Critical Areas in

Political Law
The Bill of Rights
Fundamental Powers
of the State
Inherent Powers of the State -
1. Police Power
2. Power of Eminent Domain
3. Power of Taxation
Similarities among the
Fundamental Powers of the
State:
1.They are inherent in the State
and may be exercised by it
without need of express
constitutional grant;
2.They are not only necessary but
also indispensable. The State
cannot continue or be effective
unless it is able to exercise them;
 Fundamental Powers
of the State
3.They are methods by which the
State interferes with private
rights;
4.They all presuppose an equivalent
compensation for the private
rights interfered with; and
5.They are exercised primarily by
the legislature.
Common Limitations on the
Inherent Powers of the State:
1. May not be exercised arbitrarily
to the prejudice of the Bill of
Rights; and
2. Subject at all times to the
limitations and requirements of
the Constitution and may in
proper cases, be annulled by the
courts, i.e. when there is grave
abuse of discretion.
General Rule :The inherent powers are to
be exercised by the legislature.
Exception:These powers may be delegated
to:
a. President;
b. Administrative Agencies;
c. Local Government Units; and
d. Quasi-Public Corporation (private
corporations which perform a public
function or render public service. e.g.
Meralco).
ONLY Eminent Domain may be delegated
to quasi-public corporations (e.g.
MERALCO)
LGU’s and Police Power -
Local government units do not have
inherent powers being mere creatures
of Congress. Police Power and Eminent
Domain may be delegated to LGUs
and the delegation may be found in
their respective charters (Batangas
CATV, Inc. vs. CA, G.R. No. 138810,
September 29, 2004).
However, it is the Constitution itself
which delegated the power of Taxation
to LGUs.The delegation is found in
Sec. 5, Art. X.
Police Power and General Welfare
Police power is the power of the state to
promote public welfare by restraining
and regulating the use of liberty and
property. It is the most pervasive, the
least limitable, and the most demanding
of the three fundamental powers of the
State.The justification is found in the
Latin maxims salus populi est suprema
lex (the welfare of the people is the
supreme law) and sic utere tuo ut alienum
non laedas (so use your property as not to
injure the property of others).
Rationale behind Police Power -
Police power rests upon public necessity
and upon the right of the State and of
the public to self-protection. For this
reason, its scope expands and contracts
with the changing needs (Churchill v.
Rafferty, 32 Phil. 580, 602-603, 1915).
Police power of the state is a power
coextensive with self-protection, and is
aptly termed the law of overruling
necessity (Rubi v. Provincial Board, G.R.
No. L-14078, March 7, 1919).
Aspects covered by Police Power
Generally, police power extends to
all the great public needs. Its
particular aspects, however, are the
following:
1. Public health;
2. Public morals;
3. Public safety; and
4. Public welfare.
Requisites for the valid exercise of police
power by the delegate -
1. Express grant by law;
2. Must not be contrary to law; and
3. As a general rule, police power may
only be exercised within the territorial
limits of LGUs.
Exception: Police power may extend
beyond territorial jurisdiction when
exercised to protect water supply
(Wilson v. City of Mountain Lake Terraces,
417 P.2d 632, August 18, 1966).
Elements for a valid exercise of police
power
1. Lawful subject – The interests of the
public generally, as distinguished from
those of a particular class, require the
exercise of the police power; and
2. Lawful means – The means employed
are reasonably necessary for the
accomplishment of the purpose and not
unduly oppressive upon individuals
(NTC v. Philippine Veterans Bank, 192
SCRA 257, December 10, 1990)
Provision of Parking Slots in Malls
Mall owners and operators cannot be
validly compelled to provide free
parking to their customers because
requiring them to provide free parking
space to their customers is beyond
the scope of police powers. It
unreasonably restricts the right to use
property for business purposes and
amounts to confiscation of property
(OSG v. Ayala Land, Inc., 600 SCRA 617).
Prohibition Contrasted with Regulation
A reasonable relation must exist between the
purposes of the measure and the means
employed for its accomplishment, for even
under the guise of protecting the public
interest, personal rights and those
pertaining to private property will not be
permitted to be arbitrarily invaded. It must
also be evident that no other alternative for
the accomplishment of the purpose less
intrusive of private rights can work. (White
Light Corporation vs. City of Manila, G.R. No.
122846, January 20, 2009).
Regulation of Rates by Quasi-Public
Corporation –
The regulation of rates to be charged by
public utilities is founded upon the police
powers of the State and statutes
prescribing rules for the control and
regulation of public utilities are a valid
exercise thereof. When private property is
used for a public purpose and is affected
with public interest, it ceases to be juris
privati only and becomes subject to
regulation.The regulation is to promote the
common good. (Republic v. Manila Electric
Company, G.R. No. 141314, November 15,
2002).
MMDA is not a Political Subdivision
The MMDA cannot exercise police
powers since its powers are limited to
the formulation, coordination,
regulation, implementation,
preparation, management,
monitoring, setting of policies,
installing a system, and
administration. Nothing in RA No.
7924 granted the MMDA police
power, let alone legislative power
(MMDA v.Trackworks, G.R. No. 179554,
December 16, 2009).
Power of Eminent Domain, defined -
The power of eminent domain is the
inherent right of the State to
condemn private property to public
use upon payment of just
compensation.
The power of the nation or the
sovereign state to take, or to authorize
the taking of private property for
public use without the owner’s
consent, conditioned upon payment of
just compensation.
Elements of Eminent Domain
The power of eminent domain is the
inherent right of the State to condemn
private property to public use upon
payment of just compensation.
The power of the nation or the sovereign
state to take, or to authorize the taking
of private property for public use
without the owner’s consent,
conditioned upon payment of just
compensation (Brgy. Sindalan, San
Fernando, Pampanga v. CA, G.R. No.
150640, March 22, 2007).
Conditions for the exercise of the
Power of Eminent Domain:
1.Taking of private property;
2. For public use;
3. Just compensation; and
4. Observance of due process.
There must be a valid offer to buy the
property and refusal of said offer.
Requisites for a valid taking
1.The state must enter a private property;
2. Entry must be for more than a
momentary period;
3. Entry must be under warrant or color of
legal authority;
4. Property must be devoted to public use
or otherwise informally appropriated or
injuriously affected; and
5. Utilization of property must be in such a
way as to oust the owner and deprive him
of beneficial enjoyment of the property
(Republic v. De Castellvi, G.R. No. L-20620,
August 15, 1974).
Expansive concept of “Public Use”
Public use does not necessarily mean
“use by the public at large.”
Whatever may be beneficially
employed for the general welfare
satisfies the requirement. Moreover,
that only few people benefit from
the expropriation does not diminish
its public-use character because the
notion of public use now includes
the broader notion of indirect
public benefit or advantage
(Manosca v. CA, G.R. 166440, January
29, 1996).
VICARIOUS BENEFIT UNDER
EMINENT DOMAIN
The concept of vicarious benefit
abandons the traditional concept
(number of actual beneficiaries
determines public purpose). Public use
now includes the broader notion of
indirect public advantage, i.e.
conversion of a slum area into a model
housing community, urban land reform
and housing.There is a vicarious
advantage to the society (Filstream
International Incorporated v. CA, 284
SCRA 716, January 23, 1998).
Just compensation is the full and fair
equivalent of the property taken from
the private owner (owner’s loss) by the
expropriator. It is usually the fair market
value (FMV) of the property and must
include consequential damages (damages
to the other interest of the owner
attributed to the expropriation) minus
consequential benefits (increase in the
value of other interests attributed to new
use of the former property).
To be just, the compensation must be paid
on time. Otherwise, the court may
impose a 6% per annum interest by way
of damages.
Just Compensation, defined -
Just compensation is defined as the full
and fair equivalent of the property
sought to be expropriated.The
measure is not the taker’s gain but the
owner’s loss.The compensation, to be
just, must be fair not only to the
owner but also to the taker.
Consequential damages are only
awarded if as a result of the
expropriation, the remaining property of
the owner suffers from an impairment or
decrease in value.
FAIR MARKET VALUE
Fair market value is the price that
may be agreed upon by parties
who are willing but are not
compelled to enter into a
contract of sale (City of Manila v.
Estrada, G.R. No. 7749, September
9, 1913).
PERIOD TO FIX JUST
COMPENSATION
General Rule:The reckoning point to
determine just compensation is on the
date of the filing of the complaint for
eminent domain.
Exception: Where the filing of the
complaint occurs after the actual taking
of the property and the owner would be
given undue incremental advantages
arising from the use to which the
government devotes the property
expropriated, just compensation is
determined as of the date of the taking
(NPC v. CA, G.R. No. 113194, March 11,
1996).
EXCLUSION OF CAPITAL GAINS IN
THE JUST COMPENSATION
More significantly, given that the
payment of capital gains tax on the
transfer of the subject property has no
effect on the increase or decrease in
value of the remaining property, it can
hardly be considered as consequential
damages that may be awarded to
respondents. (Republic v. Sps. Salvador,
G.R. No. 205428, June 7, 2017)
CARP AND JUST COMPENSATION –
In cases involving CARP, compensation
may be in bonds or stocks, for it has
been held as a non-traditional exercise
of the power of eminent domain. It is
not an ordinary expropriation where
only a specific property of relatively
limited area is sought to be taken by
the State from its owner for a specific
and perhaps local purpose. It is rather
a revolutionary kind of expropriation
(Association of Small Landowners in the
Philippines, Inc. v. Secretary of Agrarian
Reform, G.R. No. 78742, July 14,1989).
JUST COMPENSATION AND
PRESCRIPTION
The right to recover just compensation
is enshrined in no less than our Bill of
Rights, which states in clear and
categorical language that private
property shall not be taken for public
use without just compensation.This
constitutional mandate cannot be
defeated by statutory prescription
(NPC v. Sps. Bernardo, G. R. No. 189127,
April 25, 2012).
EFFECT OF DELAY IN JUST
COMPENSATION –
1. When there is deliberate refusal to pay
just compensation, the court may
impose interest until full payment is
made; and
2. Government’s failure to pay
compensation within 5 years from the
finality of the judgment in the
expropriation proceedings would
militate imposition of interest payment.
This is in connection with the principle
that the government cannot keep the
property and dishonor the judgment
(Republic v. Lim, G.R. No. 161656, June 29,
2005).
ABANDONMENT OF PUBLIC USE AND
RIGHT OF RECONVEYANCE
It is well settled that the taking of private
property by the Government’s power of
eminent domain is subject to two
mandatory requirements: (1) that it is for
a particular public purpose; and (2) that
just compensation be paid to the
property owner.These requirements
partake of the nature of implied
conditions that should be complied with
to enable the condemn or to keep the
property expropriated (MIAA and Air
Transportation Office v. Lozada, G.R. No.
176625, February 25, 2010).
RIGHT OF THE STATE TO
WITHDRAW PETITION TO
EXPROPRIATE –
The government has the right to
withdraw the expropriation case when
public purpose is abandoned.To
continue with the expropriation
proceedings despite the definite
cessation of the public purpose of the
project would result in the rendition
of an invalid judgment in favor of the
expropriator due to the absence of
the essential element of public use
(Republic v. Heirs of Borbon, G.R. No.
165354, January 12, 2015).
TAXATION, DEFINED -
Taxation is the process by which the
government, through its legislative
branch, imposes and collects revenues
to defray the necessary expenses of
the government, and to be able to
carry out, in particular, any and all
projects that are supposed to be for
the common good. Simply put,
taxation is the method by which these
contributions are exacted.
NATURE OF TAXES
Taxes are:
1. enforced proportional
contributions from persons and
property;
2. levied by the State by virtue of
its sovereignty;
3. for the support of the
government; and
4. for public needs.
NATURE OF THE POWER OF
TAXATION –
The power to tax includes the power to
destroy only if it is used as a valid
implement of the police power in
discouraging and in effect, ultimately
prohibiting certain things or enterprises
inimical to public welfare.The tax may
be successfully attacked as an
inordinate and unconstitutional exercise
of the discretion if it is oppressive and
confiscatory(Roxas v. CTA, L-25043, April
26, 1968).
INHERENT LIMITATIONS ON
THE POWER TO TAX -
1. Public purpose;
2. Non-delegability of power;
3.Territoriality or situs of taxation;
4. Exemption of government from
taxation; and
5. International comity.
UNIFORMITY in taxation refers
to geographical uniformity,
meaning it operates with the
same force and effect in every
place where the subject of it is
found.
PROGRESSIVE SYSTEM of
taxation posits that the tax rate
increases as the tax base
increases.
TAX EXEMPTIONS MAY EITHER BE
1. by constitutional provision;
Sec. 28(3), Art. VI, 1987 Constitution
provides -
“Charitable institutions, churches and
personages or convents appurtenant
thereto, mosques, non-profit
cemeteries, and all lands, buildings, and
improvements, actually, directly, and
exclusively used for religious,
charitable, or educational purposes
shall be exempt from taxation.”
2. by statutory provision
Art. VI, 1987 Constitution, Sec. 28(4)
provides –
“No law granting any tax
exemption shall be passed
without the concurrence of a
majority of all the Members of
the Congress.”
CONSTRUCTION OF TAX LAWS
General Rule : In case of doubt, tax
statutes are to be construed strictly
against the Government and
liberally in favor of the taxpayer, for
taxes, being burdens, are not to be
presumed beyond what the
applicable statute expressly and
clearly declares (CIR v. La Tondena,
Inc. and CTA, 5 SCRA 665, July 31,
1962).
CONSTRUCTION OF LAWS
GRANTING TAX EXEMPTIONS
It must be strictly construed
against the taxpayer, because the
law frowns on exemption from
taxation; hence, an exempting
provision should be construed
strictissimi juris (Acting
Commissioner of Customs v. Manila
Electric Company, G.R. No. L-23623,
June 30, 1977).
DOUBLE TAXATION means taxing the
same property twice when it should be
taxed only once; that is, “taxing the same
person twice by the same jurisdiction for
the same thing.” Otherwise described as
“direct duplicate taxation,” the two taxes
must be imposed on the same subject
matter, for the same purpose, by the
same taxing authority, within the same
jurisdiction, during the same taxing
period; and the taxes must be of the
same kind or character (City of Manila v.
Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines, G.R. No.
181845, August 4, 2009).
DOUBLE TAXATION –
There is double taxation when taxes
imposed are
1. for the same Purpose;
2. by the same Taxing Authority;
3. For the same Taxing Periods;
4. On the same Subject Matter;
5. Within the same Taxing Jurisdiction;
and
6. Of the same Kind or Character
(Swedish Match Philippines v.Treasurer
of the City of Manila, G.R. No. 181277,
July 3, 2013).
TAXES AND LICENSE FEES –
Ordinarily, license fees are in the
nature of the exercise of police
power because they are in the form
of regulation by the State and
considered as a manner of paying off
administration costs. However, if the
license fee is higher than the cost of
regulating, then it becomes a form of
taxation (Ermita-Malate Hotel v. City
Mayor of Manila, G.R. No. L-24693,
October 23, 1967).
TAXES AND LICENSE FEES –
Ordinarily, license fees are in the
nature of the exercise of police
power because they are in the form
of regulation by the State and
considered as a manner of paying off
administration costs. However, if the
license fee is higher than the cost of
regulating, then it becomes a form
of taxation (Ermita-Malate Hotel v.
City Mayor of Manila, G.R. No. L-
24693, October 23, 1967).
Taxes cannot be subject to compensation for
the simple reason that the government and
the taxpayer are not creditors and debtors
of each other.There is a material distinction
between a tax and debt. Debts are due to
the Government in its corporate capacity,
while taxes are due to the Government in
its sovereign capacity. It must be noted that
a distinguishing feature of tax is that it is
compulsory rather than a matter of bargain.
Hence, a tax does not depend upon the
consent of the taxpayer (Philex Mining Corp.
v. CIR, 294 SCRA 687, August 28, 1998).
HISTORY AND PURPOSE OF THE BILL
OF RIGHTS -
The Preamble and the sovereign will
Bill of rights: protection of guaranteed
rights to liberty, property and other
freedoms (Section 1, Article III,
Constitution)
Republic v. Sandiganbayan: Even during
the Martial Law years, the Bill of Rights
is enforced and no one can be deprived
of due process of law without sufficient
notice.
The Bill of Rights governs the
relationship between the individual
and the State. Its’ concern is not the
relation between private individuals.
What it does is to declare some
forbidden zones in the private
sphere inaccessible to any power
holder (People v. Marti, G.R. No.
81561, January 18, 1991).
GENERAL RULE: The Bill of Rights can
only be invoked against the state.
Yrasegui v. PAL: Equal protection clause
cannot be invoked against PAL.
People v. Marti: Search by a private party
is proper if required by law (Santos was
a private courrier)
EXCEPTION TO THE RULE:
Zulueta v. Court of Appeals: Exclusion of
evidence which were seized by a private
person cannot be used as evidence
against the owner of the documents.
1. Definition and Purpose of the Bill of
Rights: protection of guaranteed rights
to liberty, property and other freedoms.
(Section 1, Article III, Constitution)
2. Who are protected by the rights: all
citizens, natural-born and naturalized
citizens; aliens within the jurisdiction
of the Philippines; both natural and
juridical persons.
3. Doctrines governing interpretation of
laws affecting guaranteed rights:
”Void for Vagueness “ doctrine
“Overbreadth” doctrine
DOCTRINES APPLIED IN THE
INTERPRETATION OF THE
BILL OF RIGHTS:
1.Void for Vagueness doctrine; and
2. Overbreadth Doctrine
DOCTRINES IN THE
INTERPRETATION OF THE BILL
OF RIGHTS:
Void for Vagueness doctrine: A law is
vague when it lacks comprehensive
standards that men of common
intelligence must necessarily guess
at its common meaning and differ as
to its application. In such instance,
the statute is repugnant to the
Constitution because:
1. It violates due process for failure
to accord persons, especially the
parties targeted by it, fair notice
of what conduct to avoid; and
2. It leaves law enforcers an
unbridled discretion in carrying
out its provisions (People v. de la
Piedra, G.R. No. 128777, January 24,
2001).
SCOPE OF THE DOCTRINE –
The "void-for-vagueness" doctrine does
not apply as against legislations that
are merely couched in imprecise
language but which specify a standard
though defectively phrased; or to
those that are apparently ambiguous
yet fairly applicable to certain types of
activities.The first may be "saved" by
proper construction, while no
challenge may be mounted as against
the second whenever directed against
such activities.
OVERBREADTH DOCTRINE:
When the law gives a “chilling
effect,” it is said to be overbroad.
Estrada v. Sandiganbayan: S. C.
made a distinction between facial
challenge and overbreadth;
former is allowed to a vague
statute but the latter is made
due to its chilling effect to the
public.
TWO KINDS OF CHILLING EFFECT
1. BENIGN CHILLING EFFECT –
This may be caused by penal statutes
which are intended to have an in
terrorem effect to prevent a
repetition of the offense and to deter
criminality. The chilling effect is
equated with and justified by the
intended in terrorem effect of penal
provisions.
2. INVIDIOUS CHILLING
EFFECT
This may be caused by penal
laws affecting free speech and
accordingly imposes a penalty
that is so discouraging thus
impeding the exercise of
speech and expression
altogether.
JUDICIAL STANDARDS OF REVIEW
1. DEFERENTIAL REVIEW – Laws are
upheld if they rationally further a
legitimate governmental interest,
without courts seriously inquiring
into the substantiality of such
interest and examining the
alternative means by which the
objectives could be achieved.
JUDICIAL STANDARDS OF
REVIEW
2. INTERMEDIATE REVIEW – The
substantiality of the
governmental interest is seriously
looked into and the availability
of less restrictive alternatives is
considered.
JUDICIAL STANDARDS OF REVIEW
3. STRICT SCRUTINY – The focus is
on the presence of compelling,
rather than substantial
governmental interest and on the
absence of less restrictive means
for achieving that interest
(Separate opinion of Justice
Mendoza in Estrada v.
Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 148965,
February 26, 2002).
LIMITATIONS TO THE ENJOYMENT OF
THE GUARANTEES UNDER THE BILL
OF RIGHTS:
1. Police Power
2. Power to Tax
3. Power to Expropriate
Who are covered: Both citizens and aliens
within the jurisdiction of the Philippines
Board of Medicine v. Ota: The rule on
reciprocity would apply where a Filipino
physician is allowed to practice medicine
in Japan
Kuwait Airways Corp. v. PAL: In commercial
relations, the general principles in
international law must be respected.
Government of Hongkong SAR v. Olalia:
The extradition treaty signed by
Hongkong before its turnover to
China can no longer enforced.
Government of the United States of
America v. Puruganan and Mark Jimenez:
Extradition proceedings are not in the
nature of criminal proceedings. Where
there is a conflict between
international law provisions with that
of a domestic law, the latter would
prevail.
RIGHT TO LIFE, LIBERTY AND PROPERTY:
SAFEGUARDS OF DUE PROCESS, EQUAL
PROTECTION AND NON-IMPAIRMENT
CLAUSES -
Right to Life:
Republic v. Kagandahan: As a signatory to the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the
Philippines must accord the individual the right to
the preferred gender (without medical
intervention) so he can live a full life.
Gamboa v. P/SSupt. Chan et al.:The act of the PNP in
forwarding certain information to the Zenarosa
Commission does not violate or threaten the right
to life, liberty or security.
DUE PROCESS MEANS:
1.There shall be a law prescribed in
harmony with the general powers of
the legislature;
2. It shall be reasonable in its operation;
3. It shall be enforced according to the
regular methods of procedure
prescribed; and
4. It shall be applicable alike to all citizens
of the State or to all of a class (People v.
Cayat, G.R. No. L-45987, May 5, 1939)
DUE PROCESS CLAUSE
Types of Due Process: procedural and
substantive
Guaranteed rights: right to be
informed of the nature of the
complaint (notice) and the right to
confront the witnesses and present
evidence on one’s behalf (hearing)
Corona v. United Harbor Pilots: An
instrument which vests in a group of
its right to practice their profession is
void if there is no notice.
RELATIVITY OF DUE PROCESS
Relativity of due process arises when
the definition of due process has been
left to the best judgment of our
judiciary considering the peculiarity
and the circumstances of each case. In
a litany of cases that have been
decided in this jurisdiction, the
common requirement to be able to
conform to due process is fair play,
respect for justice and respect for the
better rights of others.
In accordance with the
standards of due process, any
court at any particular time,
will be well guided, instead of
being merely confined strictly
to a precise definition which
may or may not apply in every
case.
NO DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS
WHERE NATIONAL SECURITY IS
INVOLVED -
A determination of the precise nature
of the government function involved
as well as of the private interest that
has been affected by governmental
action must be considered in
determining the application of the
rules of procedure (Cafeteria &
Restaurant Workers Union v. McElroy,
367 U.S. 886, June 19, 1961).
DUE PROCESS CLAUSE: PUBLICATION, AS
NOTICE
Tanada v.Tuvera: Publication of law is a pre-
requisite to impose a burden on an
individual.
Judge Ferdinand Villanueva vs. the JBC, G.R. No.
211833, 07 April 2015: JBC requirements are
not just internal regulations, because if they
were, they would regulate and affect only
the members of the JBC and their staff.
Thus, it is but a natural consequence thereof
that potential applicants be informed of the
requirements to the judicial positions, so
that they can comply.
EFFECT OF NON-OBSERVANCE OF
NOTICE AND HEARING
As a rule, it will invalidate the
administrative proceedings. A failure
to comply with the requirements
may result in a failure to acquire
jurisdiction.
The right to notice may be waived.
NECESSITY OF NOTICE AND
HEARING
A hearing may take place after the
deprivation occurs. What the law
prohibits is not the absence of
previous notice but the absolute
absence thereof and the lack of
opportunity to be heard.
INSTANCES WHEN NO NOTICE
AND HEARING ARE
REQUIRED:
Voluntary appearance and active
participation in previously
scheduled proceedings bar the
parties from raising the issue of
lack of notice.
INSTANCES WHEN HEARINGS
ARE NOT NECESSARY -
1. When administrative agencies are
exercising their quasi-legislative
functions;
2. Abatement of nuisance per se;
3. Granting by courts of provisional
remedies;
4. Cases of preventive suspension;
5. Removal of temporary employees in
the government service;
6. Issuance of warrants of distraint
and/or levy by the BIR Commissioner;
7. Cancellation of the passport of a
person charged with a crime; and
8. Suspension of a bank’s operations by
the Monetary Board upon a prima
facie finding of liquidity problems in
such bank.
DUE PROCESS IN JUDICIAL
PROCEEDINGS
Whether in civil or criminal judicial
proceedings, due process requires
that there be:
1. An impartial and disinterested court
clothed by law with authority to hear
and determine the matter before it;
The test of impartiality is whether the
judge’s intervention tends to prevent
the proper presentation of the case
or the ascertainment of the truth.
2. Jurisdiction lawfully acquired over the
defendant or the property which is
the subject matter of the proceeding;
3. Notice and opportunity to be heard
be given to the defendant; and
4. Judgment to be rendered after lawful
hearing, clearly explained as to the
factual and legal bases (Art. VII, 1987
Constitution, Sec. 14).
DUE PROCESS IN JUDICIAL
PROCEEDINGS:
Velasco v. Sandiganbayan and People of
the Philippines, G. R. No. 169253,
February 20, 2013: Proceedings in the
Sandiganbayan are criminal in
nature. Proof beyond reasonable
doubt is required to convict and the
accused must be represented by
counsel who will ensure compliance
with the rules of procedure.
DUE PROCESS IN ADMINISTRATIVE
PROCEEDINGS –
1. Right to a hearing which includes
the right to present one’s case and
submit evidence in support thereof;
2.The tribunal must consider the
evidence presented;
3.The decision must be supported by
evidence;
4. Such evidence must be substantial;
5.The decision must be rendered on the
evidence presented at the hearing or
at least contained in the record, and
disclosed to the parties affected;
6.The tribunal or body or any of its
judges must act on its own
independent consideration of the law
and facts of the controversy in arriving
at a decision;
7.The board or body should render
decision in such a manner that parties
can know the various issues involved
and the reasons for the decision
rendered (Ang Tibay v. CIR, G.R. No. L-
46496, February 27, 1940).
ESSENCE OF DUE PROCESS IN
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS –
The essence of due process in
administrative proceedings is the
opportunity to explain one’s side or
seek a reconsideration of the action or
ruling complained of. As long as the
parties are given the opportunity to be
heard before judgment is rendered, the
demands of due process are sufficiently
met. What is offensive to due process is
the denial of the opportunity to be
heard (Flores v. Montemayor, G.R. No.
170146, June 6, 2011).
DUE PROCESS IN ADMINISTRATIVE
PROCEEDINGS: First Class Cadet
Aldrin Jeff Cudia v.The Superintendent
of the PMA, G.R. No. 211362, 25
February 2015: A cadet facing
dismissal from the military academy
for misconduct has constitutionally
protected private interests (life,
liberty, or property); hence,
disciplinary proceedings conducted
within the bounds of procedural due
process is a must.
EFFECT OF WAIVER/ESTOPPEL:
The Heirs of Jolly Bugarin v. Republic, G.R.
No. 174431, August 6, 2012: Party cannot
claim denial of due process after the
party had actively participated in the
proceedings.
Right to Counsel:
Carbonel v. CSC, G.R. No. 187689,
September 7, 2010: Where a proceeding
may result to criminal liability, party
may avail of counsel.
DUE PROCESS IN ACADEMIC
AND DISCIPLINARY
PROCEEDINGS:
Parties are bound by the rules
governing academic
requirements and standards of
behavior prescribed by the
educational institutions. Resort
to courts is available to parties.
RIGHT OF A SCHOOL TO IMPOSE
SANCTION OVER ITS STUDENTS -
Viveres and Suzara v. St.Theresa’s
College, G.R. No. 202666, September
29, 2014: While the issue focused on
the right of the minor students to
privacy, the Supreme Court upheld
the right of St.Theresa’s College to
take disciplinary action over its
students.
REQUISITES OF STUDENT
DISCIPLINE PROCEEDINGS
Student discipline proceedings may be
summary and cross-examination is
not an essential part thereof.
However, to be valid, the following
requirements must be met:
1. Written notification sent to the
student/s informing the nature and
cause of any accusation against
him/her;
2. Opportunity to answer the charges,
with the assistance of a counsel, if so
desired;
3. Presentation of one’s evidence and
examination of adverse evidence;
4. Evidence must be duly considered by
the investigating committee or official
designated by the school authorities
to hear and decide the case (Guzman v.
NU, G.R. No. L-68288, July 11, 1986); and
5.The penalty imposed must be
proportionate to the offense.
PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS
Mayor Tolentino v. COMELEC: Due process
simply requires: right to notice; right to
reasonable opportunity to appear;
competent tribunal; and right to a decision
based on evidence and law.
Acuzar v. Apresa: Due process in
administrative proceedings require: notice,
right to be heard; competent tribunal and a
finding supported by substantial evidence;
the administrative case before the PLEB
can proceed independent of the criminal
case against the police officer.
Melendres v. PAGC: Due process, as a
constitutional precept, does not always and
in all situations require a trial-type
proceeding. In administrative proceedings, it
is sufficient that one is informed of the
charges against him and giving him
reasonable opportunity to answer the
accusations against him.
Garcia v. Molina and Velasco: A decision
rendered without due process is void ab
initio and be attacked at any time in a
separate action or resisting such decision in
any action or proceeding where it is
invoked.
HIERACHY OF RIGHTS
There is a hierarchy of constitutional
rights. While the Bill of Rights also
protects property rights, the primacy
of human rights over property rights
is recognized. Property and propriety
rights can be lost through
prescription; but human rights are
imprescriptible.
In the hierarchy of civil liberties, the
rights of free expression and of
assembly occupy a preferred
position as they are essential to the
preservation and vitality of our civil and
political institutions (Philippine
Blooming Mills Employees Organization v.
Philippine Blooming Mills Co., Inc., G.R.
No. L-31195, June 5, 1973).
Guranteed Rights include -
1. Civil and Political Rights
2. Economic, Social and Cultural
Rights
3. Environmental Rights
EQUAL PROTECTION: not an
absolute guarantee but assures legal
equality; requires valid classification.
ELEMENTS: classification must be
germane; individuals belong to the
same class; must distinction; not
temporary
Mirasol v. DPWH: classification based on
practical convenience and common
knowledge.
Santos v. People: classification is done to
prevent undue favor or privilege.
Garcia v. Hon. Drilon et al., G.R. No.
179267, June 25, 2013. R.A. 9262
VAWC Law does not violate the equal
protection clause for the following
reasons:
1.The classification rests on substantial
distinctions;
2.The classification is germane to the
purpose of the law; and
3.The classification is not limited to existing
conditions only; and
4.The classification applies equally to all
members.
GARCIA v. DRILON (G.R. No. 179267.
June 25, 2013): VAWC Law is valid. The
unequal power relationship between
women and men is a substantial
distinction; the fact that women are
more likely than men to be victims
of violence; and the widespread
gender bias and prejudice against
women all make for real differences
justifying the classification under the
law.
The distinction between men and
women is germane to the purpose of
R.A. 9262, which is to address violence
committed against women and
children.
R.A. 9262 is based on a valid
classification and, as such, did not
violate the equal protection clause by
favoring women over men as victims
of violence and abuse to whom the
State extends its protection.
Yrasuegui v. Phil. Airlines, Inc. (569 SCRA
467): “In the absence of
governmental interference, the
liberties guaranteed by the
Constitution cannot be invoked. Put
differently, the Bill of Rights is not
meant to be invoked against acts of
private individuals. Equal protection
erects no shield against private
conduct, however discriminatory or
wrongful. Private actions, no matter
how egregious, cannot violate the
equal protection guarantee.”
NAPOCOR v. Pinatubo Commercial, G. R.
No. 179006, March 26, 2010.The
guaranty of the equal protection clause
is not violated by a legislation based on
a reasonable classification.
The government agency is authorized to
formulate standards to be able to
qualify to bid in the supply of materials
and/or services in an agency’s project. It
has the right to disqualify bidders who
do not meet the prescribed
qualifications.
Equal Protection Clause
Bases for classification: age,
gender, religion, economic class,
ethnicity, race, sexual
orientation, economic class,
residence, disability,
Other matters to be considered:
date of filing/ effectivity of the
law
Biraogo v.The Philippine Truth
Commission of 2010, G.R. No. 192935,
Dec. 7, 2010):The Arroyo
administration is but just a member
of a class, that is, a class of past
administrations. It is not a class of its
own.
Not to include past administrations
similarly situated constitutes
arbitrariness which the equal
protection clause cannot sanction.
THEORY OF RELATIVE
UNCONSTITUTIONALITY
Central Bank Employees’ Association v.
BSP (G.R. No. 148208. December 15,
2004): A statute valid at one time may
become void at another time because
of altered circumstances. Thus, if a
statute in its practical operation
becomes arbitrary or confiscatory, its
validity, even though affirmed by a
former adjudication, is open to inquiry
and investigation in the light of
changed conditions.
LAW MAY BE NON-DISCRIMINATORY
ON ITS FACE BUT DISCRIMINATORY
IN ITS APPLICATION
Biraogo v. Ochoa: No particular individual
should be singled out under a law or
executive order.
Nicolas v. Romulo: there is no violation of
equal protection clause even if there is a
substantial basis for different treatment
of US military personnel undergoing
trial and even after conviction by the
trial court.
LAW NON-DISCRIMINATORY ON
ITS FACE BUT DISCRIMINATORY
IN ITS APPLICATION UNDER A
SPECIAL AGREEMENT WITH THE
TWO COUNTRIES. (Application of
Provisions of VFA/ Extradition
Tresties)
Victoriano v. Elizalde Ropeworkers Union:
A labor law is secular, worldly and
temporal not spiritual but exemption
based on religion is valid and
reasonable. Freedom of religion must
prevail over an act of Congress or
even the provisions of the CBA.
Equal Protection Clause
Serrano v. Gallant Maritime Services, Inc:
The distinction between domestic
workers and OFWs is valid and
substantial.
Quinto v. COMELEC:There is a different
consequence between an elective and
an appointive public official’s filing of
Certificate of Candidacy.
Equal Protection Clause -
Imbong v. Ochoa:The Court struck
down Sec. 5.23 of the
Reproductive Health Law-IRR
which provides that skilled
health professional such as
provincial, city or municipal
health officers, chiefs of hospital,
head nurses, supervising
midwives cannot be considered
as conscientious objectors.
The Court said that this is
discriminatory and violative of the
equal protection clause.The
conscientious objection clause should
be equally protective of the religious
belief of public health officers.There
is no perceptible distinction why they
should not be considered exempt
from the mandates of the law.The
protection to other conscientious
objectors.
should equally apply to all medical
practitioners without distinction
whether they belong to the public or
private sector. After all, the freedom
to believe is intrinsic in every
individual and the protective robe
that guarantees its free exercise is not
taken off even if one acquires
employment in the government
(Imbong v. Ochoa G.R. No. 204819 April
8, 2014).
Central Bank Employees Association, Inc.,
v. Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (G.R. No.
148208, December 15, 2004): The New
Central Bank Act created two
categories of employees: (1) Bangko
Sentral ng Pilipinas officers who are
exempt from the Salary
Standardization Law (SSL) and (2)
rank-and-file employees with Salary
Grade 19 and below who are not
exempt from the Salary
Standardization Law.
Subsequent to the enactment of the Act,
the charters of the Land Bank of the
Philippines and all other Government
Financial Institutions (GFIs) were
amended exempting all their personnel,
including the rank-and-file employees,
from the coverage of the SSL. BSP
Employees Association filed a petition to
prohibit the BSP from implementing the
provision of the Act for they were
illegally discriminated against when they
were placed within the coverage of the
SSL.
The Court held that in the field of
equal protection, the guarantee that
“no person shall be denied the equal
protection of the laws” includes the
prohibition against enacting laws
that allow invidious discrimination,
directly or indirectly. If a law has the
effect of denying the equal
protection of the law, or permits
such denial, it is unconstitutional. It
is against this standard that the
disparate treatment of the BSP rank-
and-file from the other Government
Financial Institutions (GFI) cannot
stand judicial scrutiny. For, as regards
the exemption from the coverage of
the SSL, there exists no substantial
distinction so as to differentiate the
BSP rank-and-file from the other
rank-and-file of other GFIs.
Ferrer v. Hon. Herbert Bautista: The
Court struck down as
unconstitutional an ordinance
imposing garbage collection fees
which required a condominium unit
occupant to pay a higher rate than
that of a residential lot owner. For the
purpose of garbage collection, there
is, in fact, no substantial distinction
between an occupant of a lot, on one
hand, and an occupant of unit in a
condominium.
 Equal Protection Clause
The legislature may not validly
classify the citizens of the State on
the basis of their origin, race, or
parentage. But the difference in
status between citizens and aliens
constitutes a basis for reasonable
classification in the exercise of
police power (Demore v. Kim, 538
U.S. 510, April 29, 2003).
Please read Ichong v. Hernandez and
Manila Prince Hotel v. GSIS.
To summarize, equal protection clause
when subjected to judicial review is
examined by:
1. Strict scrutiny test where government
must show that challenge classification
serves a compelling state interest and
that classification is necessary to serve
the interest. (Roe v. Wade case, religion,
denial or dilution of right to vote,
access to the courts);
2. Middle-tier scrutiny test where
government must show that the
challenged classification is at least
substantially related to that interest.
(gender, illegitimacy); or
3. Rational or minimum scrutiny test
where government need only to
show that the challenged
classification is rationally related to
serving a legitimate state interest.
ESSENCE OF PRIVACY –
The essence of privacy is the right
to be left alone. In context, the
right to privacy means the right
to be free from unwarranted
exploitation of one’s person or
from intrusion into ones’ private
activities in such a way as to
cause humiliation to a person’s
ordinary sensibilities.
THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY IS NOT
ABSOLUTE
The right of privacy or "the right to be
let alone," like the right of free
expression, is not an absolute right. A
limited intrusion into a person's
privacy has long been regarded as
permissible where that person is a
public figure and the information
sought to be elicited from him or to
be published about him constitute of
a public character.
Succinctly put, the right of privacy
cannot be invoked to resist
publication and dissemination of
matters of public interest.The interest
sought to be protected by the right of
privacy is the right to be free from
unwarranted publicity, from the
wrongful publicizing of the private
affairs and activities of an individual
which are outside the realm of
legitimate public concern (Ayer
Productions Pty. Ltd. v. Capulong, G.R.
No. 82380, April 29, 1988 – “ The Four-
Day Revolution”).
Concept of Diminished Expectation of
Privacy-
The Supreme Court cited the US case of
O’Connor v. Ortega, which ruled that
government agencies, in their capacity as
employers, rather than law enforcers, could
validly conduct search and seizure in the
governmental workplace without meeting
the “probable cause” or warrant
requirement for search and seizure.
Moreover, Pollo failed to prove that he had
an actual (subjective) expectation of privacy
either in his office or government-issued
computer which contained his personal files
(Pollo v. David, G.R. No. 181881 October 18,
2011).
Diminished Expectation to Right of
Privacy
In Ople v.Torres, the Court enunciated that
“the reasonableness of a person’s
expectation of privacy depends on a two-
part test:
1. Whether, by his conduct, the individual
has exhibited an expectation of privacy;
and
2.This expectation is one that society
recognizes as reasonable.”
Customs, community norms, and
practices may, therefore, limit or
extend an individual’s “reasonable
expectation of privacy.”
The Cybercrime Law does not regard as
crime private communications of sexual
character between consenting adults.
Thus, the deliberations of the
Bicameral Committee of Congress on
Sec.4(c)(i) of the law show a lack of
intent to penalize a private showing
between and among two private
persons although that may be a form of
obscenity to some.The understanding of
those who drew up the cybercrime law
is that the element of “engaging
in a business” is necessary to
constitute the crime of illegal
cybersex.The Act actually seeks to
punish cyber prostitution, white
slave trade, and pornography for
favor and consideration.This
includes interactive prostitution and
pornography, e.g., by webcam (Disini v.
Secretary of Justice, G.R. No. 203335
February 11, 2014).
Right to Privacy in One’s Domicile
The installation of surveillance cameras,
however, should not cover places where
there is reasonable expectation of
privacy, unless the consent of the
individual, whose right to privacy would
be affected, was obtained. Nor should
these cameras be used to pry into the
privacy of another’s residence or
business office as it would be no
different from eavesdropping, which is a
crime under Republic Act No. 4200 or
the Anti-Wiretapping Law (Sps. Hing v.
Choachuy, G.R. No. 179736, June 26, 2013).
The Zones of Privacy
There are Three Zones of Privacy –
1. Informational Privacy
2. Locational Privacy
3. Decisional Privacy
The right to privacy is not violated when
a third party downloads images
from an individual’s Facebook page
that are accessible by “friends” of the
individual or by the public at large.
(Vivares v. St. Theresa’s College, G.R. No.
202666, September 29, 2014).
DECISIONAL PRIVACY
To address concerns about privacy, but
without defeating its purpose,
Facebook was armed with different
privacy tools designed to regulate the
accessibility of a user’s profile as well
as information uploaded by the user. It
is through the availability of said
privacy tools that many OSN (Online
Social Network) users are said to have
a subjective expectation that only to
DECISIONAL PRIVACY
whom they grant access to their profile
will view the information they post or
upload thereto.
The Regional Trial Court dismissed the
petition for habeas data because
“petitioners failed to prove the
existence of an actual or threatened
violation of the minors’ right to
privacy.”
(Vivares v. St. Theresa’s College, G.R. No.
202666, September 29, 2014).
Informational Privacy
In this case, also at issue was the right to
informational privacy, defined as “the
right of individuals to control
information about themselves.” To
what extent should the right to
privacy be protected in online social
networks whose sole purpose is
sharing information over the web? The
petitioners argued that the privacy
settings on Facebook limit who can
see what information.This gives users
a subjective expectation of privacy.
The Court agreed that there is an
expectation of privacy in the web.
However, the Court also ruled that
before one can have an expectation of
privacy in her Facebook information, he
or she must manifest an intention to
keep that information private by
utilizing privacy tools. If someone posts
something on Facebook and does not
limit who can see that information,
there is no expectation of privacy.The
photos in the case at hand were all
viewable by the friends of the girls or by
the general public (Vivares and Suzara
v. St.Theresa’s College, supra).
Scope of Coverage of Taped Private
Conversations –
The phrase "private communication" in
Section 1 of R.A. 4200 is broad enough
to include verbal or non-verbal, written
or expressive communications of
"meanings or thoughts" which are
likely to include the emotionally-
charged exchange between petitioner
and private respondent, in the privacy
of the latter's office. (Ramirez v. CA, G.R.
No. 93833 September 28, 1995)
 Anti-Wire Tapping Law
What R.A. 4200 penalizes are the acts of
secretly overhearing, intercepting or
recording private communications by means
of the devices enumerated therein. The mere
allegation that an individual made a secret
recording of a private communication by
means of a tape recorder would suffice to
constitute an offense under Section 1 of R.A.
4200. As the Solicitor General pointed out in
his COMMENT before the respondent court:
"Nowhere (in the said law) is it required that
before one can be regarded as a violator, the
nature of the conversation, as well as its
communication to a third person should be
professed."
 Anti-Wire Tapping Law
Finally, petitioner's contention that the phrase
"private communication" in Section 1 of R.A.
4200 does not include "private conversations"
narrows the ordinary meaning of the word
"communication" to a point of absurdity. The
word communicate comes from the latin
word communicare, meaning "to share or to
impart." In its ordinary signification,
communication connotes the act of sharing or
imparting signification, communication
connotes the act of sharing or imparting, as in
a conversation, 15 or signifies the "process by
which meanings or thoughts are shared
between individuals through a common system
of symbols (as language signs or gestures)."
Privacy of Communication: wiretapping
or eavesdropping is a form of intrusion
into one’s sacred private precincts.
Salcedo-Ortanez v. Zamora: A
recording of telephone conversation
cannot be introduced in evidence if
made without the consent of the
parties.
Navarro v. C.A. and People: When the
recorded event was done by person in
the media industry, the same may be
admitted in evidence.
Ople v.Torres: The requirement for every
citizen to be issued national
identification card invades the privacy
of individuals as it calls for disclosure
of personal information.
Alejano v. Cabuay: When a
correspondence addressed to
detained persons is not sealed the
custodian of such persons may read
the contents of the correspondence.
Freedom of Expression: the right to speak
freely one’s mind; right prohibits prior
restraint or censorship; the burden is on
the citizen to prove good motives and
justifiable ends in placing their
complaints. Comments or criticisms.
Estrada v. Sandiganbayan: As a general rule
facial challenge is allowed in cases dealing
with freedom of expression.This case
made a distinction between facial
challenge and overbreadth.The former is
allowed to a vague statute but the latter
is challenged due to its chilling effect.
Bill of Rights
Scope of Freedom of Speech:Verbal
Speech (print and broadcast
media) and Non-verbal (symbols)
Unprotected Speech/Expression
and Protected Speech/Expression,
distinguished; Extent of state
intrusion
Bill of Rights
Bases for Protection: Promotion of
Truth, Enhance Principles of
Democracy, Expression of Self-
Fulfillment of Citizens.
Why State Restricts and Imposes
Limitations on Freedom of Expression:
Maintenance of Peace, Promotion of
Community Morals, Protection of
Individual Dignity.
Bill of Rights
Unprotected Speech/Expression:
General Guidelines, Obscenity, and
Incitement to National Security,
False or Misleading Advertisement,
Libelous Speech, Hate Speech and
Contumacious Speech.
In re: Macasaet, 561 SCRA 395 –
Contumacious Speech is indirect
contempt which merits a monetary
penalty.
Bill of Rights
Protected Speech/Expression: All
those excluded from unprotected
expression may include utterances
critical of public conduct, ordinary
commercial speech, satirical
speech/parody.
Flor v. People, 454 SCRA 440(2005)
– Misuse of Public Funds must be
proved by competent evidence.
 Flor v. People, 454 SCRA 440(2005)
To reiterate, fair commentaries on
matters of public interest are privileged
and constitute a valid defense in an
action for libel or slander.The doctrine
of fair comment means that while in
general every discreditable imputation
publicly made is deemed false, because
every man is presumed innocent until
his guilt is judicially proved, and every
false imputation is deemed malicious,
nevertheless, when the discreditable
imputation is directed against a public
Flor v. People, 454 SCRA 440(2005)
person in his public capacity, it is not
necessarily actionable. In order that
such discreditable imputation to a
public official may be actionable, it must
either be a false allegation of fact or a
comment based on a false
supposition. If the comment is an
expression of opinion, based on
established facts, then it is immaterial
that the opinion happens to be
mistaken, as long as it might reasonably
be inferred from the facts.
 Bill of Rights
Vasquez v. Court of Appeals, 314 SCRA
460 – It is not sufficient that misconduct
of a public official is alleged it must be
proved.
The question for determination in this
case is the liability for libel of a citizen
who denounces a barangay official for
misconduct in office.The Regional Trial
Court of Manila found petitioner guilty
and fined him P1,000.00 on the ground
that petitioner failed to prove the truth
of the charges and that he was
motivated by vengeance in uttering the
defamatory statement.The C.A.
affirmed. Hence, this appeal.
Libel as a Crime
To find a person guilty of libel under Art.
353 of the Revised Penal Code, the
following elements must be proved: (a)
the allegation of a discreditable act or
condition concerning another; (b)
publication of the charge; (c) identity
of the person defamed; and (d)
existence of malice. (Vasquez v. Court
of Appeals, 314 SCRA 460)
Libel as a Crime
An allegation is considered defamatory if
it ascribes to a person the commission
of a crime, the possession of a vice or
defect, real or imaginary, or any act,
omission, condition, status or
circumstance which tends to dishonor
or discredit or put him in contempt, or
which tends to blacken the memory of
one who is dead.
There is publication if the material is
communicated to a third person. It is
not required that the person defamed
has read or heard about the libelous
remark. What is material is that a third
person has read or heard the libelous
statement.
Freedom of Speech
PHCAP v. Duque III - Ordinary Commercial
Speech as part of a marketing strategy.
Petitioner claims that the RIRR is not valid
as it contains provisions that are not
constitutional and go beyond what it is
supposed to implement. Milk Code was
issued by President Cory Aquino under
the Freedom Constitution on
Oct.1986. One of the preambular clauses
of the Milk Code states that the law seeks
to give effect to Art 11 of the Int’l Code of
Marketing and Breastmilk
Substitutes(ICBMS), a code adopted by
the World Health Assembly(WHA).
PHCAP v. Duque III - Ordinary Commercial
Speech as part of a marketing strategy.
Under 1987 Constitution , international
law can become domestic law by
transformation or incorporation.The
ICBMS and WHA resolutions are not
treaties as they did not comply with
Section 8 of Article of the Constitution.
However, the ICBMS had been
transformed into domestic law through
a local legislation such as the Milk
Code.The Milk Code is almost a
verbatim reproduction of ICBMS.
Libel as a Crime
man’s reputation is the estimate in which
others hold him, not the good opinion
which he has of himself.
On the other hand, to satisfy the element of
identifiability, it must be shown that at
least a third person or a stranger was able
to identify him as the object of the
defamatory statement.
Finally, malice or ill will must be present.
Any person who shall publish, exhibit, or
cause the publication or exhibition of any
defamation in writing or by similar means,
shall be responsible for the same.
How Government Restricts Freedom of
Expression
Content Based Restrictions distinguished
from Content Neutral Restrictions as
gleaned from Justice Carpio’s
concurring opinion in Chavez v.
Gonzalez, are summarized below:
a. Any content-based prior restraint on
PROTECTED expression is
unconstitutional.
Freedom of Speech
b. Only unprotected expression is
subject to prior restraint.
c. Prior restraint presumes that
the expression is
unconstitutional.
d. Government has the burden of
proof every time it exercises
censorship.
 Tests Applied to Free Speech
Standards of Review
O’Brien Test on Content-Neutral
Restrictions
Social Weather Station v. COMELEC, 357
SCRA 504 (2001): right to information; a
content-neutral statement cannot be
subject to prior restraint.
Miller Test on Indecent Speech
Soriano v. Laguardia, 587 SCRA 79: use of
offensive language; freedom of religion
cannot be invoked when there is malice.
Freedom of Speech
Roth Test on Obscenity
Gonzales v. Kalaw- Katigbak, 137 SCRA
71: ”prurient interest” test
Clear and Present Danger Test
David v. Macapagal-Arroyo, 489 SCRA
160 (2006) right of the state to protect
itself
 Bill of Rights
Doctrines of strict scrutiny, overbreadth and
vagueness
Southern Hemisphere Engagement Network, Inc., v.
Anti-Terrorism Council, et al., G.R. No.178552,
October 5, 2010 :The doctrines of strict scrutiny,
overbreadth and vagueness are analytical tools
developed for testing ”on their faces” statutes in free
speech cases. They cannot be made to do service
when what is involved is a criminal statute.
Bill of Rights
Chavez v. Gonzalez: Freedom of speech
covers both entertaining and
instructive or informative matters.
Press freedom is the source of
current events. Four aspects of press
freedom: Freedom from prior
restraint, freedom from punishment
subsequent to publication, freedom of
access to information and freedom of
circulation.
 Content-neutral regulation distinguished
from Content-based restraint or
censorship: In the former, substantial
government interest is required for its
validity and not subject to strictest form
of judicial scrutiny while in the latter, it is
given the strictest judicial scrutiny in the
light of their inherent and invasive
impact.The latter bears a heavy
presumption of invalidity and is measured
against the clear and present danger rule.

Bill of Rights
 THE DIOCESE OF BACOLOD v.
COMELEC( G.R. No. 205728 January 21,
2015)
In upholding the Petition, the Court relied
on a the definition of the right as
elucidated by a prominent political
theorist -
“T]he theory of freedom of expression
involves more than a technique for
arriving at better social judgments
through democratic procedures. It
comprehends a vision of society,
Bill of Rights
a faith and a whole way of life.The
theory grew out of an age that was
awakened and invigorated by the
idea of new society in which man's
mind was free, his fate determined
by his own powers of reason, and his
prospects of creating a rational and
enlightened civilization virtually
unlimited. It is put forward as a
prescription for attaining a creative,
progressive , exciting and

Bill of Rights
intellectually robust community. It
contemplates a mode of life that,
through encouraging toleration,
skepticism, reason and initiative, will
allow man to realize his full
potentialities. It spurns the
alternative of a society that is
tyrannical, conformist, irrational and
stagnant.”
The emergence of new technology
and social media has introduced new
consequences in the field of
communication.
The adoption of the Cyber Crime Law
may serve deterrent to commission
of crimes which rely on modern
forms of communication.

Bill of Rights
Disini v. Secretary of Justice: Liability is
limited to the person who actually
posted the libelous material in the
internet.
A specific provision of the Cyber
Crime Law may be challenged if the
person is able to show injury he
sustains if that provision is applied to
him.

Bill of Rights
Bill of Rights
Dissenting Opinion of Justice Carpio
in Chavez v. Sec. Gonzales -
Exceptions to prior restraint:
pornography, false or misleading
advertisement, advocacy of
imminent lawless action and
danger to national security.
Bill of Rights
Dissenting Opinion of Justice Carpio
in Chavez v. Sec. Gonzales -
Only unprotected expression may
be subject to censorship: Prior
restraint is presumed
unconstitutional and government
bears the heavy burden of
proving the constitutionality of
the restraint.
 Bill of Rights
David v. Macapagal-Arroyo: Freedom
of assembly is not to be limited,
much less be denied, except on a
showing of a clear and present
danger of a substantive evil that
the state has a right to present.
The overbreadth doctrine is not
intended to test the validity of a
law.
Bill of Rights
Soriano v. La Guardia: guarantee of
speech or religious freedom does
not include the utterance of foul
language. “Proximity and
degree” of danger/evils can be
measured by applying the
principle of balancing of
interests.
 Bill of Rights
PHCA v. Duque: An absolute ban
on advertising of milk formula
violates the right of free
speech and access to
information.The laudable
concern for promotion of
health of infants and young
children cannot justify the
absolute ban.
 Bill of Rights
GMA Network, Inc. v. Bustos: In a
case of libel, proof of malice
must be positively established.
The use of UP-PGH file photo
was not meant to degrade the
institution.
 Bill of Rights
Binay v. Secretary of Justice:The intent
to embarrass the daughter of the
petitioner for allegedly having a
P1,000 worth of lingerie is malice
under the libel law.
 Bill of Rights
In re: Macasaet: For failure to
substantiate that a female justice of
the SC received “boxes of money”
as bribery, respondent was found
guilty of indirect contempt and fined
P20,000.00.
MTRCB v. ABS-CBN:The MTRCB has the
sole jurisdiction to exercise prior
restraint in the exhibition of “Prosti –
TUITION” episode.
SWS v. COMELEC:The right of the public
to be informed of matters of national
interest is a protected right. O’Brien
test requires that the restriction
exercised by the state is not greater
than is necessary to further
government interests but should not
curtail the fundamental right of
expression.
Fermin v. People:The prosecution was
able to establish the elements of libel:
1. Evident imputation of the crime,
vices or defects for being a fugitive
from law;
2. Attribution made in public; and
3. Victims are identifiable or actually
identified
Tulfo v. People:The complainant public
officer was clearly identified by the
accused; and the defamation was
unsubstantiated and made in bad
faith.
Bayan Muna v. Ermita: Freedom to
assemble is not absolute and may be
subjected to limitations but the
government must also comply with
the standard of maximum tolerance
and not employ Calibrated
Preemptive Response.
IBP v. Mayor Atienza: Where it is not
indicated where the applicant wishes
to stage a rally, the mayor cannot
substitute his own judgment without
the consent of the applicant.
 Bill of Rights
GSIS and Garcia v. Villaviza et al:The
harsh treatment of GSIS
employees cannot be condoned
since the wearing of red t-shirts to
express their grievance is
protected by the freedom of
expression.
RE: LETTER OF THE UP LAW FACULTY
ENTITLED “RESTORING INTEGRITY: A
STATEMENT BY THE FACULTY OF THE
COLLEGE OF LAW ON THE ALLEGATIONS
OF PLAGIARISM AND
MISREPRESENTATION IN THE SUPREME
COURT (A.M. No. 10-10-4- SC, 2010):The
Court has held that the right to criticize
the courts and judicial officers must be
balanced against the equally primordial
concern that the independence of the
Judiciary be protected from due influence
or interference. In cases where the critics
are not only citizens but members of the
Bar, jurisprudence
has repeatedly affirmed the authority
of this Court to discipline lawyers
whose statements regarding the
courts and fellow lawyers, whether
judicial or extrajudicial, have
exceeded the limits of fair comment
and common decency.The accusatory
and vilifying nature of certain
portions of the Statement exceeded
the limits of fair comment and cannot
be deemed as protected free speech.
Bill of Rights
Freedom of religion: includes the
freedom to believe and to practice
one’s belief.
Estrada v. Escritor: The prescription of
morality under the Civil Service Rules
and Regulations must yield to higher
right of the freedom of religion.
Taruc v. Dela Cruz: Matters internal to the
ouster or to discipline of members of a
religious sect are not protected by the
freedom of religion.
In Re: Request of Muslim Employees: the
request for additional privilege not to
work from 10am to 2pm every Friday
for prayers cannot be given due course
since this will be violative of the equal
protection clause. Sec.5, Art III covers:
non-establishment clause and free
exercise clause.
INC v. C.A. and MTRCB: The right of
MTRCB to review broadcast materials is
affirmed but it cannot censor religious
speech which may include criticisms as
it is included in the protected rights of
religion and free speech. For
censorship to be sustained, there must
be clear and present danger.
Victoriano v. Elizalde Ropeworkers
Union:The freedom of religion is
superior over contractual agreement.
An act of Congress cannot prevail
over a constitutionally protected
right.
Freedom of Abode and Freedom of
Movement: the right to choose one’s
domicile; right to travel.
Marcos v. COMELEC:The surviving
spouse has the right to choose her
residence other than the conjugal
home.There is no distinction between
domicile and residence.
Aquino v. COMELEC: A lease contract is
not conclusive proof of length of
residence to meet the requirements
to run for public office.
Bill of Rights
Marcos v. Sandiganbayan: A person’s
right to travel is subject to the usual
constraints imposed by the very
necessity of safeguarding the system
of justice. In such cases, whether the
accused should be permitted to leave
the jurisdiction for reasons is a
matter of the court’s sound
discretion.

Bill of Rights
Freedom of Abode and Freedom of
Movement: the right to choose one’s
domicile; right to travel.
Gudani v. Senga:The power of the
President as Commander in Chief was
sustained in restraining officers from
testifying before the Senate.
Fr. Roberto P. Reyes v. Gonzalez: Writ of
Amparo will not lie to overcome an
Hold Departure Order.The Writ of
Amparo was intended to address the
Bill of Rights
the intractable problem of
“extrajudicial killings” and “enforced
disappearances.”
OCA v. Judge Ignacio B. Macarine, A.M.
No. MTJ-10-1770, July 18, 2012:The
Court may impose travel restrictions on
judges. There is a consequential duty
for members of the judiciary and court
employees to seek permission to travel
to ensure access to the courts and
speedy disposition of cases.
Bill of Rights
Right of Association: right to form, join
and dissociate from a lawful
organization
SSS Employees Association v. C.A.:The
Constitution guarantees rights of
public servants to form associations
and concerted action but subject to
CSC rules. Any expression of
grievance must be conducted in a
manner so as not to interrupt delivery
of public service.
Right of Association: right to form, join
and dissociate from a lawful
organization
MPST Assn. v. Carino: Mass action
should not interrupt with discharge of
public service.
Dissenting Opinion: Authorities should
not treat employees with disdain and
flatly ignore them with expressed
threats of dismissal.
Right to Information: right to know
current state of affairs of the
government, need for transparency in
government transactions
Senate v. Ermita:The President cannot
intrude into the constitutional
mandate of legislative inquiry.
The conduct of the inquiry must be in
aid of legislation and must be
conducted in the spirit of
transparency as part of the right to
information.
Neri v. Senate Committees: Executive
privilege may be invoked under
specific circumstances such the
areas of national security, military
operations and foreign relations.
The petition was dismissed for failure
of the Senate to prove that the
inquiry was being conducted in aid
of legislation.

Bill of Rights
 CENPEG v. COMELEC:The people
have to right to be informed of the
full aspects of AES including the
source code of the program.
Antolin v. Abelardo R. Domondon, et al.,
G.R. No. 165036. July 5, 2010:Where the
release of PRC accountancy board
examination questions require
discretion, the writ of mandamus
will not lie. Such action is not
covered by the right to information.
Bill of Rights
What is a valid search warrant
Bayaca v. Ramos: A judge cannot delegate
the determination of probable cause to
his Clerk of Court.
Yao v. People: Personal knowledge is
mandatory in issuance of a warrant
and not reliable information.
People v. Nunez:The seizure of items not
particularly described in the search
warrant for violation of the Dangerous
Drugs Act of 1972 must be returned to
the accused.
What is a valid warrant of arrest?
Valeroso v. C.A.: A valid arrest allows
the seizure of evidence or
dangerous weapons either on the
person of the one arrested or
within the area of his immediate
control. Where evidence seized
violates principles of plain view
doctrine, the same is inadmissible.

Bill of Rights
What is a valid warrant of arrest?
People v.Tuazon: search of a moving
vehicle is justified for practical
reasons.
People v. Paguio, Jr.: Reliable
information alone, absent any overt
act indicative of a felonious
enterprise in the presence and
within the view of arresting
officers is not sufficient to effect a
warrantless arrest and search.
Bill of Rights
When can a warrant be sustained?
Valdez v. People: For warrantless
arrest to be valid, two elements
must concur: execution of an overt
act and act is committed in the
presence or within the view of the
arresting officers.

Bill of Rights
Stonehill v. Diokno: A search warrant
must specifically describe the
items/objects sought to be seized
and where they may be found.
Document seized from illegal search
is a fruit of a poisonous tree.
NBI and Microsoft Corp v. Hwang: A
search warrant may be issued to
protect intellectual property rights.
The degree of evidence required for
a civil case is only substantial.
Bill of Rights
SJS v. Dangerous Drugs Board: The
mandatory, random and suspicious
drug testing of students and
employees under R.A.9165 is valid
but not for candidates to public
office.
Galvante v. Casimiro: There is no
crime as searching without a
warrant. RPC punishes procuring
warrants with malice(Art. 129) and
searching domicile without
witnesses (Art. 130).
Requisites of the Plain View Doctrine
UNILAB v. Isip: Plain view doctrine
will not apply when the following
cannot be proved:
1. Prior intrusion must be legal;
2. officer must discover the incriminating
evidence inadvertently; and
3. object must be immediately apparent.

Bill of Rights
In Re: Request of Chief PNP Razon to
delegate power to endorse application
for a search warrant: Considering the
urgency to seize items which are
probably objects of a crime, delegation
may be granted.

Spouses Marimba v. People: Even if the

application for a search warrant was
done in Manila and the items to be
searched are in Pampanga, the seizure
of the items for violation of the
Dangerous Drugs Act can be
sustained.

Bill of Rights
AAA v. Hon. Carbonell:The judge abused
his discretion when he dismissed the
case for rape for lack of probable cause
for failure of the victim and her
witnesses to take the witness stand.The
legal strategy rests on the prosecution.

Abelita v. Doria:The pursuit of a judge

who fled from the scene of the shooting
and his subsequent arrest as well as the
seizure of a gun while inside the
premises of residence is justified. No
warrant was necessary to effect the
arrest and seizure. It was done in hot
pursuit.

Bill of Rights
Validity of Arrest/ Action to Suppress:
The accused is stopped from assailing
the validity of his arrest if he fails to
raise the issue or to move for quashal
of the information against him based
on this ground, before arraignment;
Warrantless arrest may be effected
under circumstances allowed under
Rule 113, Sec.5(a) of the Rules of
Court;

Bill of Rights
When the search warrant did not
target the residence or premises of
the offices of the movant, the latter
may file a motion to suppress the
use of the seized items as evidence
against it for failure of the party
requesting for issuance of the search
warrant to comply with the
constitutional requirements.

Bill of Rights
To summarize:
Searches and Seizures: freedom from
unwarranted and unreasonable
intrusions; right upholds privacy; as
general rule search and arrest must
covered by warrant
Warrant must be issued by a judge;
existence of probable cause; personal
examination of complainant,
witnesses and documents; addressed
to law enforcers for service.

Bill of Rights
Exceptions:
1. search incident to a lawful arrest (in
flagrante delicto, hot pursuit and
escaped prisoners);
2. search of moving vehicles;
3. plain view doctrine; and
4. airport searches ; and
5. all circumstances set forth in the
Rules in Criminal Procedure.

Bill of Rights
Writ of Habeas Corpus
In cases allowed by law, the right to
bail shall not be impaired even
when the writ of habeas corpus is
suspended. (Sec. 13, Art. III)
The privilege of the writ of habeas
corpus shall not be suspended
except in cases of invasion or
rebellion when the public safety
requires it. (Sec. 15, Art. III )

Bill of Rights
 Writ of Habeas Corpus
The President, in proper cases, may
suspend the privilege of the writ of
habeas corpus. (Sec. 18, Art.VII)
Villavicencio v. Lukban:The Writ of
Habeas Corpus was allowed by the
Court to uphold the right of
women not be excluded from the
City of Manila by virtue of their
work.

Bill of Rights
Bill of Rights
Villavicencio v. Lukban: the Mayor’s order
that some 170 individuals be put in
custody and be dispatched to Davao
City for work is a valid subject of a writ
of habeas corpus. Freedom of abode is
guaranteed “for ours is a government of
laws and not of men.”
Secretary of Defense v. Manalo:The writ of
amparo is legal relief for victims of
enforced disappearances to protect
their rights of life, liberty and security. It
is both preventive and curative in nature
as it breaks the expectation of impunity
and facilitates subsequent punishment.
Writ of Amparo and
Writ of Habeas Data
Both writs were issued by the
Supreme Court to check on possible
abuses of law enforcers and agents of
government which impair the lives
and property of individuals.
Both writs may be availed of at any
hour by an individual without
payment of docket fees.

Bill of Rights
Razon, Jr. v.Tagitis: Writ of Amparo is a
protective remedy against the
violations or threats against the
rights of life, liberty and security with
the context of the International
Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights.
Rubrico v. Macapagal-Arroyo:The
President will not be held liable for
custody of a person when there is no
positive proof that she has personal
Bill of Rights
knowledge of detention.The doctrine
of Command Responsibility will not
apply to the case.
Canlas v. Napico Homeowners
Association:The Court said that the
Writ of Amparo will not apply to
informal settlers who are subjects of
an eviction order.There is no legal
basis for its issuance since the their
situation is not covered by the
protection of the writ.

Bill of Rights
The writ of habeas data is a remedy
available to any person whose right to
privacy in life, liberty or security is
violated or threatened by an unlawful act
or omission of a public official or
employee, or of a private individual or
entity engaged in the gathering, collecting
or storing of data or information
regarding the person, family, home and
correspondence of the aggrieved party
(The Rule on the Writ of Habeas Data, A. M.
No. 08-1-16-SC, Sec. 1, Jan. 22, 2008).
Reliefs available in a Petition for Issuance
of Writ of Habeas Data -
1. Updating, rectification, suppression, or
destruction of the database or
information or files kept by the
respondent;
2. In case of threats of the unlawful act,
the relief may include a prayer for an
order enjoining the act complained of;
and
3. A general prayer for other reliefs that
are just and equitable under the
circumstances is also allowed.
Bill of Rights: Other Guaranteed
Rights of the Accused
Free access to the Courts (Sec. 11, Art.
III)
Every person is entitled to free access
to the courts.
Legal assistance shall not be denied to
any person by reason of poverty.
Role of public prosecutors and PAO
lawyers; and legal aid program of the
IBP.
Free access to the Courts (Sec. 11, Art. III)
People v. Hon. Azarraga and Prevendido, G. R.
No. 187117, October 12, 2011: There is no
denial of the constitutional guarantee if a
drugs case is heard by a regular court.
Costs of Litigation
Re: Query of Mr. Roger C. Prioreschi re
Exemption from Legal and Filing Fees of
the Good Shepherd Foundation, Inc., 596
SCRA 401 (2009): Rule on indigent
litigants will apply
Free access to the Courts (Sec. 11,
Art. III)
Re: Request of IBP National Committee
on Legal Aid Clients from Paying Filing,
Docket and other Fees, A.M. No. 08-
11-7 SC, August 28, 2009: Legitimate
legal aid cases of the IBP are
exempt from payment of docket
fees.

Bill of Rights
Bill of Rights
Appropriate representation assures the
individual that his rights will be
protected.
On costs of litigation: Clients are
expected to shoulder the costs of
litigation. Indigent or pauper litigants
are entitled to certain reliefs on the
costs of litigation.
Rights of Suspects (Sec. 12, Art. III)
1.The right to be informed of his right to
remain silent;
2.The right to a competent and
independent counsel preferably of his
choice;
3. If the person cannot afford the services
of counsel, he must be provided with
one.
4.The foregoing rights cannot be waived
except in writing and in presence of
counsel. (Miranda rights/ warnings)
Bill of Rights
When will Miranda Rights apply –
1. One’s liberty must be restrained -
2. One must be in the custody of law
enforcers;
3. One must be under investigation
for a commission of an offense; and
4.The information sought is
testimonial in nature.
Bill of Rights
When will Miranda Rights will not
apply –
1.The proceeding is not custodial in
nature;
2. One is not under restraint; and
3.The information sought is not
testimonial in nature.
Examples: 1.Voluntary surrender
2. Police line up to identify a
suspect
People v. Lucero, G.R. No. 188705, March
2, 2011: Even as the circumstances lead
to the inevitable conclusion that
accused-appellant committed the
crime, Lucero claims that since
spermatozoa was found on the
deceased, a DNA test should have
been conducted by the prosecution so
as to erase all doubts as to the identity
of the perpetrator.The Court rejected
this claim because his guilt was proven
by other independent evidence.
Ho Wai Ping v. People, G.R. No. 176229,
October 19, 2011: Infraction of the
rights of an accused during custodial
investigation or the so-called Miranda
Rights render inadmissible only the
extrajudicial confession or admission
made during such investigation.The
Court said: "The admissibility of other
evidence, provided they are relevant to
the issue and is not otherwise excluded
by law or rules, is not affected even if
obtained or taken in the course of
custodial investigation."
People v. Lauga, G.R. No. 186228, 15
March 2010: It may be added that the
self-serving defense of appellant
cannot prevail over the positive and
straightforward testimony of AAA.
Settled is the rule that, "alibi is an
inherently weak defense that is
viewed with suspicion because it is
easy to fabricate.”

Bill of Rights
Distinguish between custodial investigation
and preliminary investigation: In the
former, one is under restraint by law
enforcers; the prosecutor does not
abdicate upon himself the rights,
obligations or liabilities of parties since
his power is purely inquisitorial in nature;
A complainant does not have a vested
right to file a Reply in preliminary
investigation because under Sec. 3(d),
Rule 112, the prosecutor may resolve the
complaint even without a counter-
affidavit.
Bill of Rights
Rights of the Accused
1.The right to substantive and procedural
due process;
2.The right to be presumed innocent;
3.The right to be heard by himself and
counsel;
4.The right to be informed of the nature
and cause of the accusation against him;
5.The right to bail when circumstance
warrants;
Bill of Rights: Rights of the Accused
6.The right to have a speedy, impartial
and public trial;
7.The right to meet the witnesses face
to face;
8.To have compulsory process to
secure the attendance of witnesses
and the production of evidence in his
behalf;
9.The right against self-incrimination;
and
10.The right against double jeopardy
Basis of Right to Bail, Article III, Section 13,
Constitution
When Bail is allowed
When Bail is a matter of right (Rules on
Criminal Procedure, Rule 114, Section 4)
MATTER OF RIGHT: MTC, BEFORE OR
AFTER CONVICTION;
OR a matter of discretion on the part of the
court (Rule on Criminal Procedure, Rule
114, Section 5)
RTC, BEFORE OR AFTER CONVICTION, IF
CRIME IS NOT PUNISHABLE BY DEATH,
RECLUSION PERPETUA OR LIFE
IMPRISONMENT.
 Herras Teehankee v. Rovira, 75 Phil., 634
(1945)
 Right to Bail - Sec. 9, Rule 114
provides for guidelines for the court to
consider in fixing the amount of bail.
The court may still require the
prosecutor to answer questions in
order to ascertain not only the
strength of the state’s evidence but
also the amount of bail.The grant of
bail where allowed by law is left to the
sound judgment of the court.
 General Rule on the Right to Bail: An
accused has the right to seek
provisional liberty by way of bail (either
by cash bail, surety bond or
recognizance of a person of proven
probity)
Exception to Rule: When offense
committed is punishable by reclusion
perpetua or higher AND the evidence
of guilt is strong.
Exception to the Exception: Enrile Ruling

Bill of Rights
Exception to the Right to Bail:
Enrile v. Sandiganbayan: An accused
may be granted bail considering
the following factors –
1. age of the accused (90 years old);
2. the accused has frail health; and
3. the following essential factors of
voluntary surrender of the accused
and that he is not a flight risk.
 Nature of Criminal Due Process
Jurisdiction over Criminal Offenses is
provided by law.
Criminal Immunity: Disini v. Sandiganbayan,
G.R. No. 180564, June 22, 2010:
Government may enter into an
agreement to grant immunity provided
grantee will become a state witness.This
is known as transactional immunity
where the state will not prosecute the
co-accused provided he will provide the
evidence against his co-accused.
Right to Speedy Disposition of Cases
The right to speedy trial may be
defined as one free from vexatious,
capricious and oppressive delays. Its
“salutary objective” being to assure
that an innocent person may be free
from the anxiety and expense of
court litigation or, if otherwise, of
having his guilt determined within
the shortest possible time. It is
further emphasized that “ Speedy
Trial” is a relative term and
necessarily a flexible concept.
Right to Speedy Disposition of Cases
Roquero v.The Chancellor, U.P. College
of Manila, G.R. no. 181851, March 9,
2010.The constitutional guarantee to a
“speedy disposition of cases” is not
limited to the accused in criminal
proceedings but extends to all parties,
including civil and administrative case,
and in all proceedings, including
judicial and quasi-judicial hearings.
Right to Speedy Disposition of Cases
Dela Peña v. Sandiganbayan,G.R. No. 412 Phil.
921, 929 (2001). The Court laid down certain
guidelines to determine whether the right to
a speedy disposition has been violated, as
follows:
1. the length of the delay;
2. the reasons for the delay;
3. the assertion or failure to assert such right by
the accused; and
4. the prejudice caused by the delay.
JACOB v. SANDIGANBAYAN (G.R. No.
162206, 2010):The Court held that an
accused’s right to “have a speedy,
impartial, and public trial” is
guaranteed in criminal cases by Section
4(2), Article III of the Constitution. In
determining whether the right of the
accused to a speedy trial was violated,
the delay should be considered, in view
of the entirety of the proceedings.
Indeed, mere mathematical reckoning
of the time involved would not suffice as
the realities of everyday life must be
regarded in judicial proceedings which,
after all, do not exist in a vacuum.
PROTECTION AGAINST DOUBLE
JEOPARDY
Acquittal/Recantation – The
extinction of penal action does not
carry with it the extinction of civil
liability where the acquittal is based
on reasonable doubt as only
preponderance of evidence is
required in civil cases; Recantation or
desistance does not necessarily result
in the dismissal of the case if there is
independent proof to still establish
the guilt of the accused.
PROTECTION AGAINST DOUBLE
JEOPARDY
Demurrer to evidence – Motion must be
filed within the non-extendible period
of 5 days after the prosecution rests its
case stating specifically upon what
ground(s) the motion is filed.This
period runs only after the trial court
has ruled on the formal offer of
evidence of the prosecution.The grant
of the motion is tantamount to an
acquittal and may no longer be
appealed because double jeopardy will
set in.
Nature of right: People v. Dante Tan G.R.
No. 167526, July 26, 2010: In People v.
Sandiganbayan, the Supreme Court
explained the general rule that the grant
of a demurrer to evidence operates as
an acquittal and is, thus, final and
unappealable.The demurrer to evidence
in criminal cases is "filed after the
prosecution had rested its case," and when
the same is granted, it calls "for an
appreciation of the evidence adduced by
the prosecution and its sufficiency to
warrant conviction beyond reasonable
doubt, resulting in a dismissal of the case
on the merits, tantamount to an acquittal
of the accused."
The rule on double jeopardy, however,
is not without exceptions. In People
v. Laguio, Jr., the Supreme Court
stated that the only instance when
double jeopardy will not attach is
when the RTC acted with grave
abuse of discretion.

Bill of Rights
When right will not apply: Braza v.
Sandiganbayan, G. R. No. 195032,
February 20, 2013: Having given his
conformity and accepted the
conditional arraignment and its legal
consequences, Braza is estopped
from assailing its conditional nature
just to conveniently avoid being
arraigned and prosecuted of the new
charge under the second information.
Exception, when invoked: Lejano v. People,
G.R. Nos. 176389 and 176864, January
18, 2011: To reconsider a judgment of
acquittal places the accused twice in
jeopardy of being punished for the crime
of which he has already been absolved.
There is reason for this provision of the
Constitution – as in this case: to prevent
any further injustice to the accused
whose liberty has been impaired for
more than 10 years.

Bill of Rights
In criminal cases, the full power of the
State is ranged against the accused. If
there is no limit to attempts to
prosecute the accused for the same
offense after he has been acquitted, the
infinite power and capacity of the State
for a sustained and repeated litigation
would eventually overwhelm the
accused in terms of resources, stamina,
and the will to fight.
The victim or the family of the victim
serves only as witnesses for the state.

Bill of Rights
Mistrial as ground for exception: People v.
C.A.., G.R. No. 198589, July 25, 2012:The
Court reiterated that mistrial is the only
exception to the well-settled, even
axiomatic, principle that acquittal is
immediately final and cannot be appealed
on the ground of double jeopardy.The
Court was categorical in stating that a re-
examination of the evidence without a
finding of mistrial will violate the right to
repose of an accused, which is what is
protected by the rule against double
jeopardy.

Bill of Rights
Requisites of Double Jeopardy
Ivler v. San Pedro, G.R. No. 172716,
November 17, 2010
1. Identity of the elements of the crime
committed as set forth in the
information.
2. Accused has entered his plea.
3. Prosecution and the defense have
presented evidence.
4.The court has ruled on the merits.
5.The decision has become final and
executory.

Bill of Rights
Effect of Acquittal based on Demurrer to
Evidence
Bangayan, Jr., v. Bangayan, G.R. No. 172777,
October 19, 2011: It is well-settled that in
criminal cases where the offended party is
the State, the interest of the private
complainant or the private offended party
is limited to the civil liability.Thus, in the
prosecution of the offense, the
complainant's role is limited to that of a
witness for the prosecution. If a criminal
case is dismissed by the trial court or if
there is an acquittal, an appeal there from
on the criminal aspect may be undertaken
only by the State through the Solicitor
General.
Crimes and Punishments
1. No detention for political beliefs or
aspirations (Sec. 18 (1), Art. III)
2. Exceptions to involuntary
servitude (Sec. 18(2), Art. III)
3. Rational behind the imposition of
death penalty (Sec. 19 (1), Art. III)
conditions: for compelling reasons
involving heinous crimes and when
Congress provides for it

Bill of Rights: Rights of the Accused

Crimes and Punishments
4. Non-imposition of excessive fines (Sec.19
(1), Art. III)
5. Prohibition against cruel, degrading or
inhuman punishment (Sec. 19 (1), Art. III)
6. Prohibition against the employment of
physical, psychological, or degrading
punishment; or use of substandard penal
facilities under subhuman conditions (Sec.
19 (2), Art. III
7. Non- imprisonment for debt or poll tax
(Sec. 20, Art. III)

Bill of Rights: Rights of the Accused

Bill of Rights: Rights of the Accused
Sufficiency of Information: People v.
Balao, et al., G.R. 176819, January 26,
2011: The Court held that the
fundamental test in determining the
adequacy of the averments in an
information is whether the facts alleged,
if hypothetically admitted, would
establish the essential elements of the
crime. Matters extrinsic or evidence
aliunde should not be considered
Ban on Ex Post Facto Law and Bill of
Attainder
General Rule: A law must be given a
prospective effect but a law which
favors an accused may be given a
retroactive effect.
No new law which punishes an act
before its effectivity may render an
individual liable under any of its
provisions.

Bill of Rights: Rights of Suspects

Police Power includes
Quasi-Judicial Powers
Aquino v. Municipality of Malay (G.R.
No. 211356, September 29, 2014)
Powers invested in the Mayor under
the Local Government Code:
1. Power to grant business permit
2. Power to approve zoning ordinance
3. Power to abate nuisance per se
4. Power to order demolition as
function of quasi-judicial power.
Grant of Business Permit is
Discretionary
Rimando v. Naguilian Emission Center
(G.R. NO. 198860. JULY 23, 2012):
The grant of business permit is
discretionary in nature.
No Writ of Mandamus may issue
requiring the Mayor to issue a
business permit.
The grant of a business permit is an
exercise of police power.
Police Power v. Power of
Eminent Domain
Mayor Fernando v. St. Scholastica’s
College of Marikina, , March 12, 2013]
An ordinance which requires the
reduction of the fence to allow the
public to have visual access to the
premises of a private institution
violates the right to privacy.
An ordinance which requires a setback of
a property to allow public parking is
exercise of power of eminent domain
without just compensation.
Kabataan Party List v. COMELEC:
The “No Bio, No Boto” scheme of
the COMELEC is a valid exercise
of police power.The requirement
ensures the cleansing of Voters’
List nationwide.
This is in compliance with the
constitutional duty of the
COMELEC to ensure clean, honest
and orderly eletions
Power of Eminent Domain
Secretary of the DPWH v. Sps.
Tecson, G.R. No. 179334, April 21,
2015: Laches will not be a valid
defense of the state to avoid
payment for the use of private
property even if the owner filed
its claim after a lapse of 50 years.
Just Compensation in Eminent Domain
Cases
Republic of the Philippines v. Mupas (G.R.
No. 181892, September 8, 2015): R.A. 89
74 is not binding to courts.
Any valuation for just compensation laid
down in the statutes may serve only as
a guiding principle or one of the factors
in determining just compensation but
it may not substitute the court's own
judgment as to what amount should be
awarded and how to arrive at such
amount.
Ferrer v. Mayor Bautista (G.R. No.
210551, June 30, 2015): Under the 1987
Constitution, where there is neither a
grant nor a prohibition by statute, the
tax power must be deemed to exist
although Congress may provide
statutory limitations and guidelines.
Every LGU is now empowered and
authorized to create its own sources of
revenue and to levy taxes, fees, and
charges which shall accrue exclusively
to the local government unit.
Validity of City Ordinances
However, the imposition of garbage fee
is not a valid imposition since the
duty to collect garbage is part of the
basic services a local government
must render.
The imposition of Socialized Housing
Tax is a valid imposition since it is
enacted in keeping with the general
welfare clause.
 CITIZENSHIP
Read provisions of
Article IV – Constitution
1. Who are Filipino citizens
2. How citizenship may be acquired and
how it may be lost
3. Distinction between natural-born and
naturalized Filipinos
CITIZENSHIP
Read provisions of Article V on the
Right of Suffrage
Article VI,VII,VIII, IX, X and XI: right to
occupy elective and appointive
positions based on citizenship.
Read also provisions of the Local
Government Code: citizenship
requirement for elective public
officers.
 CITIZENSHIP
In Re: Vicente Ching: A claim of citizenship
is strictly construed against the person.
Poe-Llamanzares v. COMELEC: A
foundling is entitled to claim
citizenship of the state wherever found.
Macquiling v. COMELEC:The continued
use of an American passport may
overturn the presumption of
repatriation.
CITIZENSHIP
Naturalization:
1.Judicial proceeding (File Petition
before RTC)
2. Administrative proceeding (R.A.
9225)
3. Congressional Act
Grounds for Denaturalization
Read relevant provisions of
Commonwealth Act No. 143