CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2

CIVIL LIBERTIES desirous of exercising their constitutional right to

travel could be subjected to inconvenience or
Source: Constitutional Law by Cruz, Kwin Notes annoyance.

Manotoc v. Court of Appeals

The Supreme Court dismissed the case on the
LIBERTY OF ABODE AND TRAVEL principal ground that the condition of the bail
Article III, Section 6 provides: bond that he would be available at any time the
The liberty of abode and of changing the same court should require his presence was a valid
within the limits prescribed by law shall not be restriction on right to travel.
impaired except upon lawful order of the court.
Neither shall the right to travel be impaired except Philippine Association of Service Exporters v.
in the interest of national security, public safety or Drilon
public health, as may be provided by law. The Supreme Court sustained an administrative
regulation, enacted pursuant to legislative
authority, temporarily suspending the deployment
Caunca v. Salazar of Filipino female domestics abroad in view of
The fact that power to control said freedom may reports of their abuse and exploitation by their
be an effective means of avoiding monetary loss to foreign employers. The ban was justified by
the agency is no reason for jeopardizing a reasons of public safety.
fundamental human right. Fundamental freedoms
are beyond the province of commerce or any Marcos v. Manglapus
other business enterprise.
The Supreme Court sustained the refusal of the
government to allow the petitioners return on the
PURPOSE: ground that it would endanger national security.
The purpose of the guaranty is to further
emphasize the individuals liberty as safeguarded Arroyo v. de Lima
in general terms by the due process law. Liberty Invoking among other grounds her right to life,
under that clause includes the right to choose the petitioner prayed for the issuance by the
ones residence, to leave it whenever he pleases, Supreme Court of a temporary restraining order
and to travel wherever he wills. for purposes of enjoining the respondents from
enforcing said Watchlist Orders. The Court
granted her prayer, subject to certain conditions.
LIMITATIONS:
1. Upon lawful order of the court;
Leave Division v. Heusdens
2. In the interest of national security, public safety If judges and court personnel can go on leave and
or public health as may be provided by law. travel abroad at will and without restrictions or
regulations, there could be a disruption in the
Rubi v. Provincial Board of Mindoro administration of justice. A situation where the
Waste lands do not produce wealth. Waste people employees go on mass leave and travel together,
do not advance the interest of the State. Illiteracy despite the fact that their invaluable services are
and thriftlessness are not conducive to urgently needed, could possibly arise. For said
homogeneity. The State to protect itself from reason, members and employees of the Judiciary
destruction must prod on the laggard and the cannot just invoke and demand the right to travel.
sluggard. The great law of overwhelming
necessity is all convincing. Office of the Administrative Services v. Judge
Macarine
Villavicencio v. Lukban OCA Circular No. 49-2003 does not restrict but
On the contrary, Philippine penal law specifically merely regulates, by providing guidelines to be
punishes any public officer who, not being complied by judges and court personnel, before
expressly authorized by law or regulation, compels they can go on leave to travel abroad. To restrict is
any person to change residence. to restrain or prohibit a person from doing
something; to regulate is to govern or direct
Salonga v. Hermoso according to rule.
The case became moot and academic since the LIMITATIONS
permit had already been issued before the court Theres a difference between these two in terms of
heard the case. However, the Court still decide limitations.
that it is desirable that respondent Travel
Processing Center should exercise the utmost care
to avoid the impression that certain citizens

JRCMENDOZA LAW ARCHIVES |1

 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2

LIBERTY OF ABODE is the right to choose where

you want to live and change the same within the Those are the two provisions justifying anyone to
limits prescribed by law. enter into the Philippines, even if it is not
guaranteed in the right to travel
The limitations being only LAWFUL ORDER OF
THE COURT.
FREEDOM OF RELIGION
So therefore, you cannot be limited by chief of the Article III, Section 5 provides:
PNP who wants to relocate you. You cannot be No law shall be made respecting an establishment
compelled by anyone except by the lawful order of of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
the court. But an alternative answer to it is, yes, by The free exercise and enjoyment of religious
the exercise of police power. profession and worship, without discrimination or
preference, shall forever be allowed. No religious
On the RIGHT TO TRAVEL, the limitations are: test shall be required for the exercise of civil or
1. public safety political rights.
2. public health
3. national security Article II, Section 6 provides:
4. court order The separation of Church and State shall be
inviolable.
COURT RESTRICTION ON THE RIGHT TO TRAVEL
Can the court limit your right to travel, especially if STATE HAS NO RELIGION
you are facing charges in court? Simply put, the state has no religion. And so the
YES. So as not to render the administration of state must not favor any religion. And this does
justice inutile. Especially when you have posted not mean also discriminating against any religion
bail because you have made an undertaking that or becoming hostile to any religion.
you will be available before the court anytime you
are asked to appear. HOW STATE REMAINS NEUTRAL
For the state to be neutral in the midst on many
RIGHT TO RETURN TO COUNTRY religions:
Another point you have to TN on the right to 1. State must not use any public funds for the
travel, the right to return to country is not covered support of any religion, religious sect, priests or
in the right to travel. any other ecclesiastical ministers.

Marcos vs Manglapus The only exception to this is when public funds are
The right to travel in this particular provision of used for priests working at:
law does not include the right to return to the a. AFP
country. So then what is the basis of the b. penal institution
application of the ruling relating to the Marcoses
c. government owned orphanages
allowing them to return to the country?
You gave the Generally Accepted Principles of d. charitable institutions
International Law, which under the incorporation
clause is deemed automatically part of the legal EXCEPTIONS TO THE NON ESTABLISHMENT OF
system: RELIGION
a. art 13 the universal declaration of human 1. Optional religious instructions in public,
rights elementary and high school
b. art 12 covenant of civil and political rights.
-requisites:
Under art 13 par 2 of the universal declaration of a. consent of the parent or the guardian
human rights, it provides that everyone has the b. no additional expense to government
right to live in any country, including his own and c. done during school hours
to return to his country. d. by an accredited or recognized teacher in that
religion
So even if there is no provision relating to that in
the Bill of Rights, you can still be allowed as part of
this human right. Art 12 on the Civil and Political 2. on grant of tax exemptions to real property
Rights provides that no one should be arbitrarily taxes
deprived of the right to enter his own country. -requisites

JRCMENDOZA LAW ARCHIVES |2

 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2

a. actually, directly and exclusively used for Garces v. Estenzo

religious purpose It was held that there was no violation of the
b. limited on real property Constitution where it was shown that the money
used by a barangay council for the purchase of a
religious image was raised by it from private
3. Educational institutions
contributions and did not constitute public funds.
-requisites
a. by religious groups or mission boards
Diocese of Bacolod v. COMELEC
The Supreme Court upheld the right of the
4. Compensation for priests assigned in: representative of the petitioner, a bishop, to
a. AFP display a tarpaulin announcing, in a satirical
b. penal institution manner, his preferences from among the
c. government owned orphanages candidates running for office during the campaign
d. charitable institutions period for a particular election, and annulled the
order of the respondent for him to take it down
being violative of its rules regarding election
TWO TESTS propaganda.
If funds are used by the government and the
church is benefited, take note of the tests: Estrada v. Escritor
1. DOES IT ADVANCE RELIGION? It has declared that matters dealing with faith,
-the purpose is purely non secular practice, doctrine, form of worship, ecclesiastical
What is non secular? It means not religious at all. law, custom and rule of church are unquestionably
And if the religion or church benefited, it is merely ecclesiastical matters are outside the province of
the civil courts.
incidental because the purpose is non secular.

Fonacier v. Court of Appeals

2. DOES IT INHIBIT RELIGION?
The Supreme Court, applying the pertinent laws
-it is not entangling with religion and the internal rules of the Philippine
It has to be prohibited; being intimate with the Independent Church, resolved the conflict
religion or the church. between two persons claiming to be the head of
the church and thus vested with control of its
Imbong v. Ochoa properties.
Establishment clause principally prohibits the
State from sponsoring any religion or favoring any Gonzales v. Archbishop of Manila
religion as against other religions. It mandates The Supreme Court held that where civil right
strict neutrality in affairs among religious groups. depends upon some matter pertaining to
Essentially, it prohibits the establishment of a state ecclesiastical affairs, the civil tribunal tries the civil
religion and the use of public resources for the right and nothing more, taking the ecclesiastical
support or prohibition of religion. decision out of which the civil right has risen as it
finds them, and accepting those decisions as
Engel v. Vitale matters adjudicated by another jurisdiction.
A union of Church and State, as aptly remarked,
tends to destroy government and to degrade United Church of Christ in the Philippines, Inc. v.
religion. It is no part of the business of the Bradford United Church of Christ, Inc.
government to compose official prayers for any The Court stressed that a churchs decision to
group of the American people, to recite as a part disconnect its ties with another entity is its sole
of a religious program carried on by the prerogative and power.
government.
Religious Profession and Worship
Aglipay v. Ruiz 1. Freedom to believe
It was held that any benefit indirectly enjoyed by a 2. Freedom to act on ones beliefs
religious institution, as long as such benefit was
only incidental to a legitimate secular objective,
Freedom to believe
would not violate the prohibition. As the purpose
of the stamp issue was evidently to focus attention It is absolute as long as the belief is confined
not on the Eucharistic Congress but on its site, the within the realm of thought. Everyone has a right
idea being to attract tourist to our country and not to his beliefs and he may not be called to account
primarily to publicize the religious event, it was because he cannot prove what he believes.
held that the stamp issue was not invalid.
Freedom to Act on Ones Belief

JRCMENDOZA LAW ARCHIVES |3

 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2

It is subject to regulation where the belief is The constitutional prohibition against religious
translated into external acts that affect the public tests is aimed against clandestine attempts on the
welfare. part of the government to prevent a person from
exercising his civil and political rights because of
The constitutional provision on religious freedom his religious beliefs.
terminated disabilities; it did not create new
privileges. It gave religious liberty, not civil In case of conflict between the free exercise clause
immunity. Its essence is freedom from conformity and the State, the Court adheres to the doctrine of
to religious dogma, not freedom from conformity benevolent neutrality.
to law because of religious dogma.
Benevolent Neutrality Approach/ Theory of
American Bible Society v. City of Manila Accommodation
The Court held that the constitutional guaranty of With respect to these governmental actions,
free exercise and enjoyment of religious accommodation of religion may be allowed, not to
profession and worship carries with it the right to promote the governments favored form of
disseminate religious information. Any restraint of
religion, but to allow individuals and groups to
such right can be justified like other restraints of
freedom of expression on the ground that there is exercise their religion with hindrance.
clear and present danger of any substantive evil
which the State has the right to prevent. What is sought under the theory of
accommodation is not a declaration of
Ebralinag v. The Division Superintendent of unconstitutionality of a facially neutral law, but an
Schools of Cebu exemption from its application or its burdensome
Forcing a small religious group, through the iron effect, whether by the legislature or the court.
hand of the law, to participate in a ceremony that
violates their religious beliefs, will hardly be
NON INTERFERENCE OF EACH OTHERS
conducive to love of country or respect for duly
constituted authorities. FUNCTIONS OR ITS AFFAIRS
- INTRAMURAL CONFLICTS
Estrada v. Escritor INTRAMURAL CONFLICTS between the church or
The Supreme Court held that our constitution members of the church should not be interfered
adheres to the benevolent neutrality approach with by the state. Unless it violates the established
that gives room for accommodation of religious rules or laws of the country, in which case that the
exercises as required by the Free Exercise Clause. court will take cognizance of the conflict.

Imbong v. Ochoa This is relevant because of the controversy of RH

The Court stated that the basis of the free exercise
Bill and the pending bill for the adoption of
clause is the respect for the inviolability of the
human conscience. Under this part of religious divorce in the country. And this has been opposed
freedom guarantee, the State is prohibited from by the religion.
unduly interfering with the outside manifestations
of ones belief and faith. WHO SHOULD BE EXPELLED OR
EXCOMMUNICATED FROM THE CHURCH
Ang Ladlad LGBT Party v. COMELEC In the matter of who should be expelled or
The denial of Ang Ladlads registration on purely excommunicated from the church, that is the
moral grounds amounts more to a statement of discretion of the church.
dislike and disapproval of homosexuals, rather
than a tool to further any substantial public
interest. Can you appeal that in the courts?
Certainly not
Soriano v. Laguardia
The Supreme Court rejected his contention saying NO RELIGIOUS TESTS
the Court is at a loss to understand how This simply means that religion is not a
petitioners utterances in question can come qualification in order for one to exercise his civil
within the pale of Sec. 5, Article III of the 1987 and political rights.
Constitution on religious freedom.
PROHIBITION ONLY AGAINST THE STATE
Religious Test

JRCMENDOZA LAW ARCHIVES |4

 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2

This prohibition however is addressed only Remember the two ways that you may question
against the state, not against private entities. the constitutionality of a law:
In other words, if USC will require religion to a. on its face/ facial challenge
graduate from a course in college, you cannot say b. as applied to case
that there is violation of religious state because
USC is a private entity. And usually in the freedom of expression, laws
affecting or intruding into your freedom of
But if UP requires religion then that would be a expression may be challenged on to grounds, over
violation of no religious test as well as the non- breadth or that it is vague.
establishment of religion.
OVERBREADTH practically covering, there is no
limitations now as to the intrusions. Practically, it
FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION is being regulated by the state.
VAGUE however means it is not clear. It is the
Article III, Section 4 provides:
opposite of the overbreadth.
No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of
Either way, this would be violative of the DUE
speech, of expression, or of the press or the right
PROCESS OF LAW, and in which case, it can be
of the people peaceably to assemble and petition
challenged in its face
the government for redress of grievances.

Ang Ladlad LGBT Party v. COMELEC

Freedom of expression constitutes one of the
essential foundations of a democratic society, and Freedom from previous restraints or censorship
this freedom applied not only to those that are
favorably received but also to those that offend, 1. Content-based the restriction is based
shock, or disturb. Any restriction imposed in this on the subject matter of the utterance or
sphere must be proportionate to the legitimate speech.
aim pursued. 2. Content neutral it is merely concerned
with the incidents of the speech, or one
Disini v. Executive Secretary that merely controls the time, place or
The Court ruled that free expression can also come manner, and under well-defined
in the forms of commercial speech, which does no
standards.
more than propose a commercial transaction and
also political speech presented as satire
Content-based Regulation
Elements of Freedom of Expression
It is aimed at the contents or idea of the
1. Freedom from previous restrains or expression.
censorship It can either be based on viewpoint of the
2. Freedom from subsequent punishment speaker or the subject of the expression.
It bears a heavy presumption of invalidity
LIMITATIONS ON THE EXERCISE OF THE and is measured against the clear and
FREEDOM OF SPEECH present danger rule.
1. Challenging the validity of the law It is subject to strict scrutiny.
Laws that may limit or intrude into the freedom of The state has a compelling interest based
expression can be challenged on its face for on:
reasons of: a. Public safety
a. void for vagueness doctrine b. National Security
b. over breadth doctrine c. Public morals
d. Public policy
These doctrines may only be applied on your
freedom of expression. In fact you can challenge Content neutral Regulation
the constitutionality of that law mainly on the
basis of the tenor of the law without necessarily It intends to regulate the time, place, and
applying that to your case. manner of the expression under well-
defined standards tailored to serve a

JRCMENDOZA LAW ARCHIVES |5

 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2

compelling state interest, without freedom of expression. There is no reason for the
restraint on the message of the state to minimize the right of non-candidate
expression. petitioners to post the tarpaulin in their private
property. The size of the tarpaulin does not affect
Only a substantial governmental interest
anyone elses constitutional rights.
is required for its validity.
Soriano v. Laguardia
COMMERCIAL SPEECH
The Court finds that petitioners statement can be
What kind of speech that may be regulated by the treated as obscene, at least with respect to the
state? average child. Even if we concede that petitioners
We are referring to advertisements. remarks are not obscene but merely indecent
speech, still the Court rules that petitioner cannot
When can that be regulated? avail himself of the constitutional protection of
When you can show that the state has free speech. Said statements were made in a
medium easily accessible to children. With respect
governmental interest in the advertisement.
to the young minds, said utterances are to be
As long as it is not: treated as unprotected speech.
a. fraudulent
b. propose an illegal transaction Bayan v. Ermita
c. obscene, BP 880 was considered as content neutral
Then, the government may regulate. regulation. It regulates the exercise of the right to
STRICT SCRUTINY TEST/ OBRIAN TEST peaceful assembly and petition only to the extent
The use of the STRICT SCRUTINY TEST or the needed to avoid a clear and present danger of the
OBRIAN TEST lies in the government to prove that substantive evils Congress has the right to
prevent.
indeed there is a compelling reason to intrude into
the freedom of expression.
Overbreadth Doctrine
A proper governmental purpose, constitutionally
HECKLERS VETO
subject to state regulation, may not be achieved
If you deliver a speech and somebody booed you,
by means that unnecessarily sweep its subject
in order to maintain peace and order, you may be
broadly, thereby invading the area of protected
stopped from continuing the delivery of your
freedoms.
speech to veto the hecklers.
Penera v. COMELEC
It occurs when acting partys right to freedom of
The Supreme Court considered a law which
speech is restricted by the government in order to provides for punishment for engaging in partisan
prevent a reacting partys behavior. political activities but does not clearly state that
A common example is when the demonstrator partisan political acts done by a candidate before
causing a speech given by the acting party to be the campaign period are unlawful, but may be
terminated in order to preserve the speech. prosecuted only upon the start of the campaign
period and which further provides that partisan
political acts done by a candidate before the
Chavez v. Gonzales campaign period are temporarily lawful, but
The Supreme Court considered the warnings of become unlawful upon the start of the campaign
the Justice Secretary, who publicly threatened to period as vague and therefore void.
prosecute for violations of the Anti-Wire Tapping
Act, and the Memorandum of the National
Freedom from Censorship
Telecommunications Commission likewise
threatening broadcast stations with the Censorship conditions the exercise of freedom of
cancellation of their licenses, as producing a expression upon the prior approval of the
chilling effect upon citizens and mass media government. Only those ideas acceptable to it are
establishments against their airing of the Hello allowed to be disseminated.
Garci tapes, which implicated then President
Arroyo in certain election anomalies or electoral Censorship need not partake of total suppression;
fraud.
even restriction of circulation is unconstitutional.
Diocese of Bacolod v. COMELEC
ROLE OF THE MTRCB
There is no compelling and substantial state
interest endangered by the posting of the -LIMITED TO CLASSIFYING THE AUDIENCE
tarpaulin as to justify curtailment of the right of

JRCMENDOZA LAW ARCHIVES |6

 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2

Freedom of press is not limited only on TV and Primicias v. Fugoso

broadcasting but also on movies and films. The Supreme Court ordered the permit issued,
holding that the respondent that the respondent
And you have the MTRCB, an agency of the could only reasonably regulate, not absolutely
prohibit the use of public places for the purpose
government regulating these agencies of the press
indicated.
on the purpose of classifying the audience.
Mutuc v. COMELEC
It is a set of rules now that insofar as MTRCB is The Supreme Court sustained the contention of
concerned, remember that theirs is only to classify. the petitioner. What respondent Commission did,
It is not for them to delete or censure any material in effect, was to impose censorship on petitioner,
that is obscene because that is a judicial function. an evil against which this constitutional right is
directed. Nor could respondent Commission justify
-NO POWER OVER TV PERSONALITY its action by the assertion that petitioner, if he
would not resort to taped jingles, would be free,
MTRCB has no power over the TV personality or
either by himself or through others, to use his
eh actor. They only have supervision and control mobile loudspeakers. Precisely, the constitutional
over the program, not the personality. guarantee is not to be emasculated by confining it
For example, if a TV host misbehaves, they cannot to a speaker having his say, but not perpetuating
discipline them. Only the program hosted by this what is uttered by him through tape or other
personality that can be subjected to disciplinary mechanical contrivances.
action by MTRCB.
Burgos v. Chief of Staff
Such closure is in the nature of previous restraint
And that is the reason why to prevent MTRCB to
or censorship abhorrent to the freedom of the
punish the suspending the program by press guaranteed under the fundamental law, and
suspending its showing because that would cause constitutes a virtual denial of petitioners freedom
loss of money, they would preempt that by to express themselves in print. This state of being
suspending the host instead. is patently anathematic to a democratic
framework where a free, alert and even militant
Gonzales v. COMELEC press is essential for the political enlightenment
and growth of the citizenry.
There was a law prohibiting the solicitation or
undertaking of any campaign or propaganda,
whether directly or indirectly, by an individual, the National Press Club v. Commission on Elections
making of speeches, announcements or The right of the general listening and viewing
commentaries or holding of interviews for or public to be from such intrusions and their
against the election of any party or candidate for subliminal effects is at least as important as the
public office, or the publication or distribution of right of candidates to advertise themselves
campaign literature or materials. The Court through modern electronic media and the right of
sustained the validity of the law with justification media enterprises to maximize their revenues from
that the inordinate pre-occupation of the people the marketing of packaged candidates.
with politics tended toward the neglect of the
other serious needs of the nation and the Adiong v. COMELEC
pollution of its suffrages. The prohibition on posting of decals and stickers
on mobile places whether public or private
Iglesia ni Cristo v. Court of Appeals except in authorized areas designated by the
The issue of this case was whether or not the COMELEC becomes censorship which cannot be
MTRCB had the power to review the petitioners justified by the constitution.
programs and clear them for showing on
television and, assuming it had, whether it gravely New Sounds Broadcasting Network, Inc. v. Dy
abused its discretion in prohibiting their exhibition There was a denial of a permit to operate of the
as x-rated material. The Court ruled in favor the petitioner on the basis of a new ordinance
Board on the first issue but found that is should converting the location of its radio station into a
not have banned the telecast of the programs commercial area, thereby preventing it from
because they did not attack but merely criticized continuing its operations in violation of its
the other religions in the exercise by the INC of its freedom of press.
freedom of expression and religion. Such criticisms
did not create a clear and present danger Freedom from Punishment
requiring the prior restraint of the state.
Freedom of speech includes freedom after the
speech. Nevertheless, freedom of expression is not

JRCMENDOZA LAW ARCHIVES |7

 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2

absolute notwithstanding that the language of

the guaranty, unlike some of the provisions in the The rule is that the danger created must not only
Bill of Rights is unqualified. be clear and present but also traceable to the
ideas expressed.
To determine the liability of the individual for
ideas expressed by him, three major criteria have Gonzales v. COMELEC
been applied, to wit: The term clear seems to point to a causal
connection with the danger of the substantive evil
a. The clear and present danger rule; arising from the utterance questioned. Present
b. The dangerous tendency doctrine; refers to the time element. It is used to be
identified with the imminent and immediate
c. The balancing of interest test.
danger. The danger must not only be probably but
very likely inevitable.
Conscientious Objectors Test
It is constitutionally significant in that it upheld
Navarro v. Villegas
the right to exemption on religious grounds of This was a petition for mandamus to compel the
one who denied any belief in God. mayor of Manila to issue a permit to enable certain
student groups to hold a public rally, again at
Disini v. Executive Secretary Plaza Miranda. The mayor refused to issue such
The Supreme Court clarified that although aiding permit. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the
or abetting has of course well-defined meaning mayor and based its decision on the difference in
and application in existing laws, it would have a the factual condition of Manila in 1947, which it
different connotation when it is made to apply to described as peaceful, and in 1970, at the height
these crimes when committed in the cyberspace. of student unrest and activism. Manila was then in
The terms aiding or abetting constitute broad ferment, the people were edgy and the speeches
sweep that generates chilling effect on those who planned to be delivered at Plaza Miranda, the most
express themselves through cyberspace posts, sensitive place in the city, could in view of the
comments, and other messages. Hence, Section 5 Court ignite the turbulence the mayor wanted to
of the Cybercrime law that punishes aiding or prevent.
abetting Libel on the cyberspace is a nullity.
Ruiz v. Gordon
Concerned Boholanos for Law and Order v. Calibo It is an indispensable condition to such refusal or
The Supreme Court acknowledged that, as modification that the clear and present danger
expressed in the Investigation Report, the test be the standard for the decision reached. If he
respondent Judge cannot be held to answer is of the view that there is such an imminent and
administratively simply because he was only grave danger of a substantive evil, the applicants
exercising his constitutional right to be heard in a must be heard on the matter. This decision must
petition for the redress of grievances. As a be transmitted to them at the earliest opportunity.
consumer and as a member of the body politic, it
was his right, nay his duty to air what he honestly Dangerous Tendency Doctrine
believed to be an incipient irregularity. Under this test, a person could be punished for his
ideas even if they only tended to create the evil
GSIS v. Villaviza sought to be prevented. It was not necessary to
The Supreme Court declared that government actually create the evil; a mere tendency toward
workers, whatever their ranks, have as much right
the evil is enough.
as any person in the land to voice out their rights
and interests. Civil Service does not deprive them
of their freedom of expression. It would be unfair Cabansag v. Fernandez
to hold that by joining the government service, If the words uttered create a dangerous tendency
the members thereof have renounced or waived which the State has a right to prevent, then such
this basic liberty. This freedom can be reasonably words are punishable. It is not necessary that
regulated only but can never be taken away. some definite or immediate acts of force, violence,
or unlawfulness be advocated. It is sufficient that
Clear and Present Danger Rule such acts be advocated in general terms.
It is a test whether the words used are used in
such circumstances and are of such a nature as to People v. Perez
The accused made a statement and done an act
create a clear and present danger that they will
which tended to stir up the people against the
bring about the substantive evils that the State has lawful authorities. He has made a statement and
a right to prevent. done an act which tended to disturb the peace of

JRCMENDOZA LAW ARCHIVES |8

 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2

the community and the safety or order of the an ordinary citizen. Enrile has not retired into
government. seclusion of simple private citizenship. He
continues to be a public figure.
The Balancing of Interest Test
When a particular conduct is regulated in the To the extent that the motion picture limits itself in
portraying the participation of Enrile in the EDSA
interest of the public order, and the regulation
Revolution to those events directly related to the
results in indirect, conditional, partial abridgement public facts of such Revolution, the intrusion into
of speech, the duty of the courts is to determine Enriles privacy is not unreasonable and
which of the two conflicting interests demands actionable.
greater protection under the particular
circumstance presented. While courts have taken a lenient view toward
attacks against public officials in general, it would
Criticism of Official Conduct seem they are not similarly disposed when it
The officials acts, and now even the private life, of comes to public comment upon their own conduct.
a public servant are legitimate subjects of public The rule in the Philippines proscribes public
comment. The people have a right to scrutinize comment on pending litigation, on the ground
and commend or condemn the conduct of their that it would interfere with the administration of
chosen representatives in the government. And as justice.
long as their comments are made in good faith
and with justifiable ends, they are insulated from People v. Alarcon
prosecution or damage suits for defamation even Newspaper publications tending to impede,
if such views are found to be inaccurate or obstruct, embarrass or influence the courts in
erroneous. administering justice in a pending suit or
proceeding constitutes criminal contempt which is
summarily punishable by the courts. This rule is
MAKING COMMENTS ON ACTS OF PUBLIC otherwise after the case is ended.
INDIVIDUALS
General Rule: NO LIABILITY Zaldivar v. Sandiganbayan
The Supreme Court ruled that neither the right of
For as long as the comment is fair and honest, free speech nor the right to engage in political
there is no liability. Good faith is a defense of in activities can be so construed or extend as to
libel cases against public officers. (US vs Bustos) permit any such liberties to a member of the bar. A
member of the bar can, and will, be stopped at the
EXPT: AGAINST JUDICIARY
point where he infringes our Canons of Ethics; and
1. LOWER COURTS CLEAR AND PRESENT if he wishes to remain a member of the Bar he will
DANGER conduct himself in accordance therewith.
2. SUPEREME COURT DANGEROUS TENDENCY
Re: Letter of the UP Law Faculty A.M No. 10-10-4-
U.S. v. Bustos SC, June 7, 2011
The interest of society and the maintenance of Contumacious speech and conduct directed
good government demand a full discussion of against the courts done by any person, whether or
public affairs. Complete liberty to comment on the not a member of the Bar, may be considered as
conduct of public men is a scalpel in the case of indirect contempt. If committed by a member of
free speech. The sharp incision of its probe relieves the Bar, may likewise subject the offender to
the abscesses of officialdom. Men in public life may disciplinary proceedings under the Code of
suffer under a hostile and unjust accusation; the Professional Responsibility. In such disciplinary
wound may be relieved by the balm of a clear cases, the sanctions are not penal but
conscience. A public official must not be too thin- administrative such as, disbarment, suspension,
skinned with reference to comment upon his reprimand or admonition.
official acts.
Art and Obscenity
Ayer Productions Pty. Ltd. v. Judge Capulong Again, on the determination of obscenity, that is a
Juan Ponce Enrile sought to enjoin the production judicial function. And the guidelines for that, is in
of a movie entitled Four Days of Revolution, the case of;
claiming that his inclusion in this film on the
people power revolution of February 1986
would violate his right to privacy. The Supreme Anything that caters to the basic or animal
Court rejected his claim and said that the right of instincts of a man or sexual interest of man. No
privacy of a public figure is narrower than that of scientific or cultural value, but purely for sex, then

JRCMENDOZA LAW ARCHIVES |9

 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2

that is protected by law. It can be regulated, if not, The exception to this is that you dont need a
whoever is responsible for it can be punished. permit when you use a public place from the
There is no guaranty of protection of subsequent government to use that place, even if it public,
liability there. (Kapit sa Patalim Case) however it is private.
Example: the EDSA shrine. It is a private place, it is
Miller v. California owned by the archbishop of Manila.
Test of Obscenity:
1. Whether the average person, applying 2. FREEDOM PARK
contemporary standards, would find that Another exception is the Freedom Park. There has
the work, taken as w hole, appeals to the
to be a declaration of a Freedom Park by the LGU.
prurient interest.
2. Whether the work depicts or describes, in You can use it without need of a permit.
a patently offensive way, sexual conduct In Cebu, Fuente Osmena is the freedom park.
specifically defined by the applicable law
3. Whether the work, taken as a whole, 3. CAMPUS OF A STATE UNIVERSITY
lacks serious literary, artistic, political or Example. Abellana. But you need a permit from
scientific value. the administrator of Abellana.

Assembly and Petition

-ACTIONS TAKEN BY LGU
The right of assembly is important to freedom of
On the actions that may be taken by LGU in
expression because of public issues are better
connection with BP 880, on your application to
resolved after an exchange of views among
your permit.
citizens meeting with each other for the purpose.
1. GRANT OF USE OF PUBLIC PLACE
It should be noted, however, that if the assembly is
In connection to that, what is the prevailing
intended to be held in a public place, a permit for
principle in granting you to use a public place for a
the use of such place and not for the assembly
public rally?
itself, may be validly required.
It is still MAXIMUM TOLERANCE. The preemptive
response has been abolished. What is now
TESTS IN GRANT OF USE OF PUBLIC PLACE
prevailing is that, as long as it is not tumultuous,
1. PURPOSE TEST
you should be allowed freely to meet with your
2. OSFEASES? TEST
friends and country men to discuss matters of
In the grant of permit to use a public place, who
public concern in a public rally.
are the organizations organizing the assembly?
all these are taken into consideration.
You should not be stooped unless there is a CLEAR
AND PRESENT DANGER against public safety.
Only when there is CLEAR AND PRESENT
DANGER that in by allowing you to use that public
2. CHANGE OF VENUE
place, you will be causing danger to public safety
or national security or public convenience, then
IPB vs Atienza, Feb 24, 2010
that can be regulated by the LGU concerned,
This has reference to the asking for a permit from
where you are applying to use a permit for a the mayor of Manila to use Mendiola Bridge as
public place. their rallying point. While they were allowed to
hold the rally, however the place was changed.
It is not per se that your exercise to your freedom IBP was never informed of the change of venue.
of assembly but the use of a public place.
The Supreme Court said Mayor Atienza gravely
abused his discretion when he did not
BP 880 - ASSEMBLY ACT immediately inform the IBP which should have
-PERMIT NEEDED ONLY WHEN USE PUBLIC PLACE been heard first on the matter of his perceived
Here, it is emphasized that you do not have to ask imminent and grave danger of the substantive evil
for a permit to assemble. However, to use a public that may warrant the changing of the venue
place, you need a permit from the LGU concerned. under BP 880, the Public Assembly Act.

It is found that Atienza failed to indicate how he

-WHEN PERMIT IS NOT NEEDED FOR PUBLIC
had arrived in modifying the terms of the permit
PLACE against the standard of clear and present danger
1. PRIVATELY OWNED PLACE

JRCMENDOZA LAW ARCHIVES |10

 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2

test, which is as indispensable condition to such GOVERNMENT

modification. Another point you should TN in the right to form
associations is that it applies only to government.
Nothing in the issued permit adverts to an This does not apply to private organization.
imminent and grave danger of a substantive evil
which blunt denial or modification would have
granted imprimatur as the appellate court would For example, being compelled to be a member of a
have it granted any judicial scrutiny thereto. So if subdivision, or home owners association. It is not
there is a change of venue, then the applicant included because it is not government that
shall have to be informed pursuant to BP 880 requires it. It is part of the cumbrance of the
property that you are intending to buy. And the
Taada v. Bagatsing moment you buy it, it is understood that you
The Supreme Court granted the writ of mandamus consented that you abide by the rules that would
but changed the meeting place to Ugarte Field, a
include of your being a member of the home
private park. Under settled jurisprudence, the clear
and present danger principle does not preclude owners association. In which case, you cannot say
the Supreme Court from regulating the time, place that your right is violated there.
and manner of the holding of a peaceable
assembly. It is the content of the speeches therein Alliance of Government Workers v. Ministry of
made that enjoys the widest immunity. Labor and Employment
The Supreme Court said that members of the civil
Malabanan v. Ramento service may not declare a strike to enforce their
Student leaders are hardly the timid, diffident economic demands.
types. They take into account the excitement of
the occasion, the propensity of speakers to SSS Employees Association v. Court of Appeals
exaggerate, the exuberance of youth. They may The issue in this case is whether or not the right of
give the speakers the benefit of their applause, but government employees to organize also includes
with the activity taking place in the school the right to strike. The Court ruled based on the
premises and during the daytime no clear and framers of the 1987 Constitution that would show
present danger of public disorder is discernable. that in recognizing the right of government
employees to organize, the commissioners
intended to limit the right to the formation of
unions or associations only, without including the
RIGHT TO ASSOCIATION right to strike.
Article III, Section 8 provides:
The right of the people, including those employed The closed-shop is a valid form of union security
in the public and private sectors, to form unions, and a provision therefor in a collective bargaining
associations or societies for purposes not contrary agreement is not considered a restriction of the
to law shall not be abridged. right of association.

RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE IN GOVERNMENT Liberty Flour Mills Employees Association v.

-HAS RIGHT TO FORM OR JOIN UNIONS Liberty Flour Mills Inc.
The right of the people in government to form or It is for the reason that the law has sanctioned
join unions is recognized. This includes the right stipulations for the union shop and closed shop as
not to be compelled to join any organization. a means of encouraging the workers to join and
support the labor union of their own choice as
their representative in the negotiation of their
-PROHIBITED FROM ENGAGING IN STRIKES demands and the protection of their interests vis-
However, TN for government employees forming -vis the employer.
unions, they are prohibited from engaging into
certain activities, like to strike. The right of association was also held not violated
where political parties were prohibited from
While the constitution is silent; unless OW participating in the barangay elections to insure
provided by law, there is a law prohibiting the nonpartisanship of the candidates.
government employees engaging in strike, under
a Civil Service Rule as well as an executive order Occea v. COMELEC
issued by the president. The Supreme Court declared that political
neutrality is needed for the discharge of the duties
RIGHT TO FORM ASSOCIATION APPLY ONLY TO of barangay officials.

JRCMENDOZA LAW ARCHIVES |11

 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2

They are supposed to represent the management

NOT INCLUDED IN THE FREEDOM OF as against the labor.
ASSOCIATION
1. ENJOINING OF ASSOCIATION
On the prohibition or the limitations enjoining an ACCESS TO INFORMATION
association. You cannot invoke a violation of this
Article III, Section 7 provides:
right.
The right of the people to information on matters
of public concern shall be recognized. Access to
2. RIGHT TO BE GIVEN PERSONALITY BY SEC
official acts, transactions, or decisions, as well as to
Does this forming of association include the right
government research data used as basis for policy
to be given personality by SEC?
development, shall be afforded the citizen subject
NO. It does not form an integral part of your
to such limitations as may be provided by law.
freedom of association.
The right of access to public documents has been
3. RIGHT TO STRIKE
recognized as a self-executory constitutional right.
Just like the freedom of association does not
include the right to strike.
The foregoing constitutional provisions seek to
promote transparency in policy making and in the
4. OWNERSHIP OF THE PROPERTY
operations of the government, as well as provide
If ownership of the property denied for an
the people of sufficient information to exercise
organization to acquire it, there is no violation
effectively other constitutional rights.
because the acquisition of property does not form
part of right to association.
INFORMATION NOT COVERED

5. POLITICAL PARTYS PARTICPATION IN Government transactions

BARANGAY ELECTION
Ongoing government transactions
How about political parties, the purpose of which
Those negotiations through treaties and
is to participate in election; when there is
agreements
prohibition on them from participating in
This is a political right; therefore, it is
barangay election, would there be a violation on
available only to the citizens of the
the right to association?
country.
No. Because the justification there is police power.
To allow political parties will negate the purpose
of allowing the people from the grass roots to
RIGHTS COVERED
freely participate with equal opportunities in
But not all information, although concerns the
getting a position. So that there will be equal
public are available to the public.
footing in the barangay in participating in
There are two rights involved in this section:
electoral process without the intervention of
1. RIGHT TO INFORMATION
political parties.
2. RIGHT TO ACCESS THE INFORMATION

ASSOCIATIONS AND INDIVIDUALS PROHIBITED

LIMITATIONS
FROM FORMING UNIONS
The right to information is a right guaranteed of
There are certain associations or individuals
protection under this law
however that are prohibited from forming unions
or organizations or participating in organizations,
However the access is limited by the government;
such as:
subject to such limitations as may be provided by
1. SECURITY GUARDS
law.
For obvious reasons. They are dangerous when
Example, time and manner and place where you
they are armed when negotiating.
can access information; and the fees you pay for
the copies of these information.
2. SUPERVISORS
They are prohibited from forming or joining a
In other words, you may have the access but it
union because there will be a conflict of interest.
doesnt mean you will be given free copies of the
information.

JRCMENDOZA LAW ARCHIVES |12

 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2

ONGOING NEGOTIATIONS OF GOVERNMENT OF 7. BANKING TRANSACTIONS UNDER BANK

GOVERNMENT TRANSACTIONS SECRECY LAW
Ongoing negotiations of government of Except when:
government transactions are not accessible to the a. involved in money laundering
public as a matter of right. b. there are already cases like plunder case filed by
Ombudsman
Chavez vs Public Estate Authority
There is a question on how this money bills There should be a case filed already in court and
regarding on the transactions of reclaimed lands. the information is relevant to the case. In which
The Supreme Court said the constitutional right to case, there is an exception to the banking
information includes information on ongoing
transaction kept as secret. (LOPEL Case)
negotiations before the final contract is
consummated.
8. DIPLOMATIC CORRESPONDENCE
The information however must constitute (Take 9. EXECUTIVE SESSIONS
Note of this qualification!!!) Definite propositions Sessions being held to the exclusion of the media
by the government and should not cover by the Congress for example in a legislative
recognized exceptions like: inquiry or investigation, or closed door cabinet
a. privilege communication deliberations.
b. military and diplomatic secrets 10. SC DELIBERATIONS
c. similar matters affecting the national security
and public order
NON-IMPRISONMENT FOR DEBT
Initiatives for Dialogue and Empowerment Article III, Section 20 provides:
through Alternative Legal Services, Inc. vs. Power No person shall be imprisoned for debt or non-
Sector Assets and Liabilities Management
payment of a poll tax.
Corporation
The duty to disclose covers only transactions
involving public interest, while the duty to allow Debt
access has a broader scope of information which It refers to any civil obligation arising from
embraces not only transactions involving public contract, expressed or implied.
interest, but any matter contained in official
communications and public documents of the
government agency.
Sura v. Martin
The defendant in a civil action was ordered
MATTERS THAT CANOT BE DISCLOSED arrested for contempt of court because of his
1. PRIVILEGE COMMUNICATION failure, owing to his insolvency, to pay the plaintiff
2. MILITARY AND DIPLOMATIC SECRETS past and future support. The Supreme Court held
3. TREATY NEGOTIATIONS that such arrest was invalid as it would in effect
What about treaty negotiations? Can they be authorize his imprisonment for debt in violation of
disclosed as accessible to the public? the Constitution.
NO.
People v, Merillo
The accused was charged with violation of a law
Akbayan vs Aquino
requiring employers to pay the salaries of their
The Jepepa controversy, SC emphasized that it has employees at least once every two weeks and
been BY TRADITION, treaty negotiations are providing that failure to do so shall be considered
confidential in nature. It is part of the presidents prima facie evidence of fraud committed through
executive privilege and the president is never false pretenses. The Supreme Court held the law to
compelled to disclose information pertaining to be valid, since what is being punished is the fraud
treaty negotiations. That is by nature confidential. or deceit of the employer who, being able to make
payment shall abstain or refuse to do so without
4. MATTERS OF NATIONAL SECURITY justification.
5. INTELIGENT INFORMATIONS
These are raw information from law enforcement Flores v. Tatad
investigation. The suspension of a civil servant for failure to pay
6. TRADE SECRETS a just and admitted debt is an administrative
sanction and does not violate the prohibition

JRCMENDOZA LAW ARCHIVES |13

 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2

against imprisonment for debt. investigation should not be deemed separate from
the preliminary investigation conducted by the
Poll Tax Office of the Ombudsman if the aggregate time
It is a specific fixed sum levied upon every person spent for both constitutes inordinate and
oppressive delay in the disposition of any case.
belonging to a certain class without regard to his
property or occupation.
If there is a delay in the conduct of preliminary
investigation for more than 3 years, that would
amount to denial of due process of law that would
INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE entitle the accused of the right to the dismissal of
Article III, Section 18 provides: the case.
(1) No person shall be detained solely by reason of
his political beliefs and aspirations. EFFECT OF DELAYED RESOLUTION
(2) No involuntary servitude in any form shall exist However in other cases in the courts where there
except as a punishment for a crime whereof the is a delay in the resolution of the case or the
party shall been duly convicted. decision of the case, this does not affect the
validity of the decision notwithstanding the delay.
EXCEPTIONS
1. For punishment of a crime forced labor The judgment or decision is valid. However, this is
2. Service in defense of the state without prejudice to administrative liability on the
3. Naval enlistment part of the judge for the delay.
4. Principle of force commitatus, able bodied
citizens of the community may be compelled to Thats why they are saying that insofar as
render service for the security of the community compliance with 3, 12 and 24 months is
5. Return to work order from NLRC concerned as required in the constitution in the
Refusal could mean dismissal from service resolution of the case insofar as speedy disposition,
6. On the basis of patea protestas of the discipline that is merely DIRECTORY in a sense that
of someone who is under 18 or under parental judgment is still valid even if it is rendered after
authority the lapse of the period given.

However it is MANDATORY as regards to the

SPEEDY DISPOSITION OF CASES judges and justices because that could be a
ground for disciplinary action.
Article III, Section 16 provides:
All persons shall have the right to a speedy
disposition of their cases before all judicial, quasi-
judicial or administrative bodies.

Gachon v. Devera
As a general principle, rules prescribing the time
within which certain acts must be done, or certain
proceedings taken, are considered absolutely
indispensable to the prevention of needless delays
and the orderly and speedy discharge of judicial
business. By their very nature, these rules are
regarded as mandatory.

Ombudsman v. Jurado
The Supreme Court ruled that a lapse of two years
from the submission of a fact-finding report and
recommendation and the assailed decision
cannot be considered as inordinate delay
amounting to a violation of respondents
constitutional rights.

People v. Sandiganbayan
The Supreme Court clarified that the fact-finding

JRCMENDOZA LAW ARCHIVES |14