Article III Bill of Rights

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

Section 1. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due
process of law nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the law.
1. Purpose of the Bill of Rights
2. Three Great Powers of Government
3. Police Power
Lozano v. Martinez, GR No. L-63419, December 18, 1986
4. The Seat of Police Power
MMDA v. Bel-Air Village Association, etc GR No. 135962, March 27, 2000
5. Primacy of Human Rights
Republic v. Sandiganbayan GR 104768, July 21, 2003
Mijares v. Ranada, GR 139325, April 12, 2005
6. Hierarchy of Rights: Life, Liberty, Property
Philippine Blooming Mills Employees Organization v. Philippine Blooming Mills
Co. Inc., 51 SCRA 189
Salonga v. Pano, GR No. L-59524, February 18, 1985
Victoriano v. Elizalde Rope Workers Union, GR No. L-25246, Sept. 12, 1974
Social Justice Society, et al v. Atienza, Jr., GR No. 156052, February 13, 2008
7. Due Process: In General
Tupas v. CA, 193 SCARA 597
Asilo v. People, 645 SCRA 41
8. Procedural Due Process
In General
Banco Espanol Filipino v. Palanca 37 P 921

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

Aspects of the Proceedings
Galvez v. CA 237 SCRA 685
State Prosecutor v. Muros 236 SRCA 505Martinez v. CA 237 SCRA 395
Espeleta v. Avelino 62 SCRA 395
Rabino v. Cruz 222 SCRA 493
Ysmael v. CA 273 SCRA 165
Carvajal v CA 280 SCRA 351
People v. Castillio 289 SCRA 213
Cosep v. peo 290 SCRA 378
Rodrigo v. Sandiganbayan GR 125498 Feb. 18, 1999
People v. Huli 338 SCRA 2000
People v. Cabiles 341 SCRA 2000
Gozum v. Liangco 339 SCRA 253
Soriano v. Angeles 339 SCRA 253
Villanueva v. Malaya 330 SCRA 278
Almendras v. Asis 330 SCRA 69
3. 2004-30034 BONGABONG, RONNY S. LLB
Dayot v. Garcia 353 SCRA 280
People v. Hapa GR 125698 July 19, 2001
Aguirre v. people GR 144142 August 23, 2001
Puyat v. Zabarte 352 SCRA 738
Baritua v. Mercader 350 SCRA 86
Barbers v. Laguio 351 SCRA 606
People v. Herida 353 SCRA 650
People v. Medenilla GR 1311638 Mar. 26, 2001
People v. Rivera GR 139180 July. 31, 2001
People v. Basques GR 144035 Sept. 27, 2001
Cooperative Development v. DOLEFIL GR 137489 May 29, 2002
Garcia v. Pajaro GR 141149 July 5, 2002

Briaso v. Mariano, GR 137265, Jan. 31, 2003

Macias v. Macias GR 1461617, Sept. 3, 2003
Albior v. Auguis, AM P-01-1472, June 6, 2003
Republic v. Sandiganbayan, GR 152154, Nov. 18, 2003

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

Ty v. Banco Filipino Savings and Mortgage Bank, 422 SCRA 649
People v. Larranaga, 412 SCRA 530
R. Transport v. Philhino 494 SCRA 630
Trans Middle East v. Sandiganbayan 499 SCRA 308
Uy v. First Metro 503 SCRA 704
Deutsche Bank v. Chua 481 SCRA 672
People v. Santos 501 SCRA 325
Victoriano v. People 509 SCRA 483
Santos v. DOJ 543 SCRA 70
DBP v. Feston 545 SCRA 422
Ruivivar v. OMB 565 SCRA 324
Borromeo v. Garcia 546 SCRA 543
Cesar v. OMB 553 SCRA 357
DAR v. Samson 554 SCRA 500
Hilano v. People 551 SCRA 191
Pastona v. CA 559 SCRA 137
5. 2006-00439 DOMINGO, BON DOMINIQUE J. LLB
Bibas v. OMB 559 SCRA 591
Espina v. Cerujano 550 SCRA 107
Geronga v. Varela 546 SCRA 429
OMB v. Magno GR 178923, Nov. 27, 2008
Avenido v. CSC 553 SCRA 711
Romuladez v. COMELEC 553 SCRA 370
Multi-Trans Agency v. Oriental 590 SCRA 675
Siochi v. BPI 193872, October 18, 2011
Catacutan v. People 656 SCRA 524
Mortel v. Kerr 685 SCRA 1 (clear violation and errors of counsel)
Gravides v. COMELEC 685 SCRA 382 (error of counsel)

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

Publicity and T.V. Coverage
Webb v. de Leon 247 SCRA 652
People v. Teechankee 249 SCRA 54
People v. Sanchez GR 121039-45 Jan. 25, 1999
People v. Sanchez GR 121039 Oct. 18, 2001
Perez v. Estrada A.M. No. 01-4-03-SC June 29, 2001
Perez v. Estrada A.M. No. 01-4-03-SC Sept. 13, 2001
People v. Roxas- 628 SCRA 378
Administrative; Quasi-Judicial Proceedings; Arbitration
1. In General Administrative due process
Ang Tibay v. CIR 69 P 635
Dazon v. Yap - 610 SCRA 19
2. Judges and Disciplinary Process
OCA v. Pascual 259 SCRA 125
Valenzuela v. Bellosillo 322 SCRA 536

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

3. Aspects of the Proceedings
Lumiqued v. Exevea 282 SCRA 125
Fabella v. CA 282 SCRA 256
Joson v.Exec. Sec. 290 SCRA 279
Busuego v. CA GR 95325 Mar. 11, 1999
CSC v. Lucas GR 127838 Jan. 21, 1999
NPC v. Bernabe 332 SCRA 74
Summary Dismissal v. Torcita 330 SCRA 153
Velayo v. Comelec 327 SCRA 713
Ramoran v. Jardine 326 SCRA 208
Immam v. Comelec 322 SCRA 866
Villarosa v. Comelec GR 133927 Nov. 29, 1999
Go v. Comelec GR 147741 May 10, 2001
8. 2010-05891 KINANG, JEZRILL CARADO. LLB

Mollaneda v. Umacob R 140128 June 6, 2001

Cruz v. CSC GR 144469 Nov 27, 2001
Condilla v. De Venecia GR 150605 Dec 10, 2002
Associated Communication v. Dumlao GR 136762 Nov. 21, 2002
Velllarosa v. Pomperada, AdminCase No. 5310, Jan. 28, 2003
Alauya v. Comelec, GR 152151-52, Jan. 22, 2003
Spouses Casimiro v. CA 135911, Feb. 11, 2003
Sy v. CA, GR 147572, Feb. 27, 2003
Namil v. Comelecc, GR 15040, Oct. 28, 2003
Bautista v. Comelec, GR 154796-97, Oct. 23, 2003
Office of OMB v. Coronel 493 SCRA 392
Erece v. Macalingay 552 SCRA 320

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

Marcelo v. Bungubung 552 SCRA 589
SEC v. Interport 567 SCRA 354
Calinisan v. Roaquin 630 456
IBP v. Atienza 613 SCRA 518
Domingo v. OMB 577 SCRA 476
Zambales v. CAstellejos 581 SCRA 320
OMB v. Evangelista 581 SCRA 350
Phil Export v. Pearl City 608 SCRA 280
Pichay v. Office of the Deputy Executive Secretary 677 SCRA 408
Arroyo v. DOJ 681 SCRA 181
4. Extradition Proceedings
Sec, of Justice v. Lantion 343 SCRA 377
Cuevas v. Munoz GR 140520 Dec. 18, 2000
Govt. of U.S.A v. Purganan GR 148571 Sept. 24, 2002
Rodriguez v. Presiding Judge, 483 SCRA 290
Govt. of Hong Kong v. Olalia, GR 153675 April 19, 2007

10.
ARIPIN, ZORAIDA
5. Arbitration
RCBC v. Banco de Oro 687 SCRA 583
Academic Discipline

1. In General
Angeles v. Sison 112 SCRA 26
Malabanan v. Ramento 129 SCRA 359
Guzman v. NU 142 SCRA 699
Alcuaz v. PSBA 161 SCRA 7
Non v. Judge Dames 185 SCRA 523
ADMU v. Capulong 222 SCRA 644
U.P. v. Ligot-Telan 227 SCRA 342
Go v. Colegio De San Juan de Letran 683 SCRA 358

11.
2014-03653 MORALES, RONNIE BALTAZAR. LLB
Deportation Proceeding
1. In General
Lao Gi v. CA 180 SCRA 756
Domingo v Scheer, 421 SCRA 468
Regulations: Fixing of Rates and Regulation of Profession
1.

Rates
Philcomsat y. Alcuaz 180 SCRA 218
Randiocom v. NTC 184 SCRA 517
Maceda v. ERB 199 SCRA 454
Globe Telecom c. NTC, 435 SCRA 110

2. Profession
Corona v. UHPAP 283 SCRA 31
Dismissals, Suspension, Reinstatement etc.
1. Dismissals in Government Boards and Commissions
Abalos c. CSC 196 SCRA 81
GSIS v. CSC 201 SCRA 661
Macayayong v. Ople 204 SCRA 372
Gonzales v. CSC 226 SCRA 66
Go. V. NPC 271 SCRA 447
CHR v. CSC 227 SCRA 42
Uy v. COA 328 SCRA 607

Lameyra v. Pangilinan 322 SCRA 117

NPC v. Zozobrado, 487 SCRA 16
PAGCOR v. CA, GR 185668, December 13, 2011

12.

2010-03006 NILLAS, ROBERTO MUSA. LLB

2. Dismissals in Private Sector

Hellinic v. Siete 195 SCRA 179
Salaw v. NLRC 202 SCRA 7
Conti v. NLRC, GR 119253 April 10, 1997
Aparente v. NLRC, GR 117652
Lopez v. Alturas 647 SCRA 566
3. Preventive Suspension
Alonzo v. Capulong 244 SCRA 80
Castillio Co v. Barbers 290 SCRA 717
Bacsasar v. CSC 576 SCRa 787
Carabeo v. CA 607 SCRA 390
Ordinance/Status/Memo Cir/Rules
People v. Nazario 165 SCRA 136
Franscisco v. CA 199 SCRA 595
Misamis Or. V. DOF 238 SCRA 63
Estrada v. Sandiganbayan GR 148560 Nov. 19, 2001

13.

2011-03028 OMBRA, JHEMHAR INDASAN. LLB

Motion for Reconsideration

Mendenilla v. CSC 194 SCRA 278
Mendenilla v. CSC 221 SCRA 295
Rodreguez v. Proj. 6 247 SCRA 528
Lazo v. CSC 236 SCRA 469
Salonga v. CA 269 SCRA 534
Bernardo v. CA 275 SCRA 413
Casuela v. Ombudsman 276 SCRA 635
Cordenillio v. Executive Secretary 276 SCRA 652

Chua v. CA 287 SCRA 33

De la Cruz v. Abelle 352 SCRA 691
Rodreguez v. CA GR 134275 August 7, 2002
Gonzales v. CSC 490 SCRA 741
Berboso v. CA 494 SCRA 583
Pontejos v. Desierto 592
I. Suretyship
Stronghold Insurance v. CA 205 SCRA 605
J. Tariff and Customs Code
Feeder v. CA 197 SCRA 842

14.
K. Appeal

2002-30796 PATALINGHUG, VRAMIE L. LLB

Alba v. Deputy Ombudsman 254 SCRA 753

Telan v. CA 202 SCRA 246
Rivera v. CSC 240 SCRA 43
Singson v. NLRC 274 SCRA 358
Building Care v. Macaraeg 687 SCRA 643
L. Closure Proceeding
CB v. CA 220 SCRA 536
Rural Bank v. CA 162 SCRA 288
Phil. Merchants v. CA GR 112844 June 2, 1995
M. Biddings
Concerned Officials v. Vasquez, 240 SCRA 502
N. UDHA RA 7279
Perez v. Madrona 668 SCRA 696
O. Cancellation of Property Rights/Privileges

American Inter-Fashion v. OP, 197 SCRA 409

Alliance of DFLO v. Laguesma, 254 SCRA 565
ABAKADA v. Ermita, 469 SCRA 1
British American Tobacco v. Camacho 562 SCRA 511, 585 SCRA 36

15.

2011-03178 SALADAGA, SHERLYN VERNIE MONTERON. LLB

P. Administrative and Preliminary Investigation-Ombudsman

Roxas v. Vasquez GR 114944 June 19, 2001
Ocampo v. Ombudsman 322 SCRA 17
Serapio v. Sandiganbayan GR 148468 Jan. 28, 2003
9. Substantive Due Process
US v. Toribio 15 Phil. 85
Churchill v. Rafferty 32 Phil. 580
People v. Fajardo 104 Phil. 443
Ermita-Malate Hotel & Operator v. City of Manila 20 SCRA 849
Ynot v. Intermediate Court of Appeals 148 SCRA 659
Agustin v. Edu, 88 SCRA 195
Balacuit v. CFI 163 SCRA 182
National Development Co. and New Agrix v. Phil. Vet. Bank 192 SCRA 257
Maranaw Hotel v. NLRC 238 SCRA 190
Magtajas v. Pryce Properties 234 SCRA 255
Bennis v. Michigan No. 94-8729 March 4, 1996
Cruzan v. Dir. Missouri No. 88-1503 June 25 1990
JMM Promotion and Management Inc. v. CA 260 SCRA 319

16.

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

Corona v. United Harbor 283 SCRA 31

Kelly v. Johnson 425 US 238
Chavez v. Romulo 431 SCRA 534 (2004)

Cruz v. Flavier, GR 135385, December 6, 2000

Smith Kline v. CA, GR 121267, October 23, 2001
Pareno v. COA 523 SCRA 390
Esponcilla v. Bagong Tanyag 529 SCRA 654
BF v. City Mayor 515 SCRA 1
St. Lukes v. NLRC 517 SCRA 677
Carlos v. DSWD 526 SCRA 130
Perez v. LPG 531 SCRA 431
MMDA v. Viron 530 SCRA 341
Sec. of DND v. Manalo 568 SCRA 42 (Amparo)
SJS v. DDB 570 SCRA 410
SJS v. Atienza 545 SCRA 92
SEC v. Interport 567 SCRA 354
People v. Siton 600 SCRA 476
White Light v. City of Manila 576 SCRA 416
CREBA v. Romula 614 SCRA 605
Southern Hemisphere v. ATC 632 SCRA 146
Roxas v. Macapagal-Arroyo 630 SCRA 211
Meralco v. Lim 632 SCRA 195
Pollo v. Karina Constantino. GR 181881, October 8, 2011
Sto. Tomas v. Paneda 685 SCRA 245

17.

2006-30657 TAGA-OC, ALLAN R. LLB

10. Equal Protection of the Law

REQUISITES of VALID CLASSIFICATION:

It must rest on Substantial distinctions
It must be germane to the purpose of the law.
It must not be limited to existing conditions only.
It must apply equally to all members of the same class.
Standards of Judicial Review
a) Rational Basis Test: described as adopting a deferential attitude towards
legislative classifications. It applies to legislative classifications in general, such
as those pertaining to economic or social legislation.

b) Strict Scrutiny Test: A legislative classification which impermissibly

interferes with the exercise of a fundamental right or operates to the peculiar
disadvantage of a suspect class is presumed unconstitutional, and the burden
is upon government to prove that the classification is necessary to achieve a
compelling state interest and that it is the least restrictive means to protect
such interest. This is used on issues of speech, gender, and race.
c) Intermediate Scrutiny Test: government must show that the challenged
classification serves an important state interest and that the classification is at
least substantially related to serving that interest.
People v. Cayat 68 PHIL. 12, 18
Ichong v. Hernandez 101 PHIL. 1155
Villegas v. Hiu Chiong Tsai Pao Ho 86 SCRA 270
Dumlao v. COMELEC 96 SCRA 392
Goesart v. Cleary - 335 US 464
Ormoc Sugar Central v. Ormoc City Feb. 7, 1968
Sison, Jr. v. PAGCOR May 14, 1991
Republic v. Sandiganbayan 230 SCRA 711
Himagan v. People 237 SCRA 538
Almonte v. Vasquez 244 SCRA 286
Telebap v. COMELEC 289 SCRA 337
Tiu v. CA GR 127410 Jan. 20, 1999
Aguinaldo v. COMELEC GR 132774 June 21, 1999
De Guzman v. COMELEC 336 SCRA
People v. Mercado GR 116239, Nov. 29, 2000
People v. Jalosjos 324 SCRA 689
People v. Piedra 350 SCRA 163
International School v. Quisumbing June 1, 2000
Central Bank Employees Assn. v. BSP 446 SCRA 299
Ycasuegi v. PAL 569 SCRA 467
SJS v. Atienza 545 SCRA 92
Gobenciong v. CA 550 SCRA 302
MIAA v. Olongapo 543 SCRA 269
Nicolas v. Romulo 578 SCRA 438
League of Cities v. COMELEC 608 SCRA 636
Quinto v. COMELEC 613 SCRA 385
CREBA v. Romulo 614 SCRA 605 (supra)
NPC v. Pinatubo 616 SCRA 611

Biraogo v. PTC 637 SCRA 78

League v. COMELEC 643 SCRA 149
PAGCOR v. BIR 645 SCRA 338
Gancayco v. Quezon City 658 SCRA 853
Mendoza v. People, GR 183891, October 19, 2011
Bureau of Customs v. Teves, GR 181704, December 6, 2011
Pichay v. Office of the Deputy Executive Secretary (supra)
Alvez v. People 677 SCRA 673
Garcia v. People 677 SCRA 750
Arroyo v. DOJ
Sto. Tomas v. Paneda 685 SCRA 245

18.

2011-03738 TAMAYAO, ALLAN CALUBAQUIB. LLB

Section 2. The right to of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,

papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever
nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no search warrant or
warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined
personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the
complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing
the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.
1. Purpose of Section 2
2. Scope of the Protection
Moncada v. Peoples Court, 80 PHIL 1
Stonehill v. Diokno, 20 SCRA 383
People v. Marti, 193 SCRA 57
Waterous Drug Corp. v. NLRC, GR 113271, Oct 16, 1997
People v. Mendoza, GR 109279, Jan 18, 1999
People v. Bongcarawan, GR 143944, July 11, 2002
3. Requisites for a Valid Warrant
A. Probable Cause
I. Definition

Henry v. US, 361 US 98

For Arrest:
People v. Syjuco, 64 Phil 667
Alvarez v. CFI , 64 Phil 33
Webb v. De Leon, GR 121234, August 23, 1995
For Search:
Burgos v. Chief of Staff, 133 SCRA 800
Prudente v. Dayrit, 180 SCRA 69
II. Who Determines Probable Cause?
People v. CA, GR 126005, Jan 21, 1999
III. Kind of Evidence Needed to Establish Probable Cause
Microsoft Corp. v. Maxicorp, GR 140946, Sept. 13, 2004

19.

2005-00267 TANJUSAY, MARIA KATRINA S. LLB

IV. In General
Nala v. Barroso, GR 153087 Aug. 7, 2003
Betoy v. Judge AM NO. MJJ-05-1108, Feb 26, 2006
20th Century Fox v. CA, 162 SCRA 655
Columbia Pictures v. CA, 262 SCRA 219
B. Personally Determined by the Judge
Placer v. Villanueva, 126 SCRA 463
Lim v. Judge Fenix, 194 SCRA 292
People v. Inting, 187 SCRA 788
People v. Delgado, 189 SCRA 715
Allado v. Diokno 232 SCRA 192
Gozos v. Tac-an GR 123191, Dec. 17, 1998
Flores v. Sumaljag 290 SCRA 568
C. Personal Examination (After Examination Under Oath or Affirmation the
Complainant and the Witnesses He May Produce)
Bache & Co. v Ruiz 37 SCRA 823
Soliven v. Makasiar, GR 8287, Nov. 14 1981

Luna v. Plaza, 26 SCRA 310

Kho v. Judge Makalintal, GR 94902-06, April 21, 1999
Alvarez v. Court, 64 Phil 33
Bache v. Cruz, 37 SCRA 823
Borlongan v. Pena, GR 143591, Nov. 23, 2007
People v. Mamaril, GR 147607, Jan 22 2004
Ortiz v. Palaypayon 234 SCRA 391

20.

2004-30471 TORRES, ROMEL G. LLB

D. Particularity of Description
People v. Veloso 48 Phil 169
Alvarez v. CFI 64 Phil. 33
Corro v. Lising 137 SCRA 541
Pangandaman v. Casar, 159 SCRA 599 (1988)
Stonehill v. Diokno (1967)
People v. Martinez 235 SCRA 171
Microsoft Corp. v. Maxicorp (2004)
Burgos v. Chief of Staff, AFP 133 SCRA 890
Frank Uy v. BIR , 344 SCRA 36
Yousex Al-Ghoul v. CA GR 126859 Sept. 4 , 2001
People v. CA 291 SCRA 400
Paper Industries v. Asuncion, GR 122092 May 19, 1998
Malalaon v. CA, 232 SCRA 249
People v. Estrada GR 124461, June 26, 2000

21. 2014-03877 VIDAS, MARYLIZ TORRES. LLB

4. Only a Judge May Issue a Warrant
Salazar v. Achcoso, 183 SCRA 145
Republic (PCGG) v. Sandiganbayan, 255 SCRA 438
Morano v. Vivo, 80 SCRA 562
Sy v. Domingo
Tron Van Nyhia v. Liway, 175 SCRA 318
Board of Commissioners v. Judge De La Rosa, 197 SCRA 853
Harvey v. Santiago 162 SCRA 840
Ho vs. People 280 SCRA 365

*Administrative Arrest (Exceptions to the rule that only a judge may issue a
warrant):
Commissioner of Immigration and Deportation may issue warrants to carry out
a final finding of a violation. (Board of Commissioners v. Judge De La Rosa, 197
SCRA 853) It is issued after a proceeding has taken place.
5. Of Whatever Nature and for Any Purpose
Material Distributions v. Judge, 84 Phil 127 (1989)
Oklahoma Press v. Walling, 327 US 186
Camara v. Municipal Court, 387 US 523 ( 1967)

21.

VILLOTA, SOCRATES

6. Warrantless Searches and Seizures

A. General Rule: Get a Search Warrant.
People v. Aminuddin, 163 SCRA 402
People v. Valdez, 341 SCRA 85
B. When is a search a search?
Valmonte v. General de Villa 178 SCRA 211 (Main) and 185 SCRA 655
(MR)
Guazon v. De Villa 181 SCRA 623
C. No Presumption of Regularity in Search Cases
People v. Tudtud, GR 144037, Sept 26, 2003
Sony Music v. Judge Espanol, GR 156804, March 14, 2005
D. Instances of Warrantless Searches and Seizures
List: People v. Sevilla 339 SCRA 625
i. Incidental to a Lawful Arrest
Sec. 12 Rule 16, Rules of Court
Two Requisites:

1. Item to be searched was within the arrestees custody or area of

immediate control.
2. Search was contemporaneous with an arrest.
Padilla v. CA, GR 121917 March 12, 1997
Espano v. CA 288 SCRA 558 (1998)
People v. De Lara 236 SCRA 291
People v. Leangsiri 252 SCRA 213
People v. Cuenco GR 128277, Nov. 16, 1998
People v. Che Chun Ting 328 SCRA 592

22.
NALZARO, JESSIE
ii. Plain View
Requisites:
1. Prior valid intrusion
2. Evidence was inadvertently discovered by the police
3. Illegality of the evidence is immediately apparent; and
4. Noticed without further search.
People v. Evaristo, 216 SCRA 413
People v. Tabar, 222 SCRA 144 (1993)
Roan v. Gonzales, 145 SCRA 687
United Laboratories v. Isip GR 163858 (June 28, 2005)
People v. Doria GR 125299, Jan. 22, 1999
Del Rosario v. People, GR 142295, May 31, 2001

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

iii. Moving Vehicle
There must be a highly reasonable suspicion amounting to probable cause that
the occupant committed a criminal activity.
Hizon v. Court of Appeals, 265 SCRA 517 (1996)
Bagalihog v. Fernandez 198 SCRA 614
Aniag, Jr v. COMELEC, 237 SCRA 424 (1994)
People v. Aminuddin, 163 SCRA 402
People v. Malmstedt, GR 91107, June 19, 1991
People v. Lo Ho Wing, GR 88017, Jan 21, 1991
People v. Saycon 236 SCRA 329
People v. CFI 101 SCRA 86
People v. Barros 231 SCRA 557
Mustang Lumber v. CA 257 SCRA 430
People v. Lacerna 278 SCRA 561

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

iv. Consent/Waiver
Requisites:
1.It must appear that the right exists.
2. The person involved had knowledge, either actual or constructive, of the
existence of the right.

3. The person had actual intention to relinquish the right.

De Garcia v. Locsin, 65 PHIL 689
Caballes v. Court of Appeals, GR 136292, Jan 15, 2002
People v. Agbot, 106 SCRA 325
Lopez v. Commissioner of Customs, 68 SCRA 320 (1975)
People v. Damaso, 212 SCRA 457
People v. Asis, GR 142531, October 15, 2002
Spouses Veroy v. Layague, GR 95632, June 18, 1992
People v. Omaweng, 213 SCRA 462
People v. Correa, 285 SCRA 679
People v. Ramos, 222 SCRA 557
People v. Tudtud, GR 144037, Sept 26, 2003
People v. Tabar 222 SCRA 144
People v. Encinada 280 SCRA 72
People v. Aruta 288 SCRA 626
v. Customs Search
Papa v. Mago, 22 SCRA 857
Pacis v. Pamaran, 56 SCRA 16
People v. Gatward, 267 SCRA 785
People v. Susan Canton, GR 148825, December 27, 2002
People v. Johnson 348 SCRA 526

3. 2004-30034 BONGABONG, RONNY S. LLB

vi. Stop and Frisk Situation
Malacat: Where a police officer observes unusual conduct which leads him
reasonably to conclude in light of his experience that criminal activity may be
afoot and that the person with whom he is dealing may be armed and that the
person with whom he is dealing may be armed and presently dangerous, where
in the course of investigation of this behavior he identifies himself as a
policeman and makes reasonable inquiries, and where nothing in the initial
stages of the encounter serves to dispel his reasonable fear for his own or
others safety, he is entitled for the protection of himself and others in the area
to conduct a carefully limited search of the outer clothing of such person in an
attempt to discover weapons which might be used to assault him.

Malacat (1997): Probable cause is not required. However, mere suspicion or a

hunch is not enough. Rather, a genuine reason must exist, in light of the
police officers experience and surrounding conditions, to warrant the belief
that the person detained has weapons concealed about him.
Terry v. Ohio 392 US 1
Posadas v. CA, GR NO. 89139, August 2, 1990
People v. Solayao 202 SCRA 255 (1996)
Malacat v. CA 283 SCRA 159 (1997)
Manalili v. CA, GR 113447, October 7, 1997
People v. Aruta, 288 SCRA 626 (1998)
People v. Sy Chua, GR 136066, February 4, 2003
vii. Exigent and Emergency Circumstances
People v. De Gracia, 233 SCRA 716 (1994)
*Drug, Alcohol and Blood Tests
Requisites to be valid:
1. It must be random, and
2. It must be suspicionless.
Laserna v. DDB, GR 158633, Nov. 3, 2008: The constitutional validity of the
mandatory, random, and suspicionless drug testing for students emanates
primarily from the waiver of their right to privacy when they seek entry to the
school, and from their voluntary submitting their persons to the parental
authority of school authorities.
In case of private and public employees, the constitutional soundness of the
mandatory, random and suspicious drug testing proceeds from the
reasonableness of the drug test policy and requirement.
However, there is no valid justification for mandatory drug testing for persons
accused of crimes punishable with at least 6 years and one day imprisonment
as they are singled out and impleaded against their will. The operative concepts
in the mandatory drug testing are randomness and suspicionless.
Pimentel, Jr v. COMELEC, GR 161658, November 3, 2008: The mandatory drug
test requirements as a pre-condition for the validity of a certificate of candidacy
of electoral candidates not established under the Constitution, e.g. local
government positions, is valid.

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

7. Warrantless Arrests
Rule 113, Section 5. A peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant,
arrest a person:
a. When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually
committing, or attempting to commit an offense;
b. When an offense has in fact been committed, and he has personal knowledge
of facts indicating that the person to be arrested has committed it; and
c. When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal
establishment or place where he is serving final judgment or temporarily
confined while his case is pending or has escaped while being transferred from
one confinement to another
A. In Flagrante Delicto
People v. De La Cruz, GR 83260, April 18, 1990
People v. Doria, GR 125299, January 22, 1999
Espiritu v. Lim, GR 85727, October 3, 1991
Umil v. Fidel Ramos, GR 81567, July 9, 1990
People v. Sucro, 195 SCRA 388
People v. Rodrigueza, 205 SCRA 791
People v. Yap, 229 SCRA 787
People v. Alolod, 266 SCRA 154
People v. Mengote 210 SCRA 174
People v. Elamparo 329 SCRA

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

B. Hot Pursuit

Two Requisites:
1. An offense had just been committed.
2. The person making the arrest has probable cause to believe, based on his
personal knowledge of facts and circumstances, that the person to be arrested
committed it.
*There must be immediacy between the time the offense is committed and the
time of the arrest.
Go v. CA 206 SCRA 138
People v. Manlulu, 231 SCRA 701 (1994)
People v. Rodrigueza, 205 SCRA 791 (1992)
People v. Enrile, 222 SCRA 586
People v. Jayson, 282 SCRA 166 (1997)
People v. Del Rosario, GR 127755, April 14, 1999
People Samus, GR 135957, April 14, 1999
People v. Cubcubin, GR 136267, October 2, 2001
People v. Gorente, 219 SCRA 756
Padilla v. CA, GR 121917, March 12, 1997
People v. Burgos 144 SCRA 1
People v. Sucro 195 SCRA 388
People v. Briones 202 SCRA 708
People v. Sequino 264 SCRA 79
People v. Nazareno 260 SCRA 256
People v. Mahusay 282 SCRA 80
People v. Alvario 275 SCRA 529
Larranaga v. CA 287 SCRA 521
People v. Olivarez GR 77865, Dec. 4, 1998
Cadua v. CA 312 SCRA 703
People v. Cubcubin 360 SCRA
People v. Compacion 361 SCRA 540
Posadas v. Ombudsman 341 SCRA
People v. Acol 232 SCRA 406

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

C. Escaped Prisoner

D. Waiver
E. Procedural Rules
People v. Rabang 187 SCRA 682
People v. Lopez 246 SCRA 95
Velasco v. CA 245 SCRA 677
People v. Buluran 325 SCRA 476
Section 3. (1) The privacy of communication and correspondence shall be
inviolable except upon lawful order of the court, or when public safety or order
requires otherwise as prescribed by law.
(2) Any evidence obtained in violation of this or the preceding section shall be
inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding.
Scope: Tangible and Intangible Objects.
Factors to Determine Violation of the Right to Privacy
In the matter of the Petition for Issuance of the Writ of Habeas Corpus of
Camilo I. Sabio, GR 174340, October 17, 2006: In evaluating a claim for
violation of the right to privacy, a court must determine whether a person has
exhibited a reasonable expectation of privacy and, if so, whether that
expectation has been violated by unreasonable government intrusion.
RA No. 4200, Anti-Wiretapping Law
Ramirez v. CA, 248 SCRA 590: Private communication in Section 1 of RA
4200 is deemed to include private conversations.
Navarro v. CA, GR 121087, August 26, 1999: The Anti-Wiretapping Law
prohibits the overhearing, intercepting, or recording of private communications.
Thus, a tape recording of an altercation or verbal exchange between a
policeman and a radio reporter at a police station is admissible in evidence.
Rule on the Writ of Habeas Data, AM 08-1-16-SC
Writ of Habeas Data: the remedy available o 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.

Not Covered
Alejano v. Cabuay, 468 SCRA 188
In Re: Wenceslao Laureta, 148 SCRA 382
People v. Albofera, 152 SCRA 123
Exclusionary Rule
Gaanan v. IAC 145 SCRA 112
Salcedo-Ortanez v. CA 235 SCRA 111
Zulueta v. CA 253 SCRA 699
Ople v. Torres 293 SCRA 141
Waterous Drug Corp v. NLRC, GR 113271, October 16, 1997
People v. Marti 193 SCRA 57
People v. Artua 288 SCRA 626

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

Section 4. No law shall be passed abridging the 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.
Content-based Regulation: Restraint is aimed at the message or idea of the
expression. Apply the Strict Scrutiny Test and the challenged act must
overcome the clear and present danger rule.
Content-neutral Regulation: Restraint is aimed to regulate the time, place or
manner of the expression in public place without any restraint on the content
of the expression. Apply the Intermediate Approach Test wherein a regulation is
justified if it is : within the constitutional power of government, furthers an
important or substantial government interest, government interest is unrelated
to the suppression of free expression, and the incident restriction on the
alleged freedom of speech and expression is no greater than is essential to the
furtherance of that interest. Here, it only requires substantial government
interest for validity.
Facial Challenge Concept: A facial challenge is an exception to the rule that
only persons who are directly affected by a statute have legal standing to assail

the same. This is only applicable to statutes involving free speech, impeached
on the grounds of overbreadth or vagueness. Here, the litigants are permitted
to challenge a statute not because their own rights of free expression are
violated, but because of a judicial prediction or assumption that the statutes
very existence may cause others not before the court to refrain from
constitutionally protected speech or expression.
Overbreadth Doctrine: A ground to declare a statute void when it offends the
constitutional principle that a government purpose to control or prevent
activities constitutionally subject to state regulations may not be achieved by
means which sweep unnecessarily broadly and thereby invade the area of
protected freedoms.
Tests
1.
2.
3.

for Valid Government Interference to Freedom of Expression

Clear and Present Danger Test
Dangerous Tendency Test
Balancing of Interest Test

State Regulation of Different Types of Mass Media

1. Broadcast and Radio Media: It is subject to dual regulation: First,
procure a legislative franchise. Second, register and be subject to
regulations set by the NTC. (Divinagracia v. CBS, Inc GR 162272, April 7,
2009)
2. Print Media
The freedom of television and radio broadcasting is lesser in scope that the
freedom accorded to newspapers and print media. (Eastern Broadcasting Corp
v. Dans Jr)
Private vs. Government speech
Hecklers Veto: This involves situations in which the government attempts to
ban protected speech because it might provoke a violent response.
1.

Prior Restraint: Refers to official governmental restrictions on the press

or other forms of expression in advance of actual publication or
dissemination.
Valid Prior Restraint:

1. Movies, television, and radio broadcast censorship in view of its access to

numerous people.
2. Pornography
3. False or misleading commercial statement
4. Advocacy of imminent lawless action
5. Danger to national security (Chavez v. Gonzales)
Near v. Minnesota 238 US 697
Freedman v. Maryland 380 US 51
New York Times Co. v. US 403 US 713
Tolentino v. Sec. of Finance GR 115444, Oct. 30, 1995
Alexander v. US 113 S. Ct. 2766, 125 L. Ed. 2d. 441
INC v. CA, 259 SCRA 529 (1996)
SWS v. COMELEC, GR 147571, May 5, 2001
Chavez v. Gonzales, GR 168338, February 15, 2008
Newsounds Broadcasting v. Dy, GR 170270 and 179411, April 2, 2009
MTRCB v. ABS-CBN, GR 155282, January 17, 2005
Re: Request for Radio-TV Coverage of the Estrada Trial, AM No. 01-4-03-SC,
June 29, 2001
Soriano v. Laguardia, GR 164785, April 29, 2009

8. 2010-05891 KINANG, JEZRILL CARADO. LLB

2.
Subsequent Punishment
People v. Perez 45 Phil. 599
Espiritu v. Generel Lim, GR 85727, October 3, 1991
Dennis v. US 341 US 494
Gonzales v. COMELEC 27 SCRA 835
Eastern Broadcasting v. Dans, Jr. 137 SCRA 628
Ayer Prod. PTY. LTD. V. Judge Capulong 160 SCRA 865
Kelley v. Johnson 425 US 238
Brandenburg v. Ohio 395 US 444
Miriam College Foundation v. CA, GR 127930, December 15, 2000
3.
Speech and the Electoral Process
Sanidad v. COMELEC 181 SCRA 529

National Press Club v. COMELEC 207 SCRA 1

Adiong v. COMELEC March 31, 1992
Osmena v. COMELEC 288 SCRA 447
ABS-CBN v. COMELEC 323 SCRA 811
SWS v. COMELEC 357 SCRA 496

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

4.
Commercial Speech
Rubin v. Coors Brewing 131 L. Ed. 2d 532
Cincinnati v. Discovery Network 123 L. Ed. 2d 99
Central Hudson Gas v. Public Service Commission of New York, 447 US 557
Pharmaceutical v. Secretary of Health, GR 173034, October 9, 2007
City of Laduc v. Gilleo 129 L. Ed. 2d 36
5.
Libel (Unprotected Speech)
Policarpio v. Manila Times 5 SCRA 148
Lopez v. CA 34 SCRA 116
New York Times Co. c. Sullivan 376 US 254
Rosenbloom v. Metromedia, Inc. 403 US 254
Gerts v. Robert Wlech 418 US 323
Hustler v. Magazine 485 US 46
In Re Jurado AM No. 90-5-2373, 4 LR 19 Aug09
In Re Jurado 243 SCRA 299
Vasquez v. CA GR 118971 Sept. 15, 1999
Borjal v. CA GR. 126466 Jan. 14, 1999
Vicario v. CA GR 124491 June 1, 1999
Pader v. People 325 SCRA 117
Fermin v. People, GR 157643, March 28, 2008
6.
Obscenity (Unprotected Speech)
Miller v. California 37 L. Ed. 2d 419
Gonzales v. Kalaw-Katigbak 137 SCRA 717
Pita v. CA 178 SCRA 362
Barnes v. Glen Theater 498 US 439
FCC v Pacifica Foundation 438 US 726
Renton v. Playtime Theater 475 US 41

Bethel School District v. Fraser 478 US 675

Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier 484 US 260
Fernando v. CA, GR 159751, December 6, 2006
Soriano v. Laguardia, GR 164785, April 29, 2009

10.

ARIPIN, ZORAIDA

7.
Assembly and Petition
Navarro v. Villegas 31 SCRA 73
PBM Employees v. PBM 51 SCRA 189
JBL Reyes v. Mayor Bagatsing 125 SCRA 553
Malabanan v. Ramento 129 SCRA 359
De la Cruz v. CA, GR 126183, March 25, 1999
Bangalisan v. CA, GR 124678, July 23, 1997
Ruiz v. Gordon, 126 SCRA 233
BAYAN v. Ermita GR 169838, April 25, 2006
GSIS v. Kapisanan, GR 170132, December 6, 2006
In Re Valmonte, 296 SCRA

11.

MORALES

Section 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.
Purpose
I. Non-Establishment Clause
Aglipay v. Ruiz, 64 Phil 201
Garces v. Estenzo, 104 SCRA 510
School District v. Schempp, 394 RS 203
Board of Education v. Allen, 392 US 236
Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 US 602
Tilton v. Richardson, 403 US 672

Country of Allegheny v. American Civil Liberties Union, 57 LW 504

Zobrest v. Catalina, No. 92-94 June 18, 1993
Capitol Square Review Board v. Pinetter & Ku Klus Klan, US No. 94-780, June
29, 1995
Lee v. Welsman, US No. 90-1014, June 24, 1992
Manosca v. CA, 252 SCRA 412
Islamic Dawah v. ES, GR 153888, July 9, 2003
Taruc v. Dela Cruz, 453 SCRA 123
UCCP v. Bradford, 674 SCRA 92

12.
2011-03028 OMBRA, JHEMHAR INDASAN. LLB
II. Free Exercise of Religion
Tests
a) Clear and Present Danger Test: When words are used in such circumstance
and of such nature as to create a clear and present danger that will bring
about the substantive evil that the State has a right to prevent.
b) Compelling State Interest Test: When a law of general application infringes
religious exercise, albeit incidentally, the state interest sought to be promoted
must be so paramount and compelling as to override the free exercise claim.
Three-step test:
1. Has the statute or government action created a burden on the free exercise
of religion?
2. Is there a sufficiently compelling state interest to justify this infringement of
religious liberty?
3. Has the state in achieving its legitimate purposes used the least intrusive
means possible so that the free exercise is not infringed any more than
necessary to achieve the legitimate goal of the state? (Estrada v. Escritor)
c) Conscientious Objector Test: Persons who are conscientiously opposed to
participation in war in any form by reason of religious training and belief may
be exempted from combat training and service in the armed forces. Religious
training and belief means an individuals belief in relation to a Supreme Being
involving duties superior to those arising from any human relation, but does
not include essentially political, sociological or philosophical views or a merely
personal code.

Victoriano v. Elizalde, 59 SCRA 94

Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 US 296
US v. Ballard 322 US 78
American Bible Society v. City of Manila 104 Phil. 386
Ebranilag v. Divison Superintendent 219 SCRA 256; (MR) 251 SCRA
Wisconsin v. Yoder 406 US 205
Goldman v. Weinberger 54 LW 4298
German v. Baranganan 135 SCRA 514
Tolentino v. Sec. of Finance 249 SCRA 628
Centeno v. Villalon-Pornillos 236 SCRA 197
Church of the Lukumi v. City of Hialeach No. 91-948, June 11, 1993
Lambs Chapel v. School Disctrict No.91-2024, June 7, 1993
In re Request of Muslim Employees in the Different Court of Iligan City, 477
SCRA 648
Estrada v. Escritor AM P-021651, August 4, 2003 (Compelling State Interest
Test)
III. No Religious Test
Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 SCRA 488
Pamil v. Teleron 86 SCRA 413
McDaniel v. Paty 435 US 618
Ang Ladlad v. COMELEC, GR 190582, April 8, 2010
IV. Ecclesiastical Matters
Austria v. NLRC, 310 SCRA 293
Taruc v. Dela Cruz, 453 SCRA 123
UCCP v. Bradford, 674 SCRA 92

13.

NILLAS

Section 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.
Article 13 (2) Universal Declaration of Human Rights
Article 12 (4) Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
Watch-list, hold departure orders and lookout order
Reyes v. CA, GR 182161, December 3, 2009
Return to Ones Country
Marcos v. Manglapus, 177 SCRA 668
Liberty of Abode and Right to Travel
Villavicencio v. Lukban, 39 Phil 778
Rubi v. Provincial Board of Mindoro
Silverio v. CA 195 SCRA 760
Santiago v. Vasquez 217 SCRA 633
Marcos v. Sandiganbayan 247 SCRA 127
Yap v. CA, GR 141529, June 6, 2001
Mirasol v DPWH, 490 SCRA 318
OAS v. Macarine, 677 SCRA 1
Human Security Act, Section 26: In cases where evidence of guilt is not strong,
and the person charged with the crime of terrorism or conspiracy to commit
terrorism is entitled to bail and is granted the same, the court, upon
application by the prosecutor, shall limit the right of travel of the accused to
within the municipality or city where he resides or where the case is pending,
in the interest of national security and public safety. Travel outside said
municipality or city, without the authorization of the court, shall be deemed a
violation of the terms and conditions of his bail, which shall then be forfeited
under the Rules of Court.

14.

PATALINGHUG

Section 7. The right of the people to information on matters of public concern

shall be recognized. Access to official records, and to documents and papers
pertaining to official acts, transactions, or decisions, as well as to government
research data used as basis for policy development, shall be afforded the
citizen, subject to such limitations as may be provided by law.
Right to Information
Scope of the Right
Chavez v. PEA, GR 133250, July 9, 2002
Limitation on the Right
Chavez v. PCGG, GR 130716, Dec. 9, 1988: No right to information in the
following:
1. National security matters and intelligence information
2. Trade secrets and banking transactions
3. Criminal matters
4. Other confidential information which includes diplomatic correspondence,
closed door Cabinet meetings and executive sessions of either Houses of
Congress, and the internal deliberations of the Supreme Court.
Philippine Savings Bank and Pascual Garcia III v. Senate Impeachment Court,
GR 200238, Feb 9, 2012
In Re: Production of Court Records, 14 February 2012
In General: Access to court records, Government contract negotiations,
Diplomatic negotiations, etc.
Legaspi v. CSC, 150 SCRA 530
Bantay Republic Act v. COMELEC, GR 177271, May 4, 2007
Valmonte v. Belmonte, Jr., 170 SCRA 256
Aquino-Sarmiento v. Morato, 203 SCRA 515
Echegaray v. Sec. of Justice, GR 132601, Oct. 12, 1988
Gonzales v. Narvasa, GR 140835, August 14, 2000
RE: Request for Radio-TV Coverage, 365 SCRA 248

RE: Request for Live Radio-TV Coverage, 365 SCRA 62

Hilado v. Reyes, 496 SCRA 282 (Access to Court Records)
Sabio v. Gordon, 504 SCRA 704
Bantay v. COMELEC, 523 SCRA 1
Berdin v. Mascarinas, 526 SCRA 592
Chang v. NHA, 530 SCRA 335
Senate v. Ermita GR 169777, April 20, 2006
Suplico v. NEDA, GR 178830, July 14, 2008
Neri v. Senate GR 180643, March 25, 2008; MR Sept. 4, 2008
Akbayan v. Aquino GR 170516, July 16, 2008
Province of North Cotabato v. GRP Peace Panel, 568 SCRA 402
Guingona v. COMELEC, 620 SCRA 448
Antolin v. Domondon, 623 SCRA 163
Center for People v. COMELEC, 631 SCRA 41
Francisco v. TRB, 633 SCRA 470
Initiatives v. PSALM, 682 SCRA 602
Belgica v. Executive Secretary, GR 208566, November 19, 2013

15.

SALADAGA

Section 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.
Scope
Volkschel Labor Union v. Bureau of Labor Relations, 137 SCRA 42
Right to Association
Occena v. COMELEC, 127 SCRA 404
UPCSU v. Laguesma 286 SCRA 15
Bel-Air Village Association v. Dionisio, 174 SCRA 589
Padcom Condominium Association v. Ortigas Center Association, Inc, 382
SCRA 222
Government Employees (Right to Strike)
TUCP v. NHC, 173 SCRA 33
SSS Employees v. CA, 175 SCRA 686
MPSTA v. Secretary of Education, GR 95445, August 6, 1991
Jacinto v. CA, GR 124540, November 4, 1997

GSIS v. Kapisanan, GR 170132

Membership in the Philippine Bar
In Re: Edillon, 84 SCRA 554

16.

SALIH, HASIM

Section 9. Private Property shall not be taken for public use without just
compensation.
Expropriation in General
Heirs of Alberto Suguitan v. City of Mandaluyong, March 14, 2000
NHA v. Heirs of Isidro Guivelondo, GR 15441, June 19, 2003
Mactan v. Lozada, 613 SCRA 618 (Reversion)
Vda De Ouna v. Republic, 642 SCRA 384 (Reversion)
Power to Undertake Expropriation Case
Iron and Steel Authority v. CA, 249 SCRA 538
Philippine Press Institute v. COMELEC, 244 SCRA 272
Telebap v. COMELEC 289 SCRA 337
Estate of Heirs v. City of Manila, 422 SCRA 551
Lagcao v. Labra, GR 155746, October 13, 2004
Rights of Owner Before Expropriation
Greater Balanga v. Municipality of Balanga, 239 SCRA 436
Velarma v. CA, 252 SCRA 406
Solanda v. CA, 305 SCRA 645
Republic v. Salem, 334 SCRA 320 (Title not cancelled until paid)
1.
Elements of Taking
Republic v. Vda. De Castelvi 58 SCRA 336
Garcia v. CA 102 SCRA 597
City of Government v. Judge Ericta 122 SCRA 759
US v. Causby 328 US 256
People v. Fajardo 104 Phil 443
Republic v. PLDT 26 SCRA 620
NPC v. Jocson 206 SCRA 520
Penn Central Transportation v. NY City 438 US 104

Ruckelshaus v. Monsanto 467 US 986

NPC v. Manubay 437 SCRA 60
NPC v. San Pedro 503 SCRA 333
NPC v. Tianco 514 SCRA 674
LBP v. Imperial 515 SCRA 449
NCP v. Bongbong 520 SCRA 290
Tan v. Republic - 423 SCRA 203
NPC v. Ibrahim 526 SCRA 149
NPC v. Purefoods 565 SCRa 17
NPC v. Capin 569 SCRA 648
PNOC v. Maglasang 570 SCRA 560 (lease not basis for taking)
NPC v. CO 578 SCRa 243
NPC v. Villamor - 590 SCRA 11
NPC v. Maruhom 609 SCRA 198
OSG v. Ayala 600 SCRA 617 (free parking spaces in malls)
NPC v. Tuazon 653 SCRA 84
2.
Public Use
Sumulong v. Guerrero 154 SCRA 461
Phil. Columbian Assn. v. Hon. Panis 228 SCRA 668
Manosca v. CA 252 SCRA 412
Province of Camarines Sur v. CA 222 SCRA 173
Lagcao v. Judge Labra GR 155746, Oct. 13, 2004
Reyas v. NHA, GR 147511, Jan 20, 2003
Masikip v. Pasig, 479 SCRA 391
Didipio v. Earth Savers v. Guzon, 485 SCRA 586
Barangay v. CA, 581 SCRA 649
Manapat v. CA, 536 SCRA 32
Mactan v. Tudtud, GR 174012, November 14, 2008
City of Manila v. Tan Te, 658 SCRA 88(socialized housing)
3.
Just Compensation
City of Manila v. Estrada 25 Phil 208
Manila Railroad v. Paredes 31 Phil. 118
Santos v. Land Bank GR 137431, Sept. 7, 2000
Municipality of Daet v. CA 129 SCRA 665
NPC v. CA 129 SCRA 665
EPZA v. Dulay 149 SCRA 305
Maddumba v. GSIS 182 SCRA 281
Berkenkotter v. CA 216 SCRA 584

Meralco v. Pineda 206 SCRA 196

NPC v. CA 254 SCRA 577
Land Bank v. CA 249 SCRA 149; (MR) 258 SCRA 404
Panes v. VISCA 264 SCRA 708
Republic v. CA 263 SCRA 758
NPC v. Henson GR 129998, December 29 1998
Santos v. Landbank, GR 137431, Sept. 7, 2000
Sigre v. Ca, GR 109568, Aug. 8 2002
NHA v. Heirs of Isidro, GR 154411, June 19 2001
Mactan v. Urgello 520 SCRA 515
San Roque v. Republic 532 SCRA 493
4.
Judicial Review
De Knecht v. Bautista 100 SCRA 660
Manotoc v. NHA 150 SCRA 89
Republic v. De Knecht 182 SCRA 141
Militante v. CA, GR 107040, April 12, 2000

17.

TAGA-OC

Section 10. No law impairing the obligation of contracts shall be passed.

Home Building and Loan Assn. v. Blaisdell 290 US 398
Rutter v. Esteban 93 Phil. 68
Del Rosario v. De los Santos L-20589-90

Abella v. NLRC 152 SCRA 140

Phil. Vet. Bank Employees v. Phil. Vet. Bank 189 SCRA 14
Presley v. Bel-Air Village Association 201 SCRA 13
Tolentino v. Sec. of Finance 235 SCRA 630
Siska Development v. Office of the President 231 SCRA 674
Miners Association v. Factoran 240 SCRA 100
Juarez v. CA 214 SCRA 475
FPIB v. CA 252 SCRA 259
CMMA v. POEA 243 SCRA 666
PNB v. O.P. 252 SCRA 5
Eugenio v. Drilon 252 SCRA 106
Meralco v. Province of Laguna 306 SCRA 750
Lim v. Pacquing 240 SCRA 649
Ortigas v. Feati Bank 94 SCRA 533
Juarez v. CA 214 SCRA 475
FPIB v. CA 252 SCRA 259
CMMA v. POEA 243 SCRA 106
JMM v. CA (supra)
PNB v. OP 252 SCRA 5
Eugenio v. Drilon 252 SCRA 106
JMM v. CA (supra Substantive)
C & M Timber v. Alcala 273 SCRA 402
Republic v. Agana 2269 SCRA 1
Producers v. NLRC GR 118069, November 16, 1998
Blaquera v. Alcala GR109406, September 11, 1998
Philreca v. Sec. of DILG, GR 1543076, June 10, 2003
Republic v. Rosemoor Mining and Development Corp. 426 SCRA 517
Chavez v. COMELEC 437 SCRA 415
Alvarez v. PICOP - 508 SCRA 498
Lepanto v. WMC 507 SCRA 315
Republic v. Caguioa 536 SCRA 193
Land Bank v. Republic 543 SCRA 453
Serrano v. Gallant 582 SCRA 254
Alvarez v. PICOP 606 SCRA 444
Surigao v. ERC - 632 SCRA 96
Hacienda Luisita v. Pac 653 SCRA 154

18.

IBBA

Section 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.
Indigent Party: One who is authorized by the court to prosecute his action or
defense as an indigent upon an ex parte application and hearing showing that
he has no money or property sufficient and available for food, shelter and basic
necessities for himself and his family. (Rules of Court, Rule 3, Section 21)
Legal Provisions on Free Access
1. RA 6035: stenographers are required to give free transcript of stenographic
notes to indigent and low-income litigants.
2. Rules of Court, Rule 3, Section 21
3. Constitution, Article 3, Section 12: the court appoints a counsel de officio for
an accused who cannot afford to engage the service of a counsel de parte.
4. Rule on the Writ of Amparo, Section 4: No docket or other lawful fees shall be
required for the filing of the petition.
5. Rule on the Writ of Habeas Data, Section 4: No docket and other lawful fees
are required from indigent petitioner.