Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
9.
Differences:
Police Power
As to regulation regulates both liberty
and property
Eminent Domain
regulates property
rights only
As to
Compensation
government and
some private
entities
destroyed because it is -wholesome
noxious or intended for -taken for a public
noxious purpose
use or purpose
intangible altruistic
feeling that the person
has contributed to the
Taxation
regulates
property rights
only
only the
government
-wholesome
-taken for a
public use or
purpose
protection and
public
improvements
general welfare
expropriated
paid
Limitations:
(1) Bill of Rights
1.
POLICE POWER
police power and the right to exact fees is may be implied from that power
to regulate. In setting the fees, municipal corporations are given wider
discretion in this class of licenses (than for licenses issued to regular
business). Courts have generally upheld these because of the desirability
of imposing restraints on individuals who engage in these unuseful
enterprises.
1 In Ynot v. IAC, the Court here ruled that the ban on transportation of
carabao under the assailed ordinance and their outright confiscation
and disposal without court hearing is a violation of due process hence it
is an invalid exercise of police power.
The court adopted the measures laid down in the Toribio case
Protection general welfare is a function of police power which both restrains
and is restrained by due process, which requires notice and hearing
Case emphasized the need to have a lawful method to follow due
process requirement
Reasons why ordinance is invalid are:
1 No reasonable connection between means employed (absolute
ban on movement of carabeef) and purpose sought to be
achieved (conservation of carabao for general welfare)
2 Unduly oppressive since petition not given due process or
opportunity to be heard in proper court
2.
EMINENT DOMAIN
Eminent Domain is the use of the government of its coercive authority, upon
just compensation, to forcibly acquire the needed property in order to devote the
same to public use.
Eminent domain is also known as expropriation, or condemnation.
Who may Exercise?
1.
2.
3.
4.
1 The Regional Trial Court (RTC) has the jurisdiction over a complaint
for eminent domain.
Requisites of Eminent Domain:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Necessity of exercise
Private property
Taking
Public use
Just compensation
1. Necessity of Exercise
1 genuine necessity, and
2 must be of public character
1 When exercised by legislature political question
2 When exercised by a delegate justiciable question
1 determine the: (a) adequacy of compensation; (b) necessity of
taking; and (c) public use character
2. Private Property
1 General Rule: anything that can come under the dominion of man is
subject to expropriation
1 Exceptions: money and chose in action (personal right not reduced into
possession, i.e. the right to bring an action to recover debt, money or
thing)
2 Private property already devoted to public use cannot be expropriated
by a delegate acting under a general grant of authority (City of Manila vs
Chinese Community)
3. Taking
Requisites (Republic vs Castellvi):
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
Eminent Domain
the individual suffers more than
his aliquot part of the damages,
i.e. a special injury above that
sustained by the rest of the
community
4. Public Use
Public use is whatever may be beneficially employed for the general welfare,
including both direct or indirect benefit or advantage to the public
1 In Heirs of Ardona v. Reyes, the Court held that the Constitution
understand public use in a broad sense as meaning public welfare. That
includes development of tourism.
5. Just Compensation
Just compensation is fair and full equivalent payment for the loss sustained,
which is the measure of the indemnity, not whatever gain would accrue to the
expropriating agency. It is not market value per se. (Epza v. Dulay)
1 Where only part of the property is expropriated: entitlement to
consequential damages, if any + consequential benefits must be
deducted from the total compensation provided consequential benefits
does not exceed consequential damages
1 Payment of the correct amount + Payment within a reasonable time
2 Form of Compensation: Money (However, in Assoc. of Small
Landowners vs Sec. of Agrarian Reform, payment is allowed to be made
partly in bonds because it deals with a revolutionary kind of expropriation).
3 Transfer of Title: payment of just compensation before title is
transferred.
4 Reckoning point of market value of property: either as of the date of
taking or filing of the complaint, whichever comes first
5 Entitlement of interest:
1 General Rule: when there is delay, there must be interest by way of
damages (Art. 2209, CC)
2 Exception: when waived by not claiming the interest
6 Payment of Taxes : taxes paid from the time of the taking until the
transfer of the title, during which the owner did not enjoy any
beneficial use of the property, are reimbursable by the expropriator.
1 In Epza v. Dulay, P.D. Nos. 76, 464, 794, and 1533 prescribed a formula
for arriving at just compensation in expropriation proceedings , dispense
with the need to appoint commissioners to determine just compensation.
The Court held that those decrees are unconstitutional and void for they
constitute impermissible encroachment on judicial prerogatives.
2 In Republic v. CA, the government argued that the nullification should
only have prospective effect. The Court agreed. Thus under the
operative fact doctrine, the effect of the invalidated law was allowed
to affect transactions completed before the declaration of nullity.
3.
POWER OF TAXATION
License
for regulatory purpose only
justified under police power
amount of fees required is usually limited to the
cost of regulation
Scope
1 all income earned in the taxing state, whether by citizens or aliens, and all
immovable and tangible personal properties found in its territory, as well
as tangible personal property owned by persons domiciled therein
Power to Tax Includes Power to Destroy
(1) when used validly as an implement of the police power in discouraging
and in effect ultimately prohibiting certain things or enterprises inimical
to public welfare
Destroy
Power to Tax Does Not Include Power to
1 where the tax is used solely for the purpose of raising revenues
Who May Exercise
1. Legislature / Congress (inherent)
2. President (by delegation / tariff powers [Sec. 28 (2), Art. VI, Consti])
3. local legislative bodies (conferred by direct authority [Sec. 5, Art. X,
Consti])
Limitations of Taxation:
1. Due Process of Law
2. Equal Protection
3. Public Purpose
1. Due Process
1 Substantive : tax should not be confiscatory except when used as
an implement of police power
2 Procedural : due process does not require previous notice and hearing
before a law prescribing specific taxes on specific articles may be
enacted. However, where the tax to be collected is to be based on the
value of the taxable property, the taxpayer is entitled to be notified of the
assessment proceedings and to be heard therein on the correct
valuation of the property.
2. Equal Protection
1 embodied in Sec. 28 (1), Art. VI, 1987 Constitution (The rule of taxation
shall be uniform and equitable. The Congress shall evolve a
progressive system of taxation.)
2 Uniformity persons or things belonging to the same class shall be taxed
at the same rate
1 Requisites (Tan vs Del Rosario):
(1) standards that are used are substantial and not arbitrary
(2) categorization is germane to achieve the legislative purpose
(3) the law applies, all things being equal, to both present and future
conditions
(4) classification applies equally well to all those belonging to the same
class
1 Equitable taxation based on the capacity to pay
2 Equality in taxation tax shall be strictly proportional to the relative value
of the property
3 Progressive system of taxation the rate increases as the tax base
increases
3. Public Purpose
1 whatever may be beneficially employed for the general welfare
2 Double Taxation / Direct Duplicate Taxation
1 when additional taxes are laid on the same subject by the same taxing
jurisdiction during the same taxing period and for the same purpose.
2 despite the lack of specific prohibition, double taxation will not be
allowed if it results in a violation of the equal protection clause.
3 Tax Exemptions may either be:
1 constitutional
1 Art. Vi, Sec. 28 (3) : when lands, buildings and improvements
are actually, directly and exclusively for religious, charitable or
educational purposes entitled to exemption
2 statutory- discretion of legislature
Rights is a guarantee that there are certain areas of a person's life, liberty, and
property which governmental power may not touch.
1 Bill of Rights are generally self-implementing.
Classification of Rights
1. Political Rights granted by law to members of community in relation to
their direct or indirect participation in the establishment or administration of
the government;
2. Civil Rights rights which municipal law will enforce at the instance of
private individuals for the purpose of securing them the enjoyment of
their means of happiness;
3. Social and Economic Rights; and,
4. Human Rights.
1.
DUE PROCESS
The statute interferes with the liberty of a person and the right of free
contract between employer and employee by determining the hours of labor
in the occupation of a baker without reasonable ground for doing so.
The general right to make a contract in relation to ones business is a
liberty protected by the 14th amendment.
The state may interfere with and regulate both property and liberty rights to
prevent the individual from making certain kinds of contracts in its exercise of
police power which relates to safety, health, morals and general welfare of the
society. In this instance, the 14th amendment cannot interfere.
The trade of a baker is not an alarmingly unhealthy one that would warrant the
Doctrine: The rule must have a more direct relation, as means to an end, and
the end itself must be appropriate and legitimate, before an act can be held to
be valid which interferes with the general right of an individual to be free in his
person and in his power to contract in relation to his own labor.
1 Our cases include Court of Industrial Relations (Ang Tibay vs. CIR) as an
administrative court which exercises judicial and quasi-judicial functions in
the determination of disputes between employers and employees.
National Telecommunications Company (PHILCOMSAT vs. Alcuaz),
National Labor Relations Commission or NLRC (DBP vs. NLRC) and
school tribunals (Ateneo vs. CA-Board of Discipline, Alcuaz vs. PSBA,
Non vs. Judge Dames, Tinker vs. Des Moines Community School
District) also are clothed with quasi-judicial function. It is a question of
whether the body or institution has a judicial or quasi-judicial function that
makes it bound by the due process clause. (Judicial function is
synonymous to judicial power which is the authority to settle justiciable
controversies or disputes involving rights that are legally enforceable and
demandable or the redress of wrongs for violations of such rights. It is a
determination of what the law is and what the legal rights of the parties are
with respect to a matter in controversy).
2 In Ang Tibay vs. CIR, the Court laid down cardinal requirements in
administrative proceedings which essentially exercise a judicial or
quasi-judicial function. These are:
(1) the right to a hearing, which includes the right to present ones case
and submit evidence in support thereof
(2) The tribunal must consider the evidence presented
(3) The decision must have something to support itself
(4) The evidence must be substantial. Substantial evidence means such a
reasonable evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to
support a conclusion
(5) The decision must be based on the evidence presented at the hearting or
at least contained in the record and disclosed to the parties affected
(6) The tribunal or body of any of its judges must act on its own independent
consideration of the law and facts of the controversy and not simply
(7) The Board or body should, in all controversial questions, render its
decision in such manner that the parties to the proceeding can know
the various issues involved and the reason for the decision rendered.
2.
EQUAL PROTECTION
3.
Section 2, Art. III. The right 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.
Section 2, Art. III deals with tangibles; embodies the castle doctrine (a
man's house is his castle; a citizen enjoys the right against official intrusion and is
master of all the surveys within the domain and privacy of his own home.)
1 This provision applies as a restraint directed only against the
government and its agencies tasked with enforcement of the law. It does
not protect citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures
perpetrated by private individuals.
Section 3, Art. III. (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
Requisites:
1. prior valid intrusion to a place
2. evidence was inadvertently discovered by the police who has
the right to be there
3. evidence is immediately apparent
4. there is no further search
4. enforcement of customs law
5. consented searches
6. stop and frisk (limited protective search of outer clothing for weapons)
1 In Terry v. Ohio, the stop-and-frisk rule is stated thus: (W)here a
police officer observes unusual conduct which leads him reasonably to
conclude in the light of his experience that criminal activity may be
afoot 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 persons in an
attempt to discover weapons which might be used to assault him.
2 Stop-and-frisk rule serves a two-fold interest:
(1) the general interest of effective crime prevention and detection;
(2) the more pressing interest of safety and self-preservation.
(Malacat)
7. routine searches at borders and ports of entry
8. searches of businesses in the exercise of visitorial powers
to enforce police regulations
Procedure:
(1) personally evaluate the
fiscal's report, or
(2) if [1] is insufficient,
disregard it and require the
submission of supporting
affidavits of witnesses
Preliminary inquiry (task of
the judge) determination of
probable cause for the
issuance of warrant of arrest
Preliminary investigation
proper (task of the
prosecutor) ascertainment
whether the offender should
Search Warrant
Such facts and circumstances
which would lead a reasonably
prudent man to believe that an
offense has been committed
and the objects sought in the
connection of the offense are in
the place sought to be searched
The judge must personally
examine in the form of
searching questions and
answers...
in writing and under oath...
the complainants and his
witnesses...
on facts personally known to
them...
and attach to the record their
sworn statements and affidavits.
(Silva vs Presiding Judge)
released
Not merely routinary but must Not merely routinary but must
be probing and exhaustive
be probing and exhaustive
3. After
examination
under oath or
affirmation of
the
complainant
and the
witnesses he
may produce
4.Particularity General Rule: it must
of description contain the name/s of the
persons to be arrested
1 In Valmonte v. Gen. De Villa, the Court held that not all searches and
seizures are prohibited. Those which are reasonable are not forbidden. A
reasonable search is not to be determined by any fixed formula but is to
be resolved according to the facts of the case.
Checkpoints are not illegal per se... Routine inspection and few questions do not
constitute unreasonable searches. If the inspection becomes more thorough to
the extent of becoming a search, this can be done when there is deemed to be
probable cause. In the latter situation, it is justifiable as a warrantless search of a
moving vehicle.
Probable Cause facts and circumstances antecedent to the issuance of a
warrant that are in themselves sufficient to induce a cautious man to rely
upon them.
1 In Corro v. Lising, the Affidavit of Col. Castillo stated that in several
issues of the Philippine Times:... we found that the said publication in fact
foments distrust and hatred against the government of the Philippines.
The Court held that the affidavit does not establish probable cause, and is
nothing but conclusions of law.
The Court also held that the search warrant description has the sweeping tenor
making the document a general warrant. The search warrant particularly
states:all printing equipment, typewriters... of the WE Forum newspaper and
any other documents...
It is not required that the property to be searched should be owned by the person
against whom the search warrant is directed. It is sufficient that the property is
under the control or possession of the person sought to be searched.
1 In Soliven v. Judge Makasiar, the Court clarified the meaning of
personally in the search and seizure clause. It stated that in arriving at a
conclusion as to the existence of existence of probable cause, what is
required is personal determination and not personal examination.
2 In Lim v. Felix, the Court held that the judge in issuing a warrant of
arrest cannot rely solely on the certification or recommendation of a
prosecutor that probable cause exists. The judge must look at the report,
the affidavits, the transcripts of stenographic notes (if any), and all other
supporting documents behind the Prosecutor's certification.
3 In Stonehill v. Diokno, the Court held that the following description is
insufficient for it amounts to a general warrant authorizing the officer to
pick up anything he pleases: Book of accounts, financial records,
vouchers...and other documents showing all business transactions....
The Court further held that the objection to an unlawful search or seizure and to
evidence obtained thereby is purely personal and cannot be availed by third
parties.
D. MIRANDA RIGHTS
Section 12, Art.
III.
5. Agustin)
(2) To be reminded that if he waives his right to remain silent,
anything he says can and will be used against him
(3) To remain silent
(4) To have competent and independent counsel preferably of
own choice
(5) To be provided with counsel if the person cannot afford the
services of one
(6) No torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation or any other means
which vitiate the free will shall be used against him
(7) Secret detention places, solitary, incommunicado, or other similar
forms of detention are prohibited
(8) Confessions or admissions obtained in violation of these rights
are inadmissible as evidence (exclusionary rule)
Rights That May Be Waived
[waiver must be in writing and in the presence of counsel]
(1) Right to remain silent
(2) Right to Counsel
Rights That Cannot Be Waived
(1) Right to be informed of his right to remain silent and to counsel
(2) Right to counsel when making the waiver of the right to remain silent or
to counsel
1 Right to counsel de parte is not unlimited. Accused cannot repeatedly ask
for postponement. He must be provided with counsel de oficio.
2 RA 7309: victims of unjust imprisonment may file their claims with the
Board of Claims under DOJ
the police desk officer after the crime was committed may be given in
evidence against him by the police officer to whom the admission
was made, as part of the res gestae.
1 In People v. Galit, rights under custodial investigation may be waived.
The Constitution says; These rights cannot be waived except in writing
and in the presence of counsel. In localities where there are no lawyers,
the State must bring the individual to a place where there is one.
2 Termination of rights under custodial investigation: When Charges
are filed against the accused (in such case, Sections 14 and 17 come into
play).
3 In Gutang v. People, the Court held that urine sample is admissible.
What the Constitution prohibits is the use of physical or moral compulsion
to extort communication from the accused, but not an inclusion of his
body in evidence, when it may be material. In fact, an accused may be
validly compelled to be photographed or measured, or his garments or
shoes removed or replaced, or to move his body to enablke the foregoing
things to be done, without running afould of the proscription against
testimonial compulsion.
5. RIGHT TO BAIL
Section 13, Art. III. All persons, except those charged with offenses
punishable by reclusion perpetua when evidence of guilt is strong, shall,
before conviction, be bailable by sufficient sureties, or be released on
recognizance as may be provided by law. The right to bail shall not be
impaired even when the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is
suspended. Excessive bail shall not be required.
Bail is security given for the release of a person in custody of law, furnished by
him or a bondsman, to guaranty his appearance before any court as may be
required
Kinds of Bail
1 Trial in Absentia is mandatory upon the court whenever the accused has
been arraigned.
2 There is also Promulgation in Absentia
3 While the accused is entitled to be present during promulgation of
judgment, the absence of his counsel during such promulgation does not
affect its validity
4 The trial in absentia does not abrogate the provisions of the Rules of Court
regarding forfeiture of bail bond if the accused fails to appear at his trial.
5 A court has the power to prohibit a person admitted to bail from leaving the
Philippines as this is a necessary consequence of the nature and function
of a bail bond
6. The Right to Meet the Witnesses Face to Face
Purposes of the Right to Meet the Witnesses Face to Face
(1) To afford the accused an opportunity to cross-examine the witness
(2) To allow the judge the opportunity to observe the deportment of the
witness
Principal Exceptions to this Right
(1) The admissibility of dying declarations
(2) Trial in absentia under Section 14(2)
1 With respect to child testimony
2 Testimony of witness who was not cross-examined is not admissible as
evidence for being hearsay.
3 If a prosecution witness dies before his cross-examination can be completed,
his direct testimony cannot be stricken off the record, provided the material
points of his direct testimony had been covered on cross.
4 The right to confrontation may be waived.
7. Compulsory Process
1 The accused is entitled to the issuance of subpoena ad testificandum and
subpoena duces tecum for the purpose of compelling the attendance of
witness and the production of evidence that he may need for his defense.
2 Failure to obey punishable as contempt of court.
3 There are exceptional circumstances when the defendant may ask for
conditional examination, provided the expected testimony is material of
any witness under circumstances that would make him unavailable from
attending the trial.
8. Trial in Absentia
Trial in Absentia May Only Be Allowed If the Following Requisites Are Met:
(1) the accused has been validly arraigned;
(2) Accused has already been arraigned;
(3) Accused has been duly notified of the trial; and
(4) His failure to appear is unjustifiable.
7.
HABEAS CORPUS
Section 15, Art. III. The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be
suspended except in cases of invasion or rebellion, when the public safety
requires it.
Writ of Habeas Corpus is a written order issued by a court, directed to a
person detaining another, commanding him to produce the body of the prisoner
at a designated time and place with the day and cause of his caption and
detention.
Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus the right to have an immediate
determination of the legality of the deprivation of physical liberty.
Procedure
Need to comply with writ; disobedience thereof constitutes contempt
Who may suspend the privilege
The President
Grounds for Suspension of the privilege
1. invasion or rebellion
2. when public safety requires it
Section 18, Art. VII. The President shall be the Commander -in-Chief of all
armed forces of the Philippines and whenever it becomes necessary, he
may call out such armed forces to prevent or suppress lawless violence,
invasion or rebellion. In case of invasion or rebellion, when the public
safety requires it, he may, for a period not exceeding sixty days, suspend
the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus or place the Philippines or any
part thereof under martial law. Within forty-eight hours from the
proclamation of martial law or the suspension of the privilege of the writ of
habeas corpus, the President shall submit a report in person or in writing
to the Congress. The Congress, voting jointly, by a vote of at least a
majority of all its Members in regular or special session, may revoke such
proclamation or suspension, which revocation shall not be set aside by the
President. Upon the initiative of the President, the Congress may, in the
same manner, extend such proclamation or suspension for a period to be
determined by the Congress, if the invasion or rebellion shall persist and
public safety requires it.
The Congress, if not in session, shall, within twenty-four hours following
such proclamation or suspension, convene in accordance with its rules
without need of a call.
The Supreme Court may review, in an appropriate proceeding filed by any
citizen, the sufficiency of the factual basis of the proclamation of martial
law or the suspension of the privilege of the writ or the extension thereof,
and must promulgate its decision thereon within thirty days from its filing.
A state of martial law does not suspend the operation of the Constitution,
nor supplant the functioning of the civil courts or legislative assemblies,
nor authorize the conferment of jurisdiction on military courts and
agencies over civilians where civil courts are able to function, nor
automatically suspend the privilege of the writ.
The suspension of the privilege of the writ shall apply only to persons
judicially charged for rebellion or offenses inherent in or directly connected
with invasion.
During the suspension of the privilege of the writ, any person thus arrested
or detained shall be judicially charged within three days, otherwise he shall
be released.
Lansang doctrine (Lansang vs Garcia): SC has the power to inquire into the
factual basis of the suspension of the privilege of the writ. It is written in Article
VII, Sec. 18 of the Constitution.
H. WRIT OF AMPARO
A.M. No. 07-9-12-SC
(25 September 2007)
THE RULE ON THE WRIT OF AMPARO
SECTION 1. Petition. The petition for a writ of amparo is a remedy available to
any person whose right to life, liberty and security is violated or threatened with
violation by an unlawful act or omission of a public official or employee, or of a
private individual or entity.
The writ shall cover extralegal killings and enforced disappearances or threats
thereof.
SEC. 2. Who May File. The petition may be filed by the aggrieved party or by
any qualified person or entity in the following order:
1. Any member of the immediate family, namely: the spouse, children
and parents of the aggrieved party;
2. Any ascendant, descendant or collateral relative of the aggrieved
party within the fourth civil degree of consanguinity or affinity, in
default of those mentioned in the preceding paragraph; or
3. Any concerned citizen, organization, association or institution, if
there is no known member of the immediate family or relative of the
aggrieved party.
The filing of a petition by the aggrieved party suspends the right of all other
authorized parties to file similar petitions. Likewise, the filing of the petition by an
authorized party on behalf of the aggrieved party suspends the right of all others,
observing the order established herein.
SEC. 3. Where to File. The petition may be filed on any day and at any time with
the Regional Trial Court of the place where the threat, act or omission was
committed or any of its elements occurred, or with the Sandiganbayan, the Court
of Appeals, the Supreme Court, or any justice of such courts. The writ shall be
enforceable anywhere in the Philippines.
When issued by a Regional Trial Court or any judge thereof, the writ shall be
returnable before such court or judge.
When issued by the Sandiganbayan or the Court of Appeals or any of their
justices, it may be returnable before such court or any justice thereof, or to any
Regional Trial Court of the place where the threat, act or omission was
committed or any of its elements occurred.
When issued by the Supreme Court or any of its justices, it may be returnable
before such Court or any justice thereof, or before the Sandiganbayan or the
Court of Appeals or any of their justices, or to any Regional Trial Court of the
place where the threat, act or omission was committed or any of its elements
occurred.
SEC. 4. No Docket Fees. The petitioner shall be exempted from the payment of
the docket and other lawful fees when filing the petition. The court, justice or
judge shall docket the petition and act upon it immediately.
SEC. 5. Contents of Petition. The petition shall be signed and verified and shall
allege the following:
1. The personal circumstances of the petitioner;
2. The name and personal circumstances of the respondent
responsible for the threat, act or omission, or, if the name is
unknown or uncertain, the respondent may be described by an
assumed appellation;
3. The right to life, liberty and security of the aggrieved party violated
or threatened with violation by an unlawful act or omission of the
respondent, and how such threat or violation is committed with the
attendant circumstances detailed in supporting affidavits;
4. The investigation conducted, if any, specifying the names, personal
circumstances, and addresses of the investigating authority or
individuals, as well as the manner and conduct of the investigation,
together with any report;
5. The actions and recourses taken by the petitioner to determine the
fate or whereabouts of the aggrieved party and the identity of the
person responsible for the threat, act or omission; and
6. The relief prayed for.
The petition may include a general prayer for other just and equitable reliefs.
SEC. 6. Issuance of the Writ. Upon the filing of the petition, the court, justice or
judge shall immediately order the issuance of the writ if on its face it ought to
issue. The clerk of court shall issue the writ under the seal of the court; or in case
of urgent necessity, the justice or the judge may issue the writ under his or her
own hand, and may deputize any officer or person to serve it.
The writ shall also set the date and time for summary hearing of the petition
which shall not be later than seven (7) days from the date of its issuance.
SEC. 7. Penalty for Refusing to Issue or Serve the Writ. A clerk of court who
refuses to issue the writ after its allowance, or a deputized person who refuses to
serve the same, shall be punished by the court, justice or judge for contempt
without prejudice to other disciplinary actions.
SEC. 8. How the Writ is Served. The writ shall be served upon the respondent
by a judicial officer or by a person deputized by the court, justice or judge who
shall retain a copy on which to make a return of service. In case the writ cannot
be served personally on the respondent, the rules on substituted service shall
apply.
SEC. 9. Return; Contents. Within seventy-two (72) hours after service of the
writ, the respondent shall file a verified written return together with supporting
affidavits which shall, among other things, contain the following:
1. The lawful defenses to show that the respondent did not violate or
threaten with violation the right to life, liberty and security of the
aggrieved party, through any act or omission;
2. The steps or actions taken by the respondent to determine the fate
or whereabouts of the aggrieved party and the person or persons
responsible for the threat, act or omission;
3. All relevant information in the possession of the respondent
pertaining to the threat, act or omission against the aggrieved party;
and
4. If the respondent is a public official or employee, the return shall
further state the actions that have been or will still be taken:
1. to verify the identity of the aggrieved party;
2. to recover and preserve evidence related to the death or
disappearance of the person identified in the petition which may aid
in the prosecution of the person or persons responsible;
3. to identify witnesses and obtain statements from them concerning
the death or disappearance;
4. to determine the cause, manner, location and time of death or
disappearance as well as any pattern or practice that may have
brought about the death or disappearance;
5. to identify and apprehend the person or persons involved in the
death or disappearance; and
6. to bring the suspected offenders before a competent court.
The return shall also state other matters relevant to the investigation, its
resolution and the prosecution of the case.
A general denial of the allegations in the petition shall not be allowed.
SEC. 10. Defenses not Pleaded Deemed Waived. All defenses shall be raised
in the return, otherwise, they shall be deemed waived.
SEC. 11. Prohibited Pleadings and Motions. The following pleadings and
motions are prohibited:
1. Motion to dismiss;
2. Motion for extension of time to file return, opposition, affidavit,
position paper and other pleadings;
3. Dilatory motion for postponement;
4. Motion for a bill of particulars;
5. Counterclaim or cross-claim;
6. Third-party complaint;
7. Reply;
8. Motion to declare respondent in default;
9. Intervention;
10.
Memorandum;
11.
Motion
for
reconsideration of interlocutory orders or interim relief orders; and
12.
Petition for
certiorari,
mandamus or prohibition against any interlocutory order.
SEC. 12. Effect of Failure to File Return. In case the respondent fails to file a
return, the court, justice or judge shall proceed to hear the petition ex parte.
SEC. 13. Summary Hearing. The hearing on the petition shall be summary.
However, the court, justice or judge may call for a preliminary conference to
simplify the issues and determine the possibility of obtaining stipulations and
admissions from the parties.
The hearing shall be from day to day until completed and given the same priority
The movant must show that the inspection order is necessary to establish
the right of the aggrieved party alleged to be threatened or violated.
The inspection order shall specify the person or persons authorized to
make the inspection and the date, time, place and manner of making the
inspection and may prescribe other conditions to protect the constitutional
rights of all parties. The order shall expire five (5) days after the date of its
issuance, unless extended for justifiable reasons.
(c) Production Order. The court, justice or judge, upon verified motion and
after due hearing, may order any person in possession, custody or control
of any designated documents, papers, books, accounts, letters,
photographs, objects or tangible things, or objects in digitized or electronic
form, which constitute or contain evidence relevant to the petition or the
return, to produce and permit their inspection, copying or photographing
by or on behalf of the movant.
The motion may be opposed on the ground of national security or of the
privileged nature of the information, in which case the court, justice or
judge may conduct a hearing in chambers to determine the merit of the
opposition.
The court, justice or judge shall prescribe other conditions to protect the
constitutional rights of all the parties.
(d) Witness Protection Order. The court, justice or judge, upon motion or
motu proprio, may refer the witnesses to the Department of Justice for
admission to the Witness Protection, Security and Benefit Program,
pursuant to Republic Act No. 6981.
The court, justice or judge may also refer the witnesses to other
government agencies, or to accredited persons or private institutions
capable of keeping and securing their safety.
SEC. 15. Availability of Interim Reliefs to Respondent. Upon verified motion
of the respondent and after due hearing, the court, justice or judge may issue an
inspection order or production order under paragraphs (b) and (c) of the
preceding section.
A motion for inspection order under this section shall be supported by affidavits
or testimonies of witnesses having personal knowledge of the defenses of the
respondent.
SEC. 16. Contempt. The court, justice or judge may order the respondent who
refuses to make a return, or who makes a false return, or any person who
otherwise disobeys or resists a lawful process or order of the court to be
punished for contempt. The contemnor may be imprisoned or imposed a fine.
SEC. 17. Burden of Proof and Standard of Diligence Required. The parties
shall establish their claims by substantial evidence.
The respondent who is a private individual or entity must prove that ordinary
diligence as required by applicable laws, rules and regulations was observed in
the performance of duty.
The respondent who is a public official or employee must prove that
extraordinary diligence as required by applicable laws, rules and regulations was
observed in the performance of duty.
The respondent public official or employee cannot invoke the presumption that
official duty has been regularly performed to evade responsibility or liability.
SEC. 18. Judgment. The court shall render judgment within ten (10) days from
the time the petition is submitted for decision. If the allegations in the petition are
proven by substantial evidence, the court shall grant the privilege of the writ and
such reliefs as may be proper and appropriate; otherwise, the privilege shall be
denied.
SEC. 19. Appeal. Any party may appeal from the final judgment or order to the
Supreme Court under Rule 45. The appeal may raise questions of fact or law or
both.
The period of appeal shall be five (5) working days from the date of notice of the
adverse judgment.
The appeal shall be given the same priority as in habeas corpus cases.
SEC. 20. Archiving and Revival of Cases. The court shall not dismiss the
petition, but shall archive it, if upon its determination it cannot proceed for a valid
cause such as the failure of petitioner or witnesses to appear due to threats on
their lives.
A periodic review of the archived cases shall be made by the amparo court that
shall, motu proprio or upon motion by any party, order their revival when ready
for further proceedings. The petition shall be dismissed with prejudice upon
failure to prosecute the case after the lapse of two (2) years from notice to the
petitioner of the order archiving the case.
The clerks of court shall submit to the Office of the Court Administrator a
consolidated list of archived cases under this Rule not later than the first week of
January of every year.
SEC. 21. Institution of Separate Actions. This Rule shall not preclude the filing
of separate criminal, civil or administrative actions.
SEC. 22. Effect of Filing of a Criminal Action. When a criminal action has been
commenced, no separate petition for the writ shall be filed. The reliefs under the
writ shall be available by motion in the criminal case.
The procedure under this Rule shall govern the disposition of the reliefs available
under the writ of amparo.
SEC. 23. Consolidation. When a criminal action is filed subsequent to the filing
of a petition for the writ, the latter shall be consolidated with the criminal action.
When a criminal action and a separate civil action are filed subsequent to a
petition for a writ of amparo, the latter shall be consolidated with the criminal
action.
After consolidation, the procedure under this Rule shall continue to apply to the
disposition of the reliefs in the petition.
SEC. 24. Substantive Rights. This Rule shall not diminish, increase or modify
substantive rights recognized and protected by the Constitution.
SEC. 25. Suppletory Application of the Rules of Court. The Rules of Court
shall apply suppletorily insofar as it is not inconsistent with this Rule.
SEC. 26. Applicability to Pending Cases. This Rule shall govern cases
involving extralegal killings and enforced disappearances or threats thereof
pending in the trial and appellate courts.
SEC. 27. Effectivity. This Rule shall take effect on October 24, 2007, following
its publication in three (3) newspapers of general circulation.
Section 16, Art. III. All persons shall have the right to a speedy disposition
of their cases before all judicial, quasi-judicial, or administrative bodies.
Speedy Trial vs. Speedy Disposition of Cases
Speedy trial
Refers to trial phase only
Criminal cases only
Length of delay
Reason of delay
Assertion of the right or failure to assert it
Prejudice caused by delay
Use and Fruit Immunity Statute prohibits the use of the witness' compelled
testimony and its fruit in any manner in connection with the criminal prosecution
for an offense to which such compelled testimony relates.
May be Claimed by:
1. Accused at all times; there is a reasonable assumption that the
purpose of his interrogation will be to incriminate him
2. Witness only when an incriminating question is asked, since the
witness has no way of knowing in advance the nature or effect of
the question to be put to him
1- He cannot invoke right to self-incrimination when:
1) The question is relevant and otherwise allowed even
if the answer may tend to incriminate him or subject
him to civil liability
2) the question relates to past criminality for which
the witness can no longer be prosecuted
3) he has been previously granted immunity under a
validly enacted statute
2 Only natural persons can invoke this right. Judicial persons are subject to
the visitorial powers of the state in order to determine compliance with the
conditions of the charter granted to them.
Scope:
(1) Testimonial Compulsion
1 In Villaflor v. Summers, since the kernel of the privilege was the
prohibition of testimonial compulsion, the Court was willing to compel a
pregnant woman accused of adultery to submit to the indignity of being
tested for pregnancy. Being purely a mechanical act, it is not a violation of
her constitutional right against self-incrimination.
(2) Production of Documents, Papers and Chattels. Exception: when books of
accounts are to be examined in the exercise of police power and power of
taxation.
1 What is prohibited is the use of physical or moral compulsion to extort
communication from the witness or to otherwise elicit evidence which
would not exist were it not for the actions compelled from the witness.
The right does not prohibit the examination of the body of the accused or
the use of findings with respect to his body as physical evidence. Hence,
the fingerprinting of an accused would not violate the right against selfincrimination. However, obtaining a sample of the handwriting of the
accused would violate this right if he is charged for falsification.
Section 18 (2), Art. III. No involuntary servitude in any form shall exist
except as a punishment for a crime whereof the party shall have been duly
convicted.
Involuntary Servitude the condition of one who is compelled by force,
coercion, or imprisonment, and against his will, to labor for another, whether he is
paid or not.
Involuntary Servitude Includes
(1) Slavery civil relation in which one man has absolute power over the
life, fortune and liberty of another;
General Rule
No involuntary service in any form shall exist.
Exceptions
1. Punishment for a crime for which the party shall have been duly
convicted (Sec. 18, Art. III)
2. Personal military or civil service in the interest of national defense
(Sec. 4, Art. II)
3. Naval enlistment remain in service until the end of voyage so that the
crew would not desert the ship, making it difficult for the owners to recruit
new hands to continue the voyage (Robertson vs Baldwin)
4. Posse comitatus in pursuit of persons who might have violated the
law, the authorities might command all male inhabitants of a certain
age to assist them (US vs Pompeya)
5.
K. CRUEL AND
INHUMAN
PUNISHMENT
degrading or inhuman.
Section 20, Art. III. No person shall be imprisoned for debt or non-payment
of a poll tax.
For humanitarian reasons an added guaranty of the liberty of
persons against their incarceration for the enforcement of purely private
debts because of their misfortune of being poor
Debt any civil obligation arising from a contract, expressed or implied, resulting
in any liability to pay in money.
Scope of guaranty against imprisonment for non-payment of debt
1 If an accused fails to pay the fine imposed upon him, this may result in his
subsidiary imprisonment because his liability is ex delicto and not ex
contractu.
A FRAUDULENT debt may result in the imprisonment of the debtor if:
1. The fraudulent debt constitutes a crime such as estafa; and
2. The accused has been duly convicted.
POLL TAX
General Rule: Non -payment of taxes is punishable with
imprisonment. Exception: Failure to pay a poll tax
Poll tax a specific sum levied upon every person belonging to a certain class
without regard to his property or occupation.
1 A tax is not a debt since it is an obligation arising from law. Hence, its nonpayment maybe validly punished with imprisonment.
M. DOUBLE JEOPARDY
Section 21, Art. III. No person shall be twice put in jeopardy of punishment
for the same offense. If an act is punished by a law and an ordinance,
conviction or acquittal under either shall constitute a bar to another
prosecution for the same act.
Double jeopardy when a person was charged with an offense and the case
was terminated by acquittal or conviction or in any other manner without his
consent, he cannot again be charged with the same or identical offense.
Requisites of Double Jeopardy
1.
2.
3.
4.
Same Offense
Requisites for a valid defense of double jeopardy:
(1) First jeopardy must have attached prior to the second.
(2) The first jeopardy must have terminated.
(3) The second jeopardy must be for the same offense as that in the first.
When does jeopardy ATTACH: (1st requisite)
(a) A person is charged
Acquittal
Conviction
Dismissal W/O the EXPRESS consent of the accused
Dismissal on the merits.
Same Act
1 Double jeopardy will result if the act punishable under the law and the
ordinance are the same. For there to be double jeopardy, it is not
necessary that the offense be the same.
Supervening Facts
1) Under the Rules of Court, a conviction for an offense will not bar a
prosecution for an offense which necessarily includes the offense charged
in the former information where:
(1) The graver offense developed due to a supervening fact arising
from the same act or omission constituting the former charge.
(2) The facts constituting the graver offense became known or were
discovered only after the filing of the former information.
(3) The plea of guilty to the lesser offense was made without the
consent of the fiscal and the offended party.
2) Under (1)(b), if the facts could have been discovered by the prosecution
but were not discovered because of the prosecutions incompetence, it
would not be considered a supervening event.
Effect of appeal by the accused
1 If the accused appeals his conviction, he WAIVES his right to plead double
jeopardy. The whole case will be open to review by the appellate court.
Such court may even increase the penalties imposed on the accused by
the trial court.
2 In Almario v. CA, the Court held that the delays were not unreasonable;
hence, there was no denial of the right to speedy trial. Second, the
dismissal was with the consent of the accused. Hence, reinstatement did
not violate the right against double jeopardy.
14. EX POST FACTO LAWS AND BILL OF ATTAINDER
Section 22, Art. III. No ex post facto law or bill of attainder shall be enacted.
Kinds of Ex Post Facto Laws
(1) One which makes an action done before the passing of the law, and which
was innocent when done, criminal, and punishes such action.
(2) One which aggravates the crime or makes it greater than when it was
committed.
(3) One which changes the punishment and inflicts a greater punishment than
that which the law annexed to the crime when it was committed.
(4) One which alters the legal rules of evidence and receives less testimony
than the law required at the time of the commission of the offense in order
to convict the accused.
(5) One which assumes to regulate civil rights and remedies only BUT, in
effect, imposes a penalty or deprivation of a right, which, when done, was
lawful.
(6) One which deprives a person accused of a crime of some lawful protection
to which he has become entitled such as the protection of a former
conviction or acquittal, or a proclamation of amnesty. (In Re Kay Villegas
Kami)
Characteristics of Ex Post Facto Law
(1) Must refer to criminal matters
(2) Prejudicial to the accused
(3) Retroactive in application
1 In Lacson v. Exec. Sec., the Court held that in general, ex post facto law
prohibits retrospectivity of penal laws. RA No. 8249 is not a penal law....
The contention that the new law diluted their right to a two-tiered appeal
is incorrect because the right to appeal is not a natural right but statutory
in nature that can be regulated by law. RA 8249 pertains only to matters
of procedure, and being merely an amendatory statute it does not partake
the nature of ex post facto law.
2 In Calder v. Bull, the Court said that when the law alters the legal rules of
evidence or mode of trial, it is an ex post facto law. Exception: (Beazell v.
Ohio) unless the changes operate only in limited and unsubstantial
manner to the disadvantage of the accused.
3 In Bayot v. Sandiganbayan, the accused was convicted by the
Sandiganbayan for estafa on May 30, 1980. Accused appealed. On March
16, 1982, BP Blg. 195 was passed authorizing suspension of public
officers against whom an information may be pending at any stage. On
July 22, 1982, the court suspended the accused. The Supreme Court
ruled that Art. 24 of the Revised Penal Code that suspension of an officer
during trial shall not be considered a penalty. The suspension in the case
is merely a preventive and not a penal measure which therefore does not
come under the ex post facto prohibition.
BILL OF ATTAINDER
Bill of attainder is a legislative act which inflicts punishment without judicial
trial. If the punishment be less than death, the act is termed a bill of pains and
letters
messages
telephone calls
telegrams, and
the likes
Section 5(5), Art. VIII. Promulgate rules concerning the protection and
enforcement of constitutional rights, pleading, practice, and procedure in
all courts, the admission to the practice of law, the integrated bar, and legal
assistance to the under-privileged. Such rules shall provide a simplified
and inexpensive procedure for the speedy disposition of cases, shall be
uniform for all courts of the same grade, and shall not diminish, increase,
or modify substantive rights. Rules of procedure of special courts and
quasi-judicial bodies shall remain effective unless disapproved by the
Supreme Court.
1 The Rule takes effect on 2 February 2008, following its publication in three
(3) newspapers of general circulation.
Who may file a petition for the issuance of a writ of habeas data?
1 General rule: The aggrieved party.
2 Exceptions: In cases of extralegal killings and enforced disappearances,
the petition may be filed by:
(1) Any member of the immediate family of the aggrieved party,
namely: the spouse, children and parents; or
(2) Any ascendant, descendant or collateral relative of the aggrieved
Upon the filing of the petition, the court, justice or judge shall immediately order
the issuance of the writ if on its face it ought to issue. The clerk of court shall
issue the writ under the seal of the court and cause it to be served within three
(3) days from its issuance; or, in case of urgent necessity, the justice or judge
may issue the writ under his or her own hand, and may deputize any officer or
person to serve it. The writ shall also set the date and time for summary hearing
of the petition which shall not be later than ten (10) work days from the date of its
issuance.
1 A clerk of court who refuses to issue the writ after its allowance, or a
deputized person who refuses to serve the same, shall be punished by the
court, justice or judge for contempt without prejudice to other disciplinary
actions.
2 The writ shall be served upon the respondent by the officer or person
deputized by the court, justice or judge who shall retain a copy on which to
make a return of service. In case the writ cannot be served personally on
the respondent, the rules on substituted service shall apply.
3 The respondent shall file a verified written return together with supporting
affidavits within five (5) work days from service of the writ, which period
may be reasonably extended by the Court for justifiable reasons.
Contents of Return
(1) The lawful defenses such as national security, state secrets, privileged
communication, confidentiality of the source of information of media and
others;
(2) In case of respondent in charge, in possession or in control of the data or
information subject of the petition:
(1)a disclosure of the data or information about the petitioner, the nature of such
data or information, and the purpose for its collection;
(2) the steps or actions taken by the respondent to ensure the security and
confidentiality of the data or information; and
(3) the currency and accuracy of the data or information held; and
(3) Other allegations relevant to the resolution of the proceeding.
1 When the respondent fails to file a return, the court, justice or judge shall
proceed to hear the petition ex parte, granting the petitioner such relief as
the petition may warrant unless the court in its discretion requires the
petitioner to submit evidence.
2 Instead of having the hearing in open court, it can be done in chambers
when the respondent invokes the defense that the release of the data or
information in question shall compromise national security or state
secrets, or when the data or information cannot be divulged to the public
due to its nature or privileged character.
3 The hearing on the petition shall be summary. However, the court, justice
or judge may call for a preliminary conference to simplify the issues and
determine the possibility of obtaining stipulations and admissions from the
parties.
4 Upon its finality, the judgment shall be enforced by the sheriff or any lawful
officer as may be designated by the court, justice or judge within five (5)
work days.
5 When a criminal action has been commenced, no separate petition for the
writ shall be filed, but the reliefs under the writ shall be available by motion
in the criminal case, and the procedure under this Rule shall govern the
disposition of the reliefs available under the writ of habeas data.
6 When a criminal action and a separate civil action are filed subsequent to
a petition for a writ of habeas data, the petition shall be consolidated with
the criminal action. After consolidation, the procedure under this Rule shall
continue to govern the disposition of the reliefs in the petition.
7 The introduction of the Writ of Habeas Data into Philippine Justice System
complemented several writs used in the Philippines. These writs which
protect the rights of the individual against the state are as follows:
1 The Writ of Habeas Corpus a writ ordering a person who
detained another to produce the body and bring it before a judge or
court. Its purpose is to determine whether the detention is lawful or
not;
2 The Writ of Mandamus a writ ordering a governmental agency to
perform a ministerial function;
Section 7, Art. III. 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.
1 the citizenry has a right to know what is going on in the country and in
his government so he can express his views thereon knowledgeably and
intelligently.
Rights Guaranteed
1. Right to information on matters of public concern ; and
2. Corollary right of access to official records and documents.
1 These are political rights that are available to citizens only (Bernas,
Philippine Constitution, p. 85).
Limitations: As may be provided by law
Valmonte v The people have a right to access official records but they cant
Belmonte compel custodians of official records to prepare lists, abstracts,
1989 summaries and the like, such not being based on a
demandable legal right.
can
not
inv
oke
the
Legaspi v Civil rig
ht
Service
Commission to
priv
1987
acy
Chavez v
.
PCGG
1998
Ju
dg
es
Echegaray
ca
case
nn
ot
pr
oh
ibi
t
ac
ce
ss
to
ju
di
ci
al
re
co
rd
s.
H
o
w
ev
er,
a
Baldoza v
Dimaano
1976
S.
FREEDOM
OF
EXPR
ESSIO
N
Freed
om of
Speec
h at
once
the
instru
ment
and
the
guaran
ty and
the
bright
consu
mmate
flower
of all
liberty.
(Wend
ell
Philips
)
Scope
1 F
r
e
e
d
o
m
o
f
E
x
pr
e
s
si
o
n
is
a
v
ai
la
bl
e
o
nl
y
in
s
of
ar
a
s
it
is
e
x
er
ci
s
e
d
fo
r
th
e
di
s
c
u
s
si
o
n
of
m
atte
rs
affe
ctin
g
the
publ
ic
inter
est.
Pur
ely
priv
ate
inter
est
matt
ers
do
not
com
e
withi
n
the
guar
anty
(inv
asio
n of
priv
acy
is
not
san
ctio
ned
by
the
Con
stitu
tion)
.
2 cover
s
ideas
that are
acceptab
le to the
majority
and the
unorthod
ox view.
(One of
the
functions
of this
freedom
is to
invite
dispute
US
Supreme
Court; I
may not
agree
with what
you say,
but I will
defend to
the death
your right
to say it.
- Voltaire)
3 The
freedom
to speak
includes
the right
to silent.
(This
freedom
was
meant
not only
to
protect
the
minority
who
want to
t
a
l
k
b
u
t
a
l
s
o
b
refus trade in ideas
e
e to that the
n
liste best test of
ef
n. - truth is the
it
Socr power of the
th
ates) thought to get
e
itself
m Importance accepted in
aj
the
The
or
competition
ultimate
it
of the market;
good
y
and that truth
desired is
t w
is the only
better
o h
ground upon
reached
o
which their
by a free
Section 4, Art. III. 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.
COMELEC
COMELEC
vs CA
Fugosos
indicated.
National
Club
COMELEC
Press the Supreme Court upheld the validity of Sec. 11(b), RA 6646,
COMELEC
Adiong vs
COMELEC
Gonzales vs
katigbak
co
m
pe
ns
ati
on
.
C
O
M
E
L
E
C
's
r
e
s
ol
u
ti
o
n
p
r
o
hi
bi
ti
n
g
t
h
e
p
o
st
in
g
o
f
decals,
and
stickers in mobile
units like cars and
other
moving
vehicles
was
declared
unconstitutional for
infringmenet
of
freedom
of
expression.
Besides,
the
constitutional
objective of giving
the rich and poor
candidates' equal
opportunity
to
inform
the
electorate is not
violated by the
posting of decals
and stickers on
cars and other
vehicles.
Overbreadth
doctrine
=
prohibits
the
government from
achieving
its
purpose by means
that
weep
unnecessarily
broadly, reaching
constitutionally
protected as well
as
unprotected
activity;
the
government has
gone too far; its
legitimate interest
can be satisfied
without reaching
so broadly into the
area of protected
freedom.
petitioner
questioned
the
classificatio
n of the
movie
as
for adults
ith
ou
Freed t
om
thi
From s
Subse as
quent su
Punis ra
nc
hment e,
th
e
in
Section
di
18(1), vi
Art. III. du
al
No
person w
ou
shall
ld
be
he
detaine sit
d
at
solely e
to
by
sp
reason
ea
of his k
politica for
l
fe
beliefs ar
th
and
at
aspirati
he
ons.
mi
gh
t
1 W
o
n
ly
.
t
h
e
petition
was
dismissed
because
the
Board did not
commit
grave
abuse
of
discretion.
be
cized.
hel
2 Not
d
absolu
to
te;
acc
subjec
ou
nt
t
to
for
police
his
power
spe
and
ech
may
, or
be
tha
regula
t
ted
he
(freed
mig
om of
ht
expres
be
sion
pro
does
vok
not
ing
cover
the
ideas
ven
offensi
ge
ve to
anc
public
e
order)
of
the
offi Right of
cial students to
free speech in
s
school
he
premises not
ma
absolute
y
hav General Rule: a
e
student shall
criti
not be expelled
or
E
suspen x
c
ded
solely e
on the p
basis of t
i
articles
o
he has
n
written :
when the
article
materially
disrupts
class
work or
involves
substanti
al
disorder
or
invasion of
rights of
others, the
school has the
right to
discipline its
students (in
such a case, it
may expel or
suspend the
student)
Primicias vs Fugosos
decided in 1947
Navarro vs Villegas
Reyes vs Bagatsing
People vs Perez
(f)
the
Calibrated Pre-emptive Response
Policy
is null and void. Respondents are
enjoined from using it and to strictly observe
the requirements of maximum tolerance.
It is not
necessary that some definite or
immediate acts of force or violence be
advocated. It is sufficient that such acts be
advocated in general terms.
A mere tendency toward the evil was enough.
Accused
declared: The Filipinos like myself
must use bolos for cutting off (GovernorGeneral)
Wood's
head
for
having
recommended a bad thing for the Filipinos, for
he has killed our independence.
He was sentenced to jail.
CLEAR AND
PRESENT DANGER
RULE
liberty is preferred
DANGEROUS
TENDENCY RULE
BALANCE OF INTEREST
RULE
Authority is preferred
Libel = falsity + actual malice (uttered in full knowledge of its falsity or with
reckless disregard)
Exemption: When the subject of the supposed libelous or defamatory material is
a public officer. Defamatory words may be uttered against them and not be
considered libelous. The reason is that 1) they asked for it (they voluntarily
thrust themselves into the public eye and therefore should not be thin-skinned);
2) its a matter of public interest; and 3) public figures have the opportunity and
resources to rebut whatever is said against them. (Policarpio vs Manila Times); (
New York Times vs Sullivan)
1 In New York Times v. Sullivan, The New York Times is protected under
the freedom of speech in publishing paid advertisement, no matter if it
contained erroneous claims and facts. Said publication was not
commercial in the sense that it communicated information, expressed
opinion, recited grievances, protested claimed abuses, and sought a
financial support on behalf of a movement. That the Times was paid for
publishing the advertisement is as immaterial as the fact that newspapers
and books are sold.
Newspapers do not forfeit the protection they enjoy under speech freedom just
because they publish paid advertisements. Otherwise, newspapers will be
discouraged from carrying editorial advertisements and so might shut off an
important outlet for the promulgation of information and ideas by persons who
do not themselves have access to publishing facilities.
On errors: Some degree of abuse is inseparable from the proper use of every
thing; and in no instance is this truer than that of the press. Erroneous
statement is inevitable in free debate.
Moreover, criticism of official conduct does not lose its constitutional protection
merely because it is effective criticism and hence diminishes their official
reputations. Presence of clear and present danger of substantive evil must be
proved. Actual Malice needs to be proved if a public official wants to recover
damages for a defamatory falsehood relating to his official conduct. Even a false
statement may be deemed to make a valuable contribution to public debate
since it brings about the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth,
produced by its collision with error.
1 In Gonzales v. Kalaw-Katigbak, Kapit sa Patalim was classified as For
Adults Only by the MTRCB and was suggested to have certain portions
cut/ deleted.
Held: MTRCB do not have the power to exercise prior restraint. The power of the
MTRCB is limited to the classification of films.
The test to determine whether a motion picture exceeds the bounds of
permissible exercise of free speech and, therefore should be censored, is the
clear and present danger test.
Bagatsing
mee
Malabanan ting
vs Ramento plac
e to
Uga
rte
Fiel
d, a
Villar vs TIP priv
ate
park
Non vs
Dames
PBM
Employees
Assoc vs
PBM
(se
ver
al
stu
de
nts
we
re
sus
pe
nd
ed
for
1
ye
ar
for
co
nd
ucti
ng
de
mo
nst
rati
on
in
the
pre
mis
es of a university
outside the area
permitted by the
school authorities)
SC
emphasized
that the students
did not shed their
constitutional rights
to free speech at
the
schoolhouse
gate, and permitted
the students to reenroll and finish
their studies.
(several
students
were barred from
re-enrollment
for
participating
in
demonstrations)
while the Court
upheld
the
academic freedom
of institutions of
higher
learning,
which includes the
right
to
set
academic
standards
to
determine
under
what circumstances
failing
grades
suffice for expulsion
of students, it was
held that this right
cannot be utilized to
discriminate against
those who exercise
their constitutional
rights to peaceful
assembly.
SC abandons its
ruling in Alcuaz vs
PSBA (that
enrolment of
a student is
a semesterto-semester
contract and
the school
may not be
compelled to
renew
the
contract)
upholding
Tests
of a
lawful
assem
bly
(1) P
u
r
p
o
s
e
T
e
s
t
1 i
d
e
a
l
l
y
,
t
h
e
the
pri
ma
cy
of
fre
ed
om
of
ex
pre
ssi
of
the
aus
pice
s
und
er
whic
h it
is
orga
nize
d
(2) Auspice
s Test
1 Eveng
elista
vs
Earns
haw:
the
mayor
of
Manil
a
prohib
ited
the
memb
ers of
the
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
s
t
P
a
rt
y
fr
o
m
h
o
l
d
i
n
g
a
n
y
its
pr
e
vi
o
u
sl
y
gr
a
nt
e
d
b
y
hi
m
o
n
th
e
gr
o
u
n
d
th
at the
party
had
been
found
(by
the
fiscal'
s
office)
to be
an
illegal
associ
ation.
1 In
People v.
Bustos,
Bustos
and
several
people
sent
complaint
letters via
Section 8, Art. III. 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.
The Right of Association is deemed embraced in freedom of expression because
the organization can be used as a vehicle for the expression of views that have a
bearing on public welfare.
SSS
Employees
Assoc vs CA
Victoriano vs
Elizalde Rope
Workers'
Union
Occena vs
COMELEC
In re Edillon
T. OBSCENITY CASES
US vs Kottinger
People vs Go Pin
Pita vs CA
Miller vs California
wi
th
ou
US vs Bustos t
in
cl
People vs
ud
in
Alarcon
g
th
er
ei
In re Jurado n
th
e
pa
rti
ci
pa
tio
n
In re Sotto
of
E
nri
le
In re Tulfo
in
th
e
E
In re Laureta D
S
A
re
vo
Zaldivar vs
lut
Sandiganba io
n.
yan
S
C
co
m
pared
criticism
of
official
conduct to a
scalpel that
relieves the
abscesses of
officialdom
newspaper
publications
tending
to
impede,
obstruct,
embarrass or
influence the
courts
in
administering
justice in a
pending suit
or proceeding
constitutes
criminal
contempt
which
is
summarily
punishable
by the courts.
a publication
that tends to
impede,
embarrass or
obstruct the
court
and
constitutes a
clear
and
present
danger to the
administratio
n of justice is
not protected
by
the
guarantee of
press
freedom andth
is punishablee
by contempt. ju
It
is
notdi
necessary
ci
that
ar
publication y
an
actually
obstructs thed
administratio th
n of justice, ite
is
enoughpr
that it tendsop
er
to do so.
a
senatorad
was punishedmi
for contemptni
for
havingstr
attacked
aati
decision
ofon
SC which heof
ju
called
incompetent sti
and narrow-ce
minded, and.
announcing a
that he wouldla
file a bill forw
ye
its
reorganizatio r
w
n
as
Tulfo's
Sangkatutak he
na
Bobold
column wasin
co
held
contumacious nt
. Freedom ofe
the press ism
subordinate pt
to
thean
d
decision,
authority andsu
integrity
ofsp
en
U.
FREED
OM OF R
ELIGIO N
Everson vs Board
of Education
People vs Zosa
V. RIGHT TO TRAVEL
Section 6, Art. III. 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.
Liberty Guaranteed by Sec. 6 Art. III
1. freedom to choose and change one's place of abode; and
2. freedom to travel both within the country and outside
Limitations
1 Liberty of Abode upon lawful order of the court
2 Right to Travel national security, public safety or public health as may
be provided by law
Caunca
Salazar
82 Phil 851
Hermoso
97 SCRA 121
Lorenzo vs Dir. of
world
over
H
and
e
is
al
supp
t
orted
h
by
1
high
scien
9
tific
2
autho
7
rity.
Such
Manotok
segre
vs CA
gatio
1986
n is
premi
sed
on
Marcos vs
Manglapus the
duty
1989
to
prote
ct
Philippine
Association ofpubli
c
Service
Exporters vs healt
h.
Drilon
1988
Bail
poste
d in a
crimi
nal
case,
is a
valid
restri
ction
on
the
right
to
travel.
By
its
nature,
it
may
serve
as
a
prohibition on an
accused
from
leaving
the
jurisdiction of the
Philippines where
orders
of
Philippine
courts
would have no
binding force.
The
liberty
of
abode and the
right
to
travel
includes the right
to leave, reside
and travel within
ones country but it
does not include
the right to return
to ones country.
NOTE:
Court
warned that this
case should not
create a precedent
because Marcos
was a class in
himself.
Right to travel may
be impaired in the
interest of national
security,
public
health or public
order, as may be
provided by law.
An
order
temporarily
suspending
the
deployment
of
overseas workers
is constitutional for
having
been