2nd Floor Valencia Bldg., Pendatun Ave., General Santos City 9500
Phone: (083) 823-7030
pantualaw@gmail.com
MINDANAO STATE UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE OF LAW
GENERAL SANTOS CITY
1st Year Aristotle
2nd Semester, SY 2022-2023
I.
Primary Source
a. 1987 Constitution (Article III)
II.
Literary Sources
a. The Federalists Papers: (Downloadable) Mandatory Reading
i. Federalists Paper No. 10
ii. Federalists Paper No. 51
iii. Federalist Paper No. 84
b. “Gorgias” by Plato (Downloadable) Mandatory Reading
c. “Human Law: The Summa Theologica” by St. Thomas Aquinas (Copies to
be provided)
d. The Nature and Basis of Human Dignity by Patrick Lee & Robert P George
(Copies to be provided)
e. Being Right (Ten Years of Trade Tripper) by Dr. Jemy Gatdula (Mandatory
Reading available at Central Bookstore)
III.
Other sources
a. Watch the lecture of Justice Antonin Scalia at Woodrow Wilson Center,
March
14,
2005
(https://www.c-span.org/video/?1858831/constitutional-interpretation)
STATE POWER V. THE BILL OF RIGHTS
 DUE PROCES AND EQUAL PROTECTION AS LIMITATIONS ON POLICE
POWER, EMINENT DOMAIN TAXATION.
DOCTRINE OF PREFERRED FREEDOM (HIERARCHY OF RIGHTS)




PMB Employees Org. vs. PBM Co., Inc., 51 SCRA 189 (1973)
Francisco Chavez vs. Raul M. Gonzales and NTC, G.R. No. 168338, February 15,
2008
Vinuya v. Executive Secretary Romulo, G.R. No. 162230, April 28, 2010
Nuremberg War Trials: Us v. Brandt, et. al. November 21, 1946 to August 20, 1947
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2
Page 1
“But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no
government would be necessary.” - James Madison (The Federalist No. 51)
THE FUNDAMENTAL POWERS OF THE STATE


Dionisio Lopez y Aberasturi vs. People of the Philippines and Salvador G.
Escalante, Jr., G.R. No. 172203, February 14, 2011
Calleja v. Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 252578, December 7, 2021
POLICE POWER







Lozano vs. Martinez, 146 SCRA 323 (1986)
Del Rosario vs. Bengzon, 180 SCRA 521 (1989)
Tablarin vs. Judge Gutierrez, 152 SCRA 730 (1987)
Emilio Gancayco, vs. City Government of Quezon City and Metro Manila
Development Authority, G.R. No. 177807, October 11, 2011 and Metro Manila
Development Authority vs. Justice Emilio A. Gancayco (Retired), G.R. No.
177933, October 11, 2011
Ermita-Malate Hotel & Motel Operators vs. City Mayor, 20 SCRA 849 (1967)
Sangalang vs. IAC, 176 SCRA 719 (1989)
Villanueva vs. Castaneda, 154 SCRA 142 (1987)
Prohibitory Ordinance Valid Exercise of Police Power

Cruz vs. Paras, 123 SCRA 569 (1983)
An Ordinance Must Not Contravene a Law





Velasco vs. Villegas, 120 SCRA 568 (1983)
Magtajas vs. Pryce Properties, 234 SCRA 255 (1994)
Tano vs. Socrates, G.R. 110249, August 27, 1997
City of Manila vs. Judge Laguio, G.R. No. 118127, April 12, 2005
Lucena Grand Central Terminal, Inc., vs. JAC Liner, Inc., G.R. No. 148339,
February 23, 2005
Administrative Rules and Regulations





Hon. Jejomar C. Binay and the Municipality of Makati, vs. Hon. Eufemio Domingo
and the Commission on Audit, G.R. No. 92389 September 11, 1991
Bautista vs. Junio, 127 SCRA 329 (1984)
Taxicab Operators of Metro Manila vs. BOT, 119 SCRA 597 (1982)
Anglo-Fil Trading vs. Lazaro, 124 SCRA 494 (1983)
PRC vs. De Guzman, G.R. No. 144681, June 21, 2004
EMINENT DOMAIN



City of Manila vs. Chinese Cemetery of Manila, 40 Phil 349 (1919)
Republic Act No. 8974 (An Act to Facilitate the Acquisition of Right –of-Way, Site
of Location for National Government Infrastructure Projects and for Other
Purposes)
DPWH Memorandum Circular no. 55, July 3, 2001
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2
Page 2
“But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no
government would be necessary.” - James Madison (The Federalist No. 51)































City Of Manila, et.al. vs. Hon Perfecto A.S. Laguio, Jr., as Presiding Judge, RTC,
Manila and Malate Tourist Development Corporation, G.R. No. 118127, April 12,
2005
Moday vs. Court of Appeals, 268 SCRA 368 (1997)
Republic of the Philippines vs. PLDT, 26 SCRA 620 (1969)
Barangay San Roque vs. Heirs of Pastor, GR 138896, June 20, 2000
Republic vs. Castelvi. 58 SCRA 336 (1974)
City Govt. of Quezon City vs. Ericta, 122 SCRA 756 (1983)
Republic vs. Fajardo, 104 Phil. 443 (1958)
NAPOCOR vs. Gutierrez, 193 SCRA 1 (1991)
U.S. vs. Causby. 328 U.S. 256 (1946)
Philippine Press Institute, Inc. (PPI) vs. COMELECT, 244 SCRA 272 (1995)
Filstream International vs. Court of Appeals, 284 SCRA 716 (1998)
City of Mandaluyong vs. Fransico, G.R. No. 137152, January 29, 2001
Lagcao vs. Judge Labra, G.R. No. 155746, October 13, 2004
Jesus Is Lord vs. Municipality of Pasig, G.R. 152230, August 9, 2005
Heirs of Juancho Ardona vs. Reyes, 125 SCRA 220 (1983)
Sumulong vs. Guerrero, 154 SCRA 461 (1987)
Province of Camarines Sur vs. CA, 222 SCRA 170 (1993)
Manosca vs. Court of Appeals, 252 SCRA 412 (1996)
Estate of Jimenez vs. PEZA, G.R. No. 137285, January 16, 2001
Anunciacion Vda. De Ouanom et. al. vs. Republic of the Philippines, et.
al./Mactan-Cebu International Airport (MCIAA) v. Ricardo L. Inocian, in his
personal capacity and as Attorney-in-Fact of Olympia E. Esteves, et. al. and Aletha
Suico Magat in her personal capacity and as Attorney-in-Fact of Philip M. Suico.
et. al. G.R. Nos. 168770 & 168812, February 9. 2011
Municipality of Meycayauan vs. IAC. 157 SCRA 640 (1988
De Knecht vs. Bautista, 100 SCRA 660 (1980)
Republic vs. De Knecht, G.R. 87351, February 12, 1990
Jesus Is Lord Christian School Foundation, Incorporated (JILCSFI) vs.
Municipality of Pasig, G.R. 152230, August 9, 2005
Republic of the Philippines represented by the Department Of Public Works And
Highways (DPWH) vs. Asia Pacific Integrated Steel Corporation, G.R. No. 192100,
March 12, 2014
Eslaban vs. De Onorio, G.R. No. 146062, June 28, 2001
Republic of the Philippines vs. International Appellate Court, et. al., G.R. No.
71176, May 21, 1990
Republic vs. Salem Investment Corp., G.R. 137569, 23 June 2000
City of Cebu vs. Spouses Dedamo, G.R. No. 142 971, May 07, 2002
Republic, as represented by the NIA vs. CA and Francisco Diaz, G.R. No. 147245,
March 31, 2005
EPZA vs. Dulay, 149 SCRA 305 (1987)
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2
Page 3
“But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no
government would be necessary.” - James Madison (The Federalist No. 51)














Hon. Vicente P. Eusibio, Lorna A. Bernardo, Victor Endriga, and the City of Pasig,
vs. Jovito M. Luis. et. al., G.R. No. 162474, October 13, 2009
Ansaldo vs. Tantuico, G.R. 50147, August 3, 1990
Republic of the Philippines vs. Lim, G.R. 161656, June 29, 2005
Association of Small Landowners vs. Department of Agrarian Reform, 175 SCRA
343 (1989)
Department of Agrarian Reform vs. Court of Appeals, 249 SCRA 149 (1995)
City of Iloilo represented by Hon. Jerry P. Treñas, City Mayor, vs. Hon Lolita
Contreras-Besana Judge, Regional Trial Court, Branch 32, and Elpidio Javellana,
G.R. No. 168967, February 12, 2010
Meralco vs. Pineda, 206 SCRA 196 (1992)
National Power Corporation vs. Henson, G.R. No. 129998, December 9, 1998
National Power Corporation vs. Angas, 208 SCRA 542 (1992)
Wycoco vs. Judge Caspillo, G.R. No. 146733, January 13, 2004
City of Manila vs. Oscar Serrano, G.R. No. 142304, June 20, 2001
Republic vs. Far East Ent. Inc., et. al., G.R. No. 17687, August 25, 2009 (citing
Capitol Steel Corp. vs. PHIVIDEC Industrial Authority, G.R. No. 169453,
December 6, 2006m 510 SCRA 590)
City of Baguio vs. NAWASA, 106 Phil. 114 (1959)
Zamboanga del Norte vs. City of Zamboanga, 22 SCRA 1334 (1968)
TAXATION









Commissioner vs. Makasiar, 177 SCRA 27 (1989)
Young Men’s Children Association vs. Court of Industrial Relations, 33 Phil. 247
(1916)
Bishop of Nueva Segovia vs. Provincial Board, 51 Phil. 352 (1927)
Lladoc vs. Court of Industrial Relations, 14 SCRA 292 (1965)
Province of Abra vs. Hernando, 107 SCRA 104 (1981)
Abra Valley College vs. Aquino, 162 SCRA 106 (1988)
American Bible Society vs. City of Manila, 101 Phil. 386 (1957)
Punzalan vs. Municipal Board of Manila, 95 Phil. 46 (1954)
Physical Therapy Organization vs. Municipal Board, G.R. 10448, August 30, 1957
DUE PROCESS









Ferrer vs. Carganillo, et. al., G.R. No. 170956. May 12, 2010
Rep. Alvin Sandoval vs. HRET, et. al., G.R. No. 190067, March 9, 2010
Atienza, et. al. vs. COMELEC, et. al., G.R. No. 188920, February 16, 2010
Hurtado vs. California, 110 U.S. 516 (1884)
Villegas vs. Hu Chong Tsai Pao ho, 86 SCRA 275 (1978)
Rubi vs. Provincial Board of Mindoro, 39 Phil. 660 (1919)
Ople vs. Torres, 292 SCRA 141 (1998)
Estrada vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 148560, November 19, 2001
Tanada vs. Tuvera, 146 SCRA 446 (1986)
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2
Page 4
“But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no
government would be necessary.” - James Madison (The Federalist No. 51)



































Tanada vs. Tuvera, 136 SCRA 27
Section 1 Executive Order No. 200, June 18, 1987 (Providing for the publication of
laws either in the Official Gazette of in newspaper of General Circulation in the
Philippines as a requirement for their effectivity.
PITC vs. Angeles, 263 SCRA 421 (1996)
Pilipinas Kao vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 105014, December 18, 2001
Republic vs. Extelcom, G.R. 147096m January 15, 2002
Tanada vs. PAEC, 141 SCRA 307 (1986)
Anzaldo vs. Clave, 119 SCRA 353 (1982)
Tumey vs. Ohio, 273 U.S 510 (1997)
People of the Philippines vs. Court of Appeals, 262 SCRA 452 (1996)
Tabuena vs. Sandiganbayan, 268 SCRA 332 (1997)
Sheppara vs. Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333 (1966)
Webb vs. De Leon, 247 SCRA 652 (1995)
People of the Philippines vs. Sanchez, G.R. No. 121039, October 18, 2001
Summary Dismissal Board vs. Torcita, 330 SCRA 153 (2000)
Secretary of Justice vs. Lantino, G.R. 139466, October 17, 2000
People of the Philippines vs. Estrada, G.R. No. 130487, June 19, 2000
Lim vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 111397, August 12, 2002
Rodriguez vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. 134278, August 7, 2002
Roxas vs. Vasquez, G.R. 114944, June 21, 2001
Marohombsar vs. Judge, A.M. RTJ-02-1674, January 22, 2004
Philcomsat vs. Alcuaz, 180 SCRA 218 (1989)
Suntay vs. People of the Philippines, 101 Phil. 833 (1957)
De Bisschop vs. Galang, 8 SCRA 244 (1963)
Var Orient Shipping Co., Inc. vs. Achacoso. 161, 232 (1988)
Atienza, et. al. vs. COMELEC, et. al., supra
Ang Tibay vs. Court of Industrial Relation, 69 Phil. (1940)
Montemayor vs. Araneta University Foundation, 77 SCRA 321 (1977)
MERALCO vs. Public Service Commission, 11 SCRA 317 (1964)
Ateneo vs. Court of Appeals, 145 SCRA 100 (1986)
Alcuaz vs. Philippine School of Business Administration, 161 SCRA 7 (1988)
Non vs. Hon. Dames, G.R. No. 89317, May 30, 1990
Irene K. Nacu, etc. vs Civil Service Commission, et. al., G.R. no. 187752, November
23, 2010
A.Z. Arnaiz Realty Inc. vs. Office of the President, G.R. No. 170623, July 7, 2010
Winston F. Garcia vs. Mario I. Molina, et. al./Winston R. Garcia vs. Mario I. Molina,
et. al G.R. No. 157383/G.R. No. 174137, August 18, 2010
Gemma P. Cabalit vs. Commission On Audit Region VII, G.R. No. 180236, and
Filadelfo S. Apit vs. Commission On Audit (COA) Legal and Adjudication, Region
VII, G.R. No. 180341 and Leonardo G. Olaivar, in his capacity as Transportation
Regulation Officer and Officer-in-Charge of Land Transportation Office, Jagna
Province vs. Hon. Primo C. Miro, in his official capacity as Deputy Ombudsman
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2
Page 5
“But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no
government would be necessary.” - James Madison (The Federalist No. 51)
for Visayas, Edgardo G. Canton, in his capacity as Graft Investigator Officer, Atty.
Roy L. Ursal, in his capacity as Regional Cluster Director, Commission on Audit,
Cebu city, G.R. No. 180342, January 17, 2012
 DUE PROCES AND EQUAL PROTECTION AS LIMITATIONS ON POLICE
POWER, EMINENT DOMAIN TAXATION.
A. Fundamental Principles on Constitutional Law and bill of Rights
Cases - MANILA PRINCE HOTEL VS. GSIS 267 SCRA 408 (1997)
TAÑADA VS. ANGARA 272 SCRA 18 (1997)
DOMINO VS. COMELEC 310 SCRA 546 (1999)
PAMATONG VS. COMELEC 427 SCRA 96 (2004)
YRASUEGI VS. PAL 569 SCRA 467 (2008)
DATU MICHAEL ABAS KIDA vs. SENATE 659 SCRA 270 (2011)
667 SCRA 270 (2012)
CHAVEZ VS. JBC 676 SCRA 579 (2012)
CHAVEZ VS. JBC 696 SCRA 496 (2013)
CHAVEZ VS. ROMULO [G.R. NO. 157036. JUNE 9, 2004]
B. Basic Principles on the Fundamental Powers of the State, their characteristics,
similarities and distinctions, and their limitations.
RELEVANT CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS














Louis “Barok” C. Biraogo vs. The Philippine Truth commission of 2010/Rep. Edcel
C. Lagman, et. al vs. Exec. Sec. Paquito N. Ochoa, Jr., et. al., G.R. No. 192935 & G.R.
No. 19303, December 7, 2010
Eleazar P. Quinto and Gerino A. Tolentino, Jr. vs. Commission on Elections, G.R.
No. 189698, February 22, 2010
League of Cities of the Philippines, et. al. vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 176951/G.R. No.
177499 & G.R. No. 178056, December 21, 2009
Phil. Association of Service Exporters vs. Drilon, 163 SCRA 386 (1988)
National Power Corporation vs. Pinatubo Commercial represented by Alfredo A.
Dy, G.R. No. 176006, March 26, 2010
COMELEC vs. Condrado Cruz, et. al., G.R. No. 186616, November 20, 2009
Eleazar P. Quinto and Gerino A. Tolentino, Jr. vs. Commission on Elections, (supra)
Antonio M. Serrano vs. Gallant Maritime Services, Inc., et. al., G.R. No. 167614,
March 24, 2009
People of the Philippines vs. Hernandez, 99 Phil. 515 (1956)
People of the Philippines vs. Isinain, 85 Phil. 648 (1950)
Nunez vs. Sandiganbayan, 111 SCRA 433 (1982)
Gallardo vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 142030, April 21, 2005
Central Bank Employee Association vs. Banko Sentral ng Pilipinas, G.R. No.
148208, December 15, 2004
UNIDO vs. COMELEC, 104 SCRA 17 (1981)
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2
Page 6
“But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no
government would be necessary.” - James Madison (The Federalist No. 51)





PJA vs. Prado, 227 SCRA 703 (1993)
Tiu vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 127410, January 20, 1999
International School Alliance of Educators vs. Quisumbing, G.R. No. 128845, June
1, 2000
PHILRECA vs. DILG, G.R. No. 143076, June 10, 2003
Chavez vs. Romulo, G.R. No. 157036, June 9, 2004
C. DUE PROCESS IN GENERAL - Article III section 1, 1987 Constitution.
Annotation on Due process - 627 SCRA 558
Procedural and Substantive
Publication of Laws - TAÑADA RULINGS, E.O 200
CASES - SURIGAO ELECTRIC VS. ERC 623 SCRA 96 (2010)
HERITAGE HOTEL VS. NUNHRAIN 639 SCRA 420 (2011)
BOCEA VS. TEVES 661 SCRA 589 (2011)
CABALIT VS. COA 663 SCRA 133 (2012)
YLAYA VS. GACOTT 689 SCRA 425 (2013)
OCAMPO VS. ABANDO 715 SCRA 673 (2014)
GUTIERREZ VS. COA 745 SCRA 435 (2005)
CRISTINE JOY CAPIN-CADIZ VS. BRENT HOSPITAL AND
COLLEGES, INC. G.R. NO. 187417 (2016)
D. DUE PROCESS AND POLICE POWER
CASES - WHITE LIGHT CORP. VS. CITY OF MANILA 567 SCRA 1416 (2009)
OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR VS. AYALA 600 SCRA 617 (2009)
CHEVRON VS. BCDA 630 SCRA 519 (2010)
ESPINA VS. ZAMORA 631 SCRA 17 (2010)
FERNANDO VS. ST. SCHOLASTICA 639 SCRA 141 (2013)
LEGASPI VS. CITY OF CEBU 711 SCRA (2013)
MANILA MEMORIAL VS. DSWD 711 SCRA 302 (2013)
REMMAN ENTERPRISES VS. PRBRES 715 SCRA 293 (2014)
IMBONG VS. OCHOA 721 SCRA 146 (2014)
HERMANO OIL VS. TRB 742 SCRA 395 (2014)
E. DUE PROCESS AND EMINENT DOMAIN
Article III, Section 9, 1987 Constitution
CASES -VDA. DE OUANO VS. REPUBLIC 642 SCRA 384 (2011)
NPC VS. HEIRS OF SANGKAY 656 SCRA 60 (2011)
REPUBLIC VS. SAMSON- TATAD 696 SCRA 809 (2013)
SY VS. LG OF QUEZON CITY 697 SCRA 621 (2013)
SEC. OF DPWH VS. TECSON 700 SCRA 243 (2013)
NPC VS. CRUZ 702 SCRA 359 (2013)
DYCOCO VS. CA 702 SCRA 566 (2013)
REPUBLIC VS. BPI 705 SCRA 560 (2013)
MANILA MEMORIAL VS. DSWD 711 SCRA 302 (2013)
HERMANO OIL VS. TRB 742 SCRA 395 (2014)
REPUBLIC VS. HEIRS OF BORBON 745 SCRA 40 (2015)
G.R. NO. 150640, MARCH 22, 2007
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2
Page 7
“But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no
government would be necessary.” - James Madison (The Federalist No. 51)
Annotation: JUST COMPENSATION IN EMINENT DOMAIN - 686 SCRA
869
F. EQUAL PROTECTION- Article III, section 1, 1987 Constitution
G. THE NON-IMPAIRMENT CLAUSE













Falcis v. Civil Registrar General G.R. No. 217910, September 03, 2019
Goldenway Merchandising Corporation vs. Equitable PCI Bank, G.R. No. 195540,
March 13, 2013
Philippine Rural Electrical Cooperatives Association, Inc. (PHILRECA), et. al. vs.
The Secretary, Department of Interior and Local Government, and The Secretary,
Department Of Finance, Respondents, G.R. No. 143076, June 10, 2003
Barangay Association for National Advancement and Transparency (BANAT)
Partylist represented by Salvador B. Britanico vs. Commission on Elections, G.R.
No. 177508, August 7, 2009
Hon. Heherson T. Alvarez vs. PICOP Resources, Inc./PICOP Resources, Inc. vs.
Hon. Heherson T. Alvarez/Hon. Angelo T. Reyes vs. Paper Industries
Corporation of the Philippines (PICOP), G.R. No. 162243/G.R. No. 171875,
December 3, 2009
Rutter vs. Esteban, 93 Phil. 68 (1953)
Villanueva vs. Castaneda, supra
Sangalang vs. IAC, supra
Ortigas & Co. vs. CA, G.R. No. 126102, December 4, 2000
Tiro vs. Hontanosas, 125 SCRA 697 (1983)
Caleon vs. Agus Development Corp., 207 SCRA 748 (1992)
Meralco vs. Province of Laguna, 306 SCRA 750 (1999)
Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation vs. Bureau of Internal Revenue,
G.R. No. 172087, March 15, 2011
1. Economic Equality - Art. II Sec. 14
Art. III, Sec. 11 (Free access)
Art. VIII, Sec. 5 [5] (legal aid)
Art. XII, Sec. 2 (Marine resources)
Sec. 10 (Nationalization)
Art. XIII, Secs. 1-2 (Social Justice)
Sec. 3 (Protection to labor)
2. Political Equality - Art. IX-C Sec. 10 (discrimination)
Art. XIII, Sec. 1 (Social Justice)
CASE - DUMLAO VS. COMELEC 95 SCRA 392 (1980)
QUINTO VS. COMELEC 606 SCRA 258 (2009)
February 2010 Decision
ANG LADLAD VS. COMELEC 618 SCRA 32 (2010)
3. Social Equality- Art. XIII, Sec. 1
Annotation- SOCIAL JUSTICE 645 SCRA 401 (2011)
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2
Page 8
“But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no
government would be necessary.” - James Madison (The Federalist No. 51)
4. Cases: BIRAOGO VS. PHIL TRUTH 637 SCRA 78 (2010)
BOCEA VS. TEVES 661 SCRA 589 (2011)
MANOTOK VS. HEIRS OF BARQUE 667 SCRA 472 (2012)
GARCIA VS. DRILON 699 SCRA 667 (2013)
AQUINO VS. PPA 696 SCRA 666 (2013)
NATIONAL ARTIST VS. EX SEC. 701 SCRA 269 92013)
RAMMAN ENTERPRISES VS. PRBofRES 715 SCRA 293 (14)
DISINI VS. SOJ 716 SCRA 237 AND 723 SCRA 109 (2014)
SAMEER OVERSEAS VS. CABILES 732 SCRA 22 (2014)
BARTOLOME VS. SSS 740 SCRA 78 (2014
Annotation- REVISITING FUNDAMENTAL CONCEPTS IN
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 663 SCRA 661 (2012)
II.
REQUIREMENTS OF FAIR PROCEDURE
A. Arrests, Searches and Seizures, Privacy of Communications
Article III, Section 2, 1987 Constitution
Article III, Section 3, 1987 Constitution
1. Requirements for Search warrants
See Rules 126 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure
CASES - POLLO VS. CONSTANTINO- DAVID 659 SCRA 189 (2011)
RUBEN DEL CASTILLO VS. PEOPLE G.R. NO. 185128 (2012)
WORLDWIDE WEB VS. PEOPLE 713 SCRA 18 (2014)
OCAMPO VS. ABANDO 715 SCRA 673 (2014)
PEOPLE VS. ROM 717 SCRA 147 (2014)
PLDT VS. ALVAREZ 718 SCRA 54 (2014
LAUD VS. PEOPLE 714 SCRA 239 (2014)
ANNOTATION - SEARCH AND SEIZURE 643 SCRA 637 (2011)
LAW AND JURISPRUDENCE ON SEARCH
WARRANTS AND WARRANTLESS
SEARCHES 664 SCRA 450 (2012)
DYNAMICS OF SEARCH WARRANT 719 SCRA 723 (2014)
2. Valid Instances of Warrantless Searches and Seizures
(A) Search of Moving Vehicles
CASES - EPIE VS. ULAT - MARREDO 518 SCRA 641 (2007)
PEOPLE VS. TUASON 532 SCRA 152 (2007)
PEOPLE VS MAMACOS 621 SCRA 327 (2010)
(B) Search Incident to a Valid Arrest
See Rule 126, Section 12, Rules on Criminal Procedure
CASES - LUZ VS. PEOPLE 667 SCRA 421 (2012)
AMBRE VS. PEOPLE 678 SCRA 552 (2012)
PEOPLE VS. BELOCURA 679 SCRA 318 (2012)
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2
Page 9
“But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no
government would be necessary.” - James Madison (The Federalist No. 51)
MARTINEZ VS. PEOPLE 690 SCRA 656 (2013)
PEOPLE VS. ROM 7171 SCRA 147 (2014)
PEOPLE VS. COGAED 731 SCRA 427 (2014)
SANCHEZ VS. PEOPLE 741 SCRA 294 (2014)
VILLANUEVA VS. PEOPLE 740 SCRA 456 (2014)
(C) When things seized are within plain view of a searching party
PEOPLE VS. CALANTIAO 727 SCRA 20 (2014)
CRESENCIO VS. PEOPLE 741 SCRA 319 (2014)
PEOPLE VS. SAPLA G.R. NO. 244045, June 16, 2020
Annotation: PLAIN VIEW DOCTRINE 609 SCRA 434 (2009)
(D) Stop and Frisk
POSADAS VS. COURT OF APPEALS, 188 SCRA 288 (1990)
PEOPLE VS. MENGOTE, 210 SCRA 14 (1992)
MANALILI VS. CA 280 SCRA 400 (1998)
ESQUILLO VS. PEOPLE 629 SCRA 370 (2010)
PEOPLE VS. COGAED 731 SCRA 427 (2014)
(E) Express Waiver
VEROY VS. LAYAGUE, 210 SCRA 92 (1992)
PEOPLE VS. NUEVAS 516 SCRA 463 (2007)
PP VS. DEQUINA 640 SCRA 111 (2011)
PEOPLE VS. UYBOCO 640 SCRA 146 (2011)
PEOPLE VS. COGAED 731 SCRA 427 (2014)
(F) Search of Warehouse in Violation of Customs and Traffic Code or
to
enforce customs laws
BUREAU OF CUSTOMS VS. OGARIO 329 SCRA 289 (2000)
RIETA VS. PEOPLE 436 SCRA 237 (2004)
SALVADOR VS. PEOPLE 463 SCRA 489 (2005)
(G) Exigency
PEOPLE VS. DE GRACIA, 233 SCRA 716 (1994)
(H) Search and seizure by private persons
PEOPLE VS. MARTI, 193 SCRA 57 (1991)
WATEROUS DRUG CORP VS. NLRC 280 SCRA 735
PEOPLE VS. MENDOZA 301 SCRA 66 (1999)
PEOPLE VS. BONGCARAWAN 384 SCRA 525 (2002)
(I) Airport Security
Case: MARTINEZ VS. PEOPLE 690 SCRA 656 (2013)
SALES VS. PEOPLE 690 SCRA 141 (2013)
PEOPLE VS. CADIDIA 707 SCRA 494 (2013)
(J) Jail Safety
PEOPLE VS. CONDE 356 SCRA 525 (2002)
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2
Page 10
“But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no
government would be necessary.” - James Madison (The Federalist No. 51)
3. Constitutionality of checkpoint and “ area target zonings”
VALMONTE VS. DE VILLA 170 SCRA 256 (1989)
VALMONTE VS. DE VILLA 185 SCRA 665 (1990)
PEOPLE VS. EXALA 221 SCRA 494 (1993)
GUANZON VS. DE VILLA 181 SCRA 623 (1990)
ABENES VS. CA 515 SCRA 690 (2007)
4. Wire tapping
REP. ACT NO. 4200
GAANAN VS. IAC, 145 SCRA 112 (1986)
5. What may be seized
RULE 126, sec. 2
6. Remedies in Cases of Violation
A. Exclusionary rule
Art. III sec 3(2)
STONEHILL VS. DIOKNO, 20 SCRA 383 (1967)
Waiver- PASTRANO VS. CA 281 SCRA 254 (1997)
B. Civil action for damages (art. 32, NCC)
ABERCA VS. VER, 160 SCRA 590 (1988)
FORBES VS. CHOUCO TIACO, 16 PHIL. 534 ( 1910)
C. Criminal Cases Under Revised Penal Code
Article 128, 129 and 130
7. Requirements for issuance of Warrants of Arrest
Section 6 Rule 112 Revised Rule on Criminal Procedure
Compare with Section 4, Rule 126
CASES - PEOPLE VS. MARTINEZ 637 SCRA 791 (2010)
LUZ VS. PEOPLE 66 SCRA 421 (2012)
PEOPLE VS. MARIANO 685 SCRA 592 (2012)
BURGOS VS. ESPERON 715 SCRA 208 (2014)
CARAM VS. SEGUI 732 SCRA 86 (2014
HAO S. PEOPLE 735 SCRA 312 (2014)
ANNOTATION- WARRANT OF ARREST- 732 SCRA 629
8. When arrest may be made without a warrant
Rule 113, sec 5
(a) Strict enforcement of rule
PEOPLE VS. VILLAREAL 693 SCRA 532 (2013)
PEOPLE VS. COLLADO 698 SCRA 628 (2013)
ANTIQUERA VS. PEOPLE 712 SCRA 339 (2013)
PEOPLE VS. EDAÑO 729 SCRA 255 (2014)
PEOPLE VS. ENDAYA 731 SCRA 1 (2014)
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2
Page 11
“But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no
government would be necessary.” - James Madison (The Federalist No. 51)
PESTILOS VS. GENEROSO 739 SCRA 337 (2014)
VILLANUEVA VS. PEOPLE 740 SCRA 456 (2014)
ANNOTATION – WARRANTLESS ARREST – 283 SCRA 190
WARRANTLESS ARREST AND WARRANTLESS
SEARCH IN BUY BUST 607 SCRA 830 (2009)
(b) Exceptions to strict enforcement
(1) Illegal Possessions of guns or drugs
PEOPLE VS. PEÑAFLORIDA 551 SCRA 111 (2008)
PEOPLE VS. SEMBRANO 628 SCRA 328 (2010)
(c) Waiver of Illegality of Arrest
VALDEZ VS. PEOPLE G.R. NO. 170180 (2007)
PEOPLE VS. RACHO 626 SCRA 633 (2010)
(d) Effects of Declaration of Illegal Arrest
PEOPLE VS. BIYOC 532 SCRA 528 (2007)
VALDEZ VS. PEOPLE 538 SCRA 611 (2007)
PEOPLE VS. SANTOS 555 SCRA 578 (2008)
PEOPLE VS. EDAÑO 729 SCRA 255 (2014)
(e) When to raise illegality of Arrest
ROALLOS VS. PEOPLE 712 SCRA 593 (2013)
PEOPLE VS. VASQUEZ 714 SCRA 78 (2014)
(f) Rights of a person under custodial investigation











Miranda vs. Arizona, 384 U.S., 436 (1966)
People of the Philippines vs. Rodolfo Capitle and Arturo Nagares, G.R. No. 175330,
January 12, 2010
People of the Philippines vs. Arturo Lara y Orbista, G.R. No. 199877, August 13,
2012
People of the Philippines vs. Lugod, G.R. 136253, February 21, 2001
People of the Philippines vs. Del Rosario, G.R. 127755, April 14, 1999
Ray Peter O. Vivovs. Philippines Amusement And Game Corporation (PAGCOR),
G.R. No. 187854, November 12, 2013
People of the Philippines vs. Judge Ayson, 175 SCRA 216 (1989)
Office of the Court Administrator vs. Sumilang, 271 SCRA 316 (1997)
Clarita J. Carbonel vs. Civil Service Commission, G.R. No. 187689, September 7,
2010
People of the Philippines vs. Raul Santos Y Narciso, et. al., G.R. Nos. 100225-26,
May 11, 1993
People of the Philippines vs. Jerry Pepino y Rueras and Preciosa Gomez y Campos,
G.R. No. 174471, January 12, 2016
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2
Page 12
“But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no
government would be necessary.” - James Madison (The Federalist No. 51)


































People of the Philippines vs. Escordial, G.R. 138934, January 16, 2002
People of the Philippines vs. Pieda, et. al., G.R. No. 131923, December 5, 2002
People of the Philippines vs. Sayaboc, G.R. 147201, January 16, 2004
People of the Philippines vs, Galit, 135 SCRA 465 (1985)
People of the Philippines vs. Bandula, 232 SCRA 566 (1994)
Lenido Lumanog, et. al. vs. People of the Philippines/Cesar Fortuna vs. People of
the Philippines/People of the Philippines vs. SPO2 Cesar Fortuna y Abudo, et. al.,
G.R. Nos. 182555/G.R. No 185123/G.R. No. 187745, September 7, 2010
People of the Philippines vs. Ramil Penaflor, Rodolfo, Omilig y Mancia, et. al. G.R.
No. 206296, August 12, 2015
People of the Philippines vs. Gallardo, G.R. No. 113684, January 25, 2000
People of the Philippines vs. Barasina, 226 SCRA 450 (1994)
People of the Philippines vs. Domingo Reyes Y Paje, et. al., G.R. No. 178300, March
17, 2009
People of the Philippines vs. Antonio y Dela Cruz, Eriberto Enriquez y Gemson,
George Hayco y Cullera, and Allan Bonsol y Paz, G.R. No. 186472, July 5, 2010
People of the Philippines vs. Morial, G.R. 129295, August 15, 2001
People of the Philippines vs. Jerry Ferrer, G.R. No 148821, July 18, 2003
People of the Philippines vs. Rodrigo Dasig @ Ka Rubin Daku @ Armand, et. al.,
G.R. No. 100231, April 28, 1993
People of the Philippines vs. Castro, 274 SCRA 115 (1997)
People of the Philippines vs. Wong Chuen Ming, 256 SCRA 182 (1996)
Marcelo vs. Sandiganbayan, 302 SCRA 102 (1999)
Caterpillar, Inc., vs. Mando P. Samson, G.R. No. 164605, October 27, 2006
People of the Philippines vs. Andan, 269 SCRA 95 (1997)
People of the Philippines vs. Endino and Galgarin, G.R. 133026, February 20, 2001
People of the Philippines vs. Ordono, G.R. No. 132154, June 29, 2000
People of the Philippines vs. Guillermo, G.R. No. 147786, June 20, 2004
People vs. Gomez, 270 SCRA 432 (1997)
Illinois vs. Perkins, 496 U.S. 292 (1990)
People vs. Lugod, G.R. 136253, February 21, 2001
People vs. Hector Maqueda, G.R. No. 112983, March 22, 1995
People of the Philippines vs. Antonio Silvano, G.R. No. 144886, April 29, 2002
People of the Philippines vs. Luvendino, 211 SCRA 36 (1992)
People of the Philippines vs. Henry Jungco y Santiago, et. al., G.R. No. 78531, June
22, 1990
People of the Philippines vs. Pedro Decierdo, G.R. No. L-46956, May 7, 1987
People of the Philippines vs. Flaviano Puda y Garapea alias “Flaviano Puda”, G.R.
No. L-33841, October 31, 1984
People of the Philippines vs. Alicando, 251 SCRA 293 (1995)
Harris vs. New York, 401 U.S. 222 (1971)
New York vs. Quarles, 104 U.S. 2626 (1984)
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2
Page 13
“But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no
government would be necessary.” - James Madison (The Federalist No. 51)
9. Immunity from arrest of members of Congress
Art. VI, Sec. 11, 1987 Constitution
10. Privacy (Art. III, Section 2)
Case: OPLE VS. TORRES 293 SCRA 201 (1998)
SJS VS. DDB 570 SCRA 410 (2008)
LEE VS. CA 625 SCRA 66 (2010)
MANILA ELECTRIC VS. LIM 632 SCRA 195 (2010)
FERNANDO VS. ST. SCHO 693 SCRA 141 (2013)
IN RE: NORIEL RODRIGUEZ 693 SCRA 390 (2013)
HING VS. CHOACHUY 699 SCRA 667 (2013)
DISINI VS. SOJ 716 SCRA 237 AND 723 SCRA 109 (2014)
ANNOTATION- Right to privacy - 293 SCRA 201
CONCEPT OF PRIVACY- ZONES OF PRIVACY
11. Privacy of Communications
Art. III, Section 3, 1987 Constitution














Ramirez vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 93833, September 28, 1995
Gaanan vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, 145 SCRA 133 (1986)
Katz vs. U.S., 389 U.S. 347 (1967)
People of the Philippines vs. Albofera, 152 SCRA 123 (1987)
Zulueta vs. Court of Appeals, 253 SCRA 699 (1996)
Deano vs. Godinez, 12 SCRA 483 (1964)
Silverthrone Lumber vs. U.S., 251 U.S. 385 (1920)
People of the Philippines vs. Aruta, G.R. 120815, April 3, 1998
People of the Philippines vs. Rondero, G.R. 125687, December 9, 1999
Aberca vs. Ver, 160 SCRA 590 (1989)
OPLE VS. TORRES 293 SCRA 141 (1998)
IN RE ALEJANO 468 SCRA 188 (2008)
KMU VS. DIRECTOR 487 SCRA 623 92006)
IN RE SABIO 504 SCRA 214 (2006)
III. FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION
Art. III, Sec. 4
Id., sec. 18 (1)
A. Philosophic Basic of Guarantee
1. for the discovery of political truth
2. For self government
3. For individual perfection
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2
Page 14
“But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no
government would be necessary.” - James Madison (The Federalist No. 51)
B. Prior restrains/Subsequent Punishment
CASES- NEWSOUND BROADCASTING VS. DY 583 SCRA 333 (2009)
ANG LADLAD VS. COMELEC 618 SCRA 32 (2010)
GARCIA VS. MANRIQUE 683 SCRA 491 (2012)
DINISI VS. SOJ 716 SCRA 237 AND 723 SCRA 109 (2014)
GMA VS. COMELEC 734 SCRA 88 (2014)
C. Content- based Restriction
1. Some tests of Validity of content- based restrictions
Dangerous tendency: When the legislative body has determined generally
that utterances of a certain kind involve such danger of substantive evil that
they may be punished, the question whether any specific utterance coming with
the prohibited class is likely, in and of itself, to bring about the substantive evil
is not open to consideration. In such cases the general provision of the statute
may be constitutionally applied to the specific utterance if its natural and
probable effect was bring about the substantive evil that the legislative body
might prohibit. ( Gitlow vs. New York, 268 U.S. 652 [1952])
Clear- and- present danger: 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 they will bring about the substantive evil that the state has a
right to prevent. (schenck vs. United State, 249 U.S. 47 [1952])
Case: MARANTAN VS. DIOKNO 716 SCRA 164 (2014)
Balancing of interest: The court must undertake the delicate and difficult
task of weighing the circumstances and appraising the substantiality of the
reasons advance in support of the regulation of the free enjoyment of rights.
(American Communication Ass ‘n vs. Doubs, 339 U.S. 383, cited in Gonzales vs.
COMELECT, 27 SCRA 835 (1969)
Direct incitement: The guarantees of free speech and free press do not
permit a state to forbid or prescribe the advocacy of the use of force or law
violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing
imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.
( Brandeburg vs. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969); cited in Salonga vs. Cruz Pano, 134
SCRA 438 [1985])
Grave-but-improbable danger: Whether the gravity of the evil, discounted
by its improbability, justifies such an invasion of speech as is necessary to avoid
the danger. (Dennis vs. United States, 31 U.S. 494 [1951])
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2
Page 15
“But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no
government would be necessary.” - James Madison (The Federalist No. 51)
2. Applications of tests in various contexts
a. Freedom of expression and national security
b. Freedom of expression and criticism of official conduct: The Test of “Actual
Malice “ Read Rev. Penal Code, Arts., 353-354 and 361-362 Compare Act No. 2928,
March 26, 1920 Com. Act No. 382, Sept. 6, 1938
CASES- SOLIVEN VS. MAKASIAR; BELTRAN VS. MAKASIAR, 167 SCRA
393 (1988)
BORJAL VS. CA 301 SCRA 1 (1999)
VASQUEZ VS CA 314 SCRA 460 (2000)
TULFO VS. PEOPLE 565 SCRA 283 (2008)
ANNOTATION - 301 SCRA 34
c. Freedom of expression and the right privacy
CASES- AYER PRODUCTIONS VS. CAPULONG, 160 SCRA 861 (1988)
PHILIPPINE JOURNALIST, INC. VS. THEONEN 477 SCRA 482 (2005)
d. Freedom of expression and the administration of justice (contempt of court)
CASES- IN THE PUBLISHED . . . 385 SCRA 285 (2002)
IN THE MATTER - MACASAET 561 SCRA 395 (2008)
LEJANO VS. PEOPLE 638 SCRA 104 (2010)
RE: LETTER OF THE UP FACULTY 644 SCRA 543 (2011)
e. Symbolic Expression - The Flag-burning case
CASE- TEXAS VS. JOHNSON, 491 U.S. 109 S. Ct. 2533 (1989)
Cf. Act No. 2928, March 26, 1920;
Com. Act No. 382, Sept. 5, 1938
Adm. Code of 1987, Bk. I, 4, secs. 12-13
f. Assembly and Petition
CASE- DELA CRUZ VS. CA 305 SCRA 303 (1999)
Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo, 592 U.S. (2020)
D. Content-neutral restrictions
O’Brien Test: A government regulation is sufficiently justified if it is within the
constitutional power of the government; if it furthers an important or substantial
governmental interest; if the governmental interest is unrelated to the suppression
of free expression; and if the incidental restriction on alleged freedom of expression
is no greater than is essential to the furtherance of that interest. (United States vs.
O’Brien, 391 U.S. 367 (1968), adopted, Adiong vs. Comelect, 207 SCRA 712 [1992])
1. Regulation of political campaign/election activity
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2
Page 16
“But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no
government would be necessary.” - James Madison (The Federalist No. 51)
CASES- OSMEÑA VS COMELECT, 288 SCRA 447 (1998)
ABS-CBN VS. COMELECT, 323 SCRA 811 (2000)
SWS VS. COMELECT, 357 SCRA 497 (2001)
2. Freedom of Assembly
LAW- BP Blg. 880 (Public Assembly Act of 1985)
CASES- BAYAN VS. ERMITA CIRCULAR A.M. 98-7-02-SC
IBP VS. ATIENZA 613 SCRA 518 (2010)
3. Freedom of association and the right to strike in the public sector
Art. III, sec. 8
Art. IX, sec. 2(5)
Art XIII, sec. 3, par. 2
4. Movies Censorship
CASES- GONZALES VS. KALAW KATIGBAK, 137 SCRA 356 (1985)
IGLESIA NI CRISTO VS. CA 259 SCRA 529 (1996)
5. Radio broadcast
CASE- EASTEN BROADCASTING CORP. 9 (DYRE) VS. DANS, 137 SCRA 647
(1985)
ABSCBN v. NTC G.R. No. 252119, August 25, 2020
g. Freedom of Information
Art. III, sec. 7
CASES- NERI VS. SEANATE 564 SCRA 152 (2008)
CPEG VS. COMELECT 631 SCRA 41 (2010)
RE: REQUEST FOR COPY OG 2008 SALN 672 SCRA 27 (2012)
ANNOTATION- 299 SCRA 782
E. Academic Freedom
CASES- GARCIA VS. FACULTY OF ADMISSION, 68 SCRA 277 (1975)
ANNOTATION - 313 SCRA 428
DLSU VS. SOJOR 541 SCRA 22 (2007)
CSC VS. SOJOR 554 SCRA 160 (2008)
MERCADO VS. AMA 618 SCRA 218 (2010)
CALAWAG VS. UPVISAYAS 703 SCRA 373 (2013)
INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL VS. ISEA 714 SCRA 343 (2014)
IMBONG VS. OCHOA 721 SCRA 146 (2014)
Doctrinal cases:
FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2
Page 17
“But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no
government would be necessary.” - James Madison (The Federalist No. 51)


































Francisco Chavez vs. Raul M. Gonzales, in his capacity as the Secretary of the
Department of Justice; and National Telecommunications Commissions (NTC),
G.R. No. 168338, February 15, 2008
Ang Ladlad LGBT Party vs. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 190582, 08 April
2010
United States vs. Bustod, 37 Phil. 731 (1918)
Burgos vs. Chief of Staff, 133 SCRA 800 (1984)
New York Times vs. Sullivan 380 U.S. 51 (1964)
Gonzalez vs. COMELEC, 27 SCRA 835 (1969)
Social Weather Station vs. Comelec, G.R. 147571, May 5, 2001
Government Service Insurance System and Winston F. Garcia vs. Dinnah Villaviza,
et. al., G.R. No. 180291, July 27, 2010
The Diocese of Bacolod, Represented by the Most Rev. Bishop Vicente M. Navarra
and The Bishop Himself in his Personal Capacity vs. Commission of Elections and
the Election Officer of Bacolod City, Atty. Mavil V. Majarucon, G.R. No. 205728,
January 21, 2015
Eliseo F. Soriano vs. Ma. Consoliza P. Laguardia, et. al. G.R. No. 164785, April 29,
2009 and Eliseo F. Soriano vs. Movie and Television review and Classification
Board, et. al., G.R. No. 165636, April 29, 2009
Ibib
Zaldivar vs. Sandiganbayan, 170 SCRA 1 (1989)
Sanida vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 90878, January 29, 1990
ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corp. vs. Comelec, G.R. No. 133486, January 28, 2000
Babst vs. NIB, 132 SCRA 316 (1984)
Espuela vs. People, 90 Phil. 524 (1951)
Lopez vs. Court of Appeals, 34 SCRA 116 (1970)
Quisumbing vs. Lopez, 96 Phil. 510 (1955)
Bulletin vs. Novel, 167 SCRA 255 (1988)
Texas vs. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989)
Borjal vs. C.A., 301 SCRA 1 (1999)
Bagui Midland Courier vs. CA, G.R. No. 107566, November 25, 2004
People’s Journal et. al. vs. Francis Theonen, G.R. No. 143372, December 13, 2005
Cabansag vs. Frenandez, 102 Phil. 152
People vs. Alarcon, 69 Phil. 265 (1939)
In Re Ramon Tulfo, AM 90-4-1545-0, April 17, 1990
Nestle Phils. vs. Sanchez, 152 SCRA 542 (1987)
In Re Atty. Emil Jurado AM 90-5-2373, July 12, 1990
Gonzales vs. Kalaw Katikbak, 137 SCRA 356 (1985)
Lagunzad vs. Sotto Vda. De Gonzales, 92 SCRA 476 (1979)
Ayer Productions vs. Judge Capulong, 160 SCRA 861 (1988)
People vs. Kottinger, 45 Phil. 352 (1923)
People vs. Padaan, 98 Phil. 749 (1957)
Reno vs. ACLU, June 26, 1997, D-96-511
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2
Page 18
“But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no
government would be necessary.” - James Madison (The Federalist No. 51)


Miller vs. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973)
Eastern Broadcasting Corp. (DYRE) vs. Dans, 137 SCRA 247 (1985)
FREEDOM OF ASSEMBLY










Jose B.L. Reyes, in behalf of the Anti-Bases Coalition (ABC), vs. Ramon Bagatsing,
as Mayor of the City of Manila, G.R. No. L-65366, November 9, 1983
Primicias vs. Fugoso, 80 Phil. 71 (1948)
Navarro vs. Villegas, 31 SCRA 730 (1970)
Ignacio vs. Ela, 99 Phil. 346 (1956)
J.B.I. Reyes vs. Bagatsing, 125 SCRA 553 (1983)
Ruiz vs. Gordon, 126 SCRA 233 (1983)
Malabanan vs. Ramento, 129 SCRA 359 (1984)
Arreza vs. GAUF SCRA 94 (1985)
Acosta vs. C.A. and C.S.C., G.R. 132088, June 28, 2000
Integrated Bar of the Philippines, represented by its National President Jose
Anselmo I. Cadiz, Hon. Harry L. Roque, et. al. vs. Honorable Manila Mayor Jose
“Lito” Atienza, G.R. No. 175241, 24 February 2010
IV. FREEDOM OF RELIGION
Art. III, sec.5
A. Non-establishment Clause
The establishment clause prohibits (1) excessive governmental entanglement with
religious institutions and (2) government endorsement or disapproval of religion.
CASE- RE: REQUESTOF MUSLIM 477 SCRA 648 (2005)
TARUC VS. DELA CRUZ 453 SCRA 123 (2005)
ESTRADA VS. ESCRITUR 408 SCRA 1 (2003) 492 SCRA 1 (2006)
SORIANO VS. LAGUARDIA 587 SCRA 79 (2009) 615 SCRA 254 (2010)
IMBONG VS. OCHOA 721 SCRA 146 (2014)
1. Operation of Sectarian Schools
Art. XIV, sec. 4(2)
2. Religious instructions in public school
Art. XIV, sec. 3(3)
Rev. Adm. Code, sec. 928
Civil code, art. 359 (1)
3. Tax exemption
Art. VI, Sec. 28 (3)
CASES- BISHIP OF NUEVA SEGOVIA VS. PROVINCIAL BOARD 51
PHIL. 352 (1927)
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2
Page 19
“But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no
government would be necessary.” - James Madison (The Federalist No. 51)
TOLENTINO VS. SECRETARY, 235 SCRA 632 (1994)
4. Public Aid to Religion
Art. VI sec. 29 (2)
CASES- AGLIPAY VS. RUIZ, 64 Phil. 201 (1937)
IGNACIO VS. ELA, 99 Phil. 346 (1956)
B. Free Exercise Clause
1. Flag Salute
CASES- Ebralinag vs. Division Sup`t of Schools, 219 scra 256 (1993)
2. Freedom of propagate religious doctrines
CASES- AMERICAN BIBLE SOCIETY VS. CITY OF MANILA, 101 Phil. 386 (1957)
CENTENO VS. VILLALON, 236 SCRA 197 (1994)
IGLESIA NI CRISTO VS. CA 259 SCRA 529 (1996)
3. Exemption from union shop
CASES- VICTORIANO VS. ELIZALDE ROPE WORKERS UNION, 59 SCRA 54
(1974)
FREEDOM OF RELIGION (DOCTRINAL CASES)




















German vs. Barangan, 135 SCRA 514 (1985)
Estrada vs. Escritor, A.M. No. P-02-1651, August 4, 2003
Islamic Dawah Council vs. Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 153888, July 9, 2003
Reli German, et. al. vs. Gen. Santiago Barangan and Major Isabelo Lariosa, G.R.
No. L-68828, March 27, 1985
Eppersom vs. Arkansas, 33 U.S. 27 (1968)
Engel vs. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962)
Abington Schools Dist. vs. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203 (1973)
Stone vs. Graham, 449 U.S. 39 (1980)
Aglipay vs. Ruiz, 64 Phil. 201 (1937)
Mueller vs. Allen, 463 U.S. 388 (1983)
Lemon vs. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971)
Wallace vs. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38 (1985)
Fonacier vs. CA, 96 Phil. 417 (1955)
West Va Board of Education vs. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943)
Ebralinag vs. Division Superintendent (March 1, 1993)
American Bible Society vs. City of Manila, 181 Phil. 386 (1957)
Swaggart Ministries vs. Cal. Bd. Of Equalization, 493 U.S. 378 (1990)
Victoriano vs. Elizalde Rope Workers Union, 59 SCRA 54 (1974)
Pamil vs. Teleron, 86 SCRA 413 (1978)
Pedro V. Vilar vs. Gaudencio V. Paraiso, G.R. No. L-8014, March 14, 1955
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2
Page 20
“But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no
government would be necessary.” - James Madison (The Federalist No. 51)


Torcaso vs. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488 (1961)
RE: Request of Muslim Employees in the Different Courts in Iligan City (RE:
OFFICE HOURS) A.M. No. 02-2-10-SC December 14, 2005
V. LIBERTY OF ABODE AND OF TRAVEL
Art. III, sec. 6
CASES- SALONGA VS. HERMOSO, 97 SCRA 121 (1980)
MARCOS VS. MANGLAPUS, 177 SCRA 668 (1989) & 178 SCRA 760 (189)
SILVERIO VS. CA. 195 SCRA 760 (1991)
COJUANGCO VS. SANDIGANBAYAN 300 SCRA 367 (1998)
YAP JR. VS CA 358 SCRA 564 (2001)
MIRASOL VS. DPWH 490 SCRA 318 (2006)
REYES VS. CA 606 SCRA 580 (2009)
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVEVSERVICE VS. MACARINE 677 SCRA 1 (2012)
LIBERTY OF ABODE AND TRAVEL (DOCTRINAL CASES)







Salonga vs. Hermosa, G.R. No. L-53622, April 25, 1980
Caunca vs. Salazar, 82 Phil. 851 (1940)
Manotok vs. CA, 142 SCRA 149
Marcos vs. Mangalapus, 177 SCRA 668 (1989)
Silverio vs. CA, G.R. No. 94284, April 8, 1991
Lorenzo vs. Director of Health, 50 Phil. 595
Rev. Father Robert P. Reyes vs. Court of Appeals, et. al., G.R. No. 182161, 03
December 2009
VI. RIGHTS OF THE PERSONS UNDER CUSTODIAL INTERROGATION
LAW- Art. III, sec. 12
Rep. Act. No. 7438
Source: MIRANDA VS. ARIZONA, 384 U.S 436 (1966)
CASES- HO WAI PANG VS. PEOPLE 659 SCRA 624 (2011)
LUZ VS. PEOPLE 667 SCRA 421 (2012)
PHILCOMSAT VS. SENATE 673 SCRA 611 (2012)
PEOPLE VS. LARA 678 SCRA 332 (2012)
PEOPLE VS. SORIANO 693 SCRA 214 (2013)
PEOPLE VS. IBAÑEZ 698 SCRA 161 (2013)
TANENGGEE VS. PEOPLE 699 SCRA 639 (2013)
PEOPLE VS. CHAVEZ 735 SCRA 728 (2014)
Annotation- EXTRAJUDICIAL CONFESSION 649 SCRA 649 (2011)
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2
Page 21
“But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no
government would be necessary.” - James Madison (The Federalist No. 51)
1. Miranda Rule not Applicable to confession
Executed before Jan. 17, 1973
CASES- PEOPLE VS. RIBADAJO, 142 SCRA 637 (1986)
FILOTEO VS. SANDIGANBAYAN 263 SCRA 222 (1996)
SANTOS VS. SANDIGBAYAN 347 SCRA 386 (2000)
2. Not Applicable to res gestae statement/spontaneous statements
CASES- PEOPLE VS. BALOLOY 381 SCRA 31 (2002)
JESALVA VS. PEOPLE 640 SCRA 253 (2011)
3. Not Applicable to statements given in Administrative Investigations
CASES- PEOPLE VS. TIN LAN UY 475 SCRA 248 (2005)
ASTUDILLO VS. PEOPLE 509 SCRA 509 (2006)
4. Custodial Phase of Investigation- Police lineups
CASES- DELA TORRE VS. CA 294 SCRA 196 (1998)
PEOPLE VS. PAVILLARE 329 SCRA 684 (2000)
5. Test of validity of Waiver of Miranda rights
“to be informed”
CASES- PEOPLE VS. CASIMIRO 383 SCRA 390 (2002)
PEOPLE VS. SAYABOC 419 SCRA 659 (2004)
PEOPLE VS. BAGNATE 428 SCRA 633 (2004)
A. Pre-Galit rule (Jan. 17, 1973 to March 20, 1985)
B. The Galit rule ( March 20, 1985 to February 2, 1987)
CASES- PEOPLE VS. GALIT, 135 SCRA 465 (1985)
C. New rule on Waiver (Feb. 2, 1987)
Art. III, sec. 12 (1); waiver must be in
Writing and made in the presence of counsel of choice
CASES- SANTOSS VS. SANDIGANBAYAN 347 SCRA 386 (2000)
PEOPLE VS. MENDOZA 365 SCRA 289 (2001)
PEOPLE VS. GONZALEZ 382 SCRA 714 (2002)
6. The burden of proving voluntariness of
Waivers is on the prosecution
CASES- PEOPLE VS. ENAMORIA, 209 SCRA 577
PEOPLE VS. BACOR 306 SCRA 522 (1999)
7. What may be waived: The right to remain
Silent and to counsel, but not the right
To be given “Miranda warnings “
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2
Page 22
“But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no
government would be necessary.” - James Madison (The Federalist No. 51)
8. Exclusionary rule
Art. III, Sec. 12 (3)
CASES- PEOPLE VS. ANDAN 269 SCRA 95 (1997)
MARCELO VS. SANDIGANBAYAN 302 SCRA 102 (1999)
PEOPLE VS. JANSON 400 SCRA 584 (2003)
RIGHTS OF PERSONS UNDER CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION (DOCTRINAL CASES)























Miranda vs. Arizona, 384 U.S., 436 (1966)
People of the Philippines vs. Rodolfo Capitle and Arturo Nagares, G.R. No. 175330,
January 12, 2010
People of the Philippines vs. Arturo Lara y Orbista, G.R. No. 199877, August 13,
2012
People of the Philippines vs. Lugod, G.R. 136253, February 21, 2001
People of the Philippines vs. Del Rosario, G.R. 127755, April 14, 1999
Ray Peter O. Vivovs. Philippines Amusement And Game Corporation (PAGCOR),
G.R. No. 187854, November 12, 2013
People of the Philippines vs. Judge Ayson, 175 SCRA 216 (1989)
Office of the Court Administrator vs. Sumilang, 271 SCRA 316 (1997)
Clarita J. Carbonel vs. Civil Service Commission, G.R. No. 187689, September 7,
2010
People of the Philippines vs. Raul Santos Y Narciso, et. al., G.R. Nos. 100225-26,
May 11, 1993
People of the Philippines vs. Jerry Pepino y Rueras and Preciosa Gomez y Campos,
G.R. No. 174471, January 12, 2016
People of the Philippines vs. Escordial, G.R. 138934, January 16, 2002
People of the Philippines vs. Pieda, et. al., G.R. No. 131923, December 5, 2002
People of the Philippines vs. Sayaboc, G.R. 147201, January 16, 2004
People of the Philippines vs, Galit, 135 SCRA 465 (1985)
People of the Philippines vs. Bandula, 232 SCRA 566 (1994)
Lenido Lumanog, et. al. vs. People of the Philippines/Cesar Fortuna vs. People of
the Philippines/People of the Philippines vs. SPO2 Cesar Fortuna y Abudo, et. al.,
G.R. Nos. 182555/G.R. No 185123/G.R. No. 187745, September 7, 2010
People of the Philippines vs. Ramil Penaflor, Rodolfo, Omilig y Mancia, et. al. G.R.
No. 206296, August 12, 2015
People of the Philippines vs. Gallardo, G.R. No. 113684, January 25, 2000
People of the Philippines vs. Barasina, 226 SCRA 450 (1994)
People of the Philippines vs. Domingo Reyes Y Paje, et. al., G.R. No. 178300, March
17, 2009
People of the Philippines vs. Antonio y Dela Cruz, Eriberto Enriquez y Gemson,
George Hayco y Cullera, and Allan Bonsol y Paz, G.R. No. 186472, July 5, 2010
People of the Philippines vs. Morial, G.R. 129295, August 15, 2001
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2
Page 23
“But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no
government would be necessary.” - James Madison (The Federalist No. 51)






















People of the Philippines vs. Jerry Ferrer, G.R. No 148821, July 18, 2003
People of the Philippines vs. Rodrigo Dasig @ Ka Rubin Daku @ Armand, et. al.,
G.R. No. 100231, April 28, 1993
People of the Philippines vs. Castro, 274 SCRA 115 (1997)
People of the Philippines vs. Wong Chuen Ming, 256 SCRA 182 (1996)
Marcelo vs. Sandiganbayan, 302 SCRA 102 (1999)
Caterpillar, Inc., vs. Mando P. Samson, G.R. No. 164605, October 27, 2006
People of the Philippines vs. Andan, 269 SCRA 95 (1997)
People of the Philippines vs. Endino and Galgarin, G.R. 133026, February 20, 2001
People of the Philippines vs. Ordono, G.R. No. 132154, June 29, 2000
People of the Philippines vs. Guillermo, G.R. No. 147786, June 20, 2004
People vs. Gomez, 270 SCRA 432 (1997)
Illinois vs. Perkins, 496 U.S. 292 (1990)
People vs. Lugod, G.R. 136253, February 21, 2001
People vs. Hector Maqueda, G.R. No. 112983, March 22, 1995
People of the Philippines vs. Antonio Silvano, G.R. No. 144886, April 29, 2002
People of the Philippines vs. Luvendino, 211 SCRA 36 (1992)
People of the Philippines vs. Henry Jungco y Santiago, et. al., G.R. No. 78531, June
22, 1990
People of the Philippines vs. Pedro Decierdo, G.R. No. L-46956, May 7, 1987
People of the Philippines vs. Flaviano Puda y Garapea alias “Flaviano Puda”, G.R.
No. L-33841, October 31, 1984
People of the Philippines vs. Alicando, 251 SCRA 293 (1995)
Harris vs. New York, 401 U.S. 222 (1971)
New York vs. Quarles, 104 U.S. 2626 (1984)
VII. RIGHT TO BAIL
Art. III, sec. 13- Rule 144 Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure
1. When right may be invoke
CASE -PEOPLE VS. SANDIGANBAYAN 529 SCRA 765 (2007)
VALERIO VS. CA 535 SCRA 453 (2007)
TRILLANES VS. PIMENTEL 566 SCRA 471 (2008)
QUI VS. PEOPLE 682 SCRA 94 (2012)
2. When bail is a matter of right, when it is a matter of discretion
See Section 4 and 5, rule 144, Rules of Criminal Procedures
GACAL VS. JUDGE INFANTE AM-RTJ-0401845 OCT. 5 2011
3. Bail in Military courts
CASES- COMENDADOR VS. DE VILLA, 200 SCRA 80 (1991)
ASWAT VS. GALIDO, 204 SCRA 205 ( 1991)
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2
Page 24
“But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no
government would be necessary.” - James Madison (The Federalist No. 51)
4. Standards for fixing bail
Rule 114, sec. 10
CASE- VILLASENOR VS. ABANO, 21 SCRA 312 (1967)
DE LA CAMARA VS. ENAGE, 41 SCRA 1 (1971)
YAP JR. VS CA 358 SCRA 564 (2001)
5. Right to bail and right to travel abroad
CASE- MANOTOK VS,COURT OF APPEALS, 142 SCRA 149 (1986)
SANTIAGO VS. VASQUEZ, 217 SCRA 633
SILVERIO VS. COURT OF APPEALS, 195 SCRA 760
6. Waiver of the right to bail
CASE- PEOPLE VS. DONATO, 198 SCRA 130 (1991)
LARDIZABAL VS. REYES, 238 SCRA 640 ( 1994)
PEOPLE VS. PANES 303 SCRA 231 (1999)
7. READ: ANNOTATION ON BAIL 260 SCRA 161
RIGHT TO BAIL 647 SCRA 613 (2011)
RIGHT TO BAIL (DOCTRINAL CASES)















Herras Teehnkee vs. Rovira, 75 Phil. 634 (1945)
People of the Philippines vs. Hon. Lourdes P. San Diego, as Presiding Judge of
Branch II of the Court of First Instance of Rizal (Quezon City Branch), et. al. G.R.
No. L-29676, December 24, 1968
Cortes vs. Judge Catral, A.M. No. RTJ-97-1387, September 10, 1997
Lavides vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 129670, February 1, 2000
Government vs. Judge Puruganan, G.R. 148571,, December 17, 2002
People of the Philippines vs. Luis Plaza y Bucalon, G.R. No. 176933, October 2,
2009
Juan Ponce Enrile vs. Sandiganbayan (Third Division), and People of the
Philippines, G.R. No. 213847, August 18, 2015
Paderanga vs. Drilon, 247 SCRA 741 (1995)
People of the Philippines vs. Hon. Conrado R. Antona, in his capacity as presiding
Judge, Regional Trial Court, Branch 4, Batangas City, Dante Fajardo, Sr., Paterno
De Castro, Filipina Jajardo Arce, and John Doe, as Principal and Pio Arce, G.R. No.
137681, January 31, 2002
People of the Philippines vs. Gako, G.R. 135045, December 15, 2000
Marallag vs. Judge Cloribel, A.M. 1529-RTJ, April 9, 2002
Enrile vs. Salazar, 186 SCRA 217 (1990)
People of the Philippines vs. Judge Donato, 198 SCRA 130 (1991)
People of the Philippines vs. Fortes, 223 SCRA 619 (1993)
Mangudadatu vs. CA G.R. No. 139599, February 23, 2000
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2
Page 25
“But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no
government would be necessary.” - James Madison (The Federalist No. 51)






Obosa vs. Cour of Appeals, G.R. 114350, January 16, 1997
Yap vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 141529, June 6, 2001
Cabaero vs. CA, A.M. No. MTJ-01-369, September 20, 2001
Victory Liner vs. Belosillo, G.R. No. 425 SCRA 79 (2004
Leave Division, Office of Administrative Services-Office of the Court
Administrator (OCA) vs. Wilma Salvacion P. Heusdens, Clerk IV Municipal Trial
Court in Cities, Tagum City, A.M. No. P-11-2927, (Formerly A.M. OCA IPI No.
103532-P) December 13, 2011
Ricardo L. Manotoc, Jr., vs. The Court of Appeals, Hon Serafin E. Camilon and
Ricardo L. Pronove, Jr., as Judge of the Court of First Instance of Rizal, Pasig
branches, The People of the Philippines, the Securities & Exchange Commission,
Ho. Edmundo M. Reyes, as Commissioner of Immigration, and the Chief Aviation
Security Command (AVSECOM), G.R. No. L-62100, May 30, 1986
VIII. RIGHTS DURING TRIAL
Art. III, sec 14
1. Due process Criminal Cases
CASE- ALONTE VS. SAVELLANO 287 SCRA 245 ( 1998)
PEOPLE VS. MACARANG 424 SCRA 18 (2005)
ANNOTATION- DUE PROCESS- 287 SCRAN 314
DIMARUCUT VS. PEOPLE 630 SCRA 659 (2010)-Appeal
2. Presumption of innocence
CASES- BIRAOGO VS. PHIL TRUTH 638 SCRA 104 (2010)
LEJANO VS. PEOPLE 638 SCRA 104 (2010)
DEL CASTILLO VS. PEOPLE 664 SCRA 450 (2012)
PEOPLE VS. MARARAO 674 SCRA 151 (2012)
ANNOTATION- 569 SCRA 903
3. Right to be heard personally or by counsel
CASES- PEOPLE VS. SIONGCO 623 SCRA 501 (2010)
MILLA VS. PEOPLE 644 SCRA 309 (2012)
PEOPLE VS. LARA 678 SCRA 322 (2012)
4. Right to free legal assistance
Art. III, sec 11
CASES- PEOPLE RIO, 201 SCRA 702 (1991)
MARTINEZ VS. PEOPLE 332 SCRA 694 (2000)
5. Rights to be informed of nature and cause of accusation
CASES- PEOPLE VS. GUEVERRA 570 SCRA 288 (2008)
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2
Page 26
“But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no
government would be necessary.” - James Madison (The Federalist No. 51)
PEOPLE VS. BARTOLINI 626 SCRA 527 (2010)
PATULA VS. PEOPLE 669 SCRA 135 (2012)
6. Right to speedy, impartial and public trial
(A) Speedy trial
CASES- JACOLO VS. SANDIGANBAYAN 635 SCRA 94 (2010)
MARI VS. PEOPLE 657 SCRA 414 (2011)
COCOFED VS. REPUBLIC 663 SCRA 519 (2012)
VILLAREAL VS. PEOPLE 664 SCRA 519 (2012)
RE: JUDICIAL AUDIT RTC CDO 719 SCRA 349 (2014)
BARCELONA VS. LIM 724 SCRA 433 (2014)
(B) Public trial
CASE- GARCIA VS. DOMINGO, 52 SCRA 143 (1970)
(C) Impartial trial
CASES- RE: REQUEST RADIO -TV COVERAGE OF THE
ESTRADA PLUNDER CASE- JUNE 29, 2001
(360 SCRA 248) AND SEPTEMBER 13, 2001
(365 SCRA 62)
(D) Right to an impartial tribunal and trial of civilians by military courts
CASES- OLAGUER VS MCNO. 34 150 SCRA 144 (1987)
CRUZ VS. PONCE ENRILE, 160 SCRA 702 (1988)
7. Right to confront witnesses
Case- HO WAI PANG VS. PEOPLE 659 SCRA 624 (2011)
8. Right to secure attendance of witnesses - Sec. 10 rule 21
9. Trial in absentia
Rule 115, sec 1(C )
CASES- GIMENEZ VS. NAZARENO 160 SCRA 1 (1998)
PARADA VS. VENERACION 269 SCRA 371 (1997)
BERNARDO VS. PEOPLE GR 166980 April 4, 2007
10. When presence of the accused is a DUTY
A. Arraignment and plea, whether of innocence or of guilty
Rule 166, sec. 1 (b)
B. During trial, for identification
CASE- PEOPLE VS. SALAS, 143 SCRA 163 (1986)
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2
Page 27
“But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no
government would be necessary.” - James Madison (The Federalist No. 51)
C. Promulgation of sentence, unless it
Is for a light offense, in which
Case accused may appear by counsel,
Or a representative ( Rule 120, sec. 6 )
IX. PRIVILEGE AGAINST SELF- INCRIMINATION
Art. III, Sec. 17
1. Scope--- Applies only to compulsory
Testimonial self- incrimination
CASES- IN RE SABIO: 504 SCRA 704 (2006)
SJS VS. DDB 570 SCRA 410 (2008)- Drug-testing
PEOPLE VS. GAMIH 621 SCRA 159 (2010)
LUMANOG VS. PEOPLE 630 SCRA 42 (2010)
PEOPLE VS. SANDIGANBAYAN 699 SCRA 713 (2013)
DELA CRUZ VS. PEOPLE 730 SCRA 655 (2014)
PEOPLE VS. FIELDAD 737 SCRA 455 (2014)
2. in what proceedings available
CASES- PASCUAL VS. BOARD OF MEDICAL EXAMINERS,
28 SCRA 344 (1969)
GALMA VS. PAMARAN, 138 VS AYSON, 175 SCRA
216 (1989)
Legislative Inquiry- IN RE SABIO, 504 SCRA 704 (2006)
3. “Use Immunity “ vs. “Transactional Immunity “
A. Transactional Immunity
Art. XIII, Sec. 18 (8)
Rep. Act no. 1379, sec. 8
Rep. Act no. 6832, Sec. 8 ( Davide Commission)
B. Use and Fruit Immunity
CASE- GALMA VS. PAMARAN, 138 SCRA 274 (185)
P.D. NO. 1886
Note: Executive Order No. 1- “The Truth Commission
4. Exclusionary Rule
Art. III, sec. 12 (3)
5. Effect of Denial of Privileges by court
CASE- CHAVEZ VS. COURTH OF APPEALS, 24 SCRA 663 (1968)
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2
Page 28
“But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no
government would be necessary.” - James Madison (The Federalist No. 51)
X. RIGHT TO SPREEDY DISPOSITION OF CASES
Art. III, sec. 18
Art. VIII, sec. 15
Art. VII, sec 18, par. 3
Art. IX , A, sec 7
CASES- DACUDAO VS. GONZALES 688 SCRA 109 (2013)
BRAZA VS. SANDIGANBAYAN 691 SCRA 471 (2013)
IN RE: JUDGE CARBONELL 700 SCRA 806 (2013)
COSCUELLA VS. SANDIGANBAYAN 701 SCRA 188 92013
PEOPLE VS. SANDIGANBAYAN 712 SCRA 359 (2013)
OCAD VS. BUSTAMANTE 720 SCRA 613 (2014)
BARCELONA VS. LIM 724 SCRA 433 (2014)
ANNOTATION- 307 SCRA 116
682 ACRA 724
RIGHTS OF AN ACCUSED




















People of the Philippines vs. Larry Mendoza y Estrada, G.R. No. 192432, June 23,
2014
Edmundo Sydeco y Sionzon vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 202692,
November 12, 2014
People of the Philippines vs. Zafra Maraorao y Macabalang, G.R. No. 174369, June
20, 2012
People of the Philippines vs. Gilbert Reyes Wagas, G.R. No. 157943, September 4,
2013
Dumalo vs. COMELEC, 95 SCRA 392 (1980)
People of the Philippines vs. Minoga, 92 Phil. 857 (1953)
People of the Philippines vs. Minoga, Phil. 857 (1953)
Feeder International Line vs. Court of Appeals, CR 94262, May 31, 1991
People of the Philippines vs. Martos, 211 SCRA 805 (1992)
Corpuz vs. People of the Philippines, 194 SCRA 73 (1991)
People of the Philippines vs. Larry Erguiza, G.R. No. 171348, November 26, 2008
People of the Philippines vs. Holgado, 85 Phil. 752 (1950)
Delgado vs. CA, 145 SCRA 357 (1986)
People of the Philippines vs. Baluyot, 75 SCRA 148 (1977)
People of the Philippines vs. Magsi, 124 SCRA 69 (1983)
People of the Philippines vs. Malunsing, 63 SCRA 493 (1975)
Moslares vs. CA 291 SCRA 440 (1998)
Sheala P. Matrido vs. People of the Philippines. G.R. No. 179061, July 13, 2009
Jose C. Go vs. Banko Sentral ng Pilipinas, G.R. No. 178429, October 23, 2009
Borja vs. Mendoza, 77 SCRA 422 (1977)
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2
Page 29
“But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no
government would be necessary.” - James Madison (The Federalist No. 51)




















People of the Philippines vs. Alcalde, G.R. 139225, May 29, 2002
People of the Philippines vs. Dy, G.R. 115236, January 29, 2002
People of the Philippines vs. Sadiosa, 290 SCRA 82 (1998)
People of the Philippines vs. Flores, Jr., G.R. No. 128823-24, December 27, 2002
Federico Miguel Olbes vs. Hon. Danilo A. Buemio, et. al., G.R. No. 173319,
December 4, 2009
Nelson Imperial, et. al. vs. Maricel M. Joson, et. al., Santos O. Francisco vs. Spouses
Gerard and Maricel Joson Nelson/ Imperial, et. al. vs. Hilarion C. Felix, et. al.,/
G.R. No. 160067, G.R. no. 170410/ G.R. No. 171622, November 17, 2010
Monico V. Jacob, et. al. vs. Sandiganbayan., et. al., G.R. No. 162206, November 17,
2010
Garcia vs. Domingo, 52 SCRA 143 (1970)
Perez vs. Estrada, A.M. No. 01-4-03-SC, June 29, 2001
Tumey vs. Ohio, 273 U.S. 510 (1927)
Soriano vs. Angeles G.R. No. 109920, August 31, 2000
People of the Philippines vs. Anecito Estibal y Calungsag, G.R. No. 208749,
November 26, 2014
U.S. vs. Javier, 37 Phil. 449 (1918)
People of the Philippines vs. Hubert Jeffrey P. Webb, respondent, G.R. No. 132577,
August 17, 1999
People of the Philippines vs. Salas, 143 SCRA 163 (1986)
Gimenez vs. Nazareno, 160 SCRA 1 (1989)
Aquino vs. Military Commission, G.R. No. L-37364, May 9, 1975, 63 SCRA 546
(1975)
Carredo vs. People of the Philippines. G.R. No. 77542m March 19, 1990
Marcelo Lasoy and Felix Banisa vs. Hon. Monina A. Zenarosa, G.R. No. 129472,
April 12, 2005
Dennis T. Villareal vs. Consuelo C. Aliga, G.R. No. 166995, January 13, 2014
PREVILEGE AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION








United States vs. Tan Teng, 23 Phil. 145 (1912)
United States vs. Ong Siu Hong, 36 Phil. 735 (1917)
People of the Philippines vs. Gallarde, G.R. No. 133025, February 17, 2000
Pascual vs. Board of Medical Examiners, 28 SCRA 344 (1969)
Galman vs. Pamaran, 138 SCRA 274 (1985)
Placido L. Mapa, Jr. and J. Vergara vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 100295, April 26,
1994
Brown vs. Walker, 161 U.S. 591 (1896)
Chavez vs. Court of Appeals, 24 SCRA 663 (1968)
RIGHT TO SPEEDY DISPOSITION OF CASES

Duterte vs. Sandiganbayan, 286 SCRA 721 (1998)
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2
Page 30
“But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no
government would be necessary.” - James Madison (The Federalist No. 51)




Tatad vs. Sandiganbayan, 159 SCRA 70 (1988)
Dimayacyac vs. Judge Roxas, G.R. No. 136264, May 28, 2004
Bernat vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. no. 158018, May 20, 2004
Rual S. Tello vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 165781, June 5, 2009
PUNISHMENTS




















People of the Philippines vs. Dela Cruz, 92 Phil. 906 (1953)
People of the Philippines vs. Borja, 91 SCRA 340 (1978)
People of the Philippines vs. Dacuycuy, 173 SCRA 90 (1989)
Loiusiana vs. Resweber, 329 U.S. 459 (1947)
Ford vs. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 399 (1986)
Atkins vs. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002)
Aclaracion vs. Gatmaitan, 64 SCRA 131 (1979)
Lozano vs. Matinez, 146 SCRA 323 (1986)
People of the Philippines vs. Lingsangan, 62 Phil. 646 (1935)
Sura vs. Martin, 26 SCRA 286 (1968)
People of the Philippines vs. Nitafan, 207 SCRA 726 (1992)
In Re: Habeas Corpus of Benjamin Vergara, G.R. No. 154037, April 30, 2003
Kay Villegas Kami, 35 SCRA 429 (1970)
Rafael Baylosis and Benjamin De Vera vs. Hom. Apolonio R. Chavez, Jr., Rizal
Provincial Prosecutor Castro, Col. Virgilio Saldajeno, Hon. Franklin M. Drilon, Jr.,
Hon Fidel V. Ramos and Gen. Rnato De Villa, G.R. No. 95136 October 3, 1991
Mejia vs. Pamaran, 160 SCRA 457 (1988)
People of the Philippines vs. Ferrer, 48 SCRA 382 (1972)
Misolas vs. Panga, 181 SCRA 648 (1990)
People of the Philippines vs. Sandiganbayan, 211 SCRA 241 (1992)
Wright vs. CA, 235 SCRA 341 (1994)
Bureau of Customs Employees Association (BOCEA), represented by its National
President (BOCEA National Executive Council) Mr. Romulo A. Pagulayan, vs.
HON. MARGARITO B. TEVES, in his capacity as Secretary pf the Department of
Finance, Hon. Napoleon L. Morales, in his capacity as Commissioner of the Bureau
of Customs, Hon. Lilian B. Hefti, in her capacity as Commissioner of the Bureau of
Internal Revenue, Respondents, G.R. No. 181704, December 6, 2011
DOUBLE JEOPARDY




Joseph C. Cerezo vs. People of the Philippines, Juliet Yaneze, Pablo Abunda, Jr.,
and Vicente Afulugencia, G.R. No. 185230, June 1, 2011
People of the Philippines vs. Obsania, 23 SCRA 1249 (1968)
Melo vs. People of the Philippines, 85 Phil. 766 (1959)
David Tiu vs. Court of Appeals and Edgardo Postanes, G.R. No. 162370, April 21,
2009
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2
Page 31
“But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no
government would be necessary.” - James Madison (The Federalist No. 51)














People of the Philippines vs. Dir. Cesar P. Nazareno, Dir. Evelino Nartatez, Dir.
Nicasio Ma. S. Custodio and The Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 168982, August 5, 2009
People of the Philippines vs. Dante Tan, G.R. No. 167526, July 26, 2010
Antonio Lejano vs. People of the Philippines / People of the Philippines vs. Hubert
Jeffrey P. Webb. et. al., G.R. No. 176864, January 18, 2011
People of vs. Bocar, 138 SCRA 166 (1985)
Galman vs. Sandiganbayan, 144 SCRA 43 (1986)
People of the Philippines vs. Grospe, 157 SCRA 154 (1988)
People vs. Judge Santiago, 174 SCRA 143 (1989)
People vs. Revola, 148 SCRA 292 (1987)
People vs. City Court, 154 SCRA 175 (1987)
Nierras vs. Dacuycuy, 181 SCRA 1 (1990)
Cruz vs. Enrile, 160 SCRA 702 (1988)
Tan vs. Barrios, G.R. No. 85481-82, October 18, 1990
Icasiano vs. Sandiganbayan, 209 SCRA 377 (1992)
People vs. Judge Villarama, 210 SCRA 246 (1992)
XI. SUBSTANTIVE RIGHTS UNDER THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE
A. What act cannot be criminalized
1. Mere beliefs and aspiration
Art. III, sec. 18 (1)
2. Debts and civil obligation
Art. III, sec. 20
CASES- LOZANO VS. MARTINEZ, 146 SCRA 323 (1986)
AGBANLOG VS. PEOPLE, 220 SCRA 530 (1993)
PEOPLE VS. NITAFAN, 202 SCRA 726 (1992)
VERGARA VS. GEDORIO, JR. 402 SCRA 520 (2003)
3. Acts which when done were innocent (ex post Facto Law)
Art. III, Sec. 22
CASES- KAY VILLEGAS KAMI, 35 SCRA 429 (1970)
SALVADOR VS. MAPA 539 SCRA 37 (2007)
PEOPLE VS. CASTA 565 SCRA 341 (2008)
NASI- VILLAR VS. PEOPLE 571 SCRA 202 (2008)
LIBCAP VS. BAQUIAL 727 SCRA 520 (2014)
Bills of attainder- legislative adjudication of guilt
CASE- PEOPLE VS. FERRER, 48 SCRA 382 (1972)
REPUBLIC VS. RMDC 426 SCRA 517 (2004)
BOCEA VS. TEVES 661 SCRA 589 (2011)
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2
Page 32
“But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no
government would be necessary.” - James Madison (The Federalist No. 51)
B. What Punishment cannot be imposed
1. involuntary servitude
Art. III, sec. 18 (2)
Case- SARMIENTO VS. TUICO 162 SCRA 676 (1988)
2. Excessive fines
Art. III, sec. 19 (1)
CASES- PEOPLE VS. DELA CRUZ, 92 PHIL. 906 (1953)
PEOPLE VS. DACUYCUY, 173 SCRA 901 (1989)
AGBANLOG VS. PEOPLE, 220 SCRA 530 (1993)
3. Cruel, degrading and inhuman punishment
Art. III sec. 19 (1)
Id., sec. 12(2)
CASES- PEOPLE VS. ECHEGARAY 267 SCRA 682 (1997)
PEOPLE VS. TONGKO 290 SCRA 595 (1998)
ECHEGARAY VS. SECRETARY 297 SCRA 754 (1998)
LIM VS. PEOPLE 390 SCRA 194 (2002)
PEREZ VS. PEOPLE 544 SCRA 532 (2008)
CORPUZ S. PEOPLE 724 SCRA 1 (2014)
ANNOTATION- DEATH PENALTY 297 SCRA 822
4. Indefinite imprisonment
CASE- PEOPLE VS. DACUYCUY, 173 SCRA 90 (1989)
C. The protection against double joepardy
Art. III. Sec. 21
1. Two situation contemplate
CASES- PEOPLE VS. REVOLA, 148 SCRA 292 (1987)
PEOPLE VS. CITY COURT, 154 SCRA 195 (1987)
2. Rules of Court Provisions
Rule 117, sec. 7
CASES- MELO VS. PEOPLE, 85 Phil. 776 (1950)
PEOPLE VS. CITY COURT, 212 SCRA 637 (1983)
PEOPLE VS. YORAC, 42 SCRA 230 (1971)
OTHER CASES:
YSIDRO VS. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO 665 SCRA 89 (2012)
BAUTISTA VS. CUNETA-PANGILINAN 684 SCRA 521 (2012)
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2
Page 33
“But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no
government would be necessary.” - James Madison (The Federalist No. 51)
BRAZA VS. SANDIGANBAYAN 691 SCRA 471 (2013)
DISINI VS. SOJ 716 SCRA 237 AND SCRA 109 (2014)
D. The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus
Art III, sec. 15
1. Functions of the writ
CASES- VILLAVICENCIO VS. LUKBAN, 39 Phil. 778 (1919)
IN RE GONZALES 526 SCRA 483 (2007)
VELUZ VS. VILLANUEVA 543 SCRA 63 (2008)
FLETCHER VS. DIRECTOR OF BUREAU 593 SCRA 265 (2009
AMPATUAN VS. MACARAIG 622 SCRA 266 (2010)
ADONIS VS. TEROSO 697 SCRA 337 (2013)
MANGILA VS. PANGILINAN 701 SCRA 355 (2013)
2. The writ of habeas corpus as s post conviction remedy
CASES- LAMEN VS. DIRECTOR, 241 SCRA 573 (1995)
3. Suspension of privilege
Art. VIII, sec. 18
CASES- LANSANG VS. GARCIA, 42 SCRA 488 (1971)
PRIVILEGE OF THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS








Villavicencio vs. Lukban, 39 Phil. 778 (1919)
Moncupa vs. Ponce Enrile, 141 SCRA 223 (1986)
Lansang vs. Garcia, 42 SCRA 448 (1971)
Chavez vs. Court of Appels, 24 SCRA 663 (1968)
Gumabon vs. Director of Prisons, 37 SCRA 420 (1971)
In re: Abadilla, 156 SCRA 92 (1987)
Norberto Feria vs. CA, et. al., G.R. 122654, February 15, 2000
Illusorio vs. Bildner, G.R. 139789, May 12, 2000
E. Affirmative rights
1. Free access to the court
Art. III, sec 11
CASES- MARTINEZ VS. PEOPLE 332 SCRA 694 (2000)
FREE ACESS TO COURTS

Query of Mr. Roger C. Prioreschi re-examination from legal and filing fees of the
Good Shepherd Foundation, Inc., A.M. No. 09-6-9-SC, August 19, 2009
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2
Page 34
“But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no
government would be necessary.” - James Madison (The Federalist No. 51)
2. Protection and enforcement of constitutional rights
Art. III, sec. 12(4)
Art. VIII, sec. 5(5)
Art. XIII, sec. 18(3)
WRIT OF AMPARO- AM No. 07-9-12-SC of September
25, 2007 as amended on October 16, 2007)
R.A. No. 9851 December 2009- Act on Crimes Against International
Humanitarian Law Genocide and Other Crimes Against Humanity
R.A. 10353- Anti-Enforce or Involuntary Disappearance Act of 2012
Cases- TAPUZ VS. DEL ROSARIO 554 SCRA 768 (2008)
CANLAS VS. NAPICO 554 SCRA 209 (2008)
SEC OF DEFENSE VS. MANALO 568 SCRA 1 (2008)
REYES VS. CA 606 SCRA 580 (2009)
MANILA ELECTRIC VS. LIM 632 SCRA 195 (2010)
LOZADA VS. ARROYO 670 SCRA 545 (2012)
NAVIA VS. PANDICO 637 SCRA 618 (2012)
SAEZ VS. ARROYO 681 SCRA 678 (2012)
LADAGA VS. MAPAGU 685 SCRA 322 (2012)
DELIMA VS. GATDULA 691 SCRA 226 ( 2013)
PADOR VS. ARCAYAN 693 SCRA 192 (2013)
IN RE: NORIEL RODRIGUEZ 696 SCRA 390 (2013)
BURGOS VS. ESPERON 715 SCRA 208 (2014)
Annotation: WRIT OF AMPARO 605 SCRA 208 (2009)
WRIT OF HABEAS DATA- AM No. 08-1-16-SC of
22 January 2008)
Cases- GAMBOA VS. CHAN 677 SCRA 385 (2012)
SAEZ VS. ARROYO 681 SCRA 678 (2012)
IN RE: NORIEL RODRIGUEZ 696 SCRA 390 (2013)
VIVARES VS. ST. THERESA ‘S COLLEGE 737 SCRA 92 (2015)
LEE VS. ILAGAN 738 SCRA 59 (2014)
3. Compensation to, and rehabilitation of victims of tortures
Art. II, sec 12(4)
WRIT OF KALIKASAN (A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC)
MMDA v. Concerned Residents of Manila Bay, G.R. No. 171947-48, December 18, 2008
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2
Page 35
“But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no
government would be necessary.” - James Madison (The Federalist No. 51)