You are on page 1of 27

'

COURSE OUTLINE
HUMAN RIGHTS and THE BILL OF RIGHTS
Luis A. Vera Cruz, Jr.

I. STUDY OF HUMAN RIGHTS AS PART OF CURRICULUM

Sec. 3 (1) and (2), Art. XIV (Ed ucation)

(1) "All educa tional institutions shall include the study of the
Constitu tion as par t of the curricula."

(2) "They shall inculcate patriotism and nationalism, foster love of


humanity, respect for hu man rights.... Teach the rights and duties
of citizenship ...."

II. SECTION 11, ART. II, 1987 CONSTITUTION

"The State values the dignity of every human person and guarantees
full respect for human rights."

1. The Bill of Rights, 1935, 1973 and 1987 Constitution

2. Universal values of human rights expressed for the first time in the
UN Charter in 1945.

3. The concept was broadened in the Universal Declaration of Hu man


Rights in 1948. Article 1States: "All hu man beings are born free
and equal in dignity x x x"

III. HUMAN RIGHTS DEFINED

1. Human Rights is defined generally as those rights inherent in our


nature and without which we cannot live as human beings

2. Civil Rights and Political Rights

SIMON vs. COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS, 229 SCRA 117

3. The most basic human rights is "life, liberty and right to property"
Section 1, Article III, 1987 Constitution.

Scanned with CamScanner


4. Definition of "Liberty" - the right to live which is being able to
enjoy all the God-given faculties of a human being (RUBI et al vs.
PROVINCIAL BOARD OF MINDORO, 39 Phil. 660).

5. The Basic Characteristics of Human Rights: Inherent, Fundamental,


Inalienable, Imprescriptible, Indivisible, Universal, Inter dependent.

IV. The COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS

Section 17, Section 18 and Section 19, Article XIII, 1987


Constitution.

CARINO vs. COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS, 204


SCRA 483

V. THREE CATEGORIES OF HUMAN RIGHTS

1. FIRST GENERATION OF RIGHTS (Civil And Political Rights)

Article III, 1987 Constitution, The Bill of Rights

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

Universal Declaration of Human Rights

GOV'T OF HONGKONG vs. HON. OLALIA et al. 521SCRA


470

2. SECOND GENERATION OF RIGHTS (Economic, Social and


Cultural Rights)

Article XIII, 1987 Constitution, Social Justice and Human


Rights

CALALANG vs. WILLIAMS, 70 Phil. 726


BASA vs. WCC, 103 SCRA 542

Universal Declaration of Human Rights

International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural


Rights

Scanned with CamScanner


3. THIRD GENER ATION OF RIGHTS (Solidarity/ Collective Rights)

Section 15, 16, Article II, 1987 Constitution

MMDA vs. CONCER NED RESIDENTS OF MANILA BAY,


574 SCRA 661
PT & T vs. NLRC, 272 SCRA 596
OPOSA vs. FACTORAN, JULY 30, 1993

VI. VIOLATION / REMEDIES/ PROTECTION OF HUMA N RIGHTS

INTER NATIONAL

1. Remedies under UN Treaties

a. The Optional Protocol To the International Covenant on


Civil and Political Rights

1. Exhaust local remedies


11. UN Human Rights Committee

b. The International Covenant on the "Elimination of All Forms


of Racial Discrimination

1. Exhaust local remedies


11. Committee on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial
Discrimination

c. Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel Inhuman or


Degrading Treatment or Punishment

1. Committee Against Torture

2. The "1503" System

Even in those cases not covered by any UN Treaty, an


individual or group of persons prevented from exercising their human
rights may take their complaint to the UN. Under this procedure,
copy of the Complaint is forwarded to the Government concerned
which may file a Reply. A copy is also furnished UN Commission
on Human Rights (with power to inquire into violation of human
rights and make recommendations).

Scanned with CamScanner


3. The International Criminal Tribunal For Violations of
Humanitarian Law

[The Dusko Tadic case for crimes against humanity, breaches of the
Geneva rules of way.]

4. The International Criminal Court (ICC) Rome Statute

a. Distinguished from International Court of Justice (which


deals with States) the ICC deals with and has power to
investigate, prosecute, and convict individuals. It has
international jurisdiction over acts constituting Genocide,
Crimes Against Humanity, War Crimes and Aggression.
Investigation by ICC may be initiated by

i) State Party
ii) Security Council
iii) Prosecutor (motu propio)

ICC DECISION on THOMAS LUBANGA DYILO OF


DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF CONGO, JULY 10, 2012

b. Procedure

i) Prosecutor submits to the Pre-trial Chamber a request


for authorization of an investigation, together with
material evidence collected.

ii) If after preliminary examination, there is no finding of


a reasonable basis for investigation, he shall notify the
parties.

c. Jurisdiction over Specific Crimes:

Article 6 (Genocide)
Article 7 (Crimes Against Humanity)
Article 8 (War Crimes)
Article 5 (Aggression: to be defined and adopted by the States
parties)

d. Law to be Applied

i) The Statute

Scanned with CamScanner


ii) Applicable Treaties
iii) Principles and International Law
iv) General principles of law and principles interpreted
in previous decision (i.e. Nuremberg Judgment, Tokyo
War Crime Tribunal etc.)

LOCAL REMEDIES AND PROTECTION

1. National Human Rights Institution - Commission on Human


Rights

2. Article 32, Civil Code

ABERCA et al. vs. GEN. FABIAN VER et al., 160 SCRA 590
LIM vs. PONCE DE LEON, 66 SCRA 299
SERRANO vs. MUNOZ MOTORS, INC., 21SCRA1085
FESTEJO vs. FERNANDO, 94 PHIL. 504

3. Revised Penal Code

Ex: Arts. 128 (Violation of Domicile) Art. 129 (Search Warrant


Maliciously Obtained) Art. 130 (Searching Domicile Without
Witness) Art. 131 (Prohibition, Interruption/ Disru ption of
Peaceful Meetings) Art. 132 (Interruption of Religious
Worship) Art. 133 (Offending Religious Feelings)

4. Writ of Habeas Corpus

ORDONEZ vs. VINARAO, 239 SCRA114


MANGILA vs. PANGILI NAN, 701SCRA 355

5. Writ of Amparo

The writ is available to any person whose life to life, liberty and
security is violated or threatened with violation by a unlawf ul act
or omission of a public off icial employee or of a private individual
or entity.

SEC. OF N ATIONAL DEFENSE vs. MAN ALO, 568 SCRA 1


CASTILLO vs. CRUZ, 605 SCRA 628
RAZON vs. TAGITIS, 605 SCRA 598
RODRIGUEZ vs. MACAPAGAL-ARROYO, 660 SCRA84
DE LIMA vs. GATDULA, 691SCRA 226

Scanned with CamScanner


NAVIA vs. PARDICO, 673 SCRA 618
CAR AM vs. SEGUI, 732 SCRA 86
SAEZ vs. MACAPAGAL-ARROYO, 681 SCRA 678
SALCEDO vs. BOLLOZOS, 623 SCRA 27
LADAGA vs. MAPAGU, 685 SCRA 322

6. R.A. NO. 10353 An Act Defining And Penalizing Enforced or


Involuntary Disappearance.

7. R.A. No. 9745 An Act Penalizing Torture and Other Cruel,


Inhuman and Degrading Treatment Or Punishment And Prescribing
Penalties.

8. WRIT OF HABEAS DATA

GAMBOA vs. CHAN, et al, 677 SCRA 385


VIVARES vs. ST. THERESA's COLLEGE, 737 SCRA 92
CASTILLO vs. CRUZ, 605 SCRA 628

9. WRIT OF KALIKASAN

AGHAM PARTY LIST vs. LNL ARCHIPELAGO MINERALS, INC.


G.R. No. 201918, June 13, 2012
PHILIPPINE EARTH JUSTICE CENTER INC., et al. vs. SEC. OF
DENR, et al., G.R. No. 197754
HER NANDEZ vs. PLACER DOME, INC., G.R. No. 195482, June 21,
2011

10. Anti-Wire Tapping Act

RAMIREZ vs. CA, 248 SCRA 590


GAANAN vs. IAC, 145 SCRA 112
ALEJANO vs. CABUAY, 468 SCRA 188 (read RA 7438)
BRATNICKI vs. VOPPER, 532 US 514

11. Data Privacy Act

II

I. INTERPLAY OF INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS, POLICE POWER AND DUE


PROCESS/ EQUALITY

A. Review of Police Power

Scanned with CamScanner


1.) Definition and Scope

a) Legal Subject, b) Legal Method

PHIL. ASSOCIATION OF SERVICE EXPORTERS vs.


DRILON, 163 SCRA 386
US vs. POMPEY A, 31Phil. 245

II. LIFE, LIBERTY AND PROPERTY AND DUE PROCESS/EQUAL


PROTECTION OF THE LAW

Section 1. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or pro perty without due
process of law, nor shall any person be denied equal protection of the law.

1. Liberty; Civil Liberty

RUBI et al. vs. PROVINCIAL BOARD OF MINDORO, 39 Phil. 660

2. Due Process; Requisite

RUBI et al. vs. PROVINCIAL BOARD OF MINDORO, supra.

a. Substantive Due Process

ERMITA MALATE HOTEL ASSOCIATION vs. CITY


MAYOR OF MANILA, July 31, 1967
CORONA vs. UNITED HARBOR PILOTS ASSOCIATION
OF THE PHILS., 283 SCRA 31
BELTRAN vs. SEC. OF HEALTH, 476 SCRA 168
LUPANGCO vs. CA, 160 SCRA 848

b. Procedural Due Process

BANCO ESPANOL B. PALAN CA, 37 Phil. 921


MAYOR BAYANI ALONTE vs. JUDGE SAVELLANO, 287
SCRA 245

Requisites:

1) Impartial court/ tribunal clothed with judicial power


to hear or determine the matter before it

Scanned with CamScanner


JAVIER vs. COMELEC, 144 SCRA 194
TABUENA vs. SANDIGANBY A N, 268 SCRA 332
RIVERA vs. CSC, 240 SCRA 43

2) Jurisdiction must be lawfully acquired over the


person of the defendant and over the property which
is the subject matter of the proceeding.

SAMARTINO vs. RAON, G.R. No. 131482, July 3,


2002

3) The defendant must be given the opportunity to be


heard

Y NOT vs. IAC, G.R. No. 74457, March 20, 1987


UNICRAFT vs. CA, G.R. No. 134309, March 26, 2001
MARIVELES SHIPYARD vs. CA, G.R. No. 144134,
November 11, 2003
ZALDIVAR vs. SANDIGANBA YAN, 166 SCRA 316
CHUA vs. CA, 287 SCRA 33

4) Judgment must be rendered upon lawf ul hearing

c. "Administrative Due Process"

ANG TIBAY vs. CIR, 69 Phil. 635


MERALCO vs. NLRC, 263 SCRA 531

d. Due Process In Disciplinary Actions Against Students

GUZMAN vs. NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, G.R. No. L-68288,


July 11, 1986

e. The Res Ipsa Loquitor Doctrine

IN RE: ATTY. LAURETA, 148 SCRA 45


IN RE: ATTY. ASOY, 152 SCRA 45

f. Due Process in Rule Making by Admin. Agencies

PHIIL. CONSUMERS vs. SEC. OF EDUCATION, 153 SCRA


622

Scanned with CamScanner


g. Due Process In the Dismissal of Employees

MGG MARINE SERVICES vs. NLRC, 259 SCRA 664


SAMILLANO vs. NLRC, 265 SCRA 788
STOLT-NIELSEN vs. NLRC, 264 SCRA 307

h. Eff ect of a Motion for Reconsideration To A Claim for


Violation of Right To Due Process

CASUELA vs. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, 276 SCRA


635

L Preliminary Investigation and Due Process

GO vs. CA, 206 SCRA 138


YUSOP vs. SANDIGANBAYAN, G.R. No. 138859-60,
February 22, 2001
TATAD vs. SANDIGANBAYAN, 159 SCRA 70

3. The equal protection clause

PEOPLE vs. CAYAT, 68 Phil. 12


PEOPLE vs. VERA, 65 Phil. 56
IMELDA MARCOS vs. CA, 278 SCRA 843
LACSON vs. SANDIG ANBAYAN, January, 20, 1999
NUNEZ vs. SANDIGANBAYAN, 111SCRA 433
FLORES vs. COMELEC, 184 SCRA 484
PHIL. ASSO. OF SERVICE EXPORTERS vs. DRILON, 163 SCRA
386
ORMOC SUGAR CO. vs. TREASURER OF ORMOC CITY, 22
SCRA 603

III. THE SEARCH AND SEIZURE PROVISION; SECTION 2, ARTICLE III

Section 2. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, pa pers,
and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for
any purpose shall be inviolable, and no search warra nt or warrant of arrest shall
issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after
examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he
may produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons
or things to be seized.

Articles 129-130, Revised Penal Code

Scanned with CamScanner


Section 2201-2212, 2301-2304, Tariff and Custom Code
Sec. 9, Republic Act No. 6235 (1971)

1. Rationale and Essentials of A Valid Warrant


Substantive and Procedural Requirements

PAPER INDUSTRIES CORP. OF THE PHIL. ET AL. vs.


JUDGEMAXIMIANO ASUNCION, ET AL., 307 SCRA 253
20TH CENTURY FOX FILM CORPORATED vs. CA ET AL, 164
SCRA 655
COLUMBIA PICTURES, INC. vs. CA, 261SCRA 144 (1996)
UY vs. BIR, 344 SCRA 36
PENDON vs. CA, 191 SCRA 429 (1990)
SILVA vs. HON. PRESIDI NG JUDGE OF RTC
NEGROS ORIENTAL, 203 SCRA 140 (1991)
KHO vs. MACALINTAL, 307 SCRA 70 (1999)

SONY MUSIC ENTERTAINMENT (PHILS.), INC. vs. ESPA NOL,


453 SCRA 360 (2005)
PEOPLE vs. CA, 291SCRA 400
BURGOS vs. CHIEF OF STAFF, 133 SCRA 800

2. Probable Cause;

ROBERTS vs. CA, 254 SCRA 307


DE LOS SANTOS vs. MONTESA, 247 SCRA 85
VICENTE LIM ET AL. vs. HON. FELIX, G.R. No. 99054-57
SOLIVEN vs. MAKASIAR, 167 SCRA 393

3. General or Roving Warrants

STONEHILL vs. DIOKNO, 20 SCRA 383 (1967)


KHO vs. MAKALINT AL, 306 SCRA 70

4. Scatter Shot Warrant

TAMBASEN vs. PEOPLE, July 14, 1995


PEOPLE vs. SALANGUIT, G.R. No. 133254-55, April 19, 2001

5. Issuing Court

MALALOAN vs. CA, 232 SCRA 249

10

Scanned with CamScanner


6. Implementation of Warrant: Witnesses

PEOPLE vs. GESMUNDO, 219 SCRA 743

7. Warrantless Search

i. Motor Vehicle

CARROLL vs. U.S., 267 U.S. 132 (1925)


PEOPLE vs. QUE, 265 SCRA 721(1996)
CABALLES vs. CA, 373 SCRA 221(2002)
PEOPLE vs. EXALA, 221SCRA 494 (1993)
U.S. vs. CHADWICK, 433 U.S. 1, 97 S.Ct. 2476, 53 L.Ed. 2d
538 977)

n. Plain view

U.S. vs. GRAY, 484 F.2d 352 (6th Cir, 1978)


ARIZONA vs. HICKS, 480 U.S. 321(1987)
HORTON vs. CALIFORNIA, 496 U.S. 128 (1990)
PEOPLE vs. MUSA, 217 SCRA 597 (1993)
PEOPLE vs. DORIA, 301SCRA 668 (1999)
PEOPLE vs. VALDEZ, 341SCRA 25
CABALLES vs. CA, G.R. No. 136292, January 15, 2002
PEOPLE vs. COMPACION, G.R. No. 124442, July 20, 2001
UNITED LABORATORIES vs. ISIP, G.R. No. 163858, June 28,
2005

111. Waiver or consented searches

SCHNECKLOTH vs. BUSTAMANTE, 412 U.S. 218 (1973)


OHIO vs. ROBINEITE, 519 U.S. 33 (1996)
PEOPLE vs. BAULA, 344 SCRA 663
VEROY vs. LAYAGUE, 210 SCRA97
U.S. vs. MATLOCK, 415 U.S. 164 (1996)
PEOPLE vs. DAMASO, 212 SCRA 547

iv. Stop and frisk

TERRY vs. OHIO, 392 U.S. 1(1968)


ADAMS vs. WILLIAMS, 407 U.S. 143 (1974)
MINNEOSTA vs. DICKERSON, 508 U.S. 366 (1993)
PEOPLE vs. SOLAYAO, 262 SCRA 255 (1996)

11

Scanned with CamScanner


v. Search incidental to a lawf ul arrest

CHIMEL vs. CALIFOR NIA, 395 U.S. 752 (1969)


NEW YORK vs. BELTON, 453 U.S. 454 (1981)
PEOPLE vs. CHUA HO SAN, 308 SCRA 432 (1999)
PEOPLE vs. MUSA, 217 SCRA 597
JOHNSON v. U.S. 333 U.S. 10 68 S.Ct. 367, 92 L.Ed. 436
(1948)
CADUA vs. CA, 312 SCRA 703 (1999)
PADILLA vs. CA, 269 SCRA 402 (1997)
PEOPLE vs. DE LARA, 236 SCRA 291(1994)

vi. Exigent and emergency circumstances

PEOPLE vs. DE GRACIA, 233 SCRA 716 (1994)

vii. Customs searches / Seizure of Concealed Goods to avoid


duties and taxes

BOAC, ET AL. vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, 570


SCRA 533 (2008)
BUREAU OF CUSTOMS, ET AL. vs. OGARIO, ET AL., 329
SCRA 289 (2000)

viii. Airport searches

PEOPLE vs. JOHNSON, 348 SCRA 526 (2000)


PEOPLE vs. CANTON, 394 SCRA 478 (2002)
U.S. vs. DAVIS, 482 F.2d 893 (9th Cir. 1973)

8. Warrantless Search and Seizure On Informer's "Tip"

PEOPLE vs. ARUTA, 288 SCRA 626

9. Is Operation "kapkap"/ "Saturation Drives" Valid

PEOPLE vs. MANGOTE, 210 SCRA 174

10. Warrantless Search and Seizure by a Private Person

PEOPLE vs. MARTI, G.R. No. 81561, January 18, 1991

12

Scanned with CamScanner


11. Validity of Checkpoints

VALMONTE vs. GEN. DE VILLA, G.R. No. 83988, September 29,


1989

12. Buy-bust Operation

PEOPLE vs. JUATAN, 260 SCRA 532

13. Warrantless Arrest

PADILLA vs. CA, 269 SCRA 402

14. Illegally Seized Evidence; Exclusionary Rule

STONEHILL vs. DIOKNO, supra


PICOP vs. ASU NCION, 307 SCRA 253

15. Documents obtained through Subpoena

16. Waiver

PEOPLE vs. MAMARIL, 420 SCRA 662

17. Not Limited To Dwelling

U.S. vs. CHADWICK ET AL., 433 U.S. 1; 97S.Ct. 2476, 53 L.Ed. 538,
supra

18. Search warrant Valid In Part

PEOPLE vs. SALANGUIT, 356 SCRA 683, supra

19. Ownership of House Searched

PEOPLE vs. DICHOSO, 223 SCRA 174

IV. PRIVACY OF COMMUNICATION AND CORRESPONDENCE

Section 3 (1). The privacy of communication and correspondence shall be


inviolable except upon lawful order of the court, or when public safety or order
requires otherwise as prescribed by law.
R.A. 4200 (Anti-Wire Tapping Act)

13

Scanned with CamScanner


RA 7438
ZULUETA vs. CA, February 10, 1996
RAMIREZ vs. CA, 248 SCRA 590
GAANAN vs. IAC, 145 SCRA 112
WATEROUS DRUG CORP. vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 113271, October 16, 1997
PEOPLE vs. ALBOFERA, 152 SCRA 123
ALEJANO vs. CABUAY, 468 SCRA 188 (read RA 7438)
BRATNICKI vs. VOPPER, 532 US 514

V. THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH, EXPRESSION AND OF THE PRESS AND


THE RIGHT TO PEACEABLY ASSEMBLE

Section 4. No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression,


or the press, or the right of the peo ple peaceably to assemble and petition the
government for redress of grievances.

1. Freedom of Expression and Of The Press

PHIL. BLOOMING MILLS EMPLOYEES ORG. vs. PHILIPPINE


BLOOMING MILLS, 51SCRA 189
SALONGA vs. CRUZ PANO, 134 SCRA 438

a. Freedom from censorship or restraint

i) Publication, etc.

GROSJEAN vs. AMERICAN PRESS CO., 297 U.S. 233


BURGOS vs. CHIEF OF STAFF, 133 SCRA 800
MUTUC vs. COMELEC, 36 SCRA
ADIONG vs. COMELEC, 207 SCRA 712
US vs. O'BRIEN, 391US 365 (O'BRIEN TEST)
MIRIAM COLLEGE FOUNDATION vs. CA, G.R. No.
127930, December 15, 2000

b. movie censorship

GONZALES vs. KATIGBAK, 137 SCRA 717


LAGUNSAD vs. SOTTO VDA DE GONZALEZ, 92
SCRA 476
AYER PRODUCTION vs. JUDGE CAPULONG 160
SCRA 861 '

b. Freedom from Subsequent Punishment

14

Scanned with CamScanner


i) Libel

NEW YORK TIMES vs. SULLIVA N, 376 US 254


ALONZO vs. CA, G.R. No. 110088, February 1, 1995
POLICARPIO vs. MANILA TIMES, 5 SCRA 148
B AGUIO MIDLAND COURIER vs. CA, G.R. No.
107566, November 25, 2004
LOPEZ vs. CA, 34 SCRA 116

ii) Obscenity

PEOPLE vs. KOTTINGER, 45 Phil. 352


MILLER vs. CALIFORNIA, 37 L Ed. 2D 419
GENSBERG vs. NY, 390 US 629
PITA vs. CA, 178 SCRA 362

iii) Criticism of Off icial Conduct

US vs. BUSTOS, 37 Phil. 731


PEOPLE vs. ALARCON, 69 Phil. 265
ESPUELAS vs. PEOPLE, 90 Phil. 524

c. Tests and Valid Government Interference

i) Clear and Present Danger Rule

SCHENCK vs. US, 249 US 97


GONZALES vs. COMELEC, 27 SCRA 835
ZALDIVAR vs. SANDIGANBAYA N, 170 SCRA 1
IGLESIA NI CRISTO vs. CA, 259 SCRA 529
VIVA PRODUCTIONS vs. CA, HUBERT WEBB, G.R.
No. 123881, March 13, 1997

ii) Dangerous Tendency Rule

CABANSANG vs. FERN ANDEZ, 102 Phil. 152


PEOPLE vs. PEREZ, 45 Phil. 599

iii) Balancing of Interest Tests

AMERICAN COMMUNICATIONS ASSO. vs.


DOUDS, 339 US 282

15

Scanned with CamScanner


ZALDIVAR vs. SANDIGANBA YAN, supra

2. Freedom of Assembly

BP 880 (Public Assembly Act)


REYES vs. BAGATSING, 125 SCRA 553
DE LA CRUZ vs. CA, G.R. Nos. 126183 AND 129221, March 25,
1999
NON vs. DAMES, 185 SCRA 523
MALABANAN vs. RAMENTO, 129 SCRA 359
EVANGELISTA vs. EAR NSHAW, 57 Phil. 255
PRIMICIAS vs. FUGOSO, 80 Phil. 71

i) Clear and Present Danger/ Dangerous Tendency Rule

REYES vs. BAGATSING, supra


RUIZ vs. GORDON, supra
ZALDIVAR vs. SANDIGANBA YAN, G.R. No. 80578,
February 1, 1989
CABANSAG vs. FERNANDEZ, 102 Phil. 152

ii) Balancing of Interest Test

AYER PRODUCTION vs. JUDGE CAPULONG ET AL., 160


SCRA 861
LAGUNSAD vs. GONZALES, 92 SCRA 476
GITLOW vs. NY, 268 US 652

VI. FREEDOM OF RELIGION/ NON-ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION


CLAUSE

Section 5. No law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion, or


prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The free exercise and enjoyment of religiou s
profession and worship, without discrimination or preference, shall forever be
allowed. No religious test shall be required for the exercise of civil or political
rights.
Also: Section 6, Art. II, Section 2(5), Art. IX-C, Section 5(2), Art. VI
Section 29 (2), Section 28(3), Art. VI, Section 4(2), Art. XIV,
Section 3(3), Art. XIV, Section 29(2), Art. VI.

1. Non-Establishment Clause

EVERSON vs. BD OF EDUCATION, 330 US 1

16

Scanned with CamScanner


LEMON vs. KURTZMAN, 403 US 602
ENGEL vs. VITALE, 370 US 421
SCHOOL DISTRICT OF ABINGTON vs. SCHEMP, 374 US 203
ADONG vs. CHEONG SENG GEE, 43 Phil. 43

2. Right To Religious Profession and Worship

PEOPLE vs. LAGMAN, 38 O.G. 1676


IN RE: SUMMERS, 325 US 561
EBRALINAG ET AL. vs. THE DIVISION SUPERINTENDENT OF
SCHOOLS OF CEBU, March 1, 1993

3. Compelling State Interest Test

ESTRADA vs. ESCRITOR, A.M. No. P-02-1651, August 4, 2003

VIL LIBERTY OF ABODE AND THE RIGHT TO TRAVEL

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.

MARCOS ET AL. vs. MANGLAPUS, G.R. No. 88211, September 15, 1989
and the Resolution on the Motion for Reconsideration dated
October 27, 1989
MANOTOC vs. CA, 142 SCRA 149
VILLAVICENCIO vs. LUKBAN, 39 Phil. 778
SALONGA vs. HERMOSO, 97 SCRA 121

VIII. RIGHT TO INFORMATION

Section 7. The right of the peo ple to information on matters of public concern
shall be recognized. Access to official record s, and to documents, and pa pers
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 limitation as may be provided by law.

VALMONTE vs. BELMONTE, G.R. No. 74930, February 13, 1989


LEGASPI vs. CSC, 150 SCRA 530
BALDOZA vs. DIMAANO, 71SCRA 14
LANT ACO vs. LLAMAS, 108 SCRA 502
GARCIA vs. BOARD OF INVESTMENTS, 177 SCRA 374

17

Scanned with CamScanner


CHAVEZ vs. PEA and AMARI, G.R. No. 133250, July 9, 2002

IX. RIGHT TO FORM AND JOIN ASSOCIATION

Section 8. The right of the people, including those employed in the public and
private sectors, to form unions, associations, or societies for purposes not contrary
to law shall not be abrid ged.

TERNATE vs. NORIEL, 100 SCRA 93


SAMAHAN NG MANGAGAGA WA vs. NORIEL, 108 SCRA 381
PEOPLE vs. FERRER, 48 SCRA 382
PEOPLE vs. FERRER, 56 SCRA 793

Right To Strike

ALLIANCE OF GOVT. WORKERS vs. MINISTRY OF LABOR, 124


SCRA 1
SSS EMPLOYEES ASSO. vs. CA, 175 SCRA 686

X. PRIVATE PROPERTY AND EMINENT DOMAIN

Section 9. Private pro pert y shall not be taken for public use without just
compensation.

Sec. 2, Rule 67, Rules of Court; Requisite for immediate entry by


government on expro priated property

1. Just Compensation

BERKENKOTTER INC. vs. CA, December 14, 1992


NPC vs. CA, 129 SCR A 665
MUN. OF TALISAY vs. RAMIREZ, 183 SCRA 528
REP. vs. CA, 154 SCRA 428
COSCULLUELA vs. CA, 164 SCRA 393
IGNACIO vs. GUERRERO, 150 SCRA 369

2. "Public Use"

SUMULONG vs. GUERRERO, 154 SCRA 461

18

Scanned with CamScanner


3. "Taking"

REP. vs. CASTELLYI, 58 SCRA 336


GARCIA vs. CA, 102 SCRA 597
us vs. CAUSBYI 328 us 256
4. Limitations To the Power of Eminent Domain

CITY OF MANILA vs. CHINESE COMMUNITY, 40 Phil. 349


RP vs. CRISTINA DE KECHT and CA, G.R. No. 87335, February 12,
1989

XI. NON-IMPAIRMENT CLAUSE

Section 10. No law impairing the obligation of contracts shall be passed.

KABILING vs. NHA, December 18, 1987


CO vs. PNB, 114 SCRA 842
ILUSORIO vs. CAR, 17 SCRA 25
ORTIG AS vs. FEAT! BANK, 94 SCRA 533
GANZON vs. INSERTO, 123 SCRA 713

XII. FREE ACCESS TO COURTS AND QUASI-JUDICIAL BODIES

Section 11. Free access to the courts and quasi-judicial bodies and adequa te legal
assistance shall not be denied to any person by reason of poverty.

XIII. RIGHTS DURING CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATIONS

Section 12 (1). Any person under investigation for the commission of an offense
shall have the right to be informed of his right to remain silent and to have
competent and independent counsel preferably of his own choice. If the person
cannot afford the services of counsel, he must be provided with one. These rights
cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of counsel.

(2) No torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation, or any other means which
vitiate the free will shall be used against him. Secret detention places,
solitary, incommunicado, or other similar forms of detention are
prohibited.

(3) Any confession or ad mission obtained in violation of this or Section 17


hereof shall be inad missible in evidence against him.

19

Scanned with CamScanner


(4) The law shall provide for penal and civil sanctions for violations of this
section as well as compensation to and rehabilitation of victims of torture
or similar practices, and their families.

1. "Custodial Investigation"

PEOPLE vs. JUDGE AYSON, 175 SCRA 216


PEOPLE vs. DE LA CRUZ, G.R. No. 118866-68, September 17, 1997
DE LA TORRE vs. CA, G.R. No. 102786, August 14, 1998
PEOPLE vs. BALOLOY, G.R. No. 140740, April 12, 2002
PEOPLE vs. DEL ROSARIO, 305 SCRA 740
PEOPLE vs. BRAVO, G.R. No. 135562, November 22, 1999

i) Police line-u p

PEOPLE vs. DAGPIN, G.R. No. 149560, June 10, 2004


PEOPLE vs. ESCORDIAL, G.R. No. 138934-35, January 16,
2002

2. Guidelines and Procedures; RA 7438

PEOPLE vs. MAHINAY, G.R. No. 122485, February 1, 1999


MIRANDA vs. ARIZONA, 384 US 436
ESCOBEDO vs. ILLINOIS, 378 US 436
PEOPLE vs. DUERO, 104 SCRA 379

3. Duties of Police and Arresting Off icer

PEOPLE vs. NICANDRO, 141SCRA 289


PEOPLE vs. DUHAN, 142 SCRA 100
PEOPLE vs. RAMOS, 122 SCRA 312
PEOPLE vs. CAGUIOA, 95 SCRA 2

4. Counsel of Choice, Extra judicial confession

RA 7438

PEOPLE vs. MATOC-VIDUYA, Sept. 11, 1990


PEOPLE vs. JEREZ, 285 SCRA 393
PEOPLE vs. PANFILO CABILES, 284 SCRA 199
PEOPLE vs. OBRERO, 332 SCRA 190
PEOPLE vs. JANUARIO, 267 SCRA 608
ABALLE vs. PEOPLE, 183 SCRA 196

20

Scanned with CamScanner


PEOPLE vs. DANO, 339 SCRA 515
PEOPLE vs. SAMOLDE, 336 SCRA 632
PEOPLE vs. MARCOS, 147 SCRA 204
PEOPLE vs. ALEGRIA, September 28, 1990

5. Waiver of Rights

PEOPLE vs. ALBOFERA, 152 SCRA 123


PEOPLE vs. CAPITIN, 165 SCRA 47
PEOPLE vs. HIZON, 163 SCRA 760

6. Presumptions

PEOPLE vs. JARA, 144 SCRA 516


PEOPLE vs. ABANO, 145 SCRA 555
PEOPLE vs. TOLENTINO, 145 SCRA 597
PEOPLE vs. TRINIDAD, 162 SCRA 714

7. Admissibility / Inadmissibility of Evidence; Doctrine of the "FRUIT


OF THE POISONOUS TREE"

8. Testimony of Arresting Off icer On the Alleged Oral Confession of


the Accused

PEOPLE vs. DY, 158 SCRA 111


XIV. THE RIGHT TO BAIL

Section 13. All persons, except those charged with offenses punishable by
reclusion perpetua when evidence of guilt is strong, shall, before conviction, be
bailable by sufficient sureties, or be released on recognizance as may be provided
by law. The right to bail shall not be impaired even when the privilege of the writ
of habeas corpu s is suspended. Excessive bail shall not be required .

Read Rule 114, Rules of Court

DE LA CAMARA vs. ENAGE, 41SCRA 1


PEOPLE vs. DONATO, June 5, 1991
VILLASENOR vs. ABANO, 21SCRA 312
PEOPLE vs. IAC, 147 SCRA 219
ALMEDA vs. VILLALUZ, 66 SCRA 38
PEOPLE vs. SAN DIEGO, 26 SCRA 522
COMENDADOR vs. DE VILLA, 200 SCRA 80

21

Scanned with CamScanner


1. Section 10, Rule 114, 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure

PEOPLE vs. AGBAYANI, 284 SCRA 315

XV. DUE PROCESS IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS

Section 14 (1). No person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense without
d ue process of law.

(2) In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed


innocent until the contran1 is proved, and shall enjoy the right to
be heard by himself and counsel, to be informed of the nature and
cause of the accusation against him, to have a speed y, impartial,
and public trial, to meet the witnesses fact to fact, and to have
compulsoryprocess to secure the attendance of witnesses and
production of evidence in his behalf. However, after arraignment,
trial may proceed notwithstanding the absence of the accused
provided that he has been duly notified and his failure to appear in
unjustifiable.

PEOPLE vs. TERROBIAS, 103 SCRA 321

1. Presumption of Innocence; Order of Trial; The Equipoise Rule

Rule 119, Section 11


PEOPLE vs. DE LOS SANTOS, 355 SCRA 415
PEOPLE vs. SATURN0, 355 SCRA 578
ALEJANDRO vs. PEPITO, 96 SCRA 322
SACAY vs. SANDIGA NBAYA N, C.R. No. L-66497-98, July 10, 1986
PEOPLE vs. DRAMMAYO, 42 SCRA 59
PEOPLE vs. FERNANDO, 145 SCRA 151

2. Right To Be Heard by Himself or By Counsel

PEOPLE vs. HOLGADO, 85 Phil. 752


DELGADO vs. CA, 145 SCRA 357
PEOPLE vs. CUISON, 193 Phil. 296
PEOPLE vs. N ADERA, 324 SCRA 490
PEOPLE vs. YAMBOT, 343 SCRA 20
PEOPLE vs. BANIHIT, 339 SCRA 86

3. Right to be present during trial

22

Scanned with CamScanner


PEOPLE vs. JUDGE, 125 SCRA 269
CARREDO vs. PEOPLE, 183 SCRA 273

4. Right to a speedy trial

SC Adm. Circular No. 4, Sept. 22, 1988


Department of Justice Circular No. 27, September 16, 1988
Sections 6 and 9, Rule 119 of the Revised Rules of Court

PEOPLE vs. HON. JUDGE JOSE R. HERNA NDEZ, G.R. NO.


154218 and 154372, August 28, 2006
PEOPLE vs. ORSAL, 113 SCRA 226
CONDE vs. RIVERA, 59 Phil. 650
DUTERTE vs. SANDIGANBAYAN, 289 SCRA 721
ANCHANGCO vs. OMBUDSMAN, 269 SCRA 301
SUMBANG vs. COURT MARTIAL, 337 SCRA 227
BLANCO vs. SANDIGANBAYAN, 346 SCRA 108
SOLAR TEAM ENTERTAINMENT INC. vs. HOW, 338 SCRA 51

5. Right To An Impartial Trial

PEOPLE vs. TUAZON, 159 SCRA


IGNACIO vs. VILLALUZ, 90 SCRA 16
PEOPLE vs. SENDAYDIEGO, 81SCRA 120
DIMACUHA vs. CONCEPCION, 117 SCRA 630

6. Right To Public Trial

GARCIA vs. DOMINGO, July 25, 1973


PEOPLE vs. TAMPUS, March 28, 1980

7. Right To Be Inf ormed of the Nature and Cause of Accusation

SALES vs. CA, 164 SCRA 717


PEOPLE vs. CRISOLOGO, 150 SCRA 653
PEOPLE vs. CORRAL, 157 SCRA 678
PEOPLE vs. RESAYAGA, 159 SCRA 426
PEOPLE vs. CABALE, 185 SCRA 573

8. The Right To Meet Witnesses Face to Face

PEOPLE vs. VALERO, 112 SCRA 661

23

Scanned with CamScanner


PEOPLE vs. BU NDALIAN, 117 SCRA 718
PEOPLE vs. SENERIS, 99 SCRA 92
PEOPLE vs. CLORES, 100 SCRA 227
CARREDO vs. PEOPLE, 183 SCRA 273

9. Right To Secure Witnesses and Production of Evidence

PEOPLE vs. BARDAJE, 99 SCRA 388

10. Trial In Absentia

NOLASCO vs. ENRILE, 139 SCRA 502


PEOPLE vs. SALAS, 143 SCRA 163
GIMENEZ vs. N AZARENO, 160 SCRA 1

11. Duty of Judge To the Accused Before Trial

PEOPLE vs. AGBAYANI, 284 SCRA 315

XVI. HABEAS CORPUS

Section 15. The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended
except in cases of invasion or rebellion when the public safety requires it.

IN THE MATTER OF PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS OF


FERDINAND MARCOS, G.R. No. 88079, May 18, 1989 and August
and October 1989.
CRUZ vs. ENRILE, April 15, 1988
ABADILLA vs. FIDEL RAMOS, December 1, 1987

XVII. RIGHT TO SPEEDY DISPOSITION OF CASES BEFORE, JUDICIAL


QUASI-JUDICIAL AND ADMINISTR ATIVE BODIES

Section 16. All persons shall have the right to a speed y disposition of their cases
before all judicial, quasi-judicial, or ad ministrative bodies.

XVIII. RIGHT AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION

Section 17. No person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself

GALMAN vs. PAMARAN, 138 SCRA 294


CHAVEZ vs. CA, 24 SCRA 663
PEOPLE vs. BANIHIT, 339 SCRA 86

24

Scanned with CamScanner


VILLAFLOR vs. SUMMERS, 41Phil. 62
BELTRAN vs. SAMSON, 50 Phil. 570
PEOPLE vs. OTADORA, 86 Phil. 244
FERN ANDO vs. MAGLANOC, 95 Phil. 431
PEOPLE vs. BOHOLST-AMADORE, 152 SCRA 263
PEOPLE vs. ROSAS, 148 SCRA 464
PEOPLE vs. POLICARPIO, 158 SCRA 85

XIX. RIGHT NOT TO BE DETAINED FOR ONES POLITICAL BELIEFS AND


ASPIRATIONS/ INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE

Section 18 (1). No person shall be detained solely by reason of his political beliefs
and aspirations.

(2) No involuntary servitude in any form shall exist except as a punishment for a
crime whereof the partyshall have been duly convicted.

ACLARATION vs. GATMAITAN, 64 SCRA 131

XX. RIGHT AGAINST CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT

Section 19 (1). E xcessive fines shall not be imposed, nor cruel, degrading or
inhuman punishment inflicted. Neither shall death penalty be imposed, unless,
for compelling reasons involving heinous crimes, the Congress hereafter provides
for it. Any death penalty already imposed shall be reduced to reclusion perpetua.

(2) The emplo yment of physical, psychological, or degrading punishment


against any prisoner or detainee or the use of substandard or inadequate penal
facilities under subhuman conditions shall be dealt with by law.

1. Death Penalty

PEOPLE vs. ESTOISTA, 93 Phil. 647


PEOPLE vs. VILLAN UEVA, 128 SCRA 488
VINIEGAS vs. PEOPLE, 115 SCRA 79
PEOPLE vs. CAMA NO, 115 SCRA 688
PEOPLE vs. IDNAY, 164 SCRA 358

XXL RIGHT AGAINST IMPRISONMENT FOR DEBT

Section 20. No person shall be imprisoned for debt or non-pa yment of a poll tax.

AJENO vs. INCIERTO, 71 SCRA 166

25

Scanned with CamScanner


XXII. RIGHT AGAINST DOUBLE JEOPARDY

Section 21. No person shall be twice put in jeopardy or punishment for the same
offense. If an act is punished by a law and an ordinance, conviction or acquittal
under either shall constitute a bar to another prosecution for the same act.

1. Requisites

PEOPLE vs. ALMARIO, 355 SCRA 1


PEOPLE vs. TAMPAL, 244 SCRA 202
PEOPLE vs. LEVISTE, 255 SCRA 238

2. When act is punished by both law and an ordinance

PEOPLE vs. RELOVA, 148 SCRA 292

3. Other cases.

PEOPLE vs. MOLERO, G.R. No. 1-67842, September 24, 1986


PEOPLE vs. HON. VELASCO, 340 SCRA 207
PEOPLE vs. BOCAR, 138 SCRA 166
PEOPLE vs. JUDGE HER NANDO, 108 SCRA 121
ESMENA vs. JUDGE POGOY, 102 SCRA 861
CUDIA vs. CA, 284 SCRA 173
CUISON vs. CA, 289 SCRA159
TANGAN vs. PEOPLE, 155 SCRA 435
US vs. YAM TUNG WAY, 21Phil. 67
PEOPLE vs. ANG HO KIO, 95 Phil. 475

4. The "Supervening Fact Doctrine"

MELO vs. PEOPLE, 85 Phil. 766


PEOPLE vs. BULING, 107 Phil. 712
PEOPLE vs. ADIL, 76 SCRA 462
PEOPLE vs. CITY COURT OF MANILA, 121SCRA 637
PEOPLE vs. BUAN, 22 SCRA 1383

XXIII. RIGHT AGAINST EX-POST FACTO LAW, BILL OF ATTAINDER

Section 22. No ex post facto law or bill of attainder shall be enacted.

26

Scanned with CamScanner


1. EX POST FACTO -

a) Kinds:

(1) Every law that makes criminal an action done before the passage
of the law and which was innocent when done, and punishes
such action;

(2) Every law that aggravates a crime, or makes it greater than it was
when committed;

(3) Every law that changes punishment, and inflicts a greater


punishment than the law annexed to the crime when committed;

(4) Everylaw that alters the legal rules of evidence, and receives less
or different testimony than the law required at the time of the
commission of the offense, in order to convict the offender;

(5) Everylaw which, assuming to regulate civil rights and remedies


only, in effect imposes a penalty or the deprivation of a right for
something which when done was lawful;

(6) Every law which deprives persons accused of a crime of some


lawful protection to which they have become entitled, such as the
protection of a former conviction or acquittal, or of a proclamation
of amnesty;

z. Characteristics: (i) It refers to criminal matters; (ii) it is retroactive


in ap plication; and (iii) It works to the prejudice of the accused.

2. Bill of Attainder. - It is a legislative act that inflicts punishments without


trial.

NUNEZ vs. SANDIGANBAYAN, 111 SCRA 433


LACSON vs. SANDIGANBAYA N, G.R. No. 128096, January 20, 1999
MEJIA vs. PAMARAN, 160 SCRA 457
PEOPLE vs. SANDIGANBAYA N, 211SCRA 241
SEVILLEJA vs. COMELEC, 107 SCRA 141
BAYOT vs. SANDIGANBA YAN, 128 SCRA 383
WRIGHT vs. CA, 235 SCRA 341
PEOPLE vs. FERRER, 43 SCRA 381

27

Scanned with CamScanner