Constitutional Law 2 PDF

UP LAW BOC CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 POLITICAL LAW
POLITICAL LAW
CONSTITUTIONAL
LAW 2
PAGE 99 OF 406
Eminent domain may be used as an implement

I. Fundamental Powers to attain the police objective. [Association of
Small Landowners v. Secretary of Agrarian
of the State Reform (1989)]
A. CONCEPT, APPLICATION AND LIMITS Specific Coverage

(1) Public Health
(2) Public Morals
A.1 POLICE POWER
(3) Public Safety
Definition
It is the inherent and plenary power of the state (4) Public Welfare
which enables it to prohibit all that is hurtful to
the comfort, safety and welfare of society.
[Ermita-Malate Hotel and Motel Operators Test of Reasonability (Means-Purpose Test)
Association, Inc. v. Mayor of Manila (1967)] (1) Lawful means: The means employed are
reasonably necessary for the
accomplishment of the purpose and not
Scope and Limitations unduly oppressive upon individuals.
General Coverage [Planters Products v. Fertiphil Corp. (2008)]
“The state, in order to promote the general (2) Lawful purpose: The interests of the public,
welfare, may interfere with personal liberty, generally, as distinguished from those of a
with property, and with business and particular class, require such interference;
occupations. Persons may be subjected to all
kinds of restraints and burdens, in order to The limit to police power is reasonability. The
secure the general comfort, health and Court looks at the test of reasonability to decide
prosperity of the state and to this fundamental whether it encroaches on the right of an
aim of our Government, the rights of the individual. So long as legitimate means can
individual are subordinated.” [Ortigas and Co., reasonably lead to create that end, it is
Limited Partnership v. Feati Bank and Trust Co. reasonable. [Morfe v. Mutuc (1968)]
(1979)] Legislature’s determination “as to what is a
“Police power, while incapable of an exact proper exercise of its police powers is not final
definition, has been purposely veiled in general or conclusive, but is subject to the supervision
terms to underscore its comprehensiveness to of the court.” [US v. Toribio (1910)]
meet all exigencies and provide enough room However, courts cannot delimit beforehand the
for an efficient and flexible response as the extent or scope of the police power, since they
conditions warrant.” [White Light Corporation v. cannot foresee the needs and demands of
City of Manila (2009)] public interest and welfare. “So it is that
Police Power cannot be bargained away Constitutions do not define the scope or extent
through treaty or contract. [Ichong v. of the police power of the State; what they do is
Hernandez (1957)] to set forth the limitations thereof. The most
important of these are the due process clause
Despite the impairment clause, a contract valid and the equal protection clause.”[Ichong v.
at the time of its execution may be legally Hernandez (1957)]
modified or even completely invalidated by a
subsequent law. If the law is a proper exercise of The Court will not inquire into the motives of
the police power, it will prevail over the contract. the Legislature, nor pass upon matters of
[PNB v. Office of the President (1996)] legislative judgment. It may not annul the
legislation if not palpably in excess of
Taxation, Eminent Domain as Implements of legislative power.[Ichong v. Hernandez (1957)]
Police Power
The SC upheld the validity of Administrative
Taxation may be used as an implement of Orders (issued by the DENR Sec.) which
police power. [Lutz v. Araneta (1955)] converted existing mine leases and other
PAGE 100 OF 406

mining agreements into production-sharing assailed the constitutionality of Ordinance No.

agreements within one year from effectivity. 4760 (regulating motels through fees,
The subject sought to be governed by the AOs restrictions on minors, open inspection,
are germane to the object and purpose of E.O.
logbooks, etc.). Court held: The mantle of
279 (passed under the Freedom Constitution)
and that mining leases or agreements granted protection associated with the due process
by the State are subject to alterations through guaranty does not cover petitioners. This
a reasonable exercise of police power of the particular manifestation of a police power
State. [Miners Association of the Philippines v. measure being specifically aimed to safeguard
Factoran (1995)] public morals is immune from such imputation
of nullity resting purely on conjecture and
unsupported by anything of substance.
Illustrations on the Exercise of Police Power
Where the liberty curtailed affects at the most
General Welfare v Property rights – RA 9257,
rights of property, the permissible scope of
the Expanded Senior Citizens Act of 2003, is a
regulatory measure is wider. [Ermita-Malate
legitimate exercise of police power.
Motel and Motel Operators Assn. v. City Mayor of
Administrative Order No. 177 issued by the
Manila (1967)]
Department of Health, providing that the 20%
discount privilege of senior citizens shall not be However, when legitimate sexual behavior,
limited to the purchase of unbranded generic which is constitutionally protected [by the right
medicine but shall extend to both prescription to privacy], and other legitimate activities, most
and non-prescription medicine, whether of which are grounded on the convenience of
branded or generic, is valid. [Carlos Superdrug having a place to stay during the short intervals
Corporation v. DSWC et al. (2007)] between travels [in motels], will be unduly
curtailed by the ordinance, the same ordinance
National Security v Property Rights – SC
is invalid. [See White Light Corp. v. City of Manila
upheld the constitutionality of RA 1180 (An Act
(2009)]
to Regulate the Retail Business) which sought to
nationalize the retail trade business by
prohibiting aliens in general from engaging
Limitations when police power is delegated:
directly or indirectly in the retail trade. The law
was to “remedy a real actual threat and danger (1) Express grant by law [e.g. Secs. 16, 391, 447,
to national economy posed by alien dominance 458 and 468, R.A. 7160, for LGUs]
and control of the retail business; the
(2) Limited within its territorial jurisdiction [for
enactment clearly falls within the scope of the
local government units]
police power of the State, thru which and by
which it protects its own personality and (3) Must not be contrary to law.
insures its security and future.” [Ichong v.
Hernandez (1957)]
Public Safety – Police power is a dynamic
agency, suitably vague and far from being
precisely defined; the principle is the
Constitution did not intend to enable an
individual citizen or a group of citizens to
unreasonably obstruct the enactment of
measures calculated to communal peace,
safety, good order, and welfare. A heavy burden
lies in the hands of a petitioner who questions
the state’s police power if it was clearly
intended to promote public safety. [Agustin v.
Edu, (1979), on an LOI requiring early warning
devices for all motor vehicle owners]
Police Power, Property Rights v Fundamental
Rights - Hotel and motel operators’ association
PAGE 101 OF 406
A.2 EMINENT DOMAIN Who may exercise the power?

Definition and Scope (1) Congress;
The power of eminent domain is the inherent (2) By delegation, the President and
right of the State to condemn private property administrative bodies [through the Admin.
to public use upon payment of just Code], local government units [through the
compensation. Loc. Gov. Code], and even private
enterprises performing public services [See
It is well settled that eminent domain is an
Tenorio v. Manila Railroad (1912)]
inherent power of the State that need not be
granted even by the fundamental law. Sec. 9,
Art. III merely imposes a limit on the
Application
government’s exercise of this power. [Republic
v.Tagle (1998)] When is there taking in the constitutional
The repository of eminent domain powers is case?
legislature, i.e. exercised through the (1) Diminution in value;
enactment of laws. But power may be (2) Prevention of ordinary use; and
delegated to LGUs and other government
entities (via charter); still, the delegation must (3) Deprivation of beneficial use.
be by law. [Manapat v. CA (2007)] (4) Regulatory takings
In Didipio Earth Savers Multipurpose Association
How is just compensation determined? (DESAMA) v. Gozun (2006), examples were (a)
trespass without actual eviction; (b) material
First and foremost, just compensation is impairment of the value; (c) prevention of the
defined as the full and fair equivalent of the ordinary uses (e.g. easement).
property taken from its owner by the
expropriator. The measure is not the taker’s Butanything taken by virtue of police power is
gain but the owner’s loss. Without just not compensable(e.g. abatement of a
compensation, expropriation is not nuisance), as usually property condemned
consummated. [Agpalo Commentary] under police power is noxious [DESAMA v.
Gozun (2006)]
GENERAL RULE: Computed at the time of the
filing of the complaint for expropriation (Sec. 4,
Rule 67, ROC) How is Eminent Domain different from
Regulatory Taking?
EXCEPTION: At the time of taking, when taking (1) Eminent domain is an inherent power of the
precedes filing of the complaint. state based on the Constitution. Just
compensation must be paid.
It is also important to note that inflation will not (2) Regulatory taking is the exercise of the
be considered in determining what the value is state of its police power. In this case, just
[Nepomuceno v CA (2008)] compensation need not be paid.
When is the value of just Examples from Jurisprudence:

compensationdetermined?
(1) The imposition of an aerial easement of
The general rule is that the value of just right-of-way was held to be taking. The
compensation is determined at the time of the exercise of the power of eminent domain
filing of the complaint for expropriation [Sec 4, does not always result in the taking or
Rule 64, ROC]. appropriation of title to the expropriated
property; it may also result in the
imposition of a burden upon the owner of
the condemned property, without loss of
title or possession. [NPC v. Gutierrez (1991)]
PAGE 102 OF 406

(2) A municipal ordinance prohibiting a balance, if any shall be transferred to the

building which would impair the view of the general funds of the Government. [Sec. 29 (3),
plaza from the highway was likewise Art. VI]
considered taking. [People v. Fajardo
(1958)]
Scope and Limitation
(3) A regulatory taking occurs where a
regulation places limitations on land that General Limitations
fall short of eliminating all economically (1) Power to tax exists for the general welfare;
beneficial use, a taking nonetheless may should be exercised only for a public
have occurred, depending on a complex of purpose
factors including the regulation's economic (2) Might be justified as for public purpose
effect on the landowner, the extent to even if the immediate beneficiaries are
which the regulation interferes with private individuals
reasonable investment-backed
expectations, and the character of the (3) Tax should not be confiscatory: If a tax
government action. [Armstrong v. United measure is so unconscionable as to amount
States, 364 U.S. 40 (1960)] to confiscation of property, the Court will
invalidate it. But invalidating a tax measure
must be exercised with utmost caution,
When the State exercises the power of eminent otherwise, the State’s power to legislate for
domain in the implementation of its agrarian the public welfare might be seriously
reform program, the constitutional provision curtailed
which governs is Section 4, Article XIII of the (4) Taxes should be uniform and equitable [Sec.
Constitution. Notably, this provision also 28(1), Art. VI]
imposes upon the State the obligation of
paying the landowner compensation for the
land taken, even if it is for the government’s Judicial review for unconscionable and unjust
agrarian reform purposes. [Land Bank of the tax amounting to confiscation of property
Philippines v. Honeycomb Farms Corporation
(2012)] The legislature has discretion to determine the
nature, object, extent, coverage, and situs of
taxation. But where a tax measure becomes so
A.3 TAXATION unconscionable and unjust as to amount to
confiscation of property, courts will not hesitate
Definition and Scope to strike it down; the power to tax cannot
It is the power by which the State raises revenue override constitutional prescriptions. [Tan v. del
to defray the necessary expenses of the Rosario, (1994)]
Government. It is the enforced proportional
contributions from persons and property, levied
by the State by virtue of its sovereignty, for the Specific Limitations
support of the government and for all public (1) Uniformity of taxation
needs.
General Rule: Simply geographical
It is as broad as the purpose for which it is given. uniformity, meaning it operates with the
same force and effect in every place where
the subject of it is found
Purpose:
Exception: Rule does not prohibit
(1) To raise revenue classification for purposes of taxation,
(2) Tool for regulation provided the requisites for valid
classification are met. [Ormoc Sugar v.
(3) Protection/power to keep alive Treasurer of Ormoc (1968)]
Tax for special purpose (2) Tax Exemptions
Treated as a special fund and paid out for such
purpose only; when purpose is fulfilled, the
PAGE 103 OF 406
No law granting any tax exemption shall be

passed without the concurrence of a
B.3 TAXATION
majority of all the Members of Congress [Sec.
28 (4), Art. VI] Equal protection clause: Taxes should be (a)
uniform (persons or things belonging to the
There is no vested right in a tax exemption.
same class shall be taxed at the same rate) and
Being a mere statutory privilege, a tax
(b) equitable (taxes should be apportioned
exemption may be modified or withdrawn
among the people according to their ability to
at will by the granting authority. [Republic
pay)
v. Caguioa (2009)]
Progressive system of taxation: The rate
increases as the tax base increases, with social
Exemptions may either be constitutional or justice as basis. (Taxation here is an instrument
statutory. for a more equitable distribution of wealth.)
(1) If statutory, it has to have been passed by Delegated tax legislation: Congress may
majority of all the members of Congress delegate law-making authority when the
[Sec. 28 (4), Art. VI] Constitution itself specifically authorizes it.
(2) Constitutional exemptions[Sec. 28(3), Art.
VI]
C. SIMILARITIES AND DIFFERENCES
Requisite: Exclusive Use
B. REQUISITES FOR VALID EXERCISE Similarities[Nachura]

(1) Inherent in the State (Exercised even
without need of express constitutional
B.1 POLICE POWER grant)
Tests for Validity of Exercise of Police Power (2) Necessary and indispensable (State cannot
i. Lawful Subject: Interest of the general be effective without them)
public (as distinguished from a particular
class required exercise). This means that (3) Method by which state interferes with
the activity or property sought to be private property
regulated affects the general welfare. (4) Presuppose some equivalent
ii. Lawful Means: Means employed are compensation
reasonably necessary for the (5) Exercised primarily by the legislature
accomplishment of the purpose, and are
not unduly oppressive. [Planters Products v.
Fertiphil Corp. (2008)]
B.2 EMINENT DOMAIN

Requisites:
(a) Private property
(b) Genuine necessity - inherent/presumed in
legislation, but when the power is
delegated (e.g. local government units),
necessity must be proven.
(c) For public use - Court has adopted a broad
definition of “public use,” following the U.S.
trend
(d) Payment of just compensation
(e) Due process [Manapat v. CA (2007)]
PAGE 104 OF 406
Differences Note:In the exercise of police power, the

Police Power
Eminent
Taxation deprivation of the use of the property may be
Domain total, but it will not constitute compensable
Compensation taking if nobody else acquires use of the
None Just compen- None property or any interest therein. [Dipidio Earth-
(The sation (The Savers Multipurpose Association v. Gozun, G.R.
altruistic (Full and fair protection No. 157882, March 30, 2006]
feeling that equivalent of given and
one has the property public If regulation is the primary purpose, the fact
contributed taken) improvements that revenue is incidentally raised does not
to the public instituted by make the imposition a tax. [Gerochi v.
good the State Department of Energy (2007)]
[Nachura]) because of
these taxes
[Nachura]) License Fee (under police power) versus Tax
Use of Property
License Fee Tax
Not Appropriated Use taxing
appropriated for public use power as an Basis
for public use implement for
the attainment Police Power: to Taxation Power: to
of a legitimate regulate raise revenue
police Limitation
objective—to
regulate a Amount is limited to: Rate or amount to be
business or (a) cost of permit and collected is
trade (b) reasonable police unlimited, provided
Objective regulation not confiscatory
Property Earn revenue Exception: When the
taken for for the license fee is imposed
public use; it is government on a non-
not useful/beneficial
necessarily occupation, such as
noxious
the practice of
Coverage hygienic and
Liberty and Property Property rights aesthetic massage,
Property rights only only the fee may be large
Primary Purpose without being a tax.
To regulate; To devote To raise [Physical Therapy
to promote property to revenue Organization v.
general public use Municipal Board of
comfort, Manila (1957)]
health and Object
prosperity
Exercise of Power Paid for the privilege Persons or property
Only by the May be Only by the of doing something
government exercised by government and may be revoked
private when public interest
entities when so requires
right is Effect of Non-Payment
conferred by
law Business becomes Business or activity
Basis illegal does not become
Self- Life Blood illegal
preservation Theory
and self-
protection
PAGE 105 OF 406
D. DELEGATION conferring the authority upon a municipal

corporation to exercise the right of eminent
domain is admittedly within the power of the
D.1 POLICE POWER legislature.
Legislature A statute or charter or a general law may confer
Police power is lodged primarily in the national the right of eminent domain upon a private
legislature. entity. [Tenorio v. Manila Railroad Co. (1912)]
Executive
By virtue of a valid delegation of legislative As Exercised By As Exercised By
power, it may also be exercised by the president, Congress Delegates
administrative bodies, and lawmaking bodies Extent of Power
of LGUs. [Sec. 16, R.A. 7160] Pervasive and all- Can only be as broad
[T]his power is limited only by the Acts of encompassing as the enabling law
Congress and those fundamentals principles and the conferring
which lie at the foundation of all republican authorities want it to
forms of government. An Act of the Legislature be
which is obviously and undoubtedly foreign to Question of Necessity
any of the purposes of the police power and Political question Justiciable question.
interferes with the ordinary enjoyment of RTC has to determine
property would, without doubt, be held to be whether there is a
invalid. [Churchill and Tait v. Rafferty (1915)] genuine necessity for
its exercise, as well as
Rep. Act No. 7924 does not grant the MMDA what the property’s
with police power, let alone legislative power, value is.
and all its functions are administrative in
nature. [MMDA v. Bel-Air Village Association If not justiciable,
(2000)] there is grant of
But when there is an existing law or ordinance special authority for
which provides for such a duty,the MMDA is special purpose
duty-bound to confiscate/suspend or revoke
drivers’ licenses in the exercise of its mandate Re: Private Property
of transport and traffic management, as well as Delegate cannot
the administration and implementation of all expropriate private
traffic enforcement operations, traffic property already
engineering services and traffic education devoted to public use
programs. [MMDA v. Garin (2005); Sec. 3(b),
Rep. Act No. 7924] D.3 TAXATION
Power may be exercised by:
D.2 EMINENT DOMAIN (1) Legislature (primarily)
The power of the legislature to confer, upon (2) Local legislative bodies [Sec. 5, Art. X]
municipal corporations and other entities (3) President (to a limited extent, when
within the State, general authority to exercise granted delegated tariff powers under Sec.
the right of eminent domain cannot be 28 (2) Art. VI)
questioned by the courts, but that general
authority of municipalities or entities must not
be confused with the right to exercise it in
particular instances.
The moment the municipal corporation or
entity attempts to exercise the authority
conferred, it must comply with the conditions
accompanying the authority. The necessity for
PAGE 106 OF 406
Bases and Purpose

II. Private Acts and the
Bases:
Bill Of Rights (1) Importance accorded to the dignity and
worth of the individual.
(2) Protection against arbitrary actions of
The Bill of Rights, In General government and other members of society
It is a declaration and enumeration of a
person's fundamental civil and political rights. Purpose:
It also imposessafeguards against violations by (1) To preserve democratic ideals
the government, by individuals, or by groups of (2) To safeguard fundamental rights
individuals.
(3) To promote the happiness of an individual
“The Bill of Rights governs the relationship The Bill of Rights is designed to preserve the
between the individual and the state. Its ideals of liberty, equality and security "against
concern is not the relation between individuals, the assaults of opportunism, the expediency of
between a private individual and other the passing hour, the erosion of small
individuals. What the Bill of Rights does is to encroachments, and the scorn and derision of
declare some forbidden zones in the private those who have no patience with general
sphere inaccessible to any power holder.” principles.” [Philippine Blooming Mills
[People v. Marti (1991)] Employees Organization v. Philippine Blooming
It is self-executing. [See Gamboa v. Teves (2011)] Mills Co., Inc. (1973)]
Article III contains the chief protection for The purpose of the Bill of Rights is to withdraw
human rights but the body of the Constitution "certain subjects from the vicissitudes of
guarantees other rights as well. political controversy, to place them beyond the
(1) Civil rights– rights that belong to an reach of majorities and officials, and
individual by virtue of his citizenship in a to establish them as legal principles to be
state or community (e.g. rights to property, applied by the courts. One's rights to life, liberty
marriage, freedom to contract, equal and property, to free speech, or free press,
protection, etc.) freedom of worship and assembly, and other
fundamental rights may not be submitted to a
(2) Political rights– rights that pertain to an vote; they depend on the outcome of no
individual’s citizenship vis-à-vis the elections." [West Virginia State Board of
management of the government (e.g. right Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 638]
of suffrage, right to petition government for
redress, right to hold public office, etc.)
(3) Social and economic rights – rights which Accountability
are intended to insure the well-being and Rule: The Bill of Rights cannot be invoked
economic security of the individual against acts of private individuals. The equal
protection erects no shield against private
(4) Rights of the accused – civil rights conduct, however discriminatory or wrongful.
intended for the protection of a person [Yrasuegui v. PAL (2008)]
accused of any crime
Constitutional protection applies to
government action and is meant as a restraint
Human rights have a primacy over property against sovereign authority. The Bill of Rights
rights. The rights of free expression and of is not meant to be invoked against private
assembly occupy a preferred position as they individuals, and governs relations between
are essential to the preservation and vitality of individuals and the state. [People v. Marti (1991)]
civil institutions. [PBMEO v. Philippine
Blooming Mills, Co. (1973)]
Important Notes:
PAGE 107 OF 406
(1) See Zulueta v. CA (1996), where the Bill of

Rights was invoked and applied by the III. Due Process
Court against a private party: The
constitutional injunction declaring the
privacy of communication and Art. III, Sec. 1.No person shall be deprived of
correspondence to be inviolable is no less life, liberty or property without due process
applicable simply because it is the wife who of law, nor shall any person be denied the
is the party against whom the constitutional equal protection of the laws.
provision is to be enforced. The intimacies
between husband and wife do not justify
any one of them in breaking the drawers Art. XIII, Sec. 1.The Congress shall give
and cabinets of the other and in ransacking highest priority to the enactment of
them for any telltale evidence of marital measures that protect and enhance the right
infidelity. A person, by contracting of all the people to human dignity, reduce
marriage, does not shed his/her integrity or social, economic, and political inequalities
his right to privacy as an individual and the and remove cultural inequities by equitably
constitutional protection is ever available diffusing wealth and political power for the
to him or to her. [Zulueta v. CA (1996)] common good.
(2) Contrastwith statutory due process, which To this end, the State shall regulate the
may be invoked against private individuals. acquisition, ownership, use, and disposition
[See, generally, labor cases on illegal of property and its increments.
termination.] This does not form part of the
Bill of Rights.
In General
Due process of law simply states that “[i]t is
part of the sporting idea of fair play to hear "the
other side" before an opinion is formed or a
decision is made by those who sit in judgment.”
[Ynot v. IAC (1987)]
It covers any governmental action which
constitutes a deprivation of some person's life,
liberty, or property.
Definition
Due process furnishes a standard to which the
governmental action should conform in order
that deprivation of life, liberty or property, in
each appropriate case, be valid. xxx It is
responsiveness to the supremacy of reason,
obedience to the dictates of justice. Negatively
pit, arbitrariness is ruled out and unfairness
avoided. xxx Correctly it has been identified as
freedom from arbitrariness. It is the
embodiment of the sporting idea of fair play.
[Ichong v. Hernandez (1957)]
A law hears before it condemns, which
proceeds upon inquiry and renders judgment
only after trial. [Darthmouth College v.
Woodward, 4 Wheaton 518]
PAGE 108 OF 406

Life is also the right to a good life. [Bernas] It Noted exceptions to due process
includes the right of an individual to his body in
(1) Aconclusive presumption, bars the
its completeness, free from dismemberment,
admission of contrary evidence as long as
and extends to the use of God-given faculties
such presumption is based on human
which make life enjoyable. [Malcolm]
experience or there is a rational connection
Understood to include ―quality of life – which between the fact proved and the fact
is entitlement to a life lived with assurance that ultimately presumed there from.
government he established and consented to
(2) There are instances when the need for
will protect the security of person means [1]
expeditious actionwill justify omission of
freedom from fear; [2] guarantee of bodily and
these requisites—e.g. in the summary
psychological integrity, and [3] guarantee of
abatement of a nuisance per se, like a mad
protection of one‘s rights by the government
dog on the loose, which may be killed at
[Secretary of National Defense v Manalo].
sight because of the immediate danger it
poses to the safety and lives of the people.
Liberty“includes the right to exist and the right (3) Pornographic materials, contaminated
to be free from arbitrary personal restraint or meat and narcotic drugs areinherently
servitude. [It] includes the right of the citizen to pernicious and may be summarily
be free to use his faculties in all lawful ways[.]” destroyed.
[Rubi v. Provincial Board]
(4) The passport of a person sought for a
Property is anything that can come under the criminal offensemay be cancelled without
right of ownership and be the subject of hearing, to compel his return to the country
contract. It represents more than the things a he has fled.
person owns; it includes the right to secure, use
(5) Filthy restaurants may be summarily
and dispose of them. [Torraco v. Thompson, 263
padlocked in the interest of the public
US 197]
health and bawdy houses to protect the
public morals. [Ynot v. IAC (1987)]
Scope and limitations In such instances,previous judicial hearing
may be omitted without violation of due
Universal in application to all persons without
process in view of: 1) the nature of the property
regard to any difference in race, color or
involved; or 2) the urgency of the need to
nationality.
protect the general welfare from a clear and
Artificial persons are covered by the protection present danger.
but only insofar as their property is concerned
[Smith Bell and Co. v. Natividad, 40 Phil. 163]
The guarantee extends to aliens and includes A. RELATIVITY OF DUE PROCESS
the means of livelihood. [Villegas v. HiuChiong,
86 SCRA 275]
The concept of due process is flexible for not all
The due process clause has to do with the situations calling for procedural safeguards
legislation enacted in pursuance of the police call for the same kind of procedure. [Secretary
power. xxx The guaranty of due process, as has of Justice v. Lantion (2000)]
often been held, demands only that the law
shall not be unreasonable, arbitrary or Consideration of what procedures due process
capricious, and that the means selected shall may require under any given set of
have a real and substantial relation to the circumstances must begin with a
subject sought to be attained. [Ichong v. determination of the precise nature of the
Hernandez (1957)] government function involved as well as of the
private interest that has been affected by
governmental action.” [Cafeteria & Restaurant
Workers Union v. McElroy (1961)]
To say that the concept of due process is
flexible does not mean that judges are at large
PAGE 109 OF 406
to apply it to any and all relationships. Its (3) It shall be enforced according to the regular
flexibility is in its scope once it has been methods of procedure prescribed; and
determined that some process is due; it is a
(4) It shall be applicable alike to all the citizens
recognition that not all situations calling for
of the state or to all of a class. [Rubi v.
procedural safeguards call for the same kind of
Provincial Board of Mindoro (1919)]
procedure. [Morrissey v. Brewer (1972)]
B.3 PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS

B. PROCEDURAL AND SUBSTANTIVE
DUE PROCESS In Civil Proceedings
Requisites:
(1) An impartial court of tribunal clothed with
B.1 SCOPE judicial power to hear and determine the
Procedural Due Process – that aspect of due matter before it.
process which serves as a restriction on actions (2) Jurisdiction must be lawfully acquired over
of judicial and quasi-judicial agencies of the the person of the defendant and over the
government. It refers to the method or manner property subject matter of the proceeding
by which a law is enforced. [Banco Español v. Palanca (1918)]
Concerned with government action on Note:Noticeis an essential element of due
established process when it makes intrusion process, otherwise the Court will not
into the private sphere. acquire jurisdiction and its judgment will
not bind the defendant.
B.2 SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS To be meaningful, it must be both as to

time and place.
Substantive due process, asks whether the
government has an adequate reason for taking Service of summons is not only required to
away a person’s life, liberty, or property.[City of give the court jurisdiction over the person of
Manila v. Laguio (2005)] the defendant but also to afford the latter
the opportunity to be heard on the claim
In other words, substantive due process looks made against him. Thus, compliance with
to whether there is a sufficient justification for the rules regarding the service of summons
the government’s action. is as much an issue of due process as of
Substantive due process is an aspect of due jurisdiction. [Sarmiento v. Raon (2002)]
process which serves as a restriction on the law- (3) The defendant must be given an
making and rule-making power of the opportunity to be heard
government.
Due process is satisfied as long as the party
The law itself, not merely the procedures by is accorded the opportunity to be heard. If
which the law would be enforced, should be fair, it is not availed of, it is deemed waived or
reasonable, and just. forfeited without violating the
It guarantees against the arbitrary power even constitutional guarantee. [Bautista v. Court
when exercised according to proper forms and of Appeals (2004)]
procedure. The SC reiterated that the right to appeal is
Requisites: not a natural right nor part of due process;
it is merely a statutory privilege, and may
Due process of law means simply that be exercised only in the manner and in
(1) There shall be a law prescribed in harmony accordance with the provisions of law.
with the general powers of the legislative [Alba v. Nitorreda, 254 SCRA 753]
department of the Government;
(4) Judgment must be rendered upon lawful
(2) This law shall be reasonable in its hearing and must clearly explain its factual
operation; and legal bases. [Sec. 14, Art. VIII; Banco
Español-Filipino v. Palanca (1918)]
PAGE 110 OF 406
Note : The allowance or denial of motions In the conduct of the criminal proceedings, it
for extension rests principally on the sound cannot be said that the State has been denied
discretion of the court to which it is due process unless there is an indication that
addressed, but such discretion must be the special prosecutor deliberately and willfully
exercised wisely and prudently, with a view failed to present available evidence or that
to substantial justice. Poverty is recognized other evidence could be secured. [People v.
as a sufficient ground for extending Sandiganbayan(2012)]
existing period for filing. The right to
appeal is part of due process of law. [Reyes
v. CA (1977)] In Academic Disciplinary Proceedings
Requisites:
In Administrative Proceedings (1) The students must be informed in writing of

the nature and cause of any accusation
The AngTibay Rules:
against them;
(1) Right to a hearing to present own case and
(2) They shall have the right to answer the
submit evidence in support thereof.
charges against them, with the assistance
(2) Tribunal must consider the evidence of counsel, if desired;
presented.
(3) They shall be informed of the evidence
(3) Decision rendered must have support. against them;
(4) Evidence which supports the finding or (4) They shall have the right to adduce
conclusion is substantial (such relevant evidence in their own behalf;
evidence as a reasonable mind accept as
(5) The evidence must be duly considered by
adequate to support a conclusion).
the investigating committee or official
(5) The decision must be rendered on the designated by the school authorities to
evidence presented at the hearing, or at hear and decide the case [Non v. Dames
least contained in the record and disclosed (1990)]
to the parties affected.
(6) The tribunal or any of its judges, must act
In Labor Cases
on its or his own independent consideration
of the law and facts of the controversy, and The Labor Code requires twin requirements of
not simply accept the views of a notice and hearing for a valid dismissal.
subordinate in arriving at a decision.
However, the Court in Serrano v. NLRC clarified
(7) The tribunal should, in all controversial that this “procedural due process” requirement
questions, render its decision in such a is not constitutional but merely statutory,
manner that the parties to the proceeding hence, a violation of such requirement does not
can know the various issues involved, and render the dismissal void.
the reasons for the decision rendered.
There are three reasons why violation by the
[AngTibay v. CIR (1940)]
employer of the notice requirement cannot be
In administrative proceedings, the essence of considered a denial of due process resulting in
due process is to explain one’s side. An actual the nullity of the employee's dismissal or layoff:
hearing is not always an indispensable aspect
(1) The Due Process Clause of the Constitution
of due process as long as the party was given
is a limitation on governmental powers. It
the opportunity to defend his interests in due does not apply to the exercise of private
course. [Lumiqued v. Estrada (1997)]
power, such as the termination of
employment under the Labor Code.
In Criminal Proceedings (2) Notice and hearing are required under the
See Rights of the Accused, Topic 1 Criminal Due Due Process Clause before the power of
Process organized society are brought to bear upon
the individual. This is obviously not the case
PAGE 111 OF 406

of termination of employment under Art. D. CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY

283. DUE PROCESS
(3) The employer cannot really be expected to
be entirely an impartial judge of his own
cause. [Serrano v. NLRC (2000)] D.1 CONSTITUTIONAL DUE PROCESS
[Agabon v. NLRC (2004)]
C. SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS Basis: Constitution

Requirements: Procedural and Substantive
Laws which interfere with life, liberty or Purpose:

property satisfy substantive due process when (1) Protects individual against government;
there is: and
(1) Lawful object i.e. the interests of the public (2) Assures him of his rights in criminal, civil
in general (as distinguished from those of a and administrative proceedings
particular class) require the intervention of
Effect of breach: government action void
the State, and
(2) Lawful means i.e. means employed are
reasonably necessary for the D.2. STATUTORY DUE PROCESS
accomplishment of the purpose and not
Basis: Statute. Cases where due process is
unduly oppressive on individuals. [US v.
statutory notably include (1) labor termination
Toribio (1910)]
cases, and (2) the right to appeal, .e.g.
Termination in Labor Cases.
Publication of laws is part of substantive due Basis: Labor Code
process. It is a rule of law that before a person
Requirements:
may be bound by law, he must be officially and
specifically informed of its contents. For the (1) Procedural (the manner of dismissal, i.e.
publication requirement, “laws” refer to all after Labor Code requirements are
statutes, including those of local application satisfied)
and private laws. This does not cover internal
(2) Substantive (valid and authorized causes of
regulations issued by administrative agencies,
employment termination)
which are governed by the Local Government
Code. Publication must be full, or there is none Purpose: Protects employees from being
at all. [Tañada v. Tuvera (1986)] unjustly terminated without just cause after
notice and hearing.
Governmental functions are classified into:

Effect of breach: Does not void action; the law
(1) Constituent – constitute the very bonds of provides for other remedies (e.g. damages,
society and are compulsory in nature (i.e. reinstatement).
public order, administration of justice and
Constitutional due process protects the
foreign relations)
individual from the government and assures
(2) Ministrant – undertaken only by way of him of his right in criminal, civil, or
advancing the general interests of society, administrative proceedings; while statutory
and are merely optional on the part of the due process found in the Labor Code and
State (i.e. public education, public charity Implementing rules protects employees from
and regulations of trade and industry) being unjustly terminated without just cause
[Concurring Opinion of Justice Fernando in and hearing. [Agabon v. NLRC (2004)]
ACCFA v. CUGCO (1969)]
E. HIERARCHY OF RIGHTS
PAGE 112 OF 406

When the Bill of Rights also protects property This requires the government to show an
rights, the primacy of human rights over overriding or compelling government interest
property rights is recognized. Because these so great that it justifies the limitation of
freedoms are “delicate and vulnerable, as well fundamental constitutional rights. The courts
as supremely precious in our society” and the make the decision of whether or not the
“threat of sanctions may deter their exercise purpose of the law makes the classification
almost as potently as the actual application of necessary.
sanctions,” they “need breathing space to
There is compelling state interest when:
survive,” permitting government regulation
only “with narrow specificity.” [Philippine (1) The state have a compelling
Blooming Mills Employees Organization v. reason/interest to reach into such
Philippine Blooming Mills Co., Inc. (1973)] legislation infringing into the private
domain; and
If the liberty involved were freedom of the mind
or the person, the standard for the validity of (2) There is no other alternative
governmental acts is much more rigorous and
Strict scrutiny was applied in determining
exacting, but where the liberty curtailed affects
whether the requirements of substantive due
at the most rights of property, the permissible
process were met in an ordinance challenged in
scope of regulatory measure is wider. [Ermita-
as unconstitutional in White Light. The
Malate Hotel and Motel Operators Association,
requirements of due process that must concur
Inc. v. City Mayor of Manila (1967)]
(as held in the case) are:
Running through various provisions of the
(1) Interest of the public generally, as opposed
Constitution are various provisions to protect
to a class;
property—but always with the explicit or
implicit reminder that property has a social (2) Means must be reasonably necessary for
dimension and that the right to property is the accomplishment of the purpose and
weighted with a social obligation. [BERNAS] not unduly oppressive of private rights
(3) No other alternative less intrusive of private
rights
F. JUDICIAL STANDARDS OF REVIEW
(4) Reasonable relation must exist between
the purposes of the measure and the
F.1. “RATIONAL BASIS TEST” means employed for its accomplishment.
[White Light Corporation v. City of Manila
There is an evil at hand for correction and the (2009)]
particular legislative measure was a rational
way to correct it. [Williamson v. Lee Optical
(1955)] F.3. “INTERMEDIATE SCRUTINY TEST”
This test is applicable for economic, property, A third standard, denominated as heightened
commercial legislation. [White Light or immediate scrutiny, was later adopted by the
Corporation v. City of Manila (2009)] U.S. Supreme Court for evaluating
classifications based on gender and legitimacy.
While the test may have first been articulated in
equal protection analysis, it has in the United
F.2. “STRICT SCRUTINY TEST” States since been applied in all substantive due
process cases as well. [White Light Corporation
This test is triggered when a fundamental v. City of Manila (2009)]
constitutional right is limited by a law, (i.e.
freedom of the mind and curtailment of
political process).
Summary of White Light Levels of Scrutiny
Level of Scrutiny Rights Involved Requisites for Validity
PAGE 113 OF 406

Rational Basis Economic, property, commercial (a) Legitimate government interest

legislation (b) Purpose and means
correspondence
Intermediate/Heightened Gender, illegitimacy (a) Substantial government
Scrutiny interest
(b) Availability of less restrictive
means
Strict Scrutiny • Freedom of the mind, (a) Compelling state interest
restriction on political process (b) Absence of less restrictive
• Fundamental rights: freedom means
of expression, speech,
suffrage
• (U.S.) Judicial access,
interstate commerce
G. VOID-FOR-VAGUENESS DOCTRINE [This doctrine] can only be invoked against

that species of legislation that is utterly vague
Void for Vagueness on its face, i.e., that which cannot be clarified
An act is vague when it lacks comprehensible either by a saving clause or by construction.
standards that men of common intelligence The test in determining whether a criminal
must necessarily guess at its common statute is void for uncertainty is whether the
meaning and differ as to its application. language conveys a sufficiently definite
warning as to the proscribed conduct. It must
A statute establishing a criminal offense must
be stressed, however, that the vagueness
define the offense with sufficient definiteness
doctrine merely requires a reasonable degree
that persons of ordinary intelligence can
of certainty for the statute to be upheld – not
understand what conduct is prohibited by the
absolute precision or mathematical
statute. A statute or act may be said to be
exactitude. [Estrada v. Sandiganbayan]
vague when it lacks comprehensible
standards that men of common intelligence
must necessarily guess at its meaning and Comparison with Overbreadth Doctrine
differ in its application. The statute is
repugnant to the Constitution in tworespects: The overbreadth doctrine decrees that "a
governmental purpose may not be achieved
(1) It violates due process for failure to accord by means which sweep unnecessarily broadly
persons, especially the parties targeted by and thereby invade the area of protected
it, fair notice of what conduct to avoid; freedoms." [Southern Hemisphere, supra]
(2) It leaves law enforcers an unbridled The void-for-vagueness doctrine is subject to
discretion in carrying out its provisions and the same principles governing overbreadth
becomes an arbitrary flexing of the doctrine. For one, it is also an analytical tool
government muscle. [Southern for a “facial” challenge of statutes in free
Hemisphere v. Anti-Terrorism Council speech cases. Like overbreadth, it is said that
(2010)] a litigant may challenge a statute on its face
An accused is denied the right to be informed only if it is vague in all its possible applications.
of the charge against him and to due process
where the statute itself is couched in such
indefinite language that it is not possible for General rule: Void-for-vagueness and
men of ordinary intelligence to determine overbreadth are inapplicable to penal statutes.
therefrom what acts/omissions are punished. (Rationale: statutes have a general in
[People v. Nazario (1988)] terroremeffect, which is to discourage citizens
from committing the prohibited acts.)
PAGE 114 OF 406

Exception: Said doctrines apply to penal

statutes when IV. Equal Protection
(1) The statute is challenged as applied; or
(2) The statute involves free speech A. CONCEPT
(Rationale: Statute may be facially
challenged in order to counter the
“chilling effect” of the same.) [Disini v. Sec. Definition
of Justice (2014), on the constitutionality of Equal protection requires that all persons or
the Cybercrime Law] things similarly situated should be treated
alike, both as to rights conferred and
responsibilities imposed.
Note: As-applied v. Facial Challenges
Similar subjects, in other words, should not be
Distinguished from an as-applied challenge treated differently, so as to give undue favor to
which considers only extant facts affecting some and unjustly discriminate against others.
real litigants, a facial invalidation is an
examination of the entire law, pinpointing its It does not demand absolute equality among
flaws and defects, not only on the basis of its residents; it merely requires that all persons
actual operation to the parties, but also on the shall be treated alike, under like
assumption or prediction that its very circumstances and conditions both as to
existence may cause others not before the privileges conferred and liabilities enforced.
court to refrain from constitutionally protected The guarantee means that no person or class
speech or activities. [Disini, supra] of persons shall be denied the same protection
of laws which is enjoyed by other persons or
other classes in like circumstances. [Ichong v.
Hernandez (1957)]
Scope
Natural and juridical persons (the equal
protection clause extends to artificial persons
but only insofar as their property is
concerned.)
(1) A corporation as an artificial person is
protected under the Bill of Rights against
denial of due process, and it enjoys the
equal protection of the law. [Smith, Bell
and Co., v. Natividad (1919)]
(2) A corporation is also protected against
unreasonable searches and seizures. [See
Stonehill v. Diokno (1967)]
(3) It can only be proceeded against by due
process of law, and is protected against
unlawful discrimination. [Bache and Co. v.
Ruiz (1971)]
PAGE 115 OF 406

B. REQUISITES FOR VALID given preference over aliens in their use or

CLASSIFICATION enjoyment.
(1) It must rest on substantial distinctions B.1 EXAMPLES OF VALID CLASSIFICATION

which make for real differences;
(2) It must be germaneto the purpose of the Alien v. National
law;
The Court upheld the Retail Trade
(3) It must not be limited to existing Nationalization Law despite the objection that
conditions only. it violated the Equal Protection clause,
An ordinance was declared void because it because there exists real and actual, positive
taxes only centrifugal sugar produced and and fundamental differences between an
exported by the Ormoc Sugar Company alien and a national. [Ichong v. Hernandez
and none other, such that if a new sugar (1957)]
central is established in Ormoc, it would
not be subject to the ordinance. [Ormoc
Sugar Co. v. Treasurer of Ormoc City (1968)] Filipino Female Domestics WorkingAbroad
(4) Apply equally to all members of the same They are a class by themselves because of the
class. [People v. Cayat (1939)] special risks to which their class was exposed.
[Phil Association of Service Exporters v. Drilon
(1988)]
Presumption of Validity
All classifications made by law are generally Land-Based v. Sea-Based Filipino Overseas
presumed to be valid unless shown otherwise Workers
by petitioner.[Lacson v. Executive Secretary
(1999)] There is dissimilarity as to work environment,
safety, danger to life and limb, and
accessibility to social, civil and spiritual
Aliens activities. [Conference of Maritime Manning
Agencies v. POEA (1995)]
General Rule:The general rule is that a
legislative act may not validly classify the
citizens of the State on the basis of their origin, Qualification for Elective Office
race or parentage.
Disqualification from running in the same
Exceptions: elective office from which he retired of a
(1) In times of great and imminent danger, retired elective provincial/municipal official
such as a threatened invasion or war, such who has received payment of retirement
a classification is permitted by the benefits and who shall have been 65 years old
Constitution when the facts so warrant at the commencement of the term of office to
(e.g. discriminatory legislation against which he seeks to be elected is valid. [Dumlao
Japanese citizens during WWII). v. Comelec (1980)]
(2) The political rights of aliens do not enjoy
the same protection as that of citizens. Election Officials v. Other Municipal Officials
(3) Statutes may validly limit to citizens RA 8189 (Voters’ Registration Act) prohibits
exclusively the enjoyment of rights or election officers from holding office in a
privileges connected with the public particular city or municipality for more than
domain, the public works, or the natural four (4) years. The classification is germane to
resources of the State.The rights and the law since the risk sought to be addressed
interests of the state in these things are is cheating during elections. [De Guzman v.
not simply political but also proprietary in COMELEC (2000)]
nature; and so the citizens may lawfully be
PAGE 116 OF 406
class is presumed unconstitutional.

The burden is upon the government to
Office of the Ombudsman
prove that the classification is
Allowing the Ombudsman to start an necessary to achieve a compelling
investigation based on an anonymous letter state interest and that it is the least
does not violate the equal protection clause. restrictive means to protect such
The Office of the Ombudsman is different from interest. It is applied when the
other investigatory and prosecutory agencies classification has a “suspect basis”.
of government because those subject to its
Suspect classes – A classification that
jurisdiction are public officials who, through
violates a fundamental right, or
official pressure and influence, can quash,
prejudices a person accorded special
delay or dismiss investigations against them.
protection by the Constitution
[Almonte v. Vasquez (1995)]
[Serrano v. Gallant]. May therefore
include a classification based on
income.
Print v. Broadcast Media
(Compare to theUS definition: classes
There are substantial distinctions between the
subject to such a history of purposeful
two to warrant their different treatment under
unequal treatment or relegated to
BP 881. [Telecommunications and Broadcast
such a position of political
Attorneys of the Phil v. COMELEC (1998)]
powerlessness as to command
extraordinary protection from the
majoritarian political process. Income
C. STANDARDS FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW
classification will not trigger strict
scrutiny.)
Serrano v. Gallant Maritime (2009) introduced This test is usually applied to cases
a modification in equal protection involving classifications based on race,
jurisprudence by using the three-level review national origin, religion, alienage,
used in due process cases.In effect, the level of denial of the right to vote, migration,
review when it comes to equal protection access to courts, and other rights
challenges may follow the following format: recognized as fundamental
(1) Whether the State was justified in making (c) Intermediate Scrutiny Test – Court
a classification at all. (three-level scrutiny) accepts the articulated purpose of the
legislation, but it closely scrutinizes
(a) Rational Basis Test – The
the relationship between the
classification should bear a
classification and the purpose based
reasonable relation to the
on a spectrum of standards, by
government’s purpose or legitimate
gauging the extent to which
state interest
constitutionally guaranteed rights
Notes: Important when there is no depend upon the affected individual
plausible difference between the interest. Government must show that
disadvantaged class and those not the challenged classification serves an
disadvantaged. important state interest and that the
classification is at leastsubstantially
Also important when the government
related to serving that interest.
attaches a morally irrelevant and
negative significance to a difference Applicable to certain sensitive but not
suspect classes; certain important but
between the advantaged and the
not fundamental interest.
disadvantaged.
(2) Whether the classification was valid. (4-
(b) Strict Scrutiny Test – A legislative
pronged test of valid classification in
classification which impermissibly
People v. Cayat)
interferes with the exercise of a
fundamental right or operates to the Alternative thought: In Serrano v. Gallant
peculiar disadvantage of a suspect Maritime, the Court seems to imply that
PAGE 117 OF 406
the Test of Valid Classification is to be applied.) Serrano does not appear to have
applied under the Rational Basis standard. been reapplied (except in separate
(Note that in Serrano, where the Court opinions), hence its application remains
applied Strict Scrutiny, the Test of Valid unclear.
Classification was mentioned but not
Summary of Serrano v. Gallant Levels of Scrutiny

Level of Scrutiny Classification Made Requisites for Validity
Rational Basis Classifications, in general Test of valid classification

(a) Substantial distinction;
(b) Germane to the purpose of the
law;
(c) Not limited to existing
conditions only;
(d) Must apply equally to all within
the class
Intermediate/Heightened Gender, illegitimacy (a) Substantial government

Scrutiny interest
(b) Availability of less restrictive
means
Strict Scrutiny Affects fundamental rights; or (a) Compelling state interest

suspect classification
(b) Absence of less restrictive
means
Suspect classification:
• PHL: A class given special
protection by the Constitution
• US: Race
PAGE 118 OF 406

and seizures cannot be invoked. [People v.

V. Searches and Marti (1991); see also Yrasuegui v. Philippine
Airlines (2008)]
Seizures What constitutes a reasonable or
unreasonable search and seizure in any
A. CONCEPT particular case is purely a judicial question,
determinable from a consideration of the
circumstances involved. [Valmonte v. De
The right of the people to be secure in their Villa, (1989)]
persons, houses, papers, and effects
against unreasonable searches and
seizures of whatever nature and for any Scope
purpose shall be inviolable, and no search (4) Natural Persons
warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue It protects all persons including aliens [Qua
except upon probable cause to be
Chee Gan v. Deportation Board (1963)]
determined personally by the judge after
examination under oath or affirmation of
the complainant and the witnesses he may (5) Artificial Persons
produce, and particularly describing the Artificial persons (e.g. corporations) are
place to be searched and the persons or protected to a limited extent. [Bache and Co.
things to be seized. [Art. III, Sec. 2] Inc. v. Ruiz (1971)] The opening of their account
books is not protected, by virtue of police and
taxing powers of the State.
Nature
(1) Personal – It may be invoked only by the
person entitled to it. [Stonehill v. Diokno B. WARRANT REQUIREMENT
(1967)] Definition
It may be waived expressly or impliedly (1) Search Warrant – an order in writing,
only by the person whose right is invaded, issued in the name of the People of the
not by one who is not duly authorized to Philippines, signed by a judge and
effect such waiver. [People v. Damaso directed to a peace officer, commanding
(1992)] him to search for personal property
This right is a personal right invocable by described therein and bring it before the
those whose rights have been infringed or court [Rule 126, Sec. 1, Rules of Criminal
threatened to be infringed. [Valmonte v. Procedure, Rules of Court]
De Villa (1989)] (2) Warrant of Arrest – a written order issued
(2) Directed Against the Government and Its and signed by a magistrate (judge in our
Agencies (State Action Requirement) jurisdiction) directed to a peace officer or
some other person specially named,
The right cannot be set up against acts commanding him to arrest the body of a
committed by private individuals. The person named in it, who is accused of an
right applies as a restraint directed only offense [Brown v. State, 109 Ala. 70, 20
against the government and its agencies South 103]
tasked with the enforcement of the law.
The protection cannot extend to acts
committed by private individuals so as to Purpose
bring them within the ambit of alleged
unlawful intrusion by the government. (3) Search Warrant – to gain evidence to
Warrant is needed if the government convict
requests for the search and seizure: but, if (4) Warrant of Arrest – to acquire jurisdiction
at behest of a private person or over the person of the accused
establishment for its own private purposes
the right against unreasonable searches
PAGE 119 OF 406
The warrant must refer to one specific offense. • Mere affidavits of the complainant
[Castro v. Pabalan (1976)] and his witnesses are thus not
The Dangerous Drugs Act is a special law that sufficient.
deals specifically with dangerous drugs which • The examining Judge has to take
are subsumed into “prohibited” and depositions in writing of the
“regulated” drugs, and defines and penalizes complainant and the witnesses he
categories of offenses which are closely may produce and attach them to the
related or which belong to the same class or record.
species; thus, one search warrant may be
validly issued for several violations thereof. • Such written deposition is necessary in
[People v. Dichoso (1993)] order that the Judge may be able to
properly determine the existence or
non-existence of the probable cause,
Requisites (Search Warrant): to hold liable for perjury the person
giving it if it will be found later that his
(a) Existence of probable cause declarations are false.
Probable cause – such facts and • It is axiomatic that the examination
circumstances which would lead a must be probing and exhaustive, not
reasonably discreet and prudent man to merely routine or pro-forma, if the
believe that (a) an offense has been claimed probable cause is to be
committed and that (b) the objects sought established. [Nala v. Barroso, Jr.]
in connection with the offense are in the
place sought to be searched. [Burgos v. There must be a conduct of own
Chief of Staff (1984)] inquiry regarding intent and
justification of the application
Cf. for Warrant of Arrest – such facts and
circumstances that would lead a • The examining magistrate must not
reasonably discreet and prudent man to simply rehash the contents of the
believe that (a) a crime has been affidavit but must make his own
committed and (b) the person to be inquiry on the intent and justification
arrested is probably guilty thereof. [Allado of the application. [Roan v. Gonzales
v. Diokno (1994)] (1984)]
(b) Personal determination of probable cause Oath – any form of attestation that he is
by the judge. bound in conscience to perform an act
faithfully or truthfully; an outward pledge
On determining probable cause:The
given by the person taking it that his
magistrate must make an exhaustive and
attestation or promise is made under an
probing examination of witnesses and
immediate sense of his responsibility to
applicant and not merely routine or pro
God
forma examination [Nala v. Barroso, Jr.
(2003)] Requisites:
The determination of probable cause calls (1) Must refer to facts
for an exercise of judgment after a judicial
(2) Such facts are of personal knowledge
appraisal of the facts and should not be
of the petitioner or applicant or
allowed to be delegated in the absence of
witnesses. Not hearsay.
any rule to the contrary.
Test of sufficiency of an oath
(c) After personal examination under oath or
affirmation of the complainant and the “Whether or not it was drawn in a manner
witnesses he may produce. that perjury could be charged against the
affiant and he be held liable for damages.”
How it is done: In the form of searching
questions and answers, in writing and (d) On the basis of their personal knowledge
under oath [Rule 126, Sec. 6, ROC] of the facts they are testifying to. [Nala v.
Barroso, Jr. (2003); Burgos v. AFP (1984);
PAGE 120 OF 406

Roan v. Gonzales (1986); People v. circumstances will ordinarily allow [People v.

Malmstead (1991)] Rubio, 57 Phil 384]; or (b) when the description
expresses a conclusion of fact, not of law, by
The purpose of having personal
which the warrant officer may be guided in
knowledge by the complainant and
making the search and seizure; or (c) when the
witnesses and the sufficiency of the
tings described are limited to those which bear
warrant is to convince the magistrate
direct relation to the offense for which the
seeking the issuance of the warrant that
warrant is being issued. [Bache and Co. v. Ruiz,
there is probable cause.
37 SCRA 823]
Personal knowledge is not the same as
An error in the name of the person in the
personal belief. [Nala v. Barroso, Jr.]
search warrant does not invalidate the
The testimony must be based on the own warrant, as long as it contains a description
personal knowledge of othe complainant personae [including additional descriptions]
and of the witnesses, not mere heresay or that will enable the officer to identify the
information from a “reliable source”. accused without difficulty. [Nala v. Barroso, Jr.]
[Alvarez v. CFI]
General Rule: the warrant must indicate the
(e) The warrant must describe particularly the particular place to be searched and person or
place to be searched and the persons or thing to be seized.
things to be seized.
Exception: If the nature of the goods to be
Requirement is primarily meant to enable seized cannot be particularly determined.
the law enforcers serving the warrant to (1)
readily identify the properties to be seized • the nature of the thing is general in
and thus prevent them from seizing the description
wrong items; and (2) leave said peace • the thing is not required of a very technical
officers with no discretion regarding the description [Alvarez v. CFI (1937)]
articles to be seized and thus prevent
unreasonable searches and seizures.
[People v. Tee (2003)] Description of Persons Searched
Search warrant is valid despite the mistake in
Place to Be Searched the name of the persons to be searched. The
authorities conducted surveillance and test-
The search warrant issued to search buy operations before obtaining the search
petitioner’s compound for unlicensed firearms warrant and subsequently implementing it.
was held invalid for failing to describe the They had personal knowledge of the identity of
place with particularity, considering that the the persons and the place to be searched,
compound was made up of 200 buildings, 15 although they did not specifically know the
plants, 84 staff houses, one airstrip etc. names of the accused. [People v. Tiu Won Chua
spread out over 155 hectares. [PICOP v. (2003)]
Asuncion (1999)]
A John Doe search warrant is valid. There is
nothing to prevent issue and service of warrant
Description of Place/Things against a party whose name is unknown.
[People v. Veloso (1925)]
The description of the property to be seized
need not be technically accurate or precise. Its
nature will vary according to whether the General Warrant– one that:
identity of the property is a matter of concern.
The description is required to be specific only (1) Does not describe with particularity the
insofar as the circumstances will allow. [Kho v. things subject of the search and seizure; or
Judge Makalintal (1999)] (2) Where probable cause has not been
A search warrant may be said to particularly properly established.
describe the things to be seized when the (a) Effects: It is a void warrant. [Nolasco v. Paño
description therein is as specific as the (1985)]
PAGE 121 OF 406
Any evidence obtained in violation [of this or General rule: Probable cause required.
the preceding section] shall be inadmissible
“The essential requisite of probable cause
for any purpose in any proceding. [Art. III, Sec.
must still be satisfied before a warrantless
3]
search and seizure can be lawfully conducted.”
The unconstitutionality of the search and the In these cases, probable cause (warrantless
seizure or the use of a void search warrant, searches) must be “based on reasonable
renders the items seized inadmissible in ground of suspicion or belief that a crime has
evidence. Exclusion is the only practical way of been committed or is about to be committed.”
enforcing the constitutional privelage. [People v. Aruta (1998)]
[Stonehill v. Diokno]
N.B. InAruta, the standards for probable cause
Exception to General Warrants: General are different from those required for the
descriptions will not invalidate the entire issuance of warrants. Arutaimplies that the
warrant if other items have been particularly reasonableness of a warrantless search is
described. [Uy v. BIR (2000)] determined by the (1) informationreceived and
used as a basis for the search, and (2)
additional factors and circumstances. The two,
Conduct of the Search [Sec. 7, Rule 126, ROC] taken together, constitute the probable cause
which justifies warrantless searches and
(1) In the presence of a lawful occupant
seizures. [Aruta, supra]
thereof or any member of his family, OR
(2) If occupant or members of the family are
absent, in the presence of 2 witnesses of C.1. WARRANTLESS SEARCHES
sufficient age and discretion, residing in RECOGNIZED BY JURISPRUDENCE
the same locality.
Summary [People v. Aruta, supra]
Failure to comply with Sec. 7 Rule 126
(6) Search incidental to a lawful arrest (ROC
invalidates the search. [People v. Gesmundo
(1993)] Rule 113, Sec. 5)
(7) Plain view doctrine
When Forcible Entry Justified
(8) Search of a moving vehicle
Force may be used in entering a dwelling if (9) Consented warrantless search (waiver of
justified by Rule 126 ROC. e.g. Occupants of right against unreasonable searches and
the house refused to open the door despite the seizures)
fact that the searching party knocked several
times, and the agents saw suspicious (10) Customs search
movements of the people inside the house. (11) Stop and frisk
[People v. Salanguit (2001)] (12) Exigent and emergency circumstances
(13) Visual search at checkpoints – not among
those enumerated in People v. Aruta, but
Unlawful Search also recognized as an exception to the
Police officers arrived at appellant’s residence warrant requirement by Aniag v.
and “side-swiped” appellant’s car (which was COMELEC (1994) and Valmonte v. De Villa
parked outside) to gain entry into the house. (1989, 1990)
Appellant’s son, who is the only one present in
the house, opened the door and was
immediately handcuffed to a chair after being C.2. SEARCH INCIDENT TO A LAWFUL
informed that they are policemen with a ARREST
warrant to search the premises. [People v. A person lawfully arrested may be
Benny Go (2003)] searched for dangerous weapons or
anything which may be used as proof of
the commission of an offense, without a
C. WARRANTLESS SEARCHES search warrant. [Sec. 12, Rule 126, Rules
of Court]
PAGE 122 OF 406

The provision is declaratory in the sense Immediate control – immediate area to

that it is confined to the search, without a the defendant’s person where there are
search warrant, of a person who had been nearby weapons he could grab to attack
arrested. the officer or what he has in his pocket.
It is also a general rule that, as an incident It will be reasonable for officer to
of an arrest, the place or premises where confiscate whatever may be used to
the arrest was made can also be searched threaten his life or limb.
without a search warrant. In this case, the
extent and reasonableness of the search
must be decided on its own facts and
circumstances.
People v. Aruta (1998)
What must be considered is the balancing
Short facts: P/Lt. Abello was tipped off by an
of the individual’s right to privacy and the
informant that a certain Aling Rosa Aruta will
public’s interest in the prevention of crime
arrive from Baguio with a large volume of
and the apprehension of criminals.
marijuana with her via a bus which the
[Nolasco v. Pano (1985)]
informant identified. Aruta descended from
the bus, the informant points his finger at her,
and police asked if they could open her bag
Test for validity and check its contents. They found it
contained dried marijuana leaves and a bus
(1) Item to be searched was within the
ticket. These were brought to NARCOM office.
arrester’s custody;
The Olongapo RTC convicted her for violating
(2) Search was contemporaneous with the Dangerous Drugs Act.Th Supreme Court
the arrest ruled that it was NOT a reasonable search
Under the Rules of Court, a person because there was no probable cause for a
search incidental to a lawful arrest.
charged with an offense may be searched
for dangerous weapons or anything which
may be used as proof of the commission of
Why the Aruta case does not fall under the
the offense. As an incident of an arrest, the
other categories of valid warrantless search:
premises where the arrest was made can
also be searched without search warrant. (1) Not plain view; the confiscated item
[Nolasco v. Cruz Paño (1985)] was inside the bag.
An “arrest being incipiently illegal, it (2) Not moving vehicle; she was in the
logically follows that the subsequent middle of the street descending a
search was similarly illegal.” [People v. parked bus.
Aruta, supra]
(3) Not stop and frisk; there was no way
her actions could arouse suspicion
that she was doing something illegal.
Arresting officer may search: [Chimel v.
California (1969)] (4) Not exigent or emergency
circumstance; unlike People v. De
(1) The arrestee’s person to:
Gracia, there is no general prevailing
(a) discover or weapons and chaos that would render the courts
(b) Seize evidence to prevent inactive.
concealment or destruction; and (5) No waiver of right or consented search.
Silence does not constitute waiver.
(2) The area within the immediate control
Waiver of an unreasonable search and
of the arrestee, i.e. area from which he
might gain possession of a weapon or seizure is not presumed.
destructible evidence.
PAGE 123 OF 406

Comparison of Aruta to other cases

Aruta (without
Other cases (held that search was valid because there was probable cause)
probable cause)
• Aruta was not People v. Tangiliban
acting suspiciously • Conducted surveillance of Victory Bus Liner
• Narcom had prior • Person was acting suspiciously
knowledge • Bag was asked to be opened
• On the spot tip was allowed
• Not suspicious People v. Malmstedt
• There was • Acted suspiciously
reasonable time to • No reasonable time to get warrant
get warrant • He was aboard moving vehicle
• She was just
crossing the street
• Crossing the street, People v. Bagista
She was no longer • Described exact appearance and when searched, it fitted the description
in a moving vehicle • Moving vehicle and checkpoint
• Aruta was merely Manalili v. CA
carrying a barong, • Surveillance of Kalookan Cemetery because druggies roam about
which by itself, • Chanced upon a person who appeared, based on officers’ experience, were
would not have high on drugs
raised any suspicion
PAGE 124 OF 405

C.3. PLAIN VIEW DOCTRINE mere visual search, where the occupants are
not subjected to physical or body search. On
Things seized are within plain view of a
the other hand, when the vehicle is stopped
searching party.
and subjected to an extensive search, it would
Requisites: be constitutionally permissible only if the
officers conducting the search had reasonable
(1) Prior valid intrusion based on valid
or probable cause to believe, before the search
warrantless arrest in which the police are
that either the motorist is a law offender or
legally present in the pursuit of their
they will find the instrumentality or evidence
official duties
pertaining to a crime in the vehicle to be
(2) Evidence was inadvertently discovered by searched. [Caballes v. Court of Appeals (2002);
the police who had the right to be where People v. Libnao (2003)]
they are
(3) Evidence must be immediately apparent
C.5. VALID EXPRESS WAIVER MADE
(4) “Plain view” justified mere seizure of VOLUNTARILY AND INTELLIGENTLY
evidence without further search [People v.
Requisites:
Aruta, supra; N.B. substantially the same as
Nala v. Barroso requirements] (1) Must appear that right exists;
An object is in “plain view” if the object (2) Person involved had actual or constructive
itself is plainly exposed to sight. Where the knowledge of the existence of such right;
seized object is inside a closed package,
(3) Said person had an actual intentto
the object is not in plain view and,
relinquish the right. [Aruta, supra]
therefore, cannot be seized without a
warrant. However, if the package In this case, mere failure to object to the
proclaims its contents, whether by its search and seizure does not constitute a
distinctive configuration, its transparency, waiver.
or if its contents are obvious to an observer,
Right to be secure from unreasonable search
then the content are in plain view, and
may be waived. Waiver may be express or
may be seized. [Caballes v. Court of
implied. When one voluntarily submits to a
Appeals (2002)]
search or consents to have it made of his
If the package is such that it contains person/premises, he is precluded from later
prohibited articles, then the article is complaining. [People v. KaguiMalasugui
deemed in plain view. [People v. Nuevasm (1936)]
(2007)]
There is presumption against waiver by the
courts. It is the State that has the burden of
proving, by clear and convincing evidence,
C.4. SEARCH OF MOVING VEHICLES
that the necessary consent was obtained and
Securing a search warrant is not practicable that it was voluntarily and freely given.
since the vehicle can be quickly moved out of [Caballes v. Court of Appeals (2002)]
the locality or jurisdiction in which the warrant
When accused checked in his luggage as
must be sought. [Papa v. Mago (1968)]
passenger of a plane, he agreed to the
“Stop and search” without a warrant at inspection of his luggage in accordance with
military or police checkpoints has been customs laws and regulations, and thus
declared not to be illegal per se so long as it is waived any objection to a warrantless search.
required by exigencies of public order and [People v. Gatward, 267 SCRA 785]
conducted in a way least intrusive to motorists.
Mere passive conformity is not consent or a
[Valmonte v. de Villa (1989)]
valid waiver under the constitutional guaranty.
For a mere routine inspection, the search is [Anaig v. COMELEC]
normally permissible when it is limited to a
PAGE 125 OF 406

C.6. CUSTOMS SEARCH fear for his own or other’s safety. [Terry v.
The police are allowed to conduct warrantless Ohio, 1968]
searches in behalf of the Department of Test: WON a reasonably prudent man in the
Customs. circumstances would be warranted in the
They are authorized to examine, open any box, belief that his safety or that of others was in
trunk, or other containers where he has danger [Terry v. Ohio (1968)].
reasonable cause to believe that such items
were hidden from customs search. [People v. Guidelines of Stop and Frisk
Mago (1968)]
(1) When police officer observes unusual
Sec. 219 of the Customs Modernization and conduct;
Tariff Actstates that no warrant is required for
police or authorized persons to pass, enter, (2) This conduct leads him to believe, also in
search any land, enclosure, building,
light of his experience, that criminal
warehouse, vessels, aircrafts, vehicles but not
dwelling. activity may be afoot
Purpose of customs search: To verify whether (3) The persons with whom he is dealing may
or not Custom duties and taxes were paid for be armed and presently dangerous
their importation.
C.7. STOP AND FRISK SEARCHES (4) Also, in the course of investigating his
behavior of the man, after identifying
There should be a genuine reason to “stop-
himself as a police officer – the man is
and-frisk in the light of the police officer’s
experience and surrounding conditions to entitled to a limited search of outer
warrant a belief that the person detained has clothing because:
weapons concealed. [Malacat v. CA (1997),
citing Terry v. Ohio] (a) Fear of his own safety
Police officer has a right to stop a citizen on (b) Fear of public’s safety that a crime
street and pat him for a weapon in the interest might ensue
of protecting himself from the person with
whom he was dealing by making sure that he [Manalili v. CA, 1997]
is not armed. The police officer should properly introduce
The right of an agent, to protect himself and himself and make initial inquiries, approach
others, to conduct a carefully limited search of and restrain a person who manifests unusual
outer clothing of such persons as listed below and suspicious conduct, in order to check the
in an attempt to discover weapons which latter’s outer clothing for possibly concealed
might be used to assault him. Such search is weapons. The apprehending police officer
reasonable under the 4th amendment: must have a genuine reason, inaccordance
with the police officer’s experience and the
(1) Where a police officer observes unusual surrounding conditions, to warrant the belief
conduct which leads him reasonably to that the person to be held has weapons or
conclude in light of his experience that contraband concealed about him[People v. Sy
criminal activity may be afoot and that the Chua (2003)].
person with whom he is dealing may be Summary of Test for validity of a stop-and-
armed and presently dangerous; fristk search:
(2) Where in the course of the investigation of (1) There must be a specific and articulable
this behavior he identifies himself as a facts which, taken together with rational
policeman and makes reasonable inferences, reasonably warrant the
inquiries; and intrusion.
(3) Where nothing in the initial stages of the (2) The officer must identify himself and make
encounter serves to dispel his reasonable reasonable inquiries.
PAGE 126 OF 405

(3) The “frisk” is permitted to search for

weapons for the protection of the police
officer, where he has reason to believe that
he is dealing with an armed and
dangerous individual, regardless of
probable cause for a crime.
(4) The scope of the search is limited to the
outer surface of the subject’s clothing.
C.8. EXIGENT AND EMERGENCY

CIRCUMSTANCES
The raid and seizure of firearms and
ammunition at the height of the 1989 coup
d’état, was held valid, considering the exigent
and emergency situation. The military
operatives had reasonable ground to believe
that a crime was being committed, and they
had no opportunity to apply for a search
warrant from the courts because the latter
were closed. Under such urgency and exigency,
a search warrant could be validly dispensed
with. [People v. de Gracia, 233 SCRA 716]
C.9. VISUAL SEARCHES AT CHECKPOINTS

Not among those enumerated in People v.
Arutabut also recognized as an exception to
the requirement of a search warrant are visual
searches at checkpoints, as the establishment
of such is a valid exercise of police power to
ensure security and safety.
Routine checkpoints are valid if:
(1) Vehicle is neither searched, nor its
occupants subjected to a body
search; and
(2) Inspection is merely limited to a
visual search of the vehicle.
PAGE 127 OF 406

Summary of Requisites for Warrantless Searches
Type Requisites
Incident to a Lawful Arrest Arresting officer may search
[Chimel v. CA] (a) The arrestee’s person to
(i) Discover or remove weapons and
(ii) Seize evidence to prevent concealment or destruction; and
(b) The area “within the immediate control” of the arrestee, i.e. area
from which he might gain possession of a weapon or
destructible evidence.
Plain View (a) Prior valid intrusion based on the valid warrantless arrest in
[People v. Aruta] which the police are legally present in the pursuit of their official
duties
(b) Evidence was inadvertently discovered by the police who had the
right to be where they are
(c) Evidence must be immediately apparent
(d) “Plain view” justified mere seizure of evidence without further
search
Vehicle Checkpoint (a) Vehicle is neither searched; nor its occupants subjected to a
[Valmonte v. de Villa] body search; and
(b) Inspection of the vehicle is merely limited to a visual search.
Search of a Moving Vehicle Extensive search without a warrant valid only if the officers had
[Aniag v. COMELEC] reasonable or probable cause to believe before the search that
(a) The motorist was a law offender; or
(b) They would find the evidence of a crime in the vehicle.
Consented Search (Requisites are those for Waiver of a Constitutional Right)

(a) Right to be waived existed;
(b) Person waiving it had actual or constructive knowledge of said
right;
(c) He had an actual intention to relinquish the right.
Stop and Frisk (a) Police officer observes an unusual conduct which leads him
[Terry v. Ohio, as cited in Manalili v. reasonably to conclude in light of his experience that criminal
CA] activity may be afoot and that the persons with whom he is
dealing may be armed and presently dangerous;
(b) In the course of investigating this behavior, he identified himself
as a policeman and makes reasonable inquiries; and
(c) Nothing in the initial stages of the encounter serves to dispel his
reasonable fear for his own or other’s safety xxx
PAGE 128 OF 405

Properties Subject to Seizure and the witness he may produce, and

particularly describing the place to be
General Rule: Only the articles particularly searched and the things to be seized which
described in the warrant may be seized. may be anywhere in the Philippines.
(1) Property subject of an offense
(2) Stolen or embezzled property and other
proceeds or fruits of an offense D. WARRANTLESS ARRESTS
(3) Used or intended to be used as a means of
committing an offense [Sec. 2 Rule 126, Requisites for Issuance of a Valid Arrest
ROC] Warrant
Where the warrant authorized only the seizure
What the Constitution underscores is the
of shabu, and not marijuana, the seizure of the
exclusive and personal responsibility of the
latter was held unlawful. [People v. Salanguit]
issuing judge to satisfy himself of the
It is not necessary that the property to be existence of probable cause.
searched or seized should be owned by the
In satisfying himself of the existence of
person against whom the warrant is issued; it
probable cause for the issuance of a warrant
is sufficient that the property is within his
of arrest, the judge is not required to
control or possession. [Burgos v. Chief of Staff
personally examine the complainant and his
(1984)]
witnesses.
Following established doctrine and procedure,
Comparison of Procedures in Obtaining he shall:
Search Warrants and Arrest Warrants
(1) Personally evaluate the report and the
supporting documents submitted by the
fiscal regarding the existence of probable
Rule 112, Sec. 6. When warrant of arrest may
cause and, on the basis thereof, issue a
issue – (a) By the Regional Trial Court –
warrant of arrest; or
Within ten (10) days from the filing of the
complaint or information, the judge shall (2) If he finds no probable cause, he may
personally evaluate the resolution of the disregard the fiscal's report and require
prosecutor and its supporting evidence. He the submission of supporting affidavits of
may immediately dismiss the case if the witnesses to aid him in arriving at a
evidence on record clearly fails to establish conclusion as to the existence of probable
probable cause. If he finds probable cause, he cause.[Beltran v. Makasiar (1988)].
shall issue a warrant of arrest, or a
commitment order if the accused has already
been arrested pursuant to a warrant issued by Requisites for a Valid Arrest Warrant:
the judge who conducted the preliminary
investigation or when the complaint or (1) Existence of Probable cause;
information was filed pursuant to section 7 of
(2) Personal determination of probablye
this Rule. In case of doubt on the existence of
probable cause, the judge may order the cause by a judge;
prosecutor to present additional evidence (3) Complainant and witnesses testify on
(Note:This is not found in the procedure for a facts personally known to them; and
search warrant) within five (5) days from
notice and the issue must be resolved by the (4) Particular description of the person/s to
court within thirty (30) days from the filing of be arrested and of the crime/s
the complaint of information.
Rule 126, Sec. 4. Requisites for issuing search Existence of Probable Cause: Such facts and
warrant – A search warrant shall not issue circumstances which would lead a reasonably
except upon probable cause in connection discreet and prudent man to believe that an
with one specific offense to be determined
offense has been committed by the person
personally by the judge after examination
under oath or affirmation of the complainant
sought to be arrested. [Webb v. De Leon (1995)]
PAGE 129 OF 406
Determination of probable cause personally is actually committing, or is attempting to

by the judge as to warrant of arrest: commit an offense
(1) On the basis of the witnesses’ personal The person must be arrested after the
knowledge of the facts they are testifying offense has been committed and in the
to. presence of a police officer. [People v.
Mengote (1992)]
(2) The arrest warrant must describe
particularly the person to be seized. Rebellion is a continuing offense.
Therefore a rebel may be arrested without
(a) By stating the name of the person to
a warrant at any time of the day or the
be arrested.
night as he is deemed to be in the act of
(b) If not known, then a “John Doe committing rebellion. [Umil v. Ramos
warrant” may be issued, with some (1991)]
descriptio personae that will enable
Though kidnapping with serious illegal
the officer to identify the accused.
detention is deemed a continuing crime, it
can be considered as such only when the
deprivation of liberty is persistent and
Personal determination by a Judge: Search
continuing from one place to another.
Warrant v. Arrest Warrant
[Parulan v. Dir. of Prisons (1968)]
The judge need not personally examine the
Buy-Bust: A buy-bust operation is a valid
complainant and the witnesses in an arrest
in flagrante arrest. The subsequent search
warrant. The Prosecutor can perform the same
of the person arrested and the premises
functions as the commissioner for the taking
within his immediate control is valid as an
of the evidence; and the documents
incident to a lawful arrest. [People v.
supporting the Fiscal’s bare certification must
Hindoy (2001)]
be presented to the judge. The requirement is
satisfied if the judge personally goes over the When not proper buy-bust: Instead of
records and determines probable cause. [Lim v. arresting the suspect after the sale in a
Felix] buy-bust op, the officer returned to the
police headquarters and filed his report. It
John Doe Warrant:Warrants issued against
50 John Does, none of whom the witnesses was only in the evening that he, without
warrant, arrested the suspect at his house
could identify, were considered as “general
where dried marijuana leaves were found
warrants” and thus void. [Pangandaman v.
and seized. This is unlawful arrest. [People
Casar (1988)]
v. Rodrigueza (1992)]
Effect of a VOID Arrest Warrant:

(2) Hot Pursuit: When an offense has just
A void arrest warrant would render the arrest been committed and he has probable
invalid and illegal. cause to believe based on personal
The illegality of an arrest does not bar the knowledge of facts or circumstances that
state from the prosecution of the accused. the person to be arrested has committed it
Despite illegality of both search and arrest Requisites:
thus inadmissibility of evidence acquired, guilt
(a) Offense had just been committed;
may still be established through eyewitness
testimony. [People v. Manlulu] The person must be immediately
arrested after the commission of the
offense. [People v. Manlulu (1994)]
Requisites of a Valid Warrantless Arrest
(b) Person making the arrest has
[Rule 113, Sec. 5, Rules on Criminal Procedure] probable cause to believe based on
(1) In flagrante delicto: When in his presence, personal knowledge.
the person to be arrested has committed, Note: There must be a large measure of
immediacy between the time the offense is
PAGE 130 OF 406
committed and the time of the arrest. If Appellant is estopped from questioning
there was an appreciable lapse of time the illegality of the arrest when he
between arrest and commission of crime, voluntarily submitted himself to the
warrant of arrest must be secured. jurisdiction of the court by entering a plea
[Nachura] of not guilty and by participating in the
trial. [People v. Salvatierra (1997)]
Warrantless arrest of accused for selling
marijuana 2 days after he escaped is Failure to raise the question of
invalid. [People v. Kimura (2004)] admissibility during the trial is waiver of
the right to assert inadmissibility on
The warrantless arrest only 3 hours after
appeal. [Manalili v. CA (1997)]
the killing was held valid since personal
knowledge was established as to the fact Scope of Waiver: Waiver is limited to the
of death and facts indicating that the illegal arrest. It does not extend to the
accused killed the victim. [People v. search made as an incident thereto, or the
Gerente (1993)] subsequent seizure of evidence allegedly
found during the search. [People v. Peralta
(2004)]
Personal Knowledge: Experience of an
officer which gives the idea that there is
probable cause that the person caught is (5) Violent insanity
responsible. It has been ruled that
“personal knowledge of facts” in arrests
without a warrant must be based on E. ADMINISTRATIVE ARRESTS
probable cause, which means an actual
belief or reasonable grounds of suspicion.
[Cadua v. Court of Appeals (1999)] General Rule: Only the judge has the power to
issue a warrant after the proper procedure has
There is no personal knowledge when the
been duly taken.
commission of a crime and identity of the
accused were merely furnished by an Exceptions:
informant, or when the location of the
(1) In cases of deportation of illegal and
firearm was given by the wife of the
undesirable aliens, whom the President or
accused. It is not enough that there is
the Commissioner of Immigration may
reasonable ground to believe that the
order arrested, following a final order of
person to be arrested has committed a
deportation, for the purpose of
crime. That a crime has actually been
deportation.[Salazar v. Achacoso (1990)]
committed is an essential precondition.
[People v. Burgos (1986)] (2) For deportation proceedings, a warrant of
arrest may be issued by administrative
authorities only for the purpose of carrying
(3) Escaped Prisoners:When the person to be out a final finding of a violation of law and
arrested is a prisoner who has escaped not for the sole purpose of investigation or
from a penal establishment or place prosecution. It may be issued only after
where he is serving final judgment or is the proceeding has taken place as when
temporarily confined while his case is there is already a final decision of the
pending, or has escaped while being administrative authorities.
transferred from one confinement to
another
F. DRUG, ALCOHOL AND BLOOD TESTS
Additional Exceptions (Not in the Rules):
The Court held that Randomized Drug Testing
(RDT) for students and employees does not
(4) When the right is voluntarily waived violate the right to privacy in the Constitution.
(estoppel). Students do not have rational expectation of
PAGE 131 OF 406
privacy since they are minors and the school is

in loco parentis. Employees and students in VI. Privacy
universities, on the other hand, voluntarily Art. III, Sec. 3:
subject themselves to the intrusion because of
(1) the privacy of communication and
their contractual relation to the company or
correspondence shall be inviolable except upon
university. lawful order of the court, or when public safety
But it is unconstitutional to subject criminals or order requires otherwise as prescribed by
to RDT. Subjecting criminals to RDT would law.
violate their right against self-incrimination. (2) any evidence obtained in violation of this
It is also unconstitutional to subject public shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any
officials whose qualifications are provided for proceeding.
in the Constitution (e.g. members of Congress)
to RDT. Subjecting them to RDT would Basis
amount to imposing an additional
The right to privacy, or the right to be let alone,
qualification not provided for in the
was institutionalized in the 1987 Constitution
Constitution. [SJS v. Dangerous Drugs Board
as a facet of the right protected by the
(2008)]
guarantee against unreasonable search and
seizures. (But the Court acknowledged its
existence as early as 1968 in Morfe v. Mutuc.)
The right to privacy exists independently of its
identification with liberty; it is in itself fully
deserving of constitutional protection. [Disini v.
Secretary of Justice (2014)]
The right to privacy is bifurcated into two

aspects:
(1) Decisional privacy — Liberty in the
constitutional sense must mean more than
freedom from unlawful governmental
restraint; it must include privacy as well, if it is
to be a repository of freedom. The right to be
let alone is indeed the beginning of all
freedom…The concept of liberty would be
emasculated if it does not likewise compel
respect for his personality as a unique
individual whose claim to privacy and
interference demands respect. [Morfe v. Mutuc
22 SCRA 424 (1968)]
(2) Informational privacy — the right of an
individual not to have private information
about himself disclosed; and the right of an
individual to live freely without
surveillanceand intrusion. [Whalen v. Roe 429
US 589, (1977)]
Concept
Zones of privacy are recognized and protected
in our laws. Within these zones, any form of
intrusion is impermissible unless excused by
PAGE 132 OF 406

law and in accordance with customary legal inadmissible for any purpose in any
process. The meticulous regard we accord to proceeding. [Art. III, Sec. 3]
these zones arises not only from our conviction
that the right to privacy is a "constitutional
right" and "the right most valued by civilized A. PRIVATE AND PUBLIC
men," but also from our adherence to the COMMUNICATIONS
Universal Declaration on Human Rights which
mandates that, "no one shall be subjected to
arbitrary interference with his privacy" and Requisites of Existence of Privacy Right (Test
"everyone has the right to the protection of the of Reasonable Expectation Of Privacy)
law against such interference or attacks."
(1) Subjective:A person has exhibited an
The Constitution does not have a specific actual expectation of privacy; and
provision protecting the right to privacy. It is a
penumbral right formed from the shadows (2) Objective:The expectation be one that
created by several constitutional provisions. society is prepared to recognize as
That is to say, the right to privacy is located reasonable. [Pollo v. Constantino-David
within the zones created by various provisions (2011)]
of the Constitution and various statutes which
protect aspects of privacy. [Ople v. Torres]
B. INTRUSION, WHEN ALLOWED
Ople v. Torres (1998) has enumerated several
provisions of the Bill of Rights where the right
of privacy is enshrined (penumbras): (1) By lawful order of the court
(1) Sec. 3 – Privacy of communication Probable cause in Sec. 2, Art. III should be
(2) Sec. 1 – Life, liberty, and property followed for the court to allow intrusion.
Particularity of description is needed for
(3) Sec. 2 – Unreasonable searches and written correspondence, but if the
seizures intrusion is done through wire-taps and
(4) Sec. 6 – Liberty of abode the like, there is no need to describe the
content. However, identity of the person or
(5) Sec. 8 – Right to form associations persons whose communication is to be
(6) Sec. 17 – Right against self-incrimination intercepted, and the offense or offenses
sought to be prevented, and the period of
the authorization given shouldbe specified.
It has also indicated that zones of privacy are or
recognized and protected in our laws:
(2) When public safety or public order
(1) Civil Code requires otherwise, as may be provided by
(2) RPC law.
(3) Anti-Wiretapping Law
(4) Security of Bank Deposits Act In Ayer Productions Pty. Ltd. v. Capulong (1988)
(hint: Enrilecase), the right to be let alone is
(5) Intellectual Property Code not an absolute right. A limited intrusion to a
Privacy of Communications and person’s privacy has long been regarded as
Correspondence permissible where that person is a public
figure and the information sought to be
(1) The privacy of communication and elicited from him or to be published about him
correspondence shall be inviolable constitute matters of public character. The
except upon lawful order of the court, or interest sought to be protected by the right to
when public safety or order requires privacy is the right to be free from
otherwise, as prescribed by law. unwarranted publicity, from the wrongful
(2) Any evidence obtained in violation of publicizing of the private affairs and activities
this or the preceding section shall be
PAGE 133 OF 406
of an individual which are outside the realm of Padilla, he admits that he induced a little
legitimate public concern. romance in the film.
Intrusion has to be based upon a non-judicial
government official’s assessment that public
Right of Privacy v. Freedom of Access to
safety and order demands such intrusion,
Information
limited to the provisions of law. To hold
otherwise would be to opt for a government of Kilusang Mayo Uno v. Director-General,
men, and not of laws. NEDA(2006) stated that personal matters are
exempt or outside the coverage of the people’s
right to information on matters of public
Public order and safety– the security of concern. The data treated as “strictly
human lives, liberty and property against the confidential” under EO 420 being matters of
activities of invaders, insurrectionist and public concern, these data cannot be released
rebels. [1971 Constitutional Convention, Session to the public or the press.
of November 25, 1972]
As compared with Ople v. Torres (1998), where
the Court ruled that no constitutional infirmity
on the right of privacy was shown by EO 420
Right of Privacy v. Freedom of Speech and
which streamlines and harmonizes the
Communication
existing ID system within each government
Because of the preferred character of the agency. According to the Court, it even
constitutional rights of the freedom of speech narrowly limits the data that can be collected,
and of expression, a weighty presumption of recorded, and shown as compared to AO 308
invalidity vitiates measures of prior restraint (National ID System) which was not narrowly
upon the exercise of such freedoms. [Ayer v. drawn.
Capulong, supra]
Right of privacy of a public figure is necessarily
Two-part test to determine the
narrower than that of an ordinary citizen. [Ayer
reasonableness of person’s expectation of
v. Capulong, supra]
privacy
(1) Whether by his conduct, the individual has
Public Figure – a person who, by his exhibited an expectation of privacy
accomplishments, fame, or mode of living, or
(2) Whether his expectation is one that
by adopting a profession or calling which gives
society recognizes as reasonable
the public a legitimate interest in his doing, his
affairs and his character, has become public Note that factual circumstances of the case
personage. Why? determine the reasonableness of the
expectation. However, other factors such as
• They had sought publicity and consented to customs, physical surroundings and practices
it, so they could not complain. of a particular activity, may serve to create or
• Their personalities and their affairs had diminish this expectation. [Ople v. Torres,
already become public and could no longer supra]
be regarded as their own private business. Forms of Correspondence Covered:
• The press had a privilege, under the (1) Letters
constitution, to inform the public about
those that have become legitimate matters (2) Messages
of public interest. (3) Telephone calls
But as held in Lagunzad v. Soto (1979), being a (4) Telegrams, and the like [Bernas]
public figure does not automatically destroy in
toto a person’s right to privacy. In the case at
bar, while it is true that the producer exerted Valid and Invalid Enroachments on the Right
efforts to present a true-to-life story of Moises to Privacy:
PAGE 134 OF 406

The general rule is that an encroachment on (1) Justified at inception: if there are
the right to privacy is invalid when: reasonable grounds for suspecting that it
will turn up evidence that the employee is
(1) There is a reasonable expectation of guilty of work-related misconduct.
privacy, and
(2) Scope of intrusion is reasonable: if
(2) If there is no compelling state interest. measures used in the search are
reasonable related to the search’s
objectives, and it is not highly intrusive.
Effects of Valid Intrusions
[Pollo, supra]
(1) Section 3(2) Article III aka the Exclusionary
Right may be invoked against the wife who
rule
went to the clinic of her husband and there
(2) Generally applicable against government took documents consisting of private
intrusions communications between her husband and
his alleged paramour. [Zulueta v. Court of
(3) Zulueta v. CA (jurisprudence that applied
Appeals(1996)]
the Exclusionary rule against private
citizens) N.B. While Zuluetaseems to be an exception to
the State Action Requirement, Zulueta’s
Other imports from Jurisprudence: application of the exclusionary rule has only
Anti-Wire Tapping Act (RA 4200), clearly and been cited once but to a state action.
unequivocally makes it illegal for any person, See also: R.A. No. 10173, Data Privacy Act (2012)
not authorized by all the parties to any private
communication, to secretly record such Exclusionary rule
communications by means of a tape recorder. Any evidence obtained in violation of Article III,
The law does not make any distinction. Section 3 (right to privacy of communications
[Ramirez v. Court of Appeals, 248 SCRA 590] and correspondence) or Section 2 (right
An extension telephone is not among the against unlawful search and seizures) shall be
devices enumerated in Sec.1 of RA 4200. There inadmissible for any purpose in any
must be either a physical interruption through proceeding. This applies not only to
a wiretap or the deliberate installation of a testimonial evidence but also to documentary
device or arrangement in order to overhear, and object evidence.
intercept, or record the spoken words. The Q: Can the exclusionaryrule be applied as
telephone extension in this case was not against private individuals who violate the
installed for that purpose. It just happened to right to privacy?
be there for ordinary office use. [Ganaan v. IAC
(1986)] A: Yes. Although generally, the Bill of Rights
can only be invoked against violations of the
E.O. 424 (s. 2005), adopting a unified multi- government, the Court has recognized an
purpose ID system for government, does not instance where it may also be applied as
violate the right to privacy because it (1) against a private individual.
narrowly limits the data that can be collected,
recorded, and released compared to Thus, in a legal separation case [Zulueta v CA]
existingID systems, and (2) provides where the wife took her husband‘s private
safeguards to protect the confidentiality of the documents and papers to be used as
data collected. [KMU v. Director-General, evidence in the case, without his knowledge
(2006)] and consent, the Court held that the
intimacies between husband and wife do
An intrusion into the privacy of workplaces is not justify any one of them in breaking the
valid if it conforms to the standard of drawers and cabinets of the other and in
reasonableness. Under this standard, both ransacking them for any telltale evidence of
inception and scope of intrusion must be marital infidelity. A person, by contracting
reasonable. marriage, does not shed his/her integrity or
his right to privacy as an individual and the
constitutional protection is ever available to
PAGE 135 OF 406
him or to her.Thelaw insures absolute But one thing is freedom of communication;

freedom of communication between the quite another is a compulsion for each one to
spouses by making it privileged. Neither share what one knows with the other. And this
husband nor wife may testify for or against has nothing to do with the duty of fidelity that
the other without the consent of the affected each owes to the other.
spouse while the marriage subsists. Neither
may be examined without theconsent of the
other as to any communication received in
confidence by one from the other during
the marriage, save for specified exceptions.
PAGE 136 OF 406

C. WRIT OF HABEAS DATA

Query Habeas Data
What is the writ of habeas (1) Remedy
data? (2) Available to any person
(3) Whose right to life, liberty, and security has been violated or is
threatened with violation
(4) By an unlawful act or omission
(5) Of a public official or employee, or of a private individual or entity
(6) Engaged in the gathering, collecting or storing of data or
information regarding the person, family, home and correspondence
of the aggrieved party.
What is its function? To inquire into all manner of involuntary restraint as distinguished from
voluntary and to relieve a person if such restraint is illegal.
When available? (1) In cases of illegal detention or restraint;
(2) In custody cases (even for a corpse)
Primary requisite for its availability is actual deprivation of right of
custody
What rule governs petitions The Rule on the Writ of Habeas Data (A.M. No. 08-1-16-SC), which was
for and the issuance of a approved by the SC on 22 January 2008. That Rule shall not diminish,
writ of habeas data? increase or modify substantive rights.
What is the SC’s basis in Constitution, Art. VIII, Sec. 5[5]
issuing the Rule?
When does the Rule take The Rule takes effect on 2 February 2008, following its publication in
effect? three (3) newspapers of general circulation.
Who may file a petition for (1) The aggrieved party.
the issuance of a writ of (2) However, in cases of extralegal killings and enforced
habeas data? disappearances, the petition may be filed by
(a) Any member of the immediate family of the aggrieved party,
namely: the spouse, children and parents; or
(b) 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 (1) Regional Trial Court
filed? (a) Where the petitioner or respondent resides, or
(b) 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, Court of Appeals, Sandiganbayan – whenthe action
concerns public data files of government offices.
Instead of having the Yes. It can be done when the respondent invokes the defense that the
hearing in open court, can release of the data or information in question shall compromise
it be done in chambers? 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 right to informational privacy, as a specific component of the right to privacy, may yield to an overriding
legitimate state interest. [Gamboa v. Chan (2012)]
PAGE 137 OF 406

VII. Freedom of or disc recorded. It also includes movies as

well as what is referred to as symbolic speech
Expression such as the wearing of an armband as a
symbol of protest.
A. NATURE AND SCOPE But the right is not absolute and may include
certain exceptions such as pornography, false
The primacy and high esteem accorded or misleading advertisement, advocacy of
freedom of expression is a fundamental imminent lawless action and danger to
postulate of our constitutional system. This national security
right was elevated to constitutional status […]
reflecting our own lesson of history, both
political and legal, that freedom of speech is Basis
an indispensable condition for nearly every Art. III, Sec. 4. No law shall be passed
other form of freedom. abridging the freedom of speech, of
The scope of freedom of expression is so broad expression, or of the press, or the right of
that it extends protection to nearly all forms of the people peaceably to assemble and
communication. It protects speech, print and petition the government for redress of
assembly regarding secular as well as political
grievances.
causes, and is not confined to any particular
field of human interest. The protection covers
myriad matters of public interest or concern
embracing all issues, about which information Art. III, Sec. 18(1). No person shall be
is needed or appropriate, so as to enable detained solely by reason of his political
members of society to cope with the beliefs and aspirations.
exigencies of their period. [Chavez v. Gonzales
(2008)]
All are indispensable to the “uninhibited,
robust and wide-open debate in the free
Speech, expression, and press include: marketplace of ideas.” [Abrams v. US (1919)]
(1) Written or spoken words (recorded or not) While indeed, the news item subject of the
present case might have ruffled the
(2) Symbolic speech (e.g. wearing armbands sensitivities of plaintiff, this Court however
as symbol of protest) believes that the alleged defamatory articles
Butviolation of the Hotel’s Grooming fall within the purview of a qualifiedly
Standards by labor union members privileged matter, and that therefore, it cannot
constitutes illegal strike and therefore an be presumed to be malicious. The onus of
unprotected speech. [NUWHRAIN-APL- proving malice is accordingly shifted to the
IUF Dusit Hotel Nikko Chapter v. CA plaintiff, that is, that he must prove that the
(2008)] defendants were actuated by ill-will in what
they caused to be printed and published, with
(3) Movies a design to carelessly or wantonly injure the
Any and all modes of protection are embraced plaintiff. [U.S. v. Bustos (1909)]
in the guaranty. It is reinforced by Sec. 18(1), Art. A.1 PRIOR RESTRAINT
3.
Prior restraint – refers to official
J. Holmes: It is freedom for the thought that we governmental restrictions on the press or
hate, no less than for the thought that agrees other forms of expression in advance of actual
with us. publication or dissemination.Freedom from
Scope of Right prior restraint is largely freedom from
government censorship of publications,
Speech, expression, and press include every whatever the form of censorship, and
form of expression, whether oral, written, tape
PAGE 138 OF 406
regardless of whether it is wielded by the (5) An announcement of a public figure to

executive, legislative or judicial branch of the prohibit the media to issue a specific kind
government. They carry a heavy presumption of statement [Chavez v. Gonzales (2006)]
of unconstitutionality but not all prior
restraints are invalid. [Newsounds
Broadcasting Network v. Dy (2009)] Examples of Constitutional Prior Restraint:
Examples: Censorship, Permits, Business (1) Law which prohibits, except during the
prescribed election period, the making of
Closure
speeches, announcements or
commentaries for or against the election
Censorship conditions the exercise of freedom of any candidate for office [Gonzales v.
of expression upon the prior approval of the COMELEC (1969)]
government. The censor serves therefore as (2) Prohibition on any person making use of
the political, moral, social and artistic arbiter the media to sell or to give free of charge
for the people, usually applying only his own print space or air time for campaign or
subjective standards in determining what is other political purposes except to the
good and what is not. COMELEC. Ratio: police power of State to
General rules: regulate media for purpose of ensuring
(1) Any system of prior restraints of equal opportunity, time and space for
expression comes to the Court bearing a political campaigns. [National Press Club v.
heavy presumption against its COMELEC (1992); Osmeña v. COMELEC]
constitutionality, giving the government a (3) Movie censorship: The power of the
heavy burden to show justification for the MTCRB can be exercised only for purposes
imposition of such restraint. [New York v. of reasonable classification, not
United States 1971] censorship. [Nachura, citingGonzalez v.
(2) There need not be total suppression. Katigbak (1985) and Ayer v. Judge
Even restriction of circulation constitutes Capulong]
censorship. [Grosjean v. American Press (4) Near v. Minnesota, (1931):
Co., 297 US 233]
(a) When a nation is at war, many things
that might be said in time of peace are
Examples of Unconstitutional Prior Restraint such a hindrance to its effort that their
utterance will not be endured so long
(1) COMELEC prohibition against radio
as men fight and that no court could
commentators or newspaper columnists
regard them as protected by any
from commenting on the issues involved
in a scheduled plebiscite [Sanidad v. constitutional right
COMELEC (1990)] (b) Actual obstruction to the
(2) Arbitrary closure of a radio station government’s recruiting service or the
publication of the sailing dates of
[Eastern Broadcasting v. Dans (1985)]; or
even when there is a legal justification, transports or the number and location
of troops
such as lack of mayor’s permit
[Newsounds Broadcasting Network Inc. v. (c) Obscene publications
Dy (2009)]
(d) Incitements to acts of violence and the
(3) COMELEC resolution prohibiting the overthrow by force of orderly
posting of decals and stickers in mobile government
units like cars and other moving vehicles
[Adiong v. COMELEC (1992)]
A.2 SUBSEQUENT PUNISHMENT
(4) Search, padlocking and sealing of the
offices of newspaper publishers (We Freedom of speech includes freedom after
Forum) by military authorities [Burgos v. speech. Without this assurance, the citizen
Chief of Staff, supra] would hesitate to speak for fear he might be
PAGE 139 OF 406

provoking the vengeance of the officials he has Slander or libel, lewd and obscene speech, as
criticized (chilling effect). well as “fighting words” are not entitled to
constitutional protection and may be
If criticism is not to be conditioned on the
penalized. [Chavez v. Gonzales (2008)]
government’s consent, then neither should it
be subject to the government’s subsequent
chastisement.
Obscenity
Examples of Valid Subsequent Restraints: Obscenity is a class of speech that is not under
(1) Libel. Every defamatory imputation is the protection of the freedom of expression. It
presumed to be malicious. [Alonzo v. CA is of slight social value as a step to truth that
(1995)]
any benefit that may be derived from them is
Exceptions: clearly outweighed by the social interest in
(a) Private communication in the order and morality [Chaplinsky v. New
performance of any legal, moral or Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568, 1942].
social duty
(b) Fair and true report of any judicial,
legislative or other official
proceedings
(2) Obscenity. The determination of what is
obscene is a judicial function. [Pita v. CA
(1989)]
(3) Contempt for criticism/publications
tending to impede, obstruct, embarrass or
influence the courts in administering
justice in a pending suit or proceeding (sub
judice) [People v. Alarcon (1939)]
(4) Imputation of irregularities in the judiciary
must strike a balance between the right to
free press and the reputation of judges. A
reporter is prohibited from recklessly
disregarding a private reputation without
any bona fide effort to ascertain the truth
thereof [In Re: Jurado (1995)]
(5) Right of students to free speech in school
premises must not infringe on the school’s
right to discipline its students [Miriam
College Foundation v. CA (2000)]
Exceptions:
(a) Fair comment on matters of public
interest. Fair comment is that which is
true or, if false, expresses the real
opinion of the author based upon
reasonable degree of care and on
reasonable grounds.
(b) Criticism of official conduct is given
the widest latitude. [US v.
Bustos(1918)]
Unprotected Speech
PAGE 140 OF 406
Test to Determine Obscenity:

Memoirs of a Woman of Pleasure vs
Roth vs US Miller vs California
Atty. Gen. of Massachusetts
The question is, A work is obscene if: A work is obscene if:
whether to the average (1) The dominant theme of the (1) Whether the average
person, applying material taken as a whole person, applying
contemporary appeals to prurient interest contemporary community
in sex;
community standard, standards, would find that
(2) Material is patently
the dominant theme of offensive because it affronts the work, taken as a whole,
the work taken as a contemporary community appeals to
whole appeals to standards relating to the the prurient interest;
PRURIENT INTRESTS. description or (2) Whether the work depicts
representation of sexual or describes, in an offensive
matters; way, sexual conduct or
(3) Material is utterly without
excretory functions,
redeeming social value
specifically defined by
applicable state law; and
(3) Whether the work, taken as
a whole, lacks serious
literary, artistic, political, or
scientific value
Note: The Memoirs test was abandoned because it was nearly impossible to prove that a work was utterly
without redeeming social value [Miller v. California].
Pictures depicting native inhabitants in their about a hundred customers, were howling and
native dresses as they appear and live in their shouting, “sigemuna, sigenakakalibog” (go
native homelands are not obscene or indecent. ahead first, go ahead, it is erotic), during the
The pictures in question merely depict persons performance. [People v. Aparici (Court of
as they actually live, without attempted Appeals 1955)]
presentation of persons in unusual postures or
dress. The aggregate judgment of the
Philippine community, the moral sense of all
the people in the Philippines, would not be
shocked by photographs of this type. [People v.
Kottinger (1923)]
A hula-hula dance portraying a life of a widow

who lost her guerrilla husband cannot be
considered protected speech if the audience,
PAGE 141 OF 406
B. Content-based and Content-neutral protect private individuals from defamation.

Regulations [Disini v. Sec. of Justice (2014)]
National community standard as basis of

Content-Based Content- what is defamatory
Neutral
Not belonging to a royal house does not
Definition Regulation of Regulations of constitute libel. In a community like ours
the subject the incidents of which is both republican and egalitarian, such
matter of the speech – time, an ascription, whether correct or not, cannot
utterance or place and be defamatory. It is to the standards of the
speech manner national community, not to those of the region
that a court must refer especially where a
Standard of Strictest Intermediate newspaper is national in reach and coverage.
Review scrutiny approach [Bulletin Publishing v. Noel (1988)]
B.1 CONTENT-BASED RESTRICTIONS Where the defamation is alleged to have been

The regulation is based on the subject matter directed at a group/class, it is essential that
of the utterance or speech. It merely controls the statement must be so sweeping or all-
time, place, or manner, under well-defined embracing as to apply to every individual in
standards. [Newsounds Broadcasting v. Dy that group or class, or sufficiently specific so
(2009)] that each individual in the class or group can
prove that the defamatory statement
A governmental action that restricts freedom specifically pointed to him, so that he can
of speech or of the press based on content is bring the action separately, if need be.
given the strictest scrutiny in light of its [Newsweek v. IAC (1986)]
inherent and invasive impact. [Chavez v.
Gonzales (2008)]
Group Libel
Test to be applied: Clear and Present Danger As the size of these groups increases, the
Test (discussed infra). chances for members of such groups to
recover damages on tortious libel become
elusive. This principle is said to embrace two
Freedom of Expression and National Security important public policies:
Where a fictitious suicide photo and letter (1) Where the group referred to is large, the
were published in newspapers of general courts presume that no reasonable reader
circulation expressing disappointments of the would take the statements as so literally
Roxas administration and instructing fictitious applying to each individual member; and
wife to teach their children to burn pictures of
(2) The limitation on liability would
the President, SC held that such act
satisfactorily safeguard freedom of speech
constitutes inciting to sedition.
and expression, as well as of the press,
It suggests or incites rebellious conspiracies or effecting a sound compromise between
riots and tends to stir up the people against the conflicting fundamental interests
the constituted authorities, or to provoke involved in libel cases. [MVRS v. Islamic
violence from opposition groups who may Da’Wah Council of the Phil (2003)]
seek to silence the writer, which is the sum and
substance of the offense under consideration.
[Espuelas v. People (1951)] Actual Malice Standard for Public Officials
and Matters of Public Interest
Freedom of Expression and Libel
Libel is not a constitutionally protected speech Even if the defamatory statement is false, no
and that the government has an obligation to liability can attach if it relates to official
conduct, unless the public official concerned
PAGE 142 OF 406
proves that the statement was made with culminating events of the EDSA revolution.
actual malice — that is, with knowledge that it [Ayer Productions v. Capulong (1988)]
was false or with reckless disregard of whether
it was false or not. [Vasquez v. CA (1999) citing
New York Times v. Sullivan (1964)] Freedom of Expression and the
Administration of Justice
SC Administrative Circular No. 08-2008
implements a rule of preference for the The administration of justice and the freedom
imposition of fine only rather than of the press, though separate and distinct, are
imprisonment in libel suits. equally sacred, and neither should be violated
False reports about a public official or other by the other. The press and the courts have
person are not shielded by the cardinal right to correlative rights and duties and should
free speech enshrined in the Constitution. cooperate to uphold the principles of the
Making knowingly false statements made with Constitution and laws, from which the former
reckless disregard of the truth does not enjoy receives its prerogative and the latter its
constitutional protection. The guaranty of free jurisdiction [In Re Macasaet, A.M. No. 07-09-
speech cannot be considered as according 13-SC, 8 August 2008].
protection to the disclosure of lies, gossip or
rumor [In Re Jurado, A.M. No. 93-2-037-SC, 6 The Court in People vs Godoy [312 Phil. 977,
April 1995]. 1995] has also said that obstructing, by means
of the spoken or written word, the
administration of justice by the courts has
Therefore, an injured person must prove that been described as an abuse of the liberty of
the alleged statements are either: the speech or the press such as will subject the
(1) Knowingly false abuser to punishment for contempt of court.
(2) Made with reckless disregard of the

truth/ based on suppositions In the case of Cabansag v Fernandez, due to
the delay in the disposition of his original case,
Cabansag asked for help from the President
Freedom of Expression and the Right to through a letter addressed to the Presidential
Privacy Complaints and Actions Commission (PCAC).
Being a public figure does not automatically He was charged for contempt because such
destroy in toto a person’s right to privacy. The complaint should have been raised to the
right to invade a person’s privacy to Secretary of Justice or SC instead.
disseminate public info does not extend to a
SC ruled that for his act to be contemptuous,
fictional representation of a person, no matter
the danger must cause a serious imminent
how public a figure he/she may be. [Lagunzad
threat to the administration of justice. It
v. Soto (1979)]
cannot be inferred that such act has "a
Freedom of speech and expression includes dangerous tendency" to belittle the court or
freedom to film and produce motion pictures undermine the administration of justice for the
and to exhibit them. The fact that such film writer merely exercised his constitutional right
production is a commercial activity is not a to petition the government for redress of a
disqualification for availing of freedom of legitimate grievance. [Cabansag v. Fernandez
speech and expression. (1957)]
The right to privacy cannot be invoked to resist
publication and dissemination of matter of
Q: What criticisms are allowed by the court?
public interest. The intrusion is no more than
necessary to keep the film a truthful historical
account. Enrile is a public figure because of his A: Criticisms made in good faith. Courts and
participation as a principal actor in the judges are not sacrosanct. They should and
expect critical evaluation of their
PAGE 143 OF 406
performance. For like the executive and the the compelling interest standard applied to
legislative branches, the judiciary is rooted in content-based restrictions. [Chavez v.
the soil of democratic society, nourished by the Gonzales (2008)]
periodic appraisal of the citizen whom it is
expected to serve. Content-Neutral (US v. O’Brien) test – A
government regulation is sufficiently justified
But it is the cardinal condition of all such if:
criticism that it shall be bona fide, and shall
not spill over the walls of decency and (1) It is within the constitutional power;
propriety. A wide chasm exists between fair (2) It furthers an important or substantial
criticism, on the one hand, and abuse and government interest;
slander of courts and the judges thereof, on
(3) The government interest is unrelated to
the other [In Re Almacen, G.R. No. 27654, 18
the suppression of free expression;
February 1970].
(4) The incident restriction is no greater than
essential to the furtherance of that
Freedom of Expression and Obscenity interest.
Determination: Community standard
Pictures depicting native inhabitants in their
native dresses as they appear and live in their Freedom of Assembly
native homelands are not obscene or indecent. The right to freedom of speech and to
The pictures in question merely depict persons peaceably assemble, and petition the
as they actually live, without attempted government for redress of grievances are
presentation of persons in unusual postures or fundamental personal rights of the people
dress. The aggregate judgment of the guaranteed by the constitutions of democratic
Philippine community, the moral sense of all countries. City or town mayors are not
the people in the Philippines, would not be conferred the power to refuse to grant the
shocked by photographs of this type. [People v. permit, but only the discretion in issuing the
Kottinger (1923)] permit to determine or specify the streets or
public places where the parade may pass or
A hula-hula dance portraying a life of a widow the meeting may be held. [Primicias v. Fugoso
who lost her guerrilla husband cannot be (1948)]
considered protected speech if the audience,
about a hundred customers, were howling and The right to peaceably assemble and petition
shouting, “sigemuna, sigenakakalibog” (go for redress of grievances is, together with
ahead first, go ahead, it is erotic), during the freedom of speech, of expression, and of the
performance. [People v. Aparici (Court of press, a right that enjoys primacy in the realm
Appeals 1955)] of constitutional protection. For these rights
constitute the very basis of a functional
democratic polity, without which all the other
B.2 CONTENT-NEUTRAL RESTRICTIONS rights would be meaningless and unprotected
[Bayan vsErmita, G.R. Nos. 158786, etc.,19
Regulations on the incidents of speech — time, October 2007].
place and manner — under well-defined
standards. [Newsounds, supra]
Absent any clear and present danger of a
When the speech restraints take the form of substantive evil, peaceable assembly in public
a content-neutral regulation, only a places like streets or parks cannot be denied.
substantial governmental interest is required [J.B.L. Reyes v. Bagatsing (1983)]
for its validity. Because regulations of this type
are not designed to suppress any particular The Calibrated Pre-emptive Response (CPR),
message, they are not subject to the strictest insofar as it would purport to differ from or be
form of judicial scrutiny but an intermediate in lieu of maximum tolerance, is null and void.
approach— somewhere between the mere CPR serves no valid purpose if it means the
rationality that is required of any other law and same thing as maximum tolerance [Sec. 3 [c]
PAGE 144 OF 406
of B.P. 880], and is illegal if it means There is a need to address the situation
something else. Accordingly, what is to be adverted to by petitioners where mayors do
followed is and should be that mandated by not act on applications for a permit and when
the law itself, namely, maximum tolerance. the police demand a permit and the rallyists
[Bayan v. Ermita (2007)] could not produce one, the rally is
immediately dispersed. [Bayan v. Ermita,
supra]
B.P. 880 not unconstitutional
In such a situation, as a necessary
B.P. No. 880 is not an absolute ban of public consequence and part of maximum tolerance,
assemblies but a restriction that simply rallyists who can show the police an
regulates the time, place and manner of the application duly filed on a given date can, after
assemblies. The law is not vague or overbroad. two (2) days from said date, rally in
There is, likewise, no prior restraint, since the accordance with their application without the
content of the speech is not relevant to the need to show a permit, the grant of the permit
regulation. A fair and impartial reading of B.P. being then presumed under the law, and it will
No. 880 thus readily shows that it refers to all be the burden of the authorities to show that
kinds of public assemblies that would use there has been a denial of the application, in
public places. [Bayan v. Ermita, supra] which case the rally may be peacefully
dispersed following the procedure of
maximum tolerance prescribed by the law.
Freedom Parks [Bayan v. Ermita, supra]
B.P. 880 provides that every city and
municipality must set aside a freedom park
within six months from the law’s effectivity in C. FACIAL CHALLENGES AND THE
1985. Section 15 of the law provides for an OVERBREADTH DOCTRINE
alternative forum through the creation of
General Rule: A party can question the validity
freedom parks where no prior permit is needed
of a statute only if, as applied to him, it is
for peaceful assembly and petition at any time.
unconstitutional. [Southern Hemisphere v.
Without such alternative forum, to deny the
Anti-Terrorism Council (2010)]
permit would in effect be to deny the right to
peaceably assemble. [Bayan v. Ermita, supra] Exception: Facial Challenges
Permit Application C.1 FACIAL CHALLENGES

City or town mayors are not conferred the A facial challenge is allowed to be made to a
power to refuse to grant the permit, but only vague statute and to one which is overbroad
the discretion in issuing the permit to because of possible “chilling effect” upon
determine or specify the streets or public protected speech. The theory is that “[w]hen
places where the parade may pass or the statutes regulate or proscribe speech and no
meeting may be held. [Primicias v. Fugoso readily apparent construction suggests itself
(1948)] as a vehicle for rehabilitating the statutes in a
single prosecution, the transcendent value to
In the case of Bayan vs Ermita (supra), the
all society of constitutionally protected
Court invalidated the Calibrated Pre-emptive expression is deemed to justify allowing
Response (CPR), insofar as it would purport to attacks on overly broad statutes with no
differ from or be in lieu of maximum tolerance. requirement that the person making the
CPR serves no valid purpose if it means the attack demonstrate that his own conduct
same thing as maximum tolerance as could not be regulated by a statute drawn with
provided for in [Sec. 3 [c] of B.P. 880], and is narrow specificity.”
illegal if it means something else. Accordingly, The possible harm to society in permitting
what is to be followed is and should be that some unprotected speech to go unpunished is
mandated by the law itself, namely, maximum outweighed by the possibility that the
protected speech of others may be deterred
tolerance
and perceived grievances left to fester
PAGE 145 OF 406
because of possible inhibitory effects of overly

broad statutes.
C.2 OVERBREADTH DOCTRINE
This rationale does not apply to penal statutes
A governmental purpose may not be achieved
(without a free-speech aspect). Criminal
by means which sweep unnecessarily broadly
statutes have general in terrorem effect
and thereby invade the area of protected
resulting from their very existence, and, if
freedoms.
facial challenge is allowed for this reason
alone, the State may well be prevented from A plain reading of PP 1017 shows that it is not
enacting laws against socially harmful primarily directed to speech, rather it covers a
conduct. In the area of criminal law, the law spectrum of conduct. It is a call upon the AFP
cannot take chances as in the area of free to prevent or suppress all forms of lawless
speech. [Southern Hemisphere, supra] violence. Facial challenge on the ground of
overbreadth is a very strong medicine.
However, said doctrines apply to penal
Petitioners did not show that there is no
statutes when
instance when PP1017 may be valid. [David vs.
(1) The statute is challenged as applied; or Arroyo (2006)]
(2) The statute involves free speech [Disini v.
Sec. of Justice (2014)]
D. TESTS
Test Definition
Dangerous Limitations on speech are permissible once a rational connection has been
Tendency Doctrine established between the speech restrained and the dangercontemplated.
Balancing of When particular conduct is regulated for public order, and the regulation results in
Interests Test an indirect abridgment of speech, the court must determine which of the two
[Soriano v. conflicting interestsdemand greater protection.
Laguardia]
Factors to consider:
(1) Social value of the freedom restricted;
(2) Specific thrust of the restriction, i.e. direct or indirect, affects many or few;
(3) Value of the public interest sought to be secured by the regulation;
(4) Whether the restriction is reasonably appropriate and necessary for the
protection of the public interest;
(5) Whether the necessary safeguarding of the public interest may be achieved by
a measure less restrictive of the protected freedom.
Clear and Present Speech may be restrained because there is a substantial danger that the speech will
Danger Rule likely lead to an evil the government has a right to prevent. Requires that the evil
consequences sought to be prevented must be substantive, “extremely serious and
the degree of imminence extremely high.”
PAGE 146 OF 406

D.1 DANGEROUS TENDENCY TEST is to determine which of the two conflicting

interests demands greater protection.
Under this test, the question is whether the
[American Communications Assoc. v. Douds,
words will create a dangerous tendency that
339 US 282]
the state has a right to prevent. It looks at the
probabilitythat a substantive evil will result, The test is applied when two legitimate values
and it is not necessary that some definite or not involving national security crimes compete.
immediate acts of force, violence, or [Gonzales v. COMELEC (1969)]
unlawfulness be advocated. [Cabansagvs
Fernandez, G.R. No. 8974, 18 October 1957]
D.4 DIRECT INCITEMENT TEST
The constitutional guarantees of free speech
It is sufficient if the natural tendency and the
and free press do not permit a State to forbid
probable effect of the utterance were to bring
or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of
about the substantive evil that the legislative
law violation except where such advocacy is
body seeks to prevent. [People v. Perez (1956)]
directed to inciting or producing imminent
lawless action and is likely to incite or produce
such action. [Brandenburg v. Ohio (395 U.S.
D.2 CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER TEST
444)]
The question in every case is whether the
It is incumbent on the court to make clear in
words used are used in such circumstances
some fashion that the advocacy must be of
and are of such a nature as to create a clear
action and not merely of abstract doctrine.
and present danger that they will bring about
[Yates v. US (1957)]
the substantive evils that Congress has a right
to prevent. It is a question of proximity and Political discussion even among those
degree. [Schenck v. United States (1919)] opposed to the present administration is
within the protective clause of freedom of
speech and expression. The same cannot be
It is a showing of a substantive and imminent construed as subversive activities per se or as
evil, and not hypothetical fears. Only when the evidence of membership in a subversive
challenged act has overcome the clear and organization. [Salonga v. Cruz Paño(1986)]
present danger rule will it pass constitutional
muster, with the government having the D.5 INTERMEDIATE REVIEW
burden of overcoming the presumed
unconstitutionality [Chavez vs Gonzales, Applied to content-neutral regulations, the test
has been formulated in this manner: A
2008]. governmental regulation is sufficiently
justified [See O’Brien Test, supra]
This rule also requires that “the danger
created must not only be clear and present but D.6 GRAVE-BUT-IMPROBABLE DANGER
also traceable to the ideas expressed”. TEST
[Gonzales v. COMELEC (1969)]
The Grave but Improbable Danger Test was
Note: This test has been adopted by the
Philippine SC lock, stock and barrel and is the meant to supplant the clear and present
test most applied to cases re: freedom of danger test and determines whether the
expression. gravity of the evil, less its improbability to
happen, can justify the suppression of the
right in order to avoid the danger [Dennis v US,
D.3 BALANCING OF INTEREST TEST 341 US 494]. It has not seen much application
When a particular conduct is regulated in the in Philippine jurisprudence and the Clear and
interest of public order, and the regulation Present Danger remains to be the dominant
results in an indirect, conditional and partial test in abridging the Freedom of Expression.
abridgement of speech, the duty of the courts
PAGE 147 OF 406
E. STATE REGULATION OF DIFFERENT

To determine the clear and present danger of TYPES OF MASS MEDIA
the utterances bringing about the evil which
that legislature has the power to punish, "In
each case [courts] must ask whether the Art. XVI, Sec. 11(1). The ownership and
gravity of the 'evil,' discounted by its management of mass media shall be
improbability, justifies such invasion of free limited to citizens of the Philippines, or to
speech as is necessary to avoid the danger." In corporations, cooperatives or associations,
this case, an attempt to overthrow the wholly-owned and managed by such
Government by force is a sufficient evil for citizens.
Congress to prevent. It is the existence of the
The Congress shall regulate or prohibit
conspiracy which creates the danger. [Dennis
monopolies in commercial mass media
v. US (1951)]
when the public interest so requires. No
combinations in restraint of trade or unfair
D.7 MILLER TEST competition therein shall be allowed.
To determine obscenity: The advertising industry is impressed with

public interest, and shall be regulated by
(1) Whether the average person, applying law for the protection of consumers and the
contemporary community standards promotion of the general welfare.
would find that the work, taken as a whole,
appeals to prurient interest Only Filipino citizens or corporations or
associations at least seventy per centum of
(2) Whether the work depicts or describes in a the capital of which is owned by such
patently offensive way, sexual conduct citizens shall be allowed to engage in the
specifically defined by the applicable state advertising industry.
law
The participation of foreign investors in the
(3) Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks governing body of entities in such industry
serious, literary, artistic, political, or shall be limited to their proportionate share
scientific value [Miller v. CA (1973) also in the capital thereof, and all the executive
applied in Fernando v. CA (2006)] and managing officers of such entities must
be citizens of the Philippines.
D.8 TEST FOR CONTENT-NEUTRAL

REGULATION The Court pronounced that the freedom of
COMELEC banned the publication of surveys broadcast media is lesser in scope than the
15 and 7 days prior to election concerning press because of their pervasive presence in
national and local candidates, respectively. the lives of people and because of their
The SC held that this regulation is content- accessibility to children.
based because applying the third prong of the
O-Brien Test, it actually suppresses a whole
class of expression, while allowing the J. Malcolm: The interest of society and the
expression of opinion concerning the same maintenance of good government demand a
subject matter by other opinion takers. The full discussion of public affairs. Complete
prohibition may be for a limited time, but the liberty to comment on the conduct of public
curtailment of the right of expression is direct, men is a scalpel in the case of free speech. The
absolute, and substantial. [SWS v. COMELEC sharp incision of its probe relieves the
(2001)]
abscesses of officialdom. Men in public life
may suffer under a hostile and unjust
accusation; the wound can be assuaged with
the balm of clear conscience [US vs Bustos, 37
Phil. 731, 1918].
PAGE 148 OF 406

The Four Aspects of Freedom of the Press Censorship is allowable only under the
[Chavez v. Gonzales, 2008] clearest proof of a clear and present dangerof
a substantive evil to public safety, morals,
health or any other legitimate public interest:
(1) freedom from prior restraint;
(1) There should be no doubt what is feared
(2) freedom from punishment
may be traced to the expression
subsequent to publication;
complained of.
(3) freedom of access to information; and
(2) Also, there must be reasonable
(4) freedom of circulation apprehension about its imminence. It does
not suffice that the danger is only
probable. [Gonzales v. Kalaw-Katigbak
Print vs Broadcast Media (1985)]
Limited intrusion into a person’s privacy is
While all forms of communication are entitled permissible when that person is a public figure
to the broad protection of freedom of and the information sought to be published is
expression clause, the freedom of film, of a public character.
television and radio broadcasting is somewhat What is protected is the right to be free from
lesser in scope than the freedom accorded to unwarranted publicity, from the wrongful
newspapers and other print media [Chavez vs publicizing of the private affairs of an
Gonzales, supra]. individual which are outside the realm of
public concern. [Ayer Productions v.Capulong,
Radio and TV enjoy a narrower scope of supra]
protection because of the ff reasons:
(1) the scarcity of the frequencies by which Television Censorship
the medium operates [i.e., airwaves are P.D. 1986 gave MTRCB the power to screen,
physically limited while print medium may review and examine all television programs.
be limitless];
By the clear terms of the law, the Board has
(2) its pervasiveness as a medium; and the power to “approve, delete, or prohibit the
exhibition and/or television broadcasts of
(3) its unique accessibility to children. television programs. The law also directs the
[Federal Communications Commission v. Board to apply contemporary Filipino culture
values as standard to determine those which
Pacifica Foundation, 438 U.S. 726 [1978]]
are objectionable for being immoral, indecent,
contrary to law and/or good customs injurious
But all forms of media, whether print or to the prestige of the Republic of the
broadcast, are entitled to the broad protection Philippines and its people, or with a
of the freedom of speech and expression dangerous tendency to encourage the
clause. The test for limitations on freedom of commission of a violence or of a wrong or a
expression continues to be the clear and crime.
present danger rule [Eastern Broadcasting The law gives the Board the power to screen,
Corp vsDans, G.R. No. 59329, 19 July 1985]. review and examine all “television programs”
Movie Censorship whether religious, public affairs, news
documentary, etc. (When the law does not
When MTRCB rated the movie, make any exception, courts may not exempt
“KapitsaPatalim” as fit “For Adults Only”, SC something therefrom). [Iglesiani Cristo v. CA
ruled that there was no grave abuse of (1996)]
discretion.
Also, notwithstanding the fact that freedom of
religion has been accorded a preferred status,
Iglesiani Cristo’s program is still not exempt
from MTRCB’s power to review. Freedom of
PAGE 149 OF 406
expression and of the press has not been speeches. Besides, laws provide for such
declared of preferred status. [MTRCB v. ABS- actions:
CBN (2005)]
(1) Act No. 8130. Franchise for Far Eastern;
On the program of Dating Daan, Soriano radio to be open to the general public but
made crude remarks like subject to regulations
“lihitimonganakngdemonyo, sinungaling, etc.”
(2) Comm. No. Act 98.Sec. of Interior and/or
MTRCB preventively suspended him and his
the Radio Board is empowered to censor
show. SC held that the State has a compelling
what is considered “neither moral,
interest to protect the minds of the children
educational or entertaining, and
who are exposed to such materials. [Soriano v.
prejudicial to public interest.” The Board
Laguardia (2009)]
can forfeit the license of a broadcasting
The SC could not compel TV stations and radio station.
stations, being indispensable parties, to give
(3) Sec. of the Interior, Dept. Order No.
UNIDO free air time as they were not
13.Requires submission of daily reports to
impleaded in this case. UNIDO must seek a
Sec. of Interior/Radio Board re: programs
contract with these TV stations and radio
before airing. For speeches, a manuscript
stations at its own expense. [UNIDO v.
or short gist must be submitted. [Santiago
COMELEC (1981)]
v. Far Eastern Broadcasting (1941)]
The television camera is a powerful weapon
Strict rules have also been allowed for radio
which intentionally or inadvertently can
because of its pervasive quality and because of
destroy an accused and his case in the eyes of
the interest in the protection of children. [FCC
the public.
v. Pacifica Foundation (1978)]
Considering the prejudice it poses to the
defendant’s right to due process as well as to F. COMMERCIAL SPEECH
the fair and orderly administration of justice,
and considering further that the freedom of
the press and the right of the people to Commercial speech is protected speech
information may be served and satisfied by although commercial advertising in the U.S.
less distracting, degrading and prejudicial has not been accorded the same level of
means, live radio and television coverage of protection given to political speech. One case
the court proceedings shall not be allowed. No set down the requirements for protection of
video shots or photographs shall be permitted commercial speech:
during the trial proper. Video footages of court (1) Speech must not be false, misleading or
hearings for news purposes shall be limited proposing an illegal activity;
and restricted. [Secretary of Justice v.
Sandiganbayan (2001)] (2) Government interest sought to be served
by regulation must be substantial;
Regardless of the regulatory schemes that
broadcast media is subjected to, the Court has (3) The regulation must advance government
consistently held that the clear and present interest; and
danger test applies to content-based (4) The regulation must not be overbroad.
restrictions on media, without making a [Bernas]
distinction as to traditional print or broadcast
media. [Chavez v. Gonzales (2008)]
Radio Censorship G. PRIVATE VERSUS GOVERNMENT
SPEECH
In the case of Santiago v Far Eastern
Broadcasting (1941), the SC did not uphold
claim that Far Eastern Broadcasting had no Parliamentary immunity guarantees the
right to require the submission of the members the freedom of expression without
manuscript. It is the duty of Far Eastern fear of being made responsible in criminal or
Broadcasting to require the submission of a civil actions before courts or forum outside of
manuscript as a requirement in broadcasting Congress. But this does not protect them from
PAGE 150 OF 406
responsibility from the legislative body. The

members may nevertheless be questioned in VIII. Freedom of
Congress itself.
For unparliamentary conduct, members of the
Religion
Congress have been, or could be censured,
committed to prison, even expelled by the Art. III, Sec. 5. No law shall be made
votes of their colleagues. [Osmeña v. Pendatun respecting an establishment of religion; or
(1960)] prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The
But a libelous letter of a congressman, free exercise and enjoyment of religious
published on a newspaper, does not fall under profession and worship, without
“speech or debate” protected by the discrimination or preference, shall forever
Constitution. Speech or debate refers to be allowed. No religious test shall be
speeches/statements/votes made within required for the exercise of civil or political
Congress while it is in session, or duly rights.
authorized actions of congressmen in the
discharge of their duties. [See Jimenez v.
Cabangbang (1966)] Religion – reference to one’s views of his
relations to his Creator and to the obligations
they impose of reverence for his being and
H. HECKLER’S VETO character and of obedience to his will. [David
v. Beason]
Religion is expanded to non-theistic beliefs
Heckler’s veto – an attempt to limit unpopular such as Buddhism or Taoism. [Torasco v.
speech. This occurs when an acting party’s Watkins]
right to freedom of speech is curtailed or
restricted by the government in order to
prevent a reacting party’s behavior. Four-creed criteria to qualify as religion
(1) There must be belief in God or some
For example, an unpopular group wants to parallel belief that occupies a central
hold a rally and asks for a permit. The place in the believer’s life.
government is not allowed to refuse the (2) The religion must involve a moral code
permit based upon the beliefs of the transcending individual belief (can’t be
applicants. But the government can deny the purely subjective).
permit, reasoning that it is not because the (3) Demonstrable sincerity in belief is
government disapproves of the group's necessary but the court must not inquire
message, it is just afraid that so many people into the truth or reasonableness of the
will be outraged that there might be violent belief.
protests. Under the Free Speech Clause of Sec. (4) There must be associational ties. [U.S. v.
4, Art III, the government may not silence Seager]
speech based on the reaction (or anticipated
reaction) of a hostile audience, unless there is
A. NON-ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE
a "clear and present danger" of grave and
imminent harm, which is not easy to prove.
A.1 CONCEPT
The clause prohibits excessive government
entanglement with, endorsement or
disapproval of religion. [Victoriano v. Elizalde
Rope Workers Union (1974)]
A.2 BASIS
PAGE 151 OF 406

“[T]he principle of separation of Church and A.3 ACTS NOT PERMITTED BY NON-
State is based on mutual respect. Generally, ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE
the State cannot meddle in the internal affairs
(1) Prayer and Bible-reading in public schools
of the church, much less question its faith and
[Abington School District v. Schemp (1963)]
dogmas or dictate upon it. It cannot favor one
religion and discriminate against another. On (2) Financial subsidy for parochial schools
the other hand, the church cannot impose its [Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971)]
beliefs and convictions on the State and the
(3) Religious displays in public spaces:
rest of the citizenry. It cannot demand that the
Display of granite monument of 10
nation follow its beliefs, even if it sincerely
commandments in front of a courthouse is
believes that they are good for the country.”
unconstitutional for being unmistakably
[Imbong v. Ochoa (2014), on the
non-secular. [Glassroth vs. Moore, 335
constitutionality of the RH Law]
F.3d 1282 (11th Cir. 2003)]
Rooted in the separation of Church and State.
(4) Mandatory religious subjects or
Relevant provisions of the Constitution:
prohibition of secular subjects (evolution)
(1) Art. II, Sec. 6: “The separation of Church in schools [Epperson v. Arkansas (1968)]
and State shall be inviolable.”
(5) Mandatory bible reading in school (a form
(2) Art. IX-C, Sec. 2(5): “Religious of preference for belief over non-belief)
denominations and sects shall not be [School District v. Schempp (1963)]
registered [as political parties].”
(6) Word “God” in the Pledge of Allegiance:
(3) Art. VI, Sec. 5(2): “For three consecutive religious vs. atheist students [Newdow v.
terms after the ratification of this US (2003)]
Constitution, one-half of the seats
allocated to party-list representatives
shall be filled, as provided by law, by A.4 ACTS PERMITTED BY NON-
selection or election from […] sectors as ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE
may be provided by law,except the
religious sector.”
Constitutionally created
(4) Art. VI, Sec. 29(2): “No public money or
property shall be appropriated, applied, (1) Tax exemption
paid, or employed, directly or indirectly, Art. VI, Sec. 28 (3). Charitable institutions,
for the use, benefit, or support of any sect, churches and personages or convents
church, denomination, sectarian appurtenant thereto, mosques, non-profit
institution, or system of religion, or of any cemeteries, and all lands, buildings, and
priest, preacher, minister, other religious improvements, actually, directly, and
teacher, or dignitary as such, except when exclusively used for religious, charitable, or
such priest, preacher, minister, or educational purposes shall be exempt from
dignitary is assigned to the armed forces, taxation.
or to any penal institution, or government
orphanage or leprosarium.”
(2) Operation of sectarian schools
Art. XIV, Sec. 4(2). Educational institutions,
other than those established by religious
groups and mission boards, shall be owned
solely by citizens of the Philippines or
corporations or associations at least sixty
per centum of the capital of which is owned
by such citizens…
(3) Religious instruction in public schools
PAGE 152 OF 406

Art. XIV, Sec. 3(3). At the option expressed in Corporation of the Presiding Bishop (434
writing by the parents or guardians, religion Mass. 141)]
shall be allowed to be taught to their
children or wards in public elementary and
high schools within the regular class hours A.5 TWO STANDARDS USED IN DECIDING
by instructors designated or approved by RELIGION CLAUSE CASES
the religious authorities of the religion to (1) Separation – protects the principle of
which the children or wards belong, without church-separation with a rigid reading of
additional cost to the Government. the principle
(a) Strict Separation
(4) Limited public aid to religion
• The wall of separation is meant to
Art. VI, Sec. 29(2). No public money or protect the state from the church
property shall be appropriated, applied,
• There is an absolute barrier to
paid, or employed, directly or indirectly, for
formal interdependence of religion
the use, benefit, or support of any sect,
and state
church, denomination, sectarian institution,
or system of religion, or of any priest, • There is hostility between the two
preacher, minister, other religious teacher,
or dignitary as such, except when such (b) Strict Neutrality or tamer separation
priest, preacher, minister, or dignitary is • Requires the state to be neutral in
assigned to the armed forces, or to any its relation with groups of religious
penal institution, or government orphanage believer; the relationship is not
or leprosarium. necessarily adversarial
• Allow for interaction between
Jurisprudence church and state, but is strict with
regard to state action which would
(1) Religious activities with secular threaten the integrity of religious
purpose/character. — Postage stamps commitment
depicting Philippines as the site of a
significant religious event – promotes • The basis of government action has
Philippine tourism. [Aglipay v. Ruiz, (64 a secular criteria and religion may
Phil. 201)] not be used as a basis for
classification of purposes
(2) Government sponsorship of town fiestas.
– has secular character [Garces v. Estenzo • Public policy and the constitution
(1981)] require the government to avoid
religion-specific policy
(3) Book lending program for students in
parochial schools. – benefit to parents
and students [Board of Education v. Allen, (2) Benevolent neutrality and the Doctrine of
392 U.S. 236] Accommodation (infra.)
(4) Display of crèche in a secular setting –
depicts origins of the holiday [Lynch v.
Donnely (1984)] B. FREE EXERCISE CLAUSE
(5) Financial support for secular academic
facilities (i.e. library and science center) in
parochial schools – has secular use [Tilton The Free Exercise Clause affords absolute
v. Richardson (403 U.S. 672)] protection to individual religious convictions.
However, the government is able to regulate
(6) Exemption from zoning requirements to
the times, places, and manner of its exercise
accommodate unique architectural
features of religious buildings i.e. [Cantwell v. Connecticut]. “Under the Free
Mormon’s tall pointed steeple [Martin v. Exercise Clause, religious belief is absolutely
PAGE 153 OF 406
protected, religious speech and proselytizing The provisions mandating a “hospital or a

are highly protected but subject to restraints medical practitioner to immediately refer a
applicable to non-religious speech, and person seeking health care and services under
the law to another accessible healthcare
unconventional religious practice receives less
provider despite their conscientious objections
protection; nevertheless conduct, even if it based on religious or ethical beliefs” is
violates the law, could be accorded protection.” violative of free exercise. The Court held that
[Estrada v. Escritor (2003)] this opt-out class is a false compromise
because it cannot force someone, in
conscience, to do indirectly what they cannot
Dual Aspect
do directly. [Imbong v. Ochoa, supra]
(1) Freedom to believe – absolute
N.B. The Court, however, held that the policy
(2) Freedom to act on one’s belief – subject to of the government with regard to the
regulation promotion of contraceptives was not violative
of the establishment clause. “[T]he State is
not precluded to pursue its legitimate secular
Laws and Acts Justified Under Free Exercise objectives without being dictated upon by the
Clause policies of any one religion.” [Id.]
(1) Exemption from flag salute in school
[Ebralinag v. Division Superintendent of
B.1 BENEVOLENT NEUTRALITY DOCTRINE
Schools of Cebu (1993)]
It protects religious realities, tradition, and
(2) Freedom to propagate religious doctrines
established practice with a flexible reading of
The power to tax the exercise of the the principle of separation of church and state.
privilege is the power to control or
The Doctrine of Accommodation allows the
suppress its enjoyment [American Bible
government to take religion into account
Society v. City of Manila (1957)]
when creating government policies to allow
(3) Exemption from union shop people to exercise their religion without
hindrance. The effect they want to achieve is
Congress acted merely to relieve persons
to remove a burden on one’s exercise. The
of the burden imposed by union security government may take religion into account to
agreements. [Victoriano v. Elizalde Rope exempt, when possible, from generally
Workers Union 59 SCRA 54 (1974)] applicable governmental regulation
individuals whose religious beliefs and
(4) Non-disqualification of religious leaders practices would be infringed, or to crate
from local government office [See Pamil v. without state involvement, an atmosphere in
Teleron (1978)] which voluntary religious exercise may flourish.
(5) Working hours from 7:30 am to 3:30 pm The breach in the wall between church and
without break during Ramadan [Re: state is allowed in order to uphold religious
Request of Muslim Employees in the liberty, which is the integral purpose of the
Different Courts of Iligan City (2005)] religion clauses. The purpose of
(6) Exemption from administrative charge on accommodation is to remove the burdenon a
immorality person’s exercise of his religion.
Cohabiting with a married man with Although morality contemplated in laws is
church sanction evidenced by a document secular, benevolent neutralitycould allow for
of “Declaration of Pledging Faithfulness” accommodation of morality based on religion,
[Estrada v. Escritor (2003)] provided it does not offend compelling state
interests. [Estrada v. Escritor (2003)]
Note: Estrada is a carefully crafted doctrine,
Laws and Acts Violative Of Free Exercise
the use of which is limited for the protection of
Duty to Refer in the RH Law religious minorities.
PAGE 154 OF 406

N.B. “Matters dealing with ‘faith, practice, C.2 BENEVOLENT NEUTRALITY –

doctrine, form of worship, ecclesiastical law, COMPELLING STATE INTEREST
custom and rule of a church ... are
Test where conduct arising from religious
unquestionably ecclesiastical matters which
beliefis involved.
are outside the province of the civil courts.’ The
jurisdiction of the Court extends only to public Under the Benevolent Neutrality Doctrine, this
and secular morality.” [Imbong v. Ochoa, is the proper test where conductarising from
supra] religious belief is involved.
(1) Has the gov’t action created a burden on
the free exercise? Court must look into
C. TESTS sincerity (but not truth) of belief.
(2) Is there a compelling state interest to
C.1 CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER justify the infringement?
Used for religious speech. (3) Are the means to achieve the legitimate
In order to justify restraint the court must state objective the least intrusive? [Escritor,
determine whether the expression presents a supra]
clear and present danger of any substantive
evil, which the state has a right to prevent. C.3 CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTOR
[American Bible Society v City of Manila (1957)
citing Tañada and Fernando on the In the RH Law
Constitution of the Philippines, Vol. 1, 4th ed., p. Sections 7, 23, and 24 of RA
297] 10354(Reproductive Health Law) impose upon
the conscientious objector the duty to refer the
patient seeking reproductive health services to
another medical practitioner.
A conscientious objector should be exempt
from compliance with the mandates of the RH
Law. If he is compelled to act contrary to his
religious belief and conviction, it would be
violative of "the principle of non-coercion"
enshrined in the constitutional right to free
exercise of religion.
The Court found no compelling state
interest which would limit the free exercise of
conscientious objectors. Only the prevention
of an immediate danger to the security and
welfare of the community can justify the
infringement of religious freedom. Also,
respondents failed to show that the means to
achieve the legitimate state objective is the
least intrusive means. [Imbong vs. Ochoa
(2014)]
PAGE 155 OF 406

Compulsory Military Service

IX. Liberty of Abode
It may also be a ground for exemption from
compulsory military service; expanded version
provides exemption even to those who object
and Freedom of
war based on non-religious beliefs i.e. non-
theist.
Movement
Art. III, Sec. 6. The liberty of abode and of
Criteria: changing the same within the limits
(1) There must be belief in God or a parallel prescribed by law shall not be impaired
belief occupying a central place in the except upon lawful order of the court.
believer’s life Neither shall the right to travel be impaired
except in the interest of national security,
(2) Religion must involve a moral code public safety or public health, as may be
transcending individual belief; cannot be provided by law.
purely subjective
(3) Demonstrable sincerity in belief must be "Liberty" as understood in democracies, is not
shown, but court cannot inquire into its license; it is "liberty regulated by law."
truth or reasonableness [United States v.
Seeger, 380 U.S. 163 (1965)]
(4) There must be some associational ties. A. LIMITATIONS
[Estrada v. Escritor A.M. No. P-02-1651.
August 4, 2003]
Freedom of movement includes two rights:
(1) Liberty of abode
• It may be impaired only upon
lawful order of the court
• The court itself is to be guided by
the limits prescribed by law
• Example: A condition imposed by
the court in connection with the
grant of bail.
(2) Liberty of travel
• May be impaired even without a
lawful order of the court
• But the appropriate executive
officer (who may impair this right)
is not granted arbitrary discretion
to impose limitations
• He can only do so on the basis of
“national security, public safety,
or public health” and “as may be
provided by law” (e.g. Human
Security Act, quarantine)
• Impairment of this liberty is
subject to judicial review
The executive of a municipality does not have
the right to force citizens of the Philippine
PAGE 156 OF 406
Islands to change their domicile from one

locality to another. [Villavicencio v. Lukban
Hold-Departure Order
(1919)]
Issued against accused in criminal cases
A condition imposed by the court in
(irrespective of nationality in courts below
connection with the grant of bail is an example
RTC), aliens (defendant, respondent, and
of a valid limitation to liberty
witness in pending civil or labor case), and any
Relocation of Manguinaes, a nomadic people, person motuproprio by Sec of Justice or
is a proper restraint to their liberty. It is for request of heads of departments,
their advancement in civilization and so that Constitutional Commissions, Congress, or SC.
material prosperity may be assured. [Rubi vs.
Both orders are issued by Secretary of Justice
Provincial Board (1919)]
[Department Circular No.41, June 7, 2010].
Restraint on right to travel of accused on bail
Hold departure order is but an exercise of the
is allowed to avoid the possibility of losing
[Sandiganbayan’s] inherent power to preserve
jurisdiction if accused travels abroad.
and to maintain the effectiveness of its
[Manotoc vs. CA (1986)]
jurisdiction over the case and the person of the
OCA Circular No. 49-2003 which requires that accused. [Santiago v. Vasquez (1993)]
all foreign travels of judges and court personel
Holding an accused in a criminal case within
must be with prior permission from the Court
the reach of the courts by preventing his
does not restrict but merely regulates the right
departure from the Philippines must be
to travel. To “restrict” is to restrain or prohibit
considered as a valid restriction on his right to
a person from doing something, to “regulate”
travel so that he may be dealt with in
is to govern or direct according to rule. [OCA v.
accordance with law. [Silverio v. CA (1991)]
Macarine (2012)]
A person’s right to travel is subject to usual
constraints imposed by the very necessity of B. RIGHT TO RETURN TO ONE’S
safeguarding the system of justice. In such COUNTRY
cases, whether the accused should be
permitted to leave the jurisdiction for
humanitarian reasons is a matter of the court’s Right to return to one's country, a distinct right
sound discretion. [Marcos v. Sandiganbayan under international law, is independent from
(1995)] although related to the right to travel.
The right to travel does not mean the right to The President has the power (residual or
choose any vehicle in traversing a toll way. The implied) to impair the right to return when
right to travel refers to the right to move from such return poses threats to the government.
one place to another… The mode by which [Marcos v. Manglapus(1989)]
petitioners wish to travel pertains to the
manner of using the toll way, a subject that
can be validly limited by regulation… The right
to travel does not entitle a person to the best
form of transport or to the most convenient
route to his destination. [Mirasol v DPWH
(2006)]
Watch List Order

Issued against accused in criminal cases
(irrespective of nationality in RTC or below) or
against any person with pending case in DOJ.
(As of this publication, the constitutionality of
watch list orders is being challenged in the
Supreme Court in Arroyo v. Sec. of Justice.)
PAGE 157 OF 406
X. Right to Information Policy of Full Public

Right to Information on
Matters of Public
Disclosure
Concern
[Art. II, Sec. 28]
Art. III, Sec. 7. The right of the people to [Art. III, Sec. 7]
information on matters of public concern Demand or request
shall be recognized. Access to official records, required to gain
and to documents and papers pertaining to access.
official acts, transactions, or decisions, as well
as to government research data used as basis What is Asserted
for policy development, shall be afforded the Duty to disclose of the Duty to permit access
citizen, subject to such limitations as may be government, pursuant to information on
provided by law. to the policy of full matters of public
public disclosure. concern.
Art. II, Sec. 28. Subject to reasonable
conditions prescribed by law, the State adopts
and implements a policy of full public These twin provisions of the Constitution seek
disclosure of all its transactions involving to promote transparency in policy-making and
public interest. in the operation of the government, as well as
provide the people sufficient information to
Art. XVI, Sec. 10. The State shall provide the exercise effectively other constitutional rights.
policy environment for the full development of These twin provisions are also essential to
Filipino capability and the emergence of hold public official “at all times x xx
communication structures suitable to the accountable to the people”, for unless the
needs and aspirations of the nation and the citizens have the proper information, they
balanced flow of information into, out of, and
cannot hold public officials accountable for
across the country in accordance with a policy
anything. [Chavez v. PEA and Amari (2002)]
that respects the freedom of speech and of
the press. “Public concern” like “public interest”
embrace a broad spectrum of subjects which
Policy of Full Public Disclosure v. Right to the public may want to know, either because
Information[See IDEALS v. PSALM, G.R. No. these directly affect their lives, or simply
because such matters naturally arouse the
192088; October 9, 2012]
interest of an ordinary citizen. [Legazpi v. CSC
Right to Information on (1987)]
Policy of Full Public
Matters of Public
Disclosure
Concern
[Art. II, Sec. 28]
[Art. III, Sec. 7] Scope of Right to Access Information
Matter Essence: matters of public concern
All transactions Matters of public (1) Official records
involving public concern.
interest, including any [Public Concern: no (2) Documents pertaining to official acts
matter contained in exact definition and
(3) Government research date used as
official adjudicated by the
basis for policy development
communications and courts on a case-by-
public documents of case basis, but
the government examples abound in
agency. jurisprudence (e.g. Matters of public concern includes:
peace negotiations, • Loanable funds of GSIS [Valmonte v.
board exams, PCGG Belmonte (1989)]
compromise
agreements, civil • Civil service eligibility of sanitarian
service matters).] employees [Legaspi v. CSC (1987)]
Demand to Access • Appointments made to public offices and
the utilization of public property [Gonzales v.
Narvasa (2000)]
PAGE 158 OF 406
• National board examinations such as the abstracts, summaries and the like.
CPA Board Exams [Antolin v. Domondon [Valmonte v. Belmonte (1989)]
(2010)] (3) Based on reasonable regulation for the
• Names of nominees of partylists [Bantay convenience of and for order in the office that
Republic v. COMELEC (2007)] has custody of the documents. [Baldoza v.
Dimaano (1976)]
• Negotiations leading to the consummation
of the transaction [Chavez v. PEA and Amari • Discretion does not carry with it the
(2002)] authority to prohibit access, inspection,
examination, or copying. [Lantaco v.
Llamas (1981)]
A. LIMITATIONS • The authority to regulate the manner
of examining public records does not
carry with it the power to prohibit x xx
The right of the people to information must be Thus, while the manner of examining
balanced against other genuine interest public records may be subject to
necessary for the proper functioning of the reasonable regulation by the government
government (Bernas) agency in custody thereof, the duty to
disclose the information of public
Restrictions to the right to information may concern, and to afford access to public
be: records cannot be discretionary on the
(1) Based on kinds of information. part of said agencies. [Legaspi v. CSC
(1987)]
Exempted information:
(4) Based on availability.
(a) Privileged information rooted in
separation of powers Right available only to citizens
(b) Information of military and diplomatic In case of denial of access, the government
secrets agency has the burden of showing that the
information requested is not of public concern,
(c) Information affecting national and or if it is of public concern, that the same has
economic security been exempted by law from the operation of
(d) Information on investigations of the guarantee. [Legaspi v. CSC (1987)]
crimes by law enforcers before
prosecution [Chavez v. PEA and Amari,
(2002)] B. PUBLICATION OF LAWS AND
(e) Trade secrets and banking REGULATIONS
transactions [Chavez v. PCGG (1998)]
(f) Offers exchanged during diplomatic General: Full publication is a condition for
negotiations [Akbayan v. Aquino law’s effectivity.
(2008)]
Scope: All statutes (includes those of local
(g) Other confidential matters (i.e. RA application and private laws), presidential
6713, closed door Cabinet meetings, decrees and executive orders by President
executive sessions, or internal acting under power either directly conferred
deliberations in the Supreme Court) by the Constitution or validly delegated by the
[Chavez v. PCGG (1998)] legislature, and administrative rules and
(2) Based on access: regulations for implementing existing laws,
charter of a city, circulars by Monetary Board.
(a) Opportunity to inspect and copy
records at his expense. [Chavez v. PEA Internal regulations and letter of instructions
and Amari, (2002)] concerning guidelines for subordinates and
not the public are not included.
(b) Not the right to compel custodians of
official records to prepare lists,
PAGE 159 OF 406
Effectivity: Fifteen days after publication obvious prejudice to any of the parties. [Hilado,
unless a different effectivity date is fixed by the et al v. Judge (2006)]
legislature [Tañada v. Tuvera (1986)]
Note: See Constitutional Law I Reviewer
Note: Tañada v. Tuvera explains that the (Judicial Department) for a detailed discussion
publication of laws and regulations is also a of the rules on disclosure of court records.
due process concern.
D. RIGHT TO INFORMATION RELATIVE

C. ACCESS TO COURT RECORDS TO GOVERNMENT CONTRACT
NEGOTIATIONS
Canon II Confidentiality Code of Conduct for
Court Personnel (AM No. 03-06-13-SC) The constitutional right to information
Section 1. Court personnel shall not disclose includes official information on on-going
to any unauthorized person any confidential negotiations before a final contract. The
information acquired by them while information, however, must constitute definite
employed in the judiciary, whether such propositions by the government, and should
information came from authorized or not cover recognized exceptions. [Chavez v.
unauthorized sources. PEA and Amari (2002)]
Confidential information means

information not yet made a matter of public Definite propositions
record relating to pending cases, as well as
information not yet made public concerning While evaluation of bids or proposals is on-
the work of any justice or judge relating to going, there are no “official acts, transactions,
pending cases, including notes, drafts, or decisions.” However, once the committee
research papers, internal discussions, makes an official recommendation, there
internal memoranda, records of internal arises a definite proposition. From this
deliberations and similar papers. moment, the public’s right to information
attaches, and any citizen can assail the non-
The notes, drafts, research papers, internal proprietary information leading to such
discussions, internal memoranda, records definite propositions. [Chavez v. PEA and
of internal deliberations and similar papers Amari (2002)]
that a justice or judge uses in preparing a
decision, resolution or order shall remain
confidential even after the decision,
resolution or order is made public.
Decisions are matters of public concern and

interest.
Pleadings and other documents filed by

parties to a case need not be matters of public
concern or interest. They are filed for the
purpose of establishing the basis upon which
the court may issue an order or a judgement
affecting their rights and interst.
Access to court records may be permitted at
the discretion and subject to the supervisory
and protective powers of the court, after
considering the actual use or purpose for
which the request for access is based and the
PAGE 160 OF 406

Diplomatic Negotiations Deliberative Process Privilege– applied to

decision-making of executive officials; rooted
Diplomatic secrets (Diplomatic Negotiations
in common law privilege; that there is a
Privilege): Secrecy of negotiations with
“governmental privilege against public
foreign countries is not violative of the right to
disclosure with respect to state secrets
information. Diplomacy has a confidential
regarding military, diplomatic and other
nature. While the full text [of the JPEPA] may
security matters.
not be kept perpetually confidential, it is in
line with the public interest that the offers
exchanged during negotiations continue to be Court Hearings
privileged information. Furthermore, the
Right of accused over right to public
information sought includes docs produced
information: With the possibility of losing not
and communicated by a party external to the
only the precious liberty but also the very life
Philippine government. However, such
of an accused, it behooves all to make
privilege is merely presumptive, and will not
absolutely certain that an accused receives a
apply to all cases. [Akbayan v. Aquino (2008)]
verdict solely on the basis of a just and
dispassionate judgment, a verdict that would
come only after the presentation of credible
Presidential Communications Privilege v.
evidence testified to by unbiased witnesses
Deliberative Process Privilege [Neri v. Senate
unswayed by any kind of pressure, whether
Committee (2008)]
open or subtle, in proceedings that are devoid
of histrionics that might detract from its basic
Presidential Communications Privilege - aim to ferret veritable facts free from improper
applies to decision-making of the President; influence, and decreed by a judge with an
rooted in the constitutional principle of unprejudiced mind unbridled by running
separation of power and the President's emotions or passions. [Re: Request for Live
unique constitutional role; applies to Radio-TV Coverage of the Trial in the
documents in their entirety, and covers final Sandiganbayan of the Plunder Cases against
and post-decisional materials as well as pre- former President Joseph Ejercito Estrada,
deliberative ones; meant to encompass only Secretary of Justice Hernando Perez v. Joseph
those functions that form the core of Ejercito Estrada, A.M. No. 00-1-4-03-SC, June
presidential authority. 29, 2001]
Requisites:
(1) The communications relate to a
"quintessential and non-delegable
power" of the President
(2) The communications are "received" by a
close advisor of the President.
(3) There is no adequate showing of a
compelling need that would justify the
limitation of the privilege and of the
unavailability of the information
elsewhere by an appropriate investigating
authority.
PAGE 161 OF 406

expression of the member’s belief, even if the

XI. Right to Association group offends the sensibilities of the majority.
Any restriction to such requires a compelling
state interest to be proven by the State.
Art. III, Sec. 8. The right of the people, [AngLadlad LGBT Party v. COMELEC (2010)]
including those employed in the public and
private sectors, to form unions, association, Polititcal parties may freely be formed
or societies for purposes not contrary to law although there is a restriction on their
shall not be abridged. activities x xx The ban against the
participation of political parties in the
barangay election is an appropriate legislative
Art. XIII, Sec. 3.xxx [The State] shall response to the unwholesome effects of
guarantee the rights of all workers to self- partisan bias in the impartial discharge of the
organization, collective bargaining and duties imposed on the barangay and its
negotiations, and peaceful concerted officials as the basic unit of our political and
activities, including the right to strike in social structure. [Occeña v. COMELEC (1984)]
accordance with the law. They shall be
entitled to security of tenure, humane A political group should not be hindered solely
conditions of work, and a living wage. They because it seeks to publicly debate
shall also participate in policy and decision controversial political issues in order to find
making process affecting their rights and solutions capable of satisfying everyone
benefits as may be provided by law. concerned. Only if a political party incites
violence or puts forward policies that are
incompatible with democracy does it fall
Art. IX-B, Sec. 2(5). The right to self- outside the protection of the freedom of
organization shall not be denied to association guarantee. [AngLadlad LGBT
government employees. Party v. COMELEC (2010)]
Origin: Malolos Constitution

The freedom of association presupposes a
Interpretation of “for purposes not contrary to freedom not to associate. An organization
law”: same as clear and present danger rule, may remove a member if:
only such may justify abridgement to the right
to form association or society. [Gonzales v. (1) It is engaged in some form of expression,
COMELEC (1969)] whether public or private
The government must comply with the heavy (2) The forced inclusion of a member would
burden of showing that the organization in significantly affect the organization’s
fact presents a clear and present danger of ability to advocate public or private
substantive evil which the state has the right viewpoints [Boy Scouts of America v. Dale
to protect. (Bernas) (2000)]
Does not include the right to compel others to
form an association. But there may be
Scope: The right is recognized as belonging to situations in which, by entering into a contract,
people whether employed or unemployed, one may also be agreeing to join an
and whether employed in the government or association. (Bernas)
in the private sector. Includes the right to
unionize. If a land buyer who buys a lot with an
annotated lien that the lot owner becomes an
The State does not infringe on the automatic member of a homeowners’
fundamental right to form lawful associations association thereby voluntarily joins the
when it leaves to citizens the power and liberty association. [Bel-Air Village Association
to affiliate or not affiliate with labor unions. vsDiokno (1989)]
[Victoriano v. Elizalde (1974)]
As lot owner, PADCOM is a regular member of
Every group has a right to join the democratic the association. No application for
process, association itself being an act of membership is necessary x xx PADCOM was
PAGE 162 OF 406
never forced to join the association. It could

have avoided such membership by not buying XII. Eminent Domain
land from TDC. PADCOM voluntarily agreed to
be bound by and respect the condition, and Art. III, Sec. 9. Private property shall not be
thus, join the association. [PADCOM taken for public use without just
Condominium Corp. v. OrtigasCenter Assoc. compensation.
(2002)] Art. XII, Sec. 18. The State may, in the
See also labor cases on union shop clauses interest of national welfare or defense,
which have been held to be not violative of the establish and operate vital industries and,
Constitution. upon payment of just compensation, transfer
to public ownership utilities and other private
Note: Right to association and right to enterprises to be operated by the
unionize of government employees do not government.
include the right to strike, walkouts and other
temporary work stopages. [SSS Employees Art. XIII, Sec. 4. The State shall, by law,
Association v CA, (1989) and Manila Public undertake an agrarian reform program
founded on the right of farmers and regular
School Teachers Assoc. v Laguio, Jr. (2001)]
farmworkers who are landless, to own directly
or collectively the lands they till or, in the case
of other farmworkers, to receive a just share of
Labor Unionism the fruits thereof.
(1) Legal personality as pre-condition for To this end, the State shall encourage and
effective association action undertake the just distribution of all
agricultural lands, subject to such priorities
The right to form associations does not and reasonable retention limits as the
necessarily include the right to be given Congress may prescribe, taking into account
legal personality. However, if the law itself ecological, developmental, or equity
should make possession of legal considerations, and subject to the payment of
personality a pre-condition for effective just compensation.
associational action, involved would be In determining retention limits, the State shall
not just the right to have legal personality respect the right of small landowners. The
but also the right to be an association. State shall further provide incentives for
[Philippine Association of Free Labor voluntary land-sharing.
Unions v. Secretary of Labor (1969)] Art. XIII, Sec. 9. The State shall, by law, and
for the common good, undertake, in
(2) Eligibility to join, assist or form union cooperation with the private sector, a
expressly denied by law continuing program of urban land reform and
The right of association of managerial housing which will make available at
employees is denied because of Article affordable cost, decent housing and basic
245 of the Labor Code which provides that services to under-privileged and homeless
managerial employees are not eligible to citizens in urban centers and resettlement
areas.
join, assist or form any labor organization.
It shall also promote adequate employment
This is because Art III Sec 8 is subject to
opportunities to such citizens. In the
the condition that its exercise is for the implementation of such program the State
purposes not contrary to law. [United shall respect the rights of small property
Pepsi-Cola Supervisory Union (UPSU) v. owners.
Laguesma (1998)]
Art. XIV, Sec. 13. The National assembly may
authorize, upon payment of just
Integrated Bar of the Philippines compensation, the expropriation of private
lands to be subdivided into small lots and
Compulsory membership of a lawyer in the conveyed at cost to deserving citizens.
integrated bar of the Philippines does not
violate the constitutional guarantee. [In Re:
Edillon, 84 SCRA 554]
PAGE 163 OF 406

A. CONCEPT Scope and Limitations

All private property capable of ownership may
be expropriated, except money and choses in
Eminent domain is an inherent power of the action. Even services may be subject to
state that enables it to forcibly acquire private eminent domain. [Republic v. PLDT, 26 SCRA
lands intended for public use upon payment of 620]
just compensation to the owner. [Assoc. of
Small Land Owners in the Phils., Inc. v. Sec. of Exercise of right to eminent domain is strictly
Agrarian Reform (1989)] construed against the State or its agent
because such right is necessarily in derogation
of private rights. [Jesus is Lord Christian School
Requisites for Valid Exercise of Eminent Foundation v. Municipality of Pasig, G.R. No.
Domain 152230, August 9, 2005]
(1) Private property
(2) Genuine necessity: Necessity
inherent/presumed in legislation, but The foundation of the right to exercise
when the power is delegated (e.g. local eminent domain is genuine necessity and that
government units), necessity must be necessity must be of public character.
proven Government may not capriciously or arbitrarily
(3) For public use: Court has adopted a choose which private property should be
broad definition of “public use,” following expropriated. [Lagcao v. Judge Labra, G.R. No.
the U.S. trend 155746, October 13, 2004]
(4) Payment of just compensation
(5) Due process [Manapat v. CA (2007)] Exercise by Congress
When the power is exercised by the legislature,
the question of necessity is generally a
Requisites for Valid Exercise of Eminent political question. [Municipality of Meycauyan,
Domain by Local Governments Bulacan v. Intermediate Appellate Court, 157
[LGUs, Sec. 19, Local Government Code] SCRA 640]
(1) Ordinance by a local legislative
council is enacted authorizing local Exercise by Delegate
chief executive to exercise eminent
domain, (1) Grant of special authority for special
purpose – political question
(2) For public use, purpose or welfare or
for the benefit of the poor and of the (2) Grant of general authority – justiciable
landless, question [City of Manila v. Chinese
Community of Manila (1919)]
(3) Payment of just compensation,
The RTC has the power to inquire into the
(4) Valid and definite offer has been legality of the exercise of the right of eminent
previously made to owner of the domain and to determine whether there is a
property sought to be expropriated genuine necessity for it. [Bardillon v. Barangay
but such offer was not accepted Masili of Calamba, Laguna, G.R. No. 146886,
[Municipality of Parañaque v. VM April 30, 2003]
Realty (1998)]
Private Property
Private property already devoted to public use
cannot be expropriated by a delegate of
legislature acting under a general grant of
PAGE 164 OF 406

authority. [City of Manila v. Chinese Community, physical possession of the said excess and all
40 Phil 349] beneficial rights accruing to the owner in favor
of the farmer-beneficiary. [Assoc. of Small
Generally, all private property capable of
Land Owners in the Phils., Inc. v. Sec. of
ownership may be expropriated, except
Agrarian Reform (1989)]
money and chooses in action. [Republic v.
PLDT (1969)] Sequestration is merely “intended to prevent
the destruction of sequestered properties and,
A chose in action is a proprietary right in
thereby, to conserve and presever them,
personam, such as debts owned by another
pending the judicial determination in the
person, a share in a joint-stock company, or a
appropriate proceeding of whether the
claim for damages in tort; it is the right to
property was in truth ill-gotten”. It is not
bring an action to recover a debt, money or
meant to deprive the owner or possessor of his
thing [Black’s Law Dictionary]
title or any right to his property and vest the
It should be clarified that even if under PD 27, same in the sequestering agency, the
tenant farmers are “deemed owners” as of Government or any other person, as these can
October 21, 1972 x xx [c]ertain requirements be done only for the causes and by the process
must also be complied with, such as payment laid down by law. [Republic v. Estate of Hans
of just compensation, before full ownership is Menzi (2012)]
vested upon the farmers. [Heirs of Dr.Deleste v
LBP (2011)]
Due Process
Hearing or procedure for determination of
Taking
propriety of the expropriation or the
The exercise of the power of eminent domain reasonableness of the compensation must be
does not always result in the taking or provided. [Belen v. CA (1991)]
appropriation of title to the expropriated
property; it may only result in the imposition of
a burden upon the owner of the condemned B. EXPANSIVE CONCEPT OF “PUBLIC
property, without loss of title or possession. USE”
[National Power Corporation v. Gutierrez, 193
SCRA 1]
Public use as a requirement for the valid
exercise of the power of eminent domain is
Requisites for a valid taking: now synonymous with public interest, public
(1) The expropriator must enter a private benefit, public welfare and public convenience.
property It includes the broader notion of indirect
public benefit or advantage. Public use as
(2) Entry must be for more than a traditionally understood as “actual use by the
momentary period public” has already been abandoned.
(3) Entry must be under warrant or color Mining industry plays a pivotal role in the
of legal authority economic development of the country and is a
(4) Property must be devoted to public vital tool in the government’s thrust of
use or otherwise informally accelerated recovery. Thus, that public use is
appropriated or injuriously affected negated by the fact that the state would be
taking private properties for the benefit of
(5) Utilization of the property must be in private mining firms or mining contractors is
such a way as to oust the owner and not at all true. [Didipio Earth Savers (DESAMA)
deprive him of beneficial enjoyment of v. Gozun (2006)]
the property. [Republic v. Castelvi
(1974)] The idea that "public use" means "use by the
public" has been discarded. At present,
The taking contemplated is not a mere whatever may be beneficially employed for the
limitation of the use of the land. What is
required is the surrender of the title to and the
PAGE 165 OF 406
general welfare satisfies the requirement of Basis: Fair market value

public use.
Fair market value – price fixed by a buyer
Private bus firms, taxicab fleets, roadside desirous but not compelled to buy and a seller
restaurants, and other private businesses willing but not compelled to sell.
using public streets and highways do not
Must include consequential damages
diminish in the least bit the public character of
(damages to other interest of the owner
expropriations for roads and streets. The lease
attributable to the expropriation) and deduct
of store spaces in underpasses of streets built
consequential benefits (increase of value of
on expropriated land does not make the
other interests attributable to new use of the
taking for a private purpose. Airports and piers
former property).
catering exclusively to private airlines and
shipping companies are still for public use. However, where only a portion of the property
The expropriation of private land for slum is taken, the owner is entitled only to the
clearance and urban development is for a market value of the portion actually taken and
public purpose even if the developed area is the consequential damage to the remaining
later sold to private homeowners, commercial part.
firms, entertainment and service companies,
and other private concerns. [Heirs of Ardona v.
Reyes (1983)] Who Determines
That only a few benefit from the expropriation Determination of just compensation is a
does not diminish its public-use character, judicial function. [National Power Corporation
inasmuch as pubic use now includes the v. Sps. Florimon v. Lleto, et al.,(2012)]
broader notion of indirect public benefit or Presidential Decrees (and statutes, in general,
advantage. [Filstream International v. CA, 284 including Agrarian Reform laws) merely serve
SCRA 716] as guide/factors for the courts in determining
"Socialized housing" falls within the confines just compensation. [EPZA v. Dulay, 148 SCRA
of "public use". It is particularly important to 305]
draw attention to Presidential Decree No. See, however, LBP v. Yatco Agricultural
1224 which opportunities inextricably linked Enterprises (2014) where the Court ruled that
with low-cost housing, or slum clearance, the RTC (acting as Special Agrarian Court) is
relocation and resettlement, or slum not granted unlimited discretion but must
improvement emphasize the public purpose of consider and apply RA 6657 and the DAR
the project. [Sumulong v. Guerrero (1987)] formula. The Court may, in the exercise of its
discretion relax the application of the formula
but it must clearly explain its reason for such
deviation.
C. JUST COMPENSATION
Findings of court appointed commissioners
It is the just and complete equivalent of the regarding the determination of just
loss which the owner of the thing expropriated compensation are not binding on courts.
has to suffer by reason of the expropriation. [Republic v. Santos, 141 SCRA 30; Republic
(MECS) v. IAC, 185 SCRA 572]
Full and fair equivalent of the property taken;
it is the fair market value of the property. (1) The court may substitute its own
[Province of Tayabas v. Perez (1938)] estimate of the value of the property
only for valid reasons: the
All the facts as to the conditions of the commissioners have applied illegal
property and its surroundings, its principles to the evidence submitted to
improvements and capabilities should be them;
considered. [EPZA v. Dulay (1987)]
(2) They have disregarded a clear
preponderance of evidence; or
C.1 DETERMINATION
PAGE 166 OF 406
(3) Where the amount allowed is either Moreno v. Mactan-Cebu International Airport
grossly inadequate or excessive. (2005)]
[National Power Corporation v. De la Cruz,
If the expropriation order provides otherwise
G.R. No. 156093, February 2, 2007]
[See MCIAA v. CA (2000)]
When determined
E. MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION
General rule: At the time of the filing of the
case
Exception: If the value of the property “Taking” Under Social Justice Clause
increased because of the use to which the Agrarian Reform [Art. XIII, Sec. 4]: This
expropriator has put it, the value is that of the provision is an exercise of the police power of
time of the taking. [NAPOCOR v. CA (1996)] the State through eminent domain
Legal interest: 6%, time when payment is due [Association of Small Landowners v. Secretary
to actual payment of Agrarian Reform] as it is a means to regulate
private property.
Retention limits prescribed by the
C.2 EFFECT OF DELAY Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law is also
Just compensation means not only the correct form of taking under the power of eminent
amount to be paid to the owner of the land but domain. The taking contemplated is not a
also payment within a reasonable time from mere limitation on the use of the land, but the
its taking [Eslaban v. De Onorio, G.R. No. surrender of the title to and physical
146062, June 28, 2001] possession of the excess and all beneficial
rights accruing to the owner in favor of the
General rule on delay of payment: For non- beneficiary. [Sta. Rosa Realty & Development
payment, the remedy is the demand of Corp. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 112526,
payment of the fair market value of the October 12, 2001]
property and not the recovery of possession of
the expropriated lots. [Republic of the
Philippines v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 146587,
July 2, 2002; Reyes v. National Housing
Authority, G.R. No. 147511, January 29, 2003]
Exception: When the government fails to pay
just compensation within five years from the
finality of the judgment in the expropriation
proceedings, the owners concerned shall have
the right to recover possession of their
property. [Republic of the Philippines v. Vicente
Lim, G.R. No. 161656, June 29, 2005]
D. ABANDONMENT OF INTENDED USE

AND RIGHT OF REPURCHASE
General Rule: An order for expropriation
transfers title in fee simple. Abandonment of
the public purpose does not result in reversion
[Fery v. Cabanatuan (1921)]
Exceptions:
If the expropriator (government) does not use
the property for a public purpose, the property
reverts to the owner in fee simple. [Heirs of
PAGE 167 OF 406
XIII. Contracts Clause A. CONTEMPORARY APPLICATION OF

THE CONTRACT CLAUSE
Art. III, Sec. 10. No law impairing the

When Non-Impairment Clause Prevails:
obligation of contracts shall be passed.
(1) Against the removal of tax exemtions,
where the consideration for the contract is the
A law which changes the terms of a legal
tax exemption itself
contract between parties, either in the time or
mode of performance, or imposes new (2) Regulation on loans
conditions, or dispenses with those expressed,
New regulations on loans making redemption
or authorizes for its satisfaction something
of property sold on foreclosure stricter are not
different from that provided in its terms, is law
allowed to apply retroactively. [Co v. Philippine
which impairs the obligation of a contract and
National Bank (1982)]
is therefore null and void.
To substitute the mortgage with a surety bond
Impairment is anything that diminishes the
would convert such lien from a right in rem, to
efficacy of the contract. [Clements v. Nolting
a right in personam. This conversion cannot be
(1922)]
ordered for it would abridge the right of the
The purpose of the non-impairment clause of mortgagee under the mortgage contract [and]
the Constitution is to safeguard the integrity of would violate the non-impairment of
contracts against unwarranted interference by contracts guaranteed under the Constitution.
the State. [Goldenway Merchandising Corp. v. [Guanzon v. Inserto (1983)]
Equitable PCI Bank (2013)]
Requisites:
When Non-Impairment Clause Yields:
(a) Substantial impairment
(1) Valid exercise of police power i.e.
(i) Change the terms of legal contract either zoning regulation [Presley v. Bel-Air
in time or mode of performance Village Association (1991)], premature
campaign ban [Chavez v. COMELEC
(ii) Impose new conditions
(2004)], liquidation of a chartered
(iii) Dispenses with expressed conditions bank [Philippine Veterans Bank
Employees Union v. Philippine Veterans
(iv)Authorizes for its satisfaction something
Bank (1990)]
different from that provided in the terms
(2) Statute that exempts a party from any
(b) Affects rights of parties with reference to one class of taxes
each other, and not with respect to non- (3) Against freedom of religion
parties. [Philippine Rural Electric Cooperatives [Victoriano v. Elizalde Rope Workers
Association v. Secretary, DILG, (2003)] (1974)]
(4) Judicial or quasi-judicial order
The non-impairment clause is a limit on

legislative power, and not of judicial or quasi-
judicial power. The approval of the
Rehabilitation Plan by the Securities and
Exchange Commission is an exercise of
adjudicatory power by an administrative
agency and thus the non-impairment clause
does not apply. Neither does it impair the
power to contract. [BPI v. SEC (2007)]
Section 47 [of RA 8791] did not divest juridical
persons of the right to redeem their foreclosed
PAGE 168 OF 406

properties but only modified the time for the

exercise of such right by reducing one-year XIV. Legal Assistance
period originally provided in Act No. 3135.
[Goldenway Merchandising Corp. v. Equitable and Free Access to
PCI Bank (2013)]
PD 957 [The Subdivision and Condominium
Courts
Buyers Protective Decree] is to be given
retroactive effect so as to cover even those Rule 141, Sec. 19, Rules of Court.Indigent
contracts executed prior to its enactment in litigants exempt from payment of legal fees. —
1976. PD 957 did not expressly provide for Indigent litigants (a) whose gross income and
retroactivity in its entirety, but such can be that of their immediate family do not exceed
plainly inferred from the unmistakable intent four thousand (P4,000.00) pesos a month if
of the law. [Eugenio v. Drilon (1996)] residing in Metro Manila, and three thousand
(P3,000.00) pesos a month if residing outside
Note: Timber licenses, permits, and license Metro Manila, and (b) who do not own real
agreements are the principal instruments by property with an assessed value of more than
which the State regulates the utilization and fifty thousand (P50,000.00) pesos shall be
disposition of forest resources to the end that exempt from the payment of legal fees.
public welfare is promoted. They are not The legal fees shall be a lien on any judgment
deemed contracts within the purview of the rendered in the case favorably to the indigent
due process of law clause. [Oposa v. Factoran litigant, unless the court otherwise provides.
(1993)]
To be entitled to the exemption herein
Being a mere privilege, a license does not vest provided, the litigant shall execute an
absolute rights in the holder. Thus, without affidavit that he and his immediate family do
offending the due process and non- not earn a gross income abovementioned, nor
impairment clauses of the Constitution, it can they own any real property with the assessed
be revoked by the State in the public interest. value aforementioned, supported by an
[Republic v. Rosemoor Mining (2004)] affidavit of a disinterested person attesting to
the truth of the litigant's affidavit.
Certificates granting “a permit to operate”
businesses are in the nature of license. Any falsity in the affidavit of a litigant or
[Republic v. Caguioa (2007)] disinterested person shall be sufficient cause
to strike out the pleading of that party,
without prejudice to whatever criminal
B. LIMITATIONS liability may have been incurred.
Art. III, Sec. 11. Free access to the courts and

It is ingrained in jurisprudence that the quasi-judicial bodies and adequate legal
constitutional prohibition does not prohibit assistance shall not be denied to any person
every change in existing laws. To fall within by reason of poverty.
the prohibition, the change must not only
impair the obligation of the existing contract, Rule 3, Sec. 21. Rules of Court.Any adverse
but the impairment must be substantial. party may contest the grant of such authority
Moreover, the law must effect a change in the at any time before judgment is rendered by
rights of the parties with reference to each the trial court. If the court should determine
other, and not with respect to non-parties. after hearing that the party declared as an
[Philippine Rural Electric Cooperatives indigent is in fact a person with sufficient
Association v. Secretary, DILG, (2003)] income or property, the proper docket and
other lawful fees shall be assessed and
collected by the clerk of court. If the payment
is not made within the time fixed by the court,
execution shall issue or the payment thereof,
without prejudice to such other sanctions as
the court may impose.
PAGE 169 OF 406

Sec 4, RA 9999.Requirements for Availment.- the case favorable to the indigent, unless the
For purposes of availing of the benefits and court otherwise provides.
services as envisioned in this Act, a lawyer or
professional partnership shall secure a
If the applicant for exemption meets the salary
certification from the Public Attorney's Office and property requirements under Section 19 of
(PAO), the Department of Justice (DOJ) or Rule 141, then the grant of the application is
accredited association of the Supreme Court mandatory. On the other hand, when the
indicating that the said legal services to be application does not satisfy one or both
provided are within the services defined by the requirements, then the application should not
Supreme Court, and that the agencies cannot be denied outright; instead, the court should
provide the legal services to be provided by apply the “indigency test” under Sec. 21 of
the private counsel. Rule 3 and use its should discretion in
determining the merits of the prayer for
For purpose of determining the number of exemption. [Sps. Algura v. LGU of Naga City
hours actually provided by the lawyer and/or (2006)]
professional firm in the provision of legal
services, the association and/or organization Note: The significance of having an explicit
duly accredited by the Supreme Court shall “free access” provisions in the Constitution
issue the necessary certification that said may be gathered from the rocky road which
legal services were actually undertaken. “free access” seems to have traveled in
American jurisprudence. The American
Sec. 5, RA 9999. Incentives to Lawyers. - For constitution does not have an explicit free
purposes of this Act, a lawyer or professional access provision and, hence, its free access
partnerships rendering actual free legal doctrine has been developed as implicit from
services, as defined by the Supreme Court, both the equal protection clause and the due
shall be entitled to an allowable deduction process clause. [Bernas]
from the gross income, the amount that could
have been collected for the actual free legal Exemption of cooperatives from payment of
services rendered or up to ten percent (10%) court and sheriff fees no longer stands.
of the gross income derived from the actual Cooperatives can no longer invoke RA 9520,
performance of the legal profession, as amended by RA 9520, as basis for
whichever is lower: Provided, That the actual exemption from the payment of legal fees.
free legal services herein contemplated shall [Re: In the matter of clarification of exemption
be exclusive of the minimum sixty (60)-hour from payment of all court and sheriffs fees of
mandatory legal aid services rendered to cooperatives (2012)
indigent litigants as required under the Rule
on Mandatory Legal Aid Services for
Practicing Lawyers, under BAR Matter No.
2012, issued by the Supreme Court.
Indigent party — A party may be authorized to

litigate his action, claim or defense as an
indigent if the court, upon an ex parte
application and hearing, is satisfied that the
party is one who has no money or property
sufficient and available for food, shelter and
basic necessities for himself and his family.
Such authority shall include an exemption
from payment of docket and other lawful fees,
and of transcripts of stenographic notes which
the court may order to be furnished him. The
amount of the docket and other lawful fees
which the indigent was exempted from paying
shall be a lien on any judgment rendered in
PAGE 170 OF 406

XV. Rights of Suspects Section 1. Statement of Policy. - It is the

policy of the Senate to value the dignity of
every human being and guarantee full
Art. III, Sec. 12 respect for human rights.
(1) Any person under investigation for the
commission of an offense shall have the Section 2. Rights of Persons Arrested,
right to be informed of his right to Detained or Under Custodial Investigation;
remain silent and to have competent Duties of Public Officers. – Any public
and independent counsel preferably of officer or employee, or anyone acting under
his own choice. If the person cannot his order or his place, who arrests, detains
afford the services of counsel, he must or investigates any person for the
be provided with one. These rights commission of an offense:
cannot be waived except in writing and
(1) Shall inform the latter, in a language
in the presence of counsel.
known to and understood by him,
(2) No torture, force, violence, threat,
(2) of his rights to remain silent and
intimidation, or any other means which
vitiate the free will shall be used against (3) to have competent and independent
him. Secret detention places, solitary, counsel, preferably of his own choice,
incommunicado, or other similar forms (4) who shall at all times be allowed to
of detention are prohibited. confer privately with the person
(3) Any confession or admission obtained arrested, detained or under custodial
in violation of this or Section 17 hereof investigation.
shall be inadmissible in evidence (5) If such person cannot afford the services
against him. of his own counsel, he must be provided
(4) The law shall provide for penal and civil with a competent and independent
sanctions for violations of this section as counsel by the investigating officer.
well as compensation to the
rehabilitation of victims of torture or
similar practices, and their families. A. AVAILABILITY
In Miranda v. Arizona: The Federal Supreme

Court made it clear that what is prohibited is (1) When the person is already under
the "incommunicado interrogation of custodial investigation
individuals in a police dominated atmosphere, Custodial investigation involves any
resulting in self- incriminating statements questioning initiated by law enforcement
without full warnings of constitutional rights.”
(2) During “critical pre-trial stages” in the
criminal process
Miranda Rights
The person under custodial investigation must A.1 CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION
be informed that:
Involves any questioning initiated by law
(1) He has a right to remain silent and that
any statement he makes may be used as enforcement.
evidence against him; When the investigation is no longer a general
(2) That he has a right to the presence of an inquiry unto an unsolved crime but has begun
attorney, either retained or appointed, to focus on a particular suspect, as when the
(3) That he has a right to be informed of the suspect has been taken into police custody
first two rights. and the police carries out a process of
RA 7438, Rights of Persons under Custodial interrogation that lends itself to eliciting
Investigation incriminating statements. [People v. Mara
(1994)]
PAGE 171 OF 406

Includes issuing an invitation to a person not elicit a confession the accused may not yet
under investigation in connection with an avail of the services of his lawyer.[Escobedo vs.
offense he is suspected to have committed. Illinois of the United States Federal Supreme
[Sec. 2, RA 7438] Court (1964)]
However,given the clear constitutional intent
in the 1987 Constitution, the moment there is
CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION REPORT
a move or even an urge of said investigators to
(1) Reduced to writing by the investigating elicit admissions or confessions or even plain
officer. information which may appear innocent or
(2) It shall be read and adequately explained innocuous at the time, from said suspect, he
to person arrested or detained by counsel should then and there be assisted by counsel,
or assisting counsel in a language or unless he waives the right, but the waiver shall
dialect known to him. be made in writing and in the presence of
counsel. [Gamboa vs. Cruz (1988)]
Non-compliance with second requirement will
render the report null and void and of no effect
whatsoever. [Sec 2c, RA 7438]
B. REQUISITES
Essence: Effective communication by the
A.2 CRITICAL PRE-TRIAL STAGE investigator of rights of accused [People vs.
Agustin (1995)]
Any critical confrontation by the prosecution
at pretrial proceedings where the results
might well determine his fate and where the
(a) Right to Remain Silent
absence of counsel might derogate from his
right to a fair trial. [U.S. v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218 The warning is needed simply to make the
(1967)] person under custodial investigation aware of
the existence of the right.
This warning is the threshold requirement for
A.3 SHOW-UP AND POLICE LINE-UP
an intelligent decision as to its exercise.
General: No right to counsel More importantly, such a warning is an
Out-of-court identification like a “show-up” absolute pre-requisite in overcoming the
(accused is brought face to face with the inherent pressures of the interrogation
witness for identification), or “police line-up” atmosphere.
(suspect is identified by witness from a group
of persons gathered for that purpose). Further, the warning will show the individual
that his interrogators are prepared to
Exception: Right to counsel if accusatory. recognize his privilege should he choose to
The moment there is a move or even an urge exercise it.
of said investigators to elicit admissions or
confessions or even plain information which
may appear innocent or innocuous at the time, (b) Right against Self-Incrimination under
from said suspect. [Gamboa v Cruz (1988)] Art. III, Sec. 12
Police Line-Ups The warning of the right to remain silent must
When petitioner was identified by the be accompanied by the explanation that
complainant at the police line-up, he had not anything said can and will be used against the
been held yet to answer for a criminal offense. individual in court.
The police line-up is not a part of the custodial This warning is needed in order to make him
inquest, hence, he was not yet entitled to aware not only of the privilege to remain silent,
counsel. but also of the consequences of forgoing it.
Thus, it was held that when the process had
not yet shifted from the investigatory to the
accusatory as when police investigation does (c) Right to Counsel
PAGE 172 OF 406

Rights of Persons Arrested, Detained or Duties of Public Officers. – (f) Any person
Under Custodial Investigation; Duties of arrested or detained or under custodial
Public Officers. – investigation shall be allowed visits by or
conferences with:
(a) Any person arrested, detained or under
custodial investigation shall at all times (1) Any member of his immediate family, or
be assisted by counsel; otherwise the
(2) Any medical doctor;
waiver shall be null and void and of no
effect. [RA 7438, Rights of Persons under (3) Priest or religious minister
Custodial Investigation, Section 2.]
(a) chosen by him; or
Essence:when a counsel is engaged by anyone (b) By his counsel; or
acting on behalf of the person under
investigation, or appointed by the court upon (c) By any national non-governmental
petition by said person or by someone on his organization duly accredited by the
behalf. [People v. Espiritu, G.R. No. 128287, Commission on Human Rights or
February 2, 1999] (d) By any international non-
Competent and independent counsel governmental organization duly
preferably of the suspect’s own choice. accredited by the Office of the
President.
Not independent counsel : special counsel,
prosecutor, counsel of the police or a (e) The person's "immediate family"
municipal attorney whose interest is adverse shall include his or her spouse,
to that of the accused[People v. Fabro], fiancé or fiancée, parent or child,
mayor[People v. Taliman], barangay brother or sister, grandparent or
captain[People v. Tomaquin]. grandchild, uncle or aunt, nephew
or niece, and guardian or ward.
A lawyer who was applying for work in the NBI
cannot be considered independent because he
cannot be expected to work against the Exclusionary Rule
interest of a police agency he was hoping to
join, as a few months later, he in fact was According to this rule, once the primary source
admitted into its work force. [People vs. (the tree) is shown to have been unlawfully
Januario (1997)] obtained, any secondary or derivative
evidence (the fruit) derived from it is also
Not competent counsel: lawyer signing only inadmissible. Stated otherwise, illegally
as witness [People v. Ordono], mayor of town seized evidence is obtained as a direct result
where accused is detained [People v. Velarde]. of the illegal act, whereas the fruit of the
Failure to ask for a lawyer does not constitute poisonous tree is the indirect result of the
a waiver. same illegal act. The fruit of the poisonous
tree is at least once removed from the illegally
No effective waiver of the right to counsel
seized evidence, but it is equally inadmissible.
during interrogation can be recognized unless
The rule is based on the principle that
specifically made after the warnings have
evidence illegally obtained by the State should
been given.
not be used to gain other evidence because
Request for assistance of counsel before any the originally illegally obtained evidence
interrogation cannot be ignored/denied by taints all evidence subsequently obtained.
authorities. Not only right to consult with an [People vs. Samontanez (2000)]
attorney but right to be given a lawyer to
Violations of the Miranda rights render
represent him if he’s indigent
inadmissible only the extrajudicial confession
or admission made during the custodial
(d) Rights to Visitation and Conference investigation. The admissibility of other
Sec. 2. Rights of Persons Arrested, evidence is not affected even if obtained or
Detained or Under Custodial Investigation; taken in the course of the custodial
investigation. [People v. Malimit (1996)]
PAGE 173 OF 406
RA 7438, Rights of Persons under Custodial

Extrajudicial Confession by a person Investigation
arrested, detained or under custodial
investigation Section 2. Rights of Persons Arrested,
Detained or Under Custodial
(1) Shall be in writing and
Investigation; Duties of Public Officers.
(2) signed in the presence of his counsel or in
(e) Any extrajudicial confession made by
the latter’s absence:
a person arrested, detained or under
(a) upon a valid waiver and custodial investigation shall be in
writing and signed by such person in
(b) in the presence of any of the
the presence of his counsel or in the
following:
latter's absence, upon a valid waiver,
- any of the parents and in the presence of any of the
- older brother and sisters parents, elder brothers and sisters,
his spouse, the municipal mayor, the
- spouse municipal judge, district school
- municipal mayor supervisor, or priest or minister of the
gospel as chosen by him; otherwise,
- municipal judge such extrajudicial confession shall be
- district school supervisor inadmissible as evidence in any
proceeding.
- priest or minister of the gospel as
chosen by him (e) Any waiver by a person arrested or
detained under the provisions of
Otherwise, such extrajudicial confession shall Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code,
be inadmissible as evidence in any or under custodial investigation, shall
proceeding. [Sec 2d, RA 7438] be in writing and signed by such
In the absence of a valid waiver, any person in the presence of his counsel;
confession obtained from the appellant otherwise the waiver shall be null and
during the police custodial investigation void and of no effect.
relative to the crime, including any other
evidence secured by virtue of the said
confession is inadmissible in evidence even if Burden of Proving Voluntariness of Waiver
the same was not objected to during the trial [People v. Jara, 1986]
by the counsel of the appellant. [People vs.
Presumption: against the waiver.
Samontanez (2000)]
Burden of proof: lies with the prosecution.
Prosecution must prove with strongly
C. WAIVER convincing evidence to the satisfaction of the
Court that indeed the accused:
What can be waived?
The right to remain silent and the right to (1) Willingly and voluntarily submitted his
counsel. confession and
What cannot be waived? (2) Knowingly and deliberately manifested
The right to be given the Miranda warnings. that he was not interested in having a
lawyer assist him during the taking of that
confession.
Rule on Waiver [Art. III, Sec. 12]
(1) Must be in writing

(2) Made in the presence of counsel
PAGE 174 OF 406

XVI. Rights of the subsequent trial dates until custody

over him is regained. Upon motion, the
Accused accused may be allowed to defend
himself in person when it sufficiently
appears to the court that he can
properly protect his rights without the
(1) No person shall be held to answer for a assistance of counsel.
criminal offense without due process of
law. (d) To testify as a witness in his own behalf
but subject to cross-examination on
(2) In all criminal prosecutions, the matters covered by direct examination.
accused shall be presumed innocent His silence shall not in any manner
until the contrary is proved, and shall prejudice him.
enjoy the right to be heard by himself
and counsel, to be informed of the (e) To be exempt from being compelled to
nature and cause of the accusation be a witness against himself.
against him, to have a speedy, (f) To confront and cross-examine the
impartial, and public trial, to meet the witnesses against him at the trial. Either
witnesses face to face, and to have party may utilize as part of its evidence
compulsory process to secure the the testimony of a witness who is
attendance of witnesses and the deceased, out of or cannot with due
production of evidence in his behalf. diligence be found in the Philippines,
However, after arraignment, trial may unavailable, or otherwise unable to
proceed notwithstanding the absence testify, given in another case or
of the accused: Provided, that he has proceeding, judicial or administrative,
been duly notified and his failure to involving the same parties and subject
appear is unjustifiable. [Art. III, Sec. 14] matter, the adverse party having the
opportunity to cross-examine him.
Section 1. Rights of accused at trial. – In all (g) To have compulsory process issued to
criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be secure the attendance of witnesses and
entitled to the following rights: production of other evidence in his
behalf.
(a) To be presumed innocent until the
contrary is proved beyond reasonable (h) To have speedy, impartial and public
doubt. trial.
(b) To be informed of the nature and cause (i) To appeal in all cases allowed and in
of the accusation against him. the manner prescribed by law. [Rule 115,
Rights of the Accused, Rules of Court]
(c) To be present and defend in person and
by counsel at every stage of the
proceedings, from arraignment to
promulgation of the judgment. The
accused may, however, waive his
presence at the trial pursuant to the
stipulations set forth in his bail, unless
his presence is specifically ordered by
the court for purposes of identification.
The absence of the accused without
justifiable cause at the trial of which he
had notice shall be considered a waiver
of his right to be present thereat.
When an accused under custody
escapes, he shall be deemed to have
waived his right to be present on all
PAGE 175 OF 406
A. CRIMINAL DUE PROCESS should necessarily await the judgment of the

appellate court. [Yap vs Court of Appeals
(2001)]
Requisites
[People vs. Vera (1937)] Basis of right: Presumption of innocence
(a) Accused is heard by a court of competent
jurisdiction;
Who May Avail
(b) Accused is proceeded against under the
orderly process of law; General rule: All persons under custody of the
law
(c) Accused is given notice and opportunity to Exceptions:
be heard;
(1) Those charged with capital offense when
(d) Judgment rendered is within the authority evidence of guilt is strong
of a constitutional law. [Mejia v. Pamaran,
1988] Since the evidence (rebellion) in this case
is hearsay, the evidence of guilt is not
strong, bail is allowed. [Enrile v. Perez (En
B. BAIL Banc Resolution, 2001)]
(2) Military men [People v Reyes, 212 SCRA
Art. III, Sec. 13.All persons, except those 401]
charged with offenses punishable by Military men who participated in failed
reclusion perpetua when the evidence of coup d’état because of their threat to
guilt is strong, shall, before conviction, be national security. [Comendador v. De Villa
bailable by sufficient sureties, or be (1991)]
released on recognizance as may be
provided by law. The right to bail shall not
be impaired even when the privilege of the When Available
writ of habeas corpus is suspended.
Excessive bail shall not be required. General rule:From the very moment of arrest
(which may be before or after the filing of
formal charges in court) up to the time of
Rule 114, Sec. 1, ROC.Bail is the security conviction by final judgment (which means
given for the release of a person in custody after appeal).
of the law, furnished by him or a bondsman,
No charge need be filed formally before one
conditioned upon his appearance before
can file for bail, so long as one is under arrest.
any court as may be required.
[HerasTeehankee v. Rovica (1945)]
Arraignment of the accused is not essential to
Purpose: To guarantee the appearance of the the approval of the bail bond. When bail is
accused at the trial, or whenever so required authorized, it should be granted before
by the court. The amount should be high arraignment. Otherwise the accused may be
precluded from filing a motion to quash. Also,
enough to assure the presence of the accused
the court will be assured of the presence of the
when required but no higher than is accused at the arraignment precisely by
reasonably calculated to fulfill this purpose.To grating bail and ordering his presence at any
fix bail at an amount equivalent to the civil stage of the proceeding. [Lavides v. CA
liability of which petitioner is charged is to (2000)]
permit the impression that the amount paid as Rule 114 Sec. 18. Notice of application to
bail is an exaction of the civil liability that the prosecutor.–In the application for bail
accused is charged of; this we cannot allow under Section 8 of this Rule, the court must
because bail is not intended as a punishment, give reasonable notice of the hearing to the
nor as a satisfaction of civil liability which
PAGE 176 OF 406
prosecutor or require him to submit his regularly, legally and within the confines of
recommendation. procedural due process, that is, after
evaluation of the evidence submitted by the
prosecution. [Taborite vs. Sollesta, supra]
Exceptions:
Bail for the provisional liberty of the accused,
(1) When charged with an offense punishable regardless of the crime charged, should be
by reclusion perpetua. allowed independently of the merits of the
(2) The right to bail is not available to the charge, provided his continued incarceration
military, as an exception to the bill of is clearly shown to be injurious to his health or
rights. [People v. Reyes, 212 SCRA 402] to endanger his life. Indeed, denying him bail
despite imperiling his health and life would
not serve the true objective of preventive
In this jurisdiction, before a judge may grant incarceration during the trial [Enrile v.
an application for bail, whether bail is a matter Sandiganbayan(2015)]
of right or discretion, the prosecutor must be
given reasonable notice of hearing or he must
be asked to submit his recommendation.
[Taborite vs. Sollesta, (2009)]
The prosecution must first be accorded an
opportunity to present evidence. It is on the
basis of such evidence that judicial discretion
is exercised in determining whether the
evidence of guilt of the accused is strong. In
other words, discretion must be exercised
Bail as a Matter of Right versus Matter Of Discretion

Matter of Right Matter of Discretion
All persons, except those charged (1) In case the evidence of guilt is strong. In such a case, according
with offenses punishable by to People v. San Diego (1966), the court's discretion to grant bail
reclusion perpetua when evidence of must be exercised in the light of a summary of the evidence
guilt is strong, shall, before presented by the prosecution.
conviction, be bailable by sufficient
Thus, the order granting or refusing bail must contain a
sureties, or be released on
summary of the evidence for the prosecution followed by the
recognizance as may be provided by
conclusion on whether or not the evidence of guilt is strong
law. The right to bail shall not be
(Note: it is not the existence of guilt itself which is concluded but
impaired even when the privilege of
the strength of the probability that guilt exists).
the writ of habeas corpus is
suspended. Excessive bail shall not (2) In extradition proceedings.
be required. Extradition courts do not render judgments of conviction or
acquittal so it does not matter WON the crimes the accused is
being extradited for is punishable by reclusion perpetua [US
Government v. Judge Puruganan and Mark Jimenez (2002)]
While our extradition law does not provide for the grant of bail
to an extraditee, however, there is no provision prohibiting him
or her from filing a motion for bail, a right to due process under
the Constitution. [Government of Hong Kong SAR v. Olalia
(2007)]
PAGE 177 OF 406

Standards for Fixing Bail for the purpose of enabling the court to
exercise its sound discretion; (Section 7
Rule 114. Sec. 9. Amount of bail; guidelines. – and 8)
The judge who issued the warrant or granted the (3) Decide whether the guilt of the accused is
application shall fix a reasonable amount of bail strong based on the summary of evidence
considering primarily, but not limited to, the of the prosecution;
following factors:
(4) If the guilt of the accused is not strong,
(a) Financial ability of the accused to give bail; discharge the accused upon the approval
(b) Nature and circumstance of the offense; of the bailbond (Section 19) Otherwise
petition should be denied.
(c) Penalty for the offense charged;
(d) Character and reputation of the accused;
C. PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE
(e) Age and health of the accused;
(f) Weight of the evidence against the accused;
The requirement of proof beyond reasonable
(g) Probability of the accused appearing at the doubt is a necessary corollary of the
trial; constitutional right to be presumed innocent.
(h) Forfeiture of other bail; [People v. Dramavo (1971)]
(i) The fact that the accused was a fugitive from The accused cannot present evidence before
justice when arrested; and the prosecution does so, even if the accused
pleads guilty. It violates the presumption of
(j) Pendency of other cases where the accused is innocence. [Alejandro v. Pepito (1980)]
on bail.
The presumption of regularity (in official
Excessive bail shall not be required. duties) cannot by itself prevail over the
presumption of innocence of the accused. But
where it is not the sole basis for conviction, the
presumption of regularity of performance of
Discretion is with the court called upon to rule official functions may prevail over the
on the question of bail. We must stress, constitutional presumption of innocence.
however, that where conditions imposed upon [People v. Acuram (2000)]
a defendant seeking bail would amount to a
refusal thereof and render nugatory the
constitutional right to bail, we will not hesitate C.1. EQUIPOISE RULE
to exercise our supervisory powers to provide
the required remedy. [DelaCamara v. Enage Where the evidence adduced by the parties is
(1971)] evenly balanced, the constitutional
presumption of innocence should tilt the
balance in favor of the accused. [Corpuz v.
Duties of a trial judge in case an application People (1991)]
for bail is filed [Cortes vs. Cabal (1997)]: In order that circumstantial evidence may
(1) In all cases, whether bail is a matter of warrant conviction, the following requisites
right or of discretion, notify the prosecutor must concur:
of the hearing of the application for bail or
(1) There is more than one circumstance
require him to submit his
recommendation (Section 18, Rule 114 as (2) The facts from which the inferences are
amended); derived are proven
(2) Where bail is a matter of discretion, (3) The combination of all the circumstances
conduct a hearing of the application for is such as to produce conviction beyond
bail regardless of whether or not the reasonable doubt. [People v. Bato, G.R.
prosecution refuses to present evidence to No. 113804, January 16, 1998]
show that the guilt of the accused is strong
PAGE 178 OF 406
D. RIGHT TO BE HEARD RA 7438. Sec. 2. Rights of Persons

Arrested, Detained or Under Custodial
Art. III, Sec 14 (2). In all criminal Investigation; Duties of Public Officers. –
prosecutions, the accused shall be (a) Any person arrested detained or under
presumed innocent until the contrary is custodial investigation shall at all times be
proved, and shall enjoy the right to be heard assisted by counsel;
by himself and counsel, to be informed of the
nature and cause of the accusation against
him, to have a speedy, impartial, and public Elements of the Right to Counsel:
trial, to meet the witnesses face to face, and (1) Court’s duty to inform the accused of right
to have compulsory process to secure the to counsel before being arraigned;
attendance of witnesses and the production
of evidence in his behalf. However, after (2) It must ask him if he desires the services of
arraignment, trial may proceed counsel;
notwithstanding the absence of the accused (3) If he does, and is unable to get one, the
provided that he has been duly notified and Court must give him one; if the accused
his failure to appear is unjustifiable. wishes to procure private counsel, the
Court must give him time to obtain one.
Art. III, Sec. 12. Any person under (4) Where no lawyer is available, the Court
investigation for the commission of an may appoint any person resident of the
offense shall have the right to be informed province and of good repute for probity
of his right to remain silent and to have and ability.
competent and independent counsel
preferably of his own choice. If the person
cannot afford the services of counsel, he F. RIGHT TO BE INFORMED
must be provided with one. These rights
cannot be waived except in writing and in
the presence of counsel. Procedural due process requires that the
accused must be informed why he is being
prosecuted and what charge he must meet.
It means the accused is amply accorded legal [Vera v. People, supra]
assistance extended by a counsel who Note: Description, not designation of offense,
commits himself to the cause of the defense is controlling
and acts accordingly. It is an efficient and truly
decisive legal assistance, and not simply a
perfunctory representation. [People v.
G. RIGHT TO SPEEDY, IMPARTIAL AND
Bermas, G.R. No. 120420, April 21, 1999]
PUBLIC TRIAL
The right of the accused to present evidence is
guaranteed by no less than the Constitution
itself.Article III, Section 14(2) thereof, provides Art. III, Sec. 16. All persons shall have the
that in all criminal prosecutions, the right to a speedy disposition of their cases
accused shall enjoy the right to be heard by before all judicial, quasi-judicial, or
himself and counsel. This constitutional right administrative bodies.
includes the right to present evidence in ones
defense, as well as the right to be present and
defend oneself in person at every stage of the Art. III, Sec. 3. Civilian authority is, at all
proceedings. Stripping the accused of all his times, supreme over the military. xxx
pre-assigned trial dates constitutes a patent
denial of the constitutionally guaranteed right
to due process. [Villareal vs. People (2012)]
RA 8493, Sec. 17. Act not a bar to provision
E. ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL
on speedy trial in the Constitution – No
provision of law on speedy trial and no rule
PAGE 179 OF 406
implementing the same shall be the attitude of demanding a trial or resisting

interpreted as a bar to any charge of denial delay. [Uy v. Hon. Adriano, G.R. No. 159098,
of the right to speedy trial guaranteed by October 27, 2006]
Section 14(2), Article III, of the 1987 When right not available:Theright to speedy
Constitution. trial cannot be invoked where to sustain the
same would result in a clear denial of due
process to the prosecution. [Uy v. Hon. Adriano,
Impartial Trial G.R. No. 159098, October 27, 2006]
A civilian cannot be tried by a military court so Rationale of right to speedy trial:
long as the civil courts are open and operating,
even during Martial Law. [Olaguer v. Military (1) To prevent oppressive pre-trail
Commission (1987)] incarceration,
(2) To minimize anxiety and concern of the
Dismissal based on the denial of the right to accused,
speedy trial amounts to an acquittal. [Acevedo (3) To limit the possibility that the defense
v. Sarmiento (1970)] will be impaired.
Note: RA 8493 provides a 30-day arraignment
within the filing of the information or from the
date the accused appeared before the court; H. RIGHT TO CONFRONTATION
trial shall commence 30 days from the
arraignment, as fixed by the court. The entire This is the basis of the right to cross-
trial period shall not exceed 180 days, except examination.
as otherwise authorized by the SC Chief Two-fold purpose:
Justice. (1) To afford the accused an opportunity to
test the testimony of witnesses by cross-
examination
Availability
(2) To allow the judge to observe the
(1) When proceeding is attended by vexatious, deportment of witnesses. [Go, et al. v. The
capricious and oppressive delays People of the Philippines and Highdone
(2) When unjustified postponements of the Company, Ltd., et al., (2012)]
trial are asked for and secured Inadmissibility for lack of right to
(3) When without cause or justifiable motive, confrontation:
a long period of time is allowed to elapse (1) Testimony of a witness who has not
without the party having his case tried. submitted himself to cross examination
[dela Rosa v. Court of Appeals, 253 SCRA
499; Tai Lim v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. (2) Affidavits of witnesses who are not
131483, October 26, 1999] presented during the trial, hence not
subjected to cross examination– hearsay,
Unreasonable delay weighed by ff factors: [Cariago v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
(1) Length of delay 143561, June 6, 2001]
(2) Reason for delay The Court agrees that the right to cross-
examine is a constitutional right anchored on
(3) Assertion/failure to assert right by the due process. It is a statutory right found in
accused Section 1(f), Rule 115 of the Revised Rules of
N.B. Failure to assert means waiver of Criminal Procedure which provides that the
privilege. accused has the right to confront and cross-
examine the witnesses against him at the
(4) Prejudice caused by the delay [Roquero v. trial. However, the right has always been
The Chancellor of UP Manila] understood as requiring not necessarily an
RA 8493 is a means of enforcing the right of actual cross-examination but merely an
the accused to a speedy trial. The spirit of the opportunity to exercise the right to cross-
law is that the accused must go on record in examine if desired. What is proscribed by
PAGE 180 OF 406

statutory norm and jurisprudential precept is I.1 WHEN CAN TRIAL IN ABSENTIA BE
the absence of the opportunity to cross- DONE
examine. The right is a personal one and may
3 requisites:
be waived expressly or impliedly. [People vs.
Escote Jr. (2003)] (1) Accused failed to appear for trial despite
postponement and notice
The task of recalling a witness for cross
examination is, in law, imposed on the party (2) Failure to appear is unjustified
who wishes to exercise said right. This is so
(3) After arraignment
because the right, being personal and
waivable, the intention to utilize it must be
expressed. Silence or failure to assert it on If not then the right of the accused to be
time amounts to a renunciation thereof. Thus, informed of the nature and cause of
it should be the counsel for the opposing party accusation against him will be impaired for
who should move to cross-examine plaintiffs lack of arraignment [Borja v. Mendoza (1977)]
witnesses [Fulgado vs. Court of Appeals et. al.,
(1990)]. Consequences: Waiver of right to cross-
examine and present evidence [Gimenez vs.
Nazareno (1988)]
Rule on Examination of a Child Witness[AM
No. 004-07-SC]
I.2 WHEN PRESENCE OF THE ACCUSED IS A
The judge may exclude any person, including DUTY
the accused, whose presence or conduct
causes fear to the child. (1) Arraignment and Plea
(2) During Trial, for identification
Compulsory Process (3) Promulgation of Sentence
(1) Right to Secure Attendance of Witness Exception: Light offense where accused need
not personally appear.
(2) Right to Production of Other Evidence
I.3 TRIAL IN ABSENTIA

Subpoenais a process directed to a person
requiring him to attend and to testify at the As a general rule, subject to certain exceptions,
hearing or trial of an action or at any any constitutional or statutory right may be
investigation conducted under the laws of the waived if such waiver is not against public
Philippines, or for the taking of his deposition. policy.
[Caamic v. Galapon, 237 SCRA 390] Considering Art IV, Sec 19, 1973 Constitution
Before a subpoena ducestecum may issue, the (trial of a capital offense may proceed even in
court must first be satisfied that the following the absence of the accused)and the absence of
requisites are present: any law specifically requiring his presence at
all stages of his trial, there appears, no logical
(1) The books, documents or other things reason why petitioner, although he is charged
requested must appear prima facie with a capital offense, should be precluded
relevant to the issue subject of the from waiving his right to be present in the
controversy (test of relevancy), and proceedings for the perpetuation of testimony,
(2) Such books must be reasonably described since this right was conferred upon him for his
by the parties to be readily identified (test protection and benefit. [Aquino vs. Military
of definiteness). [Roco v. Contreras, G.R. Commission (1975)]
No. 158275, June 28, 2005]
I. TRIAL IN ABSENTIA
PAGE 181 OF 406

XVII. Writ of Habeas the invasion or rebellion shall persist and

public safety requires it.
Corpus The Congress, if not in session, shall, within
twenty-four hours following such
Basis proclamation or suspension, convene in
Art. III, Sec. 15. The privilege of the writ of accordance with its rules without need of a
habeas corpus shall not be suspended call.
except in cases of invasion or rebellion when The Supreme Court may: 1) review, 2) in an
the public safety requires it. appropriate proceeding; 3) filed by any
citizen, 4) the sufficiency of the factual basis
of the proclamation of martial law or the
Definition suspension of the privilege of the writ or the
A writ issued by a court directed to a person extension thereof, and 5) must promulgate
detaining another, commanding him to its decision thereon within thirty days from
produce the body of the prisoner at a its filing.
designated time and place, with the day and A state of martial law does not suspend the
cause of his caption and detention, to do, to operation of the Constitution, nor supplant
submit to, and to receive whatever the court or the functioning of the civil courts or
judge awarding the writ shall consider in his legislative assemblies, nor authorize the
behalf.” [Sombong v. CA (1990)] conferment of jurisdiction on military courts
and agencies over civilians where civil
courts are able to function, nor
Suspension of the Privilege of the Writ automatically suspend the privilege of the
Art. VII, Sec. 18. The President shall be the writ.
Commander-in-Chief of all armed forces of The suspension of the privilege of the writ
the Philippines and whenever it becomes shall apply only to persons judicially
necessary, he may call out such armed charged for rebellion or offenses inherent in
forces to prevent or suppress lawless or directly connected with invasion.
violence, invasion or rebellion.
In case of invasion or rebellion, when the
public safety requires it, he may, for a period Availability
not exceeding sixty days, suspend the (1) A prime specification of an application for
privilege of the writ of habeas corpus or a writ of habeas corpus is involuntary
place the Philippines or any part thereof restraint of liberty.
under martial law.
(2) Voluntary restraint of liberty i.e. right of
Within forty-eight hours from the parents to regain custody of minor child
proclamation of martial law or the even if the child is in the custody of a third
suspension of the privilege of the writ of person of her own free will. [Sombong v.
habeas corpus, the President shall submit a CA (1990)]
report in person or in writing to the
Congress. (3) Illegal arrest with supervening event when
restraint of liberty is already by virtue of
The Congress, voting jointly, by a vote of at the complaint or information. [Velasco v.
least a majority of all its Members in regular CA (1995)]
or special session, may revoke such
proclamation or suspension, which (a) The issuance of a judicial process
revocation shall not be set aside by the preventing the discharge of the
President. detained person.
Upon the initiative of the President, the (b) Another is the filing of a complaint or
Congress may, in the same manner, extend information for the offense for which
such proclamation or suspension for a the accused is detained. [Section 4 of
period to be determined by the Congress, if Rule 102]
PAGE 182 OF 406
(4) Where a sentence imposes punishment in Conditions for valid suspension:

excess of the power of the court to impose,
(a) Presence of invasion, insurrection or
such sentence is void as to the excess.
rebellion
[Gumabon v. Director of Prisons (1971)]
(b) Public safety requires it [Lansang v. Garcia
(5) “Habeas corpus is the proper remedy for a
(1971)]
person deprived of liberty due to mistaken
identity. In such cases, the person is not
under any lawful process and is
continuously being illegally detained.” [In
the Matter of Petition for Habeas Corpus of
Datukan Malang Salibo (2015)]
Restraint of Liberty
Not only physical restraint but any restraint on
freedom of action is sufficient i.e. (1) curtailed
freedom of movement by the condition that he
must get approval of respondents for any
travel outside Metro Manila, (2) abridged
liberty of abode because prior approval of
respondent is required in case petitioner
wants to change place of residence, (3)
abridged freedom of speech due to prohibition
from taking any interviews inimical to national
security, and (4) petitioner is required to report
regularly to respondents or their reps.
[Moncupa v. Enrile (1986)]
This Court has held that a restrictive custody
and monitoring of movements or whereabouts
of police officers under investigation by their
superiors is not a form of illegal detention or
restraint of liberty [Ampatuan vs. Macaraig
(2010)].
Restrictive custody is, at best, nominal
restraint which is beyond the ambit
of habeas corpus. It is neither actual nor
effective restraint that would call for the grant
of the remedy prayed for. It is a permissible
precautionary measure to assure the PNP
authorities that the police officers concerned
are always accounted for. [Ampatuan vs.
Macaraig (supra)].
Note: The fact that the party to whom the writ
is addressed has illegally parted with the
custody of a person before the application for
the writ is no reason why the writ should not
issue. [Villavicencio v. Lukban (1919)]
Test for valid suspension of the privilege of

the writ: arbitrariness, not correctness
PAGE 183 OF 406

The Supreme Court shall have the following

XVIII. Writs of Amparo, powers: xxx (5) Promulgate rules concerning
the protection and enforcement of
Habeas Data and constitutional rights, xxx. Such rules shall
provide a simplified and inexpensive
Kalikasan procedure for the speedy disposition of cases,
shall be uniform for all courts of the same
grade, and shall not diminish, increase, or
A. WRIT OF AMPARO modify substantive rights. [Art. VIII, Sec. 5]
A.M. No. 07-9-12-SC (25 September
2007), Sec. 1, The Rule on the Writ of
Amparo. The petition for a writ of amparo is A.2 PETITION FOR WRIT
a remedy available to any person whose Form
right to life, liberty and security is violated The petition shall be signed and verified. [Sec.
or threatened with violation by an unlawful 5]
act or omission of a public official or
employee, or of a private individual or
entity. Contents
The petition shall allege the following:
Concept (1) The personal circumstances of the

petitioner
“The Writ of Amparo serves both preventive
and curative roles in addressing the problem (2) The name and personal circumstances of
of extralegal killings and enforced the respondent responsible for the threat,
disappearances. It is preventive in that it act or omission, or, if the name is unknown
breaks the expectation of impunity in the or uncertain, the respondent may be
commission of these offenses; it is curative in described by an assumed appellation
that it facilitates the subsequent punishment (3) The right to life, liberty and security of the
of perpetrators as it will inevitably yield leads aggrieved party violated or threatened
to subsequent investigation and action.” with violation by an unlawful act or
[Secretary of National Defense v. Manalo omission of the respondent, and how such
(2008)] threat or violation is committed with the
Extralegal Killings – Killings committed attendant circumstances detailed in
without due process of law supporting affidavits
Enforced Disappearances – An arrest, (4) The investigation conducted, if any,

detention or abduction of a person by a specifying the names, personal
government official or organized groups or circumstances, and addresses of the
private individuals acting with the direct or investigating authority or individuals, as
indirect acquiescence of the government; the well as the manner and conduct of the
refusal of the State to disclose the fate or investigation, together with any report
whereabouts of the person concerned or a (5) The actions and recourses taken by the
refusal to acknowledge the deprivation of petitioner to determine the fate or
liberty which places such person outside the whereabouts of the aggrieved party and
protection of law. [Secretary of National the identity of the person responsible for
Defense v. Manalo (2008)] the threat, act or omission
(6) The relief prayed for.
A.1 BASIS The petition may include a general prayer for
other just and equitable reliefs. [Sec. 5]
PAGE 184 OF 406

Where to file
The petition may be filed on any day and at any time [Sec. 3]
Filing Enforceability Returnable

RTC of the place where Anywhere in the Before the issuing court or judge
the threat, act or omission Philippines
was committed or any of
its elements occurred
Sandiganbayan or any of Anywhere in the (1) Before the issuing court or any justice thereof; or
its justices Philippines
(2) Any RTC of the place where the threat, act or omission
Court of Appeals or any of was committed or any of its elements occurred
its justices
SC or any of its justices Anywhere in the (1) Before the issuing court or any justice thereof;
Philippines
(2) Before the Sandiganbayan or CA or any of their
justices; or
(3) Any RTC of the place where the threat, act or omission
was committed or any of its elements occurred
Docket fees: None [Sec. 4] whereabouts of [said missing] persons.”

[Navia v. Pardico (2012)]
Return Defense:
Within 72 hours after service of the writ, the (1) Private individual – ordinary diligence
respondent shall file a verified written return (2) Public official – extraordinary diligence,
together with supporting affidavits which shall, no presumption of regularity of duties.
among other things, contain his defenses. A [Sec. 17]
general denial is not allowed. [Sec. 9]
Note: Command responsibility is a way of

Hearing impleading a superior of the accused (subject
Summary or court may call for a preliminary of the writ) to be made responsible for the
conference; given same priority as petition for crimes committed by his subordinates—by
habeas corpus. [Sec. 13] failing to prevent or punish the said accused.
The Manalo brothers were abducted, detained,
and tortured repeatedly by the military. After
Proof required: Substantial evidence their escape, they filed a petition for the
“For the protective writ of amparo to issue in privilege of the Writ of Amparo. The Supreme
Court granted the petition and held that there
enforced disappearance cases, allegation and
was a continuing violation of the Manalos’
proof that the persons subject thereof are right to security.
missing are not enough. It must also be shown
by the required quantum of proof that their As regards the relief granted, the Court held
that the production order under the Amparo
disappearance was carried out by, or with the rule is different from a search warrant and may
authorization, support or acquiescence of, [the be likened to the production of documents or
government] or a political organization, things under Rule27.1, ROC. [Secretary of
followed by a refusal to acknowledge [the National Defense vs. Manalo (2008)]
same or] give information on the fate or B. WRIT OF HABEAS DATA
PAGE 185 OF 406

A.M. No. 08-1-16-SC (25 January 2008) Return of Respondent

(See Previous Discussion) Within a non-extendible period of ten (10) days
The writ of habeas data is an independent and after service of the writ, the respondent shall
summary remedy designed to protect the file a verified return which shall contain all
image, privacy, honor, information, and defenses; all defenses not raised are deemed
freedom of information of an individual, and to waived.
provide a forum to enforce one’s right to the
truth and to informational privacy.
Hearing
There must be a nexus between right to
privacy and right to life, liberty and security. Preliminary conference; same priority as other
writs (no more than 60 days).
Right To Informational Privacy v. Legitimate

State Interest Reliefs: Permanent cease and desist order
against the respondent, directive to
The determination of whether the privilege of
the writ of habeas data, being an extraordinary respondent to protect, preserve, rehabilitate
remedy, may be granted in this case entails a or restore the environment; to monitor strict
delicate balancing of the alleged intrusion compliance with the decision and orders of
upon the private life of Gamboa and the ther court, to make periodic reports on the
relevant state interest involved. [Gamboa v. execution of the final judgment, and other
P/Supt. Marlou C. Chan, et al., (2012)] reliefs. [Sec. 15, Rule 7]
C. WRIT OF KALIKASAN “A rehabilitation or restoration program to be

implemented at the cost of the violator is also
A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC (13 April 2010)
a major relief that may be obtained under a
judgment rendered in a citizens' suit under the
Remedy against violation or threat of violation Rules” [Arigo v. Swift (2014)]
of constitutional right to a balanced and
healthful ecology by an unlawful act or
omission of a public official or employee, or
private individual or entity, involving
environmental damage of such magnitude as
to prejudice the life, health or property of
inhabitants in two or more cities or provinces
Who may file:Natural or juridical persons,

NGO or public interest groups in behalf of
persons whose right is violated.
Who has jurisdiction: Supreme Court or Court
of Appeals.
Docket fees: None
When is writ issued?

Within three (3) days from the date of filing of
the petition, if the petition is sufficient in form
and substance
PAGE 186 OF 406

expel the morphine from his mouth [U.S. v.

XIX. Self-Incrimination Ong Sio Hong (1917)]
Clause (4) Accused may be made to take off her
garments and shoes and be photographed
[People v. Otadura, 96 Phil 244, 1950];
A. SCOPE AND COVERAGE compelled to show her body for physical
investigation to see if she is pregnant by
an adulterous relation [Villaflor v.
Art. III, Sec. 17. No person shall be Summers (1920)]
compelled to be a witness against himself. (5) Order to give a footprint sample to see if it
matches the ones found in the scene of the
crime is allowed [People v. Salas and
The self-incrimination clause is meant to People v. Sara]
avoid:
(1) placing the witness against the strongest
temptation to commit perjury; and Application in the United States
(2) extorting a confession by force. The privilege which exists as to private papers,
cannot be maintained in relation to “records
required by law to be kept in order that there
Only applies to compulsory testimonial, and may be suitable information of transactions
does not apply to material objects. [Villaflor v. which are the appropriate subjects of
Summers (1920)] governmental regulation and the enforcement
of restrictions validly established. [Shapiro v.
This right maybe invoked (by the said directors US (1948)]
and officers of Philcomsat Holdings
Corporation) only when the incriminating In recent cases, the US Supreme Court has
question is being asked, since they have no struck down certain registration requirements
way of knowing in advance the nature or effect that presented real and appreciable risk of
of the questions to be asked of them." The self-incrimination. These involved statutes
consolation is that when this power is abused, directed at inherently suspect groups in areas
such issue may be presented before the courts. permeated by criminal statutes, a
[Sabio vs. Gordon (2006)] circumstance which laid the subjects open to
real risk of self-incrimination. [Bernas]
It refers therefore to the use of the mental
process and the communicative faculties, and The great majority of persons who file income
not to a merely physical activity. tax returns do not incriminate themselves by
disclosing their occupation. [US v. Sullivan
If the act is physical or mechanical, the (1927)]
accused can be compelled to allow or perform
the act, and the result can be used in evidence
against him. B. APPLICATION
Examples: General Rule:The privilege is available in any

(1) Handwriting in connection with a proceedings, even outside the court, for they
prosecution for falsification is not allowed, may eventually lead to a criminal prosecution.
[Beltran v. Samson, 53 Phil 570; Bermudez Expanded Application:
vs. Castillo (1937)]
(1) Administrative proceedings with penal
(2) Re-enactment of the crime by the accused aspect i.e. medical board investigation.
is not allowed [Pascual v. Board of Medical
(3) The accused can be required to allow a Examiners(1969)], forfeiture proceeding
sample of a substance taken from his body [Cabal v. Kapunan Jr. (1962)]
[U.S. vs. Tan The (1912)], or be ordered to
PAGE 187 OF 406
(2) Fact-Finding investigation by an ad hoc

body [Galman v. Pamaran (1985)] XX. Involuntary
Servitude and Political
Effect of Denial of Privilege
Exclusionary Rule (under Sec. 17, Art. III in
Prisoners
relation to Sec. 12): When the privilege against
self-incrimination is violated outside of court Art. III, Sec. 18
(e.g. police), then the testimony, as already
noted, is not admissible. (1) No person shall be detained solely by
reason of his political beliefs and
Ousted of Jurisdiction: When the privilege is aspirations.
violated by the Court itself, that is, by the
judge, the court is ousted of its jurisdiction, (2) No involuntary servitude in any form
and all its proceedings, and even judgment shall exist except as a punishment for a
are null and void. [Chavez v. CA (1968)] crime whereof the party shall have been
duly convicted.
C. IMMUNITY STATUTES
Involuntary Servitude
Slavery and involuntary servitude, together
Transactional Immunity with their corollary peonage, all denote “a
Art. XIII, Sec. 18 condition of enforced, compulsory service of
one to another.” [Hodges v. US (1906) in Rubi
The Commission on Human Rights shall v. Provincial Board of Mindoro (1919)]
have the following powers and functions:
xxx A private person who contracts obligations of
this sort toward the Army cannot, by law that
(8) Grant immunity from prosecution to any we know of, either civil or military be
person whose testimony or whose compelled to fulfill them by imprisonment and
possession of documents or other deportation from his place of residence, we
evidence is necessary or convenient to deem it wholly improper to sustain such
determine the truth in any investigation means of compulsion which are not justified
conducted by it or under its authority; either by law or by the contract. [In Re Brooks
(1901)]
Use and Fruit of Immunity Domestic services are always to be
remunerated, and no agreement may subsist
“Use immunity” prohibits use of a witness’ in law in which it is stipulated that any
compelled testimony and its fruits in any domestic service shall be absolutely
manner in connectionwith the criminal gratuitous, unless it be admitted that slavery
prosecution of the witness. may be established in this country through a
“Transactional immunity” grants immunity to covenant entered into between interested
witness from prosecution for an offense to parties. [de los Reyes v. Alojado (1910)]
which his compelled testimony relates. A former court stenographer may be
[Galman v. Pamaran (1985)] compelled under pain of contempt to
transcribe stenographic notes he had failed to
attend to while in service. xxx such compulsion
is not the condition of enforced compulsory
service referred to by the Constitution.
PAGE 188 OF 406

Fernando, J. concurring opinion:

XXI. Excessive Fines
The matter could become tricky should a
stenographer stubbornly refuse to obey and
the court insists on keeping him in jail. The
and Cruel and Inhuman
detention could then become punitive and
give rise to the issue of involuntary servitude.
Punishments
[Aclaracion v. Gatmaitan (1975)]
Art. III, Sec. 19. Excessive fines shall not be
imposed, nor cruel, degrading or inhuman
Political Prisoners punishment inflicted. Neither shall death
If the petitioners are political prisoners subject penalty be imposed, unless, for compelling
to the civil jurisdiction of ordinary courts of reasons involving heinous crimes, the
justice if they are to be prosecuted at all, the Congress hereafter provides for it. Any
army has no jurisdiction, nor power, nor death penalty already imposed shall be
authority, from all legal standpoints, to reduced to reclusion perpetua.
continue holding them in restraint. They are The employment of physical, psychological,
entitled, as a matter of fundamental right, to or degrading punishment against any
be immediately released, any allegation as to prisoner or detainee or the use of
whether the war was ended or not. [Raquiza v. substandard or inadequate penal facilities
Bradford (1945)] under subhuman conditions shall be dealt
Sec. 19 of CA No. 682 authorizes that the with by law.
political prisoners in question "may be
released on bail, even prior to the presentation
of the corresponding information," and this In this case the Court took into account, in
may be done "existing provisions of law to the lowering the penalty to reclusion perpetua of
contrary notwithstanding." We must assume the accused most of whom were already death
that the discretion granted must be construed row convicts, the deplorable sub-human
in the sense that the same may be exercised in conditions of the National Penitentiary where
cases wherein it was not heretofore granted by the crime was committed. [People v. dela Cruz
law. And it is reasonable to assume that the (1953)]
discretion granted is to the effect that the
People's Court may exercise jurisdiction to
order the release on bail of political prisoners What is prohibited:Cruel and unusual
"even prior to the presentation of the punishment. Unusual punishment is not
corresponding information." [Duran v. Abad prohibited especially if it makes the penalty
Santos (1945)] less severe.
The prohibition of cruel and unusual

punishments is generally aimed at the form or
character of the punishment rather than its
severity in respect of duration or amount, and
applies to punishments which public
sentiment has regarded as cruel or obsolete,
for instance, those inflicted at the whipping
post, or in the pillory, burning at the stake,
breaking on the wheel, disemboweling, and
the like. Fine and imprisonment would not
thus be within the prohibition. [People vs. Dela
Cruz (supra)]
PAGE 189 OF 406

What is a cruel punishment? of crime first perceived and statistically proven.

(1) Involves torture or lingering death Neither does the said provision require that
[Legarda v. Valdez (1902)] the death penalty be resorted to as a last
recourse when all other criminal reforms have
(2) Not only severe, harsh or excessive but failed to abate criminality in society. [People v.
flagrantly and plainly oppressive Echegaray (1997)]
(3) Wholly disproportionate to the nature of Sec 19 (2) as worded, already embodies
the offense as to shock the moral sense of constitutional authorization for the
the community [People v. Estoista (1953)] Commission on Human Rights to take action
Note: The constitutional limit must be in accordance with Art XIII, Sec 18. There is a
reckoned on the basis of the nature and mode command addressed to Congress to pass
of punishment measured in terms of physical whatever civil or penal legislation might be
pain required for the subject. [Bernas]
RA 9346 (June 24, 2006): An Act Prohibiting

the Imposition of Death Penalty in the
Philippines
Sec. 1. The imposition of the penalty of
death is hereby prohibited. Accordingly,
R.A. No. 8177, otherwise known as the Act
Designating Death by Lethal Injection is
hereby repealed. R.A. No. 7659, otherwise
known as the Death Penalty Law, and all
other laws, executive orders and decrees,
insofar as they impose the death penalty are
hereby repealed or amended accordingly.
The import of the grant of power to Congress

to restore the death penalty requires:
(1) that Congress define or describe what is
meant by heinous crimes
(2) that Congress specify and penalize by
death, only crimes that qualify as heinous
in accordance with the definition or
description set in the death penalty bill
and/or designate crimes punishable by
reclusion perpetua to death in which latter
case, death can only be imposed upon the
attendance of circumstances duly proven
in court that characterize the crime to be
heinous in accordance with the definition
or description set in the death penalty bill
(3) that Congress, in enacting this death
penalty bill be singularly motivated by
“compelling reasons involving heinous
crimes.”
For a death penalty bill to be valid, Sec. 19(1)
does not require that there be a positive
manifestation in the form of higher incidence
PAGE 190 OF 406

by an order of imprisonment. [In re Tamboco

XXII. Non- (1917)]
Imprisonment for Debts No person may be imprisoned for debt in virtue
of a civil proceeding. [Makapagal v.
Santamaria (1930)]
Art. III, Sec. 20. No person shall be A person may be imprisoned as a penalty for a
imprisoned for debt or non-payment of a crime arising from a contractual debt and
poll tax. imposed in a proper criminal proceeding. Thus,
the conversion of a criminal fine into a prison
term does not violate the provision because in
Scope such a case, imprisonment is imposed for a
(1) Debt– any civil obligation arising from a monetary obligation arising from a crime.
contract. It includes even debts obtained [Ajeno v, Judge Insero (1976)]
through fraud since no distinction is made
in the Constitution. [Ganaway v. Quillen
(1922)]
(2) Poll Tax– a specific sum levied upon any
person belonging to a certain class
without regard to property or occupation
(e.g. community tax).
A tax is not a debt since it is an obligation

arising from law. Hence, its non-payment
maybe validly punished with imprisonment.
Santos refused to pay 16 pesos for Ramirez’s
cedula as payment for what Santos owed
Ramirez. Thus, Ramirez was convicted and
imprisoned for estafa. Upon demand for
release, the Court held that the imprisonment
was correct since it was for estafa and not
involuntary servitude or imprisonment for
debt. [Ramirez v. de Orozco (1916)]
In admitting such a "criminal complaint" that
was plainly civil in aspects from the very face
of the complaint and the "evidence"
presented, and issuing on the same day the
warrant of arrest, respondent grossly failed to
perform his duties properly — which in this
instance was to dismiss the complaint outright
since it is elementary that non-payment of an
indebtedness is not a criminal act, much less
estafa; and that no one may be criminally
charged and punished for non-payment of a
loan of a sum of money. [Serafin vs. Lindayag
(1975)]
The obligation incurred by the debtor, as
shown by the receipt, was to pay an ordinary
contractual obligation. Since the guardianship
proceeding was civil in nature, the Court did
not allow enforcement of the civil obligation
PAGE 191 OF 406
Exceptions:
XXIII. Double Jeopardy
(1) The graver offense developed due to
"supervening facts" arising from the same
Art. III, Sec. 21.No person shall be twice put act or omission constituting the former
in jeopardy of punishment for the same charge.
offense. If an act is punished by a law and (2) The facts constituting the graver charge
an ordinance, conviction or acquittal under became known or were discovered only
either shall constitute a bar to another after the filing of the former complaint or
prosecution for the same act. information.
(3) The plea of guilty to the lesser offense was
Termination of Jeopardy made without the consent of the fiscal and
the offended party.
(1) By acquittal
(2) By final conviction
When Defense of Double Jeopardy Is
(3) By dismissal without express consent of Available
accused
(1) Dismissal based on insufficiency of
(4) By “dismissal” on the merits evidence;
(2) Dismissal because of denial of right to
A. REQUISITES speedy trial;
(3) Accused is discharged to be a state
witness.
(1) Court of competent jurisdiction;
(2) A Complaint/Information sufficient in
form and substance to sustain a When the State Can Challenge the Acquittal
conviction; of the Accused or the Imposition of a Lower
Penalty by a Trial Court
(3) Arraignment and plea by the accused;
(1) Where the prosecution is deprived of a fair
(4) Conviction, acquittal, or dismissal of the opportunity to prosecute and prove its
case without the express consent, of the case, tantamount to a deprivation of due
accused. [Rule 117, Sec. 7; People v. Obsania process;
(1968)]
(2) Where there is a finding of mistrial;
(3) Where there has been a grave abuse of
When Subsequent Prosecution Is Barred discretion. [Villareal v. People (2012)]
(1) Same offense
(2) Attempt of the same offense B. MOTIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION
(3) Frustration of the same offense AND APPEALS
(4) Offense necessarily included in the 1st
offense (All the elements of the 2nd
The accused cannot be prosecuted a second
constitute some of the elements of the 1st
time for the same offense and the prosecution
offense)
cannot appeal a judgment of acquittal.
(5) Offense that necessarily includes the 1st [Kepner v. US (1904)]
offense (All the elements of the 1st
Provided, that the judge considered the
constitute some of the elements of the 2nd
evidence, even if the appreciation of the
offense)
evidence leading to the acquittal is erroneous,
an appeal or motion for reconsideration by the
prosecution will not be allowed. [People v.
Judge Velasco (2000)]
PAGE 192 OF 406
No error, however flagrant, committed by the

court against the state, can be reserved by it XXIV. Ex Post Facto and
for decision by the Supreme Court when the
defendant has once been placed in jeopardy Bills of Attainder
and discharged even though the discharge
was the result of the error committed. [People
v. Ang Cho (1945) citing State v. Rook] Art. III, Sec. 22. No ex post facto law or bill
of attainder shall be enacted.
A mere verbal dismissal is not final until
written and signed by the judge. [Rivera, Jr. v.
People (1990)] A. EX POST FACTO LAWS
When an accused appeals his conviction, he
waives his right to the plea of double jeopardy.
If the accused had been prosecuted for a (1) Makes an action done before the passing
higher offense but was convicted for a lower of the law and which was innocent when
offense, he has technically been acquitted of done criminal, and punishes such action.
the higher offense. His appeal would give the (2) Aggravates a crime or makes it greater
Court the right to impose a penalty higher than when it was committed.
than that of the original conviction imposed on
him. [Trono v. US (1905)] (3) Changes the punishment and inflicts a
greater punishment than the law annexed
to the crime when it was committed.
Double jeopardy provides three related (4) Alters the legal rules of evidence and
protections: receives less or different testimony than
(1) Against a second prosecution for the same the law required at the time of the
offense after acquittal; commission of the offense in order to
convict the defendant. [Mekin v. Wolfe,
(2) Against a second prosecution for the same 1903]
offense after conviction; and
(5) Assumes to regulate civil rights and
(3) Against multiple punishments for the remedies only but in effect imposes a
same offense. [People v. Dela Torre, G.R. penalty or deprivation of a right which
No. 1379-58, April 11, 2002] when done was lawful.
(6) Deprives a person accused of a crime of
C. DISMISSAL WITH CONSENT OF some lawful protection of a former
ACCUSED conviction or acquittal, or a proclamation
of amnesty. [In re Kay Villegas Kami (1970)]
Rule 117, Sec. 8, par. 1. Provisional

dismissal. — A case shall not be The prohibition applies only to criminal
provisionally dismissed except with the legislation which affects the substantial rights
express consent of the accused and with of the accused. [Phil. National Bank v. Ruperto
notice to the offended party. (1960)]
It applies to criminal procedural law
prejudicial to the accused. [US v. Gomez
When the case is dismissed other than on the (1908)]
merits, upon motion of the accused personally,
or through counsel, such dismissal is regarded It is improper to apply the prohibition to an
as “with express consent of the accused”, who executive proclamation suspending the
is therefore deemed to have waived the right privilege of the writ of habeas corpus.
to plea double jeopardy. [Montenegro v. Castañeda (1952)]
PAGE 193 OF 406

B. BILLS OF ATTAINDER
A 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. Within the
meaning of the Constitution, bills of attainder
include bills of pains and penalties.
[Cummings v. Missouri (1867)]
It is a general safeguard against legislative
exercise of the judicial function, or trial by
legislature. [US v. Brown (1965)]
RA 1700 which declared the Communist Party
of the Philippines a clear and present danger
to Philippine security, and thus prohibited
membership in such organization, was
contended to be a bill of attainder. Although
the law mentions the CPP in particular, its
purpose is not to define a crime but only to lay
a basis or to justify the legislative
determination that membership in such
organization is a crime because of the clear
and present danger to national security.
[People v. Ferrer (1972)]
PAGE 194 OF 406

Constitutional Law 2 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Constitutional Law 2 PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Constitutional Law 2 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

What is police power and what are its scope and limitations?

What is police power and what are its scope and limitations?

What are the tests used to determine if a law is a valid exercise of police power?

What are the tests used to determine if a law is a valid exercise of police power?

UP LAW BOC CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 POLITICAL LAW

Eminent domain may be used as an implement

A. CONCEPT, APPLICATION AND LIMITS Specific Coverage

PAGE 100 OF 406

mining agreements into production-sharing assailed the constitutionality of Ordinance No.

A.2 EMINENT DOMAIN Who may exercise the power?

When is the value of just Examples from Jurisprudence:

PAGE 102 OF 406

(2) A municipal ordinance prohibiting a balance, if any shall be transferred to the

No law granting any tax exemption shall be

B. REQUISITES FOR VALID EXERCISE Similarities[Nachura]

B.2 EMINENT DOMAIN

Differences Note:In the exercise of police power, the

D. DELEGATION conferring the authority upon a municipal

Bases and Purpose

(1) See Zulueta v. CA (1996), where the Bill of

PAGE 108 OF 406

B.3 PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS

B.2 SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS To be meaningful, it must be both as to

In Administrative Proceedings (1) The students must be informed in writing of

PAGE 111 OF 406

of termination of employment under Art. D. CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY

C. SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS Basis: Constitution

Laws which interfere with life, liberty or Purpose:

Governmental functions are classified into:

PAGE 112 OF 406

Level of Scrutiny Rights Involved Requisites for Validity

PAGE 113 OF 406

Rational Basis Economic, property, commercial (a) Legitimate government interest

G. VOID-FOR-VAGUENESS DOCTRINE [This doctrine] can only be invoked against

PAGE 114 OF 406

Exception: Said doctrines apply to penal

PAGE 115 OF 406

B. REQUISITES FOR VALID given preference over aliens in their use or

(1) It must rest on substantial distinctions B.1 EXAMPLES OF VALID CLASSIFICATION

class is presumed unconstitutional.

Summary of Serrano v. Gallant Levels of Scrutiny

Rational Basis Classifications, in general Test of valid classification

Intermediate/Heightened Gender, illegitimacy (a) Substantial government

Strict Scrutiny Affects fundamental rights; or (a) Compelling state interest

PAGE 118 OF 406

and seizures cannot be invoked. [People v.

PAGE 120 OF 406

Roan v. Gonzales (1986); People v. circumstances will ordinarily allow [People v.

PAGE 122 OF 406

The provision is declaratory in the sense Immediate control – immediate area to

PAGE 123 OF 406

Comparison of Aruta to other cases

PAGE 124 OF 405

PAGE 125 OF 406

PAGE 126 OF 405

(3) The “frisk” is permitted to search for

C.8. EXIGENT AND EMERGENCY

C.9. VISUAL SEARCHES AT CHECKPOINTS

PAGE 127 OF 406