Constitutional Law 2

Outline

Ricardo A. Sunga III1

Part One

FUNDAMENTAL POWERS OF THE STATE

A. POLICE POWER

1. Nature and basis

2. Distinguished from other powers

3. Scope

a. generally

b. particular aspects

(1) public health

(2) public morals

(3) public safety

(4) public welfare

4. Limitations

a. general

b. due process

c. equal protection

1 Parts of this outline were inspired by the ideas of Prof. Carmelo Sison, my constitutional law professor at the University of the Philippines College of Law.

Cases:

Lozano v. Martinez, 146 SCRA 323 (1986)

Pernito Arrastre Services, Inc. v. Mendoza, 146 SCRA 431 (1986)

Philippine Assoc. of Service Exporters, Inc. v. Drilon, 163 SCRA 386 (1988)

Tatel v. Municipality of Virac, 207 SCRA 157 (1992)

People v. Nitafan, 207 SCRA 727 (1992)

JMM Promotions & Mgt. Inc, v. CA, 260 SCRA 314 (1996)

U.S. v. Toribio, 15 Phil. 85 (1910)

Fabie v. City of Manila, 21 Phil., 486 (1912)

5. Tests for validity of exercise of police power

a. interest of the public generally as distinguished from a particular class required exercise

b. means employed reasonably necessary for accomplishment of purpose and not unduly oppressive

Cases:

National Development Company v. Philippine Veterans Bank, 192 SCRA 257 (1990)

Taxicab Operators of Metro Manila v. Board of Transp., 119 SCRA 592

Bautista v. Juinio, 127 SCRA 329 (1984)

6. Who may exercise

1. Legislature

2. Executive

7. Cases:

Ichong v. Hernandez, 101 Phil. 1155 (1957)

Calalang v. Williams, 70 Phil. 726 (1940)

Morfe v. Mutuc, 22 SCRA 424 (1968)

Vda. de Genuino v. Court of Agrarian Relations, 22 SCRA 792 (1968)

Alalayan v. National Power Corp., 24 SCRA 172 (1968)

Homeowners' Association of the Philippines, Inc. v. Municipal Board of the City of Manila, 24 SCRA 856 (1968)

Agustin v. Edu, 88 SCRA 195 (1979)

Velasco v. Villegas, 120 SCRA 568 (1983)

Melchor, Jr. v. Moya, 121 SCRA 1 (1983)

De la Cruz v. Paras, 123 SCRA 569 (1983)

Anglo-Fil Trading Corp. v. Lazaro, 124 SCRA 495 (1983)

Philippine Ports Authority v. Mendoza, 138 SCRA 496 (1985)

Department of Education, Culture and Sports v. San Diego, 180 SCRA 533 (1989)

Tablarin v. Gutierrez, 152 SCRA 730 (1987)

Balacuit v. Agusan del Norte, 163 SCRA 182 (1988)

Association of Small Landowners in the Phils., Inc. v. Sec. of Agrarian Reform, 175 SCRA 343 (1989)

Sangalang v. Intermediate Appelate Court, 176 SCRA 719 (1989)

Del Rosario v. Bengzon, 180 SCRA 521 (1989)

National Press Club v. COMELEC, 207 SCRA 1 (1992)

PCGG v. Nepunmoceno, 184 SCRA 449

Conference of Maritime Manning Agencies Inc. v. POEA, 243 SCRA 666 (1995)

PNB v. Office of the President, 252 SCRA 106 (1996)

JMM Promotion & Mgt. Inc. v. CA, 260 SCRA 319 (1996)

Republic Planters Bank v. Ogano, 269 SCRA 1 (1997)

Telecommunications & Broadcast Attorneys of the Phils .v. COMELEC, 189 SCRA 337 (1998)

B. EMINENT DOMAIN

1. Concept

2. Who may exercise power

3. Conditions for exercise

4. Taking

Cases:

NPC v. CA, 254 SCRA 577 (1992)

City of Manila v. Laguio, 455 SCRA 308 (2005)

CIR v. Central Luzon Drug Corporation, 406 SCRA 414 (2005)

5. Public use

Case:

Mañosca v. RP, 252 SCRA 412 (1997)

6. Just compensation

Cases:

City of Manila v. Chinese Community of Manila, 40 Phil. 349 (1919)

Visayan Refining Co. v. Camus and Paredes, 40 Phil. 550 (1919)

City of Baguio v. NAWASA, 106 Phil. 144 (1959)

Republic v. PLDT, 26 SCRA 620 (1969)

J.M. Tuason & Co., Inc. v. Land Tenure Administration, 31 SCRA 413 (1970)

Salas v. Jarencio, 46 SCRA 734 (1972)

Familara v. J.M. Tuason & Co., 49 SCRA 338 (1973)

Republic v. Vda. de Castellvi, 58 SCRA 336 (1974)

Comm. of Public Highways v. Burgos, 96 SCRA 831 (1980)

De Knecht v. Bautista, 100 SCRA 660 (1980)

Republic v. de Knecht, 182 SCRA 144 (1990)

City Gov’t of Quezon City v. Ericta, 122 SCRA 759 (1983)

National Housing Authority v. Reyes, 123 SCRA 245 (1983)

Heirs of Juancho Ardona v. Reyes, 125 SCRA 220 (1983)

Benguet Consolidated, Inc. v. Republic, 143 SCRA 466 (1986)

Export Processing Zone Authority v. Dulay, 149 SCRA 305 (1987)

Manotok v. National Housing Authority, 150 SCRA 89 (1987)

Provincial Government of Sorsogon v. Vda. de Villaroya, 153 SCRA 291 (1987)

Sumulong v. Guerrero, 154 SCRA 461 (1987)

Tuason v. Register of Deeds, Caloocan City, 157 SCRA 613 (1988)

Cosculuela v. Court of Appeals, 164 SCRA 393 (1988)

Ansaldo v. Tantuico, Jr., 188 SCRA 300 (1990)

Municipality of Makati v. Court of Appeals, 190 SCRA 206 (1990)

Marine Radio Communications Association of the Philippines v. Reyes, 191 SCRA 205 (1990)

Meralco v. Pineda, 206 SCRA 196 (1992)

Philippine Columbian Association v. Panis, 228 SCRA 668 (1993)

Philippine Press Institute v. COMELEC, 244 SCRA 272 (1995)

Prov. Of Camarines Sur v. CA, 222 SCRA 173 (1993)

NPC v. CA , 193 SCRA 173 (1991)

Landbank v. CA, 249 SCRA 149 (1995)

Res on MR, 258 SCRA 404 (1996)

NPC v. COMELEC, (1995)

White Plains Homeowners Assoc. v. CA, 193 SCRA 765 (1991)

NHA v. Heirs of Isidro Guivelondo, et. Al., G.R. NO. 154411, June 19, 2003

Land Bank v. Wycoco, January 13, 2004

Republic v. CA, 4545 SCRA 265 (2005)

Republic v. Lim, 462 SCRA 265 (2005)

C. TAXATION

Art. VI, Sec. 12

Art. X, Sec. 5

1. Nature and extent

2. Distinguished from special assessments; license fees

3. Limitations

4. Double Taxation

5. Impairment of obligation of contracts

6. Tax exemptions

Cases:

Y.M.C.A of Manila v. Collector of Internal Revenue, 33 Phil. 217 (1916)

Bishop of Nueva Segovia v. Prov. Board of Ilocos Norte, 51 Phil. 352 (1927)

Lutz v. Araneta, 98 Phil. 148 (1955)

Lladoc v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 14 SCRA 292 (1965)

Ormoc Sugar Co. v. Treasurer of Ormoc City, 22 SCRA 603 (1968)

Pepsi-Cola Bottling Co. of the Phil., Inc. v. City of Butuan, 24 SCRA 789 (1968)

Republic v. Phil. Rabbit Bus Lines, Inc., 32 SCRA 211 (1970)

Province of Abra v. Hernando, 107 SCRA 104 (1981)

Sison, Jr. v. Ancheta, 130 SCRA 654 (1984)

Kapatiran ng mga Naglilingkod sa Pamahalaan ng Pilipinas v. Tan, 163 SCRA 371 (1988)

Tan v. del Rosario, 237 SCRA 324 (1994)

Obillo v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 139 SCRA 436 (1985)

Part Two

BILL OF RIGHTS

Section 1 Due process and equal protection

1. Substantive due process

Cases:

U.S. v. Toribio, 15 Phil. 85 (1910) Antamok Goldfields Mining Co. v. CIR, 70 Phil. 340 (1940)Ongsiako v. Gamboa, 86 Phil. 50 (1950) Cruz v. Secretary of DENR, 347 SCRA 128 (2000)Smith Kline & French Laboratories, Ltd. V. CA, 368 SCRA 9

(2001)Pilipinas Kao, Inc. v. CA, 372 SCRA 548 (2001)Montesciaros v. COMELEC, 384 SCRA 269 (2002)

2. Procedural due process

Judicial

Cases:Salazar v. People, 411 SCRA 598 (2003)People v. Bodosco, 398 SCRA 642 (2003)

Administrative

Cases:Ang Tibay v. CIR 69 Phil 635 (1940)Air Manila v. Balatbat 38 SCRA 189 (1971)Busuego v. CA, 304 SCRA 473 (1999)UP Board of Regents v. CA, 313 SCRA 405 (1999)Pefianco v. Moral, 322 SCRA 439 (2000)Mollaneda v. Umacob, 358 SCRA 537 (2001)Sayo-Ang v. COMELEC 416 SCRA 651 (2003)Samalia v. CA, 454 SCRA 462 (2005)DOH v. Camposano, 457 SCRA 438 (2005)Antonio v. Ville, 454 SCRA 851 (2005)

3. Notice

Tañada v. Tuvera, 136 SCRA 27 (1985); 146 SCRA 446 (1986)People v. Vaymaco, 305 SCRA 93 (1999)People v. Sanchez, 301 SCRA 21 (1999)Miranda v. Carreon, 401 SCRA 303 (2003)Dayloc v. COMELEC, 395 SCRA 742 (2003)

4. Impartiality

Tañada v. PAEC, 141 SCRA 307 (1986)Mateo v. Villaluz, 50 SCRA 18 (1973)People v. Vaymaco, 305 SCRA 93 (1999)Lacson v. Executive Secretary, 301 SCRA 298 (1999)People v. Sanchez, 301 SCRA 21 (1999)People v. Sesbreño, 314 SCRA (1987)Soriano v. Angeles, 339 SCRA 366 (2000)People v. Cabiles, 341 SCRA 721 ( 2000)Almendra v. Asis, 330 SCRA 69 (2000)People v. De Leon, 378 SCRA 495 (2002)People v. Cueto, 395 SCRA 344 (2003)People v. Medina, 404 SCRA 248 (2003)Camacho v. Gloria, 409 SCRA 174 (2003) People v. Moralde, 395 SCRA 286 (2003)People v. Tee, 395 SCRA 419 (2003)Tumey v. Ohio 373 US 510 (1927)

5. Certainty

Void for vagueness

Cases:Connally v. Gen. Construction Co., 269 US 385 (1926)Lanzetta v. New Jersey, 306 US 451 (1939)Estrada v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 148560, Nov. 19, 2001

Overbreadth

Cases:Shelton v. Tucker, 364 US 479 (1960)Gonzales v. COMELEC, 27 SCRA 835 (1969)People v. Morato, 224 SCRA 361 (1993) People v. Nazario, 165 SCRA 186 (1988)Gallego v. Sandiganbayan, 119 SCRA 493 (1982)

Chavez v. COMELEC. 437 SCRA 415 (2004)Lucena Grand Central Terminal v. JAC Liner, 452 SCRA 174

(2005)City of Manila v. Laguio, 455 SCRA 308 (2005)

6. Equal Protection

Cases:People v. Cayat, 68 Phil. 12 (1939)Ichong v. Hernandez, 101 Phil. 1155 (1957)Ormoc Sugar Co., Inc v. Treasurer of Ormoc City, 22 SCRA 603

(1968)Peralta v. COMELEC, 82 SCRA 30 (1978)Villegas v. Hiu Chiong Tsai Pao Ho, 86 SCRA 270 (1978)Nuñez v. Sandiganbayan, 111 SCRA 433 (1982)Taxicab Operators of Metro Manila Inc. v. Board of

Transportation, 117 SCRA 597 (1982) Del Rosario v. Bengzon, 180 SCRA 521 (1989)Shauf v. Court of Appeals, 191 SCRA 713 (1990)Chua v. Civil Service Commission, 206 SCRA 65 (1992)Conference of Maritime Manning Agencies v. POEA, 243 SCRA

666 (1995)Tiu v. CA, 301 SCRA 278 (1999)Soriano v. CA, 304 v.231 (1999)Loong v. COMELEC, 305 SCRA 832 (1999)Aguinaldo v. COMELEC, 308 SCRA 770 (1999)People v. Jalosjos, 324 SCRA 689 (2000)De Guzman vs. COMELEC, 336 SCRA 188 (2001)Cruz vs. COA, 368 SCRA 85 (2001)People v. Dela Piedra, 350 SCRA 163 (2001)Peliguino v. People, 362 SCRA 682 (2001)Lopez v. CA, 389 SCRA 570 (2001)PRECA v. Secretary of DILG, 403 SCRA 558 (2003)Villarena v. COA 408 SCRA 455 (2003)Fariñas v. Executive Secretary, 417 SCRA 503 (2003)GSIS v. Montesclaros, 434 SCRA 441 (2004)Central Bank Employees Association v. Bangko Sentral ng

Pilipinas, 446 SCRA 299 (2004)Gallardo v. People, 454 SCRA 494 (2005)Abakada Guro Party List v. Ermita, 469 SCRA 1 (2005)Beltran v. Secretary of Health, 476 SCRA 168 (2005)City of Manila v. Laguio, 455 SCRA 308 (2005)

Section 2 Security in their persons, houses, papers, and effects

1. Arrests, searches & seizures

1.1 Warrantless arrest (Rule 113, Sec. 5, 2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure)

Cases:People v. Burgos, 144 SCRA 1 (1986)Torres v. Gonzales, 152 SCRA 272 (1987)People v. Enrile, 222 SCRA 586 (1993)People v. Doria, 301 SCRA 668 (1999)People v. Bansil, 304 SCRA 384 (1999)People v. Chua Ho San, 308 SCRA 432 (1999)Boneng v. People, 304 SCRA 252 (1999)People v. Del Rosario, 305 SCRA 740 (1999)People v. Bamparo, 329 SCRA 404 (2000)People v. Chua Uy, 327 SCRA 335 (2000)People v. Bongalon, 374 SCRA 289 (2002)People v. De Guzman, 351 SCRA 573 (2001)People v. Lapitaje, 397 SCRA 674 (2003)People v. Tudtud, 412 SCRA 142 (2003)People v. Kimura, 428 SCRA 51 (2004)

1.2 Arrest under warrant

Cases:Amarga v. Abbas, 98 Phil. 739 (1956)Soliven v. Makasiar, 167 SCRA 393 (1988)

1.3 Determination of probable cause

Cases:Buchanan v. Vda. de Esteban, 32 Phil. 363 (1915)N.T Hashim v. Boncan, 71 Phil 216 (1941)Lino v. Fugoso, 77 Phil. 933 (1947)Amarga v. Abbas, 98 Phil. 739 (1956)Burgos, Sr. v. Chief of Staff, AFP, 133 SCRA 800 (1984)Salonga v. Cruz Paño, 134 SCRA 438 (1985)Geronimo v. Ramos, 136 SCRA 435 (1985) Que v. IAC, 169 SCRA 137 (1989) People v. Camalog, 169 SCRA 816 (1989)

Prudente v. Dayrit, 180 SCRA 69 (1989)Ponce v. Legaspi, 208 SCRA 377 (1992)Albenson Enterprises Corp. v. CA, 217 SCRA 17 (1993)People v. Vinecario, 420 SCRA 280 (2004)

1.4 Power of Municipal Trial Judge

Cases:Placer v. Villanueva, 126 SCRA 463 (1983) Pilapil v. Sandiganbayan, 221 SCRA 349 (1993)

1.5 What constitutes searching questions

Case:Luna v. Plaza, 26 SCRA 310 (1968)

1.6 Issuance of arrest warrant

Cases:Samulde v. Salvani, Jr., 165 SCRA 734 (1988)Uy v. Mercado, 154 SCRA 567 (1987)

1.7 RTC Judges need not personally examine complainant

Cases:Amarga v. Abbas, 98 Phil. 739 (1956)Soliven v. Makasiar, 167 SCRA 393 (1988)People v. Inting, 187 SCRA 788 (1990)Lim, Sr. v. Felix, 194 SCRA 292 (1991)Allado & Mendoza v. Hon. Diokno, 232 SCRA 192 (1994)

2. Administrative warrant

Cases: Harvey v. Defensor-Santiago, 162 SCRA 840 (1988)Lucien Tran Van Nghia v. Liwag, 175 SCRA 318 (1989)Jackson v. Macalino, G.R. No. 139255, November 24, 2003

3. Conditions for issuance of search warrant

Cases:Pasion Vda. de Garcia v. Locsin, 65 Phil. 689 (1938) Yee Sue Koy v. Almeda, 70 Phil. 141 (1940)Bache & Co. (Phil.), Inc. v. Ruiz, 37 SCRA 823 (1971)Corro v. Lising, 137 SCRA 541 (1985)Olaes v. People, 155 SCRA 486 (1987)

3.1 Procedure to determine probable cause to search

Cases:Roan v. Gonzales, 145 SCRA 687 (1986)Paper Industries Corp. of the Phils. V. Asuncion, 307 SCRA 253

(1999)Kho v. Makalintal, 306 SCRA 70 (1999)Savage v. Taypin, 331 SCRA 697 (2000)Dizon v. Veneracion A.M. No. RTJ-97-13796, July 20, 2000Abdula v. Guiani, 326 SCRA 1 (2000)Tolentino v. Malangaon, A.M. No. RTJ-99-1444, August 3, 2000People v. Libnao, 395 SCRA 407 (2003)People v. Tampis, 407 SCRA 82 (2003)Nala v. Barroso, 408 SCRA 529 (2003)Chu v. Tamin, 410 SCRA 53 (2003)

3.2 Particular description of things to be seized

Cases:Nolasco v. Paño, 139 SCRA 152 (1985)Salazar v. Achacoso, 183 SCRA 145 (1990)Pendon v. CA, 191 SCRA 429 (1990)People v. Tee, 395 SCRA 419 (2003)People v. Tiu Won Chua, 405 SCRA 529 (2003)Nala v. Barroso, 408 SCRA 529 (2003)

4. Warrantless search

Incident to lawful arrest

Cases:People v. Veloso, 48 Phil. 169 (1925)People v. Kagui Malasugui, 63 Phil. 221 (1936)Papa v. Mago, 22 SCRA 857 (1968) Nolasco v. Paño, 147 SCRA 509 (1987)Guazon v. De Villa, 181 SCRA 623 (1990) People v. Exala, 221 SCRA 494 (1993)People v. Uy, 380 SCRA 100 (2002)People v. Uy, 380 SCRA 100 (2002)People v. Sarap, 399 SCRA 503 (2003)People v. Pangilinan, 410 SCRA 394 (2003)People v. Estella, 395 SCRA 553 (2003)

Routinary searches at airports

People v. Johnson, GR No 138881, December 18, 2000People v. Canton, GR No 148825, December 27, 2002

Moving vehicles

Asuncion v. CA, 302 SCRA 490 (1999)Caballes v. CA, 373 SCRA 221 (2002)

Stop and Frisk

People v. Binad Sy Chua, 396 SCRA 657 (2003)

Objects in Plain View

People v. Macalobo, 395 SCRA 461 (2003)People v. Simbahon, 401 SCRA 94 (2003)People v. Go, 411 SCRA 81 (2003)

5. What may be seized

Rule 126, Sec. 2, Rules of Court

Exclusionary ruleArt. III, Sec. 3(2)

Case:Stonehill v. Diokno, 20 SCRA 383 (1967)People v. Mantung, 310 SCRA 819 (1999)People v. De Guzman, 351 SCRA 573 (2001)Republic v. Sandiganbayan, 407 SCRA 10 (2003)

6. Civil action for damages

Cases:Forbes v. Chuoco Tiaco and Crossfield, 16 Phil. 534 (1910)Chuoco Tiaco v. Forbes, 40 Phil. 1122 (1913) Aberca v. Ver, 160 SCRA 590 (1988)

Section 3 Privacy of communication and correspondence

Gaanan v. IAC, 145 SCRA 112 (1986)Valmonte v. De Villa, 178 SCRA 211 (1989)Alejano v. Cabuay, 468 SCRA 188 (2005)

Section 4 Freedom of expression

1. Freedom of speech and press

a. Meaning and scopeb. Aspects

c. Forms of abridgment

1. Prior restraint — concept and kinds2. Subsequent Punishment — concept and kinds

d. Tests

1. Dangerous tendency2. Clear and present danger3. Balancing of interests

e. Prior restraint

Cases:Tolentino v. Secretary of Finance, 235 SCRA 630 (1994)Near v. Minnesota, 283 US 697 (1931)Times Film Corp. v. Chicago, 365 US 43 (1961)Freedman v. Maryland, 380 U.S. 51 (1965)Gonzales v. Kalaw Katigbak, 137 SCRA 717 (1985)Badoy, Jr. v. COMELEC, 35 SCRA 285 (1970)Santiago v. Far Eastern Broadcasting, 73 Phil 408Mutuc v. COMELEC, 36 SCRA 228 (1970)New York Times Co. v. US, 403 US 713 (1971)Laxamana v. Borlaza, 47 SCRA 29 (1972) Corro v. Lising, 137 SCRA 541 (1985)Eastern Broadcasting Corp. (DYRE) v. Dans, Jr., 137 SCRA 628

(1985) Sanidad v. COMELEC, 181 SCRA 529 (1990) NPC v. COMELEC, 207 SCRA 1 (1992)Blo Umpar Adiong v. COMELEC, 207 SCRA 712 (1992)Iglesia ni Cristo v. CA, 259 SCRA 529 (1996)PPI v. COMELEC, 244 SCRA 275 (1995)Borjal v. CA, 301 SCRA 1 (1999)Vasquez v. CA, GR No 113971, September 15, 1999ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation v. COMELEC, 323 SCRA

811 (2000)Jalandoni v. Drilon, 327 SCRA 107 (2000)

MTRCB v. ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation, 448 SCRA 575 (2005)

U.S. v. O’Brien 391 US 367 (1968)

f. Subsequent punishment

Cases:People v. Perez, 45 Phil. 599 (1923)Gitlow v. People of New York, 268 US 652 (1924)Dennis v. United States, 341 US 494 (1950)New York Times Co. V. Sullivan, 376 US 254 (1964)Espuelas v. People, 90 Phil. 524 (1951)

g. Freedom of expression and libel

Cases:U.S. v. Felipe Bustos, 37 Phil. 731 (1918)Quisumbing v. Lopez, 96 Phil. 510 (1955)Policarpio v. Manila Times Pub. Co., Inc., 5 SCRA 148 (1962)Lopez v. Court of Appeals, 34 SCRA 116 (1970)Elizalde v. Gutierrez, 76 SCRA 448 (1977)Lagunzad v. Soto Vda. de Gonzales, 92 SCRA 476 (1979) Phil. Commercial and Industrial Bank v. Philnabank Employees

Assoc., 105 SCRA 314 (1981)Mercado v. Court of First Instance of Rizal, 116 SCRA 93 (1982) Newsweek, Inc. v. IAC, 142 SCRA 171 (1986)Ayer Productions Pty. Ltd. v. Capulong, 160 SCRA 861 (1988)Bulletin Publishing Corp. v. Noel, 167 SCRA 255 (1988)Soliven v. Makasiar, 167 SCRA 393 (1988)Manuel v. Paño, 172 SCRA 225 (1989) Borjal v. CA, 301 SCRA 1 (1999)Vasquez v. CA, 15 Sept. 1999 G.R. No. 118971Jalandoni v. Drilon, 327 SCRA 107 (2000)MVRS v. Islamic Da’Wah Council of the Philippines, January 28,

2003Arafiles v. Philippine Journalists, 426 SCRA 336 (2004)Philippine Journalists v. Thoen, 477 SCRA 482 (2005)Reno v. ACLU, 521 US 844 (1997)

h. Freedom of expression and administration of justice

Cases: People v. Alarcon, 69 Phil. 265 (1939)

In Re Sotto, 82 Phil. 595 (1949)Cabansag v. Fernandez, 102 Phil. 152 (1957)

People v. Castelo, 4 SCRA 947 (1962)Zaldivar v. Gonzales, 166 SCRA 316 (1988)People v. Godoy, 243 SCRA 64 (1995)In re: Emil P. Jurado, 243 SCRA 299 (1995)In re: Atty.Leonard de Vera, A.M. No. 01-12-03-SC, July 29,

2002

i. Freedom of expression and obscenity

P.D. 1986 (1985)

Cases:Roth v. United States, 354 US 476 (1957)Ginsberg v. New York, 390 US 629 (1968)Tinker v. Des Moines, 393 SCRA 503 (1969)Miller v. California, 413 US 15, 37 L Ed 2d 419, 93 S Ct 2607

(1972)Gonzales v. Kalaw Katigbak, 137 SCRA 717 (1985)People v. City Court of Manila, 154 SCRA 175 (1987)Pita v. Court of Appeals, 178 SCRA 362 (1989)

j. Freedom of expression and radio broadcasts

Case:Federal Communications Commission v. Pacifica Foundation, 438 US 726, 57 L Ed 2d 1073, 98 S Ct 3026 (1978)

2. Freedom of assembly and petition

B.P. Blg. 880 (22 Oct. 1985) – Public Assembly Act of 1985

Cases:Primicias v. Fugoso, 80 Phil. 71 (1948)Ignacio v. Ela, 99 Phil. 346 (1956)Navarro v. Villegas, 31 SCRA 730 (1970)Phil. Blooming Mills Employees Organization v. PBM Co., Inc.,

51 SCRA 189 (1973)Reyes v. Bagatsing, 125 SCRA 553 (1983)Ruiz v. Gordon, 126 SCRA 233 (1983)Malabanan v. Ramento, 129 SCRA 359 (1984)German v. Barangan, 135 SCRA 514 (1985)Villar v. Technological Institute of the Phils., 135 SCRA 706

(1985)

Arreza v. Gregorio Araneta University Foundation, 137 SCRA 94 (1985)

Nestle Phils., Inc v. Sanchez, 154 SCRA 542 (1987)Non v. Dames II, 185 SCRA 523 (1990)Subayco v. Sandiganbayan, 260 SCRA 798 (1996)Bangalisan v. CA, 276 SCRA 619 (1997)Acosta v. CA, 334 SCRA 486 (2000)

Section 5 Freedom of religion

1. Non-establishment of religion

Art. VI, Sec. 28(3)Art. VI, Sec. 1(2)Art. IV, Sec. 14(3)

Cases:Aglipay v. Ruiz, 64 Phil. 201 (1937) Ignacio v. Ela, 99 Phil. 346 (1956)Garces v. Estenzo, 104 SCRA 510 (1981)Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 US 601 (1971)Board of Education v. Allen, 392 US 236 (1968)

2. Free exercise of religion

Cases:American Bible Society v. City of Manila, 101 Phil. 386 (1957)Gerona, et al. v. Secretary of Education, 106 Phil. 2 (1959)Victoriano v. Elizalde Rope Workers Union, 59 SCRA 54 (1974)Basa v. Federacion Obrera de la Industria Tabaquera y Otros Trabajadores de Filipinas (FOITAF), 61 SCRA 93 (1974)Pamil v. Teleron, 86 SCRA 413 (1978)Gonzales v. Central Azucarera de Tarlac Labor Union, 139 SCRA

31 (1985)Ebralinag v. Division Superintendent of Schools of Cebu, 251

SCRA 569 (1995)Austria v. NLRC, 312 SCRA 410 (1999)Islamic Da’wah Council v. Office of the Executive Secretary, 405

SCRA 497 (2003)Estrada v. Escritor, 408 SCRA 1 (2003) see also: June 22, 2006

decisionTaruc v. De la Cruz, 453 SCRA 123 (2005)In Re: Request of Muslim Employees in the Different Court of

Iligan City, 477 SCRA 648 (2005)

Section 6 Liberty of abode and right to travel

Cases:Villavicencio v. Lukban, 39 Phil. 778 (1919)Manotok, Jr. v. Court of Appeals, 142 SCRA 149 (1986)Marcos v. Manglapus, 177 SCRA 668 (1989)Santiago v. Vasquez, 217 SCRA 633 (1993)Marcos v. SAndiganbayan 247 SCRA 127 Yap v. CA, GR No141529, June 6, 2001

Section 7 Right to information

Cases:Subido v. Ozaeta, 80 Phil. 383 (1948)Baldoza v. Dimaano, 71 SCRA 14 (1976)Legaspi v. Civil Service Comm., 150 SCRA 530 (1987)Valmonte v. Belmonte, Jr., 170 SCRA 256 (1989)Garcia v. Board of Investments, 177 SCRA 374 (1989)Gonzales v. Narvasa, 337 SCRA 732 (2001)Chavez v. PEA, 384 SCRA 152 (2002)

Section 8 Freedom of association

Cases:Scales v. U.S., 367 US 203 (1961)NAACP v. Button, 371 US 415 (1963)Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 US 47A (1965)PAFLU v. Sec. of Labor, 27 SCRA 41 (1969)INC v. CA 259 SCRA 529 (1996)People v. Ferrer, 56 SCRA 793 (1974)Victoriano v. Elizalde Rope Workers Union, 59 SCRA 54 (1974)UE Automotive Employees v. Noriel, 74 SCRA 72 (1976) Tanduay Distillery Labor Union v. NLRC, 149 SCRA 470 (1987)Manila Public School Teachers Assn. v. Sec. of Education, 200

SCRA 323 (1991)Sta, Clara Homeowners’ Association v. Gaston, 374 SCRA 396

(2002)Padcom Condominium Association v. Ortigas Center

Association, Inc, 382 SCRA 222 (2002)

Section 9 Just compensation

Taking

Cases:

NPC v. CA, 254 SCRA 577 (1992)City of Manila v. Laguio, 455 SCRA 308 (2005)CIR v. Central Luzon Drug Corporation, 406 SCRA 414 (2005)

Public use

Case:Mañosca v. RP, 252 SCRA 412 (1997)

Just compensation

Cases:City of Manila v. Chinese Community of Manila, 40 Phil. 349

(1919)Visayan Refining Co. v. Camus and Paredes, 40 Phil. 550 (1919)City of Baguio v. NAWASA, 106 Phil. 144 (1959)Republic v. PLDT, 26 SCRA 620 (1969)J.M. Tuason & Co., Inc. v. Land Tenure Administration, 31 SCRA

413 (1970)Salas v. Jarencio, 46 SCRA 734 (1972)Familara v. J.M. Tuason & Co., 49 SCRA 338 (1973)Republic v. Vda. de Castellvi, 58 SCRA 336 (1974)Comm. of Public Highways v. Burgos, 96 SCRA 831 (1980)De Knecht v. Bautista, 100 SCRA 660 (1980)Republic v. de Knecht, 182 SCRA 144 (1990)City Gov’t of Quezon City v. Ericta, 122 SCRA 759 (1983)National Housing Authority v. Reyes, 123 SCRA 245 (1983)Heirs of Juancho Ardona v. Reyes, 125 SCRA 220 (1983)Benguet Consolidated, Inc. v. Republic, 143 SCRA 466 (1986)Export Processing Zone Authority v. Dulay, 149 SCRA 305

(1987)Manotok v. National Housing Authority, 150 SCRA 89 (1987)Provincial Government of Sorsogon v. Vda. de Villaroya, 153

SCRA 291 (1987)Sumulong v. Guerrero, 154 SCRA 461 (1987)Tuason v. Register of Deeds, Caloocan City, 157 SCRA 613

(1988)Cosculuela v. Court of Appeals, 164 SCRA 393 ( 1988)

Ansaldo v. Tantuico, Jr., 188 SCRA 300 (1990)Municipality of Makati v. Court of Appeals, 190 SCRA 206

(1990)Marine Radio Communications Association of the Philippines v.

Reyes, 191 SCRA 205 (1990)Meralco v. Pineda, 206 SCRA 196 (1992)Philippine Columbian Association v. Panis, 228 SCRA 668 (1993)Philippine Press Institute v. COMELEC, 244 SCRA 272 (1995)

Prov. Of Camarines Sur v. CA, 222 SCRA 173 (1993)NPC v. CA , 193 SCRA 173 (1991) Landbank v. CA, 249 SCRA 149 (1995)Res on MR, 258 SCRA 404 (1996)NPC v. COMELEC, (1995)White Plains Homeowners Assoc. v. CA, 193 SCRA 765 (1991) NHA v. Heirs of Isidro Guivelondo, et. Al., G.R. NO. 154411,

June 19, 2003Land Bank v. Wycoco, January 13, 2004Republic v. CA, 4545 SCRA 265 (2005)Republic v. Lim, 462 SCRA 265 (2005)

Section 10 Non-impairment of the obligation of contracts

Cases:Manila Trading and Supply Co. v. Reyes, 62 Phil.461 (1935)Rutter v. Esteban, 93 Phil 68 (1953) Ilusorio v. CAR, 17 SCRA 25 (1966)Phil. American Life Insurance Co. v. Auditor General, 22 SCRA

135 (1968)Batchelder v. Central Bank, 44 SCRA 45 (1972)Allied Structural Steel Co. v. Spannaus, 438 US 234 (1978)Ortigas & Co. Limited Partnership v. FEATI Bank and Trust Co.,

94 SCRA 533 (1979)Co. v. IAC, 162 SCRA 390 (1988)Sangalang v. IAC, 168 SCRA 634 (1988)Oposa v. Factoran, Jr., 224 SCRA 792 (1993)Lim c. Pacquing 240 SCRA 649First Phil. International Bank v. Court of Appeals 252 SCRA 259 Miners Association of the Phils. v. Factoran 240 SCRA 100 Alalayan v. NPC, 24 SCRA 173 (1963)Manila Electric Co. v. Province of Laguna, 306 SCRA 750 (1999)Harrison Motors Corp. v. Navarro, 331 SCRA 202 (2000)Ortigas & Company, Ltd. V. CA, GR No 126102, December 4,

2000

Republic v. Rosemoor Mining and Development Corporation, 426 SCRA 517 (2004)

Hospicio de San Jose de Barili v. DAR, 470 SCRA 609 (2005)

Section 11 Free access to the courts and quasi-judicial bodies and adequate legal assistance

Section 12 Rights under investigation

1. Right to silence, to counsel, and to warnings

Cases:People v. Olivarez, 4 December 1998Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966)People v. Tafalia, 96 SCRA 861 (1980)People v. Duero, 104 SCRA 379 (1981)People v. Ayson, 175 SCRA 216 (1989)Sanchez v. Demetriou, 227 SCRA 627 (1993)People v. Monda, Jr., 228 SCRA 115 (1993)People v. Domantay, 307 SCRA 1 (1999)Marcelo v. Sandiganbayan, 302 SCRA 102 (1999)Amion v. Chiongson, 301 SCRA 614 (1999)People v. Bermas, 306 SCRA 135 (1999)People v. Sta. Teresa, 354 SCRA 697 (2001)People v. Porio, 376 SCRA 596 (2002)People v. Suela, 373 scra 163 (2002)People v. Tablon, 379 SCRA 280 (2002)People v. Dumalahay, 380 SCRA 37 (2002)People v. Sunga, 399 SCRa 624 (2003)People v. Garcia, 400 SCRA 229 (2003)People v. Besonia, 422 SCRA 710 (2004)Uy v. Phela Trading Company, 451 SCRA 124 (2005)

1.1 Prosecution’s burden to prove warnings

Case:People v. Nicandro, 141 SCRA 289 (1986)

1.2 Police line-up

Case:Gamboa v. Cruz, 162 SCRA 642 (1988)

People v. Pavillare, 329 SCRA 684 (2000)People v. Escordial, 373 SCRA 585 (2002)People v Piedad, GR No 131923, December 5, 2002

1.3 Requirements for warnings to be valid

Cases:People v. Quizon, 142 SCRA 362 (1986)People v. Jara, 144 SCRA 516 (1986)People v. Tolentino, 145 SCRA 597 (1986)People v. Manriquez, 328 SCRA 385 (2000)People v. Obrero, 332 SCRA 190 (2000)People v. Alberto, GR No 132374, August 22, 2002

2. Tests of waiver of Miranda rights

2.1 Art. III, Sec. 12(1)

Cases:People v. Albofera, 152 SCRA 123 (1987)Olaes v. People, 96 SCRA 624 (1980)

2.2 Waiver of right to remain silent and to counsel, but not to be given warnings

Exclusionary rule

Art. III, Sec. 12(3)

Cases:Harris v. New York, 401 US 222 (1971) New York v. Quarles, 104 S. Ct. 2626 (1984)

i) Confession secured by deceit

Cases:People v. Domantay, 307 SCRA 1 People v. Vidal, 306 SCRA 1People v. Mulela, 309 SCRA 148 People v. Altsejaño, 13 July 1999Tan v. People, 26 August 1999People v. Labtan, 8 December 1999People v. Bernas, 36 SCRA 135 (1999)People v. Naag, 322 SCRA 710 (2000)People v. Ordon, 334 SCRA 673 (2000)People v. Ragos, 351 SCRA 336 (2001)

People v. Patungan, 354 SCRA 413 (2001)People v. Ochate, GR No 127154, July 30, 2002

ii) Confession secured by deceit

People v. Formentera, 130 SCRA 114 (1984)

iii) Confession obtained by torture

People v. Ortilla, 129 SCRA 250 (1984)

iv) Trial confession in non-custodial setting

Cases:People v. Encipido, 146 SCRA 478 (1988)People v. Moises Marcos, 147 SCRA 204 (1987)

v) Right to counsel in administrative investigation

Galman v. Pamaran, 138 SCRA 294 (1985)Remolona v. Civil Service Commission, GR No 137473, August

2, 2001

vi) Right to counsel before officer conducting preliminary investigation

People v. Abano, 145 SCRA 555 (1986)

vii) Right to counsel during identification confrontation

U.S. v. Wade, 388 US 218 (1967)People v. Usman Hassan, 157 SCRA 261 (1988)

vii) Uncounselled confession inadmissible

People v. Dino, 160 SCRA 197 (1988)People v. Capulong, 160 SCRA 533 (1988) People v. Enciso, 160 SCRA 728 (1988)People v. Lagahan, 168 SCRA 346 (1988) People v. Camalog, 169 SCRA 816 (1989)People v. Vidal, 308 SCRA 1 (1999) People v. Zuela, 325 SCRA 589 (2000)People v. Avendano, 395 SCRA 309 (2003)People v. Janson, 400 SCRA 584 (2003)

3. Privilege against self-incrimination

3.1 Signing receipts not self-incriminatory

Cases:People v. Rosas, 149 SCRA 464 (1987) People v. Boholst, 152 SCRA 263 (1987)People v. Rualo, 152 SCRA 635 (1987)People v. Policarpio, 158 SCRA 85 (1988)

Section 13 Right to bail

5.1 Application for bail moots habeas corpus

Cases:Callanta v. Villanueva, 77 SCRA 377 (1977)Ariba v. People, 107 SCRA 191 (1981)Bagcal v. Villaraza, 120 SCRA 525 (1983)

5.2 Meaning of capital offense

Cases:People v. Ramos, 94 SCRA 842 (1979) Marcos v. Cruz, 67 Phil. 82 (1982)Bravo, Jr. v. Borja, 134 SCRA 466 (1985)People v. Parba, 142 SCRA 158 (1986)

Restriction of provisional liberty as bail

Case:Manotok, Jr. v. C.A., 142 SCRA 149 (1986)

5.3 When right may be invoked

Cases:Herras Teehankee v. Rovira, 75 Phil. 634 (1945)People v. San Diego, 26 SCRA 522 (1968)Lavides v. CA, 324 SCRA 321 (2000)

5.4 When right may not be invoked

Case:Government of the U.S.A. v. Purganan, G.R. No. 148571, Sept.

25, 2002

5.5 Standards for fixing bail

Rule 114 Sec. 10

Cases:Villaseñor v. Abaño, 21 SCRA 312 (1967)Camara v. Enage, 41 SCRA 1 (1971)Cabanero v. Canon, A.M. No. MTJ-01-369, September 20, 2001Magsucang v. Balgos, 398 SCRA 158 (2003)

Section 14 Criminal due process

1. Impartial tribunal

Cases:People v. Gonzaga, 127 SCRA 158 (1984)Valdez v. Aquilizan, 133 SCRA 150 (1984)Combate v. San Jose, Jr., 135 SCRA 693 (1985)People v. Bocar, 138 SCRA 166 (1985)Nolasco v. Enrile, 139 SCRA 502 (1985)People v. Opida, 142 SCRA 295 (1986)Galman v. Sandiganbayan, 144 SCRA 43 (1986) Animas v. Minister of National Defense, 146 SCRA 406 (1986)People v. Manalo, 148 SCRA 98 (1987)Olaguer v. Military Commission No. 34, 150 SCRA 144 (1987)People v. Tuazon, 159 SCRA 315 (1988)Cojuangco v. PCGG, 190 SCRA 226 (1990)

2. Presumption of innocence

Cases:People v. Dramayo, 42 SCRA 59 (1971)Dumlao v. COMELEC, 95 SCRA 392 (1980)Alejandro v. Pepito, 96 SCRA 322 (1980)Delgado v. CA, 145 SCRA 357 (1986)Ong v. Sandiganbayan, 470 SCRA 7 (2005)

Rule 119, Sec. 3(e)

Case:People v. Quintal, 125 SCRA 734 (1983)

3. Right to be heard personally or by counsel

Case: People v. Holgado, 85 Phil. 752 (1950)Amion v. Chiongson, 301 SCRA 614 (1999)People v. Diaz, 311 SCRA 585 (1999)People v. Ramilla, 310 SCRA 499 (1999)Estrada v. Badoy, 395 SCRA 231 (2003)People v. Mercado, 397 SCRA 231 (2003)People v. Olermo, 406 SCRA 412 (2003)People v. Hanton, 395 SCRA 156(2003)People v. Ferrer, 406 SCRA 688 (2003)People v. Mala, 411 SCRA 327 (2003)People v. Macarang, 424 SCRA 18 (2004)Crisostomo v. Sandiganbayan, 456 SCRA 45 (2005)

4. Filing of demurrer to evidence is a waiver of right to be heard (Rule 119, Sec. 5)

Case:People v. Donesa, 49 SCRA 281 (1973)Abriol v. Homeres, 84 Phil.525 (1949)

Rule 119, Sec. 15

Right to be informed of nature and cause of accusation

Cases:Borja v. Mendoza, 77 SCRA 423 (1977)People v. Escober, 157 SCRA 541 (1988)People v. Parazo, 310 SCRA 146 (1999)People v. Javier, 311 SCRA 122 (1999)People v. de Vera, 308 SCRA 75 (1999)People v. Sala, 311 SCRA 301 (1999)People v. Calayca, 301 SCRA 192 (1999)People v. Paglinawan, 324 SCRA 97 (2000)People v. Parami, 329 SCRA 450 (2000)People v. Velasquez, 377 SCRA 219 (2002)People v. Rodriguez, 376 SCRA 408 (2002)People v. Taperla, 395 SCRA 310 (2003)People v. Tampos, 408 SCRA 403 (2003)People v. Luna, 395 SCRA 647 (2003)People v. Delim, 396 SCRA 386 (2003)People v. Ilfas 399 SCRA 396 (2003)People v. Sanchez, 411 SCRA 288 (2003)People v. Ting Lan Uy, 457 SCRA 248 (2005)

5. Right to speedy, impartial and public trial

5.1 speedy -

Acebedo v. Sarmiento, 36 SCRA 247 (1970) People v. Sesbreño, 9 September 1999Tai Lim v. CA, 26 October 1999People v. Rama, 350 SCRA 266 (2001)De Zuzuarregui v Rosete, A.M. No. MTJ-02-1426, May 9, 2002People v. Billaber, 421 SCRA 27 (2004)Yulo v. People 452 SCRA 205 (2005)Caballes v. CA, 452 SCRA 312 (2005)

5.2 public -

Garcia v. Domingo, 52 SCRA 143 (1973)

5.3 impartial trial -

Tumey v. Ohio, 273 US 511 (1927)

6. Right to personal confrontation

Admission of hearsay violates right to confrontation

People v. Santos, 139 SCRA 583 (1985)People v. Crispin, 327 SCRA 167 (2000)People v. Cueto, 395 SCRA 344 (2003)People v. Escote, 400 SCRA 603 (2003)People v. Montenegro, G.R. No. 157933, August 10, 2004

7. Right to secure attendance of witnesses

8. Trial in absentia

Rule 115, Sec. 1(c)

Cases:People v. Prieto, Sr., 84 SCRA 198 (1978)People v. Salas, 143 SCRA 163 (1986)Jimenez v. Nazareno, 160 SCRA 1 (1988)

9. When presence of accused a duty

Rule 116, Sec. 1(b)

9.1 arraignment Rule 116, Sec. 1(b)

9.2 during trial for identification

Cases:Aquino, Jr. v. Military Commission No. 2, 63 SCRA 546 (1975)

Section 15 Habeas corpus

Cases:Villavicencio v. Lukban, 39 Phil. 778 (1919)Lansang v. Garcia, 42 SCRA 448 (1971)Moncupa v. Ponce Enrile, 141 SCRA 233 (1986)Gumabon v. Director of the Bureau of Prisons, 37 SCRA 420

(1971)

Section 16 Right to a speedy disposition of cases

Cases:Roque v. Office of the Ombudsman, 307 SCRA 104 (1999)Dansal v. Fernandez, 327 SCRA 145 (2000)Domingo v. Sandiganbayan, 322 SCRA 655 (2000)Ty-Dazo v. Sandiganbayan, 374 SCRA 200 (2002)Valencia v. Sandiganbayan, 433 SCRA 88 (2004)Republic v. Desierto, 468 SCRA 458 (2005)

Section 17 Right against self-incrimination

Scope

Cases:U.S. v. Tan Teng, 23 SCRA 145 (1912)U.S. v. Ong Siu Hong, 36 Phil. 735 (1917)Villaflor v. Summers, 41 Phil. 62 (1920) Bermudez v. Castillo, 64 Phil. 483 (1937)People v. Otadora, 86 Phil. 244 (1950)

Proceedings where available

Cases:Pascual, Jr. v. Board of Medical Examiners, 28 SCRA 344 (1969)

Use immunity v. transactional immunity

Art. XIII Sec. 18(8) - (Use & fruit immunity)Rep. Act. No. 1379, Sec. 8 (Transactional immunity)

Exclusionary rule

Art. III, Sec. 12(b)

Effect of denial of privilege by Court

Case:Chavez v. CA, 24 SCRA 663 (1968)

Section 18 Political beliefs and aspirations

Section 19 Cruel, degrading or inhuman punishment

Echagaray v. Secretary of Justice, 12 Oct. 1998People v. Alicante, 332 SCRA 440 (2000)People v. Dela Cruz, 92 Phil. 906 (1953)People v. Borja, 91 SCRA 340 (1979)Lim v. People, G.R. No. 149276, September 27, 2002

Section 20 Non imprisonment for debt or non-payment of a poll tax

Lozano v. Martinez, 146 SCRA 323 (1986)Teomico v. CA, 304 SCRA 216 (1999)Recuerdo v. People, 395 SCRA 638 (2003)Vergara v. Gedorio, 402 SCRA 520 (2003)Arceta v. Mangrobing, 432 SCRA 136 (2004)

Section 21 Double jeopardy

People v. Magat, 332 SCRA 517 (2000)

People v. Ong. 322 SCRA 38 (2000)Manantan v. CA, 350 SCRA 387 (2001)People v. CA, 352 SCRA 599 (2001)Poso v. Mijares, A.M. No RTJ-02-1693, August 21, 2002People v. Espinosa, 409 SCRA 256 (2003)People v. Romero, 399 SCRA 386 (2003)Condrado v. People, 398 SCRA 482 (2003)People v. Buli-e, 404 SCRA 105 (2003)People v. Astudillo, 401 SCRa 723 (2003) (WAIVER)Vincoy v. CA, 423 SCRA 605 (2004)

i) Prosecution for supervening death even after earlier conviction for physical injuries

Melo v. People, 85 Phil. 766 (1950)People v. City Court of Manila, Br. XI, 121 SCRA 637 (1983)

ii) Retrial after unjustified dismissal allowed

People v. Robles, 105 Phil. 1016 (1959)People v. Jardin, 124 SCRA 167 (1983) People v. Tagle, 176 SCRA 809 (1989)

iii) Double jeopardy for same act

Yap v. Lutero, 105 Phil. 1307 (1959)People v. Relova, 148 SCRA 292 (1987)

iv) Dismissal on motion to quash prevents jeopardy

Cañisa v. People, 159 SCRA 16 (1988)People v. Quizada, 160 SCRA 516 (1988)

v) Double jeopardy after dismissal on demurrer

People v. Francisco, 128 SCRA 110 (1984)People v. Mogol, 131 SCRA 296 (1984)

vi) Absence of jurisdiction prevents jeopardy

Cruz v. Enrile, 160 SCRA 700 (1988) Misolas v. Panga, 181 SCRA 648 (1990)Zapatos v. People, 411 SCRA 148 (2003)People v. Tac-an, 398 SCRA 373 (2003)

Section 22 Ex post facto law or bill of attainder

Cases:Banco Español-Filipino v. Palanca, 37 Phil. 921 (1918)Rubi v. Provincial Board of Mindoro, 39 Phil. 660 (1919)Ichong v. Hernandez, 101 Phil. 1155 (1957)Vda. de Cuaycong v. Vda. de Sengbengco, 110 Phil. 113 (1960)Ermita-Malate Hotel and Motel Operators Association, Inc. v. City Mayor of Manila, 20 SCRA 849 (1967); 21 SCRA 669 (1967) Luzon Surety Co., Inc. v. Beson, 31 SCRA 313 (1970)Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 US 254 (1970)Bell v. Burson, 402 US 535 (1971)In re Lynch, 8 Cal 3rd 410 P. 2d (1972)Mateo, Jr. v. Villaluz, 50 SCRA 18 (1973)Montemayor v. Araneta University Foundation, 77 SCRA 321

(1977)Reyes v. Court of Appeals, 80 SCRA 144 (1977)Zambales Chromite Mining Co. v. CA, 94 SCRA 261 (1979)Ansaldo v. Clave, 119 SCRA 353 (1982) Bautista v. Juinio, 127 SCRA 329 (1984)Ateneo v. CA, 145 SCRA 106 (1986)Alcuaz v. PSBA 161 SCRA 7 (1988)Philcomsat v. Alcuaz, 180 SCRA 218 (1989)Ynot v. IAC, 148 SCRA 659 (1987)Adamson & Adamson, Inc. v. Amores, 152 SCRA 237 (1987)DBP v. NLRC, 183 SCRA 328 (1990)Commission on Human Rights v. Civil Service Commission, 227

SCRA 42 (1993) U.P. Board of Regents v. Ligot-Telan, 227 SCRA 342 (1993) Ople v. Torres, 293 SCRA 141 (1998)Recuerdo v. People, G.R. No. 133036, January 22, 2003

PRESCRIBED REFERENCE

Bernas, Joaquin. The Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines: A Commentary (2009).