CODES AND NOTES ON CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II

NOTES AND CASES ON CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II

I. THE INHERENT/ FUNDAMENTAL POWERS OF THE STATE
1. Police Power
2. Power of Eminent Domain
3. Power of Taxation

· They are inherent powers because they belong to the very essence of
government and without them no government can exist.

Similarities, Distinctions, and Limitation

Similarities:
· They are inherent in the State and may be exercised by it without need of
express constitutional grant.
· They are necessary and indispensable The State cannot continue or be
effective unless it is able to
exercise them.
· They are methods by which the State interferes with private rights.
· They all presuppose an equivalent compensation for the private rights
interfered with.
· They are exercised primarily by the legislature.

Differences:
Police Power Eminent Domain Taxation

As to regulates both regulates Regulates

regulation/extent liberty and property rights property rights
of power property only only
As to who may only the government and only the
exercise government some private government
entities
As to the destroyed -wholesome -wholesome
property taken because it is -taken for a -taken for a
noxious or public use or public use or
intended for purpose purpose
noxious purpose
As to intangible full and fair protection and
Compensation altruistic equivalent of the public
feeling that the property improvements
person expropriated for the taxes paid
has contributed
 to the
general welfare

Limitations:
(a) May not be exercised arbitrarily to the prejudice of the Bill of Rights.
(b) Subject at all times to the limitations and requirements of the
Constitution and may in proper cases be annulled by the courts, i.e.
when there is a grave abuse of discretion.

A. POLICE POWER

Police Power – is an inherent power of the State to promote the welfare of

society by restraining and regulating the use of liberty and property.

Justification of existence:

· Salus populi est suprema lex– the welfare of the people is the supreme
law;

· Sic utere tuo uta lienum non laedas– a person must use his own property
so as not to injure another

Scope:
(a) cannot be bargained away through the medium of a treaty or contract
(Stone v Mississippi)
(b) may use taxing power as its implement (Tio vs Videogram Regulatory
Board)
(c) may use eminent domain as its implement (Assoc. of Small Landowners
vs Sec. of Agrarian Reform)
(d) could be given retroactive effect and may reasonably impair vested
rights or contracts (police power prevails over contract)
(e) dynamic, not static, and must move with the moving society it is
supposed to regulate

Who may exercise Police Power?

(a) the Legislature (inherent)
(b) President (by delegation)
(c) administrative boards (by delegation)
(d) lawmaking bodies on all municipal levels, including barangay (by
delegation)
(e) Municipal governments / LGU's (conferred by statute – general welfare
clause of RA 7160)
· Not being a political subdivision but merely an executive authority it has no
police power. (MMDA v. Bel-Air Village Assoc.)

Tests (Limitations):

(a) Lawful subject – interests of the public generally, as distinguished from

those of a particular class, require the exercise of police power

(b) Lawful means – the means employed are reasonably necessary for the
accomplishment of the purpose and not unduly oppressive upon individuals

Additional limitations (when exercised by delegate) [Nachura Reviewer]:

· express grant by law (e.g. RA 7160)
· within territorial limits (for LGU's)
· must not be contrary to law (City Government of Quezon City vsEricta)
· for municipal ordinances -
1. must not contravene the Constitution or any statute
2. must not be unfair and oppressive
3. must not be partial and discriminatory
4. must not prohibit, but may regulate, trade
5. must not be unreasonable
6. must be general in application and consistent with public policy

· In Ermita-Malate Hotel and Motel Operators Association, Inc. v. Mayor of

Manila, police power has been characterized as the most essential,insistent
and least limitable of powers extending as it does “to all greatpublic needs.”

“[T}he mere fact that some individuals in the community may be deprived of
their business or a particular mode of earning a living cannot prevent the
exercise of police power. .. [P]ersons licensed to pursue occupations which
may in the public need and interest be affected by the exercise of the police
power embark in these occupations subject to the disadvantages which may
result from the exercise of that power. ”

Government can take away a license and increase the cost of license fees
even to prohibitive levels, if public interest dictates so, without any
constitutional violations.
Licenses for regulating non-useful occupation are incidental to the exercise
of 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 unusefulenterprises.

· 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

processrequirement.

Reasons why ordinance is invalid are:

◦ No reasonable connection between means employed (absolute ban
on movement of carabeef) and purpose sought to be achieved
(conservation of carabao for general welfare)
◦ Unduly oppressive since petition not given due process or
opportunity to be heard in proper court

B. 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. The Congress (inherent)
2. President
3. various local legislative bodies
4. certain public corporations (e.g. National Housing Authority)
5. Quasi-public corporations (e.g. PLDT)

Eminent Domain Distinguished from Destruction from Necessity

Eminent Domain Destruction from Necessity

· public right · private right vested in every

· arises from the laws of society and
is vested in the state or grantee,
acting under the right and power of
the state or benefit of the state
individual with which the right of
state or state necessity has nothing
to do
· comes under the right of necessity,
of self-preservation
· arises under the laws of society or
society itself
· cannot require the conversion of
the property taken to public use, nor
is there any need for the payment of
just compensation

· The Regional Trial Court (RTC) has the jurisdiction over a complaint
foreminent domain.

Requisites of Eminent Domain:

1. Necessity of exercise
2. Private property
3. Taking
4. Public use
5. Just compensation

1. Necessity of Exercise
· genuine necessity, and
· must be of public character
◦ When exercised by legislature – political question
◦ When exercised by a delegate – justiciable question
▪ determine the: (a) adequacy of compensation; (b) necessity
oftaking; and (c) public
use character
2. Private Property
· General Rule: anything that can come under the dominion of man is
subject to expropriation
· 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)
· Private property already devoted to public use cannot be expropriated by a
delegate acting under a general grant of authority (City of Manila vsChinese
Community)

3. Taking

Requisites (Republic vsCastellvi):

(a) expropriator must enter a private property
(b) entry must be for more than a momentary period
(c) entry must be under the warrant of legal authority
(d) entry is for public use
(e) the owner is deprived of enjoying his property

· if taking is under police power, it is not compensable

Taking Under Eminent Domain vs Taking in Police Power :

Police Power Eminent Domain

· the prejudice suffered by the
individual property owner is shared
in common with the rest of the
community
· 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

· In Amigable v. Cuenca, where there is taking in the constitutional sense,

the property owner need not file a claim for just compensation with the
Commission of Audit; he may go directly to the court to demand payment.
Arbitrary action of the government shall be deemed a waiver of its immunity
from suit.

· In City Government v. Ericta, an ordinance of Quezon City, under theguise

of exercising police power, prescribed that at least 6% of the totalarea of
memorial parks must be developed and set aside for the burial of paupers.
The Court held that such ordinance is not an exercise of police power but
the taking of private property for public use. Hence, to satisfy the
Constitution, there must be compensation.
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

· 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)

· Where only part of the property is expropriated: entitlement

toconsequential damages, if any
+ consequential benefits must be deducted from the total
compensation provided consequential
benefits does not exceed consequential damages

◦ Payment of the correct amount + Payment within a reasonable time

· Form of Compensation: Money (However, in Assoc. of Small

Landowners vs Sec. of Agrarian Reform, payment is allowed to be
madepartly in bonds because it deals with a revolutionary kind of
expropriation).

· Transfer of Title: payment of just compensation before title

istransferred.

· Reckoning point of market value of property: either as of the date of

taking or filing of the complaint, whichever comes first

· Entitlement of interest:
◦ General Rule: when there is delay, there must be interest by way
ofdamages (Art. 2209, CC)
◦ Exception: when waived by not claiming the interest
· 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.

· Right of the landowner in case of non-payment:

◦ General Rule: landowner is not entitled to recover possession of the
property, but only to demand payment
◦ Exception: when the government failed to pay just compensation within 5
years from the finality of judgment in expropriation proceedings, there is a
right to recover property

· In De Knecht v. Bautista, the court ruled that the expropriation proceeding

against the property of petitioner was arbitrary and cannot receive judicial
approval. There was another area where the expansion ofEDSA can be
undertaken, which will cost government less, affect lesserhomeowners, etc.

· But in Republic vs. Knecht, the same property was ordered expropriated.
Apparently, BP 340, which called for the taking of the property, was enacted
after the 1st De Knecht case. De Knecht argued that there was already a law
of the case, which should not be disturbed.

Court responded that while it is true that there was a law of the case, it is
equally true that there is constitutional grant given to the State to take
private property upon payment of just compensation. “Such expropriation
proceedings may be undertaken by the [State] not only by voluntary
negotiation with landowners but also by taking appropriate court action or
by legislation.”

The prior court decision is no obstacle for the legislature to make its own
assessment of the circumstances that prevailed after the decision as well as
supervening events and reaching a conclusion as to the propriety of
undertaking the appropriation of the De Knecht property.

· In the case Republic v. PLDT, the Court ordered the PLDT to allow the
reconnection of telephone lines of the Republic.
 ◦ No cogent reason appears why Eminent Domain may be availed of
toimpose only a burden upon the owner of condemned property
withoutloss of title or possession for public use subject to just
compensation
◦ Case highlights that even services may be subjected to
eminentdomain

· In City of Manila v. Chinese Community of Manila, the Court said

that“[T]he very foundation of the right to exercise eminent domain is a
genuinenecessity and that necessity must be of public character.”

· In Epza v. Dulay, P.D. Nos. 76, 464, 794, and 1533 prescribed a formula for
arriving at just compensation in expropriation proceedings , dispensewith
the need to appoint commissioners to determine just compensation.The
Court held that those decrees are unconstitutional and void for
theyconstitute “impermissible encroachment on judicial prerogatives.”

· In Republic v. CA, the government argued that the nullification shouldonly

have prospective effect. The Court agreed. Thus under the“operative fact”
doctrine, the effect of the invalidated law was allowed toaffect transactions
completed before the declaration of nullity.
C. POWER OF TAXATION

Power of Taxation – is a method by which contributions are exacted

frompersons and property for the support of government and for all public
needs.

· Obligation to pay taxes is a duty

Taxes vs Licenses
Tax License

· to raise revenues · for regulatory purpose only

· justified under police power
· amount of fees required is usually
limited to the
cost of regulation

Scope
· all income earned in the taxing state, whether by citizens or aliens, and
allimmovable and tangible personal properties found in its territory, as
wellas 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
discouragingand in effect ultimately prohibiting certain things or enterprises
inimical topublic welfare

Power to Tax Does Not Include Power to Destroy

· 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
· Substantive :tax should not be confiscatory except when used as
animplement of police power
· Procedural :due process does not require previous notice and
hearingbefore a law prescribing specific taxes on specific articles may
beenacted. However, where the tax to be collected is to be based on
thevalue of the taxable property, the taxpayer is entitled to be notified of
theassessment proceedings and to be heard therein on the correct
valuationof the property.

2. Equal Protection
· embodied in Sec. 28 (1), Art. VI, 1987 Constitution (The rule of taxation
shall be uniform and equitable. The Congress shall evolve a
progressivesystem of taxation.)

· Uniformity – persons or things belonging to the same class shall be taxedat

the same rate
◦ Requisites (Tan vs Del Rosario):
(a) standards that are used are substantial and not arbitrary
(b) categorization is germane to achieve the legislative purpose
(c) the law applies, all things being equal, to both present and
futureconditions
 (d) classification applies equally well to all those belonging to the
sameclass

· Equitable taxation – based on the capacity to pay

· Equality in taxation – tax shall be strictly proportional to the relative

valueof the property

· Progressive system of taxation – the rate increases as the tax

baseincreases

3. Public Purpose
· whatever may be beneficially employed for the general welfare

· Double Taxation / Direct Duplicate Taxation

◦ when additional taxes are laid on the same subject by the same
taxingjurisdiction during the same taxing period and for the same
purpose.
◦ despite the lack of specific prohibition, double taxation will not be
allowed if it results in a violation of the equal protection clause.

· Tax Exemptions may either be:

◦ constitutional
▪ Art. Vi, Sec. 28 (3) : when lands, buildings and improvements
are actually, directly and exclusively for religious, charitable
oreducational purposes – entitled to exemption

◦ statutory- discretion of legislature

II. CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS

Bill of Rights – set of prescriptions setting forth the fundamental civil and
political rights of the individual, and imposing limitations on the powers of
the government as a means of securing the enjoyment of those rights.

Significance of the Bill of Rights

Government is powerful. When unlimited, it becomes tyrannical. The Bill of

Rights is a guarantee that there are certain areas of a person's life, liberty,
and property which governmental power may not touch.

· 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.

A. DUE PROCESS

Section 1, Art. III. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property

without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal
protection of the laws.

· no precise definition because it might prove constricting and prevent the

judiciary from adjusting it to the circumstances of particular cases
· responsiveness to the supremacy of reason, obedience to the dictates of
justice
· embodiment of sporting idea on fair play
· guaranty against any arbitrariness on the part of the government

Protection of Person

Covers Natural (citizen and alien) and Artificial Persons. As to the latter, with
respect only to property because its life and liberty are derived from and
subject to control of legislature

Deprivation (in Sec. 1, Art. III)

· connotes denial of right to life, liberty or property

· not unconstitutional. what is prohibited is deprivation without due process
of law.
· When the State acts to interfere with life, liberty, or property, the
presumption is that the action is valid.

1. Life
· It is not just a protection of the right to be alive or to the security of one's
limb against physical harm. The right to life is the right to a good life... a life
of dignity and... a decent standard of living.
2. Liberty
(1) freedom to do right and never wrong (Mabini)
(2) right to be free from arbitrary personal restraint or servitude
3. Property
· anything that can come under the right of ownership and be the subject of
contract
· all things within the commerce of man
· However, one cannot have a vested right to a public office as this is not
regarded as property. If created by statue, it may be abolished by the
legislature at any time.
· Mere privileges are not property rights and are therefore revocable at will

Aspects of Due Process

1. Substantive Due Process
2. Procedural Due Process

· As a substantive requirement, it is a prohibition of arbitrary laws.

· As a procedural requirement, it relates chiefly to the mode of procedure
which government agencies must follow in the enforcement and application
of laws. It is a guarantee of procedural fairness.

Substantive Due Process

Substantive due process – requires intrinsic validity of the law in interfering

with the rights of the person to his life, liberty or property

Requisites:
(a) Lawful Subject
(b) Lawful Means
Procedural Due Process

Procedural due process – is the restriction on actions of judicial and quasi-

judicialagencies of government.

1. Judicial Due Process

Requisites:
(a) Impartial and Competent Court
(b) Jurisdiction lawfully acquired over the person of the defendant and/or
property
(c) Hearing
· not necessarily trial-type hearing; submission of position papers is
enough
· right of a party to cross-examine the witness against him in a civil
case is an indispensable part of due process
· the filing of a motion for reconsideration cures the defect of absence
of a hearing
· Cases in which notice and hearing may be dispensed with without
violating due process:
◦ abatement of nuisance per se
◦ preventive suspension of a civil servant facing
administrativecharges
◦ cancellation of passport of a person sought for the commission
of acrime
◦ statutory presumptions
(d) Judgment rendered upon lawful hearing (BancoEspanol Filipino v.
Palanca)

2. Administrative Due Process

Requisites:
(a) Right to a hearing
(b) Tribunal must consider the evidence presented
(c) Decision must have something to support itself
(d) Evidence must be Substantial
(e) Decision must be rendered on the evidence presented at the hearing, or
at least contained in the record and disclosed to the parties affected
(f) Tribunal, body, or any of its judges must act on its or his own
independent consideration of the facts and law of the controversy
(g) Decision is rendered in such a manner that the parties to the proceeding
can know the various issues involved, and the reason for the decision
rendered

· In administrative proceedings, the quantum of proof required is only

substantial evidence, such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might
accept as adequate to support a conclusion.

· The law is vague when it lacks comprehensible standards that men “of
common intelligence must necessarily guess as to its meaning and differ as
to its application. It is repugnant to the Constitution in two respects:
▪ it violates due process for failure to accord persons fair notice
ofconduct to avoid; and,
▪ it leaves law enforcers unbridled discretion in carrying out
itsprovisions and becomes arbitrary flexing of the Governmentmuscle.

· In Estrada vs. Sandiganbayan, it was held that there was no violation of

due process because the nature of the charges against the petitioner is not
uncertain and void merely because general terms are used or because it
employed terms that were not defined. The Anti-Plunder law does not
violate due process since it defines the act which it purports to punish,giving
the accused fair warning of the charges against him, and can effectively
interpose a defense against on his behalf.

· A Connecticut statute making it a crime to use any drug or article to

prevent conception violates the right of marital privacy which is within the
penumbra of specific guarantees of the Bill of Rights.
◦ Although the Bill of Rights does not mention ‘privacy’ the Court ruled
that that the right was to be found in the "penumbras" of
otherconstitutional protections. “The First Amendment has a
penumbra where privacy is penumbra where privacy is protected from
governmental intrusion.”

· In Lochner v. New York, Lochner was charged with violation of the labor
laws of New York for wrongfully and unlawfully permitting an employee to
work more than 60 hours in one week. The statute allegedly violated
mandates that no employee shall contract or agree to work more than 10
hours per day.
Issue: Whether the statute is unconstitutional.
Ruling: Yes.

The statute is unconstitutional. 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 one’s business is a liberty

protected by the 14thamendment.

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 state’s interference with rights to labor and contract.

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.

· Our cases include Court of Industrial Relations (AngTibay 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).

· In AngTibay vs. CIR, the Court laid down cardinal requirements in

administrative proceedings which essentially exercise a judicial or
quasijudicialfunction. These are:
(1) the right to a hearing, which includes the right to present one’s 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 accept
the views of a subordinate
(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.

B. EQUAL PROTECTION
Section 1, Art. III. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or
property without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied
the equal protection of the laws.

· The Equality Protection Clause is a specific constitutional guarantee of the

Equality of the Person. The equality it guarantees is “legal equality or, as it is
usually put, the equality of all persons before the law.
· embraced in the concept of due process
· embodied in a separate clause to provide for a more specific guaranty
against undue favoritism or hostility from the government

Due Process Clause attacks arbitrariness in general

Equal Protection Clause attacks unwarranted partiality or prejudice

Substantive Equality – all persons or things similarly situated should be

treated alike, both as to rights conferred and responsibilities imposed.

Equality in enforcement of the law – law be enforced and applied equally

Requisites of Valid Classification:

(a) it must be based on substantial distinctions
(b) it must be germane to the purposes of the law
(c) it must not be limited to existing conditions only
◦ must be enforced as long as the problem sought to be corrected
exists
(d) it must apply equally well to all members of the class
◦ both as to rights conferred and obligations imposed
· In De Guzman v. Comelec, petitioners theorize that Sec. 44 of RA 8189 is
violative of the equal protection clause because it singles out the City and
Municipal Election Officers of the COMELEC as prohibited from holding
office in the same city or municipality for more than four years. The Court
held that the law is valid. The singling out of election officers in order to
“ensure the impartiality of election officials by preventing them from
developing familiarity with the people of their place of assignment.

· In Ormoc Sugar Central v. Ormoc City, Ormoc City imposes a tax onOrmoc
Sugar Central by name. OrmosSugar Central is the only sugar central in
Ormoc City. The Court held that such ordinance is not valid for it would be
discriminatoory against the Ormoc Sugar Central which alone comes under
the ordinance.

C. SEARCH AND SEIZURE

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.)

· 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
for any purpose in any proceeding.
Section 3 (1), Art. III – deals with intangibles

Section 3 (2), Art. III – Exclusionary Rule (which embodies the Doctrine of
the Fruit of the Poisonous Tree)

Exclusionary Rule – evidence obtained in violation of Sec. 2, Art.III, shall be

inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding (Fruit of Poisonous Tree
Doctrine). (Stonehill v. Diokno)

· available to natural and artificial persons, but the latter's books of accounts
may be required to open for examination by the State in the exercise of
police power or power of taxation The right is personal (StonehillvsDiokno)

· General Rule: only a judge may issue a warrant.

Exception: orders of arrest may be issues by administrative authorities but

only for the purpose of carrying out a final finding of a violation of a law

Valid Warrantless Searches

[NOTE: each of these requires probable cause, except stop and frisk]

1. searches incidental to lawful arrest (rule 126, Rules of Court) – for

dangerous weapons or anything that may have been used or constitute in
the commission of an offense

Requisites:
1. the item to be searched was within the arrestee's custody or area of
immediate control
2. the search was contemporaneous with the arrest

2. searches of moving vehicles

· In Aniag v. Comelec, twenty meters away from the gate of the Batasan, a
truck was stopped and searched. The motorists had not given any evidence
of suspicious behaviour nor had the searching officers received any
confidential information about the car. The Court held that the search was
not justifiable as a warrantless arrest of a moving vehicle as there was no
probable cause.

3. searches of prohibited articles in plain view

 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)

· 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.”

· 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 toenforce

police regulations

Valid Warrantless Arrest

1. in flagrante delicto
2. hot pursuit
3. the offender escaped from the penal establishment

Requisites of a valid warrant

 Arrest Warrant Search Warrant

1. Probable Cause Such facts and Such facts and

must refer to one (1) circumstances which circumstances which
specific offense would lead a reasonably would lead a reasonably
prudent man to believe prudent man to believe
that an that an
offense has been offense has been
committed and the committed
person sought to and the objects sought
bearrested had in the connection of the
committed it offense are in
the place sought to be
searched
2. Personal The judge personally The judge must
determination of determines the personally
probable cause by the existence ofprobable examinein the form of
judge cause; it is notnecessary searching questions and
that he should answers...
personally examine the in writing and under
complainant and his oath...
witnesses the complainants and
(SolivenvsMakasiar) his
witnesses...
Procedure: on facts personally
(1) personally evaluate known to
the fiscal's report, or them...
(2) if [1] is insufficient, and attach to the record
disregard it and require their
the submission of sworn statements and
supporting affidavits of affidavits.
witnesses (Silva vs Presiding
Preliminary inquiry Judge)
(task of released
the judge) –
determination of
probable cause for the
issuance of warrant of
arrest
Preliminary
investigation proper
(task of theprosecutor)
–
 ascertainmentwhether
the offender shouldbe
held for trial or be

3. After examination Not merely routinary Not merely routinary

under oath or but must but must
affirmation of the be probing and be probing and
complainant and the exhaustive exhaustive
witnesses he may
produce
4.Particularity of General Rule: it must General Rule: when the
description contain the name/s of description therein is as
thepersons to be specific
arrested as the circumstances
Exception: if there is will
some descriptio ordinarily allow.
personae which will Exception: when no
enable the officer to other more
identify the accused accurate and detailed
description could have
been
given.

· 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.

· 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.
· In Burgos v. Chief of Staff, a search warrant for the newspaper WE Forum
is issued on the basis of a broad statement of the military that Burgos, Jr. is
“in possession of printing equipment and other paraphernalia... used as
means of committing the offense of subversion.” The Court held that such
allegation is not sufficient to establish probable cause. It is a mere
conclusion of law unsupported by particulars.

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.

· 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.

· 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.

· 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: “ Bookof 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.
1. Any person under investigation for the commission of an offense
shall have the right to be informed of his right to remain silent and to
have competent and independent counsel preferably of his own
choice. If the person cannot afford the services of counsel, he must
be provided with one. These rights cannot be waived except in
writing and in the presence of
 counsel.
2. No torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation, or any other
means which vitiate the free will shall be used against him. Secret
detention places, solitary, incommunicado, or other similar forms of
detention are prohibited.
3. Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this or
Section 17 hereof shall be inadmissible in evidence against him.
4. The law shall provide for penal and civil sanctions for violations of
this Section as well as compensation to the rehabilitation of victims
of torture or similar practices, and their families.

· called the “Miranda Doctrine” (Miranda vs Arizona)

Miranda Doctrine – prior to any questioning during custodial investigation,

the person must be warned that he has a right to remain silent, that any
statement he gives may be used as evidence against him, and that he has
the right to the presence of an attorney, either retained or appointed. The
defendant may waive effectuation of these rights, provided the waiver is
made voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently.

Purpose of the Doctrine

In Miranda v Arizona, the US Supreme Court established rules to protect a
criminal defendant's privilege against self-incrimination from the pressures
arising during custodial investigation by the police. Thus, to
providepractical safeguards for the practical reinforcement for the right
againstcompulsory self-incrimination, the Court held that “the prosecution
may not usestatements, whether exculpatory or inculpatory, stemming from
custodialinterrogation of the defendant unless it demonstrates the use of
proceduralsafeguards effective to secure the privilege against self-
incrimination.

Requisites of the Miranda Doctrine

(1) any person under custodial investigation has the right to remain silent;
(2) anything he says can and will be used against him in a court of law;
(3) he has the right to talk to an attorney before being questioned and to
have his counsel present when being questioned; and
(4) if he cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided before any
questioning if he so desires.

Custodial investigation defined

· Any questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has
been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in
any significant way.
· Begins as soon as the investigation is no longer a general inquiry unto an
unsolved crime, and direction is then aimed upon a particular suspect who
has been taken into custody and to whom the police would then direct
interrogatory questions which tend to elicit incriminating statements.
· Shall include the practice of issuing an invitation to a person who is
investigated in connection with an offense he is suspected to have
committed, without prejudice to the liability of the inviting officer for any
violation of law.

Extrajudicial confession is Admissible when:

(a) Voluntary
(b)With assistance of counsel
(c) In writing, and
(d) Express

Rights Under Custodial Investigation

(a) To be informed of right to remain silent and to counsel

· Carries the correlative obligation on the part of the investigator to
explain and contemplates effective communication whichresults in the
subject understanding what is conveyed. (Peoplev. Agustin)

(b) To be reminded that if he waives his right to remain silent, anything he

says can and will be used against him
(c) To remain silent
(d) To have competent and independent counsel preferably of own choice
(e) To be provided with counsel if the person cannot afford the services of
one
(f) No torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation or any other means which
vitiate the free will shall be used against him
(g) Secret detention places, solitary, incommunicado, or other similar forms
of detention are prohibited
(h) 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]
(a) Right to remain silent
(b) Right to Counsel

Rights That Cannot Be Waived

(a) Right to be informed of his right to remain silent and to counsel
(b) Right to counsel when making the waiver of the right to remain silent or
to counsel
· Right to counsel de parte is not unlimited. Accused cannot repeatedly
ask for postponement. He must be provided with counsel de oficio.
· RA 7309: victims of unjust imprisonment may file their claims with
theBoard of Claims under DOJ

· Res Gestae: The declaration of the accused acknowledging guilt made to

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.

· 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.

· Termination of rights under custodial investigation: When Charges are

filed against the accused (in such case, Sections 14 and 17 come into play).

· 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 thingsto
be done, without running afould of the proscription against
testimonialcompulsion.

E. 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
(a) Cash bond
(b) Security bond

Who May Invoke?

A person under detention even if no formal charges have yet been filed
(Rule 114, Rules of Court)

Who Are Entitled?

(a) Persons charged with offenses punishable by Reclusion Perpetua or
Death, when evidence of guilt is strong
(b) Persons convicted by the trial court. Bail is only discretionary pending
appeal.
(c) Persons who are members of the AFP facing a court martial.

· In Paderanga v. CA, all persons actually detained, except those charged

with offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua or death when evidence of
guilt is strong, shall, before conviction, be bailable but sufficient sureties.
One is under the custody of the law either when he has been arrested or has
surrendered himself to the jurisdiction of the court, as in the case where
through counsel petitioner for bail who was confined in a hospital
communicated his submission to the jurisdiction of the court.

Other Rights in Relation to Bail

· 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.

Factors in Fixing Amount of Bail

(a) Ability to post bail
(b) Nature of the offense
(c) Penalty imposed by law
(d) Character and reputation of the accused
(e) Health of the accused
(f) Strength of the evidence
(g) Probability of appearing at the trial
(h) Forfeiture of previous bail bonds
(i) Whether accused was a fugitive from justice when arrested
(j) If accused is under bond in other cases

Implicit Limitations on the Right to Bail

(a) The person claiming the right must be in actual detention or custody of
the law.

· In People v. Donato, charged with rebellion, a bailable offense, Salas

nevertheless agreed “to remain in legal custody during the pendency of the
trial of his criminal case.” The Court held that he does not have the right to
bail, because bu his act he has waived his right.

(b) The constitutional right is available only in criminal cases, not, e.g. in
deportation and extradition proceedings.

Note:
(a) Right to bail is not available in the military.

· In Comendador v. De Villa, soldier under court martial does not enjoy the
right to bail. It is because of the disciplinary structure of the military and
because soldiers are allowed the fiduciary right to bear arms and can
therefore cause great havoc... Nor can appeal be made to the equal
protection clause ebcause equal protection applies only to those who are
equally situated.

(b) Apart from bail, a person may attain provisional liberty through
recognizance.

· In US v. Puruganan, the Court held that extradition is not a criminal

proceeding. Hence, since bail is available only in criminal proceedings, a
respondent in an extradition proceeding is not entitled to a bail. He should
apply for a bail in the court where he will be tried.

F. RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED

Section 14, Art. III.
1. No person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense without
due process of law.
2. In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed
innocent until the contrary is proved, and shall enjoy the right to be
heard by himself and counsel, to be informed of the nature and
cause of the accusation against him, to have a speedy, impartial, and
 public trial, to meet the witnesses face to face, and to have
compulsory process to secure the attendance of witnesses and the
production of evidence in his behalf. However, after arraignment,
trial may proceed notwithstanding the absence of the accused:
Provided, that he has been duly notified and his failure to appear is
unjustifiable.

The Rights of the Accused Include

1. Criminal due process;
2. Presumption of innocence;
3. Right to be heard by himself or counsel;
4. Right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against
him;
5. Right to speedy, impartial and public trial;
6. Right to meet the witnesses face to face;
7. Right to compulsory process to secure attendance of witnesses and
production of evidence; and
8. trial in absentia

1. Criminal Due Process

Criminal process includes

a) Investigation prior to the filing of charges

b) Preliminary examination and investigation after charges are filed
c) Period of trial

Requirements of Criminal Due Process

1. Impartial and competent court in accordance with procedure prescribed

by law;
2. Proper observance of all the rights accorded the accused under the
Constitution and the applicable statutes (example of statutory right of the
accused: right to Preliminary investigation)

· Mistrial may be declared if shown that proceedings were held under

circumstances as would prevent the accused from freely making hisdefense
or the judge from freely arriving at his decision.

· There is violation of due process when law not published and a person is
impleaded for violation of such law.
· There is violation of due process when appeal is permitted by law but there
is denial thereof.

2. Presumption of Innocence

· Burden of proof to establish the guilt of the accused is with the

prosecution.

· Conviction depends on the strength of prosecution, not on the weakness of

the defense

· The presumption may be overcome by contrary presumption based on the

experience of human conduct. (e.g unexplained flight may lead to an
inference of guilt, as “the wicked flee when no man pursueth, but the
righteous are as bold as a lion.”)

· The constitutional presumption will not apply as long as there is some

rational connection between the fact proved and the ultimate fact
presumed, and the inference of one fact from proof of another shall not be
so unreasonable as to be a purely arbitrary mandate. – Cooley

· No inference of guilt may be drawn against an accused for his failure to

make a statement of any sort.

· In Dumlao v. Comelec, for the purposes of disqualification in an election,

section 4 of BP Blg. 52 says that” the filing of charges for the commission of
such crimes before civil court or military tribunal after preliminary
investigation shall be prima facie evidence of such fact (disqualification).”
The Court held that this provision violates the guarantee of presumption of
innocence. Although filing of charges is only prima facie evidence and may
be rebutted, the proximity of elections and consequent risk of not having
time to rebut the prima facie evidence already in effect make him suffer as
though guilty even before trial.

Equipoise Rule – evidence of both sides are equally balanced, in which case
the constitutional presumption of innocence should tilt the scales in favor of
theaccused.
3. Right to be Heard by Himself and Counsel

· Indispensable in any criminal prosecution where the stakes are the liberty
or even the life of the accused
· Assistance of counsel begins from the time a person is taken into custody
and placed under investigation for the commission of a crime.
▪ This is not subject to waiver.

· Right to counsel means the right to effective representation.

· If the accused appears at arraignment without counsel, the judge must:

(a) Inform the accused that he has a right to a counsel
beforearraignment;
(b) Ask the accused if he desires the aid of counsel;
(c) If the accused desires counsel, but cannot afford one, a counsel
deoficio must be appointed;
(d) If the accused desires to obtain his own counsel, the court must
give him a reasonable time to get one.

4. Nature and Cause of Accusation

Purpose for the Right to be informed of the Nature and Cause of

Accusation

(1) To furnish the accused with a description of the charge against him as
will enable him to make his defenses;
(2) To avail himself of his conviction or acquittal against a further
prosecution for the same cause;
(3) To inform the court of the facts alleged.

· The description and not the designation of the offense is controlling (The
real nature of the crime charged is determined from the recital of facts in
the information. It is not determined based on the caption or preamble
thereof nor from the specification of the provision of law allegedly violated.)

· If the information fails to allege the material elements of the offense, the
accused cannot be convicted thereof even if the prosecution is able to
present evidence during the trial with respect to such elements.

Void for Vagueness Rule – accused is denied the right to be informed of the
charge against him and to due process as well, where the statute itself is
couched in such indefinite language that it is not possible for men of
ordinary intelligence to determine therefrom what acts or omissions are
punished and
hence, shall be avoided.
· In Estrada vsSandiganbayan, the Court held that the Void for Vagueness
Doctrine merely requires a reasonable degree of certaintyand not absolute
precision or mathematical exactitude.

5. The Trial

Factors in Determining Whether There Is Violation

(a) Time expired from the filing of the information
(b) Length of delay involved
(c) Reasons for the delay
(d) Assertion or non-assertion of the right by the accused
(e) Prejudice caused to the defendant.

· Effect of dismissal based on violation of this right: it amounts to an

acquittal and can be used as basis to claim double jeopardy. This would be
the effect even if the dismissal was made with the consent of the accused

Remedy if the Right is Violated

(1) He can move for the dismissal of the case;

(2) If he is detained, he can file a petition for the issuance of writ of habeas
corpus.

Speedy trial -
1. Free from vexatious, capricious and oppressive delays
2. To relieve the accused from needless anxieties before sentence is
pronounced upon him

Impartial trial – the accused is entitled to the “cold neutrality of an impartial

judge”. It is an element of due process.

· Public trial: The attendance at the trial is open to all irrespective of their
relationship to the accused. However, if the evidence to be adduced is
“offensive to decency or public morals”, the public may be excluded.

· The right of the accused to a public trial is not violated if the hearings are
conducted on Saturdays, either with the consent of the accused or if failed
to object thereto.

· The right to be present covers the period from arraignment to

promulgation of sentence.
· General Rule: the accused may waive the right to be present at the trial by
not showing up. However, the court can still compel the attendance of the
accused if necessary for identification purposes.

▪ Exception: If the accused, after arraignment, has stipulated that he is

indeed the person charged with the offense and named in
theinformation, and that any time a witness refers to a name by which
he is known, the witness is to be understood as referring to him.

· Trial in Absentia is mandatory upon the court whenever the accused has
been arraigned.

· There is also Promulgation in Absentia

· 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

· 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.

· 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)
· With respect to child testimony

· Testimony of witness who was not cross-examined is not admissible as

evidence for being hearsay.
· 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.

· The right to confrontation may be waived.

7. Compulsory Process

· The accused is entitled to the issuance of subpoena ad testificandumand

subpoena ducestecumfor the purpose of compelling the attendance of
witness and the production of evidence that he may need for his defense.
· Failure to obey – punishable as contempt of court.
· 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.

G. 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.

The President may suspend the privilege:

(1) in cases of invasion or rebellion

(2) when public safety requires it.

· Habeas corpus lies only where the restraint of a person's liberty has been
judicially adjudged to be illegal or unlawful (In re: Sumulong)

· The writ is a prerogative writ employed to test the validity of detention

· To secure the detainee’s release

· The action shall take precedence in the calendar of the court and must be
acted upon immediately

When available (enumeration not exclusive)

restoration of liberty of an individual subjected to physical restraint

may be availed of where, as a consequence of a judicial proceeding:

1. there has been deprivation of a constitutional right resulting in
therestraint of the person
2. the court has no jurisdiction to impose the sentence, or
3. an excessive penalty has been imposed, since such sentence isvoid
as to the excess.

May be extended to cases by which rightful custody of any person is

withheld from the person entitled thereto

Whenmoral restraint is exerted (Cauncavs Salazar)

Right was accorded a person was sentenced to a longer penalty than was
subsequently meted out to another person convicted of the same offense.
(Gumabonvs Director of Prisons)

Unlawful denial of bail

When not available (enumeration not exclusive)

the person alleged to be restrained is in the custody of an officer under a

process issued by the court which has jurisdiction to do so
desaparecidos (disappeared persons) – persons could not be found;
remedy is to refer the matter to Commission on Human Rights

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
martiallaw 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 (Lansangvs 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:

i. to verify the identity of the aggrieved party;

ii. to recover and preserve evidence related to the death or

disappearance of the person identified in the petition which may
aidin the prosecution of the person or persons responsible;
iii. to identify witnesses and obtain statements from them
concerningthe death or disappearance;
iv. to determine the cause, manner, location and time of death
ordisappearance as well as any pattern or practice that may
havebrought about the death or disappearance;
v. to identify and apprehend the person or persons involved in
thedeath or disappearance; and
vi. 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 as petitions for habeas corpus.

SEC. 14.Interim Reliefs.Upon filing of the petition or at anytime before final

judgment, the court, justice or judge may grant any of the following reliefs:

(a) Temporary Protection Order. The court, justice or judge, upon motion or
motuproprio, may order that the petitioner or the aggrieved party and any
member of the immediate family be protected in a government agency or
by an accredited person or private institution capable of keeping and
securing their safety. If the petitioner is an organization, association or
institution referred to in Section 3(c) of this Rule, the protection may be
extended to the officers involved.

The Supreme Court shall accredit the persons and private institutions that
shall extend temporary protection to the petitioner or the aggrieved party
and any member of the immediate family, in accordance with guidelines
which it shall issue.

The accredited persons and private institutions shall comply with the rules
and conditions that may be imposed by the court, justice or judge.

(b) Inspection Order. The court, justice or judge, upon verified motion and
after due hearing, may order any person in possession or control of a
designated land or other property, to permit entry for the purpose of
inspecting, measuring, surveying, or photographing the property or any
relevant object or operation thereon.
The motion shall state in detail the place or places to be inspected. It shall
be supported by affidavits or testimonies of witnesses having personal
knowledge of the enforced disappearance or whereabouts of the aggrieved
party.

If the motion is opposed on the ground of national security or of the

privileged nature of the information, the court, justice or judge may conduct
a hearing in chambers to determine the merit of the opposition.

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 thereturn, 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
motuproprio, 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
wasobserved 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, motuproprio 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.

I. SPEEDY DISPOSATION OF CASES

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 Speedy disposition of cases
Refers to trial phase only Refers to disposition of cases (All
phases)
Criminal cases only Judicial, quasi-judicial or admin.
Proceedings

· Periods for decision for courts (Sec. 15, Art. VIII)

· SC: 24 months from submission
· All lower collegiate courts: 12 months unless reduced by SC
· All other lower courts: 3 months

Periods for decision for Constitutional Commissions (Sec 7, Art. IX-A)

 60 days from date of submission for decision or resolution

Factors considered in determining whether the right is violated

1. Length of delay
2. Reason of delay
3. Assertion of the right or failure to assert it
4. Prejudice caused by delay

Remedy in case there has been unreasonable delay in resolution of a case:

Dismissal through mandamus

J. RIGHT AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION

Section 17, Art. III. No person shall be compelled to be a witness against
himself.
Based on:

1. Humanitarian reasons – it is intended to prevent the State, with all its

coercive powers, from extracting from the suspect testimony that may
convict him;

2. Practical reasons – a person subjected to such compulsion is likely to

perjure himself for his own protection

Applicable to:

· Criminal prosecutions, government proceedings, including civil actions and

administrative or legislative investigations

Transactional Immunity Statute – testimony of any person or whose

possession of documents or other evidence necessary or convenient to
determine the truth in any investigation conducted is immune from criminal
prosecution for an offense to which such compelled testimony relates.

Use and Fruit Immunity Statute – prohibits the use of the witness'
compelledtestimony 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

- He cannot invoke right to self-incrimination when:

a) The question is relevant and otherwise allowed evenif the answer
may tend to incriminate him or subject him to civil liability
b) the question relates to past criminality for which thewitness can no
longer be prosecuted
c) he has been previously granted immunity under avalidly enacted
statute
· 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

· 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.

· 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 self-
incrimination. However, obtaining a sample of the handwriting of the
accused would violate this right if he is charged for falsification.

· The accused cannot be compelled to produce a private document in his

possession which might tend to incriminate him. However, a third person in
custody of the document may be compelled to produce it.

Right May be Waived:

- Either:
a) Directly, or
b) By failure to invoke it PROVIDED the waiver is certain
andunequivocal and intelligently and willingly made.

Section 18 (1), Art. III. No person shall be detained solely by reason of his
political beliefs and aspirations.
J. RIGHT AGAINST INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE
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;

(2) Peonage – a condition of enforced servitude by which the servitor is

restrained of his liberty and compelled to labor in liquidation of some debtor
obligation, real or pretended, against his will

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 vsPompeya)

5. Return to work order in industries affected with public interest

(KapisananngManggagawasaKahoyvsGotamco)
6. Patria Potestas– unemancipated minors are obliged to obey their parents
so long as they are under parental power and to observe respect and
reverence to them always (Art. 311, Civil Code)

US vsPompeya An Act providing for the method by

which the people of the town may be
called upon to render assistance for
the protection of the public and the
preservation of peace and good
order is constitutional. It was
enacted in the exercise of the police
power of the state and does not
violate the constitutional prohibition
on involuntary servitude.
Pollock vs Williams No indebtedness warrants a
suspension of the right to be free
from compulsory service, and no
state can make the quitting of work
any component of a crime, or make
criminal sanctions available for
holding unwilling persons to labor.

K. CRUEL AND INHUMAN PUNISHMENT

Section 19, Art. III.
1. Excessive fines shall not be imposed, nor cruel, degrading or inhuman
punishment inflicted. Neither shall death penalty be imposed, unless, for
compelling reasons involving heinous crimes, the Congress hereafter
provides for it. Any death penalty already imposed shall be reduced to
reclusion perpetua.
2. The employment of physical, psychological, or degrading punishment
against any prisoner or detainee or the use of substandard or inadequate
penal facilities under subhuman conditions shall be dealt with by law.

When is a penalty “cruel, degrading and inhuman”?

(1) A penalty is cruel and inhuman if it involves torture or lingering suffering.

Ex. Being drawn and quartered.

(2) A penalty is degrading if it exposes a person to public humiliation. Ex.

Being tarred and feathered, then paraded throughout town.

Standards Used
(1) The punishment must not be so severe as to be degrading to the dignity
of human beings.
(2) It must not be applied arbitrarily.
(3) It must not be unacceptable to contemporary society
(4) It must not be excessive, i.e. it must serve a penal purpose more
effectively than a less severe punishment would.

Excessive Fine

· A fine is excessive, when under any circumstance, it is disproportionate to

the offense.

Note: Fr. Bernas says that the accused cannot be convicted of the crime to
which the punishment is attached if the court finds that the punishment is
cruel, degrading or inhuman.
Reason: Without a valid penalty, the law is not a penal law.

L. NON IMPRISONMENT FOR DEBT

Section 20, Art. III. No person shall be imprisoned for debt or non-payment
of a poll tax.

Forhumanitarian 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

· 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
excontractu.

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.

· A tax is not a debt since it is an obligation arising from law. Hence,

itsnon-payment 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. valid complaint or information

2. filed before a competent court
3. to which defendant has pleaded, and
4. defendant was previously acquitted or convicted or the case dismissed or
otherwise terminated without his express consent.

Two (2) Kinds of Double Jeopardy

(1) When a person is put twice in jeopardy of punishment for the same
offense (1st sentence of Section 21)

(2) When a law and an ordinance punish the same act (2nd sentence of
Sec. 21)

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

(b) Under a complaint or information sufficient in form and substance to

sustain a conviction

(c) Before a court of competent jurisdiction

(d) After the person is arraigned

(e) Such person enters a valid plea.

When does jeopardy NOT attach:

(a) If information does not charge any offense

(b) If, upon pleading guilty, the accused presents evidence of complete
selfdefense, and the court thereafter acquits him without entering a new
plea of not guilty for accused.

(c) If the information for an offense cognizable by the RTC is filed with the
MTC.

(d) If a complaint filed for preliminary investigation is dismissed.

When does first jeopardy TERMINATE: (2ND REQUISITE)

1) Acquittal
2) Conviction
3) Dismissal W/O the EXPRESS consent of the accused
4) Dismissal on the merits.

Examples of termination of jeopardy:

(a) Dismissal based on violation of the right to a speedy trial. This amounts
to an acquittal.

(b) Dismissal based on a demurrer to evidence. This is a dismissal on the

merits.
(c) Dismissal on motion of the prosecution, subsequent to a motion for
reinvestigation filed by the accused.

(d) Discharge of an accused to be a state witness. This amounts to an

acquittal.

When can the PROSECUTION appeal from an order of dismissal:

(a) If dismissal is on motion of the accused. Exception: If motion is based on

violation of the right to a speedy trial or on a demurrer to evidence.

(b) If dismissal does NOT amount to an acquittal or dismissal on the merits

(c) If the question to be passed upon is purely legal.

(d) If the dismissal violates the right of due process of the prosecution.

(e) If the dismissal was made with grave abuse of discretion.

What are considered to be the “SAME OFFENSE”:

(a) Exact identity between the offenses charged in the first and second
cases.

(b) One offense is an attempt to commit or a frustration of the other

offense.

(c) One offense is necessarily included or necessary includes the other.

· Note: where a single act results in the violation of different laws or

different provisions of the same law, the prosecution for one will not bar the
other so long as none of the exceptions apply.

Same Act

· 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:

(a) The graver offense developed due to a supervening fact arising from the
same act or omission constituting the former charge.

(b) The facts constituting the graver offense became known or were
discovered only after the filing of the former information.

(c) 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 prosecution’s incompetence, it
would not be considered a supervening event.

Effect of appeal by the accused

· 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.

· 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, thedismissal
was with the consent of the accused. Hence, reinstatement did not violate
the right against double jeopardy.

N. 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
VillegasKami)

Characteristics of Ex Post Facto Law

(a) Must refer to criminal matters

(b) Prejudicial to the accused
(c) Retroactive in application

· 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.”

· 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.

· 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 penalties.” (Cummings v. Missouri)

(All Bills of Attainder are Ex Post Facto Laws)

Elements of Bill of Attainder

1. There must be a law.
2. The law imposes a penal burden on a named individual or easily
ascertainable members of a group.
3. There is a direct imposition of penal burden without judicial trial.

O. PRIVACY OF COMMUNICATION
Section 3(1), Art. III. 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.

Forms of Correspondences and Communication Covered

1. letters
2. messages
3. telephone calls
4. telegrams, and
5. the likes

Intrusion into the Privacy of Communication May Be Allowed

1. Upon lawful order of the court, or
2. When public safety or order requires otherwise as prescribed by law.

· When intrusion is made without a judicial order, it would have to be based

upon a government official's assessment that public safety and
orderdemand such intrusion.
Public Order and Safety – the security of human lives, liberty, and property
against the activities of invaders, insurrectionists, and rebels.

· RA No. 4200 known as the Anti-Wiretapping Law provides penalties

for specific violations of private communication. Under Sec. 3 of the
Actallows court-authorized taps, under specific conditions for the
crimes of treason, espionage, provoking war and disloyalty in case of
war, piracy, mutiny in the high seas, rebellion, conspiracy and proposal
 to commit rebellion, inciting rebellion, sedition, conspiracy to commit
sedition, inciting to sedition, kidnapping.

P. RIGHT TO PRIVACY

· In Ople v. Torres, the right to privacy being a fundamental right, the

government has the burden of proof to show that a statute (AO no. 308 in
this case) is justified by some compelling state interest and that it is
narrowly drawn.

“In no uncertain terms, we also underscores that the right to privacy does
not bar all incursions into individual privacy. The right is not intended to
stifle scientific and technological advancements that enhance public service
and the common good. It merely requires that the law be narrowly
focused.” Intrusions into the right must be accompanied by proper
safeguards and well-defined standards to prevent unconstitutional
invasions.

· In Roe v. Wade, the Court held that abortions are permissible for any
reason a woman chooses, up until the "point at which the fetus becomes
‘viable,’ that is, potentially able to live outside the mother's womb.

(a) The Constitution does not explicitly mention any right to privacy but the
Court has recognized that such right does exist in the Constitution. The
Court deemed abortion a fundamental right under the United States
Constitution, thereby subjecting all laws attempting to restrict it to the
standard of strict scrutiny. Where certain “fundamental rights” are involved,
the Court has held that regulation limiting these rights may be justified only
by a “compelling state interest.”

(b) The right to privacy is broad enough to encompass a woman’s decision

whether or not to terminate her pregnancy. But a woman’s right to
terminate her pregnancy at whatever time, in whatever way and for
whatever reason she alone chooses is NOT absolute. While recognizing the
right to privacy, the Court also acknowledges that some state regulation in
areas protected by a right is appropriate. A state may properly assert
important interests in safeguarding health, in maintaining medical
standards, and in protecting potential life.

Q. WRIT OF HABEAS DATA

Writ of habeas data – is a remedy available to any person whose right to

privacy in life, liberty or security is violated or threatened by an unlawful act
or omission of a public official or employee, or of a private individual or
entity engaged in the gathering, collecting or storing of data or information
regarding the person, family, home and correspondence of the aggrieved
party.

· It is governed by The Rule on the Writ of Habeas Data (A.M. No. 08-1-16-
SC – full text), which was approved by the Supreme Court on 22 January
2008. That Rule shall not diminish, increase or modify substantive rights.
Constitutional Basis
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.

· 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?

· General rule: The aggrieved party.

· 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 party

within the fourth civil degree of consanguinity or affinity, in default of those
mentioned in the preceding paragraph.

Where can the petition be filed?

(1) Regional Trial Court where the petitioner or respondent resides, or that
which has jurisdiction over the place where the data or information is
gathered, collected or stored, at the option of the petitioner.

(2) Supreme Court;

(3) Court of Appeals; or

(4) Sandiganbayan, when the action concerns public data files of

government offices.

· No docket and other lawful fees shall be required from an indigent

petitioner. The petition of the indigent shall be docketed and acted upon
immediately, without prejudice to subsequent submission of proof of
indigency not later than 15 days from the filing of the petition.

The verified written petition shall allege the following:

(a) The personal circumstances of the petitioner and the respondent;

(b) The manner the right to privacy is violated or threatened and how it
affects the right to life, liberty or security of the aggrieved party;

(c) The actions and recourses taken by the petitioner to secure the data or
information;

(d) The location of the files, registers or databases, the government

office,and the person in charge, in possession or in control of the data or
information, if known;

(e) The reliefs prayed for, which may include the updating, rectification,
suppression or destruction of the database or information or files kept by
the respondent. In case of threats, the relief may include a prayer for an
order enjoining the act complained of; and

(f) Such other relevant reliefs as are just and equitable.

When is the writ of habeas data issued?

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.
· 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.

· 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.

· 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

(a) The lawful defenses such as national security, state secrets, privileged
communication, confidentiality of the source of information of media and
others;

(b) In case of respondent in charge, in possession or in control of the data or

information subject of the petition:

(i) a disclosure of the data or information about the petitioner, the nature of
such data or information, and the purpose for its collection;

(ii) the steps or actions taken by the respondent to ensure the security and
confidentiality of the data or information; and

(iii) the currency and accuracy of the data or information held; and

(c) Other allegations relevant to the resolution of the proceeding.

· 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.

· 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.
· 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.

· 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.

· 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.

· 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.

· 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:
· The Writ of Habeas Corpus – a writ ordering a person who detained
another to produce the body and bring it before a judge orcourt. Its
purpose is to determine whether the detention is lawful or not;

· The Writ of Mandamus – a writ ordering a governmental agency to

perform a ministerial function;

· The Writ of Prohibition – a writ ordering a person to prohibit

thecommission of an illegal act;

· The Writ of Certiorari – a writ ordering a person to correct

anerroneous act committed with grave abuse of discretion; and

· The Writ of Amparo– a writ designed to protect the most basic right
of a human being. These are the right to life, liberty andsecurity
guaranteed by the Constitution.

R. ACCESS TO PUBLIC INFORMATION

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.

· 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.

· These are political rights that are available to citizens only (Bernas,
Philippine Constitution, p. 85).

Limitations: “As may be provided by law”

Valmonte v Belmonte 1989 The people have a right to access

official records but they can’t compel
custodians of official records to
prepare lists, abstracts, summaries
and the like, such not being based on
a demandable legal right.

Then right to privacy belongs to the

Baldoza v Dimaano 1976
Legaspi v Civil Service Commission
1987
individual and must be invoked by
the individual. A public agency like
the GSIS cannot invoke the right to
privacy.
Judges cannot prohibit access to
judicial records. However, a judge
may regulate the manner in which
persons desiring to inspect, examine
or copy records in his office, may
exercise their rights.
Personal interest is not required in
asserting the right to information on
matters of public concern. What
matters constitute “public concern”
should be determined by the court
 on a case to case basis.
Chavez v PCGG 1998 Public concern (def.) – writings
coming into the hands of public
officers in connection with their
official functions Ill-gotten wealth is,
by its nature, a matter of public
concern. Privileged communication:
(1) national security, (2) trade
secrets, (3) criminal matters pending
in court,

Echegaray case SC held that making the Lethal

Injection Manual inaccessible to the
convict was unconstitutional.

S. FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION

Freedom of Speech – “at once the instrument and the guaranty and the
bright consummate flower of all liberty.” (Wendell Philips)

Scope

· Freedom of Expression is available only insofar as it is exercised for the

discussion of matters affecting the public interest. Purely private interest
matters do not come within the guaranty (invasion of privacy is not
sanctioned by the Constitution).

· covers ideas that are acceptable to the majority and the unorthodox
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)

· The freedom to speak includes the right to silent. (This freedom was meant
not only to protect the minority who want to talk but also to benefit the
majority who refuse to listen. - Socrates)

Importance

The ultimate good desired is better reached by a free trade in ideas – that
the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the
competition of the market; and that truth is the only ground upon which
theirwishes safely can be carried out.

Modes of Expression

(a) Oral and written language

(b) Symbolisms (e.g. bended knee, salute to the flag, cartoons)

Elements of Freedom of Expression

(1) Freedom from prior restraint or censorship

(2) Freedom from subsequent punishment

Freedom From Previous Restraint or Censorship

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.

Censorship – conditions the exercise of freedom of expression upon the

prior approval of the government. Only those ideas acceptable to it are
allowed to be disseminated.

· Censor, therefore, assumes the role of arbiter for the people, usually
applying his own subjective standards in determining the good and the not.
Such is anathema in a free society.

· In New York Times v. United States, the Court held that prohibition of
“prior restraint” is not absolute, although any system of prior restraint
comes to court bearing a heavy presumption against its constitutionality.

· In Near v. Minnesota, the exceptions to the prohibition of “prior restraint

is enumerated by the Court, thus: “When a nation is at war, many things
that might be said in time of peace are such a hindrance to its effort ....
Noone would question but that government might prevent actual
obstruction to its recruiting service or the publication of sailing dates of
transports or the number or location of troops.... The security of the
community life may be protected against incitements to acts of violence and
the overthrow by force of orderly government.”

· In SWS v. Comelec, Sec. 1 of RA No. 9006, the Fair Election Act says that
surveys affecting national candidates shall not be published fifteen(15) days
before an election and surveys affecting local candidates shall not be
published seven days before an election. The provision is challenged as
violative of freedom of expression. The Court held that as prior restraint, the
rule is presumed to be invalid. The power of the Comelec over media
franchises is limited to ensuring “equal opportunity, time, space and the
right to reply” as well as to reasonable rates of charges for the use of media
facilities for “public information and forums among candidates.” Here the
prohibition of speech is direct, absolute and substantial. Nor does the rule
pass the O'Brien test for content related regulation because (1) it suppresses
one type of expression while allowing other types such as editorials, etc. and
(2) the restriction is greater than what is needed to protect government
interest because the interest can be protected by narrower restriction such
as subsequent punishment.

· In Re: Request for Radio-TV Coverage of the Estrada Trial, the Court held
that the propriety of the Estrada trial involves the weighing out of the
constitutional guarantees of freedom of the press and the right to public
information, on the one hand, and the fundamental rights of the accused,
on the other hand, along with the constitutional power of a court to control
its proceedings in ensuring a fair and impartial trial... With the possibility of
losing not only the precious liberty but also the very life of an accused, it
behooves all to make absolutely certain that an accused receives a verdict
solely on the basis of a just and dispassionate judgment...”

· The doctrine of freedom of speech was formulated primarily for the

protection of “core speech,” i.e., speech which communicates political,
social or religious ideas. Commercial speech, however, does not.

Grosjeanvs American Press Co. There need not be total suppression;

even restriction of circulation
constitutes censorship
Burgos vs Chief of Staff the search, padlocking and sealing of
the offices of Metropolitan Mail and
We Forum by military authorities,
resulting in the discontinuance of
publication of the newspapers, was
held to be prior restraint
Mutucvs COMELEC the COMELEC prohibition against the
use of taped jingles in the mobile
units used in the campaign was held
to be unconstitutional, as it was in
the nature of censorship
Sanidadvs COMELEC the Court annulled the COMELEC
prohibition against radio

But...
Gonzales vs COMELEC
Iglesiani Cristo vs CA
PrimiciasvsFugosos
National Press Club vs COMELEC
commentators or newspaper
columnists from commenting on the
issues involved in the scheduled
plebiscite on the organic
law creating the Cordillera
Autonomous Region as an
unconstitutional restraint on
freedom of expression
the Court upheld the validity of the
law which prohibited, except during
the prescribed election period, the
making of speeches, announcements
or commentaries for or against the
election of any party or candidate for
public office.
JUSTIFICATION: the inordinate
preoccupation of the people with
politics tended toward the neglect of
the other serious needs of the nation
and the pollution of its suffrages.
The Board of Review for Motion
Pictures and Television (BRMPT) has
the authority to review the
petitioner's television program.
However, the Board acted with grave
abuse of discretion when it gave an
“X-rating” to the TV program on the
ground of “attacks against another
religion.” Such a classification can be
justified only if there is a showing
that the tv program would create a
clear and present danger of an evil
which the State ought to prevent.
The respondent mayor could only
reasonably regulate, not absolutely
prohibit, the use of public places for
the purpose indicated.
the Supreme Court upheld the
validity of Sec. 11(b), RA 6646, which
prohibited any person making use of
the media to sell or to give free of
 charge print space or air time for
campaign
or other political purposes except to
the COMELEC. This was held to be
within the power of the COMELEC to
supervise the enjoyment or
utilization of franchises for the
operation of
media of communication and
information, for the purpose of
ensuring equal opportunity, time and
space, and the “right to reply,” as
well as uniform and reasonable rates
of charges for the use of such media
facilities.
Osmeňavs COMELEC SC reaffirmed validity of RA 6646 as a
legitimate exercise of police power.
The regulation is unrelated to the
suppression of speech, as any
restriction on freedom of expression
occasioned thereby is only incidental
and no more than is
necessary to achieve the purpose of
promoting equality.
NOTE: This is not inconsistent with
the ruling in PPI vs COMELEC,
because in the latter, SC simply said
that COMELEC cannot procure print
space without paying just
compensation.

Adiongvs COMELEC COMELEC's resolution prohibiting the

posting of decals, and stickers in
mobile units like cars and other
moving vehicles was declared
unconstitutional for infringement 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.
Gonzales vs petitioner questioned the
katigbak classification of the movie as “for
adults only.” the petition was
dismissed because the Board did not
commit grave abuse of discretion.

Freedom From Subsequent Punishment

Section 18(1), Art. III. No person shall be detained solely by reason of his
political beliefs and aspirations.

· Without this assurance, the individual would hesitate to speak for fear that
he might be held to account for his speech, or that he might be provoking
the vengeance of the officials he may have criticized.

· Not absolute; subject to police power and may be regulated (freedom of

expression does not cover ideas offensive to public order)

Right of students to free speech in school premises not absolute

General Rule: a student shall not be expelled or suspended solely on the

basis of articles he has written
Exception: when the article materially disrupts class work or involves
substantial 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)

Tests of valid governmental interference

(criteria in determining the liability of the individual for ideas expressed by
him) :

1. Clear and present danger rule

2. Dangerous tendency doctrine
3. Balance of interest test

1. Clear and Present Danger Rule – when words are used in such
circumstance and of such nature as to create a clear and present danger
that will bring about the substantive evil that the State has a right to
prevent. (As formulated by Justice Holmes in Schenck v. United States)

Clear – causal connection with the danger of the substantive evil arising
from the utterance

Present – time element; imminent and immediate danger (the danger must
not only be probable but also inevitable). (Gonzales v. Comelec)

· In ABS-CBN v. Comelec, the Comelec banned “exit polls” in the exercise of

its authority to regulate the holders of media franchises during the lection
period. It contends that “an exit poll has the tendency to sow confusion
considering the randomness of selecting interviewees.... However, the Court
said that exit polls constitute an essential part of the freedoms of speech
and of the press. Hence, the Comelec cannot ban totally in the guise of of
promoting clean, honest, orderly and credible elections. The ban does not
satisfy the clear and present danger rule because the evils envisioned are
merely speculative.

Terminiellovs City of · (speech inside an auditorium with

Chicago 800 persons)
· speech is often provocative and
challenging. hence, “fighting words”
are not sufficient to convict a person
absent a clear and present danger of
a serious substantive evil
PrimiciasvsFugosos The respondent mayor could only
reasonably regulate, not absolutely
prohibit, the use of
public places for the purpose
indicated.
· the condition of Manila at that time
did not justify the mayor's fears.
there was no clear and present
danger.
· decided in 1947
Navarro vs Villegas (compare with Primicias case)
 SC sustained respondent mayor's act
of refusing to issue a permit enabling
students to hold a public rally. Mayor
feared the rally would result to
public disorder.
- decided in 1970
Reyes vsBagatsing the denial of a permit to hold a
public rally was invalid as there was
no showing of the probability of a
clear and present danger of an evil
that might arise as a result of the
meeting. The burden of proving such
eventually rests on the Mayor.

2. Dangerous Tendency Doctrine – if the words uttered create a dangerous

tendency of an evil which the State has the right to prevent.(Cabansag
v.Fernandez)

· Justice Holmes, critique of this doctrine: Every idea is an incitement. If

believed, it is acted on unless some other belief outweighs it, or some failure
of energy stifles the movement at its birth.

Bayan vs Executive Secretary Ermita (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.
Cabansagvs Fernandez 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.
People vs Perez Accused declared: “The Filipinos like
myself must use bolos for cutting off
(Governor- General) Wood's head for
having recommended a bad thing for
the Filipinos, for he has killed our
independence.” He was sentenced to
jail.
3. Balance of Interest Test – when particular conduct is regulated in the
interest of public order, and the regulation results in an indirect, conditional,
partial abridgment of speech, the duty of the courts is to determine which of
the two conflicting interests demands the greater protection under the
circumstances presented. (American Communications Association v.
Douds)

CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGEROUS BALANCE OF INTEREST

DANGER TENDENCY RULE RULE
RULE
liberty is preferred Authority is preferred the issue is resolved in
the light of the
peculiarcircumstances
obtaining in each
particular case

· In Mutuc v. Comelec, the preferred freedom of expression calls all the

more the utmost respect when what may be curtailed is the dissemination
of information to make more meaningful the equally vital right of suffrage.

When faced with border line situations where freedom (of expression) to
speak &freedom to know (to information) are invoked against (vs.)
maintaining free and clean elections- the police, local officials and COMELEC
should lean in favor of freedom.

For in the ultimate analysis, the freedom of the citizen and the State’s power
to regulate are NOT ANTAGONISTIC.

There can be no free and honest elections if in the efforts to maintain them,
the freedom to speak and the right to know are unduly curtailed.

We examine the limits of regulation. J. Feliciano shows that regulation of

election campaign activity may not pass the test of validity if:
· It is too general in its terms
· Not limited in time and scope in its application
· It if restricts one’s expression of belief in a candidate or one’s opinion ofhis
or her qualifications,
· If it cuts off the flow of media reporting
· If the regulatory measure bears no clear and reasonable nexus with
theconstitutionally sanctioned objective.

The regulation strikes at the freedom of an individual to express his

preference and, by displaying it on his car, to convince others to agree with
him. A sticker may be furnished by a candidate but once the car owner
agrees to have it placed in his private vehicle, the expression becomes a
statement by the owner, primarily his own and not of anybody else.

· The general rule for a speech to be considered libelous or defamatory is:

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) it’s a matter of public interest; and 3) public figures
have the opportunity and resources to rebut whatever is said against them.
(Policarpiovs Manila Times); ( New York Times vs Sullivan)

· 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 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.”

· In Gonzales v. Kalaw-Katigbak, KapitsaPatalim 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

ofpermissible exercise of free speech and, therefore should be censored, is
the clear and present danger test.

Assembly and Petition

· The right to assemble is not subject to prior restraint and may not be
conditioned upon the prior issuance of a permit or authorization from the
government authorities. However, the right must be exercised in such a way
that it will not prejudice the public welfare. (De la Cruz v. Court ofAppeals)

· If assembly is to be held at a public place, permit for the use of such place,
and not for the assembly itself, may be validly required. Power of local
officials is merely for regulation and not for prohibition. (Primicias v.Fugoso)

· Permit for public assembly is not necessary if meeting is to be held in: a

private place; the campus of a government-owned or operated educational
institution; and freedom park. (B.P. Blg. 880 - “The Public Assembly Actof
1985')

· In JBL Reyes v. Bagatsing, retired J. JBL Reyes sought a permit from the City
of Manila to hold a march and rally on Oct 26, 1983 2-5pm from Luneta to
gates of US Embassy, and was denied by the Mayor due to Vienna
Convention Ordinance and fear of subversives may infiltrate the ranks of the
demonstrators.

Held: no justifiable ground to deny permit because Bill of Rights will prevail
over Vienna Ordinance should conflict exist (none proven because 500m not
measured from gate to US Embassy proper) and fear of serious injury cannot
alone justify suppression of free speech and assembly- only clear and
present danger of substantive evil.
Notes: the Court is called upon to protect the exercise of the cognate rights
to free speech and peaceful assembly…

TanadavsBagatsing SC sustained the petitioner's motion

compelling the mayor of Manila to
issue a permit to hold a rally, but
changed the meeting place to
UgarteField, a private park
MalabananvsRamento (several students were suspended
for 1 year for conducting
demonstration in the premises 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 re-
enroll and finish their studies.
Villarvs TIP (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.
Non vs Dames SC abandons its ruling in Alcuazvs
PSBA (that enrolment of a student is
a semester-to-semester contract and
the school may not be compelled to
renew the contract) upholding the
primacy of freedom of expression,
because the students do
not shed theur constitutionally
protected rights at the school
gate.
PBM Employees Assocvs PBM right to free assembly and petition
prevails over economic rights.
Tests of a lawful assembly

(1) Purpose Test

· ideally, the test should be the purpose for which the assembly is held,
regardless of the auspices under which it is organized

(2) Auspices Test

· EvengelistavsEarnshaw: the mayor of Manila prohibited the members of

the Communist Party from holding any kind of meeting, revoking all permits
previously granted by him on the ground that the party had been found (by
the fiscal's office) to be an illegal association.

· In People v. Bustos, Bustos and several people sent complaint letters via
counsel against Justice of Peace Roman Punsalan, who charged them with
libel.

Held: Bustos and the others were acquitted,

Ratio: the guarantees of free speech and a free press include the right to
criticize judicial conduct. And these people did so in proper channels
without undue publicity, believing they were right.

Right of Association
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 Assocvs CA right to organize does not carry with

it right to strike
VictorianovsElizalde Rope Workers'
Union
Occenavs COMELEC right of association was not violated
where political parties were
prohibited from participating in the
barangay elections to insure the non-
partisanship of the candidates.
In re Edillon Bar integration does not compel the
 lawyer to associate with anyone.
Integration does not make a lawyer a
member of any group of which he is
not already a member.

T. OBSCENITY CASES

US vsKottinger SC acquitted accused who was

charged of having
offered for sale pictures of half-clad
members of
non-Christian tribes, holding that he
had only
presented them in their native attire
People vs Go Pin Accused was convicted for exhibiting
nude
paintings and pictures,
notwithstanding his claim
that he had done so in the interest of
art. SC,
noting that he has charged admission
fees to the
exhibition, held that his purpose was
commercial,
not merely artistic.
Pita vs CA SC declared that the determination
of what is
obscene is a judicial function.
Miller vs California Test of Obscenity:
· whether the average person,
applying
contemporary community standards,
would
find that the work, taken as a
whole,appeals to the prurient
interest
· whether the work depicts, in a
patently
offensive way, sexual conduct
specifically
defined by the applicable law
· whether the work, taken as a
 whole, lacks
serious literary, artistic, political or
scientific
value
Justice Douglas, dissent: I do not
think we, the
judges, were ever given the
constitutional power tomake
definitions of obscenity. Obscenity is
a
hodgepodge.
- The Courts should not apply a national standard but the standard of the
communityin which the material is being tested.

· In Reno v. ACLU, Communications Decency Act seek to protect minors from

obscenity on the internet.
· Held: overbroad, vague, unconstitutional.
· Notes: Sexual expression which is indecent but not obscene is protected by
the First Amendment.

The internet is not an “invasive” medium because it requires a series of

affirmative steps more deliberate and directed than merely turning a dial (tv
or radio).

There is no effective way to determine the identity or the age of a user who
is accessing material through email, mail exploders, newsgroups or chat
rooms.

The Community Standard as applied to the internet means that any

communication available to a nationwide audience will be judged by the
standards of the community most likely to be offended by the message. The
effect of CDA is such that when a site is blocked for being “indecent” or
“patently offensive” the remaining content even if not indecent cannot be
viewed anymore. Imposition of requirements (adult identification number or
credit card) would bar adults who do not have a credit card and lack the
resources to obtain one from accessing any blocked material. It burdens
communication among adults.

The CDA is punitive, a criminal statute. The CDA is a content- based blanket
restriction on speech, and as such, cannot be properly analyzed as a form of
time, place and manner regulation.
· The CDA was replaced with Child Online Protection Act, 1. The scope had
been limited to material displayed only on the world wide web. Chat and
email were not included. The classification of content was limited as
“harmful to minors” using the Miller V California Test. So, it was upheld by
the Supreme Court.

Notes: the Court’s Jurisprudence teaches that it is the publisher’s

responsibility to abide by that community’s standards.

The fact that distributors of allegedly obscene materials may be subjected to

varying community standards in the various federal judicial districts into
which they transmit the materials does not render a federal statute
unconstitutional.

- Criticism of Official Conduct

Lagunzadvs Sotto Vda. de Gonzales
Ayer Productions vs Judge Capulong
US vsBustos
the Court granted the petition to
restrain the public exhibition of the
movie “Moises Padilla Story,”
because it contained fictionalized
embellishments. Being a public figure
does not destroy one's right to
privacy.
the tribunal upheld the primacy of
freedom of
expression over Enrile's “right to
privacy,” because
Enrile was a public figure and a
public figure's right
to privacy is narrower than that of an
ordinary
citizen. Besides, the movie “Four
Days of Revolution (sabini Cruz)” / “A
Dangerous Life
(sabiniNachura)” / “The Four Day
Revolution
(sabisa case)” would not be
historically faithful
without including therein the
participation of Enrile in the EDSA
revolution.
SC compared criticism of official
conduct to a
“scalpel that relieves the abscesses
 of officialdom”
People vs Alarcon 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.
In re Jurado a publication that tends to impede,
embarrass or
obstruct the court and constitutes a
clear and
present danger to the administration
of justice is
not protected by the guarantee of
press freedom
and is punishable by contempt. It is
not necessary that publication
actually obstructs the administration
of justice, it is enough that it tends to
do so.
In re Sotto a senator was punished for contempt
for having
attacked a decision of SC which he
called
incompetent and narrow-minded,
and announcing
that he would file a bill for its
reorganization
In re Tulfo Tulfo's “SangkatutaknaBobo” column
was held
contumacious. Freedom of the press
is subordinate to the decision,
authority and integrity of the
judiciary and the proper
administration of justice.
In re Laureta a lawyer was held in contempt and
suspended
from the practice of law for wrting
individual letters to members of the
SC division that decided a case
against his client, arrogantly
 questioning their decision
Zaldivarvs a member of the Bar who imputed
Sandiganbayan charges of
improper influence, corruption and
other misdeeds to members of the
Supreme Court was suspended from
the practice of law as “neither the
right of free speech nor the right to
engage in political activities can be so
construed or extended as to permit
any such liberties to a member of the
bar.”

U. FREEDOM OF RELIGION
Section 5, Art. III. No law shall be made respecting an establishment of
religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The free exercise and
enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or
preference, shall forever be allowed. No religious test shall be required for
the exercise of civil or political rights.

Religion defined

· “any specific system of belief, worship, conduct, etc., often involving a code
of ethics and philosophy” (defined by Cruz)

· In Aglipayvs Ruiz religion is defined as “a profession of faith to an active

power that binds and elevates man to his Creator.

Two Guarantees Contained Section 5, Art. III of the Constitution

(1) Non-establishment clause

(2) Free exercise of religious profession and worship

1. Non-establishment Clause

· reinforces Sec. 6, Art. II on the separation of church and State

· other provisions which support this: Sec 2(5), Art. IX-C [a religious sect or
denomination cannot be registered as a political party], Sec 5(2), Art. VI [no
sectoral representative from the religious sector], and Sec 29 (2), Art.VI
[prohibition against the use of public money or property for the benefit of
any religion, or of any priest, minister or ecclsiastic], Sec. 28 (3), Art. VI
[exemption from taxation of properties actually, directly and exclusively
used for religious purposes, Sec 4(2), Art XIV [citizenship requirement of
ownership of educational institutions except those owned by religious
groups], Sec 29(2), Art VI [appropriation allowed where the minister is
employed in the armed forces, penal institution or government-owned
orphanage or leprosarium]

Scope: The State

(a) cannot set up a church;

(b) cannot pass laws which aid one religion, all religions or prefer one over
another;
(c) cannot influence a person to go to or remain away from church against
his will; nor
(d) force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion.

Rationale:

· to delineate boundaries between the two institutions; and

· to avoid encroachment by one against the other.

· A union of Church and State would either:

◦ tend to destroy government and to degrade religion; or
◦ result in a conspiracy because of its composite strength

· separation of church and state is not a wall of hostility

· The Government is neutral. It protects all, but prefers none and disparages
none.
· Freedom of religion includes freedom from religion; the right to worship
includes right not to worship
Two values sought to be protected by the non-establishment clause:

(1) Voluntarism – the growth of a religious sect as a social force must come
from the voluntary support of its members because of the belief that both
spiritual and secular society will benefit if religions are allowed to compete
on their own intrinsic merit without benefit of official patronage.

(2) Insulation of the political process from interfaith dissension –

voluntarism cannot be achieved unless the political process is insulated from
religion and unless religion is insulated politics.

Engel vs Vitale recitation by students in public

Everson vs Board of Education
Board of Education vs Allen
In Everson and Allen, the government aid was given directly to the student
and parents, not to the church-related school
Adongvs Cheong Seng Gee
Rubivs Provincial Board
Islamic Da'wah Council of the by arrogating to itself the task of
Philippines vs Office of Exec. Sec.
schools in New York of a prayer
composed by the Board of Regents
was unconstitutional
US Supreme Court sustained the law
providing free
transportation for all schoolchildren
without discrimination, including
those attending parochial schools
US Supreme Court sustained the law
requiring the
petitioner to lend textbooks free of
charge to all students from grades 7-
12, including those attending private
schools
in line with the constitutional
principle of equal treatment of all
religions, the State recognizes the
validity of marriages performed in
conformity with the rites of
Mohammedan religion
the expression “non-Christian” in
“non-Christian tribes” was not meant
to discriminate. It refers to degree of
civilization, not to the religious
belief.
issuing halal
certifications, the State has, in effect,
forced Muslims to accept its own
 interpretation of the Qur'an and
Sunna on halal food.

· Intramural Religious Dispute – outside the jurisdiction of the secular

authorities

Gonzales vs Archbishop of Manila where a civil right depends upon

some matter pertaining to
ecclesiastical affairs, the civil tribunal
tries the civil right and nothing more.
Fonacier v CA where the dispute involves the
property rights of the religious
group, or the relations of the
members where the property rights
are involved, the civil courts may
assume jurisdiction.

2. Free Exercise Clause

Two Aspects of Free Exercise Clause:

1. Freedom to Believe

(a) absolute
(b) includes not to believe
(c) “everyone has a right to his beliefs and he may not be called to account
because he cannot prove what he believes”

2. Freedom to Act According to One's Beliefs

(a) happens when the individual externalizes his beliefs in acts or omissions

(b) subject to regulation; can be enjoyed only with proper regard to rights of
others

(c) Justice Frankfurter: the constitutional provision on religious freedom

terminated disabilities, it did not create new privileges... its essence is
freedom from conformity to religious dogma, not freedom from conformity
to law because of religious dogma
German vsBarangan SC found that petitioners were not
sincere in
their profession of religious liberty
and were
using it merely to express their
opposition to
the government
Ebralinagvs division SC reversed Gerona vs Sec. of Educ. ,
Superintendent of Schools of and
Cebu upheld the right of petitioners to
refute to
salute the Philippine flag on account
of their
religious scruples. To compel
students to
take part in a flag ceremony when it
is against
their religious beliefs will violate
their religious
freedom.
People vsZosa invocation of religious scruples in
order to avoid military service was
brushed aside bythe SC
VictorianovsElizalde Rope Workers SC upheld the validity of RA 3350,
Union exempting
members of a religious sect from
being
compelled to join a labor union
American Bible Society vs City of the constitutional guarantee of free
Manila exercise
carries with it the right to
disseminate information, and any
restraint of such right can be justified
only on the ground that there is a
clear and present danger of an evil
which the State has the right to
prevent; Hence, City ordinance

Tolentinovs Sec. of Finance
imposing license fees to on sale is
inapplicable to the society
the free exercise clause does not
prohibit imposing a generally
applicable sales and use tax on the
sale of religious materials; the
registration fee is not imposed for
theexercise of a privilege, but only
for the purposeof defraying part of
the cost of registration

· Compelling State Interest test [Estrada vsEscritor]

· the constitution's religion clause's prescribe not a strict buabenevolent

neutrality (which recognizes that government mustpursue its secular goals
and interests, but at the same time, strive to uphold religious liberty to the
greatest extent possible within flexible constitutional limits

· benevolent neutrality could allow for accomodation morality based on

religion provided it does not offend the compelling state interesttest.

· two steps (as regards the test):

▪ inquire whether respondent's right to religious freedomhas been
burdened; and
▪ ascertain respondent's sincerity in her religious belief.

· In CentenovsVillalon-Pornillos, the Court held that solicitiations for

religious purposes requires not a prior permit from DSWD as it is not
included in solicitations for “charitable or public welfare purposes.”

Religious Tests

· Purpose: to stop government's clandestine attempts to prevent a person

from exercising his civil of political rights because of his religious beliefs.

· In Pamil v. Teleron, Sec. 2175 of the Revised Adminsitrative Code is

questioned whether or not it is consistent with the religious clause of the
Constitution. Said Code disqualifies an “ecclesiastic” from being elected or
appointed to a municipal office. Seven Justices voted to consider this a
prohibited “religious test.” Five justices said it is not a religious test but a
safeguard against the constant threat of union of Church and State that has
marked the Philippine history. (Hence, since the majority vote needed under
the 1973 Constitution to nullify a statute was not reached,
thedisqualification remains enforceable.)

People vsZosa invocation of religious scruples in

order to avoid military service was
brushed aside by the SC

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
· Liberty of Abode – “upon lawful order of the court”
· Right to Travel – “national security, public safety or public health as may be
provided by law”

Cauncavs Salazar 82 Phil 851 Whether a maid had the right to

transfer to another residence even if
she had not paid yet the amount
advances by an employment agency:
Yes. The fortunes of business cannot
be controlled by controlling a
fundamental human freedom.
Human dignity and freedom are
essentially spiritual – inseparable
from the idea of eternal. Money,
power, etc. belong to the ephemeral
and perishable.
Rubivs Provincial Board of Mindoro The respondents were justified in
1919 requiring the members of certain
non-Christian tribes to reside in a

Villavicencio vsLukban1919
SalongavsHermoso97 SCRA 121
Lorenzo vs Dir. ofHealth1927
Manotokvs CA 1986
Marcos vsManglapus1989
Philippine Association of Service Right to travel may be impaired in
Exporters vsDrilon
1988
reservation, for their better
education, advancement and
protection. The measure was a
legitimate exercise of police power.
Prostitutes, despite being in a sense
lepers, are not
chattels but Philippine citizens,
protected by the same constitutional
guarantee of freedom of abode. They
may not be compelled to change
their domicile in the absence of a law
allowing such.
the case became moot and academic
when the permit to travel abroad
was issued before the case could be
heard.
Laws for the segregation of lepers
have been provided the world over
and is supported by high scientific
authority. Such segregation is
premised on the duty to protect
public health.
Bail posted in a criminal case, is a
valid restriction on theright 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 one’s
country but it does not include the
right to return to one’s country.
NOTE: Court warned that this case
should not create a precedent
because Marcos was a class in
himself.
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 issued
in the interest of the safety of OFWs,
as provided by the Labor Code.