CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II 

RECIT QUESTIONS 
* = important 
  
C I T I Z E N S H I P (ART. IV, 1987 CONSTITUTION) 
● Caram Rule; Section 1(2) of 1935 Constitution* 
● Chinese parents elected to public office, what is the 
citizenship of the child 
● Who are natural-born citizens 
● Modes of acquiring/losing citizenship 
● 2 Kinds of Filipino citizens 
● Jus soli and jus sanguinis 
● RA 9225 (Difference between re-acquisition and retention of 
citizenship)* 
● RA 9225 vs Naturalization (Sec 4, Art IV) 
● Presumption on Foundlings (international law) 
● Dual Citizenship vs Dual Allegiance 
● When is renunciation of allegiance to another country 
required 
● Oath of Allegiance to acquire PH citizenship 
● Oath of Allegiance in Certificate of Candidacy = implied 
renunciation (Mercado vs Manzano) 
● Citizenship of an illegitimate child 
● Citizenship of a minor child 
● Indelible Allegiance 
● Repatriation 
● Time & age of filing for reacquisition/retention of citizenship 
  
Cases discussed 
  David vs Senate Electoral Tribunal* 
  Tecson vs Comelec* 
  Poe-Llamanzares vs Comelec 
  Bengson vs HRET* 
  Mercado vs Manzano* 
  In Re: Application for Philippine Bar 
  Maquiling vs Comelec 
  
  
 
 
 
  
 P O L I C E P O W E R 
● Police power (and other inherent powers of the State) still 
valid even without Constitutional grant? → YES! 
● Characteristics of Police Power 
● Scope of Police Power (and Limitation): Due Process and 
Equal Protection clauses in Consti 
● Requisites of Valid Exercise (lawful subject and lawful 
means)* 
● Who can exercise police power? → Legislative branch 
● Tests of Valid Delegation of Power (Completeness and 
Sufficient Standard Test)* 
● Can MMDA exercise police power? 
  
  WHITE LIGHT CORP. VS CITY OF MANILA​!!! (memorize requisites ahu)*** 
·  Exceptions to suit??? I forgot the question hehe (Overbreath, 
Taxpayer’s suit, Citizens’ suit, Third Party) pls correct huhu 
·  Requisites of a valid ordinance ​(must not…) 
·  Requisites of Third Party Standing​ (injury, close relationship, 
hindrance) 
·  Requisites of valid classification of equal protection​ (germane, 
substantial distinctions, same class, future conditions) 
·  Requisites of judicial review ​(actual case or controversy, lis 
mota, locus standi, earliest opportunity) 
  
Cases discussed 
  White Light Corp trilogy* 
  Calalang vs Williams 
  Ynot vs IAC 
  MMDA vs Garin 
  DECS vs San Diego 
  Southern Luzon Drug Corp vs DSWD 
  Assoc. of Small Landowners vs DAR* 
  
E M I N E N T D O M A I N 
● Definition 
● Assoc of Small Landowners 
Revolutionary expropriation (JC can be in forms other than 
money) 
● What is just compensation 
● Formula for just compensation: 
JC = FMV + (Consequential Damages – Consequential 
Benefits) 
 Qualifier: Consequential Benefits should not exceed Consequential 
Damages 
● What are consequential damages, benefits 
● Determination of just compensation as a judicial function 
● Public use (Manosca vs CA) 
● When is just compensation computed* 
● Can money be expropriated? NO; money will also be used for 
JC, it won’t make sense 
● Can President exercise eminent domain? YES; Administrative 
Code (and not inherent power) 
● Just compensation to be paid within 5 years (Republic vs 
Lim) 
● General vs Specific Grant of Power to LGUs to exercise 
eminent domain (City of Manila vs Chinese Community of 
Manila)* 
● Requisites of taking​!!! (EMAPOD)* 
● Requisites of inferior domain by LGU (Mun. of Parañaque vs 
VM Realty Corp); eminent domain can only be exercised by 
LGU thru ordinance and not resolution 
  
Cases discussed 
  Assoc of Small Landowners vs DAR* 
  Manosca vs CA 
  Sumulong vs Guerrero 
  People vs Fajardo 
  City of Manila vs Chinese Community of Manila* 
  Municipality of Parañaque vs VM Realty Corp. 
  PH Press Institute vs Comelec; TELEBAP vs Comelec 
  Republic vs vda. De Castellvi* 
  Republic vs Lim* 
*Rule 67, Rules of Court 
  
Important: Assoc. of Small Landowners, police power or eminent domain? 
ANS: BOTH. 
  Imposition of Retention limits on landowners – police power 
  Expropriation of land for public use – eminent domain 
  
  
 
 
 
 
B I L L O F R I G H T S 
● Flight attendant terminated by Air Asia because she gained weight 
Can you invoke equal protection against Air Asia?  
NO, because equal protection can only apply to gov’t acts and 
not to private companies 
● Situation of revolutionary government, Du30 orders warrantless search 
of motels to prevent drug use, prostitution, etc. Bill of Rights not in effect. 
Can you object to the search even without Bill of Rights?  
​YES, by virtue of international law ​(pls clarify hehe) 
  
  
  
   
   
  
  
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ONLINE CLASS [29 APRIL 2020] 
 
Section 2. The right 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. 
 
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. 

● What are the four instances in Criminal Procedure regarding probable 

cause? 
Preliminary investigation - fiscal investigates  
Search warrant 
Warrant of arrest 
Warrantless arrest 
 
● The searches and seizures provision in the 1973 Constitution was 
changed a little bit in the 1987 Constitution. Give 1 difference.  
deleted “personally" 
 
● Any other difference between the 1973 and 1987 Constitution on 
searches and seizures? 
deleted “such other responsible officer may be authorized by law” 
Only Judge could issue warrant of arrest/search warrant 
 
● Is the judge required to personally examine the complainant and the 
witnesses he may produce in issuing ​warrants of arrests​?  
NO.  
Executive, Judicial Determination 
Judge will just read the documents sent by fiscal 
 
● Is the judge required to personally examine the complainant and the 
witnesses he may produce in issuing ​search warrants​? 
 YES. 
Issuance in search warrant stricter than in warrant of arrest - judge will 
examine personally (searching questions and answers) 
 
● Can warrants of arrest be issued by the Commissioner of Immigration?  
YES. Morano vs Vivo 
Incidental to prosecution of the accused (violation of immigration laws) 
Today: Not warrants of arrest but mission orders (but if ever, dapat 
pwede) 
Not for criminal action/prosecution but for commissioner to enforce 
immigration laws 
Aliens entitled to bill of rights but to a lesser degree 
 
 
● For purposes of issuing a warrant of arrest, can a judge not issue a 
warrant of arrest because the evidence was insufficient to establish a 
prima facie case? You have 10 seconds. 
YES. ​People vs Lorenzo  
Prima facie = probable cause 
 
 
● A policeman arrested Bon Ivers upon recognizing him saying that Bon 
Ivers has an existing warrant of arrest issued against him which the 
policeman left in his office. The wife of Bon Ivers was recording the 
incident and kept shouting “YOU CANNOT ARREST HIM. YOU DO NOT 
HAVE A WARRANT OF ARREST WITH YOU.” Is the wife correct?   
YES (Sec 7, Rule 113, Rules of Court) 
search warrant dapat hawak 
 
● Warrantless arrest 
1. In flagrante delicto 
2. Hot pursuit 
Important element of hot pursuit: immediacy 
3. Escapees 
 
● Muning Muni was arrested without a warrant, 2 days after kidnapping 
Sayo Marilag, a 2 year old kid. Muning Muni carrying the sleeping Sayo 
Marilag. on board a bus, was recognized by a policeman who watched 
the news and immediately arrested. Is the warrantless arrest valid?  
YES. Continuing offense 
 
 ● Is manual touching of the body required to consider a person under 
arrest? 
NO. Arrest could not only physical restraint; may also be submission to 
custody 
 
● For an arrest in flagrante delicto to be made, is it required that the 
police officer actually see the offense committed with his own eyes 
NO. People vs Sucro 
 
● Is a search warrant required for policemen to search a prison cell? 
Legal basis. 
NO. Sec 2 “against unreasonable searches and seizures" 
Reduced expectation of privacy inside prison cells 
As long as reasonable - di kelangan ng warrant  
 
● After 10 days -​ search warrant is VOID 
● Search warrant during nighttime ​- FALSE (unless gumagalaw yung pede 
i-search) 
 
● A search warrant was issued for “violations of the revised penal code, 
the customs laws, and the immigration laws.” What do you call such 
search warrants? 
Scattershot warrants 
Why are scattershot warrants void? - ​no basis of probable cause 
 
 
● It used to be that things illegally seized can still be used as evidence 
because the accused should not be acquitted just because the 
policemen made a mistake. This was the old doctrine in common law 
countries and even in the Philippines. In one sentence, what is the 
justification why such doctrine was abandoned?   
To protect constitutionally guaranteed right 
 
● Is a search warrant which misspells the name of the person who owns 
the place to be searched valid? 
YES. technical precision not needed 
 
STONEHILL VS DIOKNO 
How can corporations assail a warrant? - Special Power of Attorney or 
certificate from Board of Directors 
 
 ● Jane Doe warrants not prohibited ​as long as person is sufficiently 
described 
● Technical precision not needed in search warrant 
 
● Brgy Tanod serves as private individual in preventing unreasonable 
search and seizure?  
NO. He is an Agent of a person-in-authority 
See Del Castillo vs People 
 
● Di kasama sa search warrant yung lugar na hahanapan - inadmissible  
 
● The Search warrant authorized the confiscation of marijuana. 
Marijuana and a pistol were confiscated by the police. Can the 
marijuana be admitted in court? 
YES. Search warrant is severable 
 
● How many suspicious circumstances are required for a stop and frisk? 
More than 1 = at least 2 
 
● Probable cause is not required to conduct a stop and frisk but only a 
genuine reason (totality of circumstances in front of police officer) 
People v Sison​ (erroneous ruling by J. Leonen, probable cause not basis 
of stop and frisk) 
 
● Imagine that you are a police officer and based on your gut feel the 
person in front of you has drugs hidden inside his clothes. However, 
there is only 1 suspicious circumstance present. What should you do so 
you can conduct a stop-and-frisk? 2 points. 
KEEP ON ASKING QUESTIONS UNTIL YOU CAN FIND A SUSPICIOUS 
CIRCUMSTANCE  
 
DISINI VS SECRETARY OF JUSTICE 
Secretary of Justice cannot be given authority to block net access, only judges 
 
● Random mandatory drug test for ​senators​ - VOID; you are adding to 
constitutional requirements 
Students ​- yes; locus parenti 
Employees​ - reduced expectation of privacy; company policy 
​ awal na ang drug testing for any crime  
Dela Cruz case: b
 
What’s wrong with ​ZULUETA VS CA 
You cannot invoke the Bill of Rights against a private person 
 
● Shabu was confiscated inside the house of the accused by virtue of a 
search warrant​. The policemen, knowing that the accused was known to 
be a robber, searched for other incriminating evidence. They went out 
of the house and saw in plain view, 3 homemade guns (sumpak). Are 
these homemade guns admissible in evidence against the accused? 
NO. Once shabu is confiscated under search warrant, things under plain 
view are already inadmissible. 
 
STONEHILL VS DIOKNO 
Diokno et all issued scattershot warrants 
Moncado ruling abandoned 
Exclusionary rule adopted  
 
 
Instances of Warrantless Search 
 
1. Incidental to lawful arrest 
Valeroso case​ - search limited only to area of immediate control 
 
2. Search of a moving vehicle 
● Saluday case​ - any public vehicle: routine inspection allowed during entry 
and during transit ​(not applicable to public vehicles, taxis) 
● Valmonte, Caballes case: Extensive search 
● Routine inspection only limited to visual search  
● Extensive search allowed only with probable cause 
 
3. Customs search 
Kahit nakalampas na sa borders pwede pa rin i-search 
exception: dwelling (needs search warrant) 
 
4. ​Plain View Doctrine 
 
5. Consented search 
Always check totality of circumstances (what time, who asked to search) 
e.g. airports, ports, buses, malls, public places 
 
6. Stop and frisk 
Genuine reason to believe suspicious movements  
 
7. Exigent and emergency circumstances 
 
 
WRIT OF HABEAS DATA 
The writ of habeas data is a remedy available to any person whose right to 
privacy in life, liberty or SECURITY is violated or threatened  
 
● Tudtud case: ​Arrest must always precede the search; except if there is 
probable cause  
● Saluday case:​ If tip is received from informants, routine inspections 
allowed in public vehicles as long as it is not intrusive 
 
● National ID System not violative of right to privacy  
KMU vs Neda; Ople vs Torres wasn’t supposed to tackle right to privacy 
KMU vs Neda: for mere efficiency of gov’t 
 
● Caught in the act of smoking marijuana, will a petition for writ of habeas 
data prosper? (sorry I wasn’t able to get the answer for this) 
 
PESTILOS VS GENEROSO 
● Probable cause should be based on personal knowledge of facts and 
circumstances 
● (Personal knowledge not really personal; may come from other people 
(otherwise it would be in flagrante delicto) 
Leonen dissenting opinion: Sumbungan ng kaso 
 
PLAIN VIEW DOCTRINE  
● Illegality of items not immediately apparent - not admissible 
● Credit cards admissible if close intimacy with offense committed (e.g. 
money laundering, drug trafficking) 
 
RAMIREZ VS CA 
private communication = private correspondence 
 
GAANAN VS IAC 
extension cords not included in anti-wiretapping act as they don’t record 
anything 
 
● Bill of Rights =/= Anti-Wiretapping Act 
Anti-wiretapping applies to private persons (a statutory right) 
 
NAVARRO VS CA 
Argument in public NOT private communication 
 
*cases promulgated before Data Privacy Act 
Data Privacy Act =/= consti right to privacy but​ only a statutory right 
 
VIVARES VS STC 
FB has privacy settings 
 
-- 
 
[MAY 4 2020] 
 
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. 
 
Definition of prior restraint 
 
Can a mute person invoke freedom of expression? (10 seconds) 
YES. Constitutional right covers both speech and non-speech (O Brien) 
 
A lawyer wrote to his client who is detained in prison. Can the prison guards 
open the sealed envelope containing the letter? 5 seconds. 
YES 
 
Can the prison guards read the letter? 15 seconds. Legal basis? 
NO, privileged communication 
 
ALEJANO VS CABUJAY 
● Detainees = convicts; same rules apply 
● Any letter in sealed envelope, pede buksan  
● Open in the presence of prisoner 
● Best example of privileged communication 
Husband & wife 
Atty-client privilege (otherwise, clients will lose trust sa mga abogado) 
● Letter can be opened for security purposes, but reading it is prohibited - 
privileged communication 
 
Ramon made a false accusation on facebook stating in his status that Panjuts 
is a pre-school teacher who smokes Marijuana. Rikimaru shared the post and 
wrote the line: “I also know Panjuts as a person who sniffs rugby every recess 
and lunch.” Is Panjuts liable under the cybercrime prevention act? 
YES  
 
Mikee saw child porn on facebook and tagged his friend Michael in the 
comment section. Is he liable for aiding or abetting proliferation of child 
pornography? 
NO. Disini vs Secretary of Justice 
● Provision on aiding and abetting - fuzzy effect 
● Normal magreact sa internet, mag-share ng emoji, tumawa sa post na 
libelous 
● Can be a knee-jerk reaction 
● Share = liable (bawal i-share sa ibang tao) 
 
Doctrine used in free speech cases? 
Clear and present danger 
 
No expectation of privacy in government-issued computers  
Gov’t employee - don’t use computers for personal/private things 
Pollo case 
 
LIBEL  
Not all speeches are protected 
 
1. Libelous statements (Art 354, RPC) 
● Proof needed to dispute presumption (medyo lamang ang prosecution) 
● Libel - malice should be proven  
● Defamatory imputation - presumed to be malicious 
 
Qualified privileged communication  
● NO PRESUMPTION OF MALICE AT ALL 
● Burden is in the prosecution to prove actual malice  
● Proving malice: false/idea that it is false 
 
1) Legal, moral, social duty 
e.g. manliligaw ng kapatid 
 
2) Fair and true report in good faith 
e.g. Harry Roque 
 
3) Fair commentaries on matters of public  
interest  
e.g. influencers 
 
 
 
Public figure - celebrities  
e.g. Angel locsin corrupt in COVID donations 
“trip ko lang” = bad faith 
 
Elements of libel (ART 354) 
identity of victim (e.g. fashion pulis) 
 
2. Obscenity 
3. False/misleading advertisements 
4. Commercial speech 
 
5. Fighting words 
● US =/= PH jurisprudence 
● e.g. anti slavery 
● Swastika prohibited in US  
● No hate speech laws in the US - Double edged sword 
● Unlike in PH: cursing police = unjust vexation 
 
 
In the case of Soriano v. Laguardia, are the remarks “putang babae” and 
“gumagana lang sa putang babae ang ibaba,” obscene for adults? 
No, only for children 
 
● Balancing of state interest instead of clear and present danger  
● No clear cut rule if balancing of interests/strict scrutiny 
 
 
The MILLER test is what the courts use to guide them whether a work is 
obscene. (10 seconds) 
● FHM is legal bc it’s considered art 
● Diff rules in diff countries re: freedom of expression 
 
Is sending spam emails prohibited? 
NO. Users have the right to sort out/delete emails (Disini vs Sec of Justice) 
 
4 aspects of freedom of the press 
Freedom from prior restraint 
Freedom from subsequent punishment 
Freedom of access to information 
Freedom of circulation 
 
SORIANO VS LAGUARDIA 
 ● Only program is suspended accdg to law 
● Soriano: If you suspend me, that’s prior restraint  
SC: NO, that’s administrative punishment 
 
Was there a law being assailed in Chavez v. Gonzalez? Clue – Garci tapes. 
Wiretapped 
None. Law not needed to consider chilling effect 
 
● As long as you do acts in your official capacity - pede i-assail sa SC 
● Facial challenge: you can assail statute even if it doesn’t affect you 
directly (there is already a chilling effect) 
 
O’Brien test only applies to content-neutral regulations 
 
Time, place in rallies 
2am rally in front of neighbor not allowed (O’Brien Test) 
 
Raul Gonzalez & NTC - content-based regulation 
 
Stephen Chow. 20 years old, asked his bestfriend, Athena Chu, if they can have 
cybersex. Both of them called each other using zoom and did the deed online. 
Can they be prosecuted for engaging in cybersex, a prohibited act under the 
cybercrime prevention act? 
NO, consenting adults allowed 
 
SOCIAL WEATHER STATIONS VS COMELEC 
● Fair Elections Act 
● 15 days before election prohibition?  
● O’Brien Test 
Content-neutral - on its face, di nya sinusuppress yung freedom of expression 
 
US VS O’BRIEN 
Burned draft card for Vietnam War 
 
Requisites 
Regulation must be within constitutional power of the state to enact 

● Strict scrutiny - compelling state interest 

Means should be least restrictive and narrowly tailored 
● Rational basis test - legitimate government interest 
There should be rational relationship between interest and means 
 employed 
 
● Intermediate scrutiny 
Substantial relation between interest and means employed 

Mutilation of draft card not prohibited in US; doesn’t suppress freedom of 
expression 
 
Social weather stations case 
● SC: Can we control natural bandwagon effect (for surveys), if any? 
● Apply the law more strictly 
● Prosecute those involved in vote buying 
 
Obscene painting/art? 
Prohibited if people pay for it  
 
MILLER TEST USED FOR OBSCENITY 
Determining obscenity is a judicial function 
 
1UTAK vs COMELEC  
Violates equal protection (stickers on politicians prohibited in PUVs) 
 
SHENG VS US 
Shouting “Fire!” in a crowded theater 
Clear and present danger test (prevails in the PH) 
 
Preliminary investigation not a constitutional right; it’s a part of statutory due 
process (which nevertheless a person should not be deprived of) 
 
US Rally (Black Lives Matter) 
Waving of confederate flag not restricted 
You can only be restricted if you employ violence (imminent lawless action) 
 
DIOCESE OF BACOLOD VS COMELEC  
On tarpaulin issue: Size matters (the medium is the message) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
[MAY 9 2020] 
 
Maximum tolerance means the highest degree of restraint that the military, 
police and other peace keeping authorities shall observe during a public 
assembly or in the dispersal of the same. 
 
Is calibrated pre-empted response to be used by the police in public 
assemblies? 
NO. Baka mag iba ang interpretation ng tao sa max tolerance 
 
Why do you think Malabanan v. Ramento has an asterisk?  
The Bill of Rights cannot be invoked against private entities 
Tinker vs Des Moines - public school 
 
What test should be used to check the validity of the authority to reroute the 
route public assembly, in case the public assembly will require a prolonged 
use of a public highway? 
Intermediate test - Only time place manner regulated (no need for strict 
scrutiny) 
Clear and present danger - denial of permit 
 
Is it unconstitutional to require a permit for the holding of a public assembly? 
NO, only time place manner regulated 
Clear and present danger test: pede i-modify/deny permit  
 
Enumerate the places where no written permit is required to organize and 
hold a public assembly. 
● Freedom parks, private place, campus of govt-owned institution, etc 
● Freedom in private institution not absolute - subject to rules  
● Civil code provision  
● BoR can be invoked against private entities subject to rules in statutes 
 
Where to file application for permit to hold public assembly? 
Mayor’s office  
 
Can you hold a public assembly if the mayor refuses to receive your 
application? 
YES, denied permit: pede iwan sa premises ng mayor  
 
How many days prior to scheduled public assembly should be the filing of the 
application?? 
5 working days  
 
If a controversial event just happened recently and emotions are high, is BP 
880 unconstitutionally restrictive such that you need 5 working days before 
you can hold a public assembly? 
If unconstitutional - freedom parks  
 
Can you be prevented from holding a public assembly if there are no freedom 
parks? 
NO. Made-deny ang right to peaceably assemble 
Marami nang freedom parks na nai-designate ng LGUs 
 
Should the police disperse the public assembly if 3 or 4 participants bang on 
the shields of police officers? 
NO, maximum tolerance 
May tension sa public assembly  
There’s reasonable time for warning to lapse 
 
Should the police stop the public assembly if 3 or 4 
non-participants/bystanders are offended by the speeches of the rallyists and 
are threatening to cause violence by promising to throw stones at the 
rallyists? Have them discuss this. 
● It pertains to bystanders (non-participants): ​HECKLER’S VETO = 
UNCONSTITUTIONAL  
● Refer to totality of circumstances 
● Heckler cannot be empowered to silence the speaker 
Example on LGBT rally 
● Hulihin yung mam-babato di yung nagco-conduct ng public assembly 
● GOVERNMENT SHOULD NOT STOP A PEACEFUL ASSEMBLY JUST 
BECAUSE OF A REACTION OF A BYSTANDER 
● Case to case basis  
You can stop a rally based on clear and present danger from bystanders 
(e.g. guns) 
 
What is provided in the dissenting opinion of Justice Rehnquist in Craig v. 
Boren? 
Intermediate scrutiny 
Legitimate vs substantial interest? 
 
BP 880 from Reyes vs Bagatsing  
● Statutes from jurisprudence 
e.g. People vs Genosa (RA 9262) 
Kahit walang elements ng JCs, pede gamitin BWS as a defense = consistently 
misconstrued as law profs & students  
● Statutes from jurisprudence shouldn’t be construed limterally 
 
MALABANAN VS RAMENTO 
 
TINKER VS DES MOINES​ (black armbands) 
● Refers to a public/state school 
● Agent of gov’t = pede invoke ang BoR 
● we have rules provided under CHED, DepEd, freedom to education of 
institutions 
● Right to public assembly not absolute 
 
NON VS DAMES 
● Student-school contract not only with in terms of obligations and 
contracts;​ it is laden with PUBLIC INTEREST 
● Schools have criteria (e.g. QPI) 
● It always has to be reasonable  
 
IBP VS ATIENZA 
Can mayor change area in granting permit? Yes, clear and present danger test  
 
● Permit to assemble - time place and manner lang 
● BP 880 is valid because it’s content neutral regulation 
● May tamang oras yung rally; 2am not allowed 
● Test used: O’Brien Test 
● Clear and present danger test 
pinagbabaril mga nagrarally ng terrorist group 
● Valid denial of assembly at 2am - baka may clear and present danger; 
magagalit mga tao 
 
ON ABS-CBN ISSUE
Legislative franchise needed

● Sinong may trabaho? - HoR

private bill bc pertains to an individual/entity
● Should originate from HoR
● Must be received by committee, kailangan i-agenda
● Never nilagay sa agenda

Legislative franchise needed: TELEBAPI case

● Limited frequencies
 ● Who may be granted franchise

❖ PRESS FREEDOM IS DEPRIVED

Prevalent ang pagbroadcast sa television
Walang net sa ibang lugar

❖ FRANCHISES CANNOT BE REVOKED ARBITRARILY = GAOD

Omission from congress, di nilagay sa agenda

❖ EQUAL PROTECTION
● Franchise should not be used to classify pag-allocate ng frequency as a mere
privilege = REGULATION LANG DAPAT
● Freedom of expression is fundamental
● democracy = dapat di ka nagce-censor ng tao
 
-- 
 
[MAY 18 2020] 
 
Section 5. No law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion, or 
prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The free exercise and enjoyment of 
religious profession and worship, without discrimination or preference, 
shall forever be allowed. No religious test shall be required for the 
exercise of civil or political rights. 
 
What are the two concepts of the free exercise of religion clause in the bill of 
rights? 
Freedom to believe  
Freedom to act on one’s belief  
 
The local government council of Manila purchased a wooden image of St. 
Benedict and designated Mayor Isko as the custodian. Is this constitutional? 
NO. Garces vs Estenzo 
Involved private funds  
 
A man was arrested without a warrant for cyber libel because of something he 
posted online 6 days prior which states: “Everytime the government does 
something bad, Bong Go is always there to save the day even though he is part 
of the administration. I think Bong Go is being prepped by Duterte for higher 
office.” Is the warrantless arrest valid? 
NO. Element of immediacy 
Hot pursuit - crime has just been committed  
 
Would your answer be the same if he was arrested 2 hours after posting such 
statements? 
Within 24 hrs, pede pa, immediate pa  
YES. Pestilos vs Generoso 
● 1940 Rules of Court - reasonable cause of police officer that unlawful 
act amounting to a crime had been committed  
● Present RoC - has just been committed  
● Libel - not within the discretion of the police kung libelous ang statement 
or hindi 
● Proper procedure: File a complaint sa fiscal (check for probable cause 
to file information, issue warrant of arrest) 
● Cyber libel as a continuing crime? NO 
● Continuing vs Transitory crime  
Continuing - not consummated in one act  
Transitory - element of the offense/felony occured in one or more places 
which allows of the filing of the info in the filing of the places where 
elements were committed  
 
Transitory Offense 
● Bigamy abroad - cannot be prosecuted in PH (territoriality principle) 
Sending intimate pictures, can be prosecuted in the PH? - YES, RA 9262 
(mental abuse suffered by legitimate wife in PH) 
● BP 22 
Issue check abroad, deposited in PH, can be held liable in PH 
● Libel 
 
What is the Lemon test? 
Test to find whether there is a violation of the non-establishment clause  
 
IMPORTANT: 
Probable cause should be based on Personal knowledge of 
facts/circumstances 
 
 
VALMORES VS ACHACOSO 
● Mindanao State University 
● Freedom of religion justified sat class 
● BoR cannot be invoked against private entities  
● Before you enroll in a private university, most likely you will need to sign a 
waiver/acknowledgement that SBU is a catholic institution 
 ● Private universities don’t shove down religion in your throats = you 
assumed that risk upon enrolment 
 
PERALTA VS PHILPOST  
AGLIPAY VS RUIZ 
 
Dissent of J Leonen: 
● Wala syang pake sa dominant themes 
● Di lang sa design magtatalo, wag nyo na lang payagan AS IS! 
● Identifying secular purpose in an image and projecting its dominance are 
not enough 
 
IN RE: VALENCIANO 
● "​Accommodation i​ s a recognition of the reality that some governmental 
measures may not be imposed on a certain portion of the population for 
the reason that these measures are contrary to their religious beliefs." 
● Statcon 
Noscitur a sociis  
What do “pay” and “employ” mean? 
For the sole purpose of benefiting/supporting any Church 
● The phrase "directly or indirectly" refers to the manner of appropriation 
of public money or property, not as to whether a particular act involves a 
direct or a mere incidental benefit to any church. 
● Ut magis valeat quam pereat: Preamble used in Freedom of religion cases 
 
What’s wrong with In Re: Valenciano - Hindi applicable yung cited cases 
● Estrada vs Escritor - exception to state policy 
● Victoriano vs Elizalde - INC can be not union members  
● Ebralinag vs Division Superintendent of Cebu - non-adherence to flag 
gesture 
● LAHAT YAN MAY BATAS NA NAGBABAWAL, TAPOS GUMAWA KA NG 
EXCEPTION  
IN RE: VALENCIANO 
● Public place, pede payagan mga tao 
● Nirereserve mo yung period para sa Catholic mass 
● Dispositive portion: 
Order na itatabi yung mga crucifix 
Wala namang nagagastos sa kuryente (aircon, ilaw) = no 
appropriation of public money/property 
● Wherefore portion: judge tasked to ensure that these items are 
kept and there’s no obstruction to services  
 
If there is a law that penalizes you for practicing your religion, 
That law will be declared valid if there’s a compelling state interest to uphold it  
*strict scrutiny will be applied  
 
QC HoJ Basement: Walang nagbabawal sa mga katoliko 
● Sila mismo nagrequest 
● Okay lang sana kung paminsan minsan 
● Atty’s personal opinion: Baguhin precedents 
● Dapat di nag aadvocate ng religion 
● Executive judges: job regulate the basement 
● Part of the 3-pronged test of the Lemon test (Lemon vs Kurtzman) 
● Leonen dissent: In Re: Valenciano violates the Lemon test kasi 
dinadagdagan ang trabaho ng mga judge; majority cites Bernas re: 
non-establishment clause  
 
INCIDENTAL BENEFIT TO RELIGION IS VALID  
 
INC vs CA 
● Can MTRCB censor Bro Eli Soriano? 
No, no clear and present danger  
Strict scrutiny used bc its a fundamental right  
 
PH BLOOMING MILLS CASE: Hierarchy of rights 
1. political rights (right to suffrage, intellectual, expression, 
religion) 
2. property rights 
Strict scrutiny or rational basis  
Intermediate scrutiny rarely used 
 
AMERICAN BIBLE SOCIETY VS CITY OF MANILA 
Distribution of Bible part of freedom of religion 
 
VAT: TOLENTINO VS SECRETARY OF FINANCE 
● Tax on the sale, not permit/license 
● Pede ka magbenta kahit anong gusto mo 
● IMPORTANT: Tina-tax yung sale  
 
EBRALINAG VS DIVISION SUPERINTENDENT OF CEBU 
● Prior ruling abandoned (expulsion of students who didnt adhere to flag 
rule) 
● Flag kung image para satin, sa kanila sin  
 ● Wala naman disruption, nirerespeto pa rin nila yung tradition sa flag 
ceremony 
 
-- 
 
[MAY 20 2020] 
 
A vague statute violates due process in two respects: 
1) no fair notice of conduct  
2) leaves enforcers unbridled discretion in carrying out the provisions of the 
law 
 
In ​permissive accommodation,​ the Court finds that the State may, but is not 
required to, accommodate religious interests. 
 
The ​strict neutrality ​ approach is not hostile to religion, but it is strict in holding 
that religion may not be used as a basis for classification for purposes of 
governmental action, whether the action confers rights or privileges or imposes 
duties or obligations. 
 
There are two parts in the first sentence of Section 6, Article III of the 1987 
Constitution. 
What do we call these two parts? 
Non-establishment and free exercise clause 
 
Mandatory accommodation​ results when the Court finds that accommodation 
is required by the Free Exercise Clause, i.e., when the Court itself carves out an 
exemption. 
 
ESTRADA VS ESCRITOR  
 
Sherbert Case 
● 7th day adventist, employment compensation 
● Compelling state interest 
 
Smith Case 
● Indians dismissed from work for using prohibited hallucinogenic 
substance  
● Hallucinogenic substances bawal in a general way, walang tinatarget na 
religion 
● Bat kami magbebend para sayo? 
● General application of law - di ia-accommodate  
 
PH Courts: Fundamental right ang affected dapat ​strict scrutiny test 
 
What is the danger if rational basis is used when religious freedom is 
burdened? 
Discrimination among minorities, no significance of individual religious beliefs 
 
Why minority? 
● Congress passes laws  
● Majority views are passed, minority views not considered 
● e.g. eating dog meat for as a religious practice, but there is a law 
prohibiting dog meet  
● Di pedeng rational basis: no room for accommodation 
● There is burden to religious freedom 
● If there’s legitimate gov’t interest, courts will sustain the validity of the 
law; will not carve out exception for you 
 
In the City of Boerne, the US SC found unconstitutional an act of congress 
which provided that it is strict scrutiny that shall be used in case religious 
freedom is burdened. Why? 
● Violation of separation of powers 
● Congress shouldnt make a law on how to interpret laws  
 
If that was usurpation of judicial powers and a violation of separation of 
powers, why is BP 880 providing the “clear and present danger” test 
considered valid? 
It merely codified the ruling in Reyes vs Bagatsing  
 
If we are going to use benevolent neutrality, can a believer, whose religion 
requires him to kill at least one man who he thinks is a sinner for him (the 
believer) not to go to hell, be EXEMPTED from our penal laws, particularly 
those pertaining to murder? 
NO, there is compelling state interest 
 
What are the three step questions to be asked in case a law of general 
application burdens religious freedom? 

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?  
*see Estrada vs Escritor 

Estrada v Escritor  
● Administrative penalty bc you’re living an immoral life? 
● Defense: I’m just exercising my religious freedom 
● Valid to sa religion namin, bat kami ipupunish because of that? 
● State needs to prove if compelling ang state interest 
● Estrada v Escritor: State failed to prove it 
● Example of state interest: Art II, state policies  
 
US: Permissive accommodation  
 
PH: Mandatory accommodation  
● Kasi benevolent neutrality tayo 
● If there’s a law creating burden to exercise religious belief, and walang 
compelling state interest, ​KAILANGAN MAG CARVE OUT NG EXCEPTION 
 
In Imbong v. Ochoa, the OSG stated that the RH Law has yet to be implemented. 
Thus, an action assailing it cannot prosper. Is the argument correct?​ NO 
Is a facial challenge applicable to cases asserting violation of religious 
freedom?​ YES  
● Pede i-challenge dahil sa chilling effect on freedom of expression 
● Kahit di ka pa inaaresto pede na magfile ng case sa court 
● Hintayin mo ba sarili mong mahuli ng pulis bago mag file ng case? 
● Overbroad = invading other fundamental rights​ (White Light Corp.) 
● Religious freedom is an aspect of freedom of expression 
 
Is compelling referral to other health medical practitioners or one who 
declines to perform a reproductive health procedure on a patient despite 
being conscientious objectors unconstitutional? 
YES  
● Di sya actually opt-out laws  
● You’re making the conscientious objector complicit to the provisions of 
RH Law 
● Navi-violate ang right to believe/act on one’s belief 
● Conscentious objector - refuses to participate 
  
 
 
Is depriving public health professionals the right to be conscientious 
objectors in the IRR unconstitutional? 
YES 
● If wala sa batas, di ka pedeng maglagay sa IRR 
● e.g Administrative agency: di pede magdagdag ng kapangyarihan na wala 
sa enabling law  
● Violates equal protection clause 
Private health practitioner - pedeng ayoko dyan sa mga contraceptives 
Public health practitioner - bawal 
● Pu-pwersahin mo sya pumunta sa impyerno according to his belief 
 
Is the exception for conscientious objectors absolute? If no, what is the 
exception. 
● Not absolute, may life-threatening cases 
● Religion: uunahin yung buhay, compelling state interest 
 
Does the RH law violate natural law and therefore makes it unconstitutional? 
NO, PH not a common law country, we are a civil law country 
 
No involuntary servitude 
Only penalty is non-accreditation sa Philhealth which is a mere incentive