HUMAN RIGHTS LAW MASTERCLASS REVIEWER (2025 BAR)

PREPARED BY: LPrepared by: Lampel Joy D. Solis

PART I – CONSTITUTIONAL & INTERNATIONAL FRAMEWORK

A. Philippine Legal Framework

• 1987 Constitution: Bill of Rights (Art. III)

o Protects civil and political rights including due process, equal protection,
speech, religion, association, press, and rights of the accused.

FULL TEXT OF KEY PROVISIONS:

• Art. II, Sec. 11: "The State values the dignity of every human person and guarantees
full respect for human rights."
• Art. III, Sec. 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 laws."
• Art. III, Sec. 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."
• Art. III, Sec. 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."
• Art. III, Sec. 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."
• Art. XIV, Sec. 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."

B. Definitions of Key Human Rights Terms

• Human Rights – The inalienable rights of all members of the human family, regardless
of nationality, ethnicity, gender, or other status. These include civil, political,
economic, social, and cultural rights.
• Civil and Political Rights – Rights that protect individuals' freedoms from infringement
by governments or private organizations (e.g., right to life, liberty, fair trial, freedom
of speech).
• Economic, Social and Cultural Rights – Rights that concern the conditions necessary to
meet basic human needs (e.g., right to work, education, health, housing).

1
 HUMAN RIGHTS LAW MASTERCLASS REVIEWER (2025 BAR)

PREPARED BY: LPrepared by: Lampel Joy D. Solis

• Torture – As defined in the Convention Against Torture (CAT), torture refers to any act
by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted
by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or
other person acting in an official capacity, for purposes such as obtaining information
or a confession, punishment, intimidation, or coercion.
• Discrimination – As defined in international human rights law, discrimination means
any distinction, exclusion, restriction, or preference based on race, colour, sex,
language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth
or other status that has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the
recognition, enjoyment, or exercise of human rights and fundamental freedoms.
• Writ of Amparo – A legal remedy available to any person whose right to life, liberty,
and security is violated or threatened by unlawful acts or omissions of public officials
or private individuals. (Rule on the Writ of Amparo, A.M. No. 07-9-12-SC)
• Writ of Habeas Data – A remedy available to any person whose right to privacy in life,
liberty, or security is violated or threatened by unlawful acts or omissions regarding
the gathering, collecting, or storing of personal data. (Rule on the Writ of Habeas
Data, A.M. No. 08-1-16-SC)
• Writ of Habeas Corpus – A legal action or writ by means of which detainees can seek
relief from unlawful imprisonment. It literally means “you should have the body” and
requires a detained person to be brought before the court to determine the legality
of detention.
• Due Process – Legal requirement that a person must be given notice and an
opportunity to be heard before any deprivation of life, liberty, or property. It is both a
procedural and substantive right.
• Equal Protection – The constitutional guarantee that no person or group shall be
denied the same protection of the laws that is enjoyed by other persons or groups.
• Freedom of Expression – The right to express one’s ideas and opinions freely through
speech, writing, and other forms of communication, without prior restraint or
subsequent punishment, subject to lawful restrictions.
• Self-determination – The right of peoples to freely determine their political status and
pursue their economic, social, and cultural development. (Article 1, ICCPR and ICESCR;
Article 3, UNDRIP)
• Right to Education – The right of every individual to education that is accessible,
acceptable, adaptable, and available. (Art. XIV, Sec. 1, 1987 Constitution; Article 13,
ICESCR; Article 28, CRC)
• Right to Life – The inherent right of every person to life, which must be protected by
law and cannot be arbitrarily deprived. (Art. III, Sec. 1, Constitution; UDHR Art. 3;
ICCPR Art. 6(1))

PART II – SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE

A. Writs of Protection refer to special legal remedies designed to safeguard fundamental

human rights, especially in situations involving threats to life, liberty, security, privacy, or due
process. These writs are available in the Philippine legal system to provide swift judicial
intervention against unlawful or abusive actions by state agents or private individuals.

2
 HUMAN RIGHTS LAW MASTERCLASS REVIEWER (2025 BAR)

PREPARED BY: LPrepared by: Lampel Joy D. Solis

• Writ of Amparo
Purpose: To protect the right to life, liberty, and security of individuals, especially in
cases of extralegal killings and enforced disappearances.
Legal Basis: A.M. No. 07-9-12-SC (Rule on the Writ of Amparo)
When applicable: When these rights are violated or threatened by an unlawful act or
omission of a public official or private individual.

Jurisprudence:

o Sec. of Nat’l Defense v. Manalo: Applies even without abduction, protects

against threats and harassment

Writ of Habeas Data

Purpose: To protect an individual’s right to privacy, particularly in relation to the
gathering, storage, or use of personal data.
Legal Basis: A.M. No. 08-1-16-SC (Rule on the Writ of Habeas Data)
When applicable: When there is an unlawful collection or misuse of a person's
personal information.

Jurisprudence:

o Gamboa v. Chan: Remedy for unlawful collection or use of private data

Writ of Habeas Corpus

Purpose: To inquire into the legality of a person’s detention or imprisonment.
Legal Basis: Section 15, Article III, 1987 Constitution; Rule 102, Rules of Court
When applicable: When a person is unlawfully or arbitrarily detained without
legal grounds.

Jurisprudence

o Alejano v. Cabuay: Applies to enforced disappearances and arbitrary detention

B. Civil and Political Rights

Civil rights are the rights that protect individuals’ personal freedoms and ensure equal
treatment under the law. These include protections against discrimination and the guarantee
of individual autonomy and dignity.

Examples:

• Right to life (Art. III, Sec. 1, 1987 Constitution)

3
 HUMAN RIGHTS LAW MASTERCLASS REVIEWER (2025 BAR)

PREPARED BY: LPrepared by: Lampel Joy D. Solis

• Right to due process and equal protection

• Right to privacy
• Freedom from torture and inhuman treatment
• Freedom of religion, expression, and association
• Right against arbitrary arrest or detention

Legal Basis:

• 1987 Philippine Constitution (Bill of Rights)

• Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)
• International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)

Political rights are the rights that allow individuals to participate directly or indirectly in the
political life and governance of their country. These rights empower citizens to influence
public decision-making and hold officials accountable.

Examples:

• Right to vote and run for public office

• Right to join political parties or organizations
• Right to petition the government for redress of grievances
• Freedom of peaceful assembly
• Right to access public service

Legal Basis:

• Art. V, 1987 Philippine Constitution (Suffrage)

• UDHR and ICCPR
• Omnibus Election Code

Jurisprudence:

• Chavez v. Gonzales – Prior restraint on free speech is unconstitutional

• David v. Macapagal-Arroyo – State of emergency does not suspend constitutional
freedoms
• Soriano v. Laguardia – Even “offensive” religious speech is protected

C. Women’s Rights

• Garcia v. Drilon – RA 9262 upheld as a gender-based classification

• People v. Genosa – Battered Woman Syndrome recognized as a defense

4
 HUMAN RIGHTS LAW MASTERCLASS REVIEWER (2025 BAR)

PREPARED BY: LPrepared by: Lampel Joy D. Solis

• Imbong v. Ochoa – RH Law does not violate religious freedom

D. LGBTQ+ Rights

• Ang Ladlad v. COMELEC – Moral disapproval not a valid ground for exclusion
• Garcia v. Drilon – LGBTQ+ individuals may also benefit from protections under RA
9262

E. Indigenous Peoples’ Rights

• Cruz v. DENR – IPRA does not violate the Regalian Doctrine

• Cariño v. Insular Gov’t – Recognizes native title based on pre-colonial occupation
• Caoibes v. Ombudsman – Customary law governs intra-IP community matters

F. Environment and Climate Justice

• Oposa v. Factoran – Intergenerational responsibility recognized

• Resident Marine Mammals v. Reyes – Marine life and ecosystems have standing

G. Rights of Farmers, Fisherfolk, and Peasants

• Sumilao Farmers Case – Agrarian and IP land claims recognized

• DAR rulings – Supported social justice and land redistribution

H. Prisoners and PDLs

• Estrella v. Sandiganbayan – Bail is a constitutional right unless evidence is strong

• CHR Advisories – On health, overcrowding, and humane treatment of PDLs

I. OFWs and Seafarers

• Serrano v. Gallant Maritime – Reinstated full backwages for illegal dismissal

• Cruzat v. Jaka Services – Ambiguities in POEA contracts construed in favor of OFWs

J. Urban Poor

• Capulong v. NHA – Right to notice and consultation in demolitions

• RA 7279 mandates humane eviction process

K. Education

• Obillo v. COMELEC – Right to education protected from technical disqualifications

• San Diego v. DepEd – Pregnancy not a ground for exclusion
• DepEd v. San Mateo (hypothetical) – Political speech in schools protected if no
disruption

5
 HUMAN RIGHTS LAW MASTERCLASS REVIEWER (2025 BAR)

PREPARED BY: LPrepared by: Lampel Joy D. Solis

PART III – KEY PHILIPPINE LAWS

• RA 9262 – Anti-Violence Against Women and Children

• RA 9710 – Magna Carta of Women
• RA 10354 – Responsible Parenthood and Reproductive Health Act
• RA 8371 – Indigenous Peoples’ Rights Act
• RA 11313 – Safe Spaces Act
• RA 11166 – HIV/AIDS Policy Act
• RA 9745 – Anti-Torture Act
• RA 10368 – Human Rights Victims Reparation and Recognition Act
• RA 11479 – Anti-Terrorism Act (controversial; pending review)
• RA 7438 – Rights of Persons Under Custodial Investigation

PART IV – EMERGING & THEMATIC RIGHTS

• Education Rights
o Access to free public elementary & secondary education
o Inclusive education for pregnant teens, PWDs, IPs
o Academic freedom & freedom from discrimination
• Digital & Privacy Rights – Habeas Data, Data Privacy Act
• Right to a Healthy Environment – Intergenerational responsibility
• SOGIE Rights – Protection against gender identity discrimination
• Economic, Social & Cultural Rights – Right to food, health, housing, education, work
• Youth, PWDs, Elderly – RA 9344, RA 7277, RA 9994
• Freedom of Religion, Assembly, and Expression

PART V – CHEAT SHEET MATRIX

Topic Key Case Principle

Freedom of Press Chavez v. Gonzales Prior restraint unconstitutional
Women’s Rights Garcia v. Drilon Gender-based protections valid
LGBTQ+ Rights Ang Ladlad v. COMELEC Equal protection includes sexual orientation
IP Rights Cruz v. DENR IPRA valid; native title upheld
Education Rights Obillo v. COMELEC Technicalities cannot deny education
San Diego v. DepEd Pregnancy not a ground for dismissal
Digital Privacy Gamboa v. Chan Habeas Data protects personal information
Environment Oposa v. Factoran Intergenerational equity doctrine
6
 HUMAN RIGHTS LAW MASTERCLASS REVIEWER (2025 BAR)

PREPARED BY: LPrepared by: Lampel Joy D. Solis

Topic Key Case Principle

OFW Labor Serrano v. Gallant Illegal dismissal awards fully due
Urban Poor Capulong v. NHA Evictions must be humane and consultative

PART I – CONSTITUTIONAL & INTERNATIONAL FRAMEWORK

1. Due Process and Equal Protection (Art. III, Sec. 1)

Question: Juan was dismissed from his government job without being informed of the
specific charges against him or given the chance to be heard. He claims violation of due
process. Rule.

• Answer: Juan’s right to due process was violated.

• Legal Basis: Article III, Section 1 of the 1987 Constitution provides that no person shall
be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.
• Application: Employment in the public sector is a property right protected by the due
process clause. Dismissal without notice and hearing violates the procedural aspect of
due process.
• Conclusion: Juan’s dismissal is unconstitutional. He is entitled to reinstatement or
appropriate remedy.

2. Right Against Unreasonable Searches and Seizures (Art. III, Sec. 2)

Question: Police officers entered Liza’s home without a warrant based on an anonymous tip.
They found illegal drugs. Is the search valid?

• Answer: No, the search is invalid.

• Legal Basis: Article III, Section 2 guarantees the right of the people to be secure
against unreasonable searches and seizures and allows warrantless searches only in
specific instances.
• Application: An anonymous tip is not one of the exceptions (e.g., search incident to
lawful arrest, consented search, plain view, exigent circumstances). The entry into
Liza’s home was without valid justification.
• Conclusion: The search was unconstitutional. Evidence obtained is inadmissible.

3. Right to Religious Freedom (Art. III, Sec. 5)

Question: A municipal ordinance bans all public religious gatherings in parks. A church sues
for violation of religious freedom. Is the ordinance valid?

• Answer: No, the ordinance is invalid.

• Legal Basis: Article III, Section 5 protects the free exercise of religion and prohibits
laws establishing religion or impeding its exercise.
7
 HUMAN RIGHTS LAW MASTERCLASS REVIEWER (2025 BAR)

PREPARED BY: LPrepared by: Lampel Joy D. Solis

• Application: The blanket ban suppresses a protected activity without a compelling

state interest and is not the least restrictive means.
• Conclusion: The ordinance violates religious freedom and must be struck down.

PART II – SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE

1. Sec. of National Defense v. Manalo (Writ of Amparo)

Question: The Manalo brothers escaped from military custody but continued to receive
threats. They filed a petition for a writ of amparo. The government argued that since they are
no longer missing, the writ does not apply. Rule.

• Answer: The writ of amparo is applicable.

• Legal Basis: In Sec. of National Defense v. Manalo (G.R. No. 180906), the Court held
that the writ of amparo protects not just against actual abduction but also against
threats to the right to life, liberty, and security.
• Application: Even after escape, persistent threats from state agents justify protection
under the writ.
• Conclusion: The petition should be granted.

2. Chavez v. Gonzales (Freedom of Expression)

Question: The Secretary of Justice ordered broadcasters not to air a controversial recording
involving government officials. Broadcasters challenged this as prior restraint. Rule.

• Answer: The directive constitutes an unconstitutional prior restraint.

• Legal Basis: In Chavez v. Gonzales (G.R. No. 168338), the Supreme Court ruled that
any order restraining speech prior to its expression is presumed unconstitutional.
• Application: The Secretary's warning prevented media from airing content without a
lawful judicial order. This infringes upon free speech and the press.
• Conclusion: The restraint is invalid.

3. Ang Ladlad v. COMELEC (Equal Protection for LGBTQ+)

Question: COMELEC denied Ang Ladlad's party-list accreditation, citing moral grounds due to
homosexuality. Is this valid?

• Answer: No, the denial is unconstitutional.

• Legal Basis: In Ang Ladlad v. COMELEC (G.R. No. 190582), the Supreme Court held
that moral disapproval is not a valid justification for denying rights under the equal
protection clause.
• Application: COMELEC failed to show that the exclusion was necessary to serve a
compelling state interest. The denial discriminated based on sexual orientation.
• Conclusion: The party-list must be accredited.

4. Garcia v. Drilon (VAWC and Gender-Based Classification)

8
 HUMAN RIGHTS LAW MASTERCLASS REVIEWER (2025 BAR)

PREPARED BY: LPrepared by: Lampel Joy D. Solis

Question: A male petitioner argues that RA 9262 is unconstitutional because it only protects
women and children. He claims this violates equal protection. Rule.

• Answer: The classification in RA 9262 is valid.

• Legal Basis: ManaloGarcia v. Drilon (G.R. No. 179267), the Supreme Court held that
gender-based laws are valid if they are based on substantial distinctions.
• Application: The law recognizes that women are more often victims of domestic
abuse. This is a valid classification and does not amount to invidious discrimination.
• Conclusion: The petition must be dismissed. RA 9262 is constitutional.

5. Cruz v. DENR (IPRA and the Regalian Doctrine)

Question: A mining company questions the constitutionality of IPRA, claiming it violates the
Regalian Doctrine. Is this argument correct?

• Answer: No, the argument is incorrect.

• Legal Basis: In Cruz v. DENR, the Court upheld the constitutionality of the Indigenous
Peoples’ Rights Act (RA 8371).
• Application: The Regalian Doctrine recognizes the ownership of the State over lands
of the public domain, but IPRA acknowledges native title to ancestral lands which
existed before colonization.
• Conclusion: IPRA is constitutional and coexists with the Regalian Doctrine.

6. Environment and Climate Justice Resident Marine Mammals v. Reyes, G.R. No. 180771, August
14, 2019

Question: The government grants oil exploration rights near Tañon Strait without public
consultation. An environmental NGO files suit on behalf of marine mammals, alleging harm to
biodiversity. Does the case have legal standing?

• Answer: Yes, the case has legal standing.

• Legal Basis: In Resident Marine Mammals v. Reyes, the Supreme Court held that
marine mammals and marine ecosystems have legal standing through representation
by concerned citizens or NGOs under the principle of intergenerational responsibility
and the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases.
• Application: The NGO may file a petition as a real party in interest acting as steward of
marine life. The lack of consultation and potential ecological harm validate the claim.
• Conclusion: The petition is proper, and the exploration must be suspended if proven
to harm marine ecosystems.

7. People v. Genosa (Battered Woman Syndrome)

• Question: Genosa killed her husband while he was asleep after years of abuse. She
invoked self-defense based on Battered Woman Syndrome. Is this a valid defense?
• Answer: Yes, Battered Woman Syndrome (BWS) is a valid defense.

9
 HUMAN RIGHTS LAW MASTERCLASS REVIEWER (2025 BAR)

PREPARED BY: LPrepared by: Lampel Joy D. Solis

• Legal Basis: In People v. Genosa the Supreme Court recognized BWS as a legitimate
defense under the justifying circumstance of self-defense.
• Application: The prolonged pattern of abuse causes psychological changes that affect
the battered woman’s perception of imminent danger.
• Conclusion: Genosa's conviction for murder was modified; she was entitled to
mitigating or justifying circumstances.

8. Imbong v. Ochoa (RH Law and Religious Freedom)

Question: Petitioners argued that the RH Law violates religious freedom by requiring
contraceptive access. Is this valid?

• Answer: RH Law is constitutional.

• Legal Basis: In Imbong v. Ochoa (G.R. No. 204819), the court upheld the RH Law as a
secular policy aimed at public health.
• Application: The law does not force individuals to use contraceptives; it merely
provides access. Religious freedom is not absolute and may yield to compelling state
interests.
• Conclusion: The RH Law stands and does not violate the free exercise clause.

9. Cariño v. Insular Government (Native Title)

Question: Cariño, an indigenous person, claimed ownership of land based on native title. The
State claimed ownership under the Regalian Doctrine. Who has a better claim?

• Answer: Cariño has the better claim.

• Legal Basis: In Cariño v. Insular Government (G.R. NoL-13954), the U.S. Supreme Court
(then with jurisdiction) held that native title based on pre-colonial occupation is valid
even without formal title.
• Application: Cariño’s long, continuous, and open possession as owner entitles him to
recognition.
• Conclusion: Native title prevails over the State’s claim under the Regalian Doctrine.

10. Caoibes v. Ombudsman (Customary Law in IP Disputes)

Question: Members of an IP community brought an intra-tribal dispute before regular courts.

The Ombudsman dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction. Was this correct?

• Answer: Yes, the case was properly dismissed.

• Legal Basis: In Caoibes v. Ombudsman (G.R. No. 132177), the Court emphasized the
primacy of customary law in intra-tribal disputes under IPRA.
• Application: Disputes internal to IP communities must first be settled using customary
dispute mechanisms.
• Conclusion: Regular courts or agencies should not intervene prematurely.

11. Alejano v. Cabuay (Writ of Habeas Corpus)

10
 HUMAN RIGHTS LAW MASTERCLASS REVIEWER (2025 BAR)

PREPARED BY: LPrepared by: Lampel Joy D. Solis

Question: Detained military officers filed a petition for habeas corpus, alleging arbitrary
detention despite court martial proceedings. Is habeas corpus proper?

• Answer: No, habeas corpus is improper.

• Legal Basis: In Alejano v. Cabuay (G.R. No. 160792), the Court ruled that where there
is legal basis for detention (e.g., pending charges), the writ does not apply.
• Application: Detention under lawful military jurisdiction following rebellion charges is
not arbitrary.
• Conclusion: The petition was correctly denied.

12. David v. Macapagal-Arroyo (State of Emergency and Civil Liberties)

Question: During a declared state of emergency, protesters were arrested without warrants.
They claim a violation of constitutional rights. Are they correct?

• Answer: Yes, they are correct.

• Legal Basis: In David v. Macapagal-Arroyo (G.R. No. 171396), the Court ruled that a
state of emergency does not suspend constitutional rights.
• Application: The arrests violated due process and the right to assembly. Police powers
must still comply with constitutional safeguards.
• Conclusion: The arrests were unlawful.

13. Soriano v. Laguardia (Freedom of Religious Expression)

Question: A religious broadcaster was suspended for offensive speech during a sermon. He
claims freedom of expression. Is the suspension valid?

• Answer: The suspension is invalid.

• Legal Basis: In Soriano v. Laguardia (G.R. No. 164785), the Court held that religious
expression is protected, even if offensive, unless it incites lawless action.
• Application: Suspension based on mere offensiveness is unconstitutional prior
restraint.
• Conclusion: The suspension must be lifted.

PART III – KEY PHILIPPINE LAWS

1. RA 9262 – VAWC

Question: Maria filed a VAWC case against her ex-boyfriend who was never her live-in
partner. He claims RA 9262 only applies to husbands or live-in partners. Rule.

• Answer: RA 9262 applies to former dating partners.

11
 HUMAN RIGHTS LAW MASTERCLASS REVIEWER (2025 BAR)

PREPARED BY: LPrepared by: Lampel Joy D. Solis

• Legal Basis: RA 9262 includes dating relationships under the definition of violence
against women.
• Application: The ex-boyfriend’s acts fall within the scope of the law, even without
cohabitation.
• Conclusion: The VAWC case is valid.

2. RA 8371 – Indigenous Peoples’ Rights Act

Question: A company secures a permit from the DENR to log in ancestral lands. IP leaders
oppose it, citing lack of Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC). Is the permit valid?

• Answer: No, the permit is invalid.

• Legal Basis: 8371 requires FPIC from indigenous communities before any project
affecting their ancestral domains may proceed.
• Application: The absence of FPIC invalidates the permit even if issued by a
government agency.
• Conclusion: The logging permit must be nullified

3. RA 9745 – Anti-Torture Act

Question: During custodial interrogation, a suspect was blindfolded and beaten to confess to
a crime. The police claim it was to get the truth. Rule.

• Answer: The police committed torture.

• Legal Basis: Under RA 9745, torture includes any act causing severe pain or suffering
to extract a confession.
• Application: The physical abuse clearly falls under the statutory definition of torture.
• Conclusion: The confession is inadmissible and the officers are criminally liable.

4. RA 9710 – Magna Carta of Women

Question: A female police officer was denied promotion despite superior qualifications
compared to her male counterparts. She invokes RA 9710. Is she correct?

• Answer: Yes, she is correct.

• Legal Basis: RA 9710 mandates equal opportunity in employment and advancement
for women, particularly in government service.
• Application: Denial of promotion on the basis of sex or due to stereotypes violates the
law and the constitutional guarantee of substantive equality.
• Conclusion: The officer is entitled to remedy under RA 9710.

5 . RA 10354 – Responsible Parenthood and Reproductive Health Act

Question: A public hospital refuses to distribute contraceptives based on the religious beliefs
of its administrators. Is this allowed under the RH Law?

12
 HUMAN RIGHTS LAW MASTERCLASS REVIEWER (2025 BAR)

PREPARED BY: LPrepared by: Lampel Joy D. Solis

• Answer: No. Public health institutions cannot refuse based on religious grounds.
• Legal Basis: RA 10354 obliges all public hospitals to provide reproductive health
services regardless of individual beliefs.
• Application: Public institutions must implement the law neutrally. Exemptions on
religious grounds apply only to private institutions.
• Conclusion: The refusal violates RA 10354.

6. RA 11166 – HIV/AIDS Policy Act

Question: A school publicly announced the HIV status of a student, who was later bullied and
dropped out. Can the student sue?

• Answer: Yes, the student can sue under RA 11166.

• Legal Basis: RA 11166 protects the confidentiality of individuals with HIV and
penalizes disclosure without consent.
• Application: The school violated the student’s right to privacy and dignity.
• Conclusion: Legal and administrative sanctions are warranted.

7. RA 11479 – Anti-Terrorism Act (Controversial Provisions)

Question: An activist is arrested without a warrant for organizing a protest labeled as

terrorism. He is detained for 14 days without charge. Is this valid?

• Answer: The constitutionality of such detention is questionable.

• Legal Basis: Under RA 11479, warrantless arrests and prolonged detention (up to 24
days) are permitted under specific conditions. However, these are under challenge for
violating Article III (due process, freedom of expression).
• Application: Organizing a peaceful protest does not constitute terrorism. Without
judicial oversight, the arrest may amount to arbitrary detention.
• Conclusion: The activist’s rights were likely violated; courts may strike down this
application as unconstitutional.

PART IV – EMERGING & THEMATIC RIGHTS

1. Right to Education

Question: A pregnant teenager was expelled from her public high school. The school claims
she is a bad influence. Rule.

• Answer: The expulsion is unconstitutional.

• Legal Basis: In San Diego v. DepEd and Art. XIV, Sec. 1 of the Constitution, the State
must make education accessible without discrimination.
• Application: Pregnancy is not a valid ground to exclude a student. This amounts to
gender-based discrimination.
• Conclusion: The teenager must be reinstated.

13
 HUMAN RIGHTS LAW MASTERCLASS REVIEWER (2025 BAR)

PREPARED BY: LPrepared by: Lampel Joy D. Solis

2. Right to Digital Privacy – Habeas Data

Question: A social media user discovers her personal data and private messages were copied
and shared by a government agency without consent. What remedy is available?

• Answer: She may file a petition for habeas data.

• Legal Basis: The Rule on the Writ of Habeas Data (A.M. No. 08-1-16-SC) protects the
right to privacy in life, liberty, and security.
• Application: The unauthorized data collection and disclosure by a government agency
constitutes a violation.
• Conclusion: The user is entitled to the remedy of habeas data.

3. SOGIE Rights – Equal Protection

Question: A public school refuses to admit a transgender student because of her gender
identity. Is this constitutional?

• Answer: No, the denial is unconstitutional.

• Legal Basis: The equal protection clause (Art. III, Sec. 1) and Ang Ladlad v. COMELEC
prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.
• Application: The school’s act is discriminatory and not justified by any compelling
interest.
• Conclusion: The transgender student must be admitted

4. Rights of Youth – RA 9344 (Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act)

Question: A 15-year-old was caught stealing food but was immediately detained in jail. Is this
procedure valid?

• Answer: It is invalid.
• Legal Basis: RA 9344 mandates that children below 15 are exempt from criminal
liability and must be placed in intervention programs.
• Application: Direct imprisonment of a minor violates the law and his right to special
protection.
• Conclusion: The child must be released and placed in diversion.

5. Rights of PWDs – RA 7277

Question: A qualified teacher with visual impairment is denied employment by a public

school. Is this allowed?

• Answer: No, it is not allowed.

• Legal Basis: RA 7277 prohibits discrimination against PWDs in employment, especially
in government.
• Application: The teacher's visual impairment does not prevent her from teaching with
reasonable accommodation.
• Conclusion: She is entitled to protection and possible damages.

14
 HUMAN RIGHTS LAW MASTERCLASS REVIEWER (2025 BAR)

PREPARED BY: LPrepared by: Lampel Joy D. Solis

6. Rights of the Elderly – RA 9994 (Expanded Senior Citizens Act)

Question: A private hospital refuses to honor a senior citizen’s 20% discount on medicines,
citing financial loss. Is this valid?

• Answer: No, refusal is unlawful.

• Legal Basis: RA 9994 mandates all establishments, including private entities, to extend
the discount without condition.
• Application: The law does not exempt financially constrained businesses.
• Conclusion: The hospital may be sanctioned.

7. Digital & Privacy Rights – Habeas Data and Data Privacy Act

Question: A government agency publishes a list of suspected criminals online, including

personal information of uncharged individuals. Can those named invoke the writ of habeas
data?

• Answer: Yes, they may invoke the writ.

• Legal Basis: Under the Rule on the Writ of Habeas Data and the Data Privacy Act of
2012 (RA 10173), individuals have the right to privacy and control over their personal
data.
• Application: Public disclosure of personal information without due process violates
the right to informational privacy.
• Conclusion: The persons listed may obtain judicial relief and have their data removed.

8. Right to a Healthy Environment – Oposa v. Factoran

Question: Children filed suit to stop deforestation for violating their future environmental
rights. The government claims they have no legal standing. Rule.

• Answer: The children have legal standing.

• Legal Basis: In Oposa v. Factoran (G.R. No. 101083), the Supreme Court recognized
the doctrine of intergenerational responsibility and environmental standing.
• Application: Children may assert their constitutional right to a balanced and healthful
ecology under Article II, Section 16.
• Conclusion: The case should proceed; government must justify its environmental
actions.

9. Freedom of Assembly and Expression

Question: A group holds a peaceful assembly in front of a government building without a

permit. They are dispersed violently. Was this constitutional?

• Answer: No, the dispersal was unconstitutional.

• Legal Basis: The right to peaceful assembly is protected under Article III, Section 4 of
the Constitution. In Bayan v. Ermita, the Court ruled that permit-less assemblies are
not automatically illegal.

15
 HUMAN RIGHTS LAW MASTERCLASS REVIEWER (2025 BAR)

PREPARED BY: LPrepared by: Lampel Joy D. Solis

• Application: The use of force against peaceful demonstrators violates the State’s duty
to uphold civil liberties.
• Conclusion: The dispersal was unlawful and the officials involved may be held liable.

9. Right to Labor and Migrant Workers – Serrano v. Gallant Maritime

Question: An OFW was illegally dismissed and awarded only 3 months’ salary based on a
POEA contract. He challenges the limitation. Is he entitled to full backwages?

• Answer: Yes, he is entitled to full backwages.

• Legal Basis: In Serrano v. Gallant Maritime, the Supreme Court declared
unconstitutional the clause limiting backwages to 3 months.
• Application: The clause violated equal protection and due process. Illegally dismissed
workers should be made whole.
• Conclusion: Full backwages must be awarded.

8. Climate Justice – Resident Marine Mammals v. Reyes

Question: Environmental groups sued to stop destructive sonar testing, citing harm to marine
mammals. Can marine life have legal standing?

• Answer: Yes, marine species can have standing through legal representation.
• Legal Basis: In Resident Marine Mammals v. Reyes, the Court recognized
environmental stewardship and the right of nature to protection.
• Application: Environmental harm affecting ecological balance justifies legal
intervention in behalf of voiceless entities.
• Conclusion: The petition was proper and must be addressed by the courts.

9. Health Rights – Universal Health Care Act (RA 11223)

Question: A poor cancer patient is denied chemotherapy at a public hospital due to lack of
funds. Is the denial legal under RA 11223?

• Answer: No, it is not legal.

• Legal Basis: RA 11223 mandates that all Filipinos are automatically enrolled in the
National Health Insurance Program, with emphasis on free service for indigents.
• Application: Public hospitals are obligated to deliver essential health services
regardless of the patient’s ability to pay.
• Conclusion: The denial violates the patient’s right to accessible and equitable health
care.

10. International Obligations – ICCPR Article 7 (Torture) & CAT

16
 HUMAN RIGHTS LAW MASTERCLASS REVIEWER (2025 BAR)

PREPARED BY: LPrepared by: Lampel Joy D. Solis

Question: A detained suspect was blindfolded and electrocuted to force a confession. The
police claim it was necessary due to national security concerns. Is this a valid defense?

• Answer: No, national security is not a defense for torture.

• Legal Basis: Article 7 of the ICCPR and the Convention Against Torture (CAT) strictly
prohibit torture in all forms, with no derogation allowed.
• Application: The acts described constitute torture and violate both domestic law (RA
9745) and international obligations.
• Conclusion: The police officers are criminally and administratively liable.

11. Writ of Kalikasan – West Tower v. First Philippine Industrial Corp.

Question: Residents near an oil pipeline leak file a petition for Writ of Kalikasan. The company
argues that damage is localized and not a matter of national concern. Resolve.

• Answer: The writ is proper.

• Legal Basis: A Writ of Kalikasan may be issued where environmental damage
threatens life, health, or property of inhabitants in two or more cities or provinces.
• Application: An oil leak affecting multiple LGUs falls within this threshold, giving rise
to environmental accountability.
• Conclusion: The Court may issue the writ and order remediation.

12. International Mechanisms – Human Rights Council (UPR Process)

Question: The Philippines is called to answer for alleged extrajudicial killings under the
Universal Periodic Review. The government refuses to participate. What is the consequence?

• Answer: While participation is not compulsory, refusal undermines international

cooperation.
• Legal Basis: The UPR under the UN Human Rights Council is a peer-review mechanism
requiring transparency and engagement from member states.
• Application: Non-cooperation may result in diplomatic pressure, reputational harm,
and loss of credibility before the international community.
• Conclusion: The State is strongly urged to comply and account for its human rights
obligations.

PART V – CHEAT SHEET MATRIX (WITH Q&A)

1. Oposa v. Factoran

17
 HUMAN RIGHTS LAW MASTERCLASS REVIEWER (2025 BAR)

PREPARED BY: LPrepared by: Lampel Joy D. Solis

Question: A group of minors sued the government for allowing excessive logging. The State
argued that they have no standing. Rule.

• Answer: The minors have legal standing.

• Legal Basis: In Oposa v. Factoran, the Court held that minors can sue on behalf of
future generations under the doctrine of intergenerational responsibility.
• Application: Environmental degradation affects both current and future citizens. The
doctrine applies.
• Conclusion: The case should proceed.

2. Serrano v. Gallant Maritime (OFW Rights)

Questions: An OFW was illegally dismissed and the employer argues he is only entitled to 3
months’ salary. The worker insists on full backwages. Who is correct?

• Answer: The OFW is entitled to full backwages.

• Legal Basis: In Serrano v. Gallant Maritime (G.R. No. 167614), the Court declared
unconstitutional the provision limiting monetary awards to 3 months.
• Application: The OFW’s right to security of tenure and full compensation was
affirmed.
• Conclusion: He must be awarded full backwages for the unexpired portion of his
contract.

3. Capulong v. NHA (Urban Poor Evictions)

Question: Informal settlers were evicted without notice or consultation. The NHA claims
urgency. Was due process observed?

ALAC Answer:

• Answer: No, due process was not observed.

• Legal Basis: In Capulong v. NHA (G.R. No. 109777), the Court emphasized the right to
due process in demolitions.
• Application: RA 7279 mandates prior notice and consultation even in cases involving
public lands.
• Conclusion: The eviction was unlawful.

4. Freedom of Press – Chavez v. Gonzales

Question: The DOJ issues a warning to networks not to air protest videos. Is this
constitutional?

• Answer: No, it constitutes prior restraint.

• Legal Basis: Chavez v. Gonzales held that warnings by government officials aimed to
stop future publication violate press freedom.
• Application: The directive was a form of censorship, without judicial approval.
• Conclusion: The action is unconstitutional.

18
 HUMAN RIGHTS LAW MASTERCLASS REVIEWER (2025 BAR)

PREPARED BY: LPrepared by: Lampel Joy D. Solis

5. Women’s Rights – Garcia v. Drilon Women’s Right, G.R. No. 179267, June 25, 2013

Question: A husband challenges the constitutionality of RA 9262, arguing that it discriminates

against men by protecting only women from intimate partner violence. Is the law valid?

• Answer: Yes, the law is valid.

• Legal Basis: In Garcia v. Drilon, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of RA
9262 (Anti-VAWC Law), finding that the gender-based classification is valid under the
equal protection clause due to the unequal power dynamics in domestic violence
situations.
• Application: The law does not arbitrarily discriminate against men; rather, it
acknowledges that women are disproportionately affected by domestic abuse,
justifying special legal protection.
• Conclusion: RA 9262 is constitutional, and the petitioner's challenge fails.

6. LGBTQ+ Rights – Ang Ladlad v. COMELEC

Question: COMELEC denied Ang Ladlad’s registration for party-list representation due to
"immorality." Rule.

• Answer: The denial is unconstitutional.

• Legal Basis: In Ang Ladlad v. COMELEC, the Court ruled that moral disapproval alone is
not a compelling reason to deny political participation.
• Application: The group’s rights to association, expression, and equal protection were
violated.
• Conclusion: The COMELEC’s decision was void.

7. Digital Privacy – Gamboa v. Chan Question: A mayor disseminates a citizen’s private

information to discredit him. He files for habeas data. Is this proper?

• Answer: Yes, habeas data is proper.

• Legal Basis: In Gamboa v. Chan, the Court affirmed the use of habeas data to protect
informational privacy from misuse by public officials.
• Application: Unauthorized collection and disclosure of personal data violates the right
to security.
• Conclusion: The petition is meritorious.

8. Health Rights – RA 11223

Question: A barangay health station refuses to attend to a poor patient citing lack of
resources. Can this be justified?

• Answer: No.

19
 HUMAN RIGHTS LAW MASTERCLASS REVIEWER (2025 BAR)

PREPARED BY: LPrepared by: Lampel Joy D. Solis

• Legal Basis: Under the Universal Health Care Act, every Filipino is entitled to essential
health services.
• Application: Failure to provide basic care violates the principle of equity and
accessibility.
• Conclusion: The health facility may be liable for administrative sanctions

9. Education Rights: Obillo v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 207845, October 22, 2013
Question: A public school student running for Sangguniang Kabataan (SK) is disqualified by
the COMELEC for submitting incomplete residency documents despite clear proof of
continuous school enrollment in the barangay. Can the student challenge this
disqualification?
• Answer: Yes, the disqualification may be challenged.
• Legal Basis: In Obillo v. COMELEC, the Supreme Court ruled that substantial
compliance showing actual and continued residence may suffice, especially when a
strict application of procedural rules would impair the right to education and
participation in governance.
• Application: The student’s ongoing enrollment in a barangay school strongly indicates
residency. The technical deficiency should not defeat the exercise of a constitutional
and statutory right.
• Conclusion: COMELEC’s strict interpretation is improper; the student’s candidacy
must be upheld in favor of protecting the youth's right to participation and education.

20