CASE NAME DOCTRINE/RATIO

People vs Marti The Bill of Rights establishes the relationship of a person to the State, and defines the rights
of the individual by limiting the lawful powers of the State.
Remegio vs People The Bill of Rights does not govern relationships between individuals; it cannot be invoked
against the acts of private individuals.

Zulueta vs CA However, the Court allowed the invocation of the right to privacy of communication by the
husband against the wife. Hence, the documents gathered from the clinic without his consent
shall be inadmissible in evidence, as provided by Sec. 3(2), Art. III.

Dela Cruz v. People, Involving civilian port personnel conducting security checks, the Supreme Court (SC)
779 SCRA 34 (2016) thoroughly discussed that while the Bill of Rights under Article III of the 1987 Constitution
generally cannot be invoked against the acts of private individuals, the same may
nevertheless be applicable if such individuals act under the color of a state-related function.
EMINENT DOMAIN
Heirs of Moreno v. The Court reiterated that the necessity of expropriation is a matter primarily addressed to the
Mactan-Cebu discretion of the legislative or executive branches, and courts will not interfere unless there is
International Airport clear abuse of discretion.
Authority
Manosca v. Court of The Court ruled that the taking of a parcel of land for conversion into a national shrine is a
Appeals legitimate public purpose. The concept of public use was interpreted expansively to include
cultural and historical preservation
Republic v. Heirs of The Court ruled that the dismissal of the expropriation proceedings was justified due to the
Borbon cessation of the public purpose for which the property was originally taken under the power
of eminent domain. The Court declared that the power of eminent domain is vested in the
government to acquire property for public use, but once the public use is no longer valid or
necessary, the expropriation proceedings must be discontinued.
DUE PROCESS
Mamba vs Bueno Life - this guarantees essentially the right to be alive - upon which the enjoyment of all other
rights is preconditioned.
City of Manila vs Liberty – the right to exist and the right to be free from arbitrary restraint or servitude. It is

1
Laguio, 2005 not merely freedom from physical restraint but also the right to enjoy his facilities, subject
only to restraint that is necessary for the common welfare.
Ynot vs IAC The minimum requirements are notice and hearing.
Nestlè Administrative due process cannot be fully equated with due process in its strict judicial
Philippines, Inc. sense, for in the former a formal or trial type hearing is not always necessary, and technical
v. Benny A. rules of procedure are not strictly applied.
Puedan, Jr., et al.,
G.R. No.
220617, January
30, 2017.
Ang Admin cases: The decision must be rendered in a manner that the parties can know the
Tibay v. Court of various issues involved and the reason for the decision rendered
Industrial
Relations
Lozada vs "rights conferred upon accused persons to participate in preliminary investigations
Hernandez concerning themselves depend upon the provisions of law, rather than upon the phrase ‘due
process of law’."
Sec. of Justice v. Neither the treaty nor the extradition law precludes these rights from a prospective extradite.
Lantion An application of the basic twin due process rights of notice and hearing will not go against
the treaty or the implementing law
Lao Gi Criminal procedure are applicable to deportation proceedings
Chia‖, Sr. v. CA
People vs Totality of Circumstance Test: (1) the witness' opportunity to view the criminal at the time of
Teehankee jr. the crime; (2) the witness' degree of attention at that time; (3) the accuracy of any prior
description given by the witness; (4) the level of certainty demonstrated by the witness at
the identification; (5) the length of time between the crime and the identification; and, (6) the
suggestiveness of the identification procedure.
EQUAL PROTECTION OF LAWS
Quinto vs Why are appointive officials ipso facto resigned when COC is filed, while elective officials are
COMELEC not ipso facto resigned? There is substantial distinction between these two officials. The
nature of the function of elective officials is to be engaged in partisan political activity. The

2
 same is not true for appointive officials.
Imbong vs Ochoa Conscientious objector - government health workers are duty-bound to follow RH law despite
being offensive to their religion, while private health workers are allowed to not follow RH
law.
This is unconstitutional. There is no substantial distinction between public health workers and
private health workers.
Ormoc Sugar v The ordinance imposing 1% per export sale of any and all production of sugar milled at
Treasurer of Ormoc Sugar Co.
Ormoc City Is this invalid? Yes. It is limited to existing conditions only. It does not apply to future
conditions, i.e., when other sugar companies build sugar mills in the future. Further, there is
no substantial distinction between Ormoc Sugar Co, and other sugar milling companies which
will be organized in the future.
Sameer v Cabiles, Thus, when a law or a provision of law is null because it is inconsistent with the Constitution,
2014, Leonen the nullity cannot be cured by reincorporation or reenactment of the same or a similar law or
provision. A law or provision of law that was already declared unconstitutional remains as
such unless circumstances have so changed as to warrant a reverse conclusion.
RIGHTS AGAINST UNREASONABLE SEARCHES AND SEIZURE
(Ople v Torres; 1. Subject test (individual) - the individual, by his conduct, had expectation of privacy; and
Vivares v St 2. Object test (society) - the society recognizes that his expectation is reasonable.
Therese The Rules of Court on privileged communication likewise recognize the privacy of certain
College) information

Stonehill v Diokno The right to be secure is available to aliens and juridical persons.
The right to be secure is a personal right. It may be invoked only by the person entitled to it.
Further, it can only be waived by him.
People vs Marti The protection against unreasonable searches and seizures cannot be extended to acts
committed by private individuals, without intervention of police officers.
Estrada v For warrant of arrest, probable cause during preliminary investigation can be established with
Ombudsman, hearsay evidence.
2015

3
 TESTS/REQUISITES

I. THE POLICE POWER TEST

1. Lawful Subject- The regulation must involve a legitimate subject within the scope of public interest, such
as the health, safety, or morals of society. The measure must be directed toward promoting the general welfare.
2. Lawful Means- The means used must be reasonable and not arbitrary. It must be necessary to accomplish the
purpose of the regulation and not impose unduly harsh or excessive burdens on individuals or property owners.
Tests of Reasonableness:
 The regulation should not be unduly oppressive or confiscatory.
 There should be a reasonable relation between the means employed and the public interest
sought to be protected.

II. POWER OF EMINENT DOMAIN TEST:

1. There is a public necessity;

2. It must involve the Taking of the property by the government, whether actual or constructive;
3. What is taken must be private property, except money and choses in action;
4. The taking must be for public use;
5. The owner of the private property must be paid Just compensation for the property taken; and
6. Due process must be observed in the taking of the property.

III. DUE PROCESS

Requisites of substantive due process: (PRODUC - Public policy; Regulate trade; Oppressive; Discriminatory;
Unreasonable; Contravene Constitution)
4
 1. It must not contravene the Constitution or any statute;
2. it must be fair, not oppressive;
3. it must not be partial or discriminatory;
4. it must not prohibit but may regulate trade;
5. it must be general and consistent with public policy; and
6. it must not be unreasonable.

Tests of judicial scrutiny in relation to substantive due process:

1. Strict Scrutiny- applies when it interferes with fundamental rights, or burdens suspect classes 1. Compelling
state interest; 2. The means used is least restrivtive means
2. Intermediate Scrutiny- does not involve suspect classes or fundamental rights, such as gender or legitimacy
1. There must be an important governmental objective; 2. The means is substantially related to the achievement of
such objective
3. Rational basis- applies to all other subjects not covered by the first two tests 1. There be a legitimate
government interest; 2. Reasonable connection between it and the means employed

NOTE: In the Bar, you can use either the requisites of police power or the tests of judicial scrutiny. The applicable
requisites must change depending on the categorial question. Do not use the tests of police power if the
question is “was due process violated.”

Procedural Due Process- The minimum requirements are notice and hearing. (Ynot v IAC, 1987)

Judicial 1. Judicial Power

2. Jurisdiction over the person
3. Opportunity to be heard
4. Judgment lawful hearing
Administrative Presentation:
1. Right to present
2. Independent Consideration (Doctrine of Primary Jurisdiction)
2. Consider evidence

5
 Decision
1. Substantial evidence
2. Support
3. Based on evidence presented
4. Know the issues and reasons (Ang Tibay vs Court of Industrial Relations

Educational Informed Charge

Institution 1. Informed writing
2. Right to answer with assistance of counsel

Informed evidence
1. Informed evidence
2. Right to adduce evidence
3. Evidence duly considered (ADMU vs Capulong)

Preliminary See Lozada vs Hernandez

Investigation
Extradition See Sec of Justice vs Lantion
Deportation See case Lao Gi Chia Sr. vs CA
FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND EXPRESSION
(Diocese of Bacolod The freedom of expression applies to the ENTIRE continuum of speech, from utterances
v made to conduct enacted, and even inaction itself as a symbolic manner of
COMELEC, 2015) communication.

The size of the tarpaulin matters. Bigger size enhances efficiency in communication, it
underscores the importance of the message to the reader, and it can state more
messages.

While it is true that the present petition assails not a law but an opinion by the COMELEC
Law Department, this court has applied Article III, Section 4 of the Constitution even to
governmental acts. (Diocese of Bacolod v COMELEC, 2015, Leonen)

6
Malabanan v Does the freedom of speech apply against private individuals? Yes. While the educational
Ramento institution has academic freedom to admit or expel students, it cannot violate the freedom
of expression.

Totality of Circumstance Test (see People vs Teehankee)

(1) the witness' opportunity to view the criminal at the time of the crime;
(2) the witness' degree of attention at that time;
(3) the accuracy of any prior description given by the witness;
(4) the level of certainty demonstrated by the witness at the identification;
(5) the length of time between the crime and the identification; and,
(6) the suggestiveness of the identification procedure.

IV. EQUAL PROTECTION OF LAWS

Requisites for valid/reasonable classification (SGEE)

1. Substantial distinction which makes for real differences
2. Germane to the purpose of law
3. Not limited to Existing conditions
4. Applies Equally to all members of the same class.

Levels of scrutiny to determine if classification/distinction is reasonable

NOTES:

1. The notes mentioned in substantive due process shall apply here.

2. If there is valid classification, we stick to the requisites.
3. If there is invalid classification, we stick to the requisites. In
addition, we use the levels of scrutiny to prove the absence of
substantial distinction.

V. RIGHTS AGAINST UNREASONABLE SEARCHES AND SEIZURES

How to determine if right to privacy was violated? “Reasonable expectation of privacy”

7
 The "reasonable expectation of privacy" test is used to determine if the right to privacy was violated.

It involves a two-part test:

1. Subject test (individual) - the individual, by his conduct, had expectation of privacy; and
2. Object test (society) - the society recognizes that his expectation is reasonable. (Ople v Torres; Vivares v St
Therese College)

INTRUSION, when allowed:

1. By lawful order of the court
2. When public safety or order requires otherwise, as may be provided by law

For public figures, the right to privacy is NOT absolute

1. That a person is a public figure
2. That the information sought to be elicited from him/her or to be published about him constitute matters of
public character

SEARCHES AND SEIZURES, when reasonable:

1. There must be a valid warrant
2. A valid warrantless search/arrest

Requisites of a valid warrant (PPOP)

1. Probable cause
2. Determined Personally by a Judge after examination
3. Under Oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce
4. Particularly describing the place to be searched and the person or things to be seized. (Sec. 2, Art. III)

FOR SEARCH WARRANT

The test of particularity for the place to be searched

8
 1. Whether the description is sufficient and descriptive enough to prevent a search of other premises located
within the surrounding area or community. (Diaz v People, 2020)

The tests of particularity of the things to be seized are as follows:

1. When the description described therein is as specific as the circumstances will ordinarily allow;
2. When the description expresses conclusion of fact, not of law, by which the warrant officer may be guided in
making the searches and seizures;
3. When the things described are limited to those which bear direct relation to the offense for which the
warrant is being issued.

CONSENTED SEARCHES
To determine if there is “consent,” the totality of the circumstances must be determined, such as
1. the age of the defendant;
2. whether the defendant was in a public or a secluded location;
3. whether the defendant objected to the search or passively looked on;
4. the education and intelligence of the defendant;
5. the presence of intimidating/coercive police procedures, and others.

NOTE: Lean towards NO consent, since there is always a presence of intimidating or coercive environment
brought about by
the police.

SEARCH INCIDENT TO LAWFUL ARREST (Rule 126 sec 13)

General Rule: There first be a lawful arrest before a search can be made. In other words, a valid arrest must
precede the search, the process cannot be reversed.

The search may be made only within the permissible area of search, or the place within the immediate
control of the person being arrested (Espano vs CA)

How to determine if there is a lawful arrest? We check if there is

1) a warrant of arrest

9
2) an in flagrante delicto arrest
3) a hot pursuit.
NOTE: If none is present, the search incidental to the arrest is invalid because the arrest was UNLAWFUL

Exceptions:
1. Stop-and-Frisk- When there is a genuine reason (to stop-and-frisk), in light of the police officer‘s
experience and surrounding conditions, to warrant a belief that the person detained is committing a crime.
A mere suspicion or a hunch will not validate a stop-and-frisk

There must be atleast two (2) or more suspicious circumstances. A reasonable inference must be deduced
from the totality of circumstances to justify further investigation by the arresting officer.

Requisites of Plain View Doctrine: (PIAF)

1. The executing law enforcement officer has a prior justification for an initial intrusion or otherwise properly in a
position from which he can view a particular order; (Prior justification for initial intrusion)
2. The officer must discover incriminating evidence inadvertently; (Inadvertent discover)
3. It must be immediately apparent to the police that the items they observe may be evidence of a crime,
contraband, or otherwise
subject to seizure; AND (Immediately apparent evidence of crime)
4. Plain view justified the seizure of evidence without further search. (Without further search)

In flagrante delicto:
In in flagrante delicto arrest, two (2) elements must concur: (OP)
1. The person to be arrested must execute an Overt act indicating that he has/actually
committing/attempting to commit a crime; and

10
 2. Such overt act is done in the Presence or within the view of the arresting officer. (Veridiano v People,
2017, Leonen)

Hot pursuit:
Three (3) important elements must concur;
1. Immediacy test - Crime has “just” been committed
2. Probable cause - actual belief or reasonable grounds of suspicion
3. Personal knowledge - of the facts and circumstances
The elements must be present. Otherwise, the arrest may be nullified, and resultantly, the items yielded through
the search incidental thereto will be rendered inadmissible in consonance with the exclusionary rule of the 1987
Constitution. (Pestilos v Generoso, 2014)

PRIVACY OF COMMUNICATIONS AND CORRESPONDENCE

See discussion of privacy

FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND EXPRESSION

Content-based regulation is subject to clear and present danger test and strict scrutiny test.

Clear and present danger test - It means that speech may not be restrained, unless there is a clear and present
danger that the speech will likely lead to a substantial evil, which the State has a right to prevent. (Chavez v
Gonzales, 2008)

Strict scrutiny test - Three (3) requisites: (CLN)

1. Compelling State interest;
2. Least restrictive means; and
3. Narrowly tailored to the accomplish the interest

11
Content-neutral regulation is subject to intermediate scrutiny test (O’Brien Test). (CSUG)
1. Within Constitutional power of government;
2. Substantial governmental interest;
3. Interest is Unrelated to the suppression of free expression;
4. Restriction is no Greater than is essential to further the interest.

Obscenity/pornography
1. What is the test employed to determine the presence of obscenity?
Miller test (most recent)
1. Appeal to prurient interest - Whether to the average person, applying the contemporary community
standards, the dominant theme of the material appeals to the prurient interest.
2. Patently offensive - Whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct
specifically defined by the law
3. Lacks value - Whether the work lacks serious literary, political, or scientific value. (Fernando v CA, 2006,
quoting Miller v California, 1973)

Commercial Speech

The requisites for a valid regulation of commercial speech are as follows:

1. Speech must not be false, misleading, or proposing an illegal activity
2. Government interest sought to be served by regulation must be substantial
3. The regulation must advance government interest
4. The regulation must not be overbroad. (Central Hudson Gas v Public Service Commission, 1980)

Requisites to determine if the right to information can be availed of:

1. The nature of the information sought is a matter of public concern;
2. The information is not exempted by law/jurisprudence from the constitutional guarantee
3. It is not available when the purpose is unlawful or sheer, idle curiosity. (Subido v Ozaeta)

FREEDOM OF RELIGION

12
It has been proposed that basically, a creed must meet four (4) criteria to qualify as religion under the First
Amendment. (BMSA); (Belief in God; Moral code; Sincerity in belief; Some association ties)

Test to Determine if the establishment clause was NOT violated:

1. Purpose Prong - The statute has a Secular legislative purpose.
2. Effect Prong - Its Principal or primary effect is one that neither advances nor inhibits religion (incidental is
allowed)
3. Entanglement Prong - It does not foster an excessive government Entanglement with religion. (Lemon v
Kurtzman, 1971)

LIBERTY OF ABODE AND FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT

What are the rights under Sec. 12, Art. III?

1. Right to be informed of the following rights
2. Right to remain silent
3. Right to independent and competent counsel, preferably of his own choice
4. Right to be provided with counsel, if he cannot afford the services of one
5. Not to be subjected to force, violence, threat or intimidation which vitiates free will;
6. Confessions or admissions obtained in violation of these rights are inadmissible in evidence.

13