EMINENT DOMAIN
REPUBLIC VS. PLDT - The power of eminent domain permits the government to impose
burdens upon private property for public use, provided just compensation is paid. The
interconnection of government and private telephone systems constitutes a burden analogous
to an easement of right of way, wherein private property is subjected to public use without
requiring a complete transfer of ownership or possession.
PEOPLE VS. FAJARDO - The Court ruled that while aesthetic regulations can be justified under
police power, they cannot amount to "taking" private property without compensation. Since the
ordinance effectively rendered the appellants' land unusable, it constituted an undue restriction
amounting to confiscation.
SUMULONG VS GUERRERO - Socialized housing, including slum clearance, relocation, and
improvement of living conditions, qualifies as a public purpose under both the 1973 and 1987
Constitutions.
EPZA VS. DULAY - compensation must be determined judicially, considering all relevant factors
such as market value, property improvements, and potential uses.
REPUBLIC VS. LIM - Ownership of the expropriated property does not transfer to the
government until just compensation is fully paid. Deliberate and unreasonable delays in
payment violate constitutional protections and due process. When the government acts as a
trespasser by failing to pay compensation, the landowner—or their successor-in-interest—is
entitled to recover possession.
AMIGABLE VS. CUENCA - The government’s immunity from suit cannot be used as an
instrument to perpetrate injustice. When private property is taken for public use without just
compensation, the government effectively waives its immunity.
PARAÑAQUE VS V.M REALTY CORPORATION - The Supreme Court ruled that a resolution
does not have the force and effect of an ordinance and cannot authorize the exercise of eminent
domain.
TAXATION
SISON VS. ANCHIETA - Uniformity does not mean that all taxpayers must be taxed identically.
Rather, it requires that individuals within the same class be taxed in the same manner.
Legislature has the discretion to adopt different tax treatment for different categories of
taxpayers to ensure fairness and efficiency.
PASCUAL VS. SEC. OF PUBLIC WORKS AND COMMUNICATIONS - Public funds must only
be appropriated for a public purpose. An appropriation law that benefits private individuals or
entities violates the Constitution.
PUNSALAN VS. MUNICIPAL COURT OF MANILA - Double taxation was not unconstitutional
per se and that a tax levied by a local government unit (LGU) was separate from one imposed
by the national government. The state and municipal governments are distinct taxing authorities,
and requiring professionals to pay both a national and municipal occupation tax did not violate
any constitutional provision.
LLADOC VS. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE - constitutional tax exemption only
applies to property taxes imposed on religious properties used exclusively for religious
purposes. The donee’s gift tax is an excise tax on the privilege of receiving a donation, not a
property tax. Thus, it does not fall under the constitutional exemption.
ABRA VALLEY COLLEGE VS. AQUINO - A property used primarily for educational purposes
remains tax-exempt under the Constitution, even if incidental use for non-educational purposes
exists, provided the primary purpose remains educational. However, portions of a property used
for commercial purposes may be subject to taxation.
DUE PROCESS
TAÑADA VS. TUVERA - all laws with general applicability, including executive orders and
presidential decrees, must be published in full in the Official Gazette to be binding and effective,
following the requirement under Article 2 of the Civil Code. The publication must occur promptly
to ensure public awareness and compliance, reinforcing the principles of transparency,
accountability, and the right to information in a democratic society. all laws with general
applicability, including executive orders and presidential decrees, must be published in full in the
Official Gazette to be binding and effective, following the requirement under Article 2 of the Civil
Code. The publication must occur promptly to ensure public awareness and compliance,
reinforcing the principles of transparency, accountability, and the right to information in a
democratic society.
REPUBLIC VS. EXPRESS TELECOMMUNICATION - Due process in the administrative context
is satisfied if the party affected is given a fair opportunity to present its case, and procedural
safeguards, such as hearings, are in place.
PHILIPPINE PHOSPHATE FERTILIZER CORP. V TORRES - Due process in administrative
proceedings does not necessarily require a formal hearing but only an opportunity to be heard,
which can be satisfied through written submissions.
ALONTE VS. SAVELLANO - The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of due process,
asserting that a fundamental aspect of a fair trial is that no one should be condemned without
the opportunity for a proper hearing.
ANIAG VS. COMELEC - Due process demands that a person must be informed of the charges
against them and given an opportunity to present their side before being held liable.
ANG TIBAY VS. CIR - Cardinal primary rights that must be respected in quasi-judicial
proceedings:
1. Right to a Hearing – Parties must be given the opportunity to present their case and
submit evidence in support of their claims.
2. Consideration of Evidence – The tribunal must consider the evidence presented and
cannot arbitrarily disregard it.
3. Decision Supported by Evidence – A ruling must be based on substantial evidence, not
mere conjecture or assumptions.
4. Substantial Evidence Standard – The evidence must be sufficient to justify the decision
reached.
5. Right to Know the Evidence Against Them – Parties must be informed of the opposing
evidence so they can rebut it.
6. Decision Based on Issues Raised – The ruling must be confined to the matters in dispute
and not on extraneous considerations.
7. Independence of Judgment – The decision must be made basedon the merits of the
case without undue influence or bias.
ADMU VS. CAPULONG - student disciplinary cases are administrative, notcriminal, and do not
require the same level of procedural rigor. The university ’s investigation, which was summary in
nature, was deemed sufficient.
YNOT VS. IAC - No person shall be deprived of property without notice and hearing. The
executive order automatically imposed confiscation of carabaos withoutjudicial determination,
allowing the police to seize property arbitrarily.
PHILCOMSAT VS. ALCUAZ - When an administrative agency exercises quasi-judicial functions,
it must provide notice and an opportunity for hearing as a fundamental aspect of due process.
SOUTHERN HEMISPHERE V. ANTI-TERRORISM COUNCIL - A statute or act suffers from the
defect of vagueness when it lacks comprehensible standards that men of common intelligence
must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application. It is repugnant to the
Constitution because it violates due process for failure to accord persons, especially the parties
targeted by it, fair notice of the conduct to avoid.
Statutes found vague as a matter of due process typically are invalidated only 'as applied' to a
particular defendant. Thus, absent an actual or imminent charge against the petitioner, a
vagueness analysis of the assailed statute is legally impermissible. In this case, since the
petitioners have not been charged with violation of the assailed law, the vagueness doctrine is
not applicable. (PERSON MUST FIRST BE CHARGED UNDER THE LAW BEFORE THEY
CAN CHALLENGE IT FOR BEING UNCLEAR)
MOSQUEDA V. PILIPINO BANANA GROWERS & EXPORTERS ASSOCIATION - “A valid
ordinance must not only be enacted within the corporate powers of the local government and
passed according to the procedure prescribed by law. In order to declare it as a valid piece of
local legislation, it must also comply with the following substantive requirements, namely:
(1) it must not contravene the Constitution or any statute;
(2) it must be fair, not oppressive;
(3) it must not be partial or discriminatory;
(4) it must not prohibit but may regulate trade;
(5) it must be general and consistent with public policy; and
(6) it must not be unreasonable.”
So long as the ordinance realistically serves a legitimate public purpose, and it employs means
that are reasonably necessary to achieve that purpose without unduly oppressing the individuals
regulated, the ordinance must survive a due process challenge.
EQUAL PROTECTION
PEOPLE VS. VERA - "Class legislation discriminating against some and favoring others is
prohibited. But classification on a reasonable basis, and not made arbitrarily or capriciously, is
permitted. The classification, however, to be reasonable must be:
a. based on substantial distinctions which make real differences;
b. it must be germane to the purposes of the law;
c. it must not be limited to existing conditions only, and
d. must apply equally to each member of the class."
extra context: The Court observed that the Probation Act's Section 11 allowed probation to be
available in some provinces but not in others, depending on whether local governments
allocated funds for probation officers. This created a system where individuals similarly
situated—those eligible for probation—could receive its benefits in one province but be denied
them in another simply due to financial decisions made by local governments. The Court found
this to be an impermissible form of discrimination, as the availability of a statutory right should
not be contingent on the discretionary financial decisions of provincial boards. (A law may
appear to be fair on its face and impartial in appearance, yet, if it permits of unjust and illegal
discrimination, it is within the constitutional prohibition.")
VILLEGAS VS. HIU CHIONG TSAI PAO HO. - "Although the equal protection clause of the
Constitution does not forbid classification, it is imperative that the classification should be based
on real and substantial differences having a reasonable relation to the subject of the particular
legislation."
alternative: By vesting unchecked power in the Mayor, the ordinance created an opportunity for
discriminatory application, which offends the equal protection clause. The Supreme Court
referenced previous rulings where laws were struck down because they gave unrestricted and
standardless discretion to government officials
DUMLAO VS. COMELEC - The equal protection clause does not prohibit reasonable
classifications as long as they are based on substantial distinctions that are relevant to the
purpose of the law.
PEOPLE VS. CAYAT - Even if some individuals within the classified group suffer incidental
disadvantages, the court emphasizes that public welfare takes precedence. The classification is
upheld as serving a legitimate state interest—promoting order and the gradual assimilation of
non-Christian tribes into broader Philippine society.
The court concludes that Act No. 1639 does not violate the Equal Protection Clause because:
The classification is based on real distinctions. It serves a legitimate state purpose (peace,
order, and assimilation). It applies equally to all non-Christian tribes. It is not an arbitrary or
oppressive exercise of state power
RIGHT AGAINST UNREASONABLE SEARCHES AND SEIZURE
PEOPLE VS. MARTI - The constitutional right against unreasonable searches and seizures
applies only to acts of the State and its agents, not to private individuals acting independently
and without government participation. Evidence obtained through a search conducted by a
private party, such as a freight forwarding agent, without the involvement of law enforcement
authorities, does not violate constitutional guarantees and is therefore admissible. The Bill of
Rights protects individuals only from unlawful intrusions by the government, not from similar acts
by private persons acting on their own initiative.
STONEHILL VS. DIOKNO - Search warrant must particularly describe the place to be searched
and the things to be seized.Established the exclusionary rule in Philippine jurisprudence,
declaring that any evidence obtained by virtue of these defective search warrants was
inadmissible in evidence.
SOLIVEN VS. MAKASIAR - It is sufficient that the judge “personally determine” the existence of
probable cause. It is not necessary that he should personally examine the complainant and his
witnesses.
PAPA VS. MAGO - Customs agents may conduct warrantless searches and seizures of
vehicles, warehouses, or goods suspected of illegal importation, pursuant to the police authority
granted under the Tariff and Customs Code. The Bureau of Customs acquires jurisdiction over
goods the moment they are seized pursuant to customs laws—even if seizure is outside a
customs port—and regular courts cannot interfere by ordering the release of such goods.
Warrantless seizure of moving vehicles (like trucks) is allowed if there is reasonable cause to
suspect that contraband or undeclared goods are being transported, citing the mobile nature of
such targets
(it underscores the doctrine that effective enforcement of customs regulation does not
necessitate a search warrant for goods moving through public spaces, contingent on reasonable
suspicion from duly authorized customs officials.)
RIGHT TO PRIVACY
OPLE VS. TORRES - The right to privacy is a fundamental constitutional right that is protected
independently of its association with liberty. Any governmental measure that intrudes on this
right must pass strict scrutiny — it must be justified by a compelling state interest and must be
narrowly drawn to avoid unnecessary intrusion. The Supreme Court struck down Administrative
Order No. 308 (National Computerized Identification Reference System) for being
unconstitutional, as it posed a clear and present danger to the right to privacy due to its
vagueness, lack of safeguards, and potential for abuse. The Court emphasized that personal
data collection and biometric encoding must have well-defined limits, proper standards, and
legal safeguards to prevent authoritarian control over individual freedoms.
VIVARES VS. STC - The SC ruled on the extent of the right to privacy in social media,
particularly for minors, and the authority of schools to implement disciplinary actions based on
off-campus conduct that affects the school's interests.
The Supreme Court held that minors who post photos on social media platforms, even with
privacy settings limiting access to "Friends Only", may have a diminished expectation of privacy.
This is because, despite such settings, the information can still be accessed by individuals
within their network who can then share it with others, as happened in this case. The Court
essentially recognised the inherent limitations of privacy settings in the interconnected digital
environment.
The Court affirmed the authority of St. Theresa's College (STC) to impose disciplinary sanctions
on students for conduct, even if it occurs off-campus, when such conduct adversely affects the
welfare of the students or the reputation and image of the school. The taking of "digital pictures
of themselves in skimpy clothing and drinking liquor" and the subsequent posting on Facebook
were deemed by the school as acts constituting "disorderly conduct and misbehaviour" subject
to disciplinary action.
The petitioners sought the issuance of a writ of habeas data, arguing that the school unlawfully
gathered information pertaining to them. However, the Supreme Court, in affirming the dismissal
of the petition, implicitly ruled that the writ is not intended to protect information that has been
voluntarily disclosed by the individual, even if shared with a limited audience. The fact that the
photos were shared, even with privacy settings, meant they were not gathered by the school
through illegal means in the context of habeas data.
The Court balanced the students' right to privacy with the school's legitimate interest in
maintaining discipline and protecting its reputation.
ZULUETA VS. CA - Privacy in communication is a fundamental principle protected by the
Constitution, which bears relevance even between spouses. Marriage does not absolve one of
their right to privacy or integrity. The Court highlighted that any private communication kept in
confidence cannot be divulged or seized without mutual consent, and the law allows exceptions
only under specific legal circumstances such as lawful court orders or public safety concerns.
Thus, the constitutional protection against unreasonable searches and seizures extends to the
marital relationship, safeguarding the sanctity of privacy. Violations of this provision render any
evidence obtained inadmissible in any proceeding.
FREEDOM OF SPEECH, EXPRESSION, PRESS, ASSEMBLY, AND
PETITION
DIOCESE OF BACOLOD VS. COMELEC - Tarpaulins were not merely campaign propaganda
but a legitimate expression of views on public issues. The size limitations were deemed
content-based regulations that failed to meet strict scrutiny as the
COMELEC did not demonstrate a compelling interest. The Court clarified that COMELEC's
regulatory powers over election propaganda apply only to candidates and political parties, not
private individuals or institutions expressing their own views. Freedom of speech and
expression may only be abridged under the context of a compelling state interest.
UNITED STATES VS. BUSTOS - Public officials are subject to public criticism and scrutiny. The
right of citizens to express grievances and to demand accountability from government officials is
essential to democracy. Communications made in good faith and addressed to proper
authorities (e.g., a petition to remove a judge) are considered qualifiedly privileged. Such
privilege protects the authors from libel liability, unless actual malice is proven.
REYES VS. BAGATSING - Permits for rallies and assemblies in public places must be granted
unless the State can clearly show a grave and imminent danger to public order or safety. Public
parks and streets, like Luneta and Roxas Boulevard, are traditional public forums that must
remain accessible for expression and protest. Mere claims of possible subversive activity do not
satisfy the “clear and present danger” standard.
RELIGIOUS FREEDOM AND NON ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION
AGLIPAY VS. RUIZ - Government actions that incidentally benefit a religious group do not
necessarily violate the separation of church and state if the primary purpose is secular and the
religious benefit is unintended or secondary.
GARCES VS. ESTENZO - The Constitution prohibits the establishment of religion or the use of
public money for religious purposes, but it does not ban all governmental involvement with
religion, particularly when incidental and non-discriminatory. Government involvement in
religious-themed community traditions (like fiestas) does not violate the Constitution if done
without the use of public funds or favoritism toward a particular sect.
EBRALINAG VS. DIVISION SUPERINTENDENT OF CEBU - Students cannot be compelled to
participate in patriotic exercises, such as flag ceremonies, when such participation violates their
sincere religious beliefs, if they do not disrupt public order. The State’s interest in promoting
patriotism does not override constitutionally protected religious freedoms, especially when no
compelling interest or actual harm is proven.
IMBONG VS. OCHOA - The State must not coerce conscience, nor force individuals to act
against sincerely held religious beliefs, particularly on moral matters such as contraception and
reproductive health. Religious freedom occupies a preferred position in the hierarchy of rights,
and the State may not penalize or discriminate against conscientious objectors when their
refusal to act is grounded on sincere religious conviction.
context: The Court highlighted that this compelled referral forced healthcare providers to
indirectly participate in acts that their religious conscience found morally repugnant. This was
seen as a violation of the principle of non-coercion under the constitutional right to free exercise
of religion, which mandates that individuals should not be compelled to act against their
religious beliefs.
Thus, while the RH Law aimed to provide access to reproductive health services, it did not meet
the strict scrutiny test because it burdened religious freedom without a sufficiently compelling
state interest to justify that burden. The Court struck down the relevant provisions (Sections 7,
23, and 24) for this reason.
ESTRADA VS. ESCRITOR - The Philippine Constitution upholds a doctrine of "benevolent
neutrality with accommodation" in interpreting the Free Exercise Clause of religious freedom.
This means that the State must not merely be neutral with respect to religion but must also
accommodate religious practices, even to the extent of granting exemptions from laws of
general application if no compelling state interest is shown to justify the burden on religious
freedom.
