Reset

There are 97 results on the current subject filter

Association of Small Landowners in the Philippines, Inc. vs. Secretary of Agrarian Reform

14th July 1989

ak989617
175 SCRA 343 , 256 Phil. 777 , G.R. No. 78742 , G.R. No. 79310 , G.R. No. 79744 , G.R. No. 79777
Primary Holding
The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of R.A. No. 6657 (CARP), P.D. No. 27, Proc. No. 131, and E.O. Nos. 228 and 229, subject to the condition that title to expropriated properties only transfers to the State upon full payment of just compensation to the landowners.
Background
The case arose from the government's efforts to implement agrarian reform, aimed at redistributing agricultural lands to landless farmers. Landowners challenged the legal basis and specific provisions of the agrarian reform laws, arguing that they violated constitutional rights.
Constitutional Law II
Police Power

Aberca vs. Ver

15th April 1988

ak165028
160 SCRA 590 , 243 Phil. 735 , G.R. No. 69866 , No. L-69866
Primary Holding
The suspension of the privilege of habeas corpus does not bar a civil action for damages resulting from illegal arrests, searches, and other violations of constitutional rights. Superior officers can be held liable for such violations if they are found to be directly or indirectly responsible.
Background
The case arose from alleged illegal searches, seizures, arrests, and torture committed by the Armed Forces of the Philippines' Task Force Makabansa (TFM) under the command of General Fabian Ver, purportedly targeting communist-terrorist underground houses.
Constitutional Law II

Hustler Magazine, Inc. vs. Falwell

24th February 1988

ak337881
485 U.S. 4
Primary Holding
Public figures and public officials may not recover damages for the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress by reason of the publication of a caricature or parody without showing that the publication contains a false statement of fact which was made with "actual malice"—that is, with knowledge that the statement was false or with reckless disregard as to whether or not it was true.
Background
Respondent Jerry Falwell, a nationally recognized minister and political commentator, was the subject of an advertisement "parody" published in petitioner Hustler Magazine, a nationally circulated publication known for its often-offensive content. The parody was modeled on a popular Campari Liqueur ad campaign that featured celebrities discussing their "first time." This case arose from Falwell's lawsuit against Hustler Magazine and its publisher, Larry Flynt, seeking damages for the distress caused by this publication.
Constitutional Law II
Freedom of Expression

Export Processing Zone Authority vs. Dulay

29th April 1987

ak477243
149 SCRA 305 , 233 Phil. 313 , No. L-59603
Primary Holding
Presidential Decrees No. 76, 464, 794, and 1533, which limit just compensation to the lower of the owner’s declared value or the assessor’s value, are unconstitutional and void as they encroach upon the judiciary’s inherent power to determine just compensation in expropriation cases.
Background
The Export Processing Zone Authority (EPZA) sought to expropriate private land owned by San Antonio Development Corporation for the Mactan Export Processing Zone. EPZA attempted to base just compensation on valuations stipulated in Presidential Decrees, which were significantly lower than the market value. The trial court appointed commissioners to determine just compensation under Rule 67 of the Rules of Court, prompting EPZA to file this petition questioning the court's authority to do so.
Constitutional Law II
Eminent Domain

Ynot vs. Intermediate Appellate Court

20th March 1987

ak605477
148 SCRA 659 , 232 Phil. 615 , G.R. No. 74457
Primary Holding
Executive Order No. 626-A is unconstitutional because it violated due process by allowing confiscation of property without prior hearing, employed means not reasonably necessary to achieve its purpose, conferred judicial functions on administrative authorities, and contained an invalid delegation of legislative powers.
Background
The case arose during the Marcos regime when the government sought to protect carabaos (water buffalos) as essential farm animals by prohibiting their transportation across provincial boundaries, with the aim of preventing their indiscriminate slaughter.
Constitutional Law I Constitutional Law II
Police Power

Javier vs. Commission on Elections

22nd September 1986

ak367573
144 SCRA 194 , 228 Phil. 193 , G.R. Nos. L-68379-81
Primary Holding
The COMELEC Second Division lacked jurisdiction to decide pre-proclamation controversies involving Batasang Pambansa members, as such cases must be heard en banc under the 1973 Constitution.
Background
The 1984 Antique elections were marred by violence, including the killing of petitioner Evelio Javier’s supporters. Javier challenged irregularities in the canvass, but COMELEC’s Second Division dismissed his claims and proclaimed Arturo Pacificador winner. Javier’s assassination in 1986 and the Batasang’s abolition under the post-Marcos Freedom Constitution rendered the case moot.
Constitutional Law II

City Government of Quezon City vs. Ericta

24th June 1983

ak611870
207 Phil. 648 , 122 SCRA 759 , No. L-34915
Primary Holding
Section 9 of Ordinance No. 6118, S-64 of Quezon City is unconstitutional and void as it constitutes an invalid exercise of police power amounting to confiscation of property without due process or just compensation, rather than a valid regulation.
Background
Quezon City enacted an ordinance regulating private cemeteries, including a provision (Section 9) requiring a 6% set-aside for pauper burials. This provision was not initially enforced, but seven years later, the City Council resolved to enforce it, directing the City Engineer to stop land transactions in cemeteries not complying with the 6% requirement. Himlayang Pilipino, Inc., a cemetery operator, challenged the ordinance in court.
Constitutional Law II
Police Power

Ceniza vs. COMELEC

28th January 1980

ak528318
95 SCRA 763 , 180 Phil. 597 , G.R. No. 52304
Primary Holding
The classification of cities into highly urbanized and component cities based on annual income under Batas Pambansa Blg. 51, which determines whether their residents can vote for provincial officials, is based on substantial distinctions germane to the constitutional mandate of promoting local autonomy and does not violate the equal protection clause or the right of suffrage.
Background
Following the enactment of the 1973 Constitution emphasizing local government autonomy, the Interim Batasan Pambansa passed Batas Blg. 51 in preparation for the January 30, 1980 local elections. This law introduced a classification system for cities based on annual income (P40 million threshold) into "highly urbanized" and "component" cities. This classification determined whether the registered voters of a city could participate in the election of officials of the province where the city is geographically located, leading to challenges from voters in affected cities like Cebu and Mandaue.
Constitutional Law II
Equal Protection

Victoriano vs. Elizalde Rope Workers' Union

12th September 1974

ak917809
158 Phil. 60 , G.R. No. L-2524
Primary Holding
Republic Act No. 3350, which amends Section 4(a)(4) of the Industrial Peace Act (R.A. No. 875) by exempting members of religious sects prohibiting affiliation with labor organizations from the coverage of closed shop agreements, is constitutional. It validly protects the fundamental right to freedom of religion without unduly infringing upon other constitutional rights or established legal principles.
Background
The case arose from a conflict between an employee's religious beliefs prohibiting labor union membership and a collective bargaining agreement's closed shop provision. Benjamin Victoriano, an employee of Elizalde Rope Factory Inc. and a member of the Iglesia ni Cristo, a religious sect prohibiting its members from joining labor organizations, was compelled by a closed shop agreement between his employer and the Elizalde Rope Workers' Union to be a member of the Union. Following the enactment of R.A. No. 3350, which exempts such individuals from closed shop provisions, Victoriano resigned from the Union. The Union then demanded his dismissal from the company, leading to the legal challenge.
Constitutional Law II
Freedom of Religion

Republic vs, Vda. de Castellvi

15th August 1974

ak859862
58 SCRA 336 , 157 Phil. 329 , No. L-20620
Primary Holding
The Supreme Court held that the "taking" of the properties occurred upon the filing of the expropriation complaint in 1959, not in 1947 when the Republic initially leased Castellvi's land. The just compensation for the expropriated lands, classified as residential, was fixed at P5.00 per square meter. The Republic was ordered to pay interest on the compensation from the time of deposit of provisional value and from the actual taking in possession.
Background
The Republic needed to expand the Basa Air Base and initiated expropriation proceedings against Carmen M. Vda. de Castellvi and Maria Nieves Toledo-Gozun, landowners of adjacent properties. The Republic had previously leased Castellvi’s land since 1947. Disagreement arose over the just compensation, with landowners claiming a much higher value (P15.00 per square meter) compared to the Republic's initial valuation (P0.20 per square meter).
Constitutional Law II
Eminent Domain

Miller vs. California

21st June 1973

ak558260
413 U.S. 15
Primary Holding
The Court established a new three-part test for obscenity: (a) whether "the average person, applying contemporary community standards" would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest; (b) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law; and (c) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. The Court also held that "contemporary community standards" are those of the local or state community, not a national standard.
Background
The case arose from a re-examination by the Supreme Court of the standards for regulating obscenity, an area that had caused significant legal difficulty and a lack of consistent majority opinions in previous cases. The Court sought to provide more concrete guidelines for states to regulate pornographic materials, particularly when disseminated to unwilling recipients or juveniles, while still protecting First Amendment rights for serious expression.
Constitutional Law II
Freedom of Expression

Javellana vs. The Executive Secretary

31st March 1973

ak643524
50 SCRA 30 , 151-A Phil. 35 , 69 OG 7975 , No. L-36142
Primary Holding
The Supreme Court ultimately dismissed the petitions, with a majority finding the issues either moot or not properly raised. The Court was divided on whether the 1973 Constitution had been validly ratified, but a majority considered it effectively in force.
Background
Following the declaration of Martial Law and the drafting of a new Constitution by the 1971 Constitutional Convention, President Marcos submitted the proposed constitution for ratification via Citizens Assemblies, bypassing a traditional plebiscite. This prompted several legal challenges questioning the process and the President's authority.
Constitutional Law I Constitutional Law II

Cohen vs. California

7th June 1971

ak728188
403 U.S. 15
Primary Holding
A state cannot, consistent with the First and Fourteenth Amendments, criminalize the public display of a single offensive expletive when that display does not incite immediate violence, is not directed at a specific individual in a personally abusive manner, is not obscene in the legal sense, and does not intrude upon substantial privacy interests in an intolerable way; the emotive function of speech is also protected.
Background
The case arose during the Vietnam War era, a period of significant social and political unrest in the United States, particularly concerning the military draft. Cohen's act of wearing the jacket was a form of protest against the draft and the war, reflecting a common sentiment among dissenters at the time. The public display of such an expletive in a courthouse, a public forum, brought to the forefront the conflict between an individual's right to free expression and the state's interest in maintaining public order and decency.
Constitutional Law II
Freedom of Expression

Republic vs. PLDT

27th January 1969

ak453367
136 Phil. 20 , 26 SCRA 620 , No. L-18841
Primary Holding
The Republic of the Philippines, exercising its sovereign power of eminent domain, can compel PLDT to interconnect its telephone system with the government system, even without a voluntary contract, provided that just compensation is paid to PLDT for the use of its facilities and services.
Background
The Bureau of Telecommunications, a government entity, sought to interconnect its Government Telephone System (GTS) with PLDT's telephone network to provide broader telecommunication services to the public, including overseas calls. PLDT initially allowed interconnection through leased trunk lines but later severed these connections, citing unauthorized commercial use and competition from the Bureau. The Republic then filed suit to compel interconnection.
Constitutional Law II
Eminent Domain

Katz vs. United States

18th December 1967

ak574343
389 U.S. 347
Primary Holding
The Fourth Amendment protects people, not places, and its reach does not depend on physical penetration into a constitutionally protected area; electronic eavesdropping on conversations made from a public phone booth, where the user has a justifiable expectation of privacy, constitutes a "search and seizure" requiring a warrant based on probable cause.
Background
The case arose from an FBI investigation into the petitioner's suspected involvement in transmitting gambling information via telephone between Los Angeles, Miami, and Boston, in violation of federal law.
Constitutional Law II
Searches and Seizures

Ermita-Malate Hotel and Motel Operators Association, Inc. vs. City Mayor of Manila

31st July 1967

ak423474
20 SCRA 849 , 128 Phil. 473 , No. L-24693
Primary Holding
Ordinance No. 4760 of the City of Manila is constitutional, as the petitioners failed to present sufficient evidence to overcome the presumption of its validity, and the ordinance is a valid exercise of police power aimed at safeguarding public morals.
Background
The Ermita-Malate Hotel and Motel Operators Association challenged Ordinance No. 4760, arguing it was unconstitutional and beyond the powers of the Manila Municipal Board. They claimed the ordinance violated due process by imposing unreasonable fees and regulations, invading privacy, and lacking certainty. The City Mayor defended the ordinance as a valid exercise of police power to curb immorality.
Constitutional Law II
Police Power

Stonehill vs. Diokno

19th June 1967

ak432252
20 SCRA 383 , 126 Phil. 738 , G. R. No. L-19550
Primary Holding
Search warrants must be issued based upon probable cause for one specific offense and must particularly describe the things to be seized to be constitutionally valid; evidence obtained in violation of the constitutional right against unreasonable searches and seizures is inadmissible (exclusionary rule); the right to object to an unlawful search and seizure is personal and cannot be invoked by corporate officers for searches conducted on corporate premises.
Background
Government prosecutors applied for and were granted 42 search warrants by various judges against the petitioners (corporate officers) and the corporations they managed. The applications alleged violations of Central Bank Laws, Tariff and Customs Laws, the Internal Revenue Code, and the Revised Penal Code, leading to searches of offices, warehouses, and residences, and the seizure of numerous documents and items.
Constitutional Law II
Searches and Seizures

Loving vs. Virginia

12th June 1967

ak356953
388 U.S. 1
Primary Holding
Statutes prohibiting marriage solely on the basis of racial classifications violate the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment, as the freedom to marry is a fundamental right and racial classifications are subject to the most rigid scrutiny and must serve a permissible state objective independent of racial discrimination.
Background
The case arose within the context of Virginia's long-standing statutory scheme aimed at preventing interracial marriages, rooted in historical practices dating back to the colonial period and solidified by the Racial Integrity Act of 1924. At the time of the litigation, Virginia was one of 16 states still enforcing such anti-miscegenation laws, which reflected historical doctrines of white supremacy and racial purity.
Constitutional Law II
Equal Protection

Jacobellis vs. Ohio

22nd June 1964

ak737310
378 U.S. 184
Primary Holding
Material cannot be proscribed as obscene unless it is "utterly without redeeming social importance," and the "contemporary community standards" by which obscenity is judged are those of the nation as a whole, not a particular local community; furthermore, the Supreme Court has an obligation to make an independent constitutional judgment on the facts of the case as to whether the material is constitutionally protected.
Background
The case arose from the criminal prosecution of a movie theater manager in Cleveland Heights, Ohio, for exhibiting a film deemed obscene under state law. This occurred during a period of significant legal debate and development regarding the definition of obscenity and the extent of First Amendment protection for expressive materials, particularly those dealing with sex.
Constitutional Law II
Freedom of Expression

New York Times Co. vs. Sullivan

9th March 1964

ak220660
376 U.S. 254
Primary Holding
A State cannot, under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, award damages to a public official for defamatory falsehood relating to his official conduct unless he proves that the statement was made with "actual malice"—that is, with knowledge of its falsity or with reckless disregard of whether it was true or false.
Background
The case arose during the height of the Civil Rights Movement in the United States, specifically in Montgomery, Alabama, a focal point of civil rights activism and resistance. The advertisement in question, "Heed Their Rising Voices," sought support for the civil rights movement and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and criticized the actions of Southern officials, including those in Montgomery, in suppressing civil rights activities.
Constitutional Law II
Freedom of Expression

Sherbert vs. Verner

17th June 1963

ak644642
374 U.S. 398
Primary Holding
A state cannot constitutionally apply its unemployment compensation eligibility provisions to deny benefits to an individual who refuses to work on their Sabbath due to sincerely held religious beliefs, as such a denial imposes an unconstitutional burden on the free exercise of religion, unless the state can demonstrate a compelling state interest justifying such infringement and that no alternative forms of regulation would suffice.
Background
The case arose from the conflict between an individual's religious observance, specifically the Seventh-Day Adventist practice of observing Saturday as the Sabbath, and a state's unemployment compensation law requiring availability for work. Appellant Adell Sherbert was a member of the Seventh-Day Adventist Church and was discharged by her employer when she refused to work on Saturdays after her employer switched to a six-day work week. Her subsequent inability to find other employment that did not require Saturday work led to her claim for unemployment benefits.
Constitutional Law II
Freedom of Religion

Engel vs. Vitale

25th June 1962

ak957958
370 U.S. 421
Primary Holding
State officials may not compose an official state prayer and require its recitation in public schools, even if the prayer is denominationally neutral and pupils may remain silent or be excused, because such a practice violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
Background
The New York State Board of Regents, a governmental agency with supervisory powers over the State's public school system, composed and recommended a prayer for recitation in public schools. The prayer was part of a "Statement on Moral and Spiritual Training in the Schools." The respondent Board of Education of Union Free School District No. 9, New Hyde Park, New York, adopted this recommendation and directed its principal to have the prayer said aloud by each class at the beginning of each school day in the presence of a teacher.
Constitutional Law II
Freedom of Religion

Republic vs. La Orden de PP. Benedictinos de Filipinas

28th February 1961

ak396070
1 SCRA 646 , 111 Phil. 230 , No. L-12792
Primary Holding
The trial court erred in dismissing the expropriation case without receiving evidence on the necessity of taking the appellee's property for public use. The issue of necessity is a question of fact that requires presentation of evidence by both parties.
Background
To alleviate traffic congestion on Legarda Street, the government planned to extend Azcarraga Street. This extension required acquiring a portion of land owned by La Orden de PP. Benedictinos de Filipinas, where San Beda College is located. Negotiations failed, leading the government to initiate expropriation proceedings.
Constitutional Law II
Eminent Domain

Gerona vs. Secretary of Education

12th August 1959

ak011651
106 Phil. 2 , No. L-13954
Primary Holding
The requirement of observing the flag ceremony, including saluting the flag, singing the national anthem, and reciting the patriotic pledge, as mandated by Department Order No. 8, s. 1955, does not violate the constitutional provision on freedom of religion and the exercise thereof, as the flag ceremony is a civic and patriotic exercise, not a religious one, and compliance with such non-discriminatory school regulations is a prerequisite for attendance in public schools.
Background
On June 11, 1955, Republic Act No. 1265, "An Act Making Flag Ceremony Compulsory in all Educational Institutions," was approved. Section 2 of this Act authorized the Secretary of Education to issue rules and regulations for the proper conduct of the flag ceremony. Consequently, on July 21, 1955, the Secretary of Education issued Department Order No. 8, series of 1955, detailing the rules for the compulsory daily flag ceremony in all public and private schools.
Constitutional Law II Philosophy of Law
Freedom of Religion

Roth vs. United States

24th June 1957

ak704418
354 U.S. 476
Primary Holding
Obscenity is not within the area of constitutionally protected speech or press under the First Amendment (as applied to the Federal Government) or the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (as applied to the States); the appropriate standard for judging obscenity is whether, to the average person, applying contemporary community standards, the dominant theme of the material taken as a whole appeals to prurient interest.
Background
The cases arose from separate prosecutions under federal and state laws aimed at curbing the dissemination of obscene materials. Roth operated a publication and sales business in New York, utilizing mails for circulars and advertising. Alberts ran a mail-order business in Los Angeles, selling books deemed obscene. These prosecutions reflected societal concerns and legislative efforts to regulate materials considered harmful to public morals, specifically those dealing with sex in a manner deemed offensive or appealing to prurient interest.
Constitutional Law II
Freedom of Expression

Ichong vs. Hernandez

31st May 1957

ak330887
101 Phil. 1155 , G.R. No. L-7995
Primary Holding
Republic Act No. 1180, which effectively nationalizes the retail trade business by prohibiting aliens (except US citizens and those already engaged in the business as of May 15, 1954, under specific conditions) from participating, constitutes a valid exercise of the State's police power and does not infringe upon the constitutional guarantees of due process and equal protection, nor does it violate treaty obligations or the constitutional requirement that the subject of a bill be expressed in its title.
Background
The enactment of Republic Act No. 1180 stemmed from a deep-seated nationalistic concern, present since the 1935 Constitutional Convention and amplified over time, regarding the perceived economic dominance and control exerted by aliens, particularly in the vital retail trade sector, which was viewed as a threat to the Philippines' economic independence, national security, and the welfare of Filipino retailers and consumers.
Constitutional Law II
Due Process

American Bible Society vs. City of Manila

30th April 1957

ak332493
101 Phil. 386 , G. R. No. L-9637
Primary Holding
A municipal ordinance imposing license fees on the sale of merchandise, when applied to the distribution and sale of bibles and religious literature by a non-profit religious corporation, constitutes an unconstitutional restraint on the free exercise of religion and the dissemination of religious beliefs, as it is not a nominal fee for regulation but a tax on a constitutional privilege. However, an ordinance requiring a Mayor's permit for businesses, trades, or occupations, if generally applicable and not imposing a charge on the enjoyment of a constitutional right or taxing religious practices, is not per se unconstitutional but may be inapplicable if the underlying activity it seeks to regulate (through related tax ordinances) is constitutionally protected from such taxation.
Background
The American Bible Society (ABS), a non-profit religious missionary corporation, had been distributing and selling bibles and religious materials in the Philippines since 1898. In 1953, the City Treasurer of Manila informed ABS that it was considered to be conducting the business of "general merchandise" and required it to secure a Mayor's permit and pay license fees for the period from the 4th quarter of 1945 to the 2nd quarter of 1953, based on City Ordinances. ABS paid the assessed amount under protest and filed suit to challenge the legality and constitutionality of these ordinances as applied to its activities.
Constitutional Law II
Freedom of Religion

United States vs. Causby

27th May 1946

ak120283
328 U.S. 256
Primary Holding
The Supreme Court held that flights by government aircraft at low altitudes directly over private property, which are so frequent and low as to directly interfere with the enjoyment and use of the land, constitute a "taking" of property for public use, requiring just compensation under the Fifth Amendment. This effectively created the concept of an "aerial easement."
Background
Historically, common law adhered to the doctrine cujus est solum ejus usque ad coelum et ad infernos, granting property owners rights to the heavens and to the depths below. However, the advent of aviation in the 20th century rendered this archaic rule impractical and necessitated a re-evaluation of airspace rights. Early courts initially resisted change, but the necessity of flight for transportation and national defense forced a legal evolution recognizing that the airspace above "usable heights" was not exclusively owned by the landowner.
Constitutional Law II
Eminent Domain

West Virginia State Board of Education vs. Barnette

14th June 1943

ak381061
319 U.S. 624
Primary Holding
The action of a State in making it compulsory for children in public schools to salute the flag and pledge allegiance violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution, as it compels an affirmation of belief and invades the sphere of intellect and spirit which the First Amendment reserves from all official control.
Background
Following the Supreme Court's 1940 decision in _Minersville School Dist. v. Gobitis_, which upheld a similar compulsory flag salute, the West Virginia legislature amended its statutes to require courses in history, civics, and the Constitutions to foster Americanism. The West Virginia State Board of Education then adopted a resolution making the flag salute a regular part of public school activities, requiring all teachers and pupils to participate. Refusal was deemed insubordination, leading to expulsion and potential delinquency proceedings for the child, and fines or jail time for parents. This resolution directly impacted Jehovah's Witnesses, whose religious beliefs forbid them from saluting any flag, as they consider it a form of worshipping a graven image, contrary to Exodus 20:4-5.
Constitutional Law II
Freedom of Religion

Tileston vs. Ullman

1st February 1943

ak624106
318 U.S. 44 (1943)
Primary Holding
A physician lacks standing to challenge a state statute prohibiting contraception on the grounds that it deprives the physician's patients of life without due process, as the right to life is personal and must be asserted by the patients themselves.
Background
A physician brought a suit seeking a declaratory judgment that a Connecticut law banning contraception was unconstitutional. The physician argued that the law prevented him from providing necessary medical advice to patients whose lives would be endangered by pregnancy.
Constitutional Law II
Police Power

Minersville School District vs. Gobitis

3rd June 1940

ak913969
310 U.S. 586
Primary Holding
A state regulation requiring public school pupils to participate in a daily flag salute ceremony, on pain of expulsion, is within the scope of legislative power and does not violate the religious freedom guarantees of the Fourteenth Amendment, even when applied to children whose sincere religious beliefs forbid such obeisance.
Background
The case arose during a period of increasing international tension leading up to World War II, where national unity was a significant concern. The Gobitis family, members of the Jehovah's Witnesses, believed that saluting the flag was a form of idolatry, violating biblical commands. This belief clashed with a Minersville, Pennsylvania, School Board resolution requiring all students and teachers to participate in a daily flag salute ceremony.
Constitutional Law II
Freedom of Religion

Cantwell vs. Connecticut

20th May 1940

ak518939
310 U.S. 296
Primary Holding
A state statute that requires individuals to obtain a certificate from a public official before soliciting for religious or charitable causes, where the official has the discretion to determine if the cause is genuinely religious, constitutes an unconstitutional prior restraint on the free exercise of religion in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Furthermore, speech that is offensive but does not create a clear and present danger of riot, disorder, or other immediate threat to public safety, peace, or order is protected under the First Amendment and cannot be the basis for a common law breach of the peace conviction.
Background
The case arose from the activities of Newton Cantwell and his two sons, Jesse and Russell, who were Jehovah's Witnesses. They were engaging in proselytizing activities in New Haven, Connecticut, which involved distributing religious literature and playing phonograph records with religious messages. Their actions led to their arrest and conviction under a state statute regulating solicitation for religious causes and for the common law offense of inciting a breach of the peace. This case tested the extent to which states can regulate religious solicitation and speech, particularly when it is deemed offensive by others.
Constitutional Law II
Freedom of Religion

Near vs. Minnesota

1st June 1931

ak767235
283 U.S. 697
Primary Holding
A state statute that permits public authorities to enjoin the future publication of a newspaper or periodical found to be "malicious, scandalous and defamatory" constitutes a prior restraint on publication in violation of the liberty of the press guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and is therefore unconstitutional, particularly when applied to charges of official misconduct.
Background
The case arose under a 1925 Minnesota law, Chapter 285 of the Session Laws of Minnesota, which declared that any person engaged in the business of regularly publishing a "malicious, scandalous and defamatory newspaper, magazine or other periodical" was guilty of a nuisance. The statute authorized actions in the name of the State to perpetually enjoin such publications. This law, often referred to as a "gag law," was enacted amidst concerns about yellow journalism and scurrilous publications but raised significant First Amendment issues.
Constitutional Law II
Freedom of Expression

United States vs. Schwimmer

27th May 1929

ak629766
279 U.S. 644
Primary Holding
An applicant for naturalization must be willing to take up arms in defense of the United States when required by law; an unwillingness to do so, even if based on pacifist beliefs, demonstrates a lack of attachment to the principles of the Constitution and an inability to take the oath of allegiance without mental reservation, thereby disqualifying the applicant for citizenship.
Background
The case arose from Rosika Schwimmer's application for naturalization under the Naturalization Act of 1906. At the time, international tensions and the experience of World War I had heightened concerns about national loyalty and the obligations of citizenship, including the duty to defend the country. Schwimmer, a well-known lecturer and writer with strong pacifist convictions, sought U.S. citizenship, leading to a legal challenge regarding whether her refusal to bear arms was compatible with the requirements for naturalization.
Constitutional Law II
Freedom of Expression

Olmstead et al. vs. United States

4th June 1928

ak928688
277 U.S. 438
Primary Holding
The interception of telephone conversations by government agents through wiretapping conducted outside the defendants' premises (without physical trespass) does not constitute a "search" or "seizure" prohibited by the Fourth Amendment, and therefore, the use of such intercepted conversations as evidence in a criminal trial does not violate the Fifth Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination.
Background
The case arose during the Prohibition era, involving a large-scale conspiracy to import, transport, possess, and sell intoxicating liquors in violation of the National Prohibition Act, operating primarily in the Seattle, Washington area and extending to British Columbia.
Constitutional Law II
Searches and Seizures

Whitney vs. California

16th May 1927

ak988741
274 U.S. 357
Primary Holding
A state, in the exercise of its police power, may constitutionally punish those who abuse the rights of free speech and assembly by knowingly becoming a member of, or assisting in organizing, an association that advocates, teaches, or aids and abets criminal syndicalism, defined as doctrines advocating unlawful acts of force and violence or unlawful methods of terrorism as a means of accomplishing industrial or political change, without violating the Due Process or Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Background
The case arose during a period of heightened concern over radical political movements and labor unrest in the United States following World War I and the Russian Revolution. California, like several other states, enacted a Criminal Syndicalism Act to counter organizations perceived as advocating for violent overthrow of the government or unlawful industrial and political change. Ms. Whitney, a niece of former Supreme Court Justice Stephen J. Field and a social activist, became involved with the Communist Labor Party.
Constitutional Law II
Freedom of Expression

Buck vs. Bell

2nd May 1927

ak816985
274 U.S. 200
Primary Holding
A state statute permitting the compulsory sterilization of institutionalized individuals found to have hereditary forms of insanity or imbecility does not violate the Due Process or Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment when adequate procedural safeguards are provided.
Background
* The case arose in the context of the eugenics movement in the early 20th century, which promoted the idea that societal problems could be reduced by preventing reproduction among individuals considered genetically unfit or "defective." * Virginia enacted a statute in 1924 reflecting these views, allowing for the sterilization of inmates of certain state institutions if deemed beneficial for the patient and society, based on concerns about heredity and the societal burden of supporting "defective persons."
Constitutional Law II
Due Process

Yu Cong Eng vs. Trinidad (US SC Case)

7th June 1926

ak944319
271 U.S. 500
Primary Holding
Act No. 2972 of the Philippine Legislature, which prohibits keeping business account books in any language other than English, Spanish, or a local dialect, is unconstitutional because it violates the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the Philippine Bill of Rights by arbitrarily interfering with the liberty and property of Chinese merchants without reasonable justification under the police power.
Background
The Philippine Legislature enacted Act No. 2972, primarily targeting Chinese merchants who constituted a significant portion of the commercial sector (around 60%) and traditionally kept their books in Chinese. The stated purpose was to facilitate tax inspection and prevent fraud, as revenue officials struggled to examine books kept in Chinese. This led to concerns about tax evasion but also significant opposition from the Chinese community, who argued the law would effectively drive them out of business due to their inability to understand or use books in the permitted languages.
Constitutional Law II
Due Process, Equal Protection

Yu Cong Eng vs. Trinidad (PH SC Case)

6th February 1925

ak907253
47 Phil. 385 , G.R. No. L-20479
Primary Holding
Act No. 2972 is interpreted to mean that persons and entities engaged in business in the Philippines must keep account books necessary for taxation purposes (specifically, sales books and other records and returns required by Bureau of Internal Revenue regulations) in English, Spanish, or a local dialect; this construction renders the Act constitutional as a valid fiscal measure.
Background
* The case arose from the Philippine government's efforts to effectively collect sales and income taxes, particularly from Chinese merchants, many of whom kept their account books exclusively in Chinese, making inspection difficult for revenue agents. * An earlier attempt by the Collector of Internal Revenue to mandate bookkeeping in English or Spanish via administrative circular was invalidated by the Supreme Court (_Young vs. Rafferty_) for exceeding administrative authority, prompting the Legislature to enact Act No. 2972. * The Act faced significant opposition from the Chinese community and diplomatic channels, and its enforcement was initially suspended before being pursued, leading to the arrest of petitioner Yu Cong Eng and this challenge.
Constitutional Law II
Due Process

Kwong Sing vs. City of Manila

11th October 1920

ak900808
41 Phil. 103 , G. R. No. 15972
Primary Holding
Municipal ordinances enacted under the general welfare clause and the specific power to regulate businesses, requiring reasonable measures like issuing detailed receipts in official languages to prevent fraud and disputes and protect the public, constitute a valid exercise of police power, even if they impose some burden on business owners, provided they are not discriminatory, arbitrary, or unduly oppressive.
Background
The City of Manila enacted Ordinance No. 532, which mandated that all laundries, dyeing, and cleaning establishments issue signed duplicate receipts in English and Spanish, specifying the kind and number of articles received for service, aiming to regulate the delivery and return of clothes and prevent disputes and fraud, particularly targeting issues arising from receipts issued in Chinese characters.
Constitutional Law II
Due Process

Abrams vs. United States

10th November 1919

ak287637
250 U.S. 616
Primary Holding
The distribution of circulars advocating a general strike in ammunition factories during wartime, even if primarily motivated by a desire to protest U.S. policy towards Russia, constitutes sufficient evidence of an unlawful intent to curtail war production and hinder the prosecution of the war against Germany, thereby violating the Espionage Act and falling outside the protection of the First Amendment.
Background
The case arose during World War I, shortly after the U.S. sent troops to parts of Russia following the Bolshevik Revolution, an action perceived by the defendants (Russian immigrants and self-proclaimed anarchists/revolutionists) as an attempt to crush the revolution. The Espionage Act of 1917, amended in 1918, criminalized various forms of dissent and anti-war expression deemed harmful to the U.S. war effort against Germany.
Constitutional Law II
Freedom of Expression

City of Manila vs. Chinese Community of Manila

31st October 1919

ak178680
40 Phil. 349 , No. 14355
Primary Holding
In expropriation proceedings initiated by the City of Manila, the courts have the authority to inquire into and hear evidence regarding the necessity of the expropriation; the determination of necessity is not solely a legislative prerogative but a judicial question subject to review when general authority to expropriate is granted.
Background
The City of Manila sought to extend Rizal Avenue and filed a petition to expropriate certain parcels of land in Binondo, Manila, owned by the Chinese Community of Manila, which included a cemetery. The Chinese Community opposed the expropriation, arguing it was unnecessary, would desecrate a cemetery, and alternative routes were available.
Constitutional Law II
Eminent Domain

Rubi vs. Provincial Board of Mindoro

7th March 1919

ak549703
39 Phil. 660 , G.R. No. 14078
Primary Holding
The Supreme Court ruled that Section 2145 of the Administrative Code of 1917, which authorized provincial governors to direct "non-Christian" inhabitants to live in reservations, was constitutional and did not violate due process or equal protection guarantees, nor did it constitute slavery or involuntary servitude.
Background
Rubi and other Manguianes (indigenous people of Mindoro) were ordered by the provincial governor to leave their native habitats and establish residence on a reservation at Tigbao in Mindoro. One Manguian named Dabalos escaped and was imprisoned. The Manguianes filed for habeas corpus, challenging the provincial governor's authority to confine them to reservations.
Constitutional Law II
Police Power

People vs. Bustos

8th March 1918

ak959486
37 Phil. 731 , G.R. No. 12592
Primary Holding
A communication made in good faith upon any subject-matter in which the party communicating has an interest, or in reference to which he has a duty, is privileged if made to a person having a corresponding interest or duty, even if it contains criminatory matter which would otherwise be slanderous or libelous; this qualified privilege applies to complaints against public officials addressed to the proper authorities for redress, and malice cannot be presumed but must be proven by the prosecution.
Background
In late 1915, numerous citizens of Pampanga, concerned about the alleged misconduct of Roman Punsalan, the justice of the peace of Macabebe and Masantol, prepared a petition detailing charges of malfeasance and asking for his removal from office. This petition, along with supporting affidavits, was submitted to the Executive Secretary, the proper authority for handling such complaints against justices of the peace at the time, through the law office of Crossfield & O'Brien.
Constitutional Law II
Freedom of Expression

United States vs. Toribio

26th January 1910

ak202554
15 Phil. 85 , G.R. No. 5060
Primary Holding
Act No. 1147 prohibits the slaughter of large cattle for human consumption anywhere in the Philippines without a permit, regardless of the presence of a municipal slaughterhouse. The law is a valid exercise of police power and not an infringement on private property rights.
Background
The case arose during a period when a contagious disease threatened the carabao population in the Philippines, impacting agriculture and the economy. Act No. 1147 was enacted to regulate the registration, branding, and slaughter of large cattle, aiming to protect the ownership and use of these animals.
Constitutional Law II
Police Power

Reynolds vs. United States

6th January 1879

ak870216
98 U.S. 145
Primary Holding
The First Amendment's guarantee of free exercise of religion protects religious beliefs and opinions but does not protect overt acts that violate generally applicable criminal laws, even if those acts are committed in pursuance of a religious duty; thus, a religious belief cannot be a defense to a charge of bigamy.
Background
The case arose from the conflict between federal anti-bigamy laws and the practice of polygamy by members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormon Church) in the Utah Territory. The federal government sought to suppress polygamy, viewing it as detrimental to social order, while many Mormons considered it a religious obligation. This tension led to prosecutions under federal statutes, with defendants often invoking religious freedom as a defense.
Constitutional Law II
Freedom of Religion

American Print Works vs. Lawrence

15th October 1847

ak008372
21 N.J.L. 248 (N.J. 1847)
Primary Holding
The defendant, Mayor Cornelius W. Lawrence, was not guilty of trespass because the destruction of the plaintiff's goods was a necessary and lawful act to prevent the spread of the Great Fire of 1835, justified under both a New York statute and common law necessity.
Background
In December 1835, a devastating fire broke out in New York City, rapidly spreading and threatening to consume a large portion of the city. Mayor Cornelius W. Lawrence, in consultation with city officials and military experts, ordered the destruction of several buildings using gunpowder to create firebreaks and halt the conflagration. Among the destroyed buildings were stores containing goods belonging to American Print Works.
Constitutional Law II
Police Power
« 1-50 51-97