Case Digests

VILLAFLOR V. SUMMERSKey: The court compelled Villaflor to subject herself to an examination of her genitals. The results of such examination would be used as evidence in the adultery case against her.

On the right against self-incriminatKey:Key:ion:

No person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself. This constitutional right protects only against testimonial compulsion.

STONEHILL V. DIOKNO

Key: 42 search warrants issued against petitioners to search for personal properties books of accounts, financial records, vouchers, correspondence, receipts, ledgers, journals, portfolios, credit journals, typewriters, and other documents showing all business transactions including disbursement receipts, balance sheets and profit and loss statements and Bobbins cigarettes.

On the Searches and Seizures Clause

This case was decided before the exclusionary rule was included in the Bill of Rights (par. 2, Sec. 3, Art. III: Any evidence obtained in violation of this or the preceding section shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding.)

Requirements for a valid search warrant:

1) Probable cause

2) To be determined by a judge

3) After examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce

4) Particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized

Exclusionary principle: Evidence obtained in violation of the Searches and Seizures Clause in the Bill of Rights are inadmissible in court.

The exclusionary principle was adopted to deter the State from violating the Searches and Seizure Clause by removing the incentive to disregard it. Holding otherwise is to grant the right, but in reality to withhold its privilege and enjoyment.

Only a competent court can issue a search warrant because the Constitution expressly provides that a judge issue the search warrant or warrant of arrest.

The finding of probable cause is ex parte, that is, only one party (usually the State) presents evidence before the judge. This is because informing the other party might result in a miscarriage of justice because they might hide the evidence. However, this is counterbalanced by the fact that the State already expends resources in the investigation prior to procuring a warrant.

There should only be one crime identified in the warrant. This is because in order for there to be probable cause, each and every element of a particular crime must be shown to be probably present. This would be very difficult to do if the allegation in the application for a warrant is general.

Fishing expeditions are not allowed. These are protected against by the requirement that the particular things to be seized be identified.

MORFE V. MUTUCKey: Judge Morfe challenges the constitutionality of the 1960 Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, particularly the portion requiring all public officers to submit a true detailed and sworn statement of assets and liabilities every other year.

On the due process clause

The statute was framed with the goal to curtail and minimize the opportunities for official corruption and maintaining a standard of honesty in the public service in mind. But in attaining this, no constitutional right must be infringed upon.

The statute is a valid exercise of police power. Some rights can be curtailed as long as due process is observed. The standard for due process is that it must be responsive to the supremacy of reason and obedience to the dictates of justice.

On right to life, liberty and property

The right to be left alone is the most comprehensive of rights, and the right most valued by civilized men. The right is recognized independently of its identification with liberty, and is fully deserving of constitutional protection.

Though public officials are not bereft of this constitutional protection, but they have subjected themselves to further compulsory revelation of their assets and liabilities by accepting a public position.

There is a constitutional right to privacy.

On the guarantees against unreasonable searches and seizure and against self-incrimination

These are protections of the right to be left alone except under responsible judicial compulsion. Periodical submission of ones financial condition is not violation of the guarantee against unreasonable search and seizure.

There is no constitutional provision to protect a mans conduct from judicial inquiry or aid him in fleeing from justice.

LAGUNZAD V. VDA. DE GONZALESKey: Lagunzad produced a movie entitled The Moises Padilla Story which included fictionalized dramatizations of Moises Padillas life. Maria Soto Vda. De Gonzales, Moises Padillas mother, opposed it but consented to the making of the movie on a monetary consideration.

On the Right to Privacy

Being a public figure does not destroy in toto a persons right to privacy. The right to invade a persons privacy to disseminate public information does not extend to a fictional or novelized representation of a person, no matter how public a figure he or she may be.

On the Freedom of Expression

While the freedom of expression occupies a preferred position in the hierarchy of civil liberties, it is not without limitations. Quoting Gonzales v. Comelec: Freedom of expression is not absolute. It would be too much to insist that at all times and under all circumstances it should remain unfettered and unrestrained. There are other societal values that press for recognition.

The standard to be used is the Clear and present rule. That is, there must be a clear and present danger that the substantive evils sought to be prevented are going to happen.

AYER PRODUCTIONS V. CAPULONGKey: Ayer Productions envisioned making a movie entitled The Four-Day Revolution which would be about the historic peaceful struggle of the Filipinos at EDSA. Senator Juan Ponce Enrile, who had played a major role in the events leading up to EDSA refused to be included in the movie

On Freedom of Speech and Expression

The circumstances that the production of a motion picture film is a commercial activity intended to yield monetary profit, is not a disqualification for availing of the freedom of speech and expression.

In general, assailed acts of government come to the Court with a strong presumption of constitutionality. Only in freedom of speech cases, and only those that constitute prior restraint, is this presumption overturned; there is a presumption of unconstitutionality in such cases.

Prior restraint on freedom of speech cases is presumed to be an encroachment on constitutional rights because the speech has not even been made yet, thus it is unknowable whether the speech must be censored .

Gonzales v. Katigbak: films are covered by the basic right to free expression. The law makes no distinction on whether such films are foreign-owned, or even for monetary profit. Speech is not constrained to the spoken word.

The word law as it appears in Sec. 4 Art III (no law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech...) means not only Republic Acts but also cases decided by the court.

The public figure doctrine is enunciated here. A public figure is someone who is involved in the public sphere, as a result of which, his privacy is limited.

Freedom of speech is primordial over any other right. Protected speech may not be denied, even though it may be false, unless it is false and there is a reckless disregard for the truth (US v. Bustos).

Freedom of speech is relative to the right of the people to information, especially in the form of news.

MARCOS V. MANGLAPUSKey: President Marcos and his family sought to return to the Philippines.

On the right to travel

The right to return to ones country is separate and distinct from the right to travel, and therefore not covered by the Bill of Rights.

The Court depended on international documents, namely the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which treat the right to return to ones country as separate and distinct from the right to travel within and outside the country.

On the attendant circumstances of this case

The Court, through Justice Irene Cortes said: This case is unique. It should not create a precedent, for the case of a dictator forced out of office and into exile after causing twenty years of political, economic and social havoc in the country and who within the short space of three years seeks to return, is in a class by itself.

PEOPLE V. MARTIKey: A private individual opened and searched packages where he found marijuana, exposing the owner of such articles to criminal prosecution.

On the searches and seizures clause

The Bill of Rights was meant to protect the individual against the awesome powers of the State.

In the absences of governmental interference, the liberties guaranteed by the Constitution cannot be invoked against the State. In this case, it was a private person who opened the package thus the exclusionary rule is inapplicable.

There would be no constitutional violation if the search was carried out by a private person, but such cannot be done with impunity.

Fruit of the poison tree: a metaphor to describe evidence that is obtained illegally. If the source of the evidence is tainted, then anything gained from it is tainted as well.

OPLE V. TORRESKey: President Ramos issued Administrative Order No. 308 Adoption of a National Computerized Identification Reference System.

On the doctrine of facial infirmity:

Facial challenges are when a statute is attacked solely on the basis of the text of the statute itself. There is no actual case or controversy yet.

Previously, facial challenges were only allowed in freedom of expression cases, but this case enlarges the applicability of such.

In general, statutes can only be challenged when they are implemented, facial challenges are exceptions to this rule.

This is allowed, for example, in freedom of speech cases, because of the chilling effect that a statute might have. A statute that is alleged to violate freedom of speech may have already produced the evil sought to be prevented by its very enactment.

On the right to privacy

The Court here used the reasoning in Griswold v. Connecticut on the existence of the right to privacy. Such reasoning is now binding since it was adopted in our jurisdiction via Morfe v. Mutuc.

Broadness, vagueness and overbreadth will put peoples right to privacy in clear and present danger.

The strict scrutiny test is used to protect privacy. It is applied by asking the following questions:

1) Is there a compelling state interest?

2) Is the statute narrowly drawn?

ESTRADA V. SANDIGANBAYANKey: Deposed President Estrada seeks to have the Plunder Law declared unconstitutional for being vague.

On the constitutionality of statutes

When the constitutionality of statutes are questioned, there is a presumption of constitutionality. This is premised on the separation of powers.

If there is some other basis for a decision of a case, the issue of constitutionality of the law will not be touched.

On the due process clause

Void-for-vagueness doctrine: A statute may be said to be vague when it lacks comprehensible standards that men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ in its application.

Vagueness is repugnant to the Constitution because it violates the due process as there is no fair notice and it leaves law enforcers with unrestrained discretion.

KMU V. ERMITAKey: President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo issued EO 420 entitled Requiring all government agencies and government-owned and controlled corporations to streamline and harmonize their identification systems, and authorizing for such purpose the Director-General, National Economic and Development Authority to implement the same, and for other purposes.

On the differences between AO 420 (KMU v. Ermita) and AO 308 (Ople v. Torres)

AO 420 was held valid, whereas AO 308 was annulled:

1) AO 420 did not require appropriation as the funds would be sourced from the budget of the agencies concerned.

2) AO 420 was not mandatory to the public, it only affected government employees.

3) AO 420 prescribed the gathering only of routine information.

IN RE: PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS OF ALEJANOKey: The petitioners in the Oakwood Mutiny, including Alejano and Trillanes, were being detained at the Intelligence Service of the AFP.

On the right to privacy

Expectation of privacy is less for detained persons, but reading the correspondence between a prisoner and a lawyer cannot be breached because of the constitutional right to retain counsel.

The doctrine of reasonable expectation of privacy looks at the context/circumstances present.

Letters read by ISAFP were not confidential communication between the detainees and their lawyers. The detention officials should not read the letters but only open the envelopes for inspection in the presence of the detainees- this was not the case here.

On cruel and unusual punishment

The putting up of plywood between the metal bars and other means by which the ISAFP controlled detainees contact with visitors were not unusual punishment.

The detainees were trained military personnel, as such, there was reason to secure their imprisonment in a different manner from that of regular prisoners.

MERCADO V. SECURITY BANK CORPORATIONKey: Mercado, who was embroiled in litigation with Security Bank Corporation, wrote a letter to Chief Justice Davide accusing him of placing tremendous pressure on the ponente to decide in favour of Security Bank.

On the freedom of expression

There is a different standard when it comes to permissible speeches when it comes to the Supreme Court. This is because to fallaciously impute wrongdoing to Justices would put the entire judicial system into disrepute.

On the privacy of communications and correspondences

In Re Laureta: letters addressed to individual Justices, in connection with the performance of their judicial duties become part of the judicial record and are a matter of concern for the whole court.

SILAHIS INTERNATIONAL HOTEL, INC. V. SOLUTAKey: Silahis barged into the Union Office and found illegal drugs there.

On the searches and seizures clause

What is being discussed here is the civil liability of Silahis against the Union officers. The Court here protected a statutory right (Art. 32 of the Civil Code).

An additional consequence of violating the searches and seizures clause is civil liability. Unlike the exclusionary rule though, this civil liability applies to both public and private individuals.

MIGUEL V. GORDONKey: There was an inquiry in aid of legislation by the Senate on the anomalous losses incurred by the POTC, PHILCOMSAT and PHC. PCGG Commissioner Sabio refused subpoenas, citing Sec 4(b) of EO 1.

On the right to privacy

Inquiries in aid of legislation are necessary so that the legislature and the public will be informed. However, in such proceedings, rights still have to be respected. The rights referred to here are those found in the bill of rights.

The Court must determine whether a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy, and, if so, if it has been unreasonably intruded.

In the present case, the petitioners have no reasonable expectation of privacy. The inquiry is focused on acts committed in the discharge of duties which are matters which the government has interests- such interests are of public concern.

The right to privacy is not absolute it must be tempered by overriding state interests. Public figures enjoy a more limited right to privacy.

On the right against self-incrimination

This right can only be invoked when an incriminating question is already being asked. It is not a blanket protection.

SJS V DANGEROUS DRUGS BOARDKey: RA 9165, the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 was passed. Its provisions on mandatory random drug testing were challenged.

On the right to privacy

Right to privacy yields to certain paramount rights of the public and defers to the States exercise of police power.

The right to privacy has been accorded recognition in this jurisdiction as a facet of the right protected by the guarantee against unreasonable search and seizure.

Minor students have contextually fewer rights than an adult and are subject to the custody of their parents, guardians and schools.

Reasonableness is the touchstone of the validity of a government search or intrusion. The reasonableness standard is judged by the balancing of the government-mandated intrusion on the individuals privacy interest against the promotion of some compelling state interest.

Considering the reduced expectation of privacy on the part of the employees, the compelling state concern likely to be met by the search, and the well-defined limit set forth in the law to properly guide authorities in the conduct of the random testing, the State measure adopted here is constitutional.

In general, the following must be complied with by the statute:

1) What is the reasonable expectation of privacy?

2) What is the compelling state interest involved?

3) Are the means employed in line with the reasonable expectations of privacy?

IN RE: ANONYMOUS LETTER COMPLAINT AGAINST ATTY. MIGUEL MORALESKey: In investigating Atty. Miguel Morales, the computer he used for work and files found therein were seized.

On the searches and seizures clause

A computer given by the employer to the employee for official use is analogous to the concept of lease. Such computer is still subject to the protection given by the Constitution against unreasonable searches and seizures.

An exception to the requirement of a warrant is consented search. To have valid consent, the following must be shown:

1) The right exists

2) The persons involved had the knowledge (actual or constructive) of the existence of the right

3) The person had actual intention to relinquish the right.

The third requirement was not present in this case.

WHITE LIGHT CORPORATION V. CITY OF MANILAKey: Ordinance No. 7774 was issued by the City of Manila prohibiting short-time admission, wash-up rates, and other similar terms in hotels, motels, inns, lodging houses, pension houses and similar establishments.

On third-party standing

In general, there must be actual harm sustained for a party to have standing.

An exception to this is third-party standing, which may be availed of when the following are present:

1) the litigant must have suffered injury-in-fact, thus giving him or her a sufficiently concrete interest

2) litigant must have a close relation to the third party

3) there must be a hindrance to the third partys ability to protect his or her own interests

The overbreadth doctrine is applicable when the statute is so overbroad that it needlessly restrains even constitutionally guaranteed rights. This is also a manner by which standing can be granted.

On the validity of an ordinance

An ordinance, for it to be valid, must have the following characteristics:

1) must not contravene the Constitution or any statute

2) must not be unfair or oppressive

3) must not be partial or discriminatory

4) must not prohibit, but may regulate, trade

5) must be general and consistent with public policy

6) must not be unreasonable

On due process

Procedural due process refers to procedures that the government must follow before it deprives a person of life, liberty, or property. It includes notice and the right to be heard.

The following questions are used in determining whether there is substantial due process:

1) Is there a legitimate state interest?

2) Are the means used legitimate?

[3) Is there no other alternative for the accomplishment of the purpose less intrusive of private rights?] (added by Justice Tinga in this case)

4) Is there a reasonable relation between the purposes of the measure and the means employed for its accomplishment?

It must appear that the interests of the public generally, as distinguished from those of a particular class, require an interference with private rights and the means must be reasonably necessary for the accomplishment of the purpose and not unduly oppressive of private rights. It must also be evident that no other alternative for the accomplishment of the purpose less intrusive of private rights can work. More importantly, a reasonable relation must exist between the purposes of the measure and the means employed for its accomplishment...

POLICE SUPERINTENDENT CASTILLO V. CRUZKey: Cruz was being evicted from his home with the help of the police.

On the Writs of Amparo and Habeas Data

The writ of habeas data is a remedy available to any person whose right to privacy in life, liberty or security is violated or threatened by an unlawful act or omission of a public official or employee or of a private individual or entity engaged in the gathering, collecting or storing of data or information regarding the person, family, home and correspondence of the aggrieved party.

The coverage of the writs is limited to the protection of life, liberty and security. It includes not just actual, but also threats of unlawful acts or omissions.

There must be an allegation of data gathering/collecting/storing otherwise the writ cannot issue.

The writs will not issue to protect purely property or commercial concerns nor when the grounds invoked in support of the petitions are vague or doubtful.

ROMINES V. PEOPLEKey: Romines was charged with illegal possession of drugs after she was searched by a police officer.

On the searches and seizures clause

The following are exceptions to the requirement of a search warrant:

1) consented searches

2) search made incident to a lawful arrest

3) searches of vessels and aircraft for violations of immigration, customs, or drug laws

4) searches of moving vehicles

5) searches of automobiles at borders

6) prohibited articles are in plain view

7) searches of buildings/premises to enforce fire, sanitary, or building regulations

8) stop and frisk operations

Reasons for stop and frisk operation:

1) general interest of effective crime prevention

2) more pressing interest of safety and self-preservation of police officers

Requirements for stop and frisk operation to be valid:

1) genuine reason of officer based on his

a) experience

b) surrounding circumstance

2) warranted belief of the presence of

a) contraband

b) weapon

IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR THE WRIT OF AMPARO AND THE WRIT OF HABEAS DATA IN FAVOR OF MELISSA C. ROXASKey: Melissa Roxas alleges having been illegally detained and tortured by the military.

On the Writs of Habeas Corpus, Habeas Data and Amparo

These writs are extraordinary remedies to provide fast judicial relief. They are remedial measures and directives to address violations of constitutional rights.

Unlike regular proceedings, it is the interlocutory that is important in these Writs.

The Writ of Amparo is used to protect life, liberty or security when it is being violated or threatened to be violated.

The Writ of Habeas Corpus is used against illegal confinement or restraint. The person being deprived of liberty is ordered to be rpesented before the court to determine whether the reason for his detention is reasonable.

The Writ of Habeas Data is used to protect the truth, it allows the prevention, rectification or destruction of wrongful information to any person whose right to privacy in life, liberty, or security is violated or threatened.

On accountability versus responsibility

Responsibility is the extent to which the actors have participated as established by substantial evidence.

Accountability is exhibited involvement without bringing persons to the level of responsibility, as with persons with imputed knowledge of an enforced disappearance but did not disclose such, or those who carry the burden of extraordinary diligence in the investigation but failed to discharge it.

MERALCO V. LIMKey: Lim was reassigned by Meralco to a different office due to various letters made by anonymous persons against her.

On the Writ of Habeas Data

The Writ of Habeas Data can only be directed against public officials or employees, or private individuals or entities engaged in the gathering, collecting, or storing of data or information regarding an aggrieved partys person, family or home.

Employment constitutes a property right under the context of the due process clause. Pure property rights are not the subject of the writs of habeas data and amparo.

PHILIPPINE BLOOMING MILLS EMPLOYEES ORGANIZATION VS. PHILIPPINE BLOOMING MILLS CO.Key: Union wanted to hold demonstration against Pasig Police. PBM wanted 1st shift workers to go to work the next day.

On the Right to Freedom of Expression

Freedom of expression holds a primordial position in the hierarchy of rights.

Human rights are prioritized over property rights. Proof is that to violate property rights, government acts must only pass a reasonable relationship test, while to violate human rights, they must pass a clear and present danger tests.

Employment is a form of property.

On the Right to Procedural Due Process

Procedural rules should not be used to defeat the ends of justice.

CIR can be more flexible in its application of the rules of procedure when substantive justice would be otherwise impaired.

ASSOCIATION OF SMALL LANDOWNERS VS DARKey: Landowners challenged the constitutionality of the Comprehensive Land Reform Program.

On Substantive Due Process:

When inquiring about the purpose behind an act, if it is found in the Constitution, then it is always a legitimate state purpose.

On Equal Protection:

Cited People v. Cayat in listing the four requirements for a valid distinction under the equal protection of the laws

1. Based on substantial distinctions

2. Germane to the purpose of the law

3. Not limited to existing conditions only

4. Must apply equally to all members of the class

On the Power of Eminent Domain

Requirements of a Compensable Taking, citing Republic v. Vda. De Castellvi

1. Expropriator enters

2. Entry is for more than a momentary period

3. The entry is under color, warrant, or title of authority

4. The taking is for a public use

5. The taking ousts the owner of his beneficial ownership

Requirements of a valid exercise of the power of eminent domain

1. Public Use

2. Just Compensation

On just compensation

1. Just compensation is nothing more than the full and fair equivalent of the property taken from its owner by the expropriator

2. Traditionally, the payment of just compensation is made in money. However, the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program is more than the usual exercise of the power of eminent domain; it is revolutionary. Therefore, it will involve more than millions.

Thus, the payment in GOCC stocks, DBP and LBP bonds is valid.

There is no precedent for this decision in either Philippine or American jurisprudence.

RUBI VS. PROVINCIAL BOARD OF MINDOROKey: Mangyans were to be relocated to Tigbao, Mindoro Occidental.

On due process

Citing US jurisprudence on Native Americans, it was held that even though non-Christian tribes were of a low level of civilization and intelligence, still they had the right to due process, in particular the right to petition for habeas corpus.

Liberty does not mean license, but always implies restriction by the government for the common good. Thus, it may be taken away with due process of law.

What is due process of law depends on circumstances. It varies with the subject matter and necessities of the situation. (citing Moyer v. Peablody)

Due process does not always require a trial-type proceeding. Rather, all that is required is that

1. Law prescribed is in harmony with the general powers of the legislature

2. Law is reasonable in its operation.

3. It shall be enforced according to regular modes of procedure prescribed.

4. The law is applicable alike to all citizens of the state or to all of a class.

CRUZ V. NCIPKey: Challenges to IPRA.

Persuasive Arguments (NOT DOCTRINAL):

-That the IPRA is constitutional

PUNO:

The Regalian Doctrine in the Philippines has a long history stretching back to the laws of the Indies, through the American Occupation, down to the Public Lands Act and the Torrens Title System.

CARINO V. INSULAR GOVERNMENTKey: Igorot Ancestral Lands

On due process

Even provincial tribes are covered under person in the due process clause

Even property not covered by formal title under Spanish laws, when acquired as property under tribal customs, is considered property under the due process clause.

On the Regalian Doctrine

The Regalian Doctrine is an aspect of Spanish sovereignty. Under it, all lands are owned by the Crown and one can only gain private property by showing that the Crown has granted one the ownership of land.

In this case, the United States Supreme Court held that the Regalian Doctrine was not controlling, rather it was McKinleys Instructions that governed. Such document included the following words: No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law.

A Torrens title does not grant ownership, it merely evidences it. Carino had time-immemorial possession, therefore the land was never public land.

ANG TIBAY V. CIRKey: 89 labourers were laid off by Ang Tibay, a company which makes shoes.

On due process

Even though the Court of Industrial Relations is more an administrative body than a judicial one, it must still observe due process. The requirements of administrative due process are:

1. right to a hearing (opportunity to present case and submit evidence)

2. duty to deliberate (must consider evidence presented)

3. conclusion must be supported by evidence

4. the evidence which support the conclusion must be substantial

5. decision must be based on evidence presented at the hearing

6. CIR must act on its own independent consideration of the law and facts

7. CIR should render a decision such that the parties know

a) the issues involved

b) the reason for the decision rendered

NON V. DAMESKey: Students who protested against Mabini Colleges were barred from enrolling.

On due process

5 requirements of due process in the school setting:

1. informed of the proceeding

2. given chance to answer charges

3. informed of evidence raised agains thtem

4. right to adduce evidence in their own behalf

5. decision rendered based on evidence duly considered

In general, the Bill of Rights may only be invoked against the State but in this case, the State was able to intervene in a case involving a private college because of the right to education which is imbued with public interest.

ROXAS AND CO. INC. V. CAKey: Three haciendas of Roxas were being expropriated by the State (Haciendas Palico, Banilad and Caylaway)

On due process

In the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law, two notices were required to be served upon the owners of the properties to be expropriated these are: 1) Notice of Coverage and Letter of Invitation to preliminary conference and 2) Notice of Acquistion.

The law provided that these must be served to either the president, the manager, secretary, cashier or director of the owner of the properties to be expropriated. The State did not comply with this requirement, it served notice to Jaime Pimentel who was not the proper party to be informed.

Thus, it is a requirement of due process that notice must be served to the proper party/parties.

TANADA V TUVERAKey: Various laws promulgated by Marcos were not published.

On Due Process

Publication is required before a law becomes effective even though the law itself may provide for its own date of effectivity.

Publication is the basis of the legal maxim ignoratia legis non excusat.

ERMITA MALATE HOTEL V. MAYOR OF MANILAKey: Ordinance No. 4760 was promulgated by the City of Manila, directing hotel operators to require their clients to fill out a prescribed form, increasing the license fee for such operators, and banning the renting of rooms for more than twice within 24 hours.

On the Police Power

Police Power is the most essential, insistent and least limitable of powers.

There is a presumption of validity in this case, and the burden to show evidence of unconstitutionality is on the petitioner.

The Judiciary should not lightly set aside legislative action when there is not a clear invasion of personal or property rights under the guise of police regulation.

The action of the elected representatives of the people cannot be lightly set aside. The councillors must, in the very nature of things, be familiar with the necessities of their particular municipality and with all the facts and circumstances which surround the subject and necessitate action. The local legislative body, by enacting the ordinance, has in effect given notice that the regulations are essential to the well being of the people. -Justice Malcolm

On due process

Due process is hostile to any official action marred by lack of reasonableness.

There is no controlling and precise definition of due process. It furnishes though a standard which the governmental action should conform in order that deprivation of life, liberty or property, in each appropriate case be valid.

The standard of due process which must exist both as procedural and substantive requisite is responsiveness to the supremacy of reason, obedience to the dictates of justice. Arbitrariness must be ruled out and unfairness avoided.

MAGTAJAS V. PRYCE PROPERTIESKey: Sangguinang Panlungsod of Cagayan de Oro enacted Ordinance No. 3353 prohibiting the issuance of business permits for the operation of casinos and the use of existing business permits for the operation of casinos and other gambling activities. Pryce Properties had leased a portion of its building to PAGCOR.

On valid ordinances

The requirements of a valid ordinance are the following:

1. must not contravene the Constitution

2. not unfair/oppressive

3. not partial/discriminatory

4. must not prohibit trade but may regulate it

5. must be general and consistent with public policy

6. must not be unreasonable

CARLOS SUPER DRUG V. DSWDKey: RA 9257 or the Expanded Senior Citizens Act of 2003 was passed, providing for, among others, a provision requiring drug stores to grant discounts to purchases made by senior citizens subject to reimbursement by the State either by tax credit or by tax deduction.

On just compensation

Tax deduction does not offer full reimbursement, thus does not meet the definition of just compensation. However, the law is a legitimate exercise of police power which has general welfare for its object.

Property rights must bow to the primacy of police power because property rights, though sheltered by due process, must yield to general welfare.

The State, in the exercise of police power, can intervene in the operations of a business which may result in an impairment of property rights in the process.

Right to property can be relinquished upon the command of the State for the promotion of the common good.

MMDA V. VIRON TRANSPORTKey: MMDA, pursuant to EO 179, was planning on removing all bus terminals along EDSA to ease the flow of traffic.

On police power

The two tests for validity of a police power measure are:

1) Interest of the public generally (not just a particular class)

2) means employed are reasonably necessary for accomplishment of purpose

SJS V. ATIENZAKey: Removal of oil companies from the Pandacan area.

On Mandamus

Mandamus is an extraordinary writ that is employed to compel the performance, when refused, of a ministerial duty that is already imposed on the respondent and there is no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.

The petitioner should have a well-defined, clear and certain legal right to the performance of the act and it must be the clear and imperative duty of respondent to do the act required to be done.

Public officers cannot refuse to perform their duty on the ground of an alleged invalidity of the statute imposing the duty.

PEOPLE V. CAYATKey: An Ifugaro was caught with A-1-1 gin, which act was prohibited by Act No. 1639

On equal protection

Equal protection is not violated by a legislation based on a reasonable classification:

1. must rest on substantial distinctions

2. must be germane to the purposes of the law

3. must not be limited to existing conditions only

4. must apply to all members of the same class

On due process

Due process means:

1. there shall be a law prescribed in harmony with the general powers of the legislative

2. that it shall be reasonable in operation

3. that it be enforced according to regular methods of procedure prescribed

4. applicable alike to all citizens of state or to all of a class

To constitute due process of law, notice and hearing are not always necessary. For example, a persons property may be seized by the government:

1. in payment of teaxes without judicial hearing

2. property used in violation of law may be confiscated

3. when the property constitutes corpus delicti

ICHONG V. HERNANDEZKey: RA 1180 An Act to Regulate the Retail Business

On police power

The needs and demands of public interest is constantly hanging and cannot be foreseen, therefore the extent of police power cannot be defined.

It is, however, limited by Art. III Sec.1 of the Constitution.

On equal protection

Equal protection of the law clause is against undue favour and individual or class privilege, as well as hostile discrimination or the oppression of inequality.

It is not intended to prohibit legislation, which is limited either in the object to which it is directed or by territory within which it is to operate.

It does not demand absolute equality among residents; it merely requires that all persons shall be treated alike, under like circumstances and conditions both as to privileges conferred and liabilities enforced.

The equal protection clause is not infringed by legislation which applies only to those persons falling within a specified class, if it applies alike to all persons within such class, and reasonable grounds exists for making a distinction between those who fall within such class and those who do not.

On due process

The due process clause has to do with the reasonableness of legislation enacted in pursuance of the police power.

The police power legislation must be firmly grounded on public interest and welfare, and a reasonable relation must exist between purposes and means. If distinction and classification has been made, there must be a reasonable basis for said distinction.

Legislation can enact laws basing citizenship as classification.

Test used to determine the constitutionality of the means employed by the legislature is to inquire whether the restrictions it imposes on rights secured to individuals by the Bill of Rights are unreasonable, and not whether it imposes any restrictions on such rights.

TATAD V. DOEKey: RA 8180 Deregulation of the Oil Industry

On equal protection

A legislative measure may appear not violative of equal protection, but when applied, it may actually be violative of it. For example, in this case, the tariff differential between importation of crude oil and refined petroleum products was based on a substantial distinction. However, upon application, it became evident that the differential favours the big oil companies which own their own refineries.

ISAE V. QUISUMBINGKey: International School gave higher compensation to foreign-hired educators than to local-hired educators.

On equal protection

The constitutional provision on equal protection was applied to a private school because the heart of the controversy was a labour dispute, in which the State has a substantial interest. The Constitution itself provides that labour is entitled to humane conditions of work and also directs the State to promote equality of employment opportunities for all.

If an employer accords employees the same position and rank, the presumption is that these employees perform equal work. The principle of equal work for equal pay must thus be observed.

REPUBLIC V. VDA. DE CASTELLVIKey: The lands of appellees Vda. De Castellvi and Toledo-Gozun were being expropriated for public use

On eminent domain

Compensable taking must have the following characteristics:

1. the expropriator must enter a private property

2. entrance must be for more than a momentary period

3. under warrant or colour of legal authority

4. the property must be devoted to a public use or otherwise informally appropriated or injuriously affected

5. the utilization of the property for public use must be in such a way as to oust the owner and deprive him of all beneficial enjoyment of the property

A lease on a year to year basis by the State does not constitute expropriation.

DE KNECHT V. BAUTISTAKey: The property of De Knecht was being expropriated for the governments project of extending EDSA to Roxas Boulevard.

On eminent domain

Arbitrary decisions as to which property will be expropriated should not receive judicial approval. In the present case, for example, the Court found, based on the facts and the recommendations of the Human Settlements Commission, that the choice of the direction in which EDSA was to be extended was arbitrary and thus void.

DE KNECHT V. CAKey: The De Knechts were no longer the owners of the property they were occupying, which property was being expropriated by the government.

On eminent domain:

Actual occupants to the property to be expropriated, when they no longer have any legal interest in the property, do not need to be informed in the action for expropriation.

REPUBLIC V. TAGLEKey: RTC of Imus, Cavite quashed a writ of possession in an expropriation case on the ground that the government was already in actual possession of the land.

On eminent domain

The expropriation of real property does not include mere physical entry or occupation of land. Although eminent domain usually involves a taking of title, there may also be compensable taking of only some, not all, of the property interests in the bundle of rights that constitute ownership.

Actual possession of land by the State cannot be reason to quash a writ of possession applied for by the State pursuant to statute. The State wanted not merely possession de facto but possession de jure as well.

Eminent domain is an inherent power of the State that need not be granted even by the fundamental law. Constitutional provision merely imposes a limit on the governments exercise of this power and provides measure of protection to the individuals right to property.

NAPOCOR V. HENSONKey: National Power Corporation instituted an expropriation proceedings which respondents, wanting a higher price for their property, sought to dismiss.

On eminent domain

The only consideration for the price of a property to be expropriated is the Fair Market Value.

The fixing of the price in expropriation cases is a power vested in the judiciary.

PEOPLE V. ECHEGARAYKey: FLAG submitted Supplemental Motion for Reconsideration for Leo Echegaray who was convicted of raping his daughter

On the death penalty

The Constitutional Convention approved the amendment giving the legislature the option of re-enacting the death penalty by a 23-12 vote.

There is no indication that the death penalty was abolished, it is merely suspended.

The constitutional requirements for the re-imposition of the death penalty are:

1. Congress defines what heinous crimes are

2. Congress to specify and penalize by death only those crimes that qualify as heinous

3. Congress be singularly motivated by presence of compelling reasons involving heinous crimes

The legislature cannot and need not foresee and inscribe in law each and every loathsome act man is capable of. It is sufficient that the law provides the test and yardstick for the determination of the legal situation warranting the imposition of the penalty of death.

There is no requirement in Art. III Sec. 19 that there first be a positive manifestation in the form of a higher incidence of crime which is statistically proven before the re-imposition of the death penalty. Neither does the Constitution require that the death penalty be resorted to only as a last recourse when all other criminal reforms fail to abate criminality.

Death penalty is not imposed only when a life is taken by another. It should not ennoble the notion of retributive justice. Forfeiture of life simply because life was taken never was a defining essence of the death penalty.

Death penalty is meted because they have caused irreparable and substantial injury and since the repetition of such acts would pose a threat, such criminals must be permanently prevented from doing so.

Rape is always intrinsically evil and is an outrage upon decency and dignity that hurts not only the victim but society itsel. (People v. Cristobal)

IN RE EMILIANO JURADO

Key: Jurado wrote several articles criticizing the judiciary, including justices of the SC. Jurado was held guilty of contempt.

The court cited Zaldivar v. Gonzales which underscored the importance both of the constitutional guarantee of free speech and the reality that there are fundamental and equally important public interests which need on occasion to be balanced against and accommodated with one and the other.

The court also recognized the right to a private reputation of judges in that while they have voluntarily subjected themselves to norms of conduct, which are more stringent, it cannot be reasonably said that they have thereby forfeited any right whatsoever to private honor and reputation.

US V BUSTOSKey: 34 Pampanga residents petitioned to the Executive Secretary for the ouster of Justice of the Peace Punsalan, accusing him of bribery, etc. Punsalan sued them for libel. SC: NOT GUILTY.

Doctrine of privilege exists due to the public policy of unfettered administration of justice. Privilege is either absolute or qualified. Qualified privilege is prima facie and lost only if malice is proven.

Considered privileged communication if: the communication is made bona fide upon any subject matter in which the party communicating has an interest or duty is made to a person having a corresponding interest or duty. It is privileged even though it contains incriminatory matter that without this privilege would be slanderous and actionable.

ESPUELAS V PEOPLEKey: Espuelas faked a photo in which he appeared to be dead along with a fake suicide note to the media, blaming the government for his desperation. Guilty of RPC Art. 142, inciting to sedition.On the freedom of speechFreedom of speech by the Constitution does not confer an absolute right to speak or publish without responsibility whatever one may choose.

The letter is a scurrilous libel against the government. Writings which tend to overthrow or undermine the security of the government or to weaken the confidence of the people to the same are against public peace and are criminal because they tend to incite a breach of peace and are conducive to the destruction of the government.

Criticism is allowed, but should be specific and constructive, not a contemptuous condemnation.

SANTIAGO V FAR EASTERN BROADCASTINGKey: Far Eastern Broadcasting required for a manuscript of the speeches before they broadcast the speeches of Popular Front Sumulong (petitioner was this partys campaign manager).

A speech that may endanger public safety may be censored and disapproved for broadcasting. If the petitioner had complied with respondents requirement, and the respondent had arbitrarily refused to permit the speeches to be broadcast, he might have reason to complain. (In this case, no reason to complain.)

PRIMICIAS V FUGOSOKey: Mayor refused to grant a permit to hold a public meeting at Plaza Miranda for the purpose of petitioning the government for redress of grievances. Reason given for denial: reasonable ground to believe possible breaches of the peace and disruption of public order. Court ordered the Mayor to grant the permit.

On the discretion of authorities to grant or refuse permitsThe delegation of the power to grant or refuse the issuance of a permit to the whim of men in authority is arbitrary and subverts liberty. In general, right of assembly does not need permit. However, time, place and manner of that assembly can be regulated. The mayor can ask for a permit to use a public place.

On the fear of assemblies causing public disorderThe mere fear that there may be breaches of the peace or disruption of public order due to a public meeting is NOT reason enough to curtail the fundamental right of the people to free speech and peaceful assembly to petition the government for redress of grievances.

GONZALES V COMELECKey: 2 sections of RA 4880 (amended portions of the Revised Election Code) assailed: (1) prohibited the too early nomination of candidates and (2) limited the period of election campaign or partisan political activity.

Court faced the reconciliation of two values: Freedom of expression and safeguarding the equally vital right of suffrage (the 2 assailed sections will contribute to orderly elections and safeguard against evils such as violence and corruption). Court held that if implemented properly, the limitations or exercise of police power here should only narrowly affect constitutionally guaranteed rights, enough to allow the basic liberty to remain.

Criterion for permissible restrictions on the freedom of expression (citing Cabansag v Fernandez; see the case below for more details):

1) Clear and present danger rule2) Dangerous tendency rule

On the freedom of assembly

Assembly: a right on the part of the citizens to meet peaceably for consultation in respect to public affairs. As is with the freedom of expression, this right may not be limited except upon showing of a clear and present danger of a substantive evil that Congress seeks to prevent.

On the freedom of association

Freedom of association is a constitutional right for purposes not contrary to law (Sec. 8, Art. III). Court said that this is another way of expressing the clear and present danger rule. Unless an association/society is shown to create an imminent danger to public safety, there is no justification for abridging this right.

ARREZA V GREGORIO ARANETA UNIVERSITY FOUNDATIONKey: After rallying and holding demonstrations, 4 graduating students were refused enrollment.

As in the similar case of Malabanan v Ramento, Court held that, infractions of University rules or regulations by petitioner-students justify the filing of appropriate charges (e.g. suspension). What cannot be justified is the infliction of the highly-disproportionate penalty of denial of enrollment and the consequent failure of senior students to graduate, if in the exercise of the cognate rights of free speech and peaceable assembly, improper conduct could be attributed to them.

Malabanan v Ramento: Students enjoy like the rest of the citizens the freedom to express their views and communicate their thoughts to those disposed to listen. particularly in rallies and demonstrations.

BADOY V FERRER

Key: Badoy, candidate for delegate to the 1970 Constitutional Commission assailed the constitutionality of the Revised Election Act Sec. 12(f), alleging that the provision imposes limits on the freedom of speech of candidates by providing guidelines relating to the publishing of their campaign materials.

Petition was denied because there was a clear and present danger (substantial evil: having the electoral system being perverted). Also, the provision actually enforces the equal protection of the laws (equal spaces for all competing candidates required in the media).

As in Gonzales v COMELEC, freedom of expression can be subjected to police power when the restriction imposed is narrow enough to allow the basic liberty to remain.

The balancing of interests testThe state interest in the provision (to preserve the purity of the ballot and equal protection of the law) far outweighs interests of the state in preserving the liberty of expressing. Furthermore, the law provides other ways a candidate can express himself, including but not limited to the freedom of assembly.

NATIONAL PRESS CLUB V COMELECKey: Petitioner assailed the validity of RA 6646 Sec. 11(b), which disallowed mass media to sell/give time/space to candidates. Media personalities also made to take a leave of absence.

The provision is valid. The objective is to equalize the candidates and to minimize the disadvantage of poor candidates. Art IX-C(4) of the 1987 Constitution provides for Comelec to regulate the enjoyment or utilization of franchises or permits for the operation of media of communication and information. The purpose of this regulation or supervision is to ensure equal opportunity, time, space and the right to reply, as well as uniform and reasonable rates for the use of such media facilities in connection with public information campaigns and forums among candidates.

On the freedom of speech, expression, and of the pressThe aforementioned Art IX-C(4) should be taken with Art. III, Section 4 (protecting freedom of speech, of expression and of the press). Art IX-C(4) is only applicable temporarily (i.e. during the election period). While the rights of free speech and free press are given primordial status in our jurisdiction, they are not unlimited, and are not the only important and relevant values in a democratic society. As is consistent with Art. II, Sec. 26, the State shall guarantee equal access to opportunities for public service and prohibit political dynasties as may be defined by law.

Felciano, J.: The right of the general listening and viewing public to be free from such intrusions and their subliminal effects is at least as important as the right of the candidates to advertise themselves through modern electronic media and the right of media enterprises to maximize their revenues from the marketing of packaged candidates.

The Court also differentiated paid political advertisements from news reports, commentaries, opinions, etc. The latter is not affected by the resolution.

PHILIPPINE PRESS INSTITUTE V COMELECKey: Petitioner assailed the validity of Comelec Resolution No. 2772 for violating (1) the Constitutional prohibition against the taking of private property for public use without just compensation; (2) the guarantee of freedom of speech, of the press and of expression; and (3) Comelec requiring publishers to give free Comelec Space and to process raw date to make it camera-ready constitute impositions of involuntary servitude.

On eminent domain (Sec. 9, Art. III)To compel media to donate Comelec Space is tantamount to the taking of private personal property for public use. Requisites to such taking: (1) necessity of the taking and (2) legal authority to effect the taking. Comelec has not proved #1 and has not

shown that it has the legal authority. Furthermore, the taking of property for public use requires just compensation.

On the freedom of expressionPetitioners have no legal standing: no actual or imminent injury.

JBL REYES V BAGATSINGKey: Petitioners asked for a permit to rally in front of the US Embassy. Mayor invoked Ordinance 7295, which prohibited the holding of assemblies in front of consulates/embassies. Furthermore, there were intelligence reports that said terrorists planned to infiltrate the rally.

The right to freedom of speech and assembly should always be in a context of non-violence. Parties should be allowed to speak their minds, even if they are contrary to public opinion. (However, as in US v Apurado, utmost calm is not required. Some degree of excitement is to be expected.)

General ruleA permit should recognize the right of the applicants to hold their assembly at a public place of their choice

Exception to the general ruleAnother place may be designated by the licensing authority if it be shown that there is a clear and present danger of a substantive evil if no such change were made. Clear and present danger must be proven, and not based on mere speculation, as is with this case

GONZALES V KATIGBAKKey: Petitioners question the Board of Review for Motion Pictures (1) authority to classify (rate) movies and (2) the test upon which classifications were made.

Motion pictures are a medium for communication, expression, and opinion. This is regardless of the nature of the movie, that is, that there is no clear distinction whether the movie is meant for entertainment or education.

Classifying versus censorshipThe Board has the authority to classify films according to contemporary Filipino standards/values. EO 876 calls for applying contemporary Filipino cultural values as standard. However, there is no power of censorship.

The presumption is against the validity of prior restraint.

Movies versus TVThe standard applied in this case is only applicable to movies. A less liberal approach is applied on TV and Radio programs because of their pervasive reach and influence. To watch a movie, one has to pay first. The state as parens patrae is called upon to manifest attitude of caring for welfare of youth.

EBRALINAG V SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS OF CEBUKey: Students refused to salute the Philippine flag (Jehovahs Witnesses), violating RA 1265 and Dept. Order No. 8. They were dropped from the roll of enrollees.

The flag is protected by the Constitution (Art. XVI, Sec. 1) because it is an emblem of national sovereignty, etc. However, this protection is subject to exemptions, such as when such decree violates another constitutional right.

On the violation of other constitutional rightsIn this case, the right to freedom of religion (Art. III, Sec. 5) and the right to free education (Art. XIV) are violated. The refusal to salute the flag does not produce imminent danger to the public.

PEOPLE V FERRERKey: Is the Anti-Subversion Act (RA 1700) a bill of attainder? (Art. III, Sec. 22; RA 1700: An Act to Outlaw the Communist Philippine Party of the Philippines and Similar Associations, Penalizing Membership Therein, and for Other Purposes.) (In that it acted as a usurpation of judicial power by pronouncing guilt of the CPP without the benefit of trial and that it has created a presumption of organizational guilt, which the accused can never overthrow.)

In its actual operation, RA 1700 does not specify the CPP or its members for the purpose of punishment.

Bill of attainder definedA legislative act which inflicts punishment without trial. Its essence is the substitution of the legislative for a judicial determination of guilt.

Why RA 1700 is not a bill of attainderUnder the Act, the government is yet to prove at the trial that the accused joined the party knowingly, willfully, and by overt acts, and that they joined the party to overthrow the government by force. The act specifically provides that the membership must be knowing and with intent to overthrow the government as manifested by their overt acts.

(Note: RA 1700 has been repealed by RA 7636.)

BABST V NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE BOARDKey: 1984. Petitioners were journalists who were summoned by a military Special Committee under the National Intelligence Board (NIB) regarding their work, feelings, sentiments, beliefs, associations, and even private lives. Two were sued for libel by a general.

Petition was dismissed because it was moot and academic. (Proceedings had already been terminated).

On the validity of the NIB order/invitationOrdinarily, an invitation to attend a hearing and answer some questions is not illegal or constitutionally objectionable. However, considering the power of the group where the invitation come from and the situation the invitation was made, such invitation can easily be taken as an authoritative command which one can only defy at his peril.

On the libel chargesGen. Tiadar filed the libel charges on his personal capacity (not NIB). The right to redress when libeled is a personal and individual privilege of the aggrieved party. Thus, this should be addressed in the correct forum (i.e. where the libel case is being heard).

PEOPLE V KOTTINGERKey: 6 postcards with pictures of non-Christian inhabitants of the Philippines confiscated. Owner charged with having kept for sale in the store obscene and indecent pictures, in violation of Sec. 12 of Act No. 277 (Philippine Libel Law).

Obscene: Offensive to chastity, decency or delicacyIndecency: Act against good behavior and a just delicacy

The pictures merely depict persons as they actually live, without attempted presentation of persons in unusual postures or dress. The aggregate judgment of the Philippine community or the moral sense of all the people in the Philippines would NOT be shocked by photographs of this type. Therefore, the pictures cannot be characterized as offensive to chastity or considered foul or filthy.

Community standardThis case established the concept of community standard in determining decency/obscenity.

PEOPLE V PADANKey: A Fighting Fish exhibition was held in a shed, with Padan (female) and Espinosa (male) having sex in front of a crowd. CFI held them guilty of violating Article 201, RPC (immoral doctrines, obscene publications and exhibitions and indecent shows).

(Guys nuod tayo! Based on my estimate considering inflation, it should be around P100-P200 per ticket. The V-Crew)

Court: As far as we know, this is the first time that the courts in this jurisdiction, at least this Tribunal, have been called upon to take cognizance of an offense against morals and decency of this kind.

In the past, offenses like the exhibition of still moving pictures of women in the nude have been condemned by the SC for obscenity and as offensive to morals. In such exhibitions, it MIGHT be possible to claim that there involved is an element of art. But an actual exhibit of a sexual act has NO REDEEMING VALUE. No room for art here.

PITA V CAKey: In furtherance of the Anti-Smut Campaign, Manila Mayor initiated a seizure and confiscation (and later burning) of materials believed to be pornographic and indecent.

On the power of censorshipThere must be objective and convincing proof, (not subjective or conjectural) of the existence of a clear and present danger, and that it is essential for the validity of prior restraint or censorship that the authority does not rely solely on his own appraisal of what the public welfare, peace or safety may require.

Rules in determining seizure of materials similar to the objects in this case:1. The authorities must apply for the issuance of a search warrant from a judge, if in

their opinion, an obscenity rap is in order;2. The authorities must convince the court that the materials sought to be seized

are "obscene", and pose a clear and present danger of an evil substantive enough to warrant State interference;

3. The judge must determine whether or not the same are indeed "obscene:" the question is to be resolved on a case-to-case basis and on the judges sound discretion.

4. If, in the opinion of the court, probable cause exists, it may issue the search warrant prayed for;

5. The proper suit is then brought in the court under Article 201 of the Revised Penal Code;

6. Any conviction is subject to appeal. The appellate court may assess whether or not the properties seized are indeed "obscene."

As highlighted in #3, what is held to be obscene depends on what a judge thinks is obscene (judges sound discretion).

IGLESIA NI CRISTO V CAKey: Some series of the TV program Ang Iglesia ni Cristo were given an X-rating and prohibited from airing by the MTRCB board upon review, based on the opinion that the opinions in the show were offensive to other religions (particularly Catholicism).

MTRCB, an administrative body, has the power to review (PD 1986). Justice Cruz says there are two aspects to the right of religion:

1. Freedom to believe absolute within the realm of thought2. Freedom to act on ones beliefs police power can be exercised to prevent

religious practices inimical to society; clear and present danger test appliesTherefore, the MTRCB power to review includes religious shows.

On the presumption of invalidity of any act that restrains speechThere is a presumption of invalidity on prior restraint on speech, including religious speech. The X-rating given by the MTRCB constitutes prior restraint.

Overturning the presumption of invalidityIn order for a valid exercise of prior restraint on speech, there must be evidence of a clear and present danger of a substantive and imminent evil. It cannot be justified by hypothetical fears or speculations. The MTRCB failed to overturn this presumption.

CABANSAG V FERNANDOKey: The subject of this case is the allegedly scurrilous and contemptuous letter by Cabansag addressed to the Presidential Complaints and Action Commission, asking for a redress of grievance.

2 fundamental rights clashing here: (1) the independence of the judiciary and (2) the right to petition the government for redress of grievances.

Criteria devised for the determination of conflicting rights1. Clear and present danger rule - Evil consequence of the comment or utterance

must be extremely serious and the degree of imminence extremely high before the utterance can be punished. The danger to be guarded against is the substantive evil sought to be prevented.

2. Dangerous tendency rule - If the words uttered create a dangerous tendency which the state has a right to prevent, then such words are punishable. It is not necessary that some definite or immediate acts of force, violence, or

unlawfulness be advocated. It is sufficient that such acts be advocated in general terms. Nor is it necessary that the language used be reasonably calculated to incite persons to acts of force, violence, or unlawfulness. It is sufficient if the natural tendency and probable effect of the utterance be to bring about the substantive evil which the legislative body seeks to prevent.

More on the dangerous tendency ruleThe test of a limitation on the freedom of expression is justified by the danger or evil of substantive character that the state has a right to prevent. Unlike the dangerous tendency doctrine, the danger must not only be clear but also present. The term clear seems to point to a causal connection with the danger of the substantially evil arising from the utterance questioned. Present refers to the time element. It used to be identified with imminent and immediate danger. The danger must not only be probable but very likely inevitable.

Going back to Cabansags letter, it cannot be said that the act has a dangerous tendency to undermine the administration of justice because he only exercised his constitutional right to petition the government for redress of grievance. Sufficient danger not created, given what he said and the respectful way he said it.

AMERICAN BIBLE SOCIETY V CITY OF MANILAKey: City Treasurer informed the Society (which distributed books, including Bibles) that they needed to obtain a mayors permit and pay fees for a municipal license

The constitutional guaranty of the free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship carries with it the right to disseminate religious information.

When can it be restrained?Any restraint should be upon a showing of a clear and present danger of a substantial evil that the State must prevent. Here, the imposition of a license tax on the exercise of the freedom is an act of censorship, and cannot be used to restrain these rights.

TOLENTINO V SEC. OF FINANCEKey: Petitioners assail the validity of RA 7716 (E-VAT), which provided for the revocation of the VAT exemption previously granted to publishes or newspapers and magazines. Allegedly violative of the freedom of the press.

On the due process of law and freedom of expressionThe press is not immune from the regulation of the state, which includes non-discriminatory taxes on business. If the press must now pay VAT, it is not because it

was singled out, but rather a removal of a previously-granted exemption. Hence, no discriminatory treatment.

On the free exercise of religion (Art. III, Sec. 5)Taxation of religious books violates freedom of thought and conscience? The free exercise of religion does not prohibit imposing a generally applicable sales and use tax on the sale of religious materials by a religious organization.

UNIDO V COMELECKey: TV/radio show of Marcos Pulon-Pulong sa Pangulo, campaigining for YES votes for the constitutional amendments to be voted on in a plebiscite. UNIDO demanded for the same airtime in the same number of TV/radio stations, citing 3 Comelec resolutions granting equal opportunities, equal time, and equal time in the media for campaign purposes.

On the freedom of speech and freedom of the pressArt. XII-C Sec. 5 of the 1973 Constitution permits for the media of communication or information to be supervised or regulated by the Comelec during the election period for the purpose of free, orderly, and honest elections. This provision is applicable to plebiscites. Granting equal opportunities, time, and space in the media does not subvert/curtail the freedom of speech. The limitations are valid since (1) there are substantial reasons, such as general welfare and public interest, in voters adequate opportunity and sufficient understanding; (2) it is only applicable during LIMITED PERIODS (i.e. campaign period); and (3) the Comelec authority only arises when there is a showing that a sector/member of the media has denied to any party a right to which it is entitled to.

OSMEA V COMELECKey: 1998. Petitioners assail the RA 6646 (Electoral Reform Law) ban on the mass media sale/donation of print space and airtime for campaign purposes, except to the Comelec.

There is no actual suppression of political ads, only the regulation of time and manner of advertising. Therefore, there is no total ban on political ads, much less restriction on the content of the speech.

There is a substantial/legitimate government interest. The law/states concern here are not the ads itself but ensuring media equality between candidates with deep pockets. Furthermore, the provision is narrowly drawn.

On content-neutral restrictions and the clear and present danger testContent-neutral restrictions on speech are not imposed because of their content, but rather on their incidents (as is the case here). The clear and present danger test is not a sovereign remedy for all freedom of expression cases and are clearly not applicable to cases such as these wherein it is not the content that is the subject of the issue. The clear and present danger refers to the danger that will arise as a result of the restriction.

Note: The Court said that there was no case or controversy to decide, only an academic discussion to hold.

ESTRADA V ESCRITORKey: Declaration of Pledging Faithfulness allows Jehovahs Witnesses who have been abandoned by their spouses to enter into marital relations. However, once all legal impediments for the couple are lifted, the Declaration becomes invalid and the couple must legalize their union.

On the Courts jurisdiction on moralityThe Court distinguished between public and secular morality and religious morality. Court jurisdiction only extends to public and secular morality.

Limitation on the free exercise clauseThe Constitution adheres to the benevolent neutrality approach, giving room for the accommodation of religious exercises, as the free exercise clause requires. However, this is provided that these exercises do not offend compelling state interests. (In this case the state interest was maintaining a high standard of morality and decency in the judiciary.)

Compelling state interest test:1. Has the statute or government action created a burden on the free exercise of

religion?2. Is there a sufficiently compelling state interest to justify this infringement of

religious liberty?3. Has the state in achieving its legitimate purposes used the least intrusive means

possible so that the free exercise is not infringed any more than necessary to achieve the legitimate goal of the state?

ExamplesIn this case, it was not sufficiently shown that the conjugal arrangement would endanger any paramount interests.Muslims under PD 1083 are allowed to have more than one wife.

SORIANO V LAGUARDIAKey: MTRB suspended the show Ang Dating Daan, after indecent remarks (the putang babae barrage) supposedly alluding to INC leaders were made by Soriano on the show.

General concepts on the freedom of speech and expressionExpressions by means of newspapers, radio, television, and motion pictures come within the broad protection of the free speech and expression clause, but enjoy a lesser level of protection. Restrictions, be it subsequent punishment or prior restraint, are anathema to freedom of expression. This freedom, however, is not absolute, and may be regulated to some extent so serve public interests.

When speech is not protectedSpeech would be unprotected if the utterances involved are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step of truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality.

Here, the Court juxtaposed the fundamental right to freedom of speech, with the right of the youth to their moral, spiritual, social, and intellectual being protected under the Constitution.