Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Required Textbook
Bernas S.J., Fr. Joaquin (2011) The 1987 Philippine Constitution: A Comprehensive
Reviewer, Manila: Rex Book Store, Inc.
Bernas S.J., Fr. Joaquin (2003) The 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines: A
Commentary, Manila: Rex Book Store, Inc.
Nachura, Antonio (2015) Outline Reviewer in Political Law, Quezon City: VJ Graphil Arts,
Inc.
Classroom Policies
Students are expected to have read the assigned materials for the class sessions and will be
called for recitation.
Cell phones and other electronic devices must be kept in silent mode. Students must refrain
from using these devices during classroom sessions.
Plagiarism and cheating are grave offenses of intellectual dishonesty and are punishable by
university rules.
Consultation and discussion is available upon request of the student. Email me:
ebaddiri@gmail.com
1
INTRODUCTION
Political Law
People v. Perfecto, 43 PHIL 887
Macariola v. Asuncion, AM No. 133-J, May 31 1982
A. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1
Constitution
Definition
Classification
Qualities of a Good Written Constitution
Phillipine Constitution
Essential Parts
Interpretation/Construction
Francisco v. House of Representatives GR No. 160261, Nov. 10, 2003
Civil Liberties Union v. Executive Secretary GR No. 83896, Feb 22, 1991
(Self Executing v. Non Self Executing Provisions)
Gamboa v. Teves, GR No. 176579, June 28, 2011
Manila Prince Hotel v. GSIS, GR No. 122156, Feb 3, 1992
Doctrine of Constitutional Supremacy
Manila Prince Hotel
Constitutional History
Malolos Constitution
Treaty of Paris, December 10, 1898
McKinleys Instructions, April 7, 1900
Spooner Amendment, March 2, 1901
Philippine Bill, July 1, 1902
Philippine Autonomy Act, August 29, 1916
Philippine Independence Act (Tydings-McDuffie Act) March 24, 1934
1935 Constitution (Three Amendments)
Japanese Occupation
1973 Constitution
Provisional Freedom Constitution, Proclamation No. 3, March 25, 1986
1987 Constitution, Feb 2, 1987, De Leon v. Esguerra, Aug 31, 1987
Important Principles
Separation of Powers Principles
Principle of Checks and Balances
Principle of Comity
2
Hierarchy of Laws
Power of Judicial Review
Doctrine of Operative Fact
Political Questions Doctrine
Inherent Powers of Government
Immunity from Suit
Doctrine of Qualified Political Agency
Non-Delegation of Power
Power of Control and Supervision
Preamble
Re: Letter of Tony Q. Valenciano, re: Holding of Religious Rituals at the Halls of Justice
Building in Quezon City, AM No. 10-4-19-SC, March 7, 2017
(Include Dissenting Opinion of Justice Leonen)
3
Rosas v. Montor GR 204105, October 14, 2015
People v. Perfecto, 43 Phil 887
Vilas v. City of Manila, 229 US 345
Laurel v. Misa, 77 Phil 856
4
Section 9. Social Order
Section 17. Education, Science and Technology, Arts, Culture and Sports
Guingona v. Carague
Philconsa v. Enriquez: S5, Art14 which provides for the highest budgetary priority to
education is merely directory.
5
JMM Promotion v. CA, GR 120095, Aug 5, 1996
PASE v. Drilon
6
People v. Maceren, 79 SCRA 450 (1977)
Eastern Shipping Lines v. POEA, 166 SCRA 533 (1988)
Tablarin v. Gutierrez, 152 SCRA 730 (1987)
Cebu Oxygen Acetylene Co. v. Drilon, 176 SCRA 24 (1989)
Osmena v. Orbos, 220 SCRA 703
Chiongbian v. Orbos, 245 SCRA 253 (1995)
Rodrigo v. Sandiganbayan, 309 SCRA 661
People v. Vera, 65 PHIL 56 (1937-1938)
Solicitor General v. MMA, 204 SCRA 837 (1991)
Abakada Guro Party List v. Purisima, 562 SCRA 251
United States v. Ang Tang Ho, 43 Phil 1
Employers Confederation v. National Wages and Productivity Commission, GR No. 9619
People v. Rosenthal, 68 PHIL 328
Agustin v. Edu, 88 SCRA 1
Ynot v. IAC, 148 SCRA 659
United States v. Panlilio, 28 PHIL 608
Securities and Exchange Commission v. Interport Resources Corporation, 567 SCRA 354
Gerochi v. DENR, GR No. 159796, July 17, 2007
PSL Inc., v. LLDA 608 SCRA 442
People v. Que Po Lay, 94 Phil 640
People v. Dacuycuy, 173 SCRA 90 (1989)
Carbonilla v. Board of Airlines Representatives, 657 SCRA 775
Party List
Ang Bagong Bayani v. COMELEC, 359 SCRA 698 (2001)
VC Cadangen, et al v. COMELEC, GR No. 177179, June 5, 2009
Veterans Federation Party v. COMELEC, 342 SCRA 244 (2000)
Partido v. COMELEC, GR No. 164702, March 15, 2006
Lokin, Jr. v. COMELEC, GR Nos. 179431-32, June 22, 2010
Atong Paglaum, Inc. v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 203766, April 2, 2013
PGBI v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 190529, April 29, 2010
Ang Ladlad LGBT Party v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 190582, April 8,2010
ANAD v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 206987, September 10, 2013
7
Coalition of Associations of Senior Citizens v. COMELEC, G.R. 206844-45, July 23, 2013
Bello v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 191998, December 7,2010
ABC v. COMELEC, GR. No. 193256, March 22, 2011
Abang Lingkod Party-List v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 206952, October 22, 2013
Cocofed-Philippine Coconut Producers Federation, Inc. v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 207026,
August 6, 2013
Milagros Amores v. HRET, G.R. No. 189600, June 29, 2010
8
(par. 3) Arroyo v. De Venecia, 277 SCRA 268 (1997)
(par. 3) Osmena v. Pendatun, 109 PHIL 863 (1960)
(par. 3) Santiago v. Sandiganbayan, 356 SCRA 636
(par. 4) US v. Pons, 34 PHIL 729 (1916)
(par. 4) Casco Phil Commercial Co. v. Giminez, 7 SCRA 347 (1963)
(par. 4) Astorga v. Villegas, 56 SCRA 714 (1974)
(par. 4) Philippine Judges Association v. Prado, 227 SCRA 703
(par. 4) Abakada Guro Party List v. Ermita, 469 SCRA 1
Pimentel v. Senate Committeee of the Whole, 644 SCRA 741
Section 19. Constitutions of the Electoral Tribunal and the Commission on Appointments
9
Section 22. Appearance of Heads of Departments in Congress
10
Systems Plus Computer College v. Caloocan City, GR No. 146382, August 7, 2003
Lung Center v. Quezon City, GR No. 144104, June 29, 2004
Planters Products Inc v. Fertiphil Corp, GR No. 166006, March 14, 2008
Section 2. Qualifications
Tecson v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 161434, March 3, 2004
Poe-Llamanzares v.COMELEC, G.R. No. 221697, March 8, 2016
11
Section 5. Oath
Section 10. Vacancies in Both the Presidency and the Vice Presidency
12
Section 17. Power of Control
13
Section 20. Foreign Loans
Spouses Constantino v. Cuisia, GR 106064, October 13, 2005
14
Section 3. Fiscal Autonomy
Radiowealth v. Agregado, 86 SCRA 429 (1950)
Bengzon v. Drilon, 208 SCRA 133 (1992)
Judicial Review
Lina v. Purisma, 82 SCRA 344 (1978)
Angara v. Electoral Commission, 63 PHIL 139 (1936)
Macasiano v. NHA, 224 SCRA 236 (1993)
Tan v. Macapagal, 43 SCRA 678 (1972)
PACU v. Secretary of Education, 97 PHIL 806 (1955)
Gonzales v. Marcos, 65 SCRA 624 (1975)
Oposa v. Factoran, 224 SCRA 792 (1993)
Joya v. PCGG, 225 SCRA 568 (1993)
Kilosbayan v. Morato, 246 SCRA (1995)
Anti Graft League of the Philippines, 260 SCRA 250 (1996)
Telecom v. COMELEC, 289 SCRA 337 (1998)
Bayan v. Executive Secretary, GR No. 138570, October 10, 2000
Automotive Industry Workers v. Executive Secretary, GR No. 157509, January 18, 2005
White Light Corp v. City of Manila, GR No. 122846, January 20, 2009
Gonzales v. Narvasa, GR No. 140835, August 14, 2000
Sandoval v. PAGCOR, GR No. 138982, November 29, 2000
Chavez v. PCGG, 299 SCRA 744 (1998)
IBP v. Zamora, 342 SCRA 449 (2000)
Francisco v. House of Representatives, 415 SCRA 44
De Agbayani v. PNB, 38 SCRA 429 (1971)
David v. Arroyo, 489 SCRA 162
People v. Mateo, 433 SCRA 540
Mariano Jr. v. COMELEC, GR No. 118577, March 7, 1995
Dumlao v. COMELEC, 95 SCRA 392
Solicitor General v. Metropolitan Manila Authority, GR No. 102782, December 11, 1991
Kalipunan ng Damayang Mahihirap v. Jessie Robredo, GR No. 200903, 730 SCRA 322, July
22, 2014
Gov. Villafuerte, Jr. v. Hon. Robredo GR No. 195390, December 10, 2014
UDK-15143, January 21, 2015
Republic of the Philippines v. Transunion Corporation, G.R. No. 191590, 2014,
15
St. Martin Funeral Homes v. NLRC, 295 SCRA 494
People v. Gutierrez, 36 SCRA 172 (1970)
In Re Cunanan, 94 PHIL 534 (1953-1954)
Echegaray v. Secretary of Justice, January 19, 1999
Bustos v. Lucero, 81 PHIL 648 (1948)
In Re Admission to the Bar: Argosino Bar Matter 712, 246 SCRA 14 (1995)
Fabian v. Desierto, GR 129742, September 16, 1998
In Re: De Vera (2003)
Baguio Markets Vendor v. Judge, GR No. 165922, February 26, 2010
Republic v. Gingoyon, GR No. 166429, February 1, 2006
Maniago v. Court of Appeals, GR No. 104392, February 20, 1996.
Javellana v. DILG, GR No. 102549, August 10, 1992
Bar Matter No. 1222, February 4, 2004
Garrido v. Garrido, AC No. 6593, February 4, 2010
In re Letter of the UP Law Faculty, 644 SCRA 543
Section 9. Appointments of Members of the Supreme Court and Judges of Lower Courts
Section 14. Contents of Decision; Petition for Review; Motion for Reconsideration
People v. Escober, 157 SCRA 541 (1988)
Air France v. Carrascoso, 18 SCRA 155 (1966)
People v. Bravo, 227 SCRA 285 (1993)
16
Hernandez v. CA, 208 SCRA 429 (1993)
Nicos v. CA, 206 SCRA 127 (1992)
Borromeo v. CA, 186 SCRA 1 (1990)
Francisco v. Pernskul, 173 SCRA 324 (1989)
Velarde v. Social Justice Society, GR 159357, April 28, 2004
A. Common Provisions
Section 3. Salary
17
Section 8. Other Functions
Section 2. Scope
Paragraph 1
EIIB v. CA, GR No. 129133, Nov. 25, 1998
NASECO v. NLRC, GR No. 100947, May 31, 1993
MWSS v. Hernandez, 143 SCRA 602
Philippine Fisheries Development Authority v. NLRC and Odin Security Agency, GR No.
94825, September 4, 1992
PAGCOR v. CA, GR No. 93396, September 30, 1991
Agyao v. CSC, 639 SCRA 781
Funa v. Duque III, G.R. No. 191672, November 25, 2014
Barcelona v. LIM, G.R. No. 189171, June 3, 2014
Paragraph 2
De los Santos v. Mallare, 87 PHIL 289
Santiago Jr. v. CSC, GR No. 81467, October 27, 1989
Central Bank v. CSC, GR No. 80455-56, April 10, 1989
CSC v. Salas, 274 SCRA 414
CSC v. Javier, 546 SCRA 485
Grino v. CSC, 194 SCRA 458
Paragraph 3
Briones v. Osmena, 104 PHIL 588
Abakada Group Party List v. Purisima, 562 SCRA 251
CSC v. Sojor, 554 SCRA 160
PCSO Board of Directors v. Lapid, 648 SCRA 546
18
Canonizado v. Aguirre, GR No. 133132, Jan. 25, 2000
Secretary Gloria v. CA, GR No. 119903, August 14, 2000
Yenko and Mayor Estrada v. Gungon, GR No. 165450, August 13, 2009
Buklod v. Executive Secretary, GR Nos. 142801-02, July 10, 2001
Dimayuga v. Benedicto II, GR No. 144153, Jan. 16, 2002
Miranda v. Carreon, GR No. 143540, April 11, 2003
Hernandez v. Villegas, 14 SCRA 544 (1965)
Briones v. Osmena, 104 Phil 588 (1958)
Mayor v. Macaraig, 194 SCRA 672 (1991)
Roque v. Ericta, 53 SCRA 156
Mama, Jr. v Court of Appeals, GR No. 86517, April 30, 1991
UP Board of Regents v. Rasul, GR No. 91551, August 16, 1991
Kawaning EIIB v. Executive Secretary, GR No. 142801, July 10, 2001
A.M. No. 2008-23-SC, November 10, 2014
Right to Organize
Social Security System v. CA, GR No. 85279, July 28, 1989
Manila Public School Teachers Association v. Secretary of Education, GR No. 95445, August
6, 1991
C. Commission on Elections
19
Section 1. Composition; Qualifications; Term
Cayetano v. Monsod, 201 SCRA 210 (1991)
Brillantes v. Yorac, 192 SCRA 358 (1990)
Matibag v. Benipayo, 380 SCRA 49
Hayudini v. Comelec, GR No. 207900, 723 SCRA 223, April 22, 2014
Naval v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 207851, July 8, 2014
Timbol v. Comelec, G.R. No. 206004, February 24, 2015
Jalover v. Osmena, G.R. No. 209286, September 23, 2014
Section 3. Decisions
Sarmiento v. COMELEC, 212 SCRA 307
Salazar Jr. v. COMELEC, 184 SCRA 433 (1990)
Baytan v. COMELEC, GR No. 153954 , Feb. 4, 2003
Balindong v. COMELEC, GR Nos. 153991-2, Oct. 16, 2003
Liberal Party v. COMELEC, GR No. 191771, May 6, 2010
Alvarez v. COMELEC, GR
No. 142527, March 1, 2001
Villarosa v. COMELEC GR No. 212953, August 05, 2014
20
Section 4. Supervision/Regulation of Public Utilities, Media Grants, Privileges
Unido v. COMELEC, 104 SCRA 17
Sanidad v. COMELEC, 181 SCRA 529 (1990)
Philippine Press Institute v. COMELEC, GR No. 119654, May 22, 1995
ABS-CBN v. COMELEC, GR No. 133486, Jan. 28, 2000
SWS v. COMELEC, GR No. 147571, May 5, 2001
Section 7. No Block-Voting
D. Commission of Audit
Section 1. Qualifications; Term
Mison v. COA, 187 SCRA 445
21
The Law Firm of Laguesma Magsalin Consulta and Gastardo v. COA GR No. 185544, 2015
Maritime Industry Authority v. COA, G.R. No. 185812, January 13, 2015
22
Pimentel v. Aguirre, 336 SCRA 201 (2000)
Province of Batangas v. Executive Secretary, GR No. 152774, May 27, 2004
Alternative Center v. Zamora, GR No. 144256, June 8, 2005
League of Cities v. COMELEC August 24, 2010
23
Sections 18 and19. Organic Act for Autonomous Regions
Abbas v. COMELEC, 179 SCRA 287 (1989)
Ordillos v. COMELEC, 192 SCRA 100 (1990)
Badua v. CBA, 194 SCRA 101 (1991)
Cordillera Broad Coalition v. COA, GR No. 82217, Jan. 29, 1990
Pandi v. CA, GR No. 116850, April 11, 2002
Sema v. COMELEC, GR No. 177597, July 16, 2008
Section 4. Sandiganbayan
Lecaroz v. Sandiganbayan, 128 SCRA 324 (1984)
Defensor-Santiago, 356 SCRA 636 (2001)
Balmadrid v. Sandiganbayan, GR No. 58327, March 22, 1991
Azarcon v. Sandiganbanyan, GR No. 116033, February 26, 1997
24
Section 5. Ombudsman
Carandang v. Desierto, 639 SCRA 293
Lacson v. ES, 649 SCRA 142
People v. Morales, 649 SCRA 182
Quarto v. Marcelo, 658 SCRA 580
Office of the Ombudsman v. Quimbo, G.R. No. 173277, February 25, 2015
Office of the Ombudsman v. CA and Binay, G.R. Nos. 217126-27, November 10, 2015
Section 6. Appointments
Ombudsman v. CSC, GR No. 162215, July 20, 2007
Laud v. People, et al., G.R. No. 199032,November 19, 2014
Sabijon v. De Juan, A.M. No. P-14-3281, 2015
Casimiro v. Rigor, G.R. No. 206661, 2014
Airlift Asia Customs Brokerage, Inc. v. Court Of Appeals, G.R. No. 183664, 2014
Buena, Jr v. Benito, G.R. No. 181760, October 14, 2014
Section 8. Qualifications
Argel v. Gov. Singson, G.R. No. 202970, 2015
Section 9. Appointments
25
Buencamino v. CA, GR No. 175895, April 4, 2007
Medina v. COA, GR No. 176478, February 4, 2008
Villas Nor v. Sandiganbayan, GR No. 180700, March 4, 2008
Honasan II v. Panel of Investigating Prosecutors GR No. 159747, April 13, 2004
Ombudsman v. Rodriguez, GR No. 172700, July 23, 2010
Garcia v. Miro, GR No. 148944, Feb 5, 2003
Rare v. Sandiganbayan, GR No. 108431, July 14, 2000
Office of the Ombudsman v. Quimbo GR No. 173277, February 25, 2015
26
Apex Mining v. Southeast Mindanao Gold, Inc, GR No. 152613, June 23, 2006
Dir. of Lands v. IAC, 146 SCRA 509 (1986)
Ten Forty Realty v. Lorenzana, GR No. 151212, Sept. 10, 2003
Chavez v. PEA, GR No. 133250, July 9, 2002
27
Section 13. Trade Policy
28
Republic of Indonesia v. Vinzon, GR 154705, June 26, 2003
Shell Philippines v. Jalos, GR No. 179918, September 8, 2010
Vigilar v. Aquino, 639 SCRA 772
ATO v. Ramos, 644 SCRA 36
Heirs of Diosdado Mendoza v. DPWH, GR No. 203834, 729 SCRA 654, July 9, 2014
Hermano Oil Manufacturing & Sugar Corporation v.Toll Regulatory General Considerations
Board, G.R. No. 167290, November 26, 2014
Section 4. AFP
Section 2. Initiative
RA No. 6735, An Act Providing for a System of Initiative and Referendum
Defensor-Santiago v. COMELEC, 270 SCRA 106 (1997); MR (1997)
Lambino v. COMELEC, 505 SCRA 160 (2006) *SC declared RA 6735 as sufficient and
adequate for a peoples initiative, effectively abandoning the ruling in Defensor-Santiago v.
COMELEC.
29
Section 4. Ratification
Gonzales v. COMELEC, 21 SCRA 774 (1967)
Tolentino v. COMELEC, 41 SCRA 702 (1971)
Javellana v. ES, GR L-36142, March 31, 1973
30
B. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II
Section 1. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law
nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the law.
In General
Banco Espanol Filipino v. Palanca 37 P 921
Macapagal-Arroyo v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 220598, July 21, 2016
31
Galvez v. CA 237 SCRA 685
State Prosecutor v. Muros 236 SRCA 505-
Martinez v. CA 237 SCRA 395
Espeleta v. Avelino 62 SCRA 395
Rabino v. Cruz 222 SCRA 493
Ysmael v. CA 273 SCRA 165
Carvajal v CA 280 SCRA 351
People v. Castillio 289 SCRA 213
Cosep v. PEO 290 SCRA 378
Rodrigo v. Sandiganbayan GR 125498 Feb. 18, 1999
People v. Huli 338 SCRA 2000
People v. Cabiles 341 SCRA 2000
Gozum v. Liangco 339 SCRA 253
Soriano v. Angeles 339 SCRA 253
Villanueva v. Malaya 330 SCRA 278
Almendras v. Asis 330 SCRA 69
Dayot v. Garcia 353 SCRA 280
People v. Hapa GR 125698 July 19, 2001
Aguirre v. people GR 144142 August 23, 2001
Puyat v. Zabarte 352 SCRA 738
Baritua v. Mercader 350 SCRA 86
Barbers v. Laguio 351 SCRA 606
People v. Herida 353 SCRA 650
People v. Medenilla GR 1311638 Mar. 26, 2001
People v. Rivera GR 139180 July. 31, 2001
People v. Basques GR 144035 Sept. 27, 2001
Cooperative Development v. DOLEFIL GR 137489 May 29, 2002
Garcia v. Pajaro GR 141149 July 5, 2002
Briaso v. Mariano, GR 137265, Jan. 31, 2003
Macias v. Macias GR 1461617, Sept. 3, 2003
Albior v. Auguis, AM P-01-1472, June 6, 2003
Republic v. Sandiganbayan, GR 152154, Nov. 18, 2003
Ty v. Banco Filipino Savings and Mortgage Bank, 422 SCRA 649
People v. Larranaga, 412 SCRA 530
R. Transport v. Philhino 494 SCRA 630
Trans Middle East v. Sandiganbayan 499 SCRA 308
Uy v. First Metro 503 SCRA 704
Deutsche Bank v. Chua 481 SCRA 672
People v. Santos 501 SCRA 325
Victoriano v. People 509 SCRA 483
Santos v. DOJ 543 SCRA 70
DBP v. Feston 545 SCRA 422
Ruivivar v. OMB 565 SCRA 324
Borromeo v. Garcia 546 SCRA 543
Cesar v. OMB 553 SCRA 357
DAR v. Samson 554 SCRA 500
Hilano v. People 551 SCRA 191
Pastona v. CA 559 SCRA 137
Bibas v. OMB 559 SCRA 591
Espina v. Cerujano 550 SCRA 107
32
Geronga v. Varela 546 SCRA 429
OMB v. Magno GR 178923, Nov. 27, 2008
Avenido v. CSC 553 SCRA 711
Romuladez v. COMELEC 553 SCRA 370
Multi-Trans Agency v. Oriental 590 SCRA 675
Siochi v. BPI 193872, October 18, 2011
Catacutan v. People 656 SCRA 524
Mortel v. Kerr 685 SCRA 1 (clear violation and errors of counsel)
Gravides v. COMELEC 685 SCRA 382 (error of counsel)
33
Velllarosa v. Pomperada, AdminCase No. 5310, Jan. 28, 2003
Alauya v. Comelec, GR 152151-52, Jan. 22, 2003
Spouses Casimiro v. CA 135911, Feb. 11, 2003
Sy v. CA, GR 147572, Feb. 27, 2003
Namil v. Comelecc, GR 15040, Oct. 28, 2003
Bautista v. Comelec, GR 154796-97, Oct. 23, 2003
Office of OMB v. Coronel 493 SCRA 392
Erece v. Macalingay 552 SCRA 320
Marcelo v. Bungubung 552 SCRA 589
SEC v. Interport 567 SCRA 354
Calinisan v. Roaquin 630 456
IBP v. Atienza 613 SCRA 518
Domingo v. OMB 577 SCRA 476
Zambales v. CAstellejos 581 SCRA 320
OMB v. Evangelista 581 SCRA 350
Phil Export v. Pearl City 608 SCRA 280
Pichay v. Office of the Deputy Executive Secretary 677 SCRA 408
Arroyo v. DOJ 681 SCRA 181
4. Extradition Proceedings
Sec, of Justice v. Lantion 343 SCRA 377
Cuevas v. Munoz GR 140520 Dec. 18, 2000
Govt. of U.S.A v. Purganan GR 148571 Sept. 24, 2002
Rodriguez v. Presiding Judge, 483 SCRA 290
Govt. of Hong Kong v. Olalia, GR 153675 April 19, 2007
5. Arbitration
RCBC v. Banco de Oro 687 SCRA 583
Academic Discipline
1. In General
Angeles v. Sison 112 SCRA 26
Malabanan v. Ramento 129 SCRA 359
Guzman v. NU 142 SCRA 699
Alcuaz v. PSBA 161 SCRA 7
Non v. Judge Dames 185 SCRA 523
ADMU v. Capulong 222 SCRA 644
U.P. v. Ligot-Telan 227 SCRA 342
Go v. Colegio De San Juan de Letran 683 SCRA 358
Deportation Proceeding
1. In General
Lao Gi v. CA 180 SCRA 756
Domingo v Scheer, 421 SCRA 468
34
1. Rates
Philcomsat y. Alcuaz 180 SCRA 218
Randiocom v. NTC 184 SCRA 517
Maceda v. ERB 199 SCRA 454
Globe Telecom c. NTC, 435 SCRA 110
2. Profession
Corona v. UHPAP 283 SCRA 31
3. Preventive Suspension
Alonzo v. Capulong 244 SCRA 80
Castillio Co v. Barbers 290 SCRA 717
Bacsasar v. CSC 576 SCRa 787
Carabeo v. CA 607 SCRA 390
Villasenor v. OMB, GR. No. 20230, 725 SCRA 230
Ordinance/Status/Memo Cir/Rules
People v. Nazario 165 SCRA 136
Franscisco v. CA 199 SCRA 595
Misamis Or. V. DOF 238 SCRA 63
Estrada v. Sandiganbayan GR 148560 Nov. 19, 2001
35
Bernardo v. CA 275 SCRA 413
Casuela v. Ombudsman 276 SCRA 635
Cordenillio v. Executive Secretary 276 SCRA 652
Chua v. CA 287 SCRA 33
De la Cruz v. Abelle 352 SCRA 691
Rodreguez v. CA GR 134275 August 7, 2002
Gonzales v. CSC 490 SCRA 741
Berboso v. CA 494 SCRA 583
Pontejos v. Desierto 592
I. Suretyship
Stronghold Insurance v. CA 205 SCRA 605
L. Closure Proceeding
CB v. CA 220 SCRA 536
Rural Bank v. CA 162 SCRA 288
Phil. Merchants v. CA GR 112844 June 2, 1995
M. Biddings
N. UDHA RA 7279
36
People v. Fajardo 104 Phil. 443
Ermita-Malate Hotel & Operator v. City of Manila 20 SCRA 849
Ynot v. Intermediate Court of Appeals 148 SCRA 659
Agustin v. Edu, 88 SCRA 195
Balacuit v. CFI 163 SCRA 182
National Development Co. and New Agrix v. Phil. Vet. Bank 192 SCRA 257
Maranaw Hotel v. NLRC 238 SCRA 190
Magtajas v. Pryce Properties 234 SCRA 255
Bennis v. Michigan No. 94-8729 March 4, 1996
Cruzan v. Dir. Missouri No. 88-1503 June 25 1990
JMM Promotion and Management Inc. v. CA 260 SCRA 319
Corona v. United Harbor 283 SCRA 31
Kelly v. Johnson 425 US 238
Chavez v. Romulo 431 SCRA 534 (2004)
Cruz v. Flavier, GR 135385, December 6, 2000
Smith Kline v. CA, GR 121267, October 23, 2001
Pareno v. COA 523 SCRA 390
Esponcilla v. Bagong Tanyag 529 SCRA 654
BF v. City Mayor 515 SCRA 1
St. Lukes v. NLRC 517 SCRA 677
Carlos v. DSWD 526 SCRA 130
Perez v. LPG 531 SCRA 431
MMDA v. Viron 530 SCRA 341
Sec. of DND v. Manalo 568 SCRA 42 (Amparo)
SJS v. DDB 570 SCRA 410
SJS v. Atienza 545 SCRA 92
SEC v. Interport 567 SCRA 354
People v. Siton 600 SCRA 476
White Light v. City of Manila 576 SCRA 416
CREBA v. Romulo 614 SCRA 605
Southern Hemisphere v. ATC 632 SCRA 146
Roxas v. Macapagal-Arroyo 630 SCRA 211
Meralco v. Lim 632 SCRA 195
Pollo v. Karina Constantino. GR 181881, October 8, 2011
Sto. Tomas v. Paneda 685 SCRA 245
37
b) Strict Scrutiny Test: A legislative classification which impermissibly interferes with the
exercise of a fundamental right or operates to the peculiar disadvantage of a suspect class is
presumed unconstitutional, and the burden is upon government to prove that the classification
is necessary to achieve a compelling state interest and that it is the least restrictive means to
protect such interest. This is used on issues of speech, gender, and race.
c) Intermediate Scrutiny Test: government must show that the challenged classification serves
an important state interest and that the classification is at least substantially related to serving
that interest.
38
Section 2. The right to of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects
against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be
inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause
to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the
complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be
searched and the persons or things to be seized.
1. Purpose of Section 2
A. Probable Cause
I. Definition
Henry v. US, 361 US 98
For Arrest:
People v. Syjuco, 64 Phil 667
Alvarez v. CFI , 64 Phil 33
Webb v. De Leon, GR 121234, August 23, 1995
For Search:
Burgos v. Chief of Staff, 133 SCRA 800
Prudente v. Dayrit, 180 SCRA 69
United States v. Jones, January 23, 2012
IV. In General
Nala v. Barroso, GR 153087 Aug. 7, 2003
Betoy v. Judge AM NO. MJJ-05-1108, Feb 26, 2006
20th Century Fox v. CA, 162 SCRA 655
Columbia Pictures v. CA, 262 SCRA 219
39
People v. Inting, 187 SCRA 788
People v. Delgado, 189 SCRA 715
Allado v. Diokno 232 SCRA 192
Gozos v. Tac-an GR 123191, Dec. 17, 1998
Flores v. Sumaljag 290 SCRA 568
C. Personal Examination (After Examination Under Oath or Affirmation the Complainant and
the Witnesses He May Produce)
Bache & Co. v Ruiz 37 SCRA 823
Soliven v. Makasiar, GR 8287, Nov. 14 1981
Luna v. Plaza, 26 SCRA 310
Kho v. Judge Makalintal, GR 94902-06, April 21, 1999
Alvarez v. Court, 64 Phil 33
Bache v. Cruz, 37 SCRA 823
Borlongan v. Pena, GR 143591, Nov. 23, 2007
People v. Mamaril, GR 147607, Jan 22 2004
Ortiz v. Palaypayon 234 SCRA 391
D. Particularity of Description
People v. Veloso 48 Phil 169
Alvarez v. CFI 64 Phil. 33
Corro v. Lising 137 SCRA 541
Pangandaman v. Casar, 159 SCRA 599 (1988)
Stonehill v. Diokno (1967)
People v. Martinez 235 SCRA 171
Microsoft Corp. v. Maxicorp (2004)
Burgos v. Chief of Staff, AFP 133 SCRA 890
Frank Uy v. BIR , 344 SCRA 36
Yousex Al-Ghoul v. CA GR 126859 Sept. 4 , 2001
People v. CA 291 SCRA 400
Paper Industries v. Asuncion, GR 122092 May 19, 1998
Malalaon v. CA, 232 SCRA 249
People v. Estrada GR 124461, June 26, 2000
*Administrative Arrest (Exceptions to the rule that only a judge may issue a warrant):
Commissioner of Immigration and Deportation may issue warrants to carry out a final finding
of a violation. (Board of Commissioners v. Judge De La Rosa, 197 SCRA 853) It is issued
after a proceeding has taken place.
40
Material Distributions v. Judge, 84 Phil 127 (1989)
Oklahoma Press v. Walling, 327 US 186
Camara v. Municipal Court, 387 US 523 ( 1967)
Two Requisites:
1. Item to be searched was within the arrestees custody or area of immediate control.
2. Search was contemporaneous with an arrest.
Requisites:
1. Prior valid intrusion
2. Evidence was inadvertently discovered by the police
3. Illegality of the evidence is immediately apparent; and
4. Noticed without further search.
41
United Laboratories v. Isip GR 163858 (June 28, 2005)
People v. Doria GR 125299, Jan. 22, 1999
Del Rosario v. People, GR 142295, May 31, 2001
iv. Consent/Waiver
Requisites:
1.It must appear that the right exists.
2. The person involved had knowledge, either actual or constructive, of the existence of the
right.
3. The person had actual intention to relinquish the right.
v. Customs Search
Papa v. Mago, 22 SCRA 857
Pacis v. Pamaran, 56 SCRA 16
People v. Gatward, 267 SCRA 785
People v. Susan Canton, GR 148825, December 27, 2002
People v. Johnson 348 SCRA 526
42
vi. Stop and Frisk Situation
Malacat: Where a police officer observes unusual conduct which leads him reasonably to
conclude in light of his experience that criminal activity may be afoot and that the person
with whom he is dealing may be armed and that the person with whom he is dealing may be
armed and presently dangerous, where in the course of investigation of this behavior he
identifies himself as a policeman and makes reasonable inquiries, and where nothing in the
initial stages of the encounter serves to dispel his reasonable fear for his own or others
safety, he is entitled for the protection of himself and others in the area to conduct a carefully
limited search of the outer clothing of such person in an attempt to discover weapons which
might be used to assault him.
Malacat (1997): Probable cause is not required. However, mere suspicion or a hunch is not
enough. Rather, a genuine reason must exist, in light of the police officers experience and
surrounding conditions, to warrant the belief that the person detained has weapons concealed
about him.
Laserna v. DDB, GR 158633, Nov. 3, 2008: The constitutional validity of the mandatory,
random, and suspicionless drug testing for students emanates primarily from the waiver of
their right to privacy when they seek entry to the school, and from their voluntary submitting
their persons to the parental authority of school authorities.
In case of private and public employees, the constitutional soundness of the mandatory,
random and suspicious drug testing proceeds from the reasonableness of the drug test policy
and requirement.
However, there is no valid justification for mandatory drug testing for persons accused of
crimes punishable with at least 6 years and one day imprisonment as they are singled out and
impleaded against their will. The operative concepts in the mandatory drug testing are
randomness and suspicionless.
43
7. Warrantless Arrests
Rule 113, Section 5. A peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a
person:
a. When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or
attempting to commit an offense;
b. When an offense has in fact been committed, and he has personal knowledge of facts
indicating that the person to be arrested has committed it; and
c. When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal establishment or
place where he is serving final judgment or temporarily confined while his case is pending or
has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to another
A. In Flagrante Delicto
B. Hot Pursuit
Two Requisites:
1. An offense had just been committed.
2. The person making the arrest has probable cause to believe, based on his personal
knowledge of facts and circumstances, that the person to be arrested committed it.
*There must be immediacy between the time the offense is committed and the time of the
arrest.
44
People v. Nazareno 260 SCRA 256
People v. Mahusay 282 SCRA 80
People v. Alvario 275 SCRA 529
Larranaga v. CA 287 SCRA 521
People v. Olivarez GR 77865, Dec. 4, 1998
Cadua v. CA 312 SCRA 703
People v. Cubcubin 360 SCRA
People v. Compacion 361 SCRA 540
Posadas v. Ombudsman 341 SCRA
People v. Acol 232 SCRA 406
C. Escaped Prisoner
D. Waiver
E. Procedural Rules
Section 3. (1) The privacy of communication and correspondence shall be inviolable except
upon lawful order of the court, or when public safety or order requires otherwise as
prescribed by law.
(2) Any evidence obtained in violation of this or the preceding section shall be inadmissible
for any purpose in any proceeding.
Cybercrime Law- R.A. 10175 (Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012): The State recognizes the
vital role of information and communications industries such as content production,
telecommunications, broadcasting electronic commerce, and data processing, in the nations
overall social and economic development. The State also recognizes the importance of
providing an environment conducive to the development, acceleration, and rational
application and exploitation of information and communications technology (ICT) to attain
free, easy, and intelligible access to exchange and/or delivery of information; and the need to
protect and safeguard the integrity of computer, computer and communications systems,
networks, and databases, and the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of information and
data stored therein, from all forms of misuse, abuse, and illegal access by making punishable
under the law such conduct or conducts. In this light, the State shall adopt sufficient powers
to effectively prevent and combat such offenses by facilitating their detection, investigation,
and prosecution at both the domestic and international levels, and by providing arrangements
for fast and reliable international cooperation.
45
personal telephone call, the protection of the Fourth Amendment extends to such area. In the
concurring opinion of Mr. Justice Harlan, it was further noted that the existence of privacy
right under prior decisions involved a two-fold requirement: first, that a person has exhibited
an actual (subjective) expectation of privacy; and second, that the expectation be one that
society is prepared to recognize as reasonable (objective).
Riley v. California, June 25, 2014
U.S. v. Graham, August 05, 2015
Not Covered
Alejano v. Cabuay, 468 SCRA 188
In Re: Wenceslao Laureta, 148 SCRA 382
People v. Albofera, 152 SCRA 123
Dr. Lee v. P/Supt. Ilagan, GR No. 203254, October 08, 2014
Gamboa v. P/Supt. Chan, GR No. 193636, July 24, 2012
Exclusionary Rule
Gaanan v. IAC 145 SCRA 112
Salcedo-Ortanez v. CA 235 SCRA 111
Zulueta v. CA 253 SCRA 699
Ople v. Torres 293 SCRA 141
Waterous Drug Corp v. NLRC, GR 113271, October 16, 1997
People v. Marti 193 SCRA 57
People v. Artua 288 SCRA 626
46
Section 4. No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the
press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for
redress of grievances.
Content-based Regulation: Restraint is aimed at the message or idea of the expression. Apply
the Strict Scrutiny Test and the challenged act must overcome the clear and present danger
rule.
Content-neutral Regulation: Restraint is aimed to regulate the time, place or manner of the
expression in public place without any restraint on the content of the expression. Apply the
Intermediate Approach Test wherein a regulation is justified if it is : within the constitutional
power of government, furthers an important or substantial government interest, government
interest is unrelated to the suppression of free expression, and the incident restriction on the
alleged freedom of speech and expression is no greater than is essential to the furtherance of
that interest. Here, it only requires substantial government interest for validity.
Facial Challenge Concept: A facial challenge is an exception to the rule that only persons
who are directly affected by a statute have legal standing to assail the same. This is only
applicable to statutes involving free speech, impeached on the grounds of overbreadth or
vagueness. Here, the litigants are permitted to challenge a statute not because their own rights
of free expression are violated, but because of a judicial prediction or assumption that the
statutes very existence may cause others not before the court to refrain from constitutionally
protected speech or expression.
Imbong v. Ochoa, GR 204819, April 8, 2014: While this Court has withheld the application
of facial challenges to strictly penal statues, it has expanded its scope to cover statutes not
only regulating free speech, but also those involving religious freedom, and other
fundamental rights. The underlying reason for this modification is simple. For unlike its
counterpart in the U.S., this Court, under its expanded jurisdiction, is mandated by the
Fundamental Law not only to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally
demandable and enforceable, but also to determine whether or not there has been a grave
abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or
instrumentality of the Government.
Overbreadth Doctrine: A ground to declare a statute void when it offends the constitutional
principle that a government purpose to control or prevent activities constitutionally subject to
state regulations may not be achieved by means which sweep unnecessarily broadly and
thereby invade the area of protected freedoms.
47
The freedom of television and radio broadcasting is lesser in scope that the freedom accorded
to newspapers and print media. (Eastern Broadcasting Corp v. Dans Jr)
Hecklers Veto: This involves situations in which the government attempts to ban protected
speech because it might provoke a violent response.
1. Prior Restraint: Refers to official governmental restrictions on the press or other forms
of expression in advance of actual publication or dissemination.
2. Subsequent Punishment
People v. Perez 45 Phil. 599
Espiritu v. General Lim, GR 85727, October 3, 1991
Dennis v. US 341 US 494
Gonzales v. COMELEC 27 SCRA 835
Eastern Broadcasting v. Dans, Jr. 137 SCRA 628
Ayer Prod. PTY. LTD. V. Judge Capulong 160 SCRA 865
Kelley v. Johnson 425 US 238
Brandenburg v. Ohio 395 US 444
Miriam College Foundation v. CA, GR 127930, December 15, 2000
48
National Press Club v. COMELEC 207 SCRA 1
Adiong v. COMELEC March 31, 1992
Osmena v. COMELEC 288 SCRA 447
ABS-CBN v. COMELEC 323 SCRA 811
SWS v. COMELEC 357 SCRA 496
Penera v. COMELEC, GR 181613, November 25, 2009
4. Commercial Speech
Rubin v. Coors Brewing 131 L. Ed. 2d 532
Cincinnati v. Discovery Network 123 L. Ed. 2d 99
Central Hudson Gas v. Public Service Commission of New York, 447 US 557
Pharmaceutical v. Secretary of Health, GR 173034, October 9, 2007
City of Laduc v. Gilleo 129 L. Ed. 2d 36
Disini v. Secretary of Justice, GR No. 203335, 2014
49
Ruiz v. Gordon, 126 SCRA 233
BAYAN v. Ermita GR 169838, April 25, 2006
GSIS v. Kapisanan, GR 170132, December 6, 2006
In Re Valmonte, 296 SCRA
In Re Petition to Annul 98-7-02 SC
Purpose
I. Non-Establishment Clause
Aglipay v. Ruiz, 64 Phil 201
Garces v. Estenzo, 104 SCRA 510
School District v. Schempp, 394 RS 203
Board of Education v. Allen, 392 US 236
Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 US 602
Tilton v. Richardson, 403 US 672
Country of Allegheny v. American Civil Liberties Union, 57 LW 504
Zobrest v. Catalina, No. 92-94 June 18, 1993
Capitol Square Review Board v. Pinetter & Ku Klus Klan, US No. 94-780, June 29, 1995
Lee v. Welsman, US No. 90-1014, June 24, 1992
Manosca v. CA, 252 SCRA 412
Islamic Dawah v. ES, GR 153888, July 9, 2003
Taruc v. Dela Cruz, 453 SCRA 123
UCCP v. Bradford, 674 SCRA 92
Imbong v. Ochoa, GR 204819, April 8, 2014
Tests
a) Clear and Present Danger Test: When words are used in such circumstance and of such
nature as to create a clear and present danger that will bring about the substantive evil that the
State has a right to prevent.
b) Compelling State Interest Test: When a law of general application infringes religious
exercise, albeit incidentally, the state interest sought to be promoted must be so paramount
and compelling as to override the free exercise claim. Three-step 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? (Estrada v. Escritor)
50
belief in relation to a Supreme Being involving duties superior to those arising from any
human relation, but does not include essentially political, sociological or philosophical views
or a merely personal code.
Section 6. The liberty of abode and of changing the same within the limits prescribed by law
shall not be impaired except upon lawful order of the court. Neither shall the right to travel be
impaired except in the interest of national security, public safety, or public health, as may be
provided by law.
51
Silverio v. CA 195 SCRA 760
Santiago v. Vasquez 217 SCRA 633
Marcos v. Sandiganbayan 247 SCRA 127
Yap v. CA, GR 141529, June 6, 2001
Mirasol v DPWH, 490 SCRA 318
OAS v. Judge Macarine, 677 SCRA 1
Human Security Act, Section 26: In cases where evidence of guilt is not strong, and the
person charged with the crime of terrorism or conspiracy to commit terrorism is entitled to
bail and is granted the same, the court, upon application by the prosecutor, shall limit the
right of travel of the accused to within the municipality or city where he resides or where the
case is pending, in the interest of national security and public safety. Travel outside said
municipality or city, without the authorization of the court, shall be deemed a violation of the
terms and conditions of his bail, which shall then be forfeited under the Rules of Court.
Section 7. The right of the people to information on matters of public concern shall be
recognized. Access to official records, and to documents and papers pertaining to official
acts, transactions, or decisions, as well as to government research data used as basis for
policy development, shall be afforded the citizen, subject to such limitations as may be
provided by law.
(FOI) E.O. signed by Pres. Duterte on peoples constitutional right to information and the
state policies of full public disclosure and transparency in the public service: Section 3.
Access to information- Every Filipino shall have access to information, official records,
public records, and to documents and papers pertaining to official acts, transactions, or
decisions, as well as to government research data used as basis for public-document.
Right to Information
52
Echegaray v. Sec. of Justice, GR 132601, Oct. 12, 1988
Gonzales v. Narvasa, GR 140835, August 14, 2000
RE: Request for Radio-TV Coverage, 365 SCRA 248
RE: Request for Live Radio-TV Coverage, 365 SCRA 62
Hilado v. Reyes, 496 SCRA 282 (Access to Court Records)
Sabio v. Gordon, 504 SCRA 704
Bantay v. COMELEC, 523 SCRA 1
Berdin v. Mascarinas, 526 SCRA 592
Chang v. NHA, 530 SCRA 335
Senate v. Ermita GR 169777, April 20, 2006
Suplico v. NEDA, GR 178830, July 14, 2008
Neri v. Senate GR 180643, March 25, 2008; MR Sept. 4, 2008
Akbayan v. Aquino GR 170516, July 16, 2008
Province of North Cotabato v. GRP Peace Panel, 568 SCRA 402
Guingona v. COMELEC, 620 SCRA 448
Antolin v. Domondon, 623 SCRA 163
Center for People v. COMELEC, 631 SCRA 41
Francisco v. TRB, 633 SCRA 470
Initiatives v. PSALM, 682 SCRA 602
Belgica v. Executive Secretary, GR 208566, November 19, 2013
Gov. Villafuerte, Jr. v. Hon. Robredo GR No. 195390, December 10, 2014
Section 8. The right of the people, including those employed in the public and private sectors,
to form unions, associations, or societies for purposes not contrary to law shall not be
abridged.
Scope
Volkschel Labor Union v. Bureau of Labor Relations, 137 SCRA 42
Right to Association
Occena v. COMELEC, 127 SCRA 404
UPCSU v. Laguesma 286 SCRA 15
Bel-Air Village Association v. Dionisio, 174 SCRA 589
Padcom Condominium Association v. Ortigas Center Association, Inc, 382 SCRA 222
Section 9. Private Property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation.
Expropriation in General
Heirs of Alberto Suguitan v. City of Mandaluyong, March 14, 2000
NHA v. Heirs of Isidro Guivelondo, GR 15441, June 19, 2003
53
Mactan v. Lozada, 613 SCRA 618 (Reversion)
Vda De Ouna v. Republic, 642 SCRA 384 (Reversion)
1. Elements of Taking
Republic v. Vda. De Castelvi 58 SCRA 336
Garcia v. CA 102 SCRA 597
City of Government v. Judge Ericta 122 SCRA 759
US v. Causby 328 US 256
People v. Fajardo 104 Phil 443
Republic v. PLDT 26 SCRA 620
NPC v. Jocson 206 SCRA 520
Penn Central Transportation v. NY City 438 US 104
Ruckelshaus v. Monsanto 467 US 986
NPC v. Manubay 437 SCRA 60
NPC v. San Pedro 503 SCRA 333
NPC v. Tianco 514 SCRA 674
LBP v. Imperial 515 SCRA 449
NCP v. Bongbong 520 SCRA 290
Tan v. Republic - 423 SCRA 203
NPC v. Ibrahim 526 SCRA 149
NPC v. Purefoods 565 SCRa 17
NPC v. Capin 569 SCRA 648
PNOC v. Maglasang 570 SCRA 560 (lease not basis for taking)
NPC v. CO 578 SCRa 243
NPC v. Villamor - 590 SCRA 11
NPC v. Maruhom 609 SCRA 198
OSG v. Ayala 600 SCRA 617 (free parking spaces in malls)
NPC v. Tuazon 653 SCRA 84
2. Public Use
Sumulong v. Guerrero 154 SCRA 461
Phil. Columbian Assn. v. Hon. Panis 228 SCRA 668
Manosca v. CA 252 SCRA 412
Province of Camarines Sur v. CA 222 SCRA 173
Lagcao v. Judge Labra GR 155746, Oct. 13, 2004
Reyas v. NHA, GR 147511, Jan 20, 2003
Masikip v. Pasig, 479 SCRA 391
54
Didipio v. Earth Savers v. Guzon, 485 SCRA 586
Barangay v. CA, 581 SCRA 649
Manapat v. CA, 536 SCRA 32
Mactan v. Tudtud, GR 174012, November 14, 2008
City of Manila v. Tan Te, 658 SCRA 88(socialized housing)
Republic of the Philippines v. Heirs of Borbon, GR No. 165354, 745 SCRA 40, Jan 12, 2015
3. Just Compensation
City of Manila v. Estrada 25 Phil 208
Manila Railroad v. Paredes 31 Phil. 118
Santos v. Land Bank GR 137431, Sept. 7, 2000
Municipality of Daet v. CA 129 SCRA 665
NPC v. CA 129 SCRA 665
EPZA v. Dulay 149 SCRA 305
Maddumba v. GSIS 182 SCRA 281
Berkenkotter v. CA 216 SCRA 584
Meralco v. Pineda 206 SCRA 196
NPC v. CA 254 SCRA 577
Land Bank v. CA 249 SCRA 149; (MR) 258 SCRA 404
Panes v. VISCA 264 SCRA 708
Republic v. CA 263 SCRA 758
NPC v. Henson GR 129998, December 29 1998
Santos v. Landbank, GR 137431, Sept. 7, 2000
Sigre v. Ca, GR 109568, Aug. 8 2002
NHA v. Heirs of Isidro, GR 154411, June 19 2001
Mactan v. Urgello 520 SCRA 515
San Roque v. Republic 532 SCRA 493
Land Bank of the Philippines v. Peralta, G.R. No. 182704, April 23, 2014
Land Bank of the Philippines v. Eusebio, Jr., G.R. No. 160143, July 2, 2014
Department of Agrarian Reform v. Sta., G.R. No. 183290, July 9, 2014
Department of Agrarian Reform v. Beria, G.R. Nos. 183901 & 183931
Department of Agrarian Reform v. Susie Irene Galle, G.R. No. 171836,August 11, 2014
4. Judicial Review
De Knecht v. Bautista 100 SCRA 660
Manotoc v. NHA 150 SCRA 89
Republic v. De Knecht 182 SCRA 141
Militante v. CA, GR 107040, April 12, 2000
Imbong v. Ochoa, Jr. G.R. No. 204819, April 8, 2014
55
Siska Development v. Office of the President 231 SCRA 674
Miners Association v. Factoran 240 SCRA 100
Juarez v. CA 214 SCRA 475
FPIB v. CA 252 SCRA 259
CMMA v. POEA 243 SCRA 666
PNB v. O.P. 252 SCRA 5
Eugenio v. Drilon 252 SCRA 106
Meralco v. Province of Laguna 306 SCRA 750
Lim v. Pacquing 240 SCRA 649
Ortigas v. Feati Bank 94 SCRA 533
Juarez v. CA 214 SCRA 475
FPIB v. CA 252 SCRA 259
CMMA v. POEA 243 SCRA 106
JMM v. CA (supra)
PNB v. OP 252 SCRA 5
Eugenio v. Drilon 252 SCRA 106
JMM v. CA (supra Substantive)
C & M Timber v. Alcala 273 SCRA 402
Republic v. Agana 2269 SCRA 1
Producers v. NLRC GR 118069, November 16, 1998
Blaquera v. Alcala GR109406, September 11, 1998
Philreca v. Sec. of DILG, GR 1543076, June 10, 2003
Republic v. Rosemoor Mining and Development Corp. 426 SCRA 517
Chavez v. COMELEC 437 SCRA 415
Alvarez v. PICOP - 508 SCRA 498
Lepanto v. WMC 507 SCRA 315
Republic v. Caguioa 536 SCRA 193
Land Bank v. Republic 543 SCRA 453
Serrano v. Gallant 582 SCRA 254
Alvarez v. PICOP 606 SCRA 444
Surigao v. ERC - 632 SCRA 96
Hacienda Luisita v. Pac 653 SCRA 154
Section 11. Free access to the courts and quasi-judicial bodies and adequate legal assistance
shall not be denied to any person by reason of poverty.
Indigent Party: One who is authorized by the court to prosecute his action or defense as an
indigent upon an ex parte application and hearing showing that he has no money or property
sufficient and available for food, shelter and basic necessities for himself and his family.
(Rules of Court, Rule 3, Section 21)
56
5. Rule on the Writ of Habeas Data, Section 4: No docket and other lawful fees are required
from indigent petitioner.
Section 12. (1) Any person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have
the right to be informed of his right to remain silent and to have competent and independent
counsel preferably of his own choice. If the person cannot afford the services of counsel, he
must be provided with one. These rights cannot be waived except in writing and in the
presence of counsel.
(2) No torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation, or any other means which violate the free
will shall be used against him. Secret detention places, solitary, incommunicado, or other
similar forms of detention are prohibited.
(3) Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this or Section 17 hereof shall be
inadmissible in evidence against him.
(4) The law shall provide for penal and civil sanctions for violations of this section as well as
compensation to the rehabilitation of victims of torture or similar practices, and their families.
A. Definition
People Pavillare, GR 129970, April 5, 2000
People v. Bandula - 232 SCRA 566
Navallo v. Sandiganbayan - 234 SCRA 175
Sebastian v. Garchitorena, GR 114028, October 18, 2000
OCA v. Sumulong, 271 SCRA 316
People v. Almanzor, GR 124918, July 11, 2002 (no need for counsel)
People v. Valdez, GR 129296, September 25, 2000
People v. Marra - 236 SCRA 565
People v. Labtan, G.R. No. 127493, December 8, 1999
Manuel v. NC Construction 282 SCRA 326
People v. de la Cruz, GR 137405, Sept. 27, 2002
*People v. Camat- 256 SCRA 52
People v. Evangelista - 256 SCRA 611
People v. Andan 269 SCRA 95
People v. Artellero, GR 129211, October 2, 2000
People v. De Jesus 213 SCRA 345
People v. Legaspi, GR 117802, April 27, 2000
B. Rationale
Miranda v. Arizona 384 US 436
People v. Canton, GR 148825, Dec. 27, 2002
57
A. Procedural Requirements
*Miranda v. Arizona- 384 US 436
People v. Mahinay GR 122485 February 1, 1999
People v. Camat - 256 SCRA 52
a. When to Invoke
People v. Sunga, GR 126029, Mar. 29, 2003
People v. Labtan, G.R. No. 127493, December 8, 1999
People v. Sapal, GR 124526, March 17, 2000
People v. Lamsing - 248 SCRA 471
People v. Maqueda - 242 SCRA 565
People v. Macam 238 SCRA 306
People v. De Jesus 213 SCRA 345
People v. Dimaano 209 SCRA 819
People v. Compil - 244 SCRA 135
People v. Loveria - 187 SCRA 47
58
People v.Zuela, 325 SCRA 589
People v. Macabalang 508 SCRA 282
Almendras, Jr. v. Almendras, GR No. 179491, 2015
d. Independence
People v. Porio, 376 SCRA 596
e. Competence
People v. Suela, supra, 373 SCRA 163
Uyboco v. People Of The Philippines, G.R. No. 211703, December 10, 2014
59
People v. Oranza, GR 127748, July 25, 2002
People v. Canicula, GR 131802, Aug. 6, 2002
h. Confession Without Counsel
People v. Casimiro, GR 146277, June 20, 2002
People v. Ochate, GR 127154, July 30, 2002
People v. Mendez, GR 147671, Nov. 21, 2002 (reiterates P. v. Morada)
*People v. Lauga 615 SCRA 548
Lumanog v. People 630 SCRA 42
People v. Tumaco 610 SCRA 350l
People v. Bokingo 655 SCRA 313
*People v. Uy 649 SCRA 236
j. Right to Be Informed
People v. Manriquez, GR 122510-11, March 17, 2000
Magtoto v. Manguera - 63 SCRA 4
*People v. Camat- 256 SCRA 52
People v. Alegria - 190 SCRA 122
People v. Sabban 260 SCRA 630
People v. Barlis - 231 SCRA 426
People v. Agustin - 240 SCRA 541
People v. Samolde, GR 128551, July 31, 2000
People v. Sevilla, GR 124077, September 5, 2000
People v. Muleta GR 130189 June 25, 1999
People v. Tizon, GR 133228, July 30, 2002
People v. Llenaresas - 248 SCRA 629
People v. Cajara, GR 122498, September 27, 2000
People v. Manriquez, GR 122510-11, March 17, 2000
People v. Samolde, GR 128551, July 31, 2000
60
b. Must Be Voluntary, Knowing and Intelligent
People v. Nicolas - 204 SCRA 191
People v. Agustin - 240 SCRA 541
V. Extrajudicial Confessions
A. Difference Between Admission and Confession
Ladiana v. People, GR 144293, Dec. 4, 2002
People v. Maqueda - 242 SCRA 565
C. Voluntariness
People v. Santos 283 SCRA 443
People v. Alvarez, GR 140388-91, Nov. 11, 2003
Astudillo v. People - 509 SCRA 302
Jesalva v. People 640 SCRA 253
D. Presumptions
People v. Alicando - 251 SCRA 293
People v. Camat- 256 SCRA 52
People v. Figueroa, GR 134056, July 6, 2000
People v. Dano, GR 117690, September 1, 2000
People v. Maneng, GR 123147, October 13, 2000
People v. Vallejo, GR 144656, May 9, 2002
People v. Sahagun 274 SCRA 208
61
People v. Sabban 260 SCRA 630
People v. Ranis, GR 129113, Sept. 17, 2002
People v. Rous - 242 SCRA 732
People v. Parojinog - 203 SCRA 673
People v. Montiero 246 SCRA 786
People v. Ruelan - 231 SCRA 650
People v. Aquino GR 123550-51 July 19, 1999
People v. Tolentino, 423 SCRA 448
People v. De Vera, G.R. No. 128966, August 18, 1999
People v. Santos 283 SCRA 443
Santos v. Sandiganbayan, GR 71523-25, December 8, 2000
People v. Magdamit 279 SCRA 423
People v. Aquino, GR 130742, July 18, 2000
People v. Hernandez (supra, Warrantless Arrests)
People v. Sabalones 294 SCRA 751
People v. Calvo 269 SCRA 676
People v. del Rosario, G.R. No. 131036, June 20, 2001
G. Exceptions
VI. When Custodial Investigations May Not Apply
A. Preliminary Investigation
People v. Judge Ayson - 175 SCRA 216
B. Voluntary Surrender
People v. Taylaran 108 SCRA 373
C. Audit Examination
Navallo v. Sandiganbayan - 234 SCRA 175
Kimpo v. Sandiganbayan - 232 SCRA 53
D. Administrative Investigation
Manuel v. NC Construction 282 SCRA 326
Remolona v. Civil Service Commission, G.R. No.13747, August 2, 2001
Sebastian v. Garchitorena, GR 114028, October 18, 2000
Escleo v. Durado, AM no. P-99-1312, July 31, 2002
F. Police Line-up
General Rule
62
People v. Piedad, GR 131923, Dec. 5, 2002 (no need for counsel)
People v. Lamsing 248 SCRA 471
People v. Frago - 232 SCRA 653
*Gamboa v. Judge Cruz - 162 SCRA 675
People v. Salvatierra 276 SCRA 55 (supra, Warrantless Arrests)
Dela Torre v. CA 294 SCRA 196
People Pavillare, GR 129970, April 5, 2000
People v. Timple - 237 SCRA 52
People v. Dimaano 209 SCRA 819
People v. Loveria - 187 SCRA 47
People v. Tolentino, 423 SCRA 448
People v. Martinez, 425 SCRA 525
People v. Sultan, GR 130594, July 5, 2000
People v. Escordial, 373 SCRA 585 (line- up after custodial investigation starts,
requires counsel)
Exceptions
People v. Hatton 210 SCRA 1
People v. Gamer, 326 SCRA 660
*People v. Teehankee, Jr. 249 SCRA 54 (supra, Procedural)
People v. Meneses 288 SCRA 95
G. Spontaneous Statements
People v. Barrientos 285 SCRA 221
Arroyo v, CA - 203 SCRA 750
People v. Andan 269 SCRA 95
People v. Dumantay, 307 SCRA 1
People v. Morada GR 129723 May 19, 1999
People v. Dano, GR 117690, September 1, 2000
People v. Ulit, 423 SCRA 374
H. Marked Money
*People v. Linsangan 195 SCRA 784
I. Booking Sheets
J. Paraffin Test
People v. Gamboa 194 SCRA 372
L. Taking of Pictures
People v. Gallarde, 325 SCRA 835
63
M. Incident to a Lawful Arrest
People v. Enriquez 204 SCRA 674
Marcelo v. Sandiganbayan GR 109242 January 26, 1999
A. Violation of Rights
People v. Simon - 234 SCRA 555
People v. Hermoso, GR 130590, October 18, 2000
People v. Pinlac - 165 SCRA 675
People v. Bacamante - 248 SCRA 47
People v. Andan 269 SCRA 95
People v. Montes GR 117166 December 13, 1998
People v. Salcedo 273 SCRA 473
People v. Macoy 275 SCRA 1
People v. Arceo - 202 SCRA 170
People v. Atrejenio GR 120160 July 13, 1999
Tan v. People, G.R. No. 134298, August 26, 1999
People v. Binamira 277 SCRA 232
People v. Turingan 282 SCRA 424
People v. Pagaura 267 SCRA 17
People v. Quidato GR 117401 October 1, 1998
People v. Sequino 264 SCRA 79
People v. Alicando - 251 SCRA 293
People v. Agustin - 240 SCRA 541
People v. Paglinawan, 324 SCRA 97
People v. Alegria - 190 SCRA 122
People v. Bravo, GR 13562
People v. Bariquit, GR 122733, October 2, 2000
People v. Malimit 264 SCRA 167
People v. Rivera 245 SCRA 421
People v. Meneses 288 SCRA 95
People v. Figueroa, GR 134056, July 6, 2000
People v. Paburada, GR 137118, December 5, 2000
People v. Lapitaje, GR 132042, Feb. 19, 2003
C. Re-enactments
People v. Suarez 267 SCRA 119
D. Applicability to Aliens
People v. Wong Chuen Ming - 256 SCRA 182
E. Verbal Confessions
People v. Deniego 251 SCRA 626
People v. Bonola 274 SCRA 238
People v. Suela, 373 SCRA 163 (confession to private party)
People v. Taboga, 376 SCRA 500 (confession to private party)
64
People v. Baloloy, GE 140740, Apr. 12, 2002 (res gestae)
People v. Guillermo, 420 S 326
F. Co-Accused not Bound
People v. Camat- 256 SCRA 52
I. Admissible Evidence
People v. Espiritu, 302 SCRA 533
People v. Lumandong, 327 SCRA 650
Section 13. All persons, except those charged with offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua
when evidence of guilt is strong, shall, before conviction, be bailable by sufficient sureties, or
be released on recognizance as may be provided by law. The right to bail shall not be
impaired even when the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is suspended. Excessive bail
shall not be required.
I. Right to Bail
Lavides v. CA, 324 SCRA 321
People v. Gako, GR 135045, December 15, 2000
*Yap v. CA, GR 141529, June 6, 2001
Fortuna v. Sitaca, AM No. RTJ-01-1633, June 19, 2001
Jinggoy Estrada v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 148965, February 26, 2002
Govt of USA v. Hon Purganan, GR 148571, Sept. 24, 2002
Serapio v. Sandiganbayan, GR 148468, Jan. 28, 2003
*Govt of Hongkong v. Hon. Olalia, April 19, 2007
People v. Sandiganbayan 529 SCRA 764
Juan Ponce Enrile v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 213847, August 18, 2015
Jinggoy Estrada v. Office of the Ombudsman, G.R. Nos. 212140-41, January 21, 2015
65
IV. Right to Bail of Military Personnel
Commendador v. Gen. de Villa - 200 SCRA 80
Section 14. (1) No person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense without due process
of law.
(2) In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is
proved, and shall enjoy the right to be heard by himself and counsel, to be informed of the
nature and cause of the accusation against him, to have a speedy, impartial, and public trial, to
meet the witnesses face to face, and to have compulsory process to secure the attendance of
witnesses and the production of evidence in his behalf. However, after arraignment, trial may
proceed notwithstanding the absence of the accused provided that he has been duly notified
and his failure to appear is unjustifiable.
Due Process
People v. Boras, GR 127495, December 22, 2000
People v. Horio, GR 137842, August 23, 2001
Macapagal-Arroyo v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 220598, July 21, 2016
Military Tribunal
Olaguer v. Military - 150 SCRA 144
Tan v. Barrios - 190 SCRA 685
Presumption of Innocence
*United States v. Luling - 324 PHIL. 725
People v. Mingoa - 92 PHIL. 856
*Dumlao v. COMELEC - 95 SCRA 392
Pamintuan v. People - 234 SCRA 63
Marquez v. COMELEC 243 SCRA 538
Hizon v. CA 265 SCRA 517
People v. Caranguian, GR 124514, July 6, 2000
People v. Aquino, GR 130742, July 18, 2000
People v. Guillermo, GR 111292, July 20, 2000
People v. Balacano, GR 127156, July 31, 2000
People v. Mansueto, GR 135196, July 31, 2000
Soriano v. Angeles, GR 109920, August 31, 2000
People v. Fajardo, GR 128583, November 22, 2000
Rueda v. Sandiganbayan, GR 129064, November 29, 2000
66
People v. Baulite, G.R. No. 137599, October 8, 2001
!24
Right to Counsel
*People v. Holgado - 86 PHIL. 752
United v. Ash - 413 U. S. 300
People v. Rio 201 SCRA 702
Salaw v. NLRC - 202 SCRA 7
Carillo v. People - 229 SCRA 386
People v. Macagaling - 237 SCRA 299
De Guzman v. Sandiganbayan - 256 SCRA 171
People v. Cuizon - 256 SCRA 329
People v. Cabodoc 263 SCRA 187
People v. Echegaray 267 SCRA 682
Reyes v. CA 267 SCRA 543
People v. Serzo 274 SCRA 553
Dans v. People 285 SCRA 504
Amion v. Chiongson AM No. RTJ-97-1371 January 22, 1999
People v. Ambray GR 127177 February 25, 1999
People v. Bolatete GR 127570 February 25, 1999
People v. dela Cuesta GR 126134 March 2, 1999
People v. Lakindanum GR 127123 March 10, 1999
People v. Cantos GR 129298 April 14, 1999
People v. Alba GR 131858-59 April 14, 1999
People v. Onabia GR 128288 April 20, 1999
People v. Bermas GR 120420 April 21, 1999
People v. Pedres GR 129533 April 30, 1999
People v. Acala GR 127023-25 May 19, 1999
People v. Puertollano GR 122423 June 17, 1999
People v. Bonghanoy GR 124097 June 17, 1999
People v. Larena GR 121205-09 June 29, 1999
People v. Nuez GR 128875 July 8, 1999
People v. Ramilla GR 127485 July 19, 1999
People v. Sesbreno, G.R. No. 121764, September 8, 1999
People v. Santoclides, G.R. No. 109149, December 21, 1999
People v. Salonga, G.R. No. 131131, June 21, 2001
People v. Bagas, G.R. No. 104383, July 12, 2001
People v. Liwanag, G.R. No. 120468, August 15, 2001
People v. Bernas, 377 SCRA 391
People v. Caralipio, GR 137766, Nov. 27, 2002
Sia v. People 504 SCRA 507
67
Briones v. People 588 SCRA 362
Villanueva v. People 644 SCRA 356
Absence of Violation
People v. Aquino, GR 129288, March 30, 2000
Villanueva v. People, GR 135098, April 12, 2000
Presence of Violation
People v. Nadera, 324 SCRA 490
Callangan v. People 493 SCRA 269
Right to Be Informed
*People v. Regala 113 SCRA 613
Enrile v. Salazar - 186 SCRA 217
People v. Taguba - 229 SCRA 188
People v. Barte - 230 SCRA 401
People v. Vitor - 245 SCRA 392
Sabiniano v. CA 249 SCRA 24
People v. Reyes - 242 SCRA 264
People v. Legaspi - 246 SCRA 206
People v. Ramos - 245 SCM 405
People v. Namayan - 246 SCRA 646
Pecho v. People 262 SCRA 518
People v. Laurente - 255 SCRA 543
People v. Rosare 264 SCRA 398
People v. Evangelista - 256 SCRA 611
People v. Cruz 259 SCRA 109
People v. De Guzman 265 SCRA 228
Salud Imson-Souweha v. Rondez 279 SCRA 258
People v. Manansala 273 SCRA 502
People v. Palomar 278 SCRA 114
People v. Ortega 276 SCRA 166
People v. Antido 278 SCRA 425
People v. Sadiosa 290 SCRA 92
People v. Villamor GR 12444 October 7, 1998
People v. Rosare 264 SCRA 398
People v. Llaguno 285 SCRA 124
People v. Bugayong GR 126518 December 2, 1998
People v. Manalili 294 SCRA 220
People v. Dimapilis GR 128619 December 17, 1998
People v. de Guzman 289 SCRA 470
People v. Quitlong 292 SCRA 360
People v. Perez GR 122764 September 24, 1998
People v. Renido 288 SCRA 369
People v. Venerable 290 SCRA 15
People v. Lozano GR 125080 September 25, 1998
People v. Padilla GR 126124 January 20, 1999
People v. Acosta, G.R. No. 142726, October 17, 2001
People v. de la Pena G.R. No. 138358-59 Nov. 19, 2001
People v. Abino, G.R. No. 137288, December 11, 2001
68
People v. Tan, GR 116200-02, June 21, 2001
People v. Tagana, GR 137608-09, July 6, 2001
People v. Alcalde, GR 139225, May 29, 2002
People v. Mejeca, GR 146425, Nov. 21, 2002
People v. Esurina, 374, SCRA 429
People v. Togud, 375 SCRA 291
People v. Espejon, 377 SCRA 412
People v. Lavador, 377 SCRA 424
People v. Hermanes, 379 SCRA 190
People v. Portugal, 379 SCRA 212
People v. Baluya, 380 SCRA 533
People v. Arofo, 380 SCRA 663
People v. Cana, GR 139229, June 6, 2002
People v. Soriano, GR 135027, July 3, 2002
People v. Radam, GR 138395, July 18, 2002
People v. Abala, GR 135858, July, 23, 2002
People v. Romero, GR 137037, Aug. 5, 2002
People v. Magtibay, GR 142985, Aug. 6, 2002
People v. Miclat, GR 137024, Aug. 7, 2002
People v. Guardian, GR 142900, Aug. 7, 2002
People v. Ocampo, GR 145303, Aug. 7, 2002
People v. del Ayre, GR 139788, Oct. 3, 2002
People v. Caliso, GR 131475, Oct. 14, 2002
People v. Buado, GR 137341, Oct. 28, 2002
People v. Alemania, GR 146221, Nov. 13, 2002
People v. Terible, GR 140635, Nov. 18, 2002
People v. Victor, GR 127904, Dec. 5, 2002
People v. Velasquez, 377 SCRA 219
People v. Lachica, GR 143677, May 9, 2002
People v. Sajolga, GR 146684, Aug. 21, 2002
People v. Ramos, GR 142577, Dec. 27, 2002
People v. Mascarinas, GR 144034, May 28, 2002
People v. Sanchez, 375 SCRA 355
People v. Abayon, GR 142874, July, 31, 2002
People v. Gavina, GR 143237, Oct. 28, 2002
People v. Orbita, GR GR 136591, July 11, 2002
Dado v. People, GR 131421, Nov. 18, 2002
Santos v. People, GR 14761, Jan. 20, 2002
People v. Bon, GR 149199, Jan. 28, 2003
People v. Llanto, GR 146458, Jan. 20, 2003
People v. Migrante, GR 147606, Jan. 14, 2003
People v. Dy, GR 115326-37, Jan. 16, 2003
People v. Lapitaje, GR 132042, Feb. 19, 2003
People v. Ostia, GR 131804, Feb. 26, 2003
People v. Ganete, GR 142930, Mar. 28, 2003
Garcia v. People, GR 144785, Sept. 11, 2003
People v. Villanueva, GR 138364, Oct. 15, 2003
!26
Burgos v. Sandiganbayan, GR 123144, Oct. 15, 2003
People v. Rote, GR 146188, Dec. 11, 2003
69
People v. Rata, GR 145523-24, Dec. 11, 2003
Andaya v. People 493 SCRA 539
People v. Estrada 583 SCRA 302
People v. Abella 610 SCRA 19
People v. Pangilinan GR 183090, November 14, 2011
Relationship
People v. Cepedon, 542 S 550
People v. Talan, GR 177354, November 14, 2009
People v. Estrada 610 SCRA 222
People v. Corpuz 577 SCRA 465
People v. Regino 582 SCRA 189
70
People v. Traya, GR 129052, May 31, 2000
People v. Mamac, GR 130332, May 31, 2000
People v. Decena, GR 131843, May 31, 2000
People v. Lomibao, GR 135855, August 3, 2000
People v. Canonigo, GR 133649, August 4, 2000
People v. Cruz, GR 128346-48, August 14, 2000
People v. Watimar, GR 121651-52, August 16, 2000
People v. Gabiana, GR 123543, August 23, 2000
People v. Banihit GR 132045, August 25, 2000
People v. Gutierrez, GR 132772, August 31, 2000
People v. Villanueva, GR 135330, August 31, 2000
People v. Melendres, GR 133999-4001, August 31, 2000
People v. Mendez, GR 132546, July 5, 2000
People v. Alarcon, GR 133191-93, July 11, 2000
People v. Baybado, GR 132136, July 14, 2000
People v. Surilla, GR 129164, July 24, 2000
People v. Campaner, GR 130500, July 26, 2000
People v. Balacano, GR 127156, July 31, 2000
People v. Villaraza, GR 131848-50, September 5, 2000
People v. Baniguid, GR 137714, September 8, 2000
People v. Bali-Balita, GR 134266, September 15, 2000
People v. Cajara, GR 122498, Sepember 27, 2000
People v. Nogar, GR 133946, September 27, 2000
People v. Magtrayo, GR 133480-82, October 4, 2000
People v. Taguba, GR 112792-93, October 6, 2000
People v. De la Cuesta, GR133904, October 5, 2000
People v. Arves, GR 134628, October 13, 2000
People v. Baldino, GR 137269, October 13, 2000
People v. Baltazar, GR 130610, October 16, 2000
People v. Francisco, GR 136252, October 20, 2000
People v. Sarmiento, GR 134768, October 25, 2000
People v. Gallarde, 325 SCRA 835
People v. Crispin, 327 SCRA 167
People v. Paramil, GR 128056-57, March 31, 2000
People v. Gallego, GR 130603, August 15, 2000
People v. Tejada. G.R. No. 126166, July 10, 2001
People v. Lalingjaman, G.R. No. 132714, September 6, 2001
People v. Mercado, G.R. No. 139904, October 12, 2001
Estrada v. Sandiganbayan G.R. No. 148560, Nov. 19, 2001
People v. Marahay, GR 120625-29, Jan. 28, 2003
People v. Montemayor, GR 124474, Jan. 28, 2003
People v. Delim, GR 142773, Jan. 28, 2003
People v. Acosta, GR 140402, Jan. 28, 2003
People v. Caloza, GR 138404-06, Jan. 28, 2003
People v. Layoso, GR 14773-76, Jan. 22, 2003
People v. Baldogo, GR 128106-07, Jan. 24, 2003
People v. De la Cruz, GR 175954, December 16, 2008
People v. De la Cruz, GR 174371, December 11, 2008
Andres v. People 588 SCRA 830
Sambilon v. People 591 SCRA 405
71
Valenzuela v. People 596 SCRA 1
Number of Offenses
People v. Tresballes, G.R. No. 126118, September 21, 1999
People v. Gerona, G.R. No. 126169, December 21, 1999
People v. Pambid, GR 124453, March 15, 2000
People v. Alvero, GR 134536, April 5, 2000
People v. Guiwan GR 117324-8, April 27, 2000
People v. Surilla, GR 129164, July 24, 2000
People v. Rama, 379 SCRA 477
People v. Cuyugan, GR 146641, Nov. 18, 2002
People v. Montinola, 543 SCRA 412
No Violation
People v. Escoro, 376 SCRA 670
People v. Pascual, 379 SCRA 235
People v. Conde, 380 SCRA 159
People v. Miranda, GR 142566, Aug. 8, 2002
People v. Roque, GR 130569, Aug. 14, 2002
People v. Segovia, GR 138974, Sept. 29, 2002
People v. Caralipio, GR 137766, Nov. 27, 2002
People v. Cantomayor, GR 145522, Dec. 5, 2002
People v. sarazan, GR 123269-72, Jan. 22, 2003
People v. Taperla, GR 142860, Jan. 16, 2003
People v. Lizada, GR 143468-71, Jan. 24, 2003
People v. Dy, GR 115326-37, Jan.16, 2003
72
Batulanan v. People 502 SCRA 35
People v. Corpuz 482 SCRA 435
Soledad v. People 644 SCRA 258
Torres v. People 655 SCRA 720
Impartiality of a Judge
Soriano v. Angeles, GR 109920, August 31, 2000
Almendra v. Asis, AM RTJ-1550, April 6, 2000
People v. Zheng Bai Hui, GR 127580, August 22, 2000
73
People v. Genosa, GR 135981, September 29, 2000
Uy v. Judge Flores, RTJ-12-2332, 2014
Compulsory Process
Fajardo v. Garcia - 98 SCRA 514
People v. Yambot, GR 120350, October 13, 2000
Relative to CA, G.R. SP NO. 108807 OCA IPI No. 14-220-CA-J, March 17, 2015
Admissibility of Evidence
People v. Morial, G.R. No. 129295, August 15, 2001
People v. Tulin, G.R. No. 111709, August 30, 2001
Section 15. The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended except in cases
of invasion or rebellion when the public safety requires it.
Section 16. All persons shall have the right to a speedy disposition of their cases before all
judicial, quasi-judicial, or administrative bodies
74
Bolalin v. Occiano 266 SCRA 203 (violation)
Angchangco v. Ombudsman 268 SCRA 301 (violation)
Lambino v. De Vera 275 SCRA 60
Duterte v. Sandiganbayan 289 SCRA 721(preliminary investigation, violation)
Marcos v. Sandiganbayan GR 126995 October 6, 1998 (violation)
Roque v. Ombudsman GR 129978 May 12, 1999 (violation)
Cervantes v. Sandiganbayan GR 108595 May 18, 1999 (violation)
Dansal v. Fernandez, 327 SCRA 145 ( no violation )
Domingo v. Sandiganbayan, 322 SCRA 655 (no violation)
Castillo v. Sandiganbayan, GR 109271, March 14, 2000 (no violation)
Raro v. Sandiganbayan, GR 108431, July 14, 2000
Dela Pena v. Sandiganbayan, G. R. No. 144542, June 29, 2001
Lopez v. Ombudsman, G.R. No. 140529, September 6, 2001
Lee v. People, Gr137914, Dec. 4, 2002
People v. Monje, GR 146689, Sept. 27, 2002
Ty-Dazo v. Sandiganbayan, 374 SCRA 200
Guiani v. Sandiganbayan, GR 146897, Aug. 6, 2002 (delay in preliminary
investigation)
Avilla v. Reyes 479 SCRA 334
Enriquez v. Office of OMB, 545 SCRA 618
OMB v. Jurado, 561 SCRA 135
Perea v. People, 544 SCRA 532
Gaas v. Mitmug, 553 SCRA 335
Roquera v. Chancellor 614 SCRA 723
Lumanog v. People 630 SCRA 42
75
Benares v. Lim 511 SCRA 100
**Standard Chartered v. Senate 541 SCRA 546
Dela Cruz v. People of the Phil. GR No. 200748, July 23 2014
Section 18. (1) No person shall be detained solely by reason of his political beliefs and
aspirations.
(2) No involuntary servitude in any form shall exist except as a punishment for a crime
whereof the party shall have been duly convicted.
Section 19. (1) Excessive fines shall not be imposed, nor cruel, degrading or inhuman
punishment inflicted. Neither shall death penalty be imposed, unless, for compelling reasons
involving heinous crimes, the Congress hereafter provides for it. Any death penalty already
imposed shall be reduced to reclusion perpetua.
(2) The employment of physical, psychological, or degrading punishment against any
prisoner or detainee or the use of substandard or inadequate penal facilities under subhuman
conditions shall be dealt with by law.
Section 20. No person shall be imprisoned for debt or non-payment of a poll tax.
Section 21. No person shall be twice put in jeopardy of punishment for the same offense. If
an act is punished by a law and an ordinance, conviction or acquittal under either shall
constitute a bar to another prosecution for the same act.
76
Attachment of jeopardy
*People v. Ylagan - 58 PHIL. 851
People v. Balisacan - L-26376
Cinco v. Sandiganbayan - 202 SCRA 726
People v, Vergara - 221 SCRA 560
Navallo v. Sandiganbayan - 234 SCRA 175
Galvez v. CA - 237 SCRA 685
Cunanan v. Arceo - 242 SCRA 88
People v. Tampal - 244 SCRA 202
People v. Montesa - 248 SCRA 641
De La Rosa v. CA 253 SCRA 499
People v. Leviste - 255 SCRA 238
People v. Cawaling 293 SCRA 267
Cudia v. CA 284 SCRA 173
Tecson v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 123045, November 16, 1999
Dimatulac v. Villon GR 127107 October 12, 1999
People v. Maquiling GR 128986 June 21, 1999
People v. Nitafan GR 707964-66 February 1, 1999
!31
Binay v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 120681, October 1, 1999
Limpangog v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 134229, November 26, 1999
Flores v. Joven, GR 129874, Dec. 27, 2002
Miranda v. Tuliao 486 SCRA 377
Cabo v. Sandiganbayan 491 SCRA 264
Romualdez v. Marcelo 497 SCRA 89
People v. Terrado, 558 SCRA 84 (acquittal not reviewable)
People v. CA 626 SCRA 352
People v. CA, G.R. No. 183652, 2015
77
People v. Verra, GR 134732
Merciales v. CA, 379 SCRA 345
Poso v. Mijares, AM No. RTJ-02-1693, Aug. 21, 2002
People v. Alberto, GR 132374, Aug. 22, 2002
Condrada v. People, GR 141646, Feb. 28, 2003
People v. Romero, GR144156, March 20, 2003
People v. Espinosa, GR 153714, Aug. 15, 2003
Oriente v. People 513 SCRA 348
Pacoy v. Cajigal 534 SCRA 338
Summerville v. Eugenio 529 SCRA 274
Herrera v. Sandiganbayan 579 SCRA 32
Javier v. Sandiganbayan 599 SCRA 324
Co v. Lim 604 SCRA 702
Lejano v. People 639 SCRA 760
Bangayon v. Bangayon, GR 172777, October 19, 2011
Goodland v. Co, GR 196685, December 18, 2011
Same Offenses
*People v. Tiozon - 198 SCRA 368
Lamera v. CA - 198 SCRA 186
Gonzales v. CA - 232 SCRA 667
People v. Turda - 233 SCRA 702
People v. Manungas - 231 SCRA 1
People v. Deunida - 231 SCRA 520
People v. Fernandez - 239 SCRA 174
People v. Quijada 259 SCRA 191
People v. Ballabare 264 SCRA 350
People v. Calonzo 262 SCRA 534
People v. Benemerito 264 SCRA 677
People v. Tobias 266 SCRA 229
People v. Manoyco 269 SCRA 513
People v. Tan Tiong Meng 271 SCRA 125
People v. Sadiosa 290 SCRA 92
People v. Sanchez 291 SCRA 333
People v. Saley 291 SCRA 715
!32
People v. Juego GR 123162 October 13, 1998
People v. Ganadin GR 129441 November 27, 1998
People v. Balasa GR 106357 September 3, 1998
Paluay v. CA 293 SCRA 358
People v. Mercado 304 SCRA 504
People v. Yabut, G.R. No. 115719, October 5, 1999
People v. Ong, 322 SCRA 38
People v. Meris, GR 117145-50, March 28, 2000
People v. Logan, G.R. No. 135030-33, July 20, 2001.
Potot v. People, GR 143547, June 26, 2002
78
People v. CA, 423 SCRA 605
Ramiscal v. Sandiganbayan 499 SCRA 375
People v. Comila 517 SCRA 153
Diaz v. Davao 520 SCRA 481
Merencillo v. People 521 SCRA 31
Lapasaran v. People 578 SCRA 658
*Ivler v. Modesto 635 SCRA 191
People v. Ocden 650 SCRA 124
People v. Lalli, GR 195419, October 12, 2011 (trafficking in person)
Parties
Metrobank v. Meridiano, G.R. No. 118251, June 29, 2001
Ordinance and Statute
*People v. Relova - 148 SCRA 292
Applied to Impeachment
*Estrada v. Desierto, GR 146710-15 and GR 146738, March 2, 2001and MR-GR
146710-15 and 146738, April 3, 2001
People v. Logan, G.R. No. 135030-33, July 20, 2001.
79
People v. Nitafan, GR 107964-66 February 1, 1999
Fajardo v. CA, GR 128508 February 1, 1999
People v. Valdez, GR 127663 March 11, 1999
People v. Ringor, G.R. No. 123918, December 9, 1999
People v. Magbanua, G.R. No. 128888, December 3, 1999
Republic v. Desierto, GR 136506, Aug. 23, 2001
People v. Torres - 501 SCRA 591
Salvador v. Mapa - ____SCRA 34 [2008]
Republic v. Eugenio - 545 SCRA 384
Valeroso v. People - 546 SCRA 450
Presidential v. Desierto - 548 SCRA
Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) v. Carpio Morales, 740 SCRA 368
(2014)
Paragraph (3)
*Co. v. Electoral Tribunal - 199 SCRA 692
*Republic v. Sagun 666 SCRA 321
Paragraph (4)
So v. Republic 513 SCRA 267
Go v. Republic, G.R. No. 202809, 729 SCRA 138, July 2 2014
Republic of the Philippines v. Huang Te Fu, G.R. No. 200983, 2015
Loss of Citizenship
*Yu v. Defensor-Santiago - 169 SCRA 364
Frivaldo v. COMELEC - 174 SCRA 245
*Frivaldo v. COMELEC 257 SCRA 727
Labo, Jr, v. COMELEC - 176 SCRA 1
80
*Labo, Jr, v. COMELEC 211 SCRA 297
Aznar v. Osmena - 185 SCRA 703
*Mercado v. Manzano GR 135083 May 26, 1999
Tabaso v. CA 500 SCRA 9
David v. Agbay, G.R. No. 199113, March 18, 2015
Poe-Llamanzares v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 221697, March 8, 2016
No Collateral Attack
Vilando v. HRET 656 SCRA 17
Section 2. Natural-born citizens are those who are citizens of the Philippines from birth
without having to perform any act to acquire or perfect their Philippine citizenship. Those
who elect Philippine citizenship in accordance with paragraph (3), Section 1 hereof shall be
deemed natural-born citizens.
Section 3. Philippine citizenship may be lost or reacquired in the manner provided by law.
Section 4. Citizens of the Philippines who marry aliens shall retain their citizenship, unless
by their act or
omission they are deemed, under the law, to have renounced it.
Section 5. Dual allegiance of citizens is inimical to the national interest and shall be dealt
with by law.
RA 9225 An Act Making the Citizenship of Philippine Citizen who Acquire Foreign
Citizenship Permanent
*AASJS-Calilung v. Datumanong, G.R. No. 160869, May 11, 2007
Article V. SUFFRAGE
Section 1. Suffrage may be exercised by all citizens of the Philippines not otherwise
disqualified by law, who are at least eighteen years of age, and who shall have resided in the
Philippines for at least one year and in the place wherein they propose to vote for at least six
months immediately preceding the election.No literacy, property, or other substantive
requirement shall be imposed on the exercise of suffrage.
Section 2. The Congress shall provide a system for securing the secrecy and sanctity of the
ballot as well as a system for absentee voting by qualified Filipinos abroad.
The Congress shall also design a procedure for the disabled and the illiterates to vote without
the assistance of other persons. Until then, they shall be allowed to vote under existing laws
and such rules as the Commission on Elections may promulgate to protect the secrecy of the
ballot.
81
Labo, Jr, v. COMELEC (supra, Citizenship)
Romualdez v. RTC 226 SCRA 408
The Diocese of Bacolod v. Comelec, GR No. 205728, 747 SCRA 1, Jan 21, 2015
Section 1. The Congress shall give highest priority to the enactment of measures that protect
and enhance the right of all the people to human dignity, reduce social, economic, and
political inequalities, and remove cultural inequities by equitably diffusing wealth and
political power for the common good.
To this end, the State shall regulate the acquisition, ownership, use, and disposition of
property and its increments.
Section 2. The promotion of social justice shall include the commitment to create economic
opportunities based on freedom of initiative and self-reliance.
LABOR
Section 3. The State shall afford full protection to labor, local and overseas, organized and
unorganized, and promote full employment and equality of employment opportunities for all.
It shall guarantee the rights of all workers to self-organization, collective bargaining and
negotiations, and peaceful concerted activities, including the right to strike in accordance
with law. They shall be entitled to security of tenure, humane conditions of work, and a living
wage. They shall also participate in policy and decision-making processes affecting their
rights and benefits as may be provided by law.
The State shall promote the principle of shared responsibility between workers and employers
and the preferential use of voluntary modes in settling disputes, including conciliation, and
shall enforce their mutual compliance therewith to foster industrial peace.
The State shall regulate the relations between workers and employers, recognizing the right
of labor to its just share in the fruits of production and the right of enterprises to reasonable
returns to investments, and to expansion and growth.
82
Agrarian Reform
Section 4. The State shall, by law, undertaken an agrarian reform program founded on the
right of farmers and regular farmworkers, who are landless, to own directly or collectively the
lands they till or in the case of other farmworkers, to receive a just share of the fruits thereof.
To this end, the State shall encourage and undertake the just distribution of all agricultural
lands, subject to such priorities and reasonable retention limits as the Congress may
prescribe, taking into account ecological, developmental, or equity considerations, and
subject to the payment of just compensation. In determining retention limits, the State shall
respect the right of small landowners. The State shall further provide incentives for voluntary
land-sharing.
Section 5. The State shall recognize the right of farmers, farmworkers, and landowners, as
well as cooperatives, and other independent farmers' organizations to participate in the
planning, organization, and management of the program, and shall provide support to
agriculture through appropriate technology and research, and adequate financial, production,
marketing, and other support services.
Section 6. The State shall apply the principles of agrarian reform or stewardship, whenever
applicable in accordance with law, in the disposition or utilization of other natural resources,
including lands of the public domain under lease or concession suitable to agriculture, subject
to prior rights, homestead rights of small settlers, and the rights of indigenous communities to
their ancestral lands.
The State may resettle landless farmers and farmworkers in its own agricultural estates which
shall be distributed to them in the manner provided by law.
Section 7. The State shall protect the rights of subsistence fishermen, especially of local
communities, to the preferential use of the communal marine and fishing resources, both
inland and offshore. It shall provide supportto such fishermen through appropriate technology
and research, adequate financial, production, and marketing assistance, and other services.
The State shall also protect, develop, and conserve such resources. The protection shall
extend to offshore fishing grounds of subsistence fishermen against foreign intrusion.
Fishworkers shall receive a just share from their labor in the utilization of marine and fishing
resources.
Section 8. The State shall provide incentives to landowners to invest the proceeds of the
agrarian reform program to promote industrialization, employment creation, and privatization
of public sector enterprises. Financial instruments used as payment for their lands shall be
honored as equity in enterprises of their choice.
83
Urban Land Reform
Section 9. The State shall, by law, and for the common good, undertake, in cooperation with
the private sector, a continuing program of urban land reform and housing which will make
available at affordable cost decent housing and basic services to underprivileged and
homeless citizens in urban centers and resettlement areas. It shall also promote adequate
employment opportunities to such citizens. In the implementation of such program the State
shall respect the rights of small property owners.
Section 10. Urban or rural poor dwellers shall not be evicted nor their dwelling demolished,
except in accordance with law and in a just and humane manner.
No resettlement of urban or rural dwellers shall be undertaken without adequate consultation
with them and the communities where they are to be relocated.
Human Rights
Section 17. (1) There is hereby created an independent office called the Commission on
Human Rights.
(2) The Commission shall be composed of a Chairman and four Members who must be
natural-born citizens of the Philippines and a majority of whom shall be members of the Bar.
The term of office and other qualifications and disabilities of the Members of the
Commission shall provided by law.
(3) Until this Commission is constituted, the existing Presidential Committee on Human
Rights shall continue to exercise its present functions and powers.
(4) The approved annual appropriations of the Commission shall be automatically and
regularly released.
Section 18. The Commission on Human Rights shall have the following powers and
functions:
(1) Investigate, on its own or on complaint by any party, all forms of human rights violations
involving civil and political rights;
(2) Adopt its operational guidelines and rules of procedure, and cite for contempt for
violations thereof in accordance with the Rules of Court;
(3) Provide appropriate legal measures for the protection of human rights of all persons
within the Philippines, as well as Filipinos residing abroad, and provide for preventive
measures and legal aid services to the underprivileged whose human rights have been
violated or need protection;
84
(4) Exercise visitatorial powers over jails, prisons, or detention facilities;
(5) Establish a continuing program of research, education, and information to enhance respect
for the primacy of human rights;
(6) Recommend to the Congress effective measures to promote human rights and to provide
for compensation to victims of violations of human rights, or their families;
(7) Monitor the Philippine Government's compliance with international treaty obligations on
human rights;
(8) Grant immunity from prosecution to any person whose testimony or whose possession of
documents or other evidence is necessary or convenient to determine the truth in any
investigation onducted by it or under its authority;
(9) Request the assistance of any department, bureau, office, or agency in the performance of
its functions;
(10) Appoint its officers and employees in accordance with law; and
(11) Perform such other duties and functions as may be provided by law.
Section 19. The Congress may provide for other cases of violations of human rights that
should fall within the authority of the Commission, taking into account its recommendations.
Article XIV Education, Science and Technology, Arts, Culture and Sports
Section 1. The State shall protect and promote the right of all citizens to quality education at
all levels and shall take appropriate steps to make such education accessible to all.
Section 3. (1) All educational institutions shall include the study of the Constitution as part of
the curricula.
(2) They shall inculcate patriotism and nationalism, foster lover of humanity, respect for
human rights, appreciation of the role of national heroes in the historical development of the
country, teach the rights and duties of citizenship, strengthen ethical and spiritual values,
develop moral character and personal discipline, encourage critical and creative thinking,
broaden scientific and technological knowledge, and promote vocational efficiency.
(3) At the option expressed in writing by the parents or guardians, religion shall be allowed to
be taught to their children or wards in public elementary and high schools within the regular
class hours by instructors designated or approved by the religious authorities of the religion to
which the children or wards belong, without additional cost to the Government.
85
Duty of Institutions
*Miriam College v. CA, GR 127930, December 15, 2000
Section 5. (1) the State shall take into account regional and sectoral needs and conditions and
shall encourage local planning in the development of educational policies and programs.
(2) Academic freedom shall be enjoyed in all institutions of higher learning.
(3) Every citizen has a right to select a profession or course of study, subject to fair,
reasonable, and equitable admission and academic requirements.
(4) The State shall enhance the right of teachers to professional advancement. Non-teaching
academic and non- academic personnel shall enjoy the protection of the State.
(5) The State shall assign the highest budgetary priority to education and ensure that teaching
will attract and retain its rightful share of the best available talents through adequate
remuneration and other means of job satisfaction and fulfillment.
Language
Section 8. This Constitution shall be promulgated in Filipino and English and shall be
translated into major regional languages, Arabic, and Spanish.
86
Science and Technology
Section 10. Science and technology are essential for national development and progress. The
State shall give priority to research and development, invention, innovation, and their
utilization; and to science and technology education, training, and services. It shall support
indigenous, appropriate, and self- reliant scientific and technological capabilities, and their
application to the country's productive systems and national life.
Section 11. The Congress may provide for incentives, including tax deductions, to encourage
private participation in programs of basic and applied scientific research. Scholarships,
grants-in-aid, or other forms of incentives shall be provided to deserving science students,
researchers, scientists, inventors, technologists, and specially gifted citizens.
Section 12. The State shall regulate the transfer and promote the adaptation of technology
from all sources for the national benefit. It shall encourage the widest participation of private
groups, local governments, and community-based organizations in the generation and
utilization of science and technology.
Section 13. The State shall protect and secure the exclusive rights of scientists, inventors,
artists, and other gifted citizens to their intellectual property and creations, particularly when
beneficial to the people, for such period as may be provided by law.
Section 14. The State shall foster the preservation, enrichment, and dynamic evolution of a
Filipino national culture based on the principle of unity in diversity in a climate of free
artistic and intellectual expression.
Section 15. Arts and letters shall enjoy the partronage of the State. The State shall conserve,
promote, and popularize the nation's historical and cultural heritage and resources, as well as
artistic creations.
Section 16. All the country's artistic and historic wealth constitutes the cultural treasure of the
nation and shall be under the protection of the State which may regulate its disposition.
Section 17. The State shall recognize, respect, and protect the rights of indigenous cultural
communities to preserve and develop their cultures, traditions, and institutions. It shall
consider these rights in the formulation of national plans and policies.
Section 18. (1) The State shall ensure equal access to cultural opportunities through the
educational system, public or private cultural entities, scholarships, grants and other
incentives, and community cultural centers, and other public venues.
(2) The State shall encourage and support researches and studies on the arts and culture.
Sports
Section 19. (1) The State shall promote physical education and encourage sports programs,
league competitions, and amateur sports, including training for international competitions, to
foster self-discipline, teamwork, and excellence for the development of a healthy and alert
87
citizenry.
(2) All educational institutions shall undertake regular sports activities throughout the country
in cooperation with athletic clubs and other sectors.
Section 1. The State recognizes the Filipino family as the foundation of the nation.
Accordingly, it shall strengthen its solidarity and actively promote its total development.
Section 2. Marriage, as an inviolable social institution, is the foundation of the family and
shall be protected by the State.
Section 4. The family has the duty to care for its elderly members but the State may also do
so through just programs of social security.
88