* Moot Cases

** Acting Cases


Constitutional Law 2
Professor H. Harry Roque
University of the Philippines College of Law

THE BILL OF RIGHTS

I. Due Process Clause:

Constitution ART III, Sec 1. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of
law, nor shall any person be denied of the equal protection of the laws.

A. Definition and Hierarchy

PBM Employees v. PBM, 51 SCRA 189 (2 Bernas 423)
Ermita Malate Hotel, Motel Assoc. v. City of Manila 20 SCRA 849 (2 Bernas 34)

Who Are Protected
Smith Bell Co. v.Natividad 40 Phil 163
Villegas v. HuiChiong G.R. 112801

Meaning
Life
Teodoro v. Manalo G.R. No. 186050 (2011)
Pestao v. GRP-Human Rights Committee CCPR/C/98/D/1619/2007
Marcellana v. Republic of the Philippines UNHRC CCPR/C/94/D/1560/2007
When Does Life Begin, Records of R.C.C. No. 85 09-17-1986&
1986 Constitutional Commission Proceedings R.C.C. No. 86 09-18-1986
The Rule on the Writ of Amparo A.M. No. 07-9-12-SC
Burgos v. Arroyo G.R. No. 183711
Gadian v. Ibrado G.R. No. 187652 &
CA-G.R. SP No. 00034
Buck v. Bell 274 US 200
Imbong v. Ochoa GR No. 204819
Liberty
Rubi v. Provincial Board of Mindoro 39 Phil 660

Property
Terrace v. Thompson 263 US 197

Exclusion
Nunez v. Averia 57 SCRA 726
Crespo v. Provincial Board 16 SCRA 66
JMM Promotion v. CA G.R. No. 120095 1996
Pedro v. Rizal G.R. No. 34163
Libanan v. Sandiganbayan 233 SCRA 163

B. Aspects of Due Process

Police Power
Kwongsing v. City of Manila 41 Phil 103
Yu Eng Cong v. Trinidad 271 US 500
Layno v. Sandiganbayan 136 SCRA 536
Deloso v. Sandiganbayan 173 SCRA 409

Procedural
Impartial Court
* Moot Cases
** Acting Cases

Javier v. COMELEC 144 SCRA 194
Galman v. Sandiganbayan 144 SCRA 43
Marcos v. Sandiganbayan G.R. No. 126995 (1998)
Rivera v. Civil Service 240 SCRA 43
Banco Espaol Filipino v. Palanca 37 Phil. 921 (2 Bernas 4)
AngTibay v. CIR 69 Phil. 635 (2 Bernas 6)
PHILCOMSAT v. Alcuaz 180 SCRA 218 (2 Bernas 8)
Ateneo v. CA 145 SCRA 106
Alcuaz v. PSBA 161 SCRA 7
Non v. Judge Dames 185 SCRA 523 (2 Bernas 14)
Goldberg v. Kelly 397 US 254 (1970)
Petitioners are NYC residents receiving financial aid under the federally assisted programs that were
terminated or about to be terminated without prior notice or hearing. Due process requires an adequate
hearing before, not after, the termination of welfare benefits.
Bell v. Burson 402 US 535 (1971)
Bell, a clergyman who travels as part of his ministerial duties, was involved in an accident when a child hit
his car; he was sued for damages and his license was revoked, but he was only allowed to present evidence
on his behalf during appeal, which violated due process. Except in emergency situations, the State affords
notice and opportunity for hearing appropriate to the nature of the case before terminating an interest.
UP v. Hon. Ligot-Telann 227 SCRA 342
STFAP; Ramon Nadal.
DBP v. NLRC 183 SCRA 328
Laborers filed individual complaints for backwages and separation pay from RHI whose assets were
foreclosed by DBP; the latter was ordered by the Labor Arbiter, affirmed by the NLRC, to pay RHIs debts.
Despite lack of formal hearing, DBP was given opportunity to be heard and in fact filed MFRs and appeals.
Estrada v. Sandiganbayan 369 SCRA 394
No circumvention of presumption of innocence, even in plunder cases. Guilt must be proved beyond
reasonable doubt, even if only for a number of acts sufficient to form a combination or series of activities
involving an amount of P 50M.
Read: separate opinion by Ynares-Santiago
Reyes v. COMELEC G.R. No. 207264

Jurisdiction
Ynot v. IAC 148 SCRA 659 (2 Bernas 21)
Eastern Broadcasting v. Dans 137 SCRA 628 (2 Bernas 261)
Tatad v. Sandiganbayan 159 SCRA 70
Gonzales v. SCS 226 SCRA 66

C. Old Substantive Due Process: Protection for Property Interests
Calder v. Bull 3 US (3 Dall.) 386 (1978)
Lochner v. New York 198 US 48 (1905)
Lochner is charged for permitting (note: not requiring) an employee (baker) to work more than 60 hours a
day; question on what two rights shall prevail, police power or freedom to contract. Police power requires
the limit for health considerations, which do not apply to the present case, thus it cannot prevail over
freedom to contract.
People v. Pomar 46 Phil 440
Pomar found guilty of refusing to grant maternity leave with pay to pregnant employees. The law was
found to be unconstitutional, in violation of freedom to contract.
Pakistan International Airlines v. Ople 190 SCRA 90 (1990)
NDC and AGRIX v. Phil Veterans 192 SCRA 257 (2 Bernas 48)

People v. Nazario 165 SCRA 182 (2 Bernas 41)
Balacuit v. CFI 163 SCRA 182 (2 Bernas 41)
Agustin v. Edu 88 SCRA 195 (2 Bernas 43)

D. New Substantive Due Process: Protection for Liberty interests in Privacy

* Moot Cases
** Acting Cases

Warren and Brandeis, The Right to Privacy, 4 Harv. L. Rev. 193 (1890)
Cortes I., Constitutional Foundations of Privacy, in Emerging Trends in Law (1983), pp 1-70

Olmstead v. US (Brandeis Dissent)* 277 US 438
Skinner v. Oklahoma* 316 US 535 (1942)
Griswold v. Connecticut* 381 US 479 (1965)
Eisenstatd v. Baird* 405 US 438
Poe v. Ullman* 367 US 479
Roe v. Wade* 410 US 113 (1973)
Bowers and Hardwick 106 S. Ct. 2841 (1986)
Lawrence v. Texas* 02-0102 (26 June 2003)
US v. Windsor* 570 U.S. ___ (2013)
Board of Education v. Earls 01-332 (27 June 2002)
Ople v. Torres 141 SCRA 293
Bayan Muna v. Ermita, G.R. No. 167930 (2006)
Duncan Assoc v. Glaxo Welcome* G.R. 162994, (17 September 2004)
David v. Arroyo 489 SCRA 160

E. Protected Interests in Property

Mere Regulation under the Due Process Clause versus Taking of Property via the Power of Eminent Domain
Churchill v. Rafferty 32 Phil 580 (2 Bernas 26)
US v. Toribio 15 Phil 85 (2 Bernas 19)

Constitution ART III, sec. 9. Private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation.

People v. Fajardo 100 Phil 443 (2 Bernas 639)
Ynot v. CA supra
US v. Causby 328 US 256 (2 Bernas 636)
Republic v. PLDT 26 SCRA 620 (2 Bernas 639)
Republic v. Castelvi 58 SCRA 336 (2 Bernas 627)
Bel-Air Association v. IAC 176 SCRA 719

EPZA v. Dulay 149 SCRA 305 (2 Bernas 655)
NPC v. CA 129 SCRA 665 (2 Bernas 655)
RA 8974, Villar Law on the Zoning Value of Land

Takings under Eminent Domain versus Takings under the Social Justice Clause
De Knecht v. Bautista 100 SCRA 660 (2 Bernas 666)
Republic v. De Knecht 182 SCRA 441 (2 Bernas 671)
Manotok v. NHA 150 SCRA 89 (2 Bernas 674)
Ermita Malate Hotel Association v. City of Manila supra

Constitution ART III, Sec 1
Constitution ART III, Sec 4. No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech,
Assoc. of Small Landowners v. Sec. of Agrarian Reform 175 SCRA 343 (2 Bernas 990)
Sumulong v. Guerrero 154 SCRA 461 (2 Bernas 650)
City Government v. Judge Ericta 122 SCRA 759 (2 Bernas 631)
Luz Farms v. Secretary 192 SCRA 51 (2 Bernas 1101)
Cariday v. CA (Guttierez J, Dissenting) 176 SCRA 31
RA 7279, Urban Development and Housing Act of 1992, March 24, 1992

II. Equal Protection Clause

Constitution ART III, Sec 1. No person shall be deprive of life, liberty, or property without due process of law,
nor shall any person be denied of the equal protection of the laws.

* Moot Cases
** Acting Cases

Constitution ART II, Sec 14. The State recognizes the role of women in nation-building, and shall ensure the
fundamental equality before the law of women and men.

Constitution ART II, Sec 22. The State recognizes and promotes the rights of indigenous cultural communities
within the framework of national unity and development.

Constitution ART IV.
Section 1. The following are citizens of the Philippines:
(1) Those who are citizens of the Philippines at the time of the adoption of this Constitution;
(2) Those whose fathers or mothers are citizens of the Philippines;
(3) Those born before January 17, 1973, of Filipino mothers, who elect Philippine citizenship upon reaching
the age of majority; and
(4) Those who are naturalized in accordance with law.
Section 2. Natural-born citizens are those who are citizens of the Philippines from birth without having to
perform any act to acquire or perfect their Philippine citizenship. Those who elect Philippine citizenship in
accordance with paragraph (3), Section 1 hereof shall be deemed natural-born citizens.
Section 3. Philippine citizenship may be lost or reacquired in the manner provided by law.
Section 4. Citizens of the Philippines who marry aliens shall retain their citizenship, unless by their act or
omission, they are deemed, under the law, to have renounced it.
Section 5. Dual allegiance of citizens is inimical to the national interest and shall be dealt with by law.

Constitution ART XII, Sec 2. All lands of the public domain, waters, minerals, coal, petroleum, and other
mineral oils, all forces of potential energy, fisheries, forests or timber, wildlife, flora and fauna, and other
natural resources are owned by the State. With the exception of agricultural lands, all other natural resources
shall not be alienated. The exploration, development, and utilization of natural resources shall be under the full
control and supervision of the State. The State may directly undertake such activities, or it may enter into co-
production, joint venture, or production-sharing agreements with Filipino citizens, or corporations or
associations at least sixty per centum of whose capital is owned by such citizens. Such agreements may be for a
period not exceeding twenty-five years, renewable for not more than twenty-five years, and under such terms
and conditions as may be provided by law. In cases of water rights for irrigation, water supply fisheries, or
industrial uses other than the development of water power, beneficial use may be the measure and limit of the
grant.
The State shall protect the nation's marine wealth in its archipelagic waters, territorial sea, and exclusive
economic zone, and reserve its use and enjoyment exclusively to Filipino citizens.
The Congress may, by law, allow small-scale utilization of natural resources by Filipino citizens, as well as
cooperative fish farming, with priority to subsistence fishermen and fish- workers in rivers, lakes, bays, and
lagoons.
The President may enter into agreements with foreign-owned corporations involving either technical or
financial assistance for large-scale exploration, development, and utilization of minerals, petroleum, and other
mineral oils according to the general terms and conditions provided by law, based on real contributions to the
economic growth and general welfare of the country. In such agreements, the State shall promote the
development and use of local scientific and technical resources.
The President shall notify the Congress of every contract entered into in accordance with this provision, within
thirty days from its execution.

Constitution ART XII, Sec 14.2. The practice of all professions in the Philippines shall be limited to Filipino
citizens, save in cases prescribed by law.

Ormoc Sugar Company, Inc. v. Treasurer of Ormoc City 22 SCRA 603 (2 Bernas 78)
Dumlao v. COMELEC 96 SCRA 392 (2 Bernas 72)

People v. Cayat 68 Phil 12 (2 Bernas 58)
Ichong v. Hernandez 101 Phil 1155 (2 Bernas 61)
Korematsu v. US 323 US 214 (1944)
The Civil Liberties Act of 1988 102 Stat. 904, 50a U.S.C. 1989b et se
(Presidential Medal of Freedom to Fred Korematsu by Bill Clinton)
Plessy v. Ferguson 163 US 537 (1896)
* Moot Cases
** Acting Cases

University of California v. Bakke 438 US 265 (1978)
Gratz v. Bollinger 539 U.S. 244 (2003)
Grutter v. Bollinger 539 U.S. 244 (2003)
Bradwell v. Illinois 83 US 103 (1873)
Goesart v. Cleary 335 US 464 (1948) (2 Bernas 76)
Geduldig v. Aiello 417 US 484 (1974)
Mississippi Univ. School for Women v. Hogan 458 US 718 (1982)
Michael M. v. Superior Court 450 US 464 (1981)
Personnel Administrator v. Feeney 442 US 256 (1979)
YickWo v. Hopkins 118 US 365 (1886)
Fragante v. City and County of Honolulu* 888 F. 2d 591(1989)
Fragante v. City and County of Honolulu 110 S. Ct. 1811 (1990)

Defensor-Santiago, The New Equal Protection, 58 Phil. L. J. 1 (March 1983)

International School Alliance v. Quisumbing 33 SCRA 14 (June 2000)
Board of Directors v. Rotary Club* 481 US 537
Boy Scouts of America v. Dale* No. 99-699 (28 June 2000)
Sombilon v. Romulo, G.R. 176051 (2009)

Goodridge v. Dept. of Public Health 440 Mass 309, 793 NE 2d 941 (18 Nov 2003)
Tecson v. COMELEC G.R. No. 161434 (2004)
Garcia v. Hon. Drilon* G.R. No. 179267 (June 25, 2013)

III. Freedom of Expression:

Constitution ART III, sec 4. No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the
press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances.

A. Protected Speech

Prior Restraint
Near v. Minnesota 238 US 697 (2 Bernas 238)
New York Times v. US 403 US 713 (2 Bernas 243)
Freedman v. Maryland 380 US 551 (2 Bernas 251)
Chavez v. Gonzales G.R. No. 168338
Estrada v. Desierto

Subsequent Punishment
People v. Perez 45 Phil 599 (2 Bernas 288)
Dennis v. US 341 US 494 (2 Bernas 290)
Abrams v. US 250 US 616 (1919)
Eastern Broadcasting v. Dans supra

Speech Plus: Symbolic Speech
US v. O'Brien 391 US 367 (1968)
Tinker v. Des Moines School District 393 US 503 (1969)
Texas v. Johnson 491 US 397 (1989)

Assembly and Petition
Primicias v. Fugoso (Hilado, Dissent) 80 Phil 78
Navarro v. Villegas 31 SCRA 731 (2 Bernas 423)
PBM Employees v. PBM 51 SCRA 189 (2 Bernas 425)
JBL Reyes v. Bagatsing 125 SCRA 553 (2 Bernas 430)
Malabanan v. Ramento 129 SCRA 359 (2 Bernas 437)
IBP Cadiz, Roque, Butuyan v. Atienza, G.R. No. 172591

* Moot Cases
** Acting Cases

Free Speech and Suffrage
Gonzalez v. COMELEC 27 SCRA 835 (2 Bernas 296)
Sandidad v. COMELEC 181 SCRA 529 (2 Bernas 304)
National Press Club v. COMELEC 207 SCRA 1 (2 Bernas 307)
Adiong v. COMELEC 207 SCRA 712 (2 Bernas 317)
Bayan v. Ermita G.R. No. 168338

Use of Private Property as a forum for others Speech
Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robbins 447 US 74 (1980)

B. Unprotected Speech
Defamatory Speech

Pre-Sullivan in Philippine Jurisprudence
Policarpio v. Manila Times 5 SCRA 148 (2 Bernas 343)
Lopez v. CA 34 SCRA 116 (2 Bernas 345)
US v. Bustos 37 Phil 371

Sullivan
New York Times v. Sullivan 376 US 254 (2 Bernas 350)
Rosenbloom v. Metromedia 403 US 29 (2 Bernas 355)
Garrison v. Louisiana 379 US 64
Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts 388 US 130
In Re: IML v. Utah No. 20010159 (15 Nov 2002)

Sullivan in Philippine Jurisprudence
Borjal v. CA 301 SCRA 1
Vasquez v. CA G.R. No. 118971 (1999)
Guingguing v. CA 471 SCRA 196
Soliven v. Makasiar 167 SCRA 394 (2 Bernas 147)
Ayer Production v. Judge Capulong 160 SCRA 865 (2 Bernas 254)

Reversion to Pre-Sullivan in Philippine Jurisprudence
Fermin v. People G.R. No. 157643 (2008)
Diaz v. People G.R. No. 159787 (2007)

Libel in UN Human Rights Committee
Adonis v. The Philippines CCPR/C/103/D/1815/2008

Supreme Court and Freedom of Speech
In Re Jurado
In Re Macasaet

Fighting Words, Offensive Words
Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire 315 US 568 (1942)
Cohen v. California 403 US 15 (1971)
MVRS v. Islamic Dawah of the Philippines G.R. No. 80892 (1989)
Obsidian Finance Group, LLC v. Cox

Obscenity
Roth v. US 354 US 476 (1957)
Miller v. California 37 L. Ed. 2d 419 (1973) (2 Bernas 368)
Gonzalez v. KalawKatigbak 137 SCRA 717 (2 Bernas 377)
Pita v. CA 178 SCRA 362 (2 Bernas 381)
Reno v. ACLU 521 US 844 (26 June 1997)
Ashcroft v. ACLU No. 00-1293 (13 May 2002)
Regina v. Hicklin L.R. 3 Q.B. 360 (1868)
* Moot Cases
** Acting Cases

Privacy
Hannover v. Germany* [2004] EMLR 379; (2005) 40 EHRR 1
Campbell v. Mirror Group Newspapers* [2004] UKHL 22

IV. Church and State: The Wall of Separation

Constitution ART II, sec 6
Constitution ART III, sec 5
Constitution ART VI, sec 29(2)

Establishment Clause
Aglipay v. Ruiz 63 Phil 201 (2 Bernas 444)
Garces v. Estenzo 104 SCRA 510 (2 Bernas 446)
Lemon v. Kurtzman 403 US 602 (2 Bernas 464)
Board of Education v. Allen 392 US 236 (2 Bernas 459)
County of Allegheny v. ACLU 57 LW 5045 (2 Bernas 482)
Lynch v. Donnely 465 US 668 (1984)
Epperson v. Arkansas 393 US 97 (1968)
School District v. Schempp 374 US 203 (2 Bernas 449)
Engel v. Vitale 370 US 421 (1962)
Tilton v. Richardson 403 US 672 (2 Bernas 470)

Newdow v. US Congress No. 00-16423, 9
th
Cir., June 26, 2002 (amended Feb 28,
2003)
Glassroth v. Moore 335 F.3d 1282 (11
th
Cir. 2003)
Martin v. Corporation of the Presiding Bishop 434 Mass. 141, 727 N.E. 2d 131

Free Exercise Clause
American Bible Society v. City 101 Phil 386 (2 Bernas 515)
Gerona v. Secretary of Education* 106 Phil 2 (2 Bernas 518)
Ebralinag v. Division Superintendent* 219 SCRA 256 (2 Bernas 518)
Newdow v. US Congress 00-16423 (26 June 2002)
Anucension v. NLU 80 SCRA 350
Iglecia ni Cristo v. CA 259 SCRA 529 (26 July 1996)
Pamil v. Teleron 86 SCRA 413 (2 Bernas 533)
McDaniel v. Paty 435 US 618 (2 Bernas 542)
German v. Barangan 135 SCRA 514
Cantwell v. Connecticut 310 US 163 (2 Bernas 512)
Commonwealth v. Twitchell 416 Mass. 114 (1993)

Cassius Clay v. US 403 US 698 (1971)
Estrada v. Escritor* 492 SCRA 1

Unusual Religious Beliefs and Practices
Wisconsin v. Yoder 406 US 205 (2 Bernas 524)
US v. Ballard 380 US 163 (1965)
US v. Seeger 380 US 163 (1965)
Clay v. US supra

V. Academic Freedom

Background Reading: Byrne, Academic Freedom: A Special Concern of the First Amendment, 99 Yale L.J. 25
(1989)

Constitution ART XIV, sec 1 and 5(2)
Garcia v. Faculty Admission Committee 68 SCRA 277 (2 Bernas 1076)
Isabelo v. PerpetualHelp 227 SCRA 591
* Moot Cases
** Acting Cases

Reyes v. CA 194 SCRA 402 (2 Bernas 1084)
UP v. CA 218 SCRA 728 (9 February 1993)
DECS v. San Diego 180 SCRA 534 (2 Bernas 1054)
Tablarin v. Gutierrez 154 SCRA 730
Non v. Judge Dames supra
Alcuaz v. PSBA supra

VI. Protected Interests in Liberty

A. Non-Impairment of Obligations and Contracts
Background Reading: Padilla IV-A CIVIL LAW 11-42 (1988) Discussion of ART 1306

Constitution ART III, sec 10
Civil Code ART 1306
Home Builders and Loan Association v. Blaisdell 290 US 398 (2 Bernas 684)
Rutter v. Esteban 93 Phil 68 (2 Bernas 690)
Ortigas v. Feati 94 SCRA 533 (2 Bernas 702
Juarez v. CA 214 SCRA 475 (2 Bernas 706)
Caleon v. Agus Development 207 SCRA 748

B. Involuntary Servitude
Rubi v. Provincial Board of Mindoro supra
Kaisahan v. Gotamco 80 Phil 521

C. Imprisonment for Non-Payment of Debt
Constitution ART III, sec 20
Lozano v. Martinez 146 SCRA 323 (2 Bernas 876)


D. Right Against Self-Incrimination
US v. Navarro 3 Phil 143 (2 Bernas 844)
Villaflor v. Summers 41 Phil 62 (2 Bernas 848)
Beltran v. Samson 53 Phil 570 (2 Bernas 851)
Cabal v. Kapunan 6 SCRA 1059 (2 Bernas 861)
Bengzon v. Senate Blue Ribbon Committee 203 SCRA 767
Galman v. Pamaran 138 SCRA 294

E. Unlawful Search and Seizure
Stonehill v. Diokno 20 SCRA 383 (2 Bernas 120)
Katz v. US 394 US 347
Terry v. Ohio** 392 US 1
People v. Marti

Nala v. BarrosoJr, G.R. No. 153087 August 7, 2003
Lim v. Felix** 194 SCRA 292
Alvarez v. CFI 64 Phil 33
Bache & Co. v. Ruiz 37 SCRA 823
Burgos, Sr. v. Chief of Staff 133 SCRA 800
Roan v. Gonzales 145 SRA 687

Nolasco v. Pano 39 SCRA 152, 147 SCRA 509
People v. Malmstedt** 198 SCRA 401
People v. Aminudin ** 163 SCRA 402
People v. Burgos 144 SCRA 1
Chimel v. California 395 US 752
Manilil v. Court of Appeals** 280 SCRA 400
Malacat v. Court of Appeals ** 283 SCRA 159
* Moot Cases
** Acting Cases

Papa v. Mago 22 SCRA 657
People v. Aruta** 288 SCRA 620

Aniag v. COMELEC** 237 SCRA 424

Valmonte v. de Villa 178 SCRA 211, 185 SCRA 665

In Re Umil et al v. Ramos 187 SCRA 311
People v. Mengote 210 SCRA 174
People v. Manlulu 22 April SCRA 159

VII. Scope of Constitutional Protection

A. Who Are Entitled to Constitutional Protection

Citizenship and Alienage
Constitution ART IV
Board of Commissioners (CID) v. Dela Rosa, et al 197 SCRA 853
Qua CheeGan v. Deportation Board 9 SCRA 27
Harvey v. Defensor-Santiago 162 SCRA 840 (2 Bernas 210)
Yu v. Defensor-Santiago 169 SCRA 364 (2 Bernas 945)
Labo v. COMELEC 176 SCRA 1 (2 Bernas 952)
Aznar v. COMELEC 185 SRA 703 (2 Bernas 957)

Juridical Persons
Stonehill v. Diokno, supra
Central Bank v. Morfe 20 SCRA 507 (2 Bernas 957)

B. Who Are Subject to Constitutional Prohibitions

State Action Requirement
People v. Marti 193 SRA 57 (2 Bernas 226)
Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robbins supra
In relation to. Borjal v. CA supra