UPDATED DRAFT*

Constitutional Law Two Atty. Edilwasif T. BaddiriSecond Semester, 2014-2015 Saturday

Required Textbook

Bernas S.J., Fr. Joaquin (2011) The 1987 Philippine Constitution: A Comprehensive Reviewer, Manila: Rex Book Store, Inc.Bernas S.J., Fr. Joaquin (2003) The 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines: A Commentary, Manila: Rex Book Store, Inc.Nachura, Antonio (2006) Outline Reviewer in Political Law, Quezon City: VJ Graphil Arts, Inc.

Classroom Policies

Students are expected to have read the assigned materials for the class sessions and will be called for recitation.

Attendance is checked. University rules governing absences are observed. Cell phones and other electronic devices must be kept in silent mode. Students must refrain from using these devices during classroom sessions.

Plagiarism and cheating are grave offenses of intellectual dishonesty and are punishable by university rules.

Consultation and discussion is available upon request of the student. Email me: ebaddiri@gmail.com

Article III – Bill of Rights

Section 1. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the law.

1. Purpose of the Bill of Rights2. Three Great Powers of Government3. Police PowerLozano v. Martinez, GR No. L-63419, December 18, 1986

4. The Seat of Police PowerMMDA v. Bel-Air Village Association, etc GR No. 135962, March 27, 2000

5. Primacy of Human RightsRepublic v. Sandiganbayan GR 104768, July 21, 2003 Mijares v. Ranada, GR 139325, April 12, 2005

6. Hierarchy of Rights: Life, Liberty, PropertyPhilippine Blooming Mills Employees Organization v. Philippine Blooming Mills Co. Inc., 51 SCRA 189Salonga v. Pano, GR No. L-59524, February 18, 1985Victoriano v. Elizalde Rope Workers’ Union, GR No. L-25246, Sept. 12, 1974Social Justice Society, et al v. Atienza, Jr., GR No. 156052, February 13, 2008

7. Due Process: In General Tupas v. CA, 193 SCRA 597Asilo v. People, 645 SCRA 41

1

8. Procedural Due Process

In GeneralBanco Espanol Filipino v. Palanca 37 P 921

Aspects of the Proceedings Galvez v. CA 237 SCRA 685 State Prosecutor v. Muros 236 SRCA 505- Martinez v. CA 237 SCRA 395 Espeleta v. Avelino 62 SCRA 395 Rabino v. Cruz 222 SCRA 493 Ysmael v. CA 273 SCRA 165 Carvajal v CA 280 SCRA 351 People v. Castillio 289 SCRA 213 Cosep v. PEO 290 SCRA 378 Rodrigo v. Sandiganbayan GR 125498 Feb. 18, 1999 People v. Huli 338 SCRA 2000 People v. Cabiles 341 SCRA 2000 Gozum v. Liangco 339 SCRA 253 Soriano v. Angeles 339 SCRA 253 Villanueva v. Malaya 330 SCRA 278 Almendras v. Asis 330 SCRA 69 Dayot v. Garcia 353 SCRA 280 People v. Hapa GR 125698 July 19, 2001 Aguirre v. people GR 144142 August 23, 2001 Puyat v. Zabarte 352 SCRA 738 Baritua v. Mercader 350 SCRA 86 Barbers v. Laguio 351 SCRA 606 People v. Herida 353 SCRA 650 People v. Medenilla GR 1311638 Mar. 26, 2001 People v. Rivera GR 139180 July. 31, 2001 People v. Basques GR 144035 Sept. 27, 2001 Cooperative Development v. DOLEFIL GR 137489 May 29, 2002 Garcia v. Pajaro GR 141149 July 5, 2002 Briaso v. Mariano, GR 137265, Jan. 31, 2003 Macias v. Macias GR 1461617, Sept. 3, 2003 Albior v. Auguis, AM P-01-1472, June 6, 2003 Republic v. Sandiganbayan, GR 152154, Nov. 18, 2003 Ty v. Banco Filipino Savings and Mortgage Bank, 422 SCRA 649 People v. Larranaga, 412 SCRA 530 R. Transport v. Philhino 494 SCRA 630 Trans Middle East v. Sandiganbayan 499 SCRA 308 Uy v. First Metro 503 SCRA 704 Deutsche Bank v. Chua 481 SCRA 672 People v. Santos 501 SCRA 325 Victoriano v. People 509 SCRA 483 Santos v. DOJ 543 SCRA 70 DBP v. Feston 545 SCRA 422 Ruivivar v. OMB 565 SCRA 324 Borromeo v. Garcia 546 SCRA 543 Cesar v. OMB 553 SCRA 357 DAR v. Samson 554 SCRA 500 Hilano v. People 551 SCRA 191 Pastona v. CA 559 SCRA 137 Bibas v. OMB 559 SCRA 591 Espina v. Cerujano 550 SCRA 107 Geronga v. Varela 546 SCRA 429 OMB v. Magno GR 178923, Nov. 27, 2008 Avenido v. CSC 553 SCRA 711 Romuladez v. COMELEC 553 SCRA 370 Multi-Trans Agency v. Oriental 590 SCRA 675 Siochi v. BPI 193872, October 18, 2011

2

Catacutan v. People 656 SCRA 524 Mortel v. Kerr 685 SCRA 1 (clear violation and errors of counsel) Gravides v. COMELEC 685 SCRA 382 (error of counsel)

Publicity and T.V. Coverage Webb v. de Leon 247 SCRA 652 People v. Teechankee 249 SCRA 54 People v. Sanchez GR 121039-45 Jan. 25, 1999 People v. Sanchez GR 121039 Oct. 18, 2001 Perez v. Estrada A.M. No. 01-4-03-SC June 29, 2001 Perez v. Estrada A.M. No. 01-4-03-SC Sept. 13, 2001 People v. Roxas- 628 SCRA 378

Administrative; Quasi-Judicial Proceedings; Arbitration 1. In General Administrative due process Ang Tibay v. CIR 69 P 635 Dazon v. Yap - 610 SCRA 19

2. Judges and Disciplinary Process OCA v. Pascual 259 SCRA 125 Valenzuela v. Bellosillo 322 SCRA 536 3. Aspects of the Proceedings Lumiqued v. Exevea 282 SCRA 125 Fabella v. CA 282 SCRA 256 Joson v.Exec. Sec. 290 SCRA 279 Busuego v. CA GR 95325 Mar. 11, 1999 CSC v. Lucas GR 127838 Jan. 21, 1999 NPC v. Bernabe 332 SCRA 74 Summary Dismissal v. Torcita 330 SCRA 153 Velayo v. Comelec 327 SCRA 713 Ramoran v. Jardine 326 SCRA 208 Immam v. Comelec 322 SCRA 866 Villarosa v. Comelec GR 133927 Nov. 29, 1999 Go v. Comelec GR 147741 May 10, 2001 Mollaneda v. Umacob R 140128 June 6, 2001 Cruz v. CSC GR 144469 Nov 27, 2001 Condilla v. De Venecia GR 150605 Dec 10, 2002 Associated Communication v. Dumlao GR 136762 Nov. 21, 2002 Velllarosa v. Pomperada, AdminCase No. 5310, Jan. 28, 2003 Alauya v. Comelec, GR 152151-52, Jan. 22, 2003 Spouses Casimiro v. CA 135911, Feb. 11, 2003 Sy v. CA, GR 147572, Feb. 27, 2003 Namil v. Comelecc, GR 15040, Oct. 28, 2003 Bautista v. Comelec, GR 154796-97, Oct. 23, 2003 Office of OMB v. Coronel 493 SCRA 392 Erece v. Macalingay 552 SCRA 320 Marcelo v. Bungubung 552 SCRA 589 SEC v. Interport 567 SCRA 354 Calinisan v. Roaquin 630 456 IBP v. Atienza 613 SCRA 518 Domingo v. OMB 577 SCRA 476 Zambales v. CAstellejos 581 SCRA 320 OMB v. Evangelista 581 SCRA 350 Phil Export v. Pearl City 608 SCRA 280 Pichay v. Office of the Deputy Executive Secretary 677 SCRA 408 Arroyo v. DOJ 681 SCRA 181

4. Extradition Proceedings Sec, of Justice v. Lantion 343 SCRA 377 Cuevas v. Munoz GR 140520 Dec. 18, 2000

3

Gov’t. of U.S.A v. Purganan GR 148571 Sept. 24, 2002 Rodriguez v. Presiding Judge, 483 SCRA 290 Gov’t. of Hong Kong v. Olalia, GR 153675 April 19, 2007

5. Arbitration RCBC v. Banco de Oro 687 SCRA 583 Academic Discipline

1. In General Angeles v. Sison 112 SCRA 26 Malabanan v. Ramento 129 SCRA 359 Guzman v. NU 142 SCRA 699 Alcuaz v. PSBA 161 SCRA 7 Non v. Judge Dames 185 SCRA 523 ADMU v. Capulong 222 SCRA 644 U.P. v. Ligot-Telan 227 SCRA 342 Go v. Colegio De San Juan de Letran 683 SCRA 358

Deportation Proceeding

1. In General Lao Gi v. CA 180 SCRA 756 Domingo v Scheer, 421 SCRA 468

Regulations: Fixing of Rates and Regulation of Profession

1. Rates Philcomsat y. Alcuaz 180 SCRA 218 Randiocom v. NTC 184 SCRA 517 Maceda v. ERB 199 SCRA 454 Globe Telecom c. NTC, 435 SCRA 110

2. Profession

Corona v. UHPAP 283 SCRA 31

Dismissals, Suspension, Reinstatement etc….

1. Dismissals in Government Boards and Commissions Abalos c. CSC 196 SCRA 81 GSIS v. CSC 201 SCRA 661 Macayayong v. Ople 204 SCRA 372 Gonzales v. CSC 226 SCRA 66 Go. V. NPC 271 SCRA 447 CHR v. CSC 227 SCRA 42 Uy v. COA 328 SCRA 607 Lameyra v. Pangilinan 322 SCRA 117 NPC v. Zozobrado, 487 SCRA 16 PAGCOR v. CA, GR 185668, December 13, 2011

2. Dismissals in Private Sector Hellinic v. Siete 195 SCRA 179 Salaw v. NLRC 202 SCRA 7 Conti v. NLRC, GR 119253 April 10, 1997 Aparente v. NLRC, GR 117652 Lopez v. Alturas 647 SCRA 566

3. Preventive Suspension Alonzo v. Capulong 244 SCRA 80 Castillio – Co v. Barbers 290 SCRA 717 Bacsasar v. CSC 576 SCRa 787

4

Carabeo v. CA 607 SCRA 390

Ordinance/Status/Memo Cir/Rules People v. Nazario 165 SCRA 136 Franscisco v. CA 199 SCRA 595 Misamis Or. V. DOF 238 SCRA 63 Estrada v. Sandiganbayan GR 148560 Nov. 19, 2001

Motion for Reconsideration Mendenilla v. CSC 194 SCRA 278 Mendenilla v. CSC 221 SCRA 295 Rodreguez v. Proj. 6 247 SCRA 528 Lazo v. CSC 236 SCRA 469 Salonga v. CA 269 SCRA 534 Bernardo v. CA 275 SCRA 413 Casuela v. Ombudsman 276 SCRA 635 Cordenillio v. Executive Secretary 276 SCRA 652 Chua v. CA 287 SCRA 33 De la Cruz v. Abelle 352 SCRA 691 Rodreguez v. CA GR 134275 August 7, 2002 Gonzales v. CSC 490 SCRA 741 Berboso v. CA 494 SCRA 583 Pontejos v. Desierto 592

I. Suretyship Stronghold Insurance v. CA 205 SCRA 605

J. Tariff and Customs Code Feeder v. CA 197 SCRA 842 K. Appeal Alba v. Deputy Ombudsman 254 SCRA 753 Telan v. CA 202 SCRA 246 Rivera v. CSC 240 SCRA 43 Singson v. NLRC 274 SCRA 358 Building Care v. Macaraeg 687 SCRA 643

L. Closure Proceeding CB v. CA 220 SCRA 536 Rural Bank v. CA 162 SCRA 288 Phil. Merchants v. CA GR 112844 June 2, 1995

M. Biddings

Concerned Officials v. Vasquez, 240 SCRA 502

N. UDHA – RA 7279

Perez v. Madrona 668 SCRA 696

O. Cancellation of Property Rights/Privileges

American Inter-Fashion v. OP, 197 SCRA 409Alliance of DFLO v. Laguesma, 254 SCRA 565ABAKADA v. Ermita, 469 SCRA 1British American Tobacco v. Camacho 562 SCRA 511, 585 SCRA 36

P. Administrative and Preliminary Investigation-OmbudsmanRoxas v. Vasquez GR 114944 June 19, 2001Ocampo v. Ombudsman 322 SCRA 17Serapio v. Sandiganbayan GR 148468 Jan. 28, 2003

9. Substantive Due Process

5

US v. Toribio – 15 Phil. 85Churchill v. Rafferty – 32 Phil. 580People v. Fajardo – 104 Phil. 443Ermita-Malate Hotel & Operator v. City of Manila – 20 SCRA 849Ynot v. Intermediate Court of Appeals – 148 SCRA 659Agustin v. Edu, 88 SCRA 195Balacuit v. CFI – 163 SCRA 182National Development Co. and New Agrix v. Phil. Vet. Bank – 192 SCRA 257Maranaw Hotel v. NLRC – 238 SCRA 190Magtajas v. Pryce Properties – 234 SCRA 255Bennis v. Michigan – No. 94-8729 March 4, 1996Cruzan v. Dir. Missouri – No. 88-1503 June 25 1990JMM Promotion and Management Inc. v. CA – 260 SCRA 319Corona v. United Harbor – 283 SCRA 31Kelly v. Johnson – 425 US 238Chavez v. Romulo – 431 SCRA 534 (2004)Cruz v. Flavier, GR 135385, December 6, 2000Smith Kline v. CA, GR 121267, October 23, 2001Pareno v. COA 523 SCRA 390Esponcilla v. Bagong Tanyag 529 SCRA 654BF v. City Mayor 515 SCRA 1St. Luke’s v. NLRC 517 SCRA 677Carlos v. DSWD 526 SCRA 130Perez v. LPG 531 SCRA 431MMDA v. Viron 530 SCRA 341Sec. of DND v. Manalo 568 SCRA 42 (Amparo)SJS v. DDB 570 SCRA 410SJS v. Atienza 545 SCRA 92SEC v. Interport 567 SCRA 354People v. Siton 600 SCRA 476White Light v. City of Manila 576 SCRA 416CREBA v. Romula 614 SCRA 605Southern Hemisphere v. ATC 632 SCRA 146Roxas v. Macapagal-Arroyo 630 SCRA 211Meralco v. Lim 632 SCRA 195Pollo v. Karina Constantino. GR 181881, October 8, 2011Sto. Tomas v. Paneda 685 SCRA 245

10. Equal Protection of the Law

REQUISITES of VALID CLASSIFICATION:It must rest on Substantial distinctionsIt must be germane to the purpose of the law. It must not be limited to existing conditions only.It must apply equally to all members of the same class.

Standards of Judicial Reviewa) Rational Basis Test: described as adopting a ‘deferential’ attitude towards legislative classifications. It applies to legislative classifications in general, such as those pertaining to economic or social legislation. b) Strict Scrutiny Test: A legislative classification which impermissibly interferes with the exercise of a fundamental right or operates to the peculiar disadvantage of a suspect class is presumed unconstitutional, and the burden is upon government to prove that the classification is necessary to achieve a compelling state interest and that it is the least restrictive means to protect such interest. This is used on issues of speech, gender, and race.

c) Intermediate Scrutiny Test: government must show that the challenged classification serves an important state interest and that the classification is at least substantially related to serving that interest.

6

People v. Cayat – 68 PHIL. 12, 18Ichong v. Hernandez – 101 PHIL. 1155Villegas v. Hiu Chiong Tsai Pao Ho – 86 SCRA 270Dumlao v. COMELEC – 96 SCRA 392 Goesart v. Cleary - 335 US 464Ormoc Sugar Central v. Ormoc City – Feb. 7, 1968Sison, Jr. v. PAGCOR – May 14, 1991Republic v. Sandiganbayan – 230 SCRA 711Himagan v. People – 237 SCRA 538Almonte v. Vasquez – 244 SCRA 286Telebap v. COMELEC – 289 SCRA 337 Tiu v. CA – GR 127410 Jan. 20, 1999Aguinaldo v. COMELEC – GR 132774 June 21, 1999De Guzman v. COMELEC – 336 SCRAPeople v. Mercado – GR 116239, Nov. 29, 2000People v. Jalosjos – 324 SCRA 689People v. Piedra – 350 SCRA 163International School v. Quisumbing – June 1, 2000Central Bank Employees Assn. v. BSP – 446 SCRA 299Ycasuegi v. PAL 569 SCRA 467SJS v. Atienza 545 SCRA 92Gobenciong v. CA 550 SCRA 302MIAA v. Olongapo 543 SCRA 269Nicolas v. Romulo 578 SCRA 438League of Cities v. COMELEC 608 SCRA 636Quinto v. COMELEC 613 SCRA 385CREBA v. Romulo 614 SCRA 605 (supra)NPC v. Pinatubo 616 SCRA 611Biraogo v. PTC 637 SCRA 78League v. COMELEC 643 SCRA 149PAGCOR v. BIR 645 SCRA 338Gancayco v. Quezon City 658 SCRA 853Mendoza v. People, GR 183891, October 19, 2011Bureau of Customs v. Teves, GR 181704, December 6, 2011Pichay v. Office of the Deputy Executive Secretary (supra)Alvez v. People 677 SCRA 673Garcia v. People 677 SCRA 750 Arroyo v. DOJ Sto. Tomas v. Paneda 685 SCRA 245

Section 2. The right to of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.

1. Purpose of Section 2

2. Scope of the Protection Moncada v. People’s Court, 80 PHIL 1Stonehill v. Diokno, 20 SCRA 383People v. Marti, 193 SCRA 57Waterous Drug Corp. v. NLRC, GR 113271, Oct 16, 1997People v. Mendoza, GR 109279, Jan 18, 1999People v. Bongcarawan, GR 143944, July 11, 2002

3. Requisites for a Valid Warrant

A. Probable Cause

I. Definition

7

Henry v. US, 361 US 98

For Arrest: People v. Syjuco, 64 Phil 667Alvarez v. CFI , 64 Phil 33Webb v. De Leon, GR 121234, August 23, 1995

For Search:Burgos v. Chief of Staff, 133 SCRA 800Prudente v. Dayrit, 180 SCRA 69

II. Who Determines Probable Cause?People v. CA, GR 126005, Jan 21, 1999

III. Kind of Evidence Needed to Establish Probable CauseMicrosoft Corp. v. Maxicorp, GR 140946, Sept. 13, 2004

IV. In GeneralNala v. Barroso, GR 153087 Aug. 7, 2003Betoy v. Judge AM NO. MJJ-05-1108, Feb 26, 2006 20th Century Fox v. CA, 162 SCRA 655Columbia Pictures v. CA, 262 SCRA 219

B. Personally Determined by the Judge Placer v. Villanueva, 126 SCRA 463Lim v. Judge Fenix, 194 SCRA 292People v. Inting, 187 SCRA 788People v. Delgado, 189 SCRA 715Allado v. Diokno – 232 SCRA 192Gozos v. Tac-an – GR 123191, Dec. 17, 1998Flores v. Sumaljag – 290 SCRA 568

C. Personal Examination (After Examination Under Oath or Affirmation the Complainant and the Witnesses He May Produce)Bache & Co. v Ruiz – 37 SCRA 823Soliven v. Makasiar, GR 8287, Nov. 14 1981Luna v. Plaza, 26 SCRA 310Kho v. Judge Makalintal, GR 94902-06, April 21, 1999Alvarez v. Court, 64 Phil 33Bache v. Cruz, 37 SCRA 823Borlongan v. Pena, GR 143591, Nov. 23, 2007 People v. Mamaril, GR 147607, Jan 22 2004Ortiz v. Palaypayon – 234 SCRA 391

D. Particularity of Description People v. Veloso 48 Phil 169Alvarez v. CFI – 64 Phil. 33Corro v. Lising – 137 SCRA 541Pangandaman v. Casar, 159 SCRA 599 (1988)Stonehill v. Diokno (1967)People v. Martinez – 235 SCRA 171Microsoft Corp. v. Maxicorp (2004)Burgos v. Chief of Staff, AFP 133 SCRA 890Frank Uy v. BIR , 344 SCRA 36Yousex Al-Ghoul v. CA GR 126859 Sept. 4 , 2001People v. CA – 291 SCRA 400Paper Industries v. Asuncion, GR 122092 May 19, 1998 Malalaon v. CA, 232 SCRA 249 People v. Estrada – GR 124461, June 26, 2000

4. Only a Judge May Issue a Warrant Salazar v. Achcoso, 183 SCRA 145

8

Republic (PCGG) v. Sandiganbayan, 255 SCRA 438Morano v. Vivo, 80 SCRA 562 Sy v. Domingo Tron Van Nyhia v. Liway, 175 SCRA 318 Board of Commissioners v. Judge De La Rosa, 197 SCRA 853Harvey v. Santiago 162 SCRA 840Ho vs. People – 280 SCRA 365

*Administrative Arrest (Exceptions to the rule that only a judge may issue a warrant):Commissioner of Immigration and Deportation may issue warrants to carry out a final finding of a violation. (Board of Commissioners v. Judge De La Rosa, 197 SCRA 853) It is issued after a proceeding has taken place.

5. “Of Whatever Nature and for Any Purpose”Material Distributions v. Judge, 84 Phil 127 (1989)Oklahoma Press v. Walling, 327 US 186Camara v. Municipal Court, 387 US 523 ( 1967)

6. Warrantless Searches and Seizures

A. General Rule: Get a Search Warrant.People v. Aminuddin, 163 SCRA 402People v. Valdez, 341 SCRA 85

B. When is a search a “search”?Valmonte v. General de Villa – 178 SCRA 211 (Main) and 185 SCRA 655 (MR)Guazon v. De Villa – 181 SCRA 623

C. No Presumption of Regularity in Search CasesPeople v. Tudtud, GR 144037, Sept 26, 2003Sony Music v. Judge Espanol, GR 156804, March 14, 2005

D. Instances of Warrantless Searches and Seizures

List: People v. Sevilla – 339 SCRA 625

i. Incidental to a Lawful Arrest Sec. 12 Rule 16, Rules of Court

Two Requisites: 1. Item to be searched was within the arrestee’s custody or area of immediate control.2. Search was contemporaneous with an arrest.

Padilla v. CA, GR 121917 March 12, 1997Espano v. CA 288 SCRA 558 (1998) People v. De Lara – 236 SCRA 291People v. Leangsiri – 252 SCRA 213People v. Cuenco – GR 128277, Nov. 16, 1998People v. Che Chun Ting – 328 SCRA 592

ii. Plain View

Requisites: 1. Prior valid intrusion 2. Evidence was inadvertently discovered by the police3. Illegality of the evidence is immediately apparent; and4. Noticed without further search. People v. Evaristo, 216 SCRA 413People v. Tabar, 222 SCRA 144 (1993)Roan v. Gonzales, 145 SCRA 687United Laboratories v. Isip – GR 163858 (June 28, 2005)

9

People v. Doria – GR 125299, Jan. 22, 1999Del Rosario v. People, GR 142295, May 31, 2001

iii. Moving VehicleThere must be a highly reasonable suspicion amounting to probable cause that the occupant committed a criminal activity.

Hizon v. Court of Appeals, 265 SCRA 517 (1996)Bagalihog v. Fernandez – 198 SCRA 614Aniag, Jr v. COMELEC, 237 SCRA 424 (1994)People v. Aminuddin, 163 SCRA 402People v. Malmstedt, GR 91107, June 19, 1991People v. Lo Ho Wing, GR 88017, Jan 21, 1991People v. Saycon – 236 SCRA 329People v. CFI – 101 SCRA 86People v. Barros – 231 SCRA 557Mustang Lumber v. CA – 257 SCRA 430People v. Lacerna – 278 SCRA 561

iv. Consent/Waiver

Requisites:1.It must appear that the right exists. 2. The person involved had knowledge, either actual or constructive, of the existence of the right.3. The person had actual intention to relinquish the right.

De Garcia v. Locsin, 65 PHIL 689Caballes v. Court of Appeals, GR 136292, Jan 15, 2002People v. Agbot, 106 SCRA 325Lopez v. Commissioner of Customs, 68 SCRA 320 (1975)People v. Damaso, 212 SCRA 457People v. Asis, GR 142531, October 15, 2002Spouses Veroy v. Layague, GR 95632, June 18, 1992People v. Omaweng, 213 SCRA 462People v. Correa, 285 SCRA 679People v. Ramos, 222 SCRA 557People v. Tudtud, GR 144037, Sept 26, 2003People v. Tabar – 222 SCRA 144People v. Encinada – 280 SCRA 72People v. Aruta – 288 SCRA 626

v. Customs Search Papa v. Mago, 22 SCRA 857Pacis v. Pamaran, 56 SCRA 16People v. Gatward, 267 SCRA 785People v. Susan Canton, GR 148825, December 27, 2002People v. Johnson – 348 SCRA 526

vi. Stop and Frisk Situation Malacat: “Where a police officer observes unusual conduct which leads him reasonably to conclude in light of his experience that criminal activity may be afoot and that the person with whom he is dealing may be armed and that the person with whom he is dealing may be armed and presently dangerous, where in the course of investigation of this behavior he identifies himself as a policeman and makes reasonable inquiries, and where nothing in the initial stages of the encounter serves to dispel his reasonable fear for his own or other’s safety, he is entitled for the protection of himself and others in the area to conduct a carefully limited search of the outer clothing of such person in an attempt to discover weapons which might be used to assault him.”

Malacat (1997): Probable cause is not required. However, mere suspicion or a hunch is not enough. Rather, a “genuine reason must exist, in light of the police officer’s experience and surrounding conditions, to warrant the belief that the person detained has weapons concealed about him.”

10

Terry v. Ohio 392 US 1Posadas v. CA, GR NO. 89139, August 2, 1990People v. Solayao 202 SCRA 255 (1996)Malacat v. CA 283 SCRA 159 (1997)Manalili v. CA, GR 113447, October 7, 1997People v. Aruta, 288 SCRA 626 (1998)People v. Sy Chua, GR 136066, February 4, 2003

vii. Exigent and Emergency Circumstances

People v. De Gracia, 233 SCRA 716 (1994)

*Drug, Alcohol and Blood TestsRequisites to be valid:

1. It must be random, and2. It must be suspicionless.

Laserna v. DDB, GR 158633, Nov. 3, 2008: The constitutional validity of the mandatory, random, and suspicionless drug testing for students emanates primarily from the waiver of their right to privacy when they seek entry to the school, and from their voluntary submitting their persons to the parental authority of school authorities.In case of private and public employees, the constitutional soundness of the mandatory, random and suspicious drug testing proceeds from the reasonableness of the drug test policy and requirement.However, there is no valid justification for mandatory drug testing for persons accused of crimes punishable with at least 6 years and one day imprisonment as they are singled out and impleaded against their will. The operative concepts in the mandatory drug testing are “randomness” and “suspicionless.”

Pimentel, Jr v. COMELEC, GR 161658, November 3, 2008: The mandatory drug test requirements as a pre-condition for the validity of a certificate of candidacy of electoral candidates not established under the Constitution, e.g. local government positions, is valid.

7. Warrantless Arrests

Rule 113, Section 5. A peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person:

a. When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or attempting to commit an offense;b. When an offense has in fact been committed, and he has personal knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be arrested has committed it; andc. When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal establishment or place where he is serving final judgment or temporarily confined while his case is pending or has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to another

A. In Flagrante Delicto

People v. De La Cruz, GR 83260, April 18, 1990People v. Doria, GR 125299, January 22, 1999Espiritu v. Lim, GR 85727, October 3, 1991Umil v. Fidel Ramos, GR 81567, July 9, 1990People v. Sucro, 195 SCRA 388People v. Rodrigueza, 205 SCRA 791People v. Yap, 229 SCRA 787People v. Alolod, 266 SCRA 154People v. Mengote – 210 SCRA 174People v. Elamparo – 329 SCRA

B. Hot Pursuit

Two Requisites:

11

1. An offense had just been committed.2. The person making the arrest has probable cause to believe, based on his personal knowledge of facts and circumstances, that the person to be arrested committed it.*There must be immediacy between the time the offense is committed and the time of the arrest.

Go v. CA – 206 SCRA 138People v. Manlulu, 231 SCRA 701 (1994)People v. Rodrigueza, 205 SCRA 791 (1992)People v. Enrile, 222 SCRA 586People v. Jayson, 282 SCRA 166 (1997)People v. Del Rosario, GR 127755, April 14, 1999People Samus, GR 135957, April 14, 1999People v. Cubcubin, GR 136267, October 2, 2001People v. Gorente, 219 SCRA 756Padilla v. CA, GR 121917, March 12, 1997People v. Burgos – 144 SCRA 1People v. Sucro – 195 SCRA 388People v. Briones – 202 SCRA 708People v. Sequino – 264 SCRA 79People v. Nazareno – 260 SCRA 256People v. Mahusay – 282 SCRA 80People v. Alvario – 275 SCRA 529Larranaga v. CA – 287 SCRA 521People v. Olivarez – GR 77865, Dec. 4, 1998Cadua v. CA – 312 SCRA 703People v. Cubcubin – 360 SCRA People v. Compacion – 361 SCRA 540Posadas v. Ombudsman – 341 SCRA People v. Acol – 232 SCRA 406

C. Escaped Prisoner

D. Waiver

E. Procedural Rules

People v. Rabang – 187 SCRA 682People v. Lopez – 246 SCRA 95Velasco v. CA – 245 SCRA 677People v. Buluran – 325 SCRA 476

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.

Scope: Tangible and Intangible Objects.Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 437 (1967): the US Supreme Court held that the act of FBI agents in electronically recording a conversation made by petitioner in an enclosed public telephone booth violated his right to privacy and constituted a “search and seizure”.   Because the petitioner had a reasonable expectation of privacy in using the enclosed booth to make a personal telephone call, the protection of the Fourth Amendment extends to such area. In the concurring opinion of Mr. Justice Harlan, it was further noted that the existence of privacy right under prior decisions involved a two-fold requirement: first, that a person has exhibited an actual (subjective) expectation of privacy; and second, that the expectation be one that society is prepared to recognize as reasonable (objective).

Factors to Determine Violation of the Right to PrivacyIn the matter of the Petition for Issuance of the Writ of Habeas Corpus of Camilo I. Sabio, GR 174340, October 17, 2006: In evaluating a claim for violation of the right to privacy, a court

12

must determine whether a person has exhibited a reasonable expectation of privacy and, if so, whether that expectation has been violated by unreasonable government intrusion.Briccio Pollo v. Chairperson Karina David, GR 181881, October 18, 2011Anonymous Letter-Complaint against Atty. Miguel Morales, Clerk of Court, Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila, A.M. Nos. P-08-2519 and P-08-2520, November 19, 2008, 571 SCRA 361.Synhumliong v. Rivera, GR 200841, June 4, 2014

RA No. 4200, Anti-Wiretapping LawRamirez v. CA, 248 SCRA 590: “Private communication” in Section 1 of RA 4200 is deemed to include “private conversations.”Navarro v. CA, GR 121087, August 26, 1999: The Anti-Wiretapping Law prohibits the overhearing, intercepting, or recording of private communications. Thus, a tape recording of an altercation or verbal exchange between a policeman and a radio reporter at a police station is admissible in evidence.

Rule on the Writ of Habeas Data, AM 08-1-16-SCWrit of Habeas Data: the remedy available to any person whose right to privacy in life, liberty or security is violated or threatened by an unlawful act or omission of a public official or employee, or of a private individual or entity engaged in the gathering, collecting, or storing of data or information regarding the person, family, home and correspondence of the aggrieved party.

Not CoveredAlejano v. Cabuay, 468 SCRA 188In Re: Wenceslao Laureta, 148 SCRA 382People v. Albofera, 152 SCRA 123

Exclusionary RuleGaanan v. IAC – 145 SCRA 112Salcedo-Ortanez v. CA – 235 SCRA 111Zulueta v. CA – 253 SCRA 699Ople v. Torres – 293 SCRA 141Waterous Drug Corp v. NLRC, GR 113271, October 16, 1997People v. Marti – 193 SCRA 57People v. Artua – 288 SCRA 626

Section 4. No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances.

Content-based Regulation: Restraint is aimed at the message or idea of the expression. Apply the Strict Scrutiny Test and the challenged act must overcome the clear and present danger rule.

Content-neutral Regulation: Restraint is aimed to regulate the time, place or manner of the expression in public place without any restraint on the content of the expression. Apply the Intermediate Approach Test wherein a regulation is justified if it is : within the constitutional power of government, furthers an important or substantial government interest, government interest is unrelated to the suppression of free expression, and the incident restriction on the alleged freedom of speech and expression is no greater than is essential to the furtherance of that interest. Here, it only requires substantial government interest for validity.

Facial Challenge Concept: A facial challenge is an exception to the rule that only persons who are directly affected by a statute have legal standing to assail the same. This is only applicable to statutes involving free speech, impeached on the grounds of overbreadth or vagueness. Here, the litigants are permitted to challenge a statute not because their own rights of free expression are violated, but because of a judicial prediction or assumption that the statute’s very existence may cause others not before the court to refrain from constitutionally protected speech or expression.

Imbong v. Ochoa, GR 204819, April 8, 2014: While this Court has withheld the application of facial challenges to strictly penal statues, it has expanded its scope to cover statutes not only regulating free speech, but also those involving religious freedom, and other fundamental rights. The underlying reason for this modification is simple. For unlike its counterpart in the U.S., this Court, under its expanded jurisdiction, is mandated by the Fundamental Law not only to settle

13

actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable, but also to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government.

Overbreadth Doctrine: A ground to declare a statute void when “it offends the constitutional principle that a government purpose to control or prevent activities constitutionally subject to state regulations may not be achieved by means which sweep unnecessarily broadly and thereby invade the area of protected freedoms.”

Tests for Valid Government Interference to Freedom of Expression1.Clear and Present Danger Test2.Dangerous Tendency Test3.Balancing of Interest Test

State Regulation of Different Types of Mass Media

1.Broadcast and Radio Media: It is subject to dual regulation: First, procure a legislative franchise. Second, register and be subject to regulations set by the NTC. (Divinagracia v. CBS, Inc GR 162272, April 7, 2009)

2.Print Media

The freedom of television and radio broadcasting is lesser in scope that the freedom accorded to newspapers and print media. (Eastern Broadcasting Corp v. Dans Jr) Private vs. Government speech

Heckler’s Veto: This involves situations in which the government attempts to ban protected speech because it might provoke a violent response.

1. Prior Restraint: Refers to official governmental restrictions on the press or other forms of expression in advance of actual publication or dissemination.

Valid Prior Restraint:1. Movies, television, and radio broadcast censorship in view of its access to numerous

people.2. Pornography3. False or misleading commercial statement4. Advocacy of imminent lawless action5. Danger to national security (Chavez v. Gonzales)

Near v. Minnesota – 238 US 697Freedman v. Maryland – 380 US 51New York Times Co. v. US – 403 US 713Tolentino v. Sec. of Finance – GR 115444, Oct. 30, 1995Alexander v. US – 113 S. Ct. 2766, 125 L. Ed. 2d. 441INC v. CA, 259 SCRA 529 (1996)SWS v. COMELEC, GR 147571, May 5, 2001Chavez v. Gonzales, GR 168338, February 15, 2008Newsounds Broadcasting v. Dy, GR 170270 and 179411, April 2, 2009MTRCB v. ABS-CBN, GR 155282, January 17, 2005Re: Request for Radio-TV Coverage of the Estrada Trial, AM No. 01-4-03-SC, June 29, 2001Soriano v. Laguardia, GR 164785, April 29, 2009

2. Subsequent PunishmentPeople v. Perez – 45 Phil. 599Espiritu v. General Lim, GR 85727, October 3, 1991Dennis v. US – 341 US 494Gonzales v. COMELEC – 27 SCRA 835Eastern Broadcasting v. Dans, Jr. – 137 SCRA 628Ayer Prod. PTY. LTD. V. Judge Capulong – 160 SCRA 865Kelley v. Johnson – 425 US 238Brandenburg v. Ohio – 395 US 444Miriam College Foundation v. CA, GR 127930, December 15, 2000

14

3. Speech and the Electoral ProcessSanidad v. COMELEC – 181 SCRA 529National Press Club v. COMELEC – 207 SCRA 1Adiong v. COMELEC – March 31, 1992Osmena v. COMELEC – 288 SCRA 447ABS-CBN v. COMELEC – 323 SCRA 811SWS v. COMELEC – 357 SCRA 496Penera v. COMELEC, GR 181613, November 25, 2009

4. Commercial SpeechRubin v. Coors Brewing – 131 L. Ed. 2d 532Cincinnati v. Discovery Network – 123 L. Ed. 2d 99Central Hudson Gas v. Public Service Commission of New York, 447 US 557Pharmaceutical v. Secretary of Health, GR 173034, October 9, 2007City of Laduc v. Gilleo – 129 L. Ed. 2d 36

5. Libel (Unprotected Speech)Policarpio v. Manila Times – 5 SCRA 148Lopez v. CA – 34 SCRA 116New York Times Co. c. Sullivan – 376 US 254Rosenbloom v. Metromedia, Inc. – 403 US 254Gerts v. Robert Wlech – 418 US 323Hustler v. Magazine – 485 US 46In Re Jurado AM No. 90-5-2373, 4 LR 19 Aug’09In Re Jurado – 243 SCRA 299Vasquez v. CA – GR 118971 Sept. 15, 1999Borjal v. CA – GR. 126466 Jan. 14, 1999Vicario v. CA – GR 124491 June 1, 1999Pader v. People – 325 SCRA 117Fermin v. People, GR 157643, March 28, 2008

6. Obscenity (Unprotected Speech)Miller v. California – 37 L. Ed. 2d 419Gonzales v. Kalaw-Katigbak – 137 SCRA 717Pita v. CA – 178 SCRA 362Barnes v. Glen Theater – 498 US 439FCC v Pacifica Foundation – 438 US 726Renton v. Playtime Theater – 475 US 41Bethel School District v. Fraser – 478 US 675Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier – 484 US 260Fernando v. CA, GR 159751, December 6, 2006Soriano v. Laguardia, GR 164785, April 29, 2009

7. Assembly and PetitionNavarro v. Villegas – 31 SCRA 73PBM Employees v. PBM – 51 SCRA 189JBL Reyes v. Mayor Bagatsing – 125 SCRA 553PCIB v. Philnabank Employees, 105 SCRA 314Malabanan v. Ramento – 129 SCRA 359De la Cruz v. CA, GR 126183, March 25, 1999Bangalisan v. CA, GR 124678, July 23, 1997Ruiz v. Gordon, 126 SCRA 233BAYAN v. Ermita – GR 169838, April 25, 2006GSIS v. Kapisanan, GR 170132, December 6, 2006In Re Valmonte, 296 SCRAIn Re Petition to Annul 98-7-02 SC

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.

15

Purpose

I. Non-Establishment ClauseAglipay v. Ruiz, 64 Phil 201Garces v. Estenzo, 104 SCRA 510School District v. Schempp, 394 RS 203Board of Education v. Allen, 392 US 236Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 US 602Tilton v. Richardson, 403 US 672Country of Allegheny v. American Civil Liberties Union, 57 LW 504Zobrest v. Catalina, No. 92-94 June 18, 1993Capitol Square Review Board v. Pinetter & Ku Klus Klan, US No. 94-780, June 29, 1995Lee v. Welsman, US No. 90-1014, June 24, 1992 Manosca v. CA, 252 SCRA 412Islamic Dawah v. ES, GR 153888, July 9, 2003Taruc v. Dela Cruz, 453 SCRA 123UCCP v. Bradford, 674 SCRA 92Imbong v. Ochoa, GR 204819, April 8, 2014

II. Free Exercise of Religion

Testsa) Clear and Present Danger Test: When words are used in such circumstance and of such nature as to create a clear and present danger that will bring about the substantive evil that the State has a right to prevent.

b) Compelling State Interest Test: When a law of general application infringes religious exercise, albeit incidentally, the state interest sought to be promoted must be so paramount and compelling as to override the free exercise claim. Three-step test:1. Has the statute or government action created a burden on the free exercise of religion?2. Is there a sufficiently compelling state interest to justify this infringement of religious liberty?3. Has the state in achieving its legitimate purposes used the least intrusive means possible so that the free exercise is not infringed any more than necessary to achieve the legitimate goal of the state? (Estrada v. Escritor)

c) Conscientious Objector Test: Persons who are conscientiously opposed to participation in war in any form by reason of religious training and belief may be exempted from combat training and service in the armed forces. Religious training and belief means an individual’s belief in relation to a Supreme Being involving duties superior to those arising from any human relation, but does not include essentially political, sociological or philosophical views or a merely personal code.

Victoriano v. Elizalde, 59 SCRA 94Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 US 296US v. Ballard – 322 US 78American Bible Society v. City of Manila – 104 Phil. 386Ebranilag v. Divison Superintendent – 219 SCRA 256; (MR) 251 SCRAWisconsin v. Yoder – 406 US 205Goldman v. Weinberger – 54 LW 4298German v. Baranganan – 135 SCRA 514Tolentino v. Sec. of Finance – 249 SCRA 628Centeno v. Villalon-Pornillos – 236 SCRA 197Church of the Lukumi v. City of Hialeach – No. 91-948, June 11, 1993Lamb’s Chapel v. School Disctrict – No.91-2024, June 7, 1993In re Request of Muslim Employees in the Different Court of Iligan City, 477 SCRA 648Estrada v. Escritor – AM P-021651, August 4, 2003 (Compelling State Interest Test)Imbong v. Ochoa, GR 204819, April 8, 2014

III. No Religious TestTorcaso v. Watkins, 367 SCRA 488Pamil v. Teleron – 86 SCRA 413McDaniel v. Paty – 435 US 618

16

Ang Ladlad v. COMELEC, GR 190582, April 8, 2010

IV. Ecclesiastical Matters

Austria v. NLRC, 310 SCRA 293Long and Almeria v. Basa, GR 134963, September 7, 2001Taruc v. Dela Cruz, 453 SCRA 123UCCP v. Bradford, 674 SCRA 92

Section 6. The liberty of abode and of changing the same within the limits prescribed by law shall not be impaired except upon lawful order of the court. Neither shall the right to travel be impaired except in the interest of national security, public safety, or public health, as may be provided by law.

Article 13 (2) Universal Declaration of Human RightsArticle 12 (4) Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

Watch-list, hold departure orders and lookout orderReyes v. CA, GR 182161, December 3, 2009

Return to One’s CountryMarcos v. Manglapus, 177 SCRA 668

Liberty of Abode and Right to TravelVillavicencio v. Lukban, 39 Phil 778Rubi v. Provincial Board of MindoroSilverio v. CA – 195 SCRA 760Santiago v. Vasquez – 217 SCRA 633Marcos v. Sandiganbayan – 247 SCRA 127Yap v. CA, GR 141529, June 6, 2001Mirasol v DPWH, 490 SCRA 318OAS v. Judge Macarine, 677 SCRA 1

Human Security Act, Section 26: In cases where evidence of guilt is not strong, and the person charged with the crime of terrorism or conspiracy to commit terrorism is entitled to bail and is granted the same, the court, upon application by the prosecutor, shall limit the right of travel of the accused to within the municipality or city where he resides or where the case is pending, in the interest of national security and public safety. Travel outside said municipality or city, without the authorization of the court, shall be deemed a violation of the terms and conditions of his bail, which shall then be forfeited under the Rules of Court.

Section 7. The right of the people to information on matters of public concern shall be recognized. Access to official records, and to documents and papers pertaining to official acts, transactions, or decisions, as well as to government research data used as basis for policy development, shall be afforded the citizen, subject to such limitations as may be provided by law.

Right to Information

Scope of the RightChavez v. PEA, GR 133250, July 9, 2002

Limitation on the RightChavez v. PCGG, GR 130716, Dec. 9, 1988: No right to information in the following:1. National security matters and intelligence information2. Trade secrets and banking transactions3. Criminal matters4. Other confidential information which includes diplomatic correspondence, closed door Cabinet meetings and executive sessions of either Houses of Congress, and the internal deliberations of the Supreme Court.

In Re: Production of Court Records, 14 February 2012

17

In General: Access to court records, Government contract negotiations, Diplomatic negotiations, etc.

Legaspi v. CSC, 150 SCRA 530Bantay Republic Act v. COMELEC, GR 177271, May 4, 2007Valmonte v. Belmonte, Jr., 170 SCRA 256Aquino-Sarmiento v. Morato, 203 SCRA 515Echegaray v. Sec. of Justice, GR 132601, Oct. 12, 1988Gonzales v. Narvasa, GR 140835, August 14, 2000RE: Request for Radio-TV Coverage, 365 SCRA 248RE: Request for Live Radio-TV Coverage, 365 SCRA 62Hilado v. Reyes, 496 SCRA 282 (Access to Court Records)Sabio v. Gordon, 504 SCRA 704Bantay v. COMELEC, 523 SCRA 1Berdin v. Mascarinas, 526 SCRA 592Chang v. NHA, 530 SCRA 335Senate v. Ermita – GR 169777, April 20, 2006Suplico v. NEDA, GR 178830, July 14, 2008Neri v. Senate – GR 180643, March 25, 2008; MR Sept. 4, 2008Akbayan v. Aquino – GR 170516, July 16, 2008Province of North Cotabato v. GRP Peace Panel, 568 SCRA 402Guingona v. COMELEC, 620 SCRA 448Antolin v. Domondon, 623 SCRA 163Center for People v. COMELEC, 631 SCRA 41Francisco v. TRB, 633 SCRA 470Initiatives v. PSALM, 682 SCRA 602Belgica v. Executive Secretary, GR 208566, November 19, 2013

Section 8. The right of the people, including those employed in the public and private sectors, to form unions, associations, or societies for purposes not contrary to law shall not be abridged.

ScopeVolkschel Labor Union v. Bureau of Labor Relations, 137 SCRA 42

Right to AssociationOccena v. COMELEC, 127 SCRA 404UPCSU v. Laguesma – 286 SCRA 15Bel-Air Village Association v. Dionisio, 174 SCRA 589Padcom Condominium Association v. Ortigas Center Association, Inc, 382 SCRA 222

Government Employees (Right to Strike)TUCP v. NHC, 173 SCRA 33SSS Employees v. CA, 175 SCRA 686MPSTA v. Secretary of Education, GR 95445, August 6, 1991Jacinto v. CA, GR 124540, November 4, 1997GSIS v. Kapisanan, GR 170132

Membership in the Philippine BarIn Re: Edillon, 84 SCRA 554

Section 9. Private Property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation.

Expropriation in GeneralHeirs of Alberto Suguitan v. City of Mandaluyong, March 14, 2000NHA v. Heirs of Isidro Guivelondo, GR 15441, June 19, 2003Mactan v. Lozada, 613 SCRA 618 (Reversion)Vda De Ouna v. Republic, 642 SCRA 384 (Reversion)

Power to Undertake Expropriation CaseIron and Steel Authority v. CA, 249 SCRA 538Philippine Press Institute v. COMELEC, 244 SCRA 272Telebap v. COMELEC – 289 SCRA 337

18

Estate of Heirs v. City of Manila, 422 SCRA 551Lagcao v. Labra, GR 155746, October 13, 2004

Rights of Owner Before ExpropriationGreater Balanga v. Municipality of Balanga, 239 SCRA 436Velarma v. CA, 252 SCRA 406Solanda v. CA, 305 SCRA 645 Republic v. Salem, 334 SCRA 320 (Title not cancelled until paid)

1. Elements of “Taking”Republic v. Vda. De Castelvi – 58 SCRA 336Garcia v. CA – 102 SCRA 597City of Government v. Judge Ericta – 122 SCRA 759US v. Causby – 328 US 256People v. Fajardo – 104 Phil 443Republic v. PLDT – 26 SCRA 620NPC v. Jocson – 206 SCRA 520Penn Central Transportation v. NY City 438 US 104Ruckelshaus v. Monsanto – 467 US 986NPC v. Manubay – 437 SCRA 60NPC v. San Pedro – 503 SCRA 333NPC v. Tianco – 514 SCRA 674 LBP v. Imperial – 515 SCRA 449NCP v. Bongbong – 520 SCRA 290Tan v. Republic - 423 SCRA 203NPC v. Ibrahim – 526 SCRA 149NPC v. Purefoods – 565 SCRa 17 NPC v. Capin – 569 SCRA 648 PNOC v. Maglasang – 570 SCRA 560 (lease not basis for taking)NPC v. CO – 578 SCRa 243 NPC v. Villamor - 590 SCRA 11 NPC v. Maruhom – 609 SCRA 198 OSG v. Ayala – 600 SCRA 617 (free parking spaces in malls)NPC v. Tuazon – 653 SCRA 84

2. Public UseSumulong v. Guerrero – 154 SCRA 461Phil. Columbian Assn. v. Hon. Panis – 228 SCRA 668Manosca v. CA – 252 SCRA 412Province of Camarines Sur v. CA – 222 SCRA 173Lagcao v. Judge Labra – GR 155746, Oct. 13, 2004Reyas v. NHA, GR 147511, Jan 20, 2003Masikip v. Pasig, 479 SCRA 391Didipio v. Earth Savers v. Guzon, 485 SCRA 586Barangay v. CA, 581 SCRA 649Manapat v. CA, 536 SCRA 32Mactan v. Tudtud, GR 174012, November 14, 2008City of Manila v. Tan Te, 658 SCRA 88(socialized housing)

3. Just CompensationCity of Manila v. Estrada – 25 Phil 208Manila Railroad v. Paredes – 31 Phil. 118Santos v. Land Bank – GR 137431, Sept. 7, 2000Municipality of Daet v. CA – 129 SCRA 665NPC v. CA – 129 SCRA 665EPZA v. Dulay – 149 SCRA 305Maddumba v. GSIS – 182 SCRA 281Berkenkotter v. CA – 216 SCRA 584Meralco v. Pineda – 206 SCRA 196NPC v. CA – 254 SCRA 577Land Bank v. CA – 249 SCRA 149; (MR) 258 SCRA 404Panes v. VISCA – 264 SCRA 708

19

Republic v. CA – 263 SCRA 758NPC v. Henson – GR 129998, December 29 1998 Santos v. Landbank, GR 137431, Sept. 7, 2000Sigre v. Ca, GR 109568, Aug. 8 2002 NHA v. Heirs of Isidro, GR 154411, June 19 2001Mactan v. Urgello – 520 SCRA 515San Roque v. Republic – 532 SCRA 493

4. Judicial ReviewDe Knecht v. Bautista – 100 SCRA 660Manotoc v. NHA – 150 SCRA 89Republic v. De Knecht – 182 SCRA 141Militante v. CA, GR 107040, April 12, 2000

Section 10. No law impairing the obligation of contracts shall be passed.

Clemens v. Nolting, 42 Phil 702, 1922Home Building and Loan Assn. v. Blaisdell – 290 US 398Rutter v. Esteban – 93 Phil. 68Del Rosario v. De los Santos – L-20589-90Abella v. NLRC – 152 SCRA 140Phil. Vet. Bank Employees v. Phil. Vet. Bank – 189 SCRA 14Presley v. Bel-Air Village Association – 201 SCRA 13Tolentino v. Sec. of Finance – 235 SCRA 630Siska Development v. Office of the President – 231 SCRA 674Miners Association v. Factoran – 240 SCRA 100Juarez v. CA – 214 SCRA 475FPIB v. CA – 252 SCRA 259CMMA v. POEA – 243 SCRA 666PNB v. O.P. – 252 SCRA 5Eugenio v. Drilon – 252 SCRA 106Meralco v. Province of Laguna – 306 SCRA 750Lim v. Pacquing – 240 SCRA 649Ortigas v. Feati Bank – 94 SCRA 533Juarez v. CA – 214 SCRA 475 FPIB v. CA – 252 SCRA 259CMMA v. POEA – 243 SCRA 106JMM v. CA – (supra)PNB v. OP – 252 SCRA 5Eugenio v. Drilon – 252 SCRA 106JMM v. CA – (supra Substantive)C & M Timber v. Alcala – 273 SCRA 402 Republic v. Agana – 2269 SCRA 1Producers v. NLRC – GR 118069, November 16, 1998Blaquera v. Alcala – GR109406, September 11, 1998Philreca v. Sec. of DILG, GR 1543076, June 10, 2003Republic v. Rosemoor Mining and Development Corp. 426 SCRA 517 Chavez v. COMELEC – 437 SCRA 415Alvarez v. PICOP - 508 SCRA 498Lepanto v. WMC – 507 SCRA 315 Republic v. Caguioa – 536 SCRA 193Land Bank v. Republic – 543 SCRA 453Serrano v. Gallant – 582 SCRA 254Alvarez v. PICOP – 606 SCRA 444Surigao v. ERC - 632 SCRA 96Hacienda Luisita v. Pac – 653 SCRA 154

Section 11. Free access to the courts and quasi-judicial bodies and adequate legal assistance shall not be denied to any person by reason of poverty.

Indigent Party: One who is authorized by the court to prosecute his action or defense as an indigent upon an ex parte application and hearing showing that he has no money or property

20

sufficient and available for food, shelter and basic necessities for himself and his family. (Rules of Court, Rule 3, Section 21)

Legal Provisions on Free Access1. RA 6035: stenographers are required to give free transcript of stenographic notes to indigent and low-income litigants.2. Rules of Court, Rule 3, Section 213. Constitution, Article 3, Section 12: the court appoints a counsel de officio for an accused who cannot afford to engage the service of a counsel de parte.4. Rule on the Writ of Amparo, Section 4: No docket or other lawful fees shall be required for the filing of the petition.5. Rule on the Writ of Habeas Data, Section 4: No docket and other lawful fees are required from indigent petitioner.

Section 12. (1) Any person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have the right to be informed of his right to remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel preferably of his own choice. If the person cannot afford the services of counsel, he must be provided with one. These rights cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of counsel.(2) No torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation, or any other means which violate the free will shall be used against him. Secret detention places, solitary, incommunicado, or other similar forms of detention are prohibited.(3) Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this or Section 17 hereof shall be inadmissible in evidence against him.(4) The law shall provide for penal and civil sanctions for violations of this section as well as compensation to the rehabilitation of victims of torture or similar practices, and their families.

I. Custodial Investigation, In General

A. Definition People Pavillare, GR 129970, April 5, 2000People v. Bandula - 232 SCRA 566Navallo v. Sandiganbayan - 234 SCRA 175Sebastian v. Garchitorena, GR 114028, October 18, 2000OCA v. Sumulong, 271 SCRA 316People v. Almanzor, GR 124918, July 11, 2002 (no need for counsel)People v. Valdez, GR 129296, September 25, 2000People v. Marra - 236 SCRA 565People v. Labtan, G.R. No. 127493, December 8, 1999Manuel v. NC Construction – 282 SCRA 326People v. de la Cruz, GR 137405, Sept. 27, 2002*People v. Camat- 256 SCRA 52People v. Evangelista - 256 SCRA 611People v. Andan – 269 SCRA 95People v. Artellero, GR 129211, October 2, 2000People v. De Jesus – 213 SCRA 345People v. Legaspi, GR 117802, April 27, 2000

B. Rationale Miranda v. Arizona 384 US 436People v. Canton, GR 148825, Dec. 27, 2002

II. Instances of Custodial Investigations People v. Isla- 278 SCRA 47People v. Salazar – 266 SCRA 607People v. Casimiro, GR 146277, June 20, 2002People v. Castro – 274 SCRA 115People v. Bolanos – 211 SCRA 262People v. Lim - 196 SCRA 809

III. Rights When Under Custodial Investigations

21

A. Procedural Requirements *Miranda v. Arizona- 384 US 436People v. Mahinay – GR 122485 February 1, 1999People v. Camat - 256 SCRA 52

B. Duty of an Officer During Custodial Investigation People v. de la Cruz, GR 137405, Sept. 27, 2002People v. Salcedo – 273 SCRA 473

C. When the Rights of Custodial Investigation May Be Invoked People v. Loveria - 187 SCRA 47Sebastian v. Garchitorena, GR 114028, October 18, 2000People v. Tan – 286 SCRA 207

D. The Right to Remain Silent People v. Bandin – 226 SCRA 299People v. Lacbanes – 270 SCRA 193People v. Morico – 246 SCRA 214People v. Ang Chun Kit – 251 SCRA 660People v. De Las Marinas – 196 SCRA 504People v. Castro – 274 SCRA 115People v. Enriquez – 204 SCRA 674

E. The Right to Counsel

a. When to InvokePeople v. Sunga, GR 126029, Mar. 29, 2003People v. Labtan, G.R. No. 127493, December 8, 1999People v. Sapal, GR 124526, March 17, 2000People v. Lamsing - 248 SCRA 471People v. Maqueda - 242 SCRA 565People v. Macam – 238 SCRA 306People v. De Jesus – 213 SCRA 345People v. Dimaano – 209 SCRA 819People v. Compil - 244 SCRA 135People v. Loveria - 187 SCRA 47

b. When Presence of Counsel is Required People v. Rodriguez - 232 SCRA 227Estacio v. Sandiganbayan – 183 SCRA 12People v. Bandula - 232 SCRA 566People v. Isla- 278 SCRA 47People v. Jimenez - 204 SCRA 719People v. Cortes, 323 SCRA 131People v. Rous - 242 SCRA 732People v. Espanola – 271 SCRA 689People v.Zuela, 325 SCRA 589People v. Macabalang 508 SCRA 282

c. Effective and Vigilant Counsel Defined*People v. Sunga, GR 126029, March 27, 2003People v. Velarde, GR 139333, July 18, 2002People v. Culala, GR 83466, October 13, 1999People v. Gerolago – 263 SCRA 143People v. Paule – 261 SCRA 649People v. Delmo, GR 130078, Oct. 4, 2002People v. de la Cruz, GR 137405, Sept. 27, 2002People v. Lucero - 249 SCRA 425People v. Espanola – 271 SCRA 689People v. Bacor – GR 122895 April 30, 1999People v. Sahagun – 274 SCRA 208People v. Taliman, GR 109143, October 11, 2000

22

People v. Espiritu – GR 128287 February 2, 1999People v. Barasina - 229 SCRA 450People v. Alegria - 190 SCRA 122People v. Suarez – 267 SCRA 119People v. Parojinog - 203 SCRA 673People v. Baello – 224 SCRA 218Galman v. Pamaran – 138 SCRA 295People v. Jerez – 285 SCRA 393People v. Ranis, GR 129113, Sept. 17, 2002People v. Dumalahay, 380 SCRA 37People v. Pamon – 217 SCRA 501People v. Cabiles – 284 SCRA 199People v. Gallardo, 323 SCRA 318People v. Base, GR 109773, March 30, 2000People v. Obrero, GR 122142, May 17, 2000Cariaga v. People – 626 SCRA 231

d. IndependencePeople v. Porio, 376 SCRA 596

e. CompetencePeople v. Suela, supra, 373 SCRA 163

f. Assistance After Start of Custodial InvestigationPeople v. Matigunas, 379 SCRA 56People v. Suela, supra.

g. Valid Confession with CounselPeople v. Tablon, 379 SCRA 280People v. Principe, GR 135862, May 2, 2002People v. Oranza, GR 127748, July 25, 2002People v. Canicula, GR 131802, Aug. 6, 2002h. Confession Without CounselPeople v. Casimiro, GR 146277, June 20, 2002People v. Ochate, GR 127154, July 30, 2002People v. Mendez, GR 147671, Nov. 21, 2002 (reiterates P. v. Morada)*People v. Lauga – 615 SCRA 548Lumanog v. People – 630 SCRA 42People v. Tumaco – 610 SCRA 350lPeople v. Bokingo – 655 SCRA 313*People v. Uy – 649 SCRA 236

i. Failure to Object to Confession Made Without CounselPeople v. Gonzales, GR 142932, May 29, 2002People v. Tamayo, GR 137856, July, 30, 2002People v. Samus, GR 135957, Sept. 17, 2002People v. Avendano, GR 137407, Jan. 28, 2003People v. Mole, GR 137366, Nov. 27, 2003

j. Right to Be Informed People v. Manriquez, GR 122510-11, March 17, 2000Magtoto v. Manguera - 63 SCRA 4*People v. Camat- 256 SCRA 52People v. Alegria - 190 SCRA 122People v. Sabban – 260 SCRA 630People v. Barlis - 231 SCRA 426People v. Agustin - 240 SCRA 541People v. Samolde, GR 128551, July 31, 2000People v. Sevilla, GR 124077, September 5, 2000People v. Muleta – GR 130189 June 25, 1999People v. Tizon, GR 133228, July 30, 2002People v. Llenaresas - 248 SCRA 629

23

People v. Cajara, GR 122498, September 27, 2000People v. Manriquez, GR 122510-11, March 17, 2000People v. Samolde, GR 128551, July 31, 2000

IV. Waiver of Rights

A. Requisites of a Valid Waiver a. Must Be in Writing and in the Presence of CounselPeople v. Taliman, GR 109143, October 11, 2000People v. Gomez – 270 SCRA 432People v. Cabintoy – 247 SCRA 442People v. Corullo – 289 SCRA 481People v. Olivarez – GR 77865 December 4, 1998People v. Ruelan - 231 SCRA 650People v. Simon - 234 SCRA 555Malacat v. CA – (supra, Warrantless Arrests)People v. Bacor, 306 SCRA 522People v. Quidato – GR 117160 or 6 October 1, 1998

b. Must Be Voluntary, Knowing and Intelligent People v. Nicolas - 204 SCRA 191People v. Agustin - 240 SCRA 541

V. Extrajudicial Confessions A. Difference Between Admission and ConfessionLadiana v. People, GR 144293, Dec. 4, 2002People v. Maqueda - 242 SCRA 565

B. Requisites for Valid Extrajudicial Confession People v. Dano, GR 117690, September 1, 2000People v. Pagaura – 267 SCRA 17People v. Calvo – 269 SCRA 676People v. Tan – 286 SCRA 207People v. Olivarez – GR 77865 December 4People v. Base, GR 109773, March 30, 2000People v. Continente, GR 100801-02, August 25, 2000People v. Naag, 322 SCRA 710People v. Fabro – 277 SCRA 19People v. Sinoc – 275 SCRA 357People v. Alicando - 251 SCRA 293People v. Maneng, GR 123147, October 13, 2000People v. Llanes, GR 140268, September 18, 2000People v. Deang, GR 128045, August 24, 2000People v. Avendano, GR 137407, Jan. 28, 2003People v. Espanola – 271 SCRA 689People v. Nicolas, GR 135877, Aug. 22, 2002People v. Sabalones – 294 SCRA 751People v. Mahinay, 302 SCRA 455People v. Lising – 285 SCRA 595People v. Obrero, GR 122142, May 17, 2000People v. Capitle – 639 SCRA 373Jesalva v. People – 640 SCRA 253People v. Capitle – 639 SCRA 373

C. VoluntarinessPeople v. Santos – 283 SCRA 443People v. Alvarez, GR 140388-91, Nov. 11, 2003Astudillo v. People - 509 SCRA 302Jesalva v. People – 640 SCRA 253

D. PresumptionsPeople v. Alicando - 251 SCRA 293

24

People v. Camat- 256 SCRA 52People v. Figueroa, GR 134056, July 6, 2000People v. Dano, GR 117690, September 1, 2000People v. Maneng, GR 123147, October 13, 2000People v. Vallejo, GR 144656, May 9, 2002People v. Sahagun – 274 SCRA 208People v. Sabban – 260 SCRA 630People v. Ranis, GR 129113, Sept. 17, 2002People v. Rous - 242 SCRA 732People v. Parojinog - 203 SCRA 673People v. Montiero – 246 SCRA 786People v. Ruelan - 231 SCRA 650People v. Aquino – GR 123550-51 July 19, 1999People v. Tolentino, 423 SCRA 448People v. De Vera, G.R. No. 128966, August 18, 1999People v. Santos – 283 SCRA 443Santos v. Sandiganbayan, GR 71523-25, December 8, 2000People v. Magdamit – 279 SCRA 423People v. Aquino, GR 130742, July 18, 2000People v. Hernandez – (supra, Warrantless Arrests)People v. Sabalones – 294 SCRA 751People v. Calvo – 269 SCRA 676People v. del Rosario, G.R. No. 131036, June 20, 2001

E. To Whom Such Confession Can Be Used AgainstPeople v. Lising – 285 SCRA 595Santos v. Sandiganbayan, GR 71523-25, December 8, 2000Tan v. People, G.R. No. 134298, August 26, 1999

F. Lawyer Given by Police Investigator; Valid ConfessionAquino v. Paiste, 555 S 255

G. Exceptions VI. When Custodial Investigations May Not ApplyA. Preliminary InvestigationPeople v. Judge Ayson - 175 SCRA 216

B. Voluntary SurrenderPeople v. Taylaran – 108 SCRA 373

C. Audit ExaminationNavallo v. Sandiganbayan - 234 SCRA 175Kimpo v. Sandiganbayan - 232 SCRA 53

D. Administrative InvestigationManuel v. NC Construction – 282 SCRA 326Remolona v. Civil Service Commission, G.R. No.13747, August 2, 2001Sebastian v. Garchitorena, GR 114028, October 18, 2000Escleo v. Durado, AM no. P-99-1312, July 31, 2002

E. Not in Police CustodyPeople v. Tobias – 266 SCRA 229OCA v. Sumulong, 271 SCRA 316

F. Police Line-upGeneral RulePeople v. Piedad, GR 131923, Dec. 5, 2002 (no need for counsel)People v. Lamsing – 248 SCRA 471People v. Frago - 232 SCRA 653*Gamboa v. Judge Cruz - 162 SCRA 675People v. Salvatierra – 276 SCRA 55 (supra, Warrantless Arrests)Dela Torre v. CA – 294 SCRA 196

25

People Pavillare, GR 129970, April 5, 2000People v. Timple - 237 SCRA 52People v. Dimaano – 209 SCRA 819People v. Loveria - 187 SCRA 47People v. Tolentino, 423 SCRA 448People v. Martinez, 425 SCRA 525People v. Sultan, GR 130594, July 5, 2000People v. Escordial, 373 SCRA 585 (line- up after custodial investigation starts,requires counsel)

ExceptionsPeople v. Hatton – 210 SCRA 1People v. Gamer, 326 SCRA 660*People v. Teehankee, Jr. – 249 SCRA 54 (supra, Procedural)People v. Meneses – 288 SCRA 95

G. Spontaneous StatementsPeople v. Barrientos – 285 SCRA 221Arroyo v, CA - 203 SCRA 750People v. Andan – 269 SCRA 95People v. Dumantay, 307 SCRA 1People v. Morada – GR 129723 May 19, 1999People v. Dano, GR 117690, September 1, 2000People v. Ulit, 423 SCRA 374

H. Marked Money*People v. Linsangan – 195 SCRA 784 I. Booking Sheets

*People v. Ang Chun Kit – 251 SCRA 660

J. Paraffin TestPeople v. Gamboa – 194 SCRA 372

K. When Body of the Accused is ExaminedPeople v. Sinoc – 275 SCRA 357People v. Piedad, GR 131923, Dec. 5, 2002 (no need for counsel)Gutang v. People, GR 135406, July 11, 2000People v. Paynor – 256 SCRA 611

L. Taking of PicturesPeople v. Gallarde, 325 SCRA 835 M. Incident to a Lawful ArrestPeople v. Enriquez – 204 SCRA 674Marcelo v. Sandiganbayan – GR 109242 January 26, 1999

VII. The Exclusionary Rule

A. Violation of RightsPeople v. Simon - 234 SCRA 555People v. Hermoso, GR 130590, October 18, 2000People v. Pinlac - 165 SCRA 675People v. Bacamante - 248 SCRA 47People v. Andan – 269 SCRA 95People v. Montes – GR 117166 December 13, 1998People v. Salcedo – 273 SCRA 473People v. Macoy – 275 SCRA 1People v. Arceo - 202 SCRA 170People v. Atrejenio – GR 120160 July 13, 1999Tan v. People, G.R. No. 134298, August 26, 1999

26

People v. Binamira – 277 SCRA 232People v. Turingan – 282 SCRA 424People v. Pagaura – 267 SCRA 17People v. Quidato – GR 117401 October 1, 1998People v. Sequino – 264 SCRA 79People v. Alicando - 251 SCRA 293People v. Agustin - 240 SCRA 541People v. Paglinawan, 324 SCRA 97People v. Alegria - 190 SCRA 122People v. Bravo, GR 13562People v. Bariquit, GR 122733, October 2, 2000People v. Malimit – 264 SCRA 167People v. Rivera – 245 SCRA 421People v. Meneses – 288 SCRA 95People v. Figueroa, GR 134056, July 6, 2000People v. Paburada, GR 137118, December 5, 2000People v. Lapitaje, GR 132042, Feb. 19, 2003

B. Immunity against Self-Incrimination*Galman v. Pamaran – (supra, Custodial Investigation)

C. Re-enactmentsPeople v. Suarez – 267 SCRA 119

D. Applicability to AliensPeople v. Wong Chuen Ming - 256 SCRA 182

E. Verbal ConfessionsPeople v. Deniego – 251 SCRA 626People v. Bonola – 274 SCRA 238People v. Suela, 373 SCRA 163 (confession to private party)People v. Taboga, 376 SCRA 500 (confession to private party)People v. Baloloy, GE 140740, Apr. 12, 2002 (res gestae)People v. Guillermo, 420 S 326 F. Co-Accused not BoundPeople v. Camat- 256 SCRA 52

G. Who May Raise the QuestionPeople v. Balisteros - 237 SCRA 499

H. When Must the Objection Be RaisedPeople v. Samus, GR 135957, Sept. 17, 2002People v. Montilla – 285 SCRA 703People v. Salvatierra – 276 SCRA 55Gamboa v. Judge Cruz - 162 SCRA 675Macasiray v. People – 291 SCRA 154 I. Admissible EvidencePeople v. Espiritu, 302 SCRA 533People v. Lumandong, 327 SCRA 650 VIII. Rights After Custodial InvestigationPeople v. Alicando - 251 SCRA 293People v. De Guzman - 194 SCRA 191

Section 13. All persons, except those charged with offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua when evidence of guilt is strong, shall, before conviction, be bailable by sufficient sureties, or be released on recognizance as may be provided by law. The right to bail shall not be impaired even when the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is suspended. Excessive bail shall not be required.

I. Right to Bail

27

Lavides v. CA, 324 SCRA 321People v. Gako, GR 135045, December 15, 2000*Yap v. CA, GR 141529, June 6, 2001Fortuna v. Sitaca, AM No. RTJ-01-1633, June 19, 2001Jinggoy Estrada v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 148965, February 26, 2002Gov’t of USA v. Hon Purganan, GR 148571, Sept. 24, 2002Serapio v. Sandiganbayan, GR 148468, Jan. 28, 2003*Gov’t of Hongkong v. Hon. Olalia, April 19, 2007People v. Sandiganbayan – 529 SCRA 764

II. Waiver of the Right People v. Judge Donato & Rodolfo Salas – 198 SCRA 130People v. Mapalao - 197 SCRA 79

III. Excessive Bail *De La Camara.v. Enage - 41 SCRA 3Chu v. Dolalos – 260 SCRA 309Magsucang v. Judge Balgos, AM no. MTJ- 02- 142, Feb. 27, 2003

IV. Right to Bail of Military Personnel Commendador v. Gen. de Villa - 200 SCRA 80

V. Aspects of the Right to Bail Sule v. Biteng - AM MTJ-95-1018, 243 SCRA 524Paderanga v. CA – 247 SCRA 741Asst. Provincial Prosecutor Chin v. Judge Gustilo, et al. "AM No- RTJ-94-1243,247 SCRA 175People v. Nitcha – 240 SCRA 283Padilla v. CA – 260 SCRA 155Parada v. Veneracion – 269 SCRA 371Obosa v. CA – 266 SCRA 281Moslares v. CA – 291 SCRA 440Catiis v. CA 482 SCRA 71

Section 14. (1) No person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense without due process of law.(2) In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved, and shall enjoy the right to be heard by himself and counsel, to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him, to have a speedy, impartial, and public trial, to meet the witnesses face to face, and to have compulsory process to secure the attendance of witnesses and the production of evidence in his behalf. However, after arraignment, trial may proceed notwithstanding the absence of the accused provided that he has been duly notified and his failure to appear is unjustifiable.

Due ProcessPeople v. Boras, GR 127495, December 22, 2000People v. Horio, GR 137842, August 23, 2001

Military Tribunal Olaguer v. Military - 150 SCRA 144Tan v. Barrios - 190 SCRA 685

Presumption of Innocence *United States v. Luling - 324 PHIL. 725People v. Mingoa - 92 PHIL. 856*Dumlao v. COMELEC - 95 SCRA 392Pamintuan v. People - 234 SCRA 63Marquez v. COMELEC – 243 SCRA 538Hizon v. CA – 265 SCRA 517People v. Caranguian, GR 124514, July 6, 2000People v. Aquino, GR 130742, July 18, 2000People v. Guillermo, GR 111292, July 20, 2000

28

People v. Balacano, GR 127156, July 31, 2000People v. Mansueto, GR 135196, July 31, 2000Soriano v. Angeles, GR 109920, August 31, 2000People v. Fajardo, GR 128583, November 22, 2000Rueda v. Sandiganbayan, GR 129064, November 29, 2000People v. Baulite, G.R. No. 137599, October 8, 2001 !24

Right to Be Heard and to Production of Evidence Maliwat v. CA - 256 SCRA 718People v. Buemio – 265 SCRA 582People v. Ramilla – GR 127485 July 19, 1999Marquez v. Sandiganbayan – 641 SCRA 175

Right to Counsel *People v. Holgado - 86 PHIL. 752United v. Ash - 413 U. S. 300People v. Rio – 201 SCRA 702Salaw v. NLRC - 202 SCRA 7Carillo v. People - 229 SCRA 386People v. Macagaling - 237 SCRA 299De Guzman v. Sandiganbayan - 256 SCRA 171People v. Cuizon - 256 SCRA 329People v. Cabodoc – 263 SCRA 187People v. Echegaray – 267 SCRA 682Reyes v. CA – 267 SCRA 543People v. Serzo – 274 SCRA 553Dans v. People – 285 SCRA 504Amion v. Chiongson – AM No. RTJ-97-1371 January 22, 1999People v. Ambray – GR 127177 February 25, 1999People v. Bolatete – GR 127570 February 25, 1999People v. dela Cuesta – GR 126134 March 2, 1999People v. Lakindanum – GR 127123 March 10, 1999People v. Cantos – GR 129298 April 14, 1999People v. Alba – GR 131858-59 April 14, 1999People v. Onabia – GR 128288 April 20, 1999People v. Bermas – GR 120420 April 21, 1999People v. Pedres – GR 129533 April 30, 1999People v. Acala – GR 127023-25 May 19, 1999People v. Puertollano – GR 122423 June 17, 1999People v. Bonghanoy – GR 124097 June 17, 1999People v. Larena – GR 121205-09 June 29, 1999People v. Nuñez – GR 128875 July 8, 1999People v. Ramilla – GR 127485 July 19, 1999People v. Sesbreno, G.R. No. 121764, September 8, 1999People v. Santoclides, G.R. No. 109149, December 21, 1999People v. Salonga, G.R. No. 131131, June 21, 2001People v. Bagas, G.R. No. 104383, July 12, 2001People v. Liwanag, G.R. No. 120468, August 15, 2001People v. Bernas, 377 SCRA 391People v. Caralipio, GR 137766, Nov. 27, 2002Sia v. People 504 SCRA 507Briones v. People – 588 SCRA 362Villanueva v. People – 644 SCRA 356

Absence of ViolationPeople v. Aquino, GR 129288, March 30, 2000Villanueva v. People, GR 135098, April 12, 2000

Presence of ViolationPeople v. Nadera, 324 SCRA 490Callangan v. People 493 SCRA 269

29

Right to Be Informed *People v. Regala – 113 SCRA 613Enrile v. Salazar - 186 SCRA 217People v. Taguba - 229 SCRA 188People v. Barte - 230 SCRA 401People v. Vitor - 245 SCRA 392Sabiniano v. CA – 249 SCRA 24People v. Reyes - 242 SCRA 264People v. Legaspi - 246 SCRA 206People v. Ramos - 245 SCM 405People v. Namayan - 246 SCRA 646Pecho v. People – 262 SCRA 518People v. Laurente - 255 SCRA 543People v. Rosare – 264 SCRA 398People v. Evangelista - 256 SCRA 611People v. Cruz – 259 SCRA 109People v. De Guzman – 265 SCRA 228Salud Imson-Souweha v. Rondez – 279 SCRA 258People v. Manansala – 273 SCRA 502People v. Palomar – 278 SCRA 114People v. Ortega – 276 SCRA 166People v. Antido – 278 SCRA 425People v. Sadiosa – 290 SCRA 92People v. Villamor – GR 12444 October 7, 1998People v. Rosare – 264 SCRA 398People v. Llaguno – 285 SCRA 124People v. Bugayong – GR 126518 December 2, 1998People v. Manalili – 294 SCRA 220People v. Dimapilis – GR 128619 December 17, 1998People v. de Guzman – 289 SCRA 470People v. Quitlong – 292 SCRA 360People v. Perez – GR 122764 September 24, 1998People v. Renido – 288 SCRA 369People v. Venerable – 290 SCRA 15People v. Lozano – GR 125080 September 25, 1998People v. Padilla – GR 126124 January 20, 1999People v. Acosta, G.R. No. 142726, October 17, 2001People v. de la Pena G.R. No. 138358-59 Nov. 19, 2001People v. Abino, G.R. No. 137288, December 11, 2001People v. Tan, GR 116200-02, June 21, 2001People v. Tagana, GR 137608-09, July 6, 2001People v. Alcalde, GR 139225, May 29, 2002People v. Mejeca, GR 146425, Nov. 21, 2002People v. Esurina, 374, SCRA 429People v. Togud, 375 SCRA 291People v. Espejon, 377 SCRA 412People v. Lavador, 377 SCRA 424People v. Hermanes, 379 SCRA 190People v. Portugal, 379 SCRA 212People v. Baluya, 380 SCRA 533People v. Arofo, 380 SCRA 663People v. Cana, GR 139229, June 6, 2002People v. Soriano, GR 135027, July 3, 2002People v. Radam, GR 138395, July 18, 2002People v. Abala, GR 135858, July, 23, 2002People v. Romero, GR 137037, Aug. 5, 2002People v. Magtibay, GR 142985, Aug. 6, 2002People v. Miclat, GR 137024, Aug. 7, 2002People v. Guardian, GR 142900, Aug. 7, 2002People v. Ocampo, GR 145303, Aug. 7, 2002People v. del Ayre, GR 139788, Oct. 3, 2002

30

People v. Caliso, GR 131475, Oct. 14, 2002People v. Buado, GR 137341, Oct. 28, 2002People v. Alemania, GR 146221, Nov. 13, 2002People v. Terible, GR 140635, Nov. 18, 2002People v. Victor, GR 127904, Dec. 5, 2002People v. Velasquez, 377 SCRA 219People v. Lachica, GR 143677, May 9, 2002People v. Sajolga, GR 146684, Aug. 21, 2002People v. Ramos, GR 142577, Dec. 27, 2002People v. Mascarinas, GR 144034, May 28, 2002People v. Sanchez, 375 SCRA 355People v. Abayon, GR 142874, July, 31, 2002People v. Gavina, GR 143237, Oct. 28, 2002People v. Orbita, GR GR 136591, July 11, 2002Dado v. People, GR 131421, Nov. 18, 2002Santos v. People, GR 14761, Jan. 20, 2002People v. Bon, GR 149199, Jan. 28, 2003People v. Llanto, GR 146458, Jan. 20, 2003People v. Migrante, GR 147606, Jan. 14, 2003People v. Dy, GR 115326-37, Jan. 16, 2003People v. Lapitaje, GR 132042, Feb. 19, 2003People v. Ostia, GR 131804, Feb. 26, 2003People v. Ganete, GR 142930, Mar. 28, 2003Garcia v. People, GR 144785, Sept. 11, 2003People v. Villanueva, GR 138364, Oct. 15, 2003!26Burgos v. Sandiganbayan, GR 123144, Oct. 15, 2003People v. Rote, GR 146188, Dec. 11, 2003People v. Rata, GR 145523-24, Dec. 11, 2003Andaya v. People 493 SCRA 539People v. Estrada – 583 SCRA 302People v. Abella – 610 SCRA 19People v. Pangilinan – GR 183090, November 14, 2011

Relationship People v. Cepedon, 542 S 550People v. Talan, GR 177354, November 14, 2009People v. Estrada – 610 SCRA 222People v. Corpuz – 577 SCRA 465People v. Regino – 582 SCRA 189

Nature of Offense: Different Offense; Same Offense;People v. Paglinawan, 324 SCRA 97People v. Paramil, GR 128056-57, March 31, 2000Evangelista v. People, GR 108135-36, August 14, 2000People v. Puzon, GR 123156-59, August 29, 2000People v. Valdesancho, G.R. NO. 137051-52, May 30, 2001People v. Dawisan, G.R. No. 122095, September 13, 2001Mapas v. People, 544 S 85Pactolin v. Sandiganbayan, 554 S 136People v. Hu, 567 S 697

Absence of Qualifying Circumstance People v. Ronato, G.R. No. 124298, October 11, 1999People v. Bayron, G.R. No. 122732, September 7, 1999People v. Abella, G.R. No. 131847, September 22, 1999People v. Gallo, G.R. No. 124736, September 29, 1999People v. Panique, G.R. No. 125763, October 13, 1999People v. Aguinaldo, G.R. No. 130784, October 3, 1999People v. Tabion, G.R. No. 132715, October 20, 1999People v. Torio, G.R. No. 132216, November 7, 1999People v. Alfanta, G.R. No. 125633, December 9, 1999

31

People v. Flores, G.R. No. 123599, December 13, 1999People v. Ramon, G.R. No. 130407, December 15, 1999People v. Villar., 322 SCRA 390People v. Bernaldez, 322 SCRA 762People v. Flores, 322 SCRA 779People v. Palanco, 322 SCRA 790People v. Bacule, 323 SCRA 734People v. Bartolome, 323 SCRA 836People v. Bayona, 327 SCRA 190People v. Siao, 327 SCRA 231People v. Bayzo, 327 SCRA 771People v. De los Santos, GR 121906, August 5, 2000People v. Fraga, GR 134130-33, April 12, 2000People v. Licanda, GR 134084, May 4, 2000People v. Sabredo, GR 126114, May 11, 2000People v. Alicante, GR 127026-27, May 31, 2000People v. Traya, GR 129052, May 31, 2000People v. Mamac, GR 130332, May 31, 2000People v. Decena, GR 131843, May 31, 2000People v. Lomibao, GR 135855, August 3, 2000People v. Canonigo, GR 133649, August 4, 2000People v. Cruz, GR 128346-48, August 14, 2000People v. Watimar, GR 121651-52, August 16, 2000People v. Gabiana, GR 123543, August 23, 2000People v. Banihit GR 132045, August 25, 2000People v. Gutierrez, GR 132772, August 31, 2000People v. Villanueva, GR 135330, August 31, 2000People v. Melendres, GR 133999-4001, August 31, 2000People v. Mendez, GR 132546, July 5, 2000People v. Alarcon, GR 133191-93, July 11, 2000People v. Baybado, GR 132136, July 14, 2000People v. Surilla, GR 129164, July 24, 2000People v. Campaner, GR 130500, July 26, 2000People v. Balacano, GR 127156, July 31, 2000People v. Villaraza, GR 131848-50, September 5, 2000People v. Baniguid, GR 137714, September 8, 2000People v. Bali-Balita, GR 134266, September 15, 2000People v. Cajara, GR 122498, Sepember 27, 2000People v. Nogar, GR 133946, September 27, 2000People v. Magtrayo, GR 133480-82, October 4, 2000People v. Taguba, GR 112792-93, October 6, 2000People v. De la Cuesta, GR133904, October 5, 2000People v. Arves, GR 134628, October 13, 2000People v. Baldino, GR 137269, October 13, 2000People v. Baltazar, GR 130610, October 16, 2000People v. Francisco, GR 136252, October 20, 2000People v. Sarmiento, GR 134768, October 25, 2000People v. Gallarde, 325 SCRA 835People v. Crispin, 327 SCRA 167People v. Paramil, GR 128056-57, March 31, 2000People v. Gallego, GR 130603, August 15, 2000People v. Tejada. G.R. No. 126166, July 10, 2001People v. Lalingjaman, G.R. No. 132714, September 6, 2001People v. Mercado, G.R. No. 139904, October 12, 2001Estrada v. Sandiganbayan G.R. No. 148560, Nov. 19, 2001People v. Marahay, GR 120625-29, Jan. 28, 2003People v. Montemayor, GR 124474, Jan. 28, 2003People v. Delim, GR 142773, Jan. 28, 2003People v. Acosta, GR 140402, Jan. 28, 2003People v. Caloza, GR 138404-06, Jan. 28, 2003People v. Layoso, GR 14773-76, Jan. 22, 2003People v. Baldogo, GR 128106-07, Jan. 24, 2003

32

People v. De la Cruz, GR 175954, December 16, 2008People v. De la Cruz, GR 174371, December 11, 2008Andres v. People – 588 SCRA 830Sambilon v. People – 591 SCRA 405Valenzuela v. People – 596 SCRA 1

Difference of Commission of Crime

People v. Capinpin, GR 118608, October 30, 2000

Number of Offenses People v. Tresballes, G.R. No. 126118, September 21, 1999People v. Gerona, G.R. No. 126169, December 21, 1999People v. Pambid, GR 124453, March 15, 2000People v. Alvero, GR 134536, April 5, 2000People v. Guiwan GR 117324-8, April 27, 2000People v. Surilla, GR 129164, July 24, 2000People v. Rama, 379 SCRA 477People v. Cuyugan, GR 146641, Nov. 18, 2002People v. Montinola, 543 SCRA 412

Date of Commission of Crime People v. Narito, G.R. No. 132058, October 1, 1999People v. Magbanua, G.R. No. 12888, December 3, 1999People v. Ladrillo, G.R. No. 124342, December 8, 1999People v. Ferolino, GR 131730-31, April 5, 2000People v. Gianan, GR 135288-93, September 15, 2000People v. Trelles, GR 137659, September 19, 2000Sumbang v. General Court Martial PRO- Region 6, GR 140188, August 3, 2000Arambulo v. Laqui, GR 138596, October 12, 2000People v. Tagana, G.R. Nos. 137608-09, July 6, 2001People v. Bidoc 506 SCRA 481People v. Ceredon, 542 SCRA 550People v. Pascual, 569 SCRA 534People v. Aure, 569 SCRA 836People v. Diocado, GR 170567, November 14, 2008People v. Canares – 579 SCRA 582People v. Aboganda – 585 SCRA 1People v. Jimenez – 586 SCRA 580People v. Lazaro – 596 SCRA 587

No Violation People v. Escoro, 376 SCRA 670People v. Pascual, 379 SCRA 235People v. Conde, 380 SCRA 159People v. Miranda, GR 142566, Aug. 8, 2002People v. Roque, GR 130569, Aug. 14, 2002People v. Segovia, GR 138974, Sept. 29, 2002People v. Caralipio, GR 137766, Nov. 27, 2002People v. Cantomayor, GR 145522, Dec. 5, 2002People v. sarazan, GR 123269-72, Jan. 22, 2003People v. Taperla, GR 142860, Jan. 16, 2003People v. Lizada, GR 143468-71, Jan. 24, 2003People v. Dy, GR 115326-37, Jan.16, 2003Batulanan v. People 502 SCRA 35People v. Corpuz 482 SCRA 435Soledad v. People – 644 SCRA 258Torres v. People – 655 SCRA 720

Right to Speedy Trial People v. Sesbreno, G.R. No. 121764, September 9, 1999Tai Lim v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 131483, October 26, 1999

33

*Conde v. Rivera - 45 PHIL. 650Nepomuceno v. Sec. of National Defense - 108 SCRA 658People v. Gines - 197 SCRA 481Abadia v. CA - 236 SCRA 676Gonzales v. CA - 232 SCRA 667Cadalin v. POEA – 238 SCRA 721People v. Tampal – 244 SCRA 202Dacanay v. People - 240 SCRA 490Guerrero v. CA - 257 SCRA 703Dizon v. Lopez – 278 SCRA 483Luzarraga v. Meteoro, AM 00-1572, August 3, 2000Solar Entertainment and People v. Hon. How, GR 140863, August 22, 2000De Zuzurregui v. Rosete, GR AM no. MTJ-02-1426People v. Dy, GR 115326-37, Jan. 16, 2003Lumanlaw v. Peralta 482 SCRA 396Padilla v. Apas 487 SCRA 29People v. Hernandez 499 SCRA 688Uy v. Adriano 505 SCRA 625Benares v. Lim 511 SCRA 100Gaas v. Mitmug, 553 SCRA 535Albert v. Sandiganbayan – 580 SCRA 279Tan v. People – 586 SCRA 139Tallo v. People – 588 SCRA 520Olbes v. Buemio – 607 SCRA 336Jacob v. Sandiganbayan – 635 SCRA 94

Right to Impartial Trial *Mateo. Jr, v. Villaluz - 50 SCRA 18People v. CA – 262 SCRA 452Maliwat v. CA – 256 SCRA 718Tabuena v. Sandiganbayan – 268 SCRA 332People v. Adora – 275 SCRA 441Cosep v. People – 290 SCRA 378People v. Castillo – 289 SCRA 213People v. Vaynaco – GR 126286 March 22, 1999People v. Estrada, GR 130487, June 19, 2000

Impartiality of a Judge Soriano v. Angeles, GR 109920, August 31, 2000Almendra v. Asis, AM RTJ-1550, April 6, 2000People v. Zheng Bai Hui, GR 127580, August 22, 2000People v. Genosa, GR 135981, September 29, 2000

Right to a Public Trial In Re Oliver -333 U. S. 237Garcia v. Domingo - L-30104

Compulsory ProcessFajardo v. Garcia - 98 SCRA 514People v. Yambot, GR 120350, October 13, 2000

Right to Confrontation, to Cross-Examine, or to Meet Witness Face to Face *Tampar v. Usman - 200 SCRA 652People v. Digno - 250 SCRA 237People v. Miyake – 279 SCRA 180People v. Narca – 275 SCRA 696People v. Quidato – GR 117401 October 1, 1998People v. Crispin, 327 SCRA 167People v. Libo-on, G.R. NO. 136737, May 23, 2001Carriaga v. C.A., G.R. No. 143561, June 6, 2001People v. Rivera, G.R. No. 139180, July 31, 2001People v. Monje, GR 146689, Sept. 27, 2002Victorino v. People 509 SCRA 483

34

Herrera v. Sandiganbayan – 579 SCRA 32Ho Wai Pang v. People – GR 1716229, October 19, 2011

Trial in Absentia; Right to Be Present *Carredo v. People - 183 SCRA 273People v. Ravelo - 202 SCRA 655People v. Rivera - 242 SCRA 26People v. Tabag – 268 SCRA 115Parada v. Veneracion – (supra, Right to Bail)

Admissibility of Evidence People v. Morial, G.R. No. 129295, August 15, 2001People v. Tulin, G.R. No. 111709, August 30, 2001

Section 15. The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended except in cases of invasion or rebellion when the public safety requires it.

Section 16. All persons shall have the right to a speedy disposition of their cases before all judicial, quasi-judicial, or administrative bodies

Right to Speedy Disposition of Cases People v. Sesbreno, G.R. No. 121764, September 9, 1999*Binay v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 120681, October 1, 1999Gonzales v. Sandiganbayan - 199 SCRA 299 (no violation)Socrates v. Sandiganbayan - 253 SCRA 773 (no violation)Bolalin v. Occiano – 266 SCRA 203 (violation)Angchangco v. Ombudsman – 268 SCRA 301 (violation)Lambino v. De Vera – 275 SCRA 60Duterte v. Sandiganbayan – 289 SCRA 721(preliminary investigation, violation)Marcos v. Sandiganbayan – GR 126995 October 6, 1998 (violation)Roque v. Ombudsman – GR 129978 May 12, 1999 (violation)Cervantes v. Sandiganbayan – GR 108595 May 18, 1999 (violation)Dansal v. Fernandez, 327 SCRA 145 ( no violation )Domingo v. Sandiganbayan, 322 SCRA 655 (no violation)Castillo v. Sandiganbayan, GR 109271, March 14, 2000 (no violation)Raro v. Sandiganbayan, GR 108431, July 14, 2000Dela Pena v. Sandiganbayan, G. R. No. 144542, June 29, 2001Lopez v. Ombudsman, G.R. No. 140529, September 6, 2001Lee v. People, Gr137914, Dec. 4, 2002People v. Monje, GR 146689, Sept. 27, 2002Ty-Dazo v. Sandiganbayan, 374 SCRA 200Guiani v. Sandiganbayan, GR 146897, Aug. 6, 2002 (delay in preliminaryinvestigation)Avilla v. Reyes 479 SCRA 334Enriquez v. Office of OMB, 545 SCRA 618OMB v. Jurado, 561 SCRA 135Perea v. People, 544 SCRA 532Gaas v. Mitmug, 553 SCRA 335Roquera v. Chancellor – 614 SCRA 723Lumanog v. People – 630 SCRA 42

Section 17. No person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.

Right Against Self-Incrimination *United States v. Navarro - 3 PHIL. 143 (rationale)*United States v. Tan Teng - 23 PHIL.145*United States v. Ong Siu Hong - 36 PHIL. 73 (discharge)*Villaflor v. Summers - 41 PHIL. 62 (pregnancy test)!30*Beltran v. Samson - 53 PHIL. 570 (writing)Bermudez v. Castillo - 64 PHIL. 483Chavez v. CA – L- 29169, Aug.19, 1968

35

*Cabal v. Kapunan, Jr. - L-19052**Pascual, Jr. v. Board of Medical Examiners - L-25018People v. Gamboa - 194 SCRA 372 (paraffin test)People v. Canceran - 229 SCRA 581 (paraffin test)People v. Tranca - 235 SCRA 455 (x-ray, not a violation)Almonte v. Vasquez – 244 SCRA 286People v. Go – 237 SCRA 73Regala v. Sandiganbayan – 262 SCRA 122People v. Malimit – 264 SCRA 167Galman v. Pamaran – (supra, Custodial Investigation)People v. Banihit, GR 132045, August 25, 2000 (relate to Tan Teng)People v. Besonia, 422 SCRA 210Sabio v. Gordon 504 SCRA 704Benares v. Lim 511 SCRA 100**Standard Chartered v. Senate – 541 SCRA 546

Section 18. (1) No person shall be detained solely by reason of his political beliefs and aspirations.(2) No involuntary servitude in any form shall exist except as a punishment for a crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted.

Imbong v. Ochoa, GR 204819, April 8, 2014

Section 19. (1) Excessive fines shall not be imposed, nor cruel, degrading or inhuman punishment inflicted. Neither shall death penalty be imposed, unless, for compelling reasons involving heinous crimes, the Congress hereafter provides for it. Any death penalty already imposed shall be reduced to reclusion perpetua.(2) The employment of physical, psychological, or degrading punishment against any prisoner or detainee or the use of substandard or inadequate penal facilities under subhuman conditions shall be dealt with by law.

Cruel, Degrading or Inhuman Punishment; Excessive Fines *People v. Estoista - 93 PHIL. 647People v. Dapitan - 197 SCRA 378Baylosis v. Chavez - 202 SCRA 405 (modified by Robin Padilla)People v. Munoz - 170 SCRA 107People v. Amigo - 252 SCRA 43*People v. Echegaray – 267 SCRA 682 (death penalty)People v. Tongko – 290 SCRA 595Echegaray v. Secretary of Justice – 12 LR 32 N’98Padilla v. CA – (supra, Right to Bail)People v. Alicante, GR 127026-27, May 31, 2000Lim v. People, GR 149276, Sept. 27, 2002People v. Gabiana, GR 123543, August 23, 2000People v. Horio, GR 137842, August 23, 2001Pagdayawon v. Sec. of Justice, GR154569, Sept. 23, 2002Perez v. People, 544 SCRA 532

Section 20. No person shall be imprisoned for debt or non-payment of a poll tax.

Imprisonment for Debt **Lozano v. Martinez - 146 SCRA 323 (check)Caram Resources v. Contreras - 237 SCRA 724 (check).Tiomico v. CA – GR 122539 March 4, 1999 (trust receipt)Recuerdo v. People, GR 133036, Jan. 22, 2003 (Check)

Section 21. No person shall be twice put in jeopardy of punishment for the same offense. If an act is punished by a law and an ordinance, conviction or acquittal under either shall constitute a bar to another prosecution for the same act.SECTION 21. Dismissal at Preliminary Investigation; No JeopardyAttachment of jeopardy

36

*People v. Ylagan - 58 PHIL. 851People v. Balisacan - L-26376Cinco v. Sandiganbayan - 202 SCRA 726People v, Vergara - 221 SCRA 560Navallo v. Sandiganbayan - 234 SCRA 175Galvez v. CA - 237 SCRA 685Cunanan v. Arceo - 242 SCRA 88People v. Tampal - 244 SCRA 202People v. Montesa - 248 SCRA 641De La Rosa v. CA – 253 SCRA 499People v. Leviste - 255 SCRA 238People v. Cawaling – 293 SCRA 267Cudia v. CA – 284 SCRA 173Tecson v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 123045, November 16, 1999Dimatulac v. Villon – GR 127107 October 12, 1999People v. Maquiling – GR 128986 June 21, 1999People v. Nitafan – GR 707964-66 February 1, 1999!31Binay v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 120681, October 1, 1999Limpangog v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 134229, November 26, 1999Flores v. Joven, GR 129874, Dec. 27, 2002Miranda v. Tuliao 486 SCRA 377Cabo v. Sandiganbayan 491 SCRA 264Romualdez v. Marcelo 497 SCRA 89People v. Terrado, 558 SCRA 84 (acquittal not reviewable)People v. CA – 626 SCRA 352

Termination of Jeopardy; Existence; Non-Termination *Bulaong v. People - 17 SCRA 746Bustamante v. Maceren - 48 SCRA 155People v. Obsania - L-24447Rivera, Jr. v, People - 189 SCRA 331Dizon-Pamintuan v. People - 234 SCRA 63COMELEC v. CA - 229 SCRA 501People v. Bans - 239 SCRA 48State Prosecutors v. Muro - 236 SCRA 505People v. Bellaflor - 233 SCRA 196Guerrero v. CA - 257 SCRA 703Teodoro v. CA - 258 SCRA 603Cuidia v. CA – 284 SCRA 173People v. Lising – 285 SCRA 595People v. Araneta, GR 125894 December 11, 1998, 95 OG 4556Cuison v. CA – 289 SCRA 159People v. CA, GR 128986 June 21, 1999People v. Serrano, G.R. No. 135451, September 30, 1999Barangan v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 123307, November 29, 1999People v. Velasco, GR 127444, September 13, 2000Tupaz v. ULEP, G.R. No. 127777, October 1, 1999People v. Verra, GR 134732Merciales v. CA, 379 SCRA 345Poso v. Mijares, AM No. RTJ-02-1693, Aug. 21, 2002People v. Alberto, GR 132374, Aug. 22, 2002Condrada v. People, GR 141646, Feb. 28, 2003People v. Romero, GR144156, March 20, 2003People v. Espinosa, GR 153714, Aug. 15, 2003Oriente v. People – 513 SCRA 348Pacoy v. Cajigal – 534 SCRA 338Summerville v. Eugenio – 529 SCRA 274Herrera v. Sandiganbayan – 579 SCRA 32Javier v. Sandiganbayan – 599 SCRA 324Co v. Lim – 604 SCRA 702Lejano v. People – 639 SCRA 760

37

Bangayon v. Bangayon, GR 172777, October 19, 2011Goodland v. Co, GR 196685, December 18, 2011

Rule on “Supervening Facts” *Melo v. People - 85 PHIL. 766*People v. Buling - 107 PHIL. 712

Same Offenses *People v. Tiozon - 198 SCRA 368Lamera v. CA - 198 SCRA 186Gonzales v. CA - 232 SCRA 667People v. Turda - 233 SCRA 702People v. Manungas - 231 SCRA 1People v. Deunida - 231 SCRA 520People v. Fernandez - 239 SCRA 174People v. Quijada – 259 SCRA 191People v. Ballabare – 264 SCRA 350People v. Calonzo – 262 SCRA 534People v. Benemerito – 264 SCRA 677People v. Tobias – 266 SCRA 229People v. Manoyco – 269 SCRA 513People v. Tan Tiong Meng – 271 SCRA 125People v. Sadiosa – 290 SCRA 92People v. Sanchez – 291 SCRA 333People v. Saley – 291 SCRA 715!32People v. Juego – GR 123162 October 13, 1998People v. Ganadin – GR 129441 November 27, 1998People v. Balasa – GR 106357 September 3, 1998Paluay v. CA – 293 SCRA 358People v. Mercado 304 SCRA 504People v. Yabut, G.R. No. 115719, October 5, 1999People v. Ong, 322 SCRA 38People v. Meris, GR 117145-50, March 28, 2000People v. Logan, G.R. No. 135030-33, July 20, 2001.Potot v. People, GR 143547, June 26, 2002People v. CA, 423 SCRA 605Ramiscal v. Sandiganbayan 499 SCRA 375People v. Comila – 517 SCRA 153Diaz v. Davao – 520 SCRA 481Merencillo v. People – 521 SCRA 31Lapasaran v. People – 578 SCRA 658*Ivler v. Modesto – 635 SCRA 191People v. Ocden – 650 SCRA 124People v. Lalli, GR 195419, October 12, 2011 (trafficking in person)

No Appeal from Acquittal; Instances of Void Acquittal

People v. Sandiganbayan, 376 SCRA 74Yuchengco v. CA, 376 SCRA 531San Vicente v. People, GR132081, Nov. 26, 2002People v. CA, GR 132396, Sept. 23, 2002People v. Sandiganbayan 491 SCRA 185People v. CA – 516 SCRA 383People v. Laguio – 518 SCRA 393People v. Dumlao – 580 SCRA 409 (void acquittal)Tiu v. CA – 586 SCRA 118People v. De Grano – 588 SCRA 550People v. Nazareno – 595 SCRA 438People v. Duca – 603 SCRA 159 (void acquittal)*Mupas v. People, GR 189365, October 12, 2011 (void order on demurrer)

38

PartiesMetrobank v. Meridiano, G.R. No. 118251, June 29, 2001 Ordinance and Statute *People v. Relova - 148 SCRA 292

Applied to Impeachment *Estrada v. Desierto, GR 146710-15 and GR 146738, March 2, 2001and MR-GR146710-15 and 146738, April 3, 2001People v. Logan, G.R. No. 135030-33, July 20, 2001.

Section 22. No ex post facto law or bill of attainder shall be enacted.

Ex Post Facto Laws and Bills of Attainder *People v. Ferrer - 48 SCRA 382*Virata v. Sandiganbayan - 202 SCRA 680Trinidad v. CA - 202 SCRA 106People v. Taguba - 229 SCRA 188People v. Sandiganbayan – 211 SCRA 241Co v. CA – 227 SCRA 444Rosales v. CA - 255 SCRA 123Subido v. Sandiganbayan – 266 SCRA 379Sesbreno v. CBAA – 270 SCRA 360People v. Burton – 268 SCRA 531*Lacson v. Executive Secretary, GR 128096 January 20, 1999People v. Nitafan, GR 107964-66 February 1, 1999Fajardo v. CA, GR 128508 February 1, 1999People v. Valdez, GR 127663 March 11, 1999People v. Ringor, G.R. No. 123918, December 9, 1999People v. Magbanua, G.R. No. 128888, December 3, 1999Republic v. Desierto, GR 136506, Aug. 23, 2001People v. Torres - 501 SCRA 591Salvador v. Mapa - ____SCRA 34 [2008]Republic v. Eugenio - 545 SCRA 384Valeroso v. People - 546 SCRA 450Presidential v. Desierto - 548 SCRA

Article IV. CITIZENSHIP

Section 1. The following are citizens of the Philippines:1. Those who are citizens of the Philippines at the time of the adoption of this Constitution; 2. Those whose fathers or mothers are citizens of the Philippines; 3. Those born before January 17, 1973, of Filipino mothers, who elect Philippine citizenship upon reachingthe age of majority; and 4. Those who are naturalized in accordance with law.

Valles v. COMELEC, GR 137000, August 9, 2000Ong Chia v. Republic, GR 127240, March 27, 2000

Children of Filipino fathers or mothers *Gatchalian v. Board of Commissioners – 197 SCRA 853*Tecson v. Comelec, 423 SCRA 277Go v. Ramos – 598 SCRA 266Gonzales v. Rennisi – 614 SCRA 292Cabiling v. Fernandez – 625 SCRA 566

Paragraph (3) *Co. v. Electoral Tribunal - 199 SCRA 692*Republic v. Sagun – 666 SCRA 321

Paragraph (4)

39

So v. Republic – 513 SCRA 267

Loss of Citizenship *Yu v. Defensor-Santiago - 169 SCRA 364Frivaldo v. COMELEC - 174 SCRA 245*Frivaldo v. COMELEC – 257 SCRA 727Labo, Jr, v. COMELEC - 176 SCRA 1*Labo, Jr, v. COMELEC – 211 SCRA 297Aznar v. Osmena - 185 SCRA 703*Mercado v. Manzano – GR 135083 May 26, 1999Tabaso v. CA 500 SCRA 9

No Collateral AttackVilando v. HRET – 656 SCRA 17

Section 2. Natural-born citizens are those who are citizens of the Philippines from birth without having to perform any act to acquire or perfect their Philippine citizenship. Those who elect Philippine citizenship in accordance with paragraph (3), Section 1 hereof shall be deemed natural-born citizens.

Bengson v. HRET – GR 142840, May 7, 2001In re Mallare 59 SCRA 344Chen Teck Lao v. Republic 55 SCRA 1Cordero v. COMELEC – 580 SCRA 12

Section 3. Philippine citizenship may be lost or reacquired in the manner provided by law.

Section 4. Citizens of the Philippines who marry aliens shall retain their citizenship, unless by their act oromission they are deemed, under the law, to have renounced it.

Section 5. Dual allegiance of citizens is inimical to the national interest and shall be dealt with by law.

RA 9225 “An Act Making the Citizenship of Philippine Citizen who Acquire Foreign Citizenship Permanent”*AASJS-Calilung v. Datumanong, G.R. No. 160869, May 11, 2007

Article V. SUFFRAGE

Section 1. Suffrage may be exercised by all citizens of the Philippines not otherwise disqualified by law, who are at least eighteen years of age, and who shall have resided in the Philippines for at least one year and in the place wherein they propose to vote for at least six months immediately preceding the election.No literacy, property, or other substantive requirement shall be imposed on the exercise of suffrage.

Section 2. The Congress shall provide a system for securing the secrecy and sanctity of the ballot as well as a system for absentee voting by qualified Filipinos abroad.The Congress shall also design a procedure for the disabled and the illiterates to vote without the assistance of other persons. Until then, they shall be allowed to vote under existing laws and such rules as the Commission on Elections may promulgate to protect the secrecy of the ballot.

*Macalintal v. COMELEC, GR 157013, July 10, 2003*Nicolas-Lewis v. COMELEC 497 SCRA 649Labo, Jr, v. COMELEC – (supra, Citizenship)Romualdez v. RTC – 226 SCRA 408

Special Registration Before General Elections Akbayan v. COMELEC, GR 147066, March 26, 2001

Article XIII. SOCIAL JUSTICE AND HUMAN RIGHTS

40

Section 1. The Congress shall give highest priority to the enactment of measures that protect and enhance the right of all the people to human dignity, reduce social, economic, and political inequalities, and remove cultural inequities by equitably diffusing wealth and political power for the common good.To this end, the State shall regulate the acquisition, ownership, use, and disposition of property and its increments.

Policy to Remove Inequities *International School Alliance of Educators v. Quisumbing, GR 128845, June 1, 2000

Section 2. The promotion of social justice shall include the commitment to create economic opportunities based on freedom of initiative and self-reliance.

LABORSection 3. The State shall afford full protection to labor, local and overseas, organized and unorganized, and promote full employment and equality of employment opportunities for all.It shall guarantee the rights of all workers to self-organization, collective bargaining and negotiations, and peaceful concerted activities, including the right to strike in accordance with law. They shall be entitled to security of tenure, humane conditions of work, and a living wage. They shall also participate in policy and decision-making processes affecting their rights and benefits as may be provided by law.The State shall promote the principle of shared responsibility between workers and employers and the preferential use of voluntary modes in settling disputes, including conciliation, and shall enforce their mutual compliance therewith to foster industrial peace.The State shall regulate the relations between workers and employers, recognizing the right of labor to its just share in the fruits of production and the right of enterprises to reasonable returns to investments, and to expansion and growth.

Eagle Security v. NLRC - 173 SCRA 479SSS Employees v. CA – (supra, Right to Form Association)De Vera v. NLRC – 200 SCRA 439Republic v. CA - 180 SCRA 428MPSTA v. Laguio (supra, Right to Form Association)Union v. Nestle – 192 SCRA 396Jacinto v. CA – 281 SCRA 657Telefunken Employees Union v. CA, GR 143013-14, December 18, 2000Lanzaderas v. Amethyst Security, GR 143604, June 20, 2003Standard Chartered Bank Employees v Confesor, GR 114974, June 16, 2004Agabon v. NLRC, GR 158693, Nov. 17, 2004

Agrarian Reform Section 4. The State shall, by law, undertaken an agrarian reform program founded on the right of farmers and regular farmworkers, who are landless, to own directly or collectively the lands they till or in the case of other farmworkers, to receive a just share of the fruits thereof. To this end, the State shall encourage and undertake the just distribution of all agricultural lands, subject to such priorities and reasonable retention limits as the Congress may prescribe, taking into account ecological, developmental, or equity considerations, and subject to the payment of just compensation. In determining retention limits, the State shall respect the right of small landowners. The State shall further provide incentives for voluntary land-sharing.

Section 5. The State shall recognize the right of farmers, farmworkers, and landowners, as well as cooperatives, and other independent farmers' organizations to participate in the planning, organization, and management of the program, and shall provide support to agriculture through appropriate technology and research, and adequate financial, production, marketing, and other support services.

Section 6. The State shall apply the principles of agrarian reform or stewardship, whenever applicable in accordance with law, in the disposition or utilization of other natural resources, including lands of the public domain under lease or concession suitable to agriculture, subject to prior rights, homestead rights of small settlers, and the rights of indigenous communities to their ancestral lands.

41

The State may resettle landless farmers and farmworkers in its own agricultural estates which shall be distributed to them in the manner provided by law.

Section 7. The State shall protect the rights of subsistence fishermen, especially of local communities, to the preferential use of the communal marine and fishing resources, both inland and offshore. It shall provide supportto such fishermen through appropriate technology and research, adequate financial, production, and marketing assistance, and other services. The State shall also protect, develop, and conserve such resources. The protection shall extend to offshore fishing grounds of subsistence fishermen against foreign intrusion. Fishworkers shall receive a just share from their labor in the utilization of marine and fishing resources.

Section 8. The State shall provide incentives to landowners to invest the proceeds of the agrarian reform program to promote industrialization, employment creation, and privatization of public sector enterprises. Financial instruments used as payment for their lands shall be honored as equity in enterprises of their choice.

*Assn. of Small Landowners v. Sec. of Agrarian Reform - 175 SCRA 343Tanaka v. Japan - 7 Minshui 1523*Luz Farms v. Sec. of Agrarian Reform – 192 SCRA 51Natalia v. DAR – 225 SCRA 278Phil. Veterans Bank v. CA, GR 132767, January 18, 2000Daez v. CA, GR 133507, February 17, 2000Bautista v. Araneta, GR 135829, February 22, 2000Corpus v. Grospe, GR 135297, June 8, 2000Heirs of Santos v. CA, GR 109992, March 7, 2000Padunan v. DARAB, GR 132163, Jan. 28, 2003*Hacienda Luisita v. PARC – GR No. 171101, July 5, 2011

Urban Land Reform Section 9. The State shall, by law, and for the common good, undertake, in cooperation with the private sector, a continuing program of urban land reform and housing which will make available at affordable cost decent housing and basic services to underprivileged and homeless citizens in urban centers and resettlement areas. It shall also promote adequate employment opportunities to such citizens. In the implementation of such program the State shall respect the rights of small property owners.

Dee v. CA, GR 108205, February 15, 2000Reyes v. NHA, GR 147511, Jan. 20, 2003

Section 10. Urban or rural poor dwellers shall not be evicted nor their dwelling demolished, except in accordance with law and in a just and humane manner.No resettlement of urban or rural dwellers shall be undertaken without adequate consultation with them and the communities where they are to be relocated.

Macasiano v. NHA – 224 SCRA 236Jumawan v. Eviota – 234 SCRA 524Filstream v. CA – 284 SCRA 716**People v. Leachon – GR 108725 September 25, 1998 (just and humanemanner)

Human RightsSection 17. (1) There is hereby created an independent office called the Commission on Human Rights.(2) The Commission shall be composed of a Chairman and four Members who must be natural-born citizens of the Philippines and a majority of whom shall be members of the Bar. The term of office and other qualifications and disabilities of the Members of the Commission shall provided by law.(3) Until this Commission is constituted, the existing Presidential Committee on Human Rights shall continue to exercise its present functions and powers.(4) The approved annual appropriations of the Commission shall be automatically and regularly released.

42

*CHR Employees v. CHR 496 SCRA 226

Section 18. The Commission on Human Rights shall have the following powers and functions:(1) Investigate, on its own or on complaint by any party, all forms of human rights violations involving civil and political rights;(2) Adopt its operational guidelines and rules of procedure, and cite for contempt for violations thereof in accordance with the Rules of Court;(3) Provide appropriate legal measures for the protection of human rights of all persons within the Philippines, as well as Filipinos residing abroad, and provide for preventive measures and legal aid services to the underprivileged whose human rights have been violated or need protection;(4) Exercise visitatorial powers over jails, prisons, or detention facilities;(5) Establish a continuing program of research, education, and information to enhance respect for the primacy of human rights;(6) Recommend to the Congress effective measures to promote human rights and to provide for compensation to victims of violations of human rights, or their families;(7) Monitor the Philippine Government's compliance with international treaty obligations on human rights;(8) Grant immunity from prosecution to any person whose testimony or whose possession of documents or other evidence is necessary or convenient to determine the truth in any investigation onducted by it or under its authority;(9) Request the assistance of any department, bureau, office, or agency in the performance of its functions;(10) Appoint its officers and employees in accordance with law; and(11) Perform such other duties and functions as may be provided by law.

Section 19. The Congress may provide for other cases of violations of human rights that should fall within the authority of the Commission, taking into account its recommendations.

Powers of the Commission on Human Rights *Carino v. CHR - 204 SCRA 483 (no adjudicating power, no contempt)EPZA V. CHR, et. al. – 208 SCRA 125 (no injunctive power)*Simon v. CHR – 229 SCRA 117 (no injunctive power)

Article XIV – Education, Science and Technology, Arts, Culture and Sports

Section 1. The State shall protect and promote the right of all citizens to quality education at all levels and shall take appropriate steps to make such education accessible to all.

Natural and Primary Right of Parents Meyer v. Nebraska - 262 US 390Pierce v. Society of Sisters - 262 US 510Wisconsin v. Yoder - 406 US 205Ginsberg v. New York - 390 US 629

Quality and accessibility of educational system *DECS v. San Diego - 180 SCRA 534Non v. Judge Dame - 185 SCRA 523

Section 3. (1) All educational institutions shall include the study of the Constitution as part of the curricula.(2) They shall inculcate patriotism and nationalism, foster lover of humanity, respect for human rights, appreciation of the role of national heroes in the historical development of the country, teach the rights and duties of citizenship, strengthen ethical and spiritual values, develop moral character and personal discipline, encourage critical and creative thinking, broaden scientific and technological knowledge, and promote vocational efficiency.(3) At the option expressed in writing by the parents or guardians, religion shall be allowed to be taught to their children or wards in public elementary and high schools within the regular class hours by instructors designated or approved by the religious authorities of the religion to which the children or wards belong, without additional cost to the Government.

43

Duty of Institutions *Miriam College v. CA, GR 127930, December 15, 2000

Section 5. (1) the State shall take into account regional and sectoral needs and conditions and shall encourage local planning in the development of educational policies and programs.(2) Academic freedom shall be enjoyed in all institutions of higher learning.(3) Every citizen has a right to select a profession or course of study, subject to fair, reasonable, and equitable admission and academic requirements.(4) The State shall enhance the right of teachers to professional advancement. Non-teaching academic and non- academic personnel shall enjoy the protection of the State.(5) The State shall assign the highest budgetary priority to education and ensure that teaching will attract and retain its rightful share of the best available talents through adequate remuneration and other means of job satisfaction and fulfillment.

Academic freedom of “institutions of higher learning".*Garcia v. Faculty Admission, 68 SCRA 277BME v. Judge Alfonso - 176 SCRA 304Lupangco v. CA - 160 SCRA 848*University of San Carlos v. CA - 166 SCRA 570Capitol Medical Center v CA - 178 SCRA 493Reyes v. CA – 194 SCRA 402Tan v. CA – 199 SCRA 212Camacho v. Coresis, GR 134372, Aug. 22, 2002Civil Service Commission v. Sojor – 554 SCRA 160Regino v. Pangasinan Colleges of S&T, GR 156109, Nov 18, 2004

Language

Section 6. The national language of the Philippines is Filipino. As it evolves, it shall be further developed and enriched on the basis of existing Philippine and other languages. Subject to provisions of law and as the Congress may deem appropriate, the Government shall take steps to initiate and sustain the use of Filipino as a medium of official communication and as language of instruction in the educational system. Section 7. For purposes of communication and instruction, the official languages of the Philippines are Filipino and, until otherwise provided by law, English.The regional languages are the auxiliary official languages in the regions and shall serve as auxiliary media of instruction therein.Spanish and Arabic shall be promoted on a voluntary and optional basis.

Section 8. This Constitution shall be promulgated in Filipino and English and shall be translated into major regional languages, Arabic, and Spanish.

Section 9. The Congress shall establish a national language commission composed of representatives of various regions and disciplines which shall undertake, coordinate, and promote researches for the development, propagation, and preservation of Filipino and other languages.

Science and Technology

Section 10. Science and technology are essential for national development and progress. The State shall give priority to research and development, invention, innovation, and their utilization; and to science and technology education, training, and services. It shall support indigenous, appropriate, and self- reliant scientific and technological capabilities, and their application to the country's productive systems and national life.

Section 11. The Congress may provide for incentives, including tax deductions, to encourage private participation in programs of basic and applied scientific research. Scholarships, grants-in-aid, or other forms of incentives shall be provided to deserving science students, researchers, scientists, inventors, technologists, and specially gifted citizens.

Section 12. The State shall regulate the transfer and promote the adaptation of technology from all sources for the national benefit. It shall encourage the widest participation of private groups,

44

local governments, and community-based organizations in the generation and utilization of science and technology.

Section 13. The State shall protect and secure the exclusive rights of scientists, inventors, artists, and other gifted citizens to their intellectual property and creations, particularly when beneficial to the people, for such period as may be provided by law.

Arts and Culture

Section 14. The State shall foster the preservation, enrichment, and dynamic evolution of a Filipino national culture based on the principle of unity in diversity in a climate of free artistic and intellectual expression.

Section 15. Arts and letters shall enjoy the partronage of the State. The State shall conserve, promote, and popularize the nation's historical and cultural heritage and resources, as well as artistic creations.

Section 16. All the country's artistic and historic wealth constitutes the cultural treasure of the nation and shall be under the protection of the State which may regulate its disposition.

Section 17. The State shall recognize, respect, and protect the rights of indigenous cultural communities to preserve and develop their cultures, traditions, and institutions. It shall consider these rights in the formulation of national plans and policies.

Section 18. (1) The State shall ensure equal access to cultural opportunities through the educational system, public or private cultural entities, scholarships, grants and other incentives, and community cultural centers, and other public venues.(2) The State shall encourage and support researches and studies on the arts and culture.

Sports

Section 19. (1) The State shall promote physical education and encourage sports programs, league competitions, and amateur sports, including training for international competitions, to foster self-discipline, teamwork, and excellence for the development of a healthy and alert citizenry.(2) All educational institutions shall undertake regular sports activities throughout the country in cooperation with athletic clubs and other sectors.

ARTICLE XV THE FAMILY

Section 1. The State recognizes the Filipino family as the foundation of the nation. Accordingly, it shall strengthen its solidarity and actively promote its total development.

Section 2. Marriage, as an inviolable social institution, is the foundation of the family and shall be protected by the State.

Section 3. The State shall defend: (1) The right of spouses to found a family in accordance with their religious convictions and the demands of responsible parenthood;(2) The right of children to assistance, including proper care and nutrition, and special protection from all forms of neglect, abuse, cruelty, exploitation and other conditions prejudicial to their development;(3) The right of the family to a family living wage and income; and(4) The right of families or family associations to participate in the planning and implementation of policies and programs that affect them.

Section 4. The family has the duty to care for its elderly members but the State may also do so through just programs of social security.

45