tax on Ormoc Sugar Central by name, violates the equal protection clause.

US Cases

Block v. Rutherford - Restrictions on contact visits does not violate the military detainees'

right to liberty. It is a reasonable exercise of the State's police power. Goesart v. Cleary A state law prohibiting women to become licensed bartenders is valid. The distinctions made between men and women are reasonably related to the purpose of the law. (Note: this case was overruled by Craig v. Boren in 1976) Lochner v. New York A law which limited the hours a bakery employee could work abridged the liberty of contract. Meyer v. Nebraska a law restricting the teaching of a foreign language violated the due process clause. Roe v. Wade the trimester approach to abortion: The decision to conduct abortion is left to the mother during the 1st three months of pregnancy. The State cannot prohibit this. (decision was criticized for judicial legislation) Pennsylvania v. Casey abortion is no longer a fundamental right (overturned Roe v. Wade decision). States may restrict abortion so long as they do not place undue burdens on the womans right to choose. Buck v. Bell The procedure of compulsory sterilization ran counter to the due process clause, yet the US Supreme Court upheld the legitimization of the practice. Furman v. Georgia Death penalty constituted as cruel and unusual punishment and violated the constitution. It also focused on how the penalty was applied with racial bias. It was imposed more often to black defendants.

Section 2 Search and Seizure

Sony Music v. Judge Espanol A liberal construction in search and seizure cases is given in

favor of the individual. People v. Marti Restrictions on unlawful searches and seizures are directed only against the government. Valmonte v. Genral de Villa checkpoints and routine inspections are reasonable forms of searches. But if the inspection becomes more thorough or invasive, there must be probable cause. Such search is justifiable as a warrantless search of a moving vehicle. People v. Escano checkpoints need not be announced. It defeats the purpose by

2nd Semester S.Y. 2011-2012

L.T.J.F.

Constitutional Law II
forewarning potential violators of the law.

Microsoft Corp v. Maxicorp probable cause is concerned with probability and not
certainty. There is no need to present proof beyond reasonable doubt.

Qua Chee Gan v. Deportation Board Commissioner on Immigration may not issue an

arrest warrant but may order the arrest of an alien in carrying out an order which has become final. Harvey v. Santiago arrests, for purposes of deportation, need no warrant. There is no probable cause needed only a specific charge against the aliens. The legal basis for the warrantless arrest is the mission order. Soliven v. Judge Makasiar What is required of the judge is the personal determination of probable cause and not the personal examination of the reports. (but the judge must still look at the supporting documents since it is his responsibility to satisfy himself of the existence of probable cause. Relying on the Prosecutor's certification alone is never enough Lim v. Felix) People v. Veloso A John Doe warrant (warrant directed to a person whose name is uncertain or unknown) is valid provided it contains adequate description to enable the officer to identify the accused. Malacat v. CA For a warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest, there must be a lawful arrest first before a search can be made this process cannot be reversed. People v. Evaristo Elements of seizure of evidence in plain view: 1. A prior valid intrusion 2. Evidence was inadvertently discovered by the police 3. Legality of evidence is immediately apparent 4. Evidence is noticed without further search De Garcia v. Locsin Elements of a consented warrantless search: 1. The right exists 2. The person involved had knowledge of such right 3. The person had actual intention to relinquish such right Papa v. Mago Customs search is included in allowable forms of warrantless searches. People v. Aruta Even for warrantless searches, the requisite of probable cause must still be satisfied (exception is stop and frisk where it can only be based on reasonable ground of suspicion) People v. Hernandez accused is estopped from assailing the illegality of his arrest if he fails to move for the quashing of the Information before his arraignment.

US Cases Henry v. US probable cause would mean such facts and circumstances which would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense had been committed (arrest) and/or the objects sought in connection with the offense are in the place sought to be searched (search and seizure) Camara v. Municipal Court A person may refuse to permit city housing inspectors to conduct an administrative search (safety inspection) of one's house in the absence of a warrant.

2nd Semester S.Y. 2011-2012

L.T.J.F.

Constitutional Law II
US v. Tarazon Border (in this case, the US-Mexico border) searches are one of the few exceptions to the general rule of prohibiting warrantless searches. Katz v. US Protection of a person's property from intrusion or search extends to intangible properties such as electronic communication. California v. Greenwood the 4th amendment does not prohibit warrantless searches & seizures of garbage left outside the house. Terry v. Ohio the stop-and-frisk is an instance of a valid warrantless search. The officer is entitled to conduct a carefully limited search of the suspect's outer clothing for the protection of himself and others in the area. California v. Ciraolo The method of flying over respondent's backyard to confirm the presence of marijuana was a valid form of search since the observations were nonintrusive and were conducted within public airspace. Oliver v. US - Police found marijuana being grown in an open field a mile away from petitioners house. The 4th amendment does not extend to open fields. Privacy in open fields is not recognized as reasonable since open fields are accessible to the public. Minnesota v. Olson even if the person is only a guest (not the owner of the house), he is still protected by the 4th amendment from warrantless arrests. Minnesota v. Carter Observations conducted on a commercial property does not violate the 4th amendment since the expectation of privacy in a commercial property, where business is conducted, is different from, and less than, a similar expectation in a home. Payton v. New York A warrantless arrest or search may be done under exigent circumstances, but absent such circumstances this manner of intrusion may not be done. California v. Acevedo A warrantless search of a moving vehicle includes searching any closed containers within an automobile. New York v. Belton searching the respondent's jacket for contraband was lawful since it was incidental to his arrest and within arrestee's immediate control. Illinois v. Lafayette a warrant or probable cause is immaterial when the belongings of the arrested individual is incidental to the process of booking and jailing the suspect. Chimel v. California For warrantless searches incidental to a person's arrest, the search is only limited to the area within the arrestee's immediate control. For the routine search of rooms and other concealed areas, a search warrant is required. Maryland v. Buie - A "protective sweep" is a quick and limited search of a premises, incident to an arrest and conducted to protect the safety of police officers or others. It is narrowly confined to a cursory visual inspection of those places in which a person might be hiding. There is no need for a warrant for this kind of search. Section 3 Exclusionary Rule Stonehill v. Diokno things to be seized improperly or vaguely described were considered inadmissible evidence. People v. Andre Marti the right against unreasonable searches and seizures cannot be invoked against the State if the act of intrusion is committed by a private individual. Marquez v. Hon. Aniano Desierto Exceptions on the Law on Secrecy of Bank Deposits: 1. examinations authorized by the Monetary Board on grounds of bank fraud/irregularity 2. examination by an independent auditor and results are for the exclusive use of the

2nd Semester S.Y. 2011-2012

L.T.J.F.

Constitutional Law II
bank upon written permission of the depositor impeachment cases upon court order in cases of bribery or dereliction of duty of a public official where the money deposited is the subject matter of litigation

3. 4. 5. 6. US Cases

Wong Sun v. US Purged Taint Exception: the search was illegally done but over time,

such evidence becomes valid if additional factors link the illegal search and the final discovery of evidence. Such factors cleanse the illegal search and validates the evidence. US v. Leon Good Faith Exception: officers relying in good faith on a warrant but was found later to be unsupported by probable cause.

Section 4 Freedom of Speech and of the Press Adiong v. Comelec the placing of stickers on mobile places posed no substantial danger to government interest. Prohibiting such acts constitutes an unreasonable restriction. ABS-CBN v. Comelec the ban on exit polls does not satisfy the clear and present danger rule because the evils envisioned are merely speculative. Ayer Productions Ltd. v. Judge Capulong The right to privacy cannot be invoked to resist publication of matters of public interest. Such right protects the right against unwarranted intrusions and wrongful publication of private affairs which are outside the sphere of legitimate public concern. Policarpio v. Manila Times to enjoy immunity, a publication containing derogatory information must not only be true but also fair and it must be made in good faith. PCIB v. Philnabank Employees Peaceful picketing is constitutionally protected and the guarantee of free speech (statements on placards) protects the strikers. US Cases

New York Times v. US Any system of prior restraint comes to court bearing a heavy
presumption of unconstitutionality.

Freedman v. Maryland the State Board of Censors can only approve a film and had no

power to ban it. Any restraint imposed must be limited to preservation of the status quo compatible with sound judicial resolution. Pittsburgh Press Co. v. Human Relations Commission - To enjoy protection, commercial speech must not be false or misleading and should not propose an illegal transaction. Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp v. Public Service Comm of NY Commercial speech may be regulated if: 1. Government has substantial interest to protect 2. the regulation directly advances that interest 3. it is not more extensive than is necessary to protect that interest US v. O'Brien O'Brien Test is used to justify a regulation: 1. it is within the power of government

2nd Semester S.Y. 2011-2012

L.T.J.F.

Constitutional Law II
2. furthers an important government interest 3. government interest is unrelated to the suppression of free expression 4. restriction to the freedom is no greater than to the furtherance of the interest Miller v. California Miller Test is used to test for obscenity: 1. the average person, applying contemporary standards, find that the work appeals to the prurient interest 2. the work depicts, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct 3. the work lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value

Section 5 Freedom of Religion Estrada v. Escritor Benevolent Accommodation Doctrine: freedom to carry out one's duties to a Supreme Being is an inalienable right, not dependent on the grace of legislature. Any law in conflict with a violator's sincerely held religious beliefs must pass a strict scrutiny test in order to be enforceable. The burden shifts to the government to demonstrate that the law is necessary to protect its interests. Victoriano v. Elizalde Rope Workers Union in closed shop agreements, employees may be exempted from compulsory membership in a union if their religious belief prohibits it. The free exercise of religious profession or belief is superior to contract rights. In case of conflict, the latter must yield to the former. US Cases

Cantwell v. Connecticut the freedom to believe is absolute but the freedom to act is not. McDaniel v. Paty the disqualification of ecclesiastics from public office violates their
fundamental rights. If elected, the clergy will not create too close an alliance between church and state. Goldman v. Weinberger the amendment of religious freedom (wearing headgears as required by religious beliefs) does not require the military to accommodate such practices in view of the army's interest and need for uniformity and regulation. Employment Division v. Smith (peyote case) the religion clause does not relieve an individual of the obligation to comply with a law that incidentally forbids (or requires) the performance of an act that his religious beliefs requires (or forbids) if the law is not specifically directed to religious practice. Lemon v. Kurtzman government aid is permissible if: 1. it has a secular legislative purpose 2. the primary effect that neither advances nor inhibits religion 3. it does not require excessive entanglement with recipient institutions Wisconsin v. Yoder children could not be placed under compulsory education if it is against their religious beliefs.

2nd Semester S.Y. 2011-2012

L.T.J.F.

Constitutional Law II
Section 6 Liberty of Abode and Right to Travel

Yap, Jr. v. Court of Appeals releasing a petitioner on bail contemplates such lawful

order of regulating the right to travel to ensure that petitioner will make himself available at all times whenever the court requires his presence. Marcos v. Manglapus The right to travel and liberty of abode are distinct from the right to return to one's country. It is not covered by Section 6 thus the prescribed requirements do not apply. Manotoc, Jr. v. CA Preventing a person from leaving the country is a consequence of a bail bond.

Section 7 Right to Information

Chavez v. PCGG the right of the public to information does not attach to information

regarding confidential matters or those that are still in the exploratory stage. Chavez v. PEA and AMARI once a committee makes its official recommendation, there arises a definite proposition on the part of the government and the public's right to information attaches. Valmonte v. Belmonte, Jr. - the Constitution gives the public right to access official records but it does not give them the right to compel custodians to furnish lists, studies or any processed information other than what is already available. Lantaco v. Llamas While public officers in control of public records have the discretion to regulate the manner in which such records may be inspected, it does not carry with it the authority to prohibit access.

Section 8 Right of Association

United Pepsi Cola Supervisory Union (UPSU) v. Laguesma the ban of managerial

employees from joining a labor union is valid because if these managerial employees would belong to a Union, there would be conflict of interest. The Union can become companydominated with the presence of managerial employees thus defeating the purpose of a labor union. Occena v. Comelec the law prohibiting Barangay Candidates from representing or receiving aid from a political party is a valid one since the law intends to prevent the danger of disenabling barangay officials from performing their functions as agents of a neutral community. Tanduay Distillery Labor Union v. NLRC Closed shop agreements are legal since it is a valid form of union security. SSS v. CA Government employees have the right to form unions but do not have the constitutional right to strike.

2nd Semester S.Y. 2011-2012

L.T.J.F.