 Sec.
3
 The privacy of communication and correspondence
shall be inviolable except upon lawful order of the
court, or when public safety or order requires as
prescribed by law.
 Sec. 3. Privacy of Communications
 May be restricted:
 Upon lawful order of the court
 When prescribed by law as public order and safety
requires
 RA 4200 – punishes interception and recording of
conversation without the consent of both parties.
[Anti-Wire Tapping Law]
It is similar to Sec. 3 in the sense that they are both
exclusionary rules, but it goes further because it
punishes. It is narrower in the that it covers only oral
communication.
 Alejano – Can letters of detainees or convicts be
opened and read? Is Sec. 3 available to them?
Exception?
 Ople: Does the Constitution protect the right to
privacy? When may it be curtailed?/Sabio
 Salcedo-Ortanez – taped recorded conversation
 Zulueta – pictures [Marti rule?]
 Bar Questions:
 1998, No. 7: The police had suspicions that Juan
Samson, member of the subversive New Proletarian
Army, was using the mail for propaganda purposes in
gaining new adherents to its cause, The Chief of
Police of Bantolan, Lanao del sur ordered the
Postmaster of the town to intercept and open all mail
addressed to and coming from Juan Samson in the
interest of national security. Was the order of the
Chief of Police valid?
a. yes, because the order was premised on national security
b. yes, because a Chief of Police is authorized by law to
open the correspondence of any person
c. yes, because as a police officer, the presumption of
regularity in the performance of official function
applies
d. no, because the order violates the privacy of
communication and correspondence
 No. 8, 1989: While serving sentence in Muntinglupa
for the crime of theft, X stabbed dead one of his
guards. X was charged with murder. During his trial,
the prosecution introduced as evidence a letter written
in prison by X to his wife tending to establish that the
crime of murder was the result of premeditation. The
letter was written voluntarily. In the course of
inspection, it was opened and read by a warden
pursuant to the rules of discipline of the Bureau of
Prisons and considering its contents, the letter was
turned over to the prosecutor. The lawyer of X
objected to the presentation of the letter and moved
for its return on the ground that it violates the right of
X against unlawful search and seizure. Decide.
1
 a. no, because jail authorities cannot restrict the
privacy of communication unless there is a court order
 b. no, because while a rule the letters of
detainees may be openned, a letter to one’s spouse
is covered by marital privilege
 c. yes, because detainees and prisoners have a
limited claim to privacy and all their letters may be
read without a court order
 d. yes, the letter may be opened and read by
the warden because it was not addressed to nor was
it from his lawyer
 No. 12, 2001: A has a telephone line with an
extension. One day, A was talking to B over the
telephone. A conspired with his friend C, who was at
the end of the extension line listening to A’s telephone
conversation with B, to overhear and tape-record the
conversation wherein B confidentially admitted that
with evident premeditation, he killed D for having
cheated him in their business partnership. B was not
aware that the telephone conversation was being
tape-recorded.
 In the criminal case against B for murder, is the
tape recorded conversation containing his admission
admissible in evidence? [Assume that C only listened
through the extension line and he was later called to
testify on what he heard. Would his testimony be
admissible?]
 A filed an annulment case against her husband based
on psychological incapacity of the latter. While the
case was pending, she broke open the drawers and
cabinets in her husband’s office and took away the
pictures, letters and cards sent to her husband by his
paramour. Her husband objected to the admission
into evidence of the documents on the ground of
illegal search and seizure. Are they admissible?
 yes, because one cannot invoke the Bill of Rights
against a private person, in this case one’s
spouse
 yes, because by entering into a contract of
marriage, one waives his right to privacy with
respect to his spouse
 no, because there was no court order or a law
authorizing the seizure of the documents
 no, because the seizure violated the Anti-Wire
Tapping Act
 2009, VI
 In a criminal prosecution for murder, the prosecution
presented, as witness, an employee of the Manila
Hotel who produced in court a videotape recording
showing the heated exchange between the accused
and the victim that took place at the lobby of the hotel
barely 30 minutes before the killing. The accused
objects to the admission of the videotape recording on
the ground that it was taken without his knowledge or
consent, in violation of his right to privacy and the
Anti-Wire Tapping law. Resolve the objection with
reasons. (3%) [Is the evidence admissible?]
 RA No. 9372
SEC. 7.
7. Surveillance of Suspects and Interception and
Recording of Communications.
Communications. – The provisions of
Republic Act No. 4200 (Anti-wire Tapping Law) to the
contrary notwithstanding, a police or law enforcement
official and the members of his team may, upon a
written order of the Court of Appeals, listen to,
intercept and record, with the use of any mode, form,
kind or type of electronic or other surveillance
equipment or intercepting and tracking devices, or
with the use of any other suitable ways and means for
that purpose, any communication, message,
conversation, discussion, or spoken or written words
between members of a judicially declared and
outlawed terrorist organization, association, or group
of persons or of any person charged with or
suspected of the crime of terrorism or conspiracy to
commit terrorism.
SECTION 1. Habeas Data.—The writ of habeas data is a
remedy available to any person whose right to privacy
in life, liberty or security is violated or threatened 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.
Sec. 4. No law shall be passed abridging 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.
 Freedom of speech, expression and of the
press is the liberty to discuss publicly and truthfully
any matter of public interest without censorship or
punishment.
 Outline
 Forms of restriction
 Tests on Restriction
 Petition and Assembly
 Restraints on Expression:
 1. Prior Restraint
 Prior restraint is government
restriction on forms of expression in advance of actual
publication or dissemination.
 2. Subsequent Punishment
 Subsequent punishment is the
restraint on freedom of speech, expression and of the
press that comes after the exercise of said rights in
the form of criminal prosecutions, citations for
contempt or suits for damages.
 Chavez v. Gonzales, 555 SCRA 441 (2008): Do press
statements of high officials threatening the press with
prosecution, even fi not reduced to formal orders or
directives, forms of prior restraint?
 The exercise of prior restraint bears a presumption
of unconstitutionality, except:
 In times of war
2
 When the COMELEC exercises its power under
Sec. 4, Art. XI ©.
 When the restriction is content neutral
 Content-Neutral v. Content-Based
 Content-Neutral – One that is imposed not on the
content of the speech but on the time mode or
manner of place of the exercise of the right. [No
presumption of unconstitutionality, and a deferential
standard of review is required. (intermediate review)]
 Content-based- imposed on content, suffers from
presumption of unconstitutionality and should be
subject to the clear and present danger rule
Which restriction is content-based:
a. prohibition on the writing of graffiti on walls
b. prohibition to conduct rallies within 200 meters of any
court house
c. prohibition on mass media from selling or giving free of
charge print space or air time for campaign purposes
d. prohibition on newspaper columnists from discussing
plebiscite issues in their columns
 The prohibition on mass media from selling or giving
free of charge print space or air time
 for campaign purposes is:
 (a) content-neutral
 (b) needs to be subjected to the clear and
present danger test
 © is presumed unconstitutional
 (d) can be justified if there is a compelling state
interest
 Challenges to restriction on free speech :
 Overbreath – a law is overbroad which sweeps
unnecessarily broadly and invade an area of
protected freedom
 Vagueness – a law which lacks comprehensive
standard so that people would differ as to its
meaning
 Example of an overbroad restriction:
 2003, No. 9: May the COMELEC prohibit the posting
of decals and stickers on mobile places, public or
private, such as on a private vehicle and limit theor
location only to the authorized posting areas that the
COMELEC itself fixes.
 Also ABS-CBN – prohibiting exit polls
 Example of vague law:
 Ople Case
 Tests on Restrictions:
 1. Dangerous Tendency
 If the words spoken create a
dangerous tendency which the state has a right to
prevent, then such words are punishable.
 2. Clear and Present Danger
 Whether the words are used in such
circumstances and are such nature as to create a
clear and present danger that they will bring about the
substantive evil that the legislature has a right to
prevent. (GONZALES VS. COMELEC)

 3. Balancing of Interest
 Courts will weigh or balance the
conflicting social interests that will be affected by
legislation and uphold what should be considered as
the most important interest.
 - Lagunsad
 -Contempt/SC
 Libel: Vasquez Rule
 If the libelous statement relates to official functions,
truth is a defense. It is the public official who
must prove that the statement is false, and
 It was made with knowledge of its falsity, or
 There was reckless disregard whether it is true or
not.
 Borjal-
 The reverse presumption applies not only to public
officials but to a “public figure”:
 any person who, by his accomplishment, fame,
mode of living, or by adopting a profession or calling
which gives the public interest in his doings, affair or
character.
 Question 5, 2004: The STAR, a national daily
newspaper, carried an exclusive report stating that
Senator XX received a house and lot located at YY
St., Makati, in consideration for his vote cutting
cigarette by 50%. The Senator sued the Star for libel
claiming the report was completely false and
malicious. According to the Senator, there is no YY
St. in Makati, and the tax cut was only 20%.
 The defendants denied actual malice, claiming
privilege communication and absolute freedom of the
press to report on public officials and matters of public
concern. If there was any error, the Star said it would
publish the correction promptly.
 Is thee actual malice in Star’s report. How is actual
malice defined? Are the defendants liable for
damages?
 If a newspaperman accuses a Sangguniang Bayan
member of being corrupt, and the latter sues the
newsman for libel:
 (a) the accused has the burden of proving his
accusation to be true to get acquitted
 (b) the government official has the burden of
proving that it is false
 © the accused has the burden of proving that it was
made without malice
 (d) the right to free expression cannot be invoked by
the accused
 2007, No. V. The Destilleria Felipe Segundo is
famous for its 15-year old rum, which it has
produced and marketed successfully for the past
70 years. Its latest commercial advertisement
uses the line: “Nakatikim ka na ba ng kinse
anyos?” Very soon, activist groups promoting
women’s and children’s rights were up in arms
against the advertisement.
 (b) One of the militant groups, the Amazing
Amazonas, call on all the government-owned
and controlled corporations (GOCC) to boycott
any newspaper, radio or TV station that carries
3
the “kinse anyos” advertisements. They call on
all government nominees in sequestered
corporations to block any advertising funds
allocated for any such newspaper, radio or TV
station. Can the GOCCs and sequestered
corporations validly comply?
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II
 Petition and Assembly
 Freedom of assembly is the right of the
people to meet peaceably for consultation and
discussion of matters of public concern.
 Test: Clear and Present Danger to Public Safety,
Order, Morals, etc.
 Bayan v. Ermita:
 1. Is BP 880 constitutional?
 2. Is CPR constitutional?
 3. What if there is no freedom park?
 4. Who has the burden of proving that there is no
permit?
 5. When may freedom Of assembly be restricted or
denied?
 IBP v. Atienza, 2010
The IBP applied for a permit to hold a rally at Magsaysay
Park at 2-5:00 PM of April10. The Mayor,
without any explanation, granted the application
for them to hold a rally at Rizal Park. Is the act
of the Mayor proper?
 yes, because as chief executive he has discretion
whether or not to grant the application
 yes, because the right to assembly is not an
absolute constitutional right but is subject to
restriction
 no, because he can only modify terms of the of the
application on the ground of clear and present
danger which must be indicated in his approval
 no, because the constitutional right is not subject to
any limitation by local authorities
 Bar Questions:
 2002, No. 10: 10 public school teachers of Caloocan
left their classrooms to join a strike, which lasted for
one month, to ask for teachers’ benefits. They were
dismissed by the DECS Secretary. They argue that
their strike was an exercise of their Constitutional right
to peaceful assembly and to petition the government
for redress of grievances. Resolve. [Also 2000, No.
12]
 2006, No. II, The SM filed with the Office of the City
Mayor of Manila an application for permit to hold a
rally on Mendiola St. on Sept. 5, 2006 fro 10:00 to
3:00pm to protest the political killings of journalist.
However, the City Mayor denied their application on
the ground that a rally at the time and place applied
for will block traffic in the San Miguel and Quiapo
districts. He suggested the Liwasang Bonifacio,
which has been designated a Freedom Park, as
venue for the rally.
 1. Does the SM have a remedy to contest the
denial of its application for a permit?
 2. Does the availability of the Freedom Park justify
the denial of SM’s application for a permit?
 3. Is the requirement to apply for a permit to hold a
rally a prior restraint on freedom of speech and
assembly?
 4. Assuming that despite the denial of the
application for a permit,its membes held a rally
prompting the police to arrest them. Are the arrests
without judicial warrants lawful?
 2007, VII. Batas Pambansa 880, the Public
Assembly Law of 1985, regulates the conduct of
all protest rallies in the Philippines.
 Salakay, Bayan! held a protest rally and planned to
march from Quezon City to Luneta in Manila.
They received a permit from the Mayor of
Quezon City, but not from the Mayor of Manila.
They were able to March in Quezon City and up
to the boundary separating it from the City of
Manila. Three meters after crossing the
boundary, the Manila Police stopped them for
posing a danger to public safety. Was this a
valid exercise of police power?
 (b) The security police of the Southern Luzon
Expressway spotted a caravan of 20 vehicles,
with paper banners taped on their sides and
protesting graft and corruption in government.
They were driving at 50 kilometers per hour in a
40-90 kilometers per hour zone. Some banners
had been blown off by the wind, and posed a
hazard to other motorists. They were stopped
by the security police. The protesters then
proceeded to march instead, sandwiched
between the caravan vehicles. They were also
stopped by the security force. May the security
police validly stop the vehicles and the
marchers?
2008, No. 15. Nationwide protests have erupted over rising
gas prices, including disruptive demonstrations in
many universities throughout the country. The Metro
Manila State University, a public university, adopted a
university-wide circular prohibiting mass
demonstrations and rallies within the campus.
Offended by the circular, militant students spread
word that on the following Friday, all students were to
wear black T-shirts as a symbol of their protest both
against high gas prices and the university ban on
demonstrations. The effort was only moderately
successful. Nonetheless, university officials were
outraged and compelled the student leaders to
explain why they should not be expelled for violating
the circular against demonstrations.
The student leaders approached you for legal advice.
They contended that they should not be expelled
since they did not violate the circular, their protest
action being neither a demonstration nor a rally since
all they did was wear black T-shirts. What would you
advise the students?
Which one is an example of a Heckler’s Veto?
 Veto by the mayor of an ordinance penalizing the
writing of graffiti on the wall
 Veto by the mayor of an ordinance designating a
“freedom park” where rallies without permit may
be held
4
 Refusal by the mayor to issue a rally permit on the
ground that the applicant advocates views
contrary to that of the government
 Refusal by the mayor to issue a permit on the
ground that views to be expressed in the rally
might outrage other people and violence will
result
 Sec. 5
No law shall be made respecting an establishment of
religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The
free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession
and worship, without discrimination or preference,
shall forever be allowed. No religious test shall be
required for the exercise of civil or political rights.
 Manosca owns a small lot which turned out to be
the birth place of the founder of the Iglesia Ni Cristo
and this was sought to be expropriated by the
National Historical Society. The owner challenges the
expropriation on the ground that it favors one religion.
The issue that was raised in Manosca pertains to:
 (a) the free exercise of religion [“free exercise
clause”]
 (b) the establishment of religion [“non-
establishment clause]
 © requirement of religious test [“religious test
clause”
 (d) intramural religious dispute
 A DECS circular requiring elementary students to
sing the national anthem and salute the flag
regardless of religion raises an issue about:
 (a) the free exercise clause
 (b) the non-establishment clause
 © the religious test clause
 (d) intramural religious dispute
 Section 5: Freedom of Religion
 1. Non- Establishment Clause
 The non-establishment clause prohibits
legislation which aid one religion, aid all religions, or
prefers one over another.
 2. Free-exercise clause
 Tests for Allowable Aid to Religion:
 1. The statute must have a secular legislative
purpose;
 2. The principal or primary effect is neither
one that advances or inhibits religion;
 3. It must not foster excessive government
entanglement with religion.
 ( LEMON VS. KURTZMAN )
 1. Manosca – 2000, No. 8
Madlangbayan is the woner of a 500 square meter lot which
was the birthplace of a religious sect who admittedly
played an important role in Philippine history and
culture. The National Historical Commission passed
a resolution declaring it a national landmark and on its
recommendation the lot was subjected to
expropriation proceedings. This was opposed by
Madlangbayan on the following grounds ….(b) that
those to be benefited by the expropriation would only
 be the members of the religious sect of its founder.
Resolve the opposition.
 2. In re: Iglesia
 3. Ang Ladlad v. COMELEC, 2010
 3. Question 10, 1992: Recognizing the value of
education in making the Philippine labor market
attractive to foreign investment, the DECS offers
subsidies to accredited colleges and universities in
order to promote quality education. The DECS grants
subsidy to a Catholic school which requires its
students to take at elast 3 hours a week of religious
instruction.
 1. Is the subsidy permissible?
 yes, because the subsidy does not violate any law
 no, because the subsidy has no secular legislative
purpose
 no, because the principal effect of the subsidy
promotes religion
 no, because it can create entanglement between
state and religion
 2. Presuming that you answer in the negative, would it
make a difference if the subsidy were given solely in
the form of laboratory equipment in chemistry and
physics?
 3. Presume, on the other hand, that the subsidy is
given in the form of scholarship vouchers given
directly to the student and which the student can use
for paying tuition in any accredited school of his
choice, whether religious or non-sectarian. Will your
answer be different?
2010, No. 19: To instill religious awareness in the students
of Doña Trinidad High School, a public school in
Bulacan, the Parent- Teacher’s Association of the
school contributed funds for the construction of a
grotto and a chapel where ecumenical religious
services and seminars are being held after school
hours. The use of the school grounds for these
purposes was questioned by a parent who does not
belong to any religious group. As his complaint was
not addressed by the school officials, he filed an
administrative complaint against the principal before
the DECS. Is the principal liable? Explain briefly. (5%)
 Free Exercise Clause
 Free exercise of religion is the freedom to believe,
which is absolute, and the freedom to act, which may
be restricted, in accordance with one’s beliefs.
 Test: Clear and Present Danger
 1998, No. 15 – A religious organization has a weekly
television program. The program presents and
propagates its religious doctrines and compares their
practices with those of of other religions.
As the MTRCB found offensive several episodes of
5
the program which attacked other religions, the
MTRCB required the organization to submit its tapes
for review prior to airing.
 The group brought the case to court on the ground
that the action of the MTRCB suppresses its freedom
of speech and interferes with its right to free exercise
of religion. Decide. [MTRCB’s act is:
 proper, because freedom to believe is subject to the
police power of the state
 proper, because freedom to act may be restricted
by the state
 improper, because freedom to believe is absolute
 improper, because of separation of church and
state
 1. Ebralinag, 1997, No. 12, 2003, No. 12
 Clear and Present Danger
 2. Ang mga Kaanib
 3. Victoriano v. Elizalde
 4. Escritur:
 1. What should be the state’s attitude towards
religion? Benevolent neutrality
 2. What test should be applied? “Compelling
interest test” ‘paramount and compelling”
 3. Has it discharged the burden? Prejudice?
 Soriano v. Laguardia, 587 SCRA 79 (2009)
 In an episode of Ang Dating Daan, Eliseo Soriano
uttered the following statement:
 Lehitimong anak ng demonyo; sinungaling;
 Gago ka talaga Michael, masahol ka pa sa putang
babae o di ba. Yung putang babae ang gumagana
lang doon yung ibaba, [dito] kay Michael ang
gumagana ang itaas, o di ba! O, masahol pa sa
putang babae yan. Sabi ng lola ko masahol pa sa
putang babae yan. Sobra ang kasinungalingan ng
mga demonyong ito. ito.
 RELIGIOUS DISPUTES
 1. As between religious groups
 (Iglesia)
 2. Among members of same group (Austria, Taruc)
 An ecclesiastical or religious affair is one that
concerns doctrine, creed or form of worship of
the church, or the adoption and enforcement of
regulation within the religious organization for
the government of the membership and the
power of excluding from such associations those
deemed unworthy of membership”
 XVI, 2009
 Angelina, a married woman, is a Division Chief in the
Department of Science and Technology. She had
been living with a married man, not her husband, for
the last fifteen (15) years. Administratively charged
with immorality and conduct prejudicial to the best
interest of the service, she admits her live-in
arrangement, but maintains that this conjugal
understanding is in conformity with their religious
beliefs. As members of the religious sect, Yahweh's
 Observers,
Observers, they had executed a Declaration of
Pledging Faithfulness which has been confirmed and
blessed by their Council of Elders. At the formal
investigation of the administrative case, the Grand
Elder of the sect affirmed Angelina's testimony and
attested to the sincerity of Angelina and her partner in
the profession of their faith. If you were to judge this
case, will you exonerate Angelina? Reasons. (3%)
 Meanwhile, Jenny, also a member of Yahweh's
Observers,
Observers, was severely disappointed at the manner
the Grand Elder validated what she considered was
an obviously immoral conjugal arrangement between
Angelina and her partner. Jenny filed suit in court,
seeking the removal of the Grand Elder from the
religious sect on the ground that his act in supporting
Angelina not only ruined the reputation of their
religion, but also violated the constitutional policy
upholding the sanctity of marriage and the solidarity of
the family. Will Jenny's case prosper? Explain your
answer. (2%)
 Sec. 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.
 Sec. 6. A: Liberty of abode:
 Restricted by:
 1. Congress –Within the limits prescribed by law
 2. Court – lawful order of the court (Yap Case)
 1996, No. 2: The military commander in charge of the
operation against rebel groups directed the
inhabitants of the island which would be the target of
attacks by government forces to evacuate the area
and offered the residents temporary military hamlet.
Can the military commander force the residents to
transfer their places of abode without court order?
Explain.
 well as to government research data used as basis for
 yes, because of the risk to the lives of the people
that might be caused by the military operation
 yes, because executive officials, including the
police and the military, can restrict the liberty of
abode
 yes, because forcing people to transfer their
residence does not violate any law
 no, because only the courts or Congress by means
of a law can restrict the liberty of abode
 1998, 8- Juan Casanova contracted Hansen’s
disease with open lesions. A law requires that lepers
be isolated upon petition of the City health Officer.
The wife of Juan Casanova wrote a letter to the City
Health Officer to have her formerly philandering
husband confined in some isolated leprosarium. Juan
Casanova challenged the constitutionality of the law
as violating his liberty of abode. Will the suit prosper?
6
 B. Right to travel: Who can restrict?
 1. Courts, of people out on bail
 2. Executive and administrative officials, if they do
not act arbitrarily. Meaning that there is a law
authorizing them and they do it on the basis of
national security, public safety and public health
 3. Congress [Silverio Case]
-Marcos case
-Mirasol
 Conditions when court may allow travel:
 1. Prove urgency
 2. State duration
 3. Obtain consent of surety/
 Bar--1991/No. 6:Mr. Esteban Krony, A Filipino
citizen, is arrested for the crime of smuggling. He
posts bail for his release. Subsequently, he jumps
bail and is about to leave the country when the DFA
cancels his passport. He sues the DFA claiming
violation of his freedom to travel citing Sec. 6 Art. III,
to wit: 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.
Decide.
 Which statement is legally correct? [5%]
 Sec. 6 of the Bill of Rights with respect to the right
to travel:
 (a) includes the right of citizens to enter another
country
 (b) covers the right of citizens to return to the
Philippines
 © guarantees the right of aliens to come to the
Philippines
 (d) protects the right of citizens to leave the
country
 Sec. 7. The right of the people to information on
matters of public concern shall be recognized.
Access to official acts, transactions, or decisions, as
policy development, shall be afforded the citizen,
subject to such limitations as may be provided by law.

 Sec. 7: A. Right to Information
 B. Access to official records
 Matters of public concern – those which the public
may want to know, because it directly affects their
lives or because they arouse the interest of a citizen
 1. Bantay Republic v. COMELEC
 2. Legaspi – CS eligible
 3. Hilado – Are all court records pertaining to a case
public records?
 4. Chaves- not only consummated contracts, but also
steps leading to a contract, but not inter-agency
recommendations. Foreign affairs?
 5. Akbayan – diplomatic notes [presumptively
privilege]
 6. . Chavez –Bids submitted for evaluation, official
recommendation? “official acts and transactions”
 7. Bayan v. Ermita: Legislative investigation –
 8. Who has standing to enforce compliance in courts?
Remedy
 9. Exceptions: Cabinet sessions, court deliberations,
diplomatic and military and national security matters,
trade secrets.
 XIV, 2009
 The Philippine Government is negotiating a new
security treaty with the United States which
could involve engagement in joint military
operations of the two countries' armed forces. A
loose organization of Filipinos, the Kabataan at
Matatandang Makabansa (KMM) wrote the
Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) and the
Department of National Defense (DND)
demanding disclosure of the details of the
negotiations, as well as copies of the minutes of
the meetings. The DFA and the DND refused,
contending that premature disclosure of the
offers and counter-offers between the parties
could jeopardize on-going negotiations with
another country. KMM filed suit to compel
disclosure of the negotiation details, and be
granted access to the records of the meetings,
invoking the constitutional right of the people to
information on matters of public concern.
 Decide with reasons. (3%)
 Will your answer be the same if the information
sought by KMM pertains to contracts entered
into by the Government in its proprietary or
commercial capacity? Why or why not? (3%)
Which statement is correct:
(a) any citizen who questions in court the withholding of
information must satisfy locus standi by showing
direct injury
(b) the right to information is a fundamental right and
any
restriction is presumed unconstitutional
© all information in the possession of the government
may be accessed by citizens under Sec. 7
(d) the enactment of the Freedom of Information Act is a
pre condition for the enjoyment of the right to
information
 Which statement is legally correct?
 A. Under Sec. 7, citizens can demand from
government officials that they be given abstracts,
summaries and copies of official records.
 B. All records kept by any government agency are
matters of public concern to which citizens can
demand access.
 C. One can demand information from the Civil Service
Commission about the weight and height of an
employee when s/he entered government service.
 D. Information on foreign loans obtained by the
government may be excluded from the scope of Sec.
7.
Which statement is correct?
7
(a) all court records pertaining to a case should be made
accessible
to the public
(b) all pleadings and other documents submitted by the
parties
should be accessible to the public
© orders and decisions issued by the judge related to
the case
should be accessible to the public
(d) access to records is a right that cannot be invoked
against
courts
 Sec. 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.
 What the right to association guarantees?
 The right to join any association
 The right to refuse to join
 Exception: Close-shop agreement
 Exception to the exception: freedom of religion
 What does it guarantee?
 1. PAFLU
 2. Philippine Statehood USA
 3. Occena
 4. Tarnate v. Noriel
 But take note of Bell-Air, also
 PADCOM v. Ortigas [voluntary], but STA Clara?
 Bar Q, 2000, No. 12: Are employees in the public
sector allowed to form unions? To strike? Why?
 Union A has a “close shop” agreement with
company X. B a new employee refuses to join
on the ground that his religion prohibits him from
doing so. Can B be forced to join the union?
a. yes, because he is bound by the close shop
agreement like everyone else
b. yes, because the right to association does not include
the right not to be a member of an association
b. no, because no person can be compelled to join an
association against his will
c. no, because freedom of religion is superior to a close
shop agreement
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II
 Section 9: Private property shall not be taken for
public use without just compensation
 Eminent domain is the power of the
government to take over private property for public
use after payment of just compensation.
Who CANNOT expropriate?
a. the City of Davao
b. Davao City Water District
c. Globe Telecom
d. Commission on Elections

 Principles: Inherent in the State, but exercised by
Congress and those expressly authorized by law.
Can the COMELEC expropriate? PPI and Telebap
 Outline:
 1. Taking
 2. Public Use
 3. Just compensation
 I. Taking:
 1. Physical possession
 2. Impairment of use –
 Gutierrez – transmission lines
 Ibrahim - underground tunnels
 Andaya – flooded portion
 Ayala Land – free parking
 How much should expropriator pay?
NPC v. Purefoods, 2008 – RA 6395
In expropriation for a right of way by the National Power
Corporation, just compensation is equivalent to:
(a) the full market value of the property as described in
the owner’s title
(b) the full market value of the portion affected by the
right of way
(c) 10% of the value of the property covered by the right
of way clearance
(d) the extent of the loss suffered by the owner as he
may be able to prove during trial
 Elements of Taking:
 1 . Expropriator must enter the private property;
 2. The entrance must be for more than a
limited period;
 3. The entrance should be under warrant or
color of legal authority;
 4. The property must be devoted to public
use or otherwise informally appropriated or injuriously
affected;
 5. The entrance must be to oust the owner
and deprive him of beneficial enjoyment .
( REPUBLIC VS. CASTELLVI )
 Examples – NPC v. CA, Tan v. Republic, Tiongson v.
NHA
In 1980, NPC entered the property of X thinking that it
belong to the City of Iligan. It built its power plants
and paid royalties to the City. In 1990, it
acknowledged that the lot was owned by X and
accordingly instituted expropriation proceedings
against X. The court ordered the City of Iligan to pay
just compensation based on the value in 1990. The
court is correct since there was no taking in 1978
because NPC did not :
(a) enter the property for more than a momentary
period
(b) enter under warrant or color of legal authority
(c) devote the property to public use
(d) did not oust the owner and deprive him of
beneficial enjoyment of the
property
Since 1960, DECS rented the property of X on a yearly
basis, and constructed a school thereon. In 1990,
8
since they could not agree on the rent, X cancelled
the lease, but DECS instituted expropriation
proceedings. The court ordered compensation based
on the value in 1990. The court is correct because in
1960:
 a. DECS did not enter the private property;
 b. The entrance was not under warrant or
color of legal authority;
 c. The property was not devoted to public
use ;
 d. The entrance did not oust the owner and
deprive him of beneficial enjoyment .
 II. Public Use
 Use by the Public
 Indirect advantage or benefit to the
public/Sumolong/Manosca
 Limits of second meaning: Manotoc
 See also Masikip– [Homeowners’ Association]

 1. May the owner recover the property on the ground
that expropriator diverted property to another public
purpose/or abandons it? Reyes v. NHA
 2. As an exception, when may owner be allowed to
recover? Heirs of Moreno
 3. Must the condition be expressed in the decision?
Amount to be paid?
Rights/Obligations of parties: Lozada, etc
Expropriator:
1. Return property
2. May give owner option to buy improvements, but if he
declines, remove them
3. Keep income and fruits of the property
Owner:
1. Return just compensation, without interest
2. Pay expropriator necessary expenses for maintenance
of property to the extent he got benefited
3. Pay interest only if there is delay in returning just
compensation after expropriator has reconvenyed
Once the public purpose of the expropriation is
abandoned, it is correct to say that:
(a) as a rule, the expropriated property is restored to
the previous owner
(b) property is restored only if the expropriation is
made on condition that it will be returned if the
purpose is abandoned
© return is only applicable if the condition is stated in
the court order allowing the expropriation
(d) return is not permitted because the decree of
expropriation gives to the State a fee simple title
 3. Just Compensation
 Must be in cash, except Santos
 Determination is a judicial function [Purefoods and
Libunao – RA 6395 only 10% for right of way?]
 Basis: Time of taking or time of filing, whichever
comes first, except City of Cebu case
 4. What is the rate of interest if expropriator fails to
pay on time? Republic v. CA, Reyes v. NHA – 12%
 [Libunao? 6% apparently if judgment is satisfied on
time]
 5. Can the owner recover the property if expropriator
fails to pay just compensation after an unreasonable
lapse of time? Republic v. Lim
In 1978, the NHA took possession of parcels of land
pursuant of PD No. 1669 and PD No. 1670, and set
up a socialized housing project for squatters. On May
27, 1987, the Supreme Court declared the decrees
unconstitutional and the expropriation of the parcels
of land null and void for being violative of the owner’s
right to due process. On September 14, 1987, the
NHA instituted expropriation of the same parcels of
land. From what date should just compensation be
based?
 (a) 1978, because that was the time of the actual
taking
 (b) 1987, because the entrance in 1978 was not
under color of title
 © 1987, because the property was not devoted to
public purpose in 1978
 (d) 1987, because the utilization of the property did
not oust the owner and deprive him of beneficial
enjoyment of the property
Non-payment of just compensation for a long period of
time, as a rule:
(a) entitles the previous owner to return of the property
without further obligations to the expropriator
(b) entitles the owner to the market value of the
property based at the time when payment is actually
made
© entitles him to the payment of the market value at the
time of taking, plus interest.
(d) entitles him to the return of the property provided he
refunds the just compensation previously received
 When can expropriator enter the property?
 After filing of complaint,
 With notice to owner
 Deposit with authorized government depository
 Amount equivalent to assess value for taxation
purposes [LGC – 15%
 Expropriation bu LGU’s
 It must be based on an ordinance, not a resolution;
VM Realty, Saguitan
 There is no need to secure DAR clearance even if
property is converted to non-agricultural
[Province of Camarines]
 Provincial board cannot disapprove on the ground
of lack of necessity. [Monday]
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II
 Section 9: Eminent Domain
 Police Power and Eminent Domain:
Domain:
 1 . If the property is taken in the exercise of
eminent domain, the owner is entitled to
compensation, but in police power, he is not .
 2. In eminent domain, property is taken for
public use, but in police power, it is destroyed in the
interest of public health, safety, morals or public
welfare .
9
 1993, 5: In expropriation proceedings:
 1. What legal interest should be used in the
computation of interest on just compensation?
 2. Can the judge validly withhold issuance of the writ
of possession until full payment of the final value of
the expropriated property?
 1990, 2: The City of Cebu passed an ordinance
proclaiming the expropriation of a 10 hectare property
of C Company which is already a developed
commercial center. The city proposed to operate the
commercial center in order to finance a housing
project for city employees in the vacant portion of the
said property. The ordinance fixed the price of the
land and the value of the improvements to be paid C
Company on the basis of the prevailing land value
and cost of construction.
 As counsel for c company, give 2 constitutional
objections to the validity of the ordinance.
The ordinance is void because:
 Void, because it constitutes taking of property
without just compensation
 Void, because the determination of what constitutes
just compensation is a judicial function
 Valid, because the purpose of the expropriation is
to convert the property for public use
 Valid, because the ordinance authorized payment
of just compensation
 2004, No. 9: The City of San Rafael passed an
ordinance authorizing the city Mayor, assisted by the
police, to remove all advertising signs displaced or
exposed to public view in the main city street, for
being offensive to sight or otherwise a nuisance. AM,
whose advertising agency owns and rents out many
of the billboards ordered removed by the City Mayor,
claims that the City should pay for the destroyed
billboards at their current market value since the City
has appropriated them for the public purpose of city
beautification. The Mayor refuses to pay, so AM is
suing the City and the Mayor for damages arising
from the taking of his property without due process
nor just compensation.
 Will AM’s suit prosper?
a. yes, because the city is depriving X of property without
due process of law and should pay damage
b. yes, because the city is exercising its power of eminent
domain and taking private property without just
compensation
c. no, because the city is exercising its police power of
abating a nuisance
d. no, because the right to property is not absolute and may
be restricted by law
 1989, No. 16: A law provides that in the event of
expropriation, the amount to be paid to a landowner
as compensation shall be either the sworn valuation
made by the owner or the official assessment thereof,
whichever is lower. Can the landowner successfully
challenge the law in court? Discuss briefly your
answer.
 1996, 4: The City of Pasig initiated expropriation
proceedings on a one ehctare lot which is part of a
10-hectare parcel of land devoted to the growing of
vegetables. The purpose of the expropriation is to
sue the land as a relocation site for 200 families
squatting along the Pasig river.
 1. Can the owner of the property oppose the
expropriation on the ground that only 200 out of the
more than 10,000 squatter families in Pasig will
benefit from the expropriation?
 2. Can DAR require the city to first secure and
authority before converting the use of the land from
agricultural to housing?
 1987, No. 16: Pasay City filed an expropriation
proceedings against several landowners for the
construction of an aqueduct for flood control on a
barangay. Clearly, only the residents of that
barangay would be benefited by the project. Is the
expropriation proper?
 1992, No. 11: The PCO, a government agency,
wishes to establish a direct computer and fax linkup
with trading centers in the US. The advanced
technology of a private company, PCT, is necessary
for that purpose but negotiations between the parties
have failed. The Republic, in behalf of the PCO, files
suit to compel the telecommunications company to
execute a contract with PCO for PCOs access and
use of the company’s facilities.
 Decide. If the case will not prosper, what alternative
will you propose to the Republic?
 2008, No. 4: The Congress passed a law authorizing
the authorizing the NHAto expropirate or acquire
private property for the redevelopment of slum areas,
as well as to lease or resell the property to private
developers to carry out the redevelopment plan.
Pursuant to the law, the NHA acquired all the
properties within a targeted badly blighted areas in
San Nicolas, manila, except a well-maintained drug
and convenience store that poses no blight or health
problem itself. Thereafter, NHA sold the properties it
has thus far acquired to a private realty company for
redevelopment. Thus, the NHA initiated expropriation
proceedings against the store owner who protested
that his property could not be taken because it is not
residential or slum housing. He also contended that
his property is being condemned for a private
purpose, not a public one, noting the NHA’s sale of
the entire area except his property to a private party.
If you were the judge, how would you decide the
case?
 III, 2009
 The Municipality of Bulalakaw, Leyte, passed
Ordinance No. 1234, authorizing the expropriation of
two parcels of land situated in the poblacion as the
site of a freedom park, and appropriating the funds
needed therefor. Upon review, the |Sangguniang
|Sangguniang
Panlalawigan of Leyte disapproved the ordinance
because the municipality has an existing freedom
park which, though smaller in size, is still suitable for
the purpose, and to pursue expropriation would be
needless expenditure of the people's money. Is the
10
disapproval of the ordinance correct? Explain your
answer. (2%)
 2009, XVII
 Filipinas Computer Corporation (FCC), a local
manufacturer of computers and computer parts, owns
a sprawling plant in a 5,000-square meter lot in Pasig
City. To remedy the city's acute housing shortage,
compounded by a burgeoning population, the
Sangguniang Panglungsod authorized the City Mayor
to negotiate for the purchase of the lot. The
Sanggunian intends to subdivide the property into
small residential lots to be distributed at cost to
qualified city residents. But FCC refused to sell the
lot. Hard pressed to find a suitable property to house
its homeless residents, the City filed a complaint for
eminent domain against FCC.
 If FCC hires you as lawyer, what defense or defenses
would you set up in order to resist the expropriation of
the property? Explain. (5%)
 If the Court grants the City's prayer for expropriation,
but the City delays payment of the amount
determined by the court as just compensation, can
FCC recover the property from Pasig City? Explain.
(2%)
 Suppose the expropriation succeeds, but the City
decides to abandon its plan to subdivide the property
for residential purposes having found a much bigger
lot, can FCC legally demand that it be allowed to
repurchase the property from the City of Pasig? Why
or why not? (2%)
 2010, XIII
 True or False.
 A valid and definite offer to buy a property is a pre-
requisite to expropriation initiated by a local
government unit. (0.5%)
 Re-classification of land by a local government unit
may be done through a resolution.
 Section 10: Impairment of Contracts
No law impairing the obligation of contracts shall be enacted.
 A law impairs the obligations of contracts when it
changes the terms of the contract:
 1 . In time or mode of performance;
 2. Imposes new conditions;
 3. Dispenses with those expressed;
 4. Authorizes for its satisfaction something
different .
 Basic Principles
 Police power, eminent domain and taxation are
superior to non-impairment
 Freedom of religion is superior
 Can be invoked only against statutes, ordinances,
but not against quasi-judicial acts [BPI Case -
rehabilitation]
 Usual answers/cases
 There is no contract to speak of [Gonzalo, Picop
(TLA also IFMA), Lim v. Pacquing]
 Police power, etc.. is superior [Caleon v. Agus (sub-
leasing), La Insular, Beltran [United BF
Homeowners v. Mayor]
 Contract was not impaired [Siska (notice or
rescission), Hontanosas]
 Law is not retroactive [Banat/Serrano]

Bar Q: No. 18, 2001:: Pedro bought a parcel of land from

Smart Corp., a realty firm engaged in developing and
selling lots to the public. One of the restrictions in the
deed of sale which was annotated in the title is that
the lot shall be used by the buyer exclusively for
residential purposes. A main highway having been
constructed across the subdivision, the area became
commercial in nature. The municipality later passed a
zoning ordinance declaring the area as commercial.
Pedro constructed a commercial bank building on his
lot. Smart Corp went to court to stop him because he
is violating the restriction imposed on the contract and
title. The corporation contends that the zonign
ordinance cannot nullify the contractual obligation
assumed by the buyer. Decide.

 The ordinance is void because it impaired a

contract
 The ordinance is valid because the contract has
been consummated and no longer exists
between Smart Corp and Pedro
 The ordinance is valid because, being an exercise
of police power by the municipality, it is superior
to the non-impairment clause of the Constitution
 The ordinance is valid because it did not impair the
terms of the contract between Smart Corp and
Pedro

Sec. 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.

11