Article III – Bill of Rights

1. 01-0283-15 AROLA, ALNASHRIP A. LLB

Section 1. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, orproperty without due process of law nor shall any person bedenied 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. PhilippineBlooming 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 SCARA 597Asilo v. People, 645 SCRA 41

8. Procedural Due Process

In GeneralBanco Espanol Filipino v. Palanca 37 P 921

2. 2010-05728 BELDAD, JR, FELICIANO A. LLBAspects 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

3. 2004-30034 BONGABONG, RONNY S. LLB 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 137489May 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

4. 2006-01022 CASIL, CYRILE JOY D. LLB

Ty v. Banco Filipino Savings and Mortgage Bank, 422SCRA 649 People v. Larranaga, 412 SCRA 530 R. Transport v. Philhino 494 SCRA 630 Trans Middle East v. Sandiganbayan 499 SCRA308 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

5. 2006-00439 DOMINGO, BON DOMINIQUE J. LLB

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

6. 01-3190-05 HASHIM, ZAIDA AMORILLE B.. LLBPublicity 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

7. 2010-05739 JAJURIE, FATIMA BADRIA J. LLB3. 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

8. 2010-05891 KINANG, JEZRILL CARADO. LLB 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 136762Nov. 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

9. 2011-03609 MARUHOM, EBNO ABDUL MAJID CALIB. LLB 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 ExecutiveSecretary 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 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 April19, 2007

10. ARIPIN, ZORAIDA5. 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

11. 2014-03653 MORALES, RONNIE BALTAZAR. LLBDeportation 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

12. 2010-03006 NILLAS, ROBERTO MUSA. LLB

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 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

13. 2011-03028 OMBRA, JHEMHAR INDASAN. LLB

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 SCRA652 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

14. 2002-30796 PATALINGHUG, VRAMIE L. LLB

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

15. 2011-03178 SALADAGA, SHERLYN VERNIE MONTERON. LLB

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 ProcessUS 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 319

16. 99-2508-05 SALIH, HASIM JR. APALLA. LLB

Corona 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 416

CREBA 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

17. 2006-30657 TAGA-OC, ALLAN R. LLB

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 tolegislative classifications in general, such as those pertainingto economic or social legislation. b) Strict Scrutiny Test: A legislative classification whichimpermissibly interferes with the exercise of a fundamental rightor operates to the peculiar disadvantage of a suspect class ispresumed unconstitutional, and the burden is upon government toprove that the classification is necessary to achieve acompelling state interest and that it is the least restrictivemeans to protect such interest. This is used on issues of speech,gender, and race.

c) Intermediate Scrutiny Test: government must show that thechallenged classification serves an important state interest and

that the classification is at least substantially related toserving that interest.

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 673

Garcia v. People 677 SCRA 750 Arroyo v. DOJ Sto. Tomas v. Paneda 685 SCRA 245

18. 2011-03738 TAMAYAO, ALLAN CALUBAQUIB. LLB

Section 2. The right to of the people to be secure in theirpersons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonablesearches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purposeshall be inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrestshall issue except upon probable cause to be determinedpersonally by the judge after examination under oath oraffirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce,and particularly describing the place to be searched and thepersons 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. DefinitionHenry v. US, 361 US 98

For Arrest: People v. Syjuco, 64 Phil 667Alvarez v. CFI , 64 Phil 33

Webb 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

19. 2005-00267 TANJUSAY, MARIA KATRINA S. LLB

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 orAffirmation 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 823

Borlongan v. Pena, GR 143591, Nov. 23, 2007 People v. Mamaril, GR 147607, Jan 22 2004Ortiz v. Palaypayon – 234 SCRA 391

20. 2004-30471 TORRES, ROMEL G. LLB

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

21. 2014-03877 VIDAS, MARYLIZ TORRES. LLB4. Only a Judge May Issue a Warrant Salazar v. Achcoso, 183 SCRA 145Republic (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 judgemay issue a warrant):

Commissioner of Immigration and Deportation may issue warrants tocarry out a final finding of a violation. (Board of Commissionersv. Judge De La Rosa, 197 SCRA 853) It is issued after aproceeding 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)

21. VILLOTA, SOCRATES

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 orarea 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

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

1. 01-0283-15 AROLA, ALNASHRIP A. LLB

iii. Moving VehicleThere must be a highly reasonable suspicion amounting to probablecause 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

2. 2010-05728 BELDAD, JR, FELICIANO A. LLB

iv. Consent/Waiver

Requisites:1.It must appear that the right exists.

2. The person involved had knowledge, either actual orconstructive, 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

3. 2004-30034 BONGABONG, RONNY S. LLB

vi. Stop and Frisk Situation Malacat: “Where a police officer observes unusual conduct whichleads him reasonably to conclude in light of his experience thatcriminal activity may be afoot and that the person with whom heis dealing may be armed and that the person with whom he isdealing may be armed and presently dangerous, where in the courseof investigation of this behavior he identifies himself as apoliceman and makes reasonable inquiries, and where nothing inthe initial stages of the encounter serves to dispel his

reasonable fear for his own or other’s safety, he is entitled forthe protection of himself and others in the area to conduct acarefully limited search of the outer clothing of such person inan attempt to discover weapons which might be used to assaulthim.”

Malacat (1997): Probable cause is not required. However, meresuspicion or a hunch is not enough. Rather, a “genuine reasonmust exist, in light of the police officer’s experience andsurrounding conditions, to warrant the belief that the persondetained has weapons concealed about him.”

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 constitutionalvalidity of the mandatory, random, and suspicionless drug testingfor students emanates primarily from the waiver of their right toprivacy when they seek entry to the school, and from theirvoluntary submitting their persons to the parental authority ofschool authorities.In case of private and public employees, the constitutionalsoundness of the mandatory, random and suspicious drug testingproceeds from the reasonableness of the drug test policy andrequirement.

However, there is no valid justification for mandatory drugtesting for persons accused of crimes punishable with at least 6years and one day imprisonment as they are singled out andimpleaded against their will. The operative concepts in themandatory drug testing are “randomness” and “suspicionless.”

Pimentel, Jr v. COMELEC, GR 161658, November 3, 2008: Themandatory drug test requirements as a pre-condition for thevalidity of a certificate of candidacy of electoral candidatesnot established under the Constitution, e.g. local governmentpositions, is valid.

4. 2006-01022 CASIL, CYRILE JOY D. LLB

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 hascommitted, is actually committing, or attempting to commit anoffense;b. When an offense has in fact been committed, and he haspersonal knowledge of facts indicating that the person to bearrested has committed it; andc. When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escapedfrom a penal establishment or place where he is serving finaljudgment or temporarily confined while his case is pending or hasescaped 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 388

People v. Rodrigueza, 205 SCRA 791People v. Yap, 229 SCRA 787People v. Alolod, 266 SCRA 154People v. Mengote – 210 SCRA 174People v. Elamparo – 329 SCRA

5. 2006-00439 DOMINGO, BON DOMINIQUE J. LLB

B. Hot Pursuit

Two Requisites: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, thatthe person to be arrested committed it.*There must be immediacy between the time the offense iscommitted 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 80

People 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

6. 01-3190-05 HASHIM, ZAIDA AMORILLE B.. LLB

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 correspondenceshall be inviolable except upon lawful order of the court, orwhen public safety or order requires otherwise as prescribed bylaw.(2) Any evidence obtained in violation of this or the precedingsection shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding.

Scope: Tangible and Intangible Objects.

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

must determine whether a person has exhibited a reasonableexpectation of privacy and, if so, whether that expectation hasbeen violated by unreasonable government intrusion.

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

Rule on the Writ of Habeas Data, AM 08-1-16-SCWrit of Habeas Data: the remedy available o any person whoseright to privacy in life, liberty or security is violated orthreatened by an unlawful act or omission of a public official oremployee, or of a private individual or entity engaged in thegathering, collecting, or storing of data or informationregarding the person, family, home and correspondence of theaggrieved 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

7. 2010-05739 JAJURIE, FATIMA BADRIA J. LLB

Section 4. No law shall be passed abridging the freedom ofspeech, of expression, or of the press, or the right of thepeople peaceably to assemble and petition the government forredress of grievances.

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

Content-neutral Regulation: Restraint is aimed to regulate thetime, place or manner of the expression in public place withoutany restraint on the content of the expression. Apply theIntermediate Approach Test wherein a regulation is justified ifit is : within the constitutional power of government, furthersan important or substantial government interest, governmentinterest is unrelated to the suppression of free expression, andthe incident restriction on the alleged freedom of speech andexpression is no greater than is essential to the furtherance ofthat interest. Here, it only requires substantial governmentinterest for validity.

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

Overbreadth Doctrine: A ground to declare a statute void when “itoffends the constitutional principle that a government purpose tocontrol or prevent activities constitutionally subject to stateregulations may not be achieved by means which sweep

unnecessarily broadly and thereby invade the area of protectedfreedoms.

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 andbe 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 inscope 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 governmentattempts to ban protected speech because it might provoke aviolent response.

1. Prior Restraint: Refers to official governmental restrictionson the press or other forms of expression in advance of actualpublication 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 51

New 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

8. 2010-05891 KINANG, JEZRILL CARADO. LLB

2. Subsequent PunishmentPeople v. Perez – 45 Phil. 599Espiritu v. Generel 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

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 496

9. 2011-03609 MARUHOM, EBNO ABDUL MAJID CALIB. LLB

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, 447US 557Pharmaceutical v. Secretary of Health, GR 173034, October 9, 2007

City 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

10. ARIPIN, ZORAIDA

7. Assembly and PetitionNavarro v. Villegas – 31 SCRA 73PBM Employees v. PBM – 51 SCRA 189JBL Reyes v. Mayor Bagatsing – 125 SCRA 553Malabanan 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 SCRA

11. MORALES

Section 5. No law shall be made respecting an establishment ofreligion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The freeexercise 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 orpolitical rights.

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, 1995

Lee 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 92

12. 2011-03028 OMBRA, JHEMHAR INDASAN. LLBII. Free Exercise of Religion

Testsa) Clear and Present Danger Test: When words are used in suchcircumstance and of such nature as to create a clear and presentdanger that will bring about the substantive evil that the Statehas a right to prevent.

b) Compelling State Interest Test: When a law of generalapplication infringes religious exercise, albeit incidentally,the state interest sought to be promoted must be so paramount andcompelling as to override the free exercise claim. Three-steptest:1. Has the statute or government action created a burden on thefree exercise of religion?2. Is there a sufficiently compelling state interest to justifythis infringement of religious liberty?3. Has the state in achieving its legitimate purposes used theleast intrusive means possible so that the free exercise is notinfringed any more than necessary to achieve the legitimate goalof the state? (Estrada v. Escritor)

c) Conscientious Objector Test: Persons who are conscientiouslyopposed to participation in war in any form by reason ofreligious training and belief may be exempted from combattraining and service in the armed forces. Religious training andbelief means an individual’s belief in relation to a SupremeBeing 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 ofIligan City, 477 SCRA 648Estrada v. Escritor – AM P-021651, August 4, 2003 (CompellingState Interest Test)

III. No Religious TestTorcaso v. Watkins, 367 SCRA 488Pamil v. Teleron – 86 SCRA 413McDaniel v. Paty – 435 US 618Ang Ladlad v. COMELEC, GR 190582, April 8, 2010

IV. Ecclesiastical Matters

Austria v. NLRC, 310 SCRA 293Taruc v. Dela Cruz, 453 SCRA 123UCCP v. Bradford, 674 SCRA 92

13. NILLAS

Section 6. The liberty of abode and of changing the same withinthe limits prescribed by law shall not be impaired except uponlawful order of the court. Neither shall the right to travel beimpaired except in the interest of national security, publicsafety, 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. Macarine, 677 SCRA 1

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

14. PATALINGHUG

Section 7. The right of the people to information on matters ofpublic 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 researchdata used as basis for policy development, shall be afforded thecitizen, 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 informationin the following:1. National security matters and intelligence information2. Trade secrets and banking transactions3. Criminal matters4. Other confidential information which includes diplomaticcorrespondence, closed door Cabinet meetings and executivesessions of either Houses of Congress, and the internaldeliberations of the Supreme Court.Philippine Savings Bank and Pascual Garcia III v. SenateImpeachment Court, GR 200238, Feb 9, 2012In Re: Production of Court Records, 14 February 2012

In General: Access to court records, Government contractnegotiations, 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

15. SALADAGA

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

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

Right to Association

Occena 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

16. SALIH, HASIM

Section 9. Private Property shall not be taken for public usewithout 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 337Estate 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 406

Solanda 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 649

Manapat 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 708Republic 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

17. TAGA-OC

Section 10. No law impairing the obligation of contracts shall bepassed.

Home 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, 1998

Blaquera 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

18. IBBA

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

Indigent Party: One who is authorized by the court to prosecutehis action or defense as an indigent upon an ex parte applicationand hearing showing that he has no money or property sufficientand available for food, shelter and basic necessities for himselfand his family. (Rules of Court, Rule 3, Section 21)

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