Constitutional Law 2 Prelims Condensed Notes

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2: Compressed Notes and Memory Aid for Prelims
I. DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION AS LIMITATIONS ON

POLICE POWER, EMINENT DOMAIN, AND TAXATION
A. Fundamental Principles on Constitutional Law and the Bill of
Rights
i. THE BILL OF RIGHTS BALANCES GOVERNMENTAL POWER AND
INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM
- Any governmental action in violation of the rights declared in the
Bill of Rights is void, so that the provisions of a Bill of Rights are self
executing to this extent; however, the legislature may enact laws to
protect and enforce the provisions of the Bill of Rights.
- Courts as a rule consider the provisions of the Constitution as self
executing, rather than as requiring future legislation for their
enforcement. The reason is not difficult to discern. For if they are
not treated as self-executing, the mandate of the fundamental law
ratified by the sovereign people can be easily ignored and nullified
by Congress. Suffused with wisdom of the ages is the unyielding rule
that legislative actions may give breath to constitutional rights but
congressional inaction should not suffocate them.
ii. IN THE ABSENCE OF GOVERNMENTAL INTERFERENCE, THE
LIBERTIES GUARANTEED BY THE CONSTITUTION CANNOT BE
INVOKED
Case: Yrasegui vs Philippine Airlines:

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.
However, Article 32 of the Civil Code affords the guarantee of

protection to individuals for such violations by any public officer or
employee, or any private individual, by directly or indirectly
obstructing, defeating, violating or in any manner impeding or
impairing any of the rights and liberties of another person. Such civil
action shall proceed independently of any criminal prosecution (if
the latter be instituted), and may be proved by a preponderance of
evidence.
Case: Zulueta vs Court of Appeals

A person, by contracting marriage, does not shed his/her
integrity or his right to privacy as an individual and the
constitutional protection is ever available to him or to her.
iii. HUMAN RIGHTS ENJOY A HIGHER PREFERENCE IN THE

HIERARCHY OF RIGHTS THAN PROPERTY RIGHTS, DEMANDING THAT
DUE PROCESS IN THE DEPRIVATION OF LIBERTY MUST COME
BEFORE ITS TAKING AND NOT AFTER
-Hence, the order of rights, as enumerated in the law, it is expressed
that No person shall be deprived of (1) life, (2) liberty, or (3)
property
-While the Bill of Rights also protects property rights, the primacy of
human rights over property rights is recognized.
iv. THE BILL OF RIGHTS ARE SELF EXECUTORY
Case: Manila Prince Hotel vs. GSIS

It is recognized that legislation is unnecessary to enable
courts to effectuate constitutional provisions guaranteeing
the fundamental rights of life, liberty and the protection of
property.
B. Basic Principles on the Fundamental Powers of the State, their

Characteristics, Similarities, and distinctions, and their Limitations
POLICE POWER
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). As an inherent attribute of
sovereignty which virtually extends to all public needs, police power
grants a wide panoply of instruments through which the State, as
parens patriae, gives effect to a host of its regulatory powers.
It has been defined as the "state authority to enact legislation
that may interfere with personal liberty or property in order to
promote the general welfare." As defined, it consists of
(1) an imposition of restraint upon liberty or property,
(2) in order to foster the common good.
Police power is based upon the concept of necessity of the
State and its corresponding right to protect itself and its people.6
Police power has been used as justification for numerous and varied
actions. Its scope, ever-expanding to meet the exigencies of the
times, even to anticipate the future where it could be done, provides
enough room for an efficient and flexible response to conditions and
circumstances thus assuring the greatest benefits."
Compiled by: Kim Lorenzo G. Calatrava, 1-Wigmore/2-Sanchez Roman
Page 1
Case: People vs Siton

It has been defined as the power vested by the Constitution
in the legislature to make, ordain, and establish all manner
of wholesome and reasonable laws, statutes and
ordinances, either with penalties or without, not repugnant
to the Constitution, as they shall judge to be for the good
and welfare of the commonwealth, and for the subjects of
the same.
It finds no specific Constitutional grant for the plain reason that

it does not owe its origin to the Charter. Along with the taxing power
and eminent domain, it is inborn in the very fact of statehood and
sovereignty.
"The police power of the State ... is a power coextensive with
self- protection It may be said to be that inherent and plenary
power in the State which enables it to prohibit all things hurtful to
the comfort, safety, and welfare of society."
may not be exercised arbitrarily or unreasonably.
Thus, when the power is used to further private interests at the
expense of the citizenry, there is a clear misuse of the power.
The National Government, via Congress, exercises Police
Power. In a limited sense, the same is also exercised by the local
government.
TAXATION
It is based on the principle that taxes are the lifeblood of the

government, and their prompt and certain availability is an
imperious need. Thus, the theory behind the exercise of the power
to tax emanates from necessity; without taxes, government cannot
fulfill its mandate of promoting the general welfare and well-being
of the people.
Case: CIR vs Reyes

taxpayers must be informed in writing of the law and the
facts upon which a tax assessment is based.
Case: Reyes vs Almanzor

It suffices then that the laws operate equally and uniformly
on all persons under similar circumstances or that all
persons must be treated in the same manner, the
conditions not being different both in the privileges
conferred and the liabilities imposed.
EMINENT DOMAIN
Eminent domain is the right or power of a sovereign state to

appropriate private property to particular uses to promote public
welfare.
Section 9. Private property shall not be taken for public use without
just compensation. (Art III)
The due process and equal protection clauses act as additional
safeguards against the arbitrary exercise of this governmental
power.
The power of eminent domain is essentially legislative in
nature. It is firmly settled, however, that such power may be validly
delegated to local government units, other public entities and public
utilities, although the scope of this delegated legislative power is
necessarily narrower than that of the delegating authority and may
only be exercised in strict compliance with the terms of the
delegating law.
Who can exercise this power of Eminent Domain?
1. The National Government
*Limitations on the Taxing Power
2. Congress
1. The rule of taxation should be uniform;
3. The Executive, pursuant to legislation
2. It should be equitable;
4. LGUs, pursuant to an ordinance
3. Congress should evolve a progressive system of taxation;
5. Public utilities, as may be delegated by law
4. The power to tax must be exercised for a public purpose because

the power exists for general welfare; and
5. The due process and equal protection clauses of the Constitution
should be observed.
Page 2
1.
DISTINCTIONS OF THE POWERS

Police Power and Taxation- The conservative and pivotal
distinction between these two powers rests in the purpose
for which the charge is made.
Case: Chevron Philippines vs Bases Conversion Development

Authority
In distinguishing tax and regulation as a form of police
power, the determining factor is the purpose of the
implemented measure. If the purpose is primarily to raise
revenue, then it will be deemed a tax even though the measure
results in some form of regulation. On the other hand, if the
purpose is primarily to regulate, then it is deemed a regulation
and an exercise of the police power of the state, even though
incidentally, revenue is generated. The conservative and pivotal
distinction between these two (2) powers rests in the purpose
for which the charge is made.
If generation of revenue is the primary purpose and regulation is
merely incidental, the imposition is a tax; but if regulation is the
primary purpose, the fact that revenue is incidentally raised does
not make the imposition a tax
2.
Police Power and Eminent Domain
In the exercise of police power, there is a restriction of property

interest to promote public welfare or interest which involves no
compensable taking. When the power of eminent domain, however,
is exercised, property interest is appropriated and applied to some
public purpose, necessitating compensation therefor.
Case: OSG vs Ayala Land
The Court finds, however, that in totally prohibiting
respondents from collecting parking fees from the public for the
use of the mall parking facilities, the State would be acting
beyond the bounds of police power.
Police power does not involve the taking or confiscation of
property, with the exception of a few cases where there is a
necessity to confiscate private property in order to destroy it for
the purpose of protecting peace and order and of promoting the
general welfare; for instance, the confiscation of an illegally
possessed article, such as opium and firearms.
When there is a taking or confiscation of private property
for public use, the State is no longer exercising police power, but
another of its inherent powers, namely, eminent domain.
Eminent domain enables the State to forcibly acquire private
lands intended for public use upon payment of just
compensation to the owner.
Such is already an excessive intrusion into the property

rights of respondents. Not only are they being deprived of the
right to use a portion of their properties as they wish, they are
further prohibited from profiting from its use or even just
recovering therefrom the expenses for the maintenance and
operation of the required parking facilities.
In conclusion, the total prohibition against the collection by
respondents of parking fees from persons who use the mall
parking facilities has no basis in the National Building Code or
its IRR. The State also cannot impose the same prohibition by
generally invoking police power, since said prohibition amounts
to a taking of respondents property without payment of just
compensation.
3.
Taxation and Eminent Domain- In taxation, what is taken

is money. While anything may be expropriated, it is
akward to take money and be justly compensated with the
same.
C. Due Process In General

Section 1. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property
without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal
protection of the laws.
Section 1 protects life liberty and property:
a. LIFE: Includes the right to be alive, or security against physical
harm, as well as the right to a good life
Section 5. The maintenance of peace and order, the protection of life,
liberty, and property, and promotion of the general welfare are
essential for the enjoyment by all the people of the blessings of
democracy. (Art II)
Section 11. The State values the dignity of every human person and
guarantees full respect for human rights. (Art II)
Section 9. The State shall promote a just and dynamic social order that
will ensure the prosperity and independence of the nation and free the
people from poverty through policies that provide adequate social
services, promote full employment, a rising standard of living, and an
improved quality of life for all. (Art II)
It also includes the sanctity of family life and the right of the unborn.
Section 12. The State recognizes the sanctity of family life and
shall protect and strengthen the family as a basic autonomous
social institution. It shall equally protect the life of the mother
and the life of the unborn from conception. The natural and
primary right and duty of parents in the rearing of the youth for
civic efficiency and the development of moral character shall
receive the support of the Government. (Art II)
Page 3

b. PROPERTY:
i.
Includes all kinds of property as found in the Civil Code, including

vested rights.
It is a principle in American jurisprudence which, undoubtedly, is
well-recognized in this jurisdiction that one's employment,
profession, trade or calling is a "property right," and the
wrongful interference therewith is an actionable wrong. The right
is considered to be property within the protection of a
constitutional guaranty of due process of law.
c. LIBERTY : This may refer to autonomy.
Case: Philippine Blooming Mills vs Philippine Blooming
c.
d.
2.
In administrative proceedings (Cardinal Primary Rights)

a. The right to a hearing, which includes the right to
present one's case and submit evidence in support
thereof;
i.
Case: SURNECO vs ERC
"To be heard" does not mean verbal
argumentation alone inasmuch as one may
be heard just as effectively through written
explanations, submissions or pleadings.
Therefore, while the phrase "ample
opportunity to be heard" may in fact include
an actual hearing, it is not limited to a
formal hearing only.
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; and
such priority "gives these liberties the sanctity and the sanction not
permitting dubious intrusions.
By "due process of law" we mean "a law which hears before it
condemns; which proceeds upon inquiry, and renders judgment only
after trial. ...
Administrative due process simply requires

an opportunity to explain ones side or to
seek reconsideration of the action or ruling
complained of. It means being given the
opportunity to be heard before judgment,
and for this purpose, a formal trial-type
hearing is not even essential. It is enough
that the parties are given a fair and
reasonable chance to demonstrate their
respective positions and to present evidence
in support thereof.
"Due process of law" contemplates notice and opportunity to

be heard before judgment is rendered, affecting one's person or
property"
Aspects of Due Process: Procedural Due Process and Substantive
Due Process
Procedural due process refers to the procedures that the
government must follow before it deprives a person of life, liberty,
or property. Procedural due process concerns itself with
government action adhering to the established process when it
makes an intrusion into the private sphere. Examples range from the
form of notice given to the level of formality of a hearing.
Substantive due process completes the protection envisioned by
the due process clause. It inquires whether the government has
sufficient justification for depriving a person of life, liberty, or
property.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
REQUISITES OF PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS

1.
For Judicial Proceedings (Non-criminal cases)

g.
Due process of law implies that there must be
a.
b.
JURISDICTION simply means the power of

the court to hear try and decide a case. In its
complete aspect, jurisdiction includes not
only the powers to hear and decide a case,
but also the power to enforce the judgment.
That the defendant shall have an opportunity to be
heard; and
Judgment shall be rendered upon lawful hearing.
A court or tribunal clothed with power to hear and

determine the matter before it;
That jurisdiction shall have been lawfully acquired;
The tribunal must consider the evidence presented;

The decision must have something to support itself;
The evidence must be substantial;
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.
The tribunal or body or any of its judges must act on
its or his own independent consideration of the law
and facts of the controversy and not simply accept
the views of a subordinate in arriving at a decision.
The board or body should, in all controversial
questions, render its decision in such a manner that
the parties to the proceeding can know the various
issues involved, and the reason for the decision
rendered.
Page 4

3.
In Labor Cases
2) they shall have the right to answer the charges against

them, with the assistance of counsel, if desired;
Article 277 of the Labor Code provides: a written notice

containing a statement of the causes for termination and shall
afford the latter ample opportunity to be heard and defend
himself with the assistance of his representative if he so
desires
(3) they shall be informed of the evidence against them;

(4) they shall have the right to adduce evidence in their
own behalf; and
(5) the evidence must be duly considered by the
investigating committee or official designated by the
school authorities to hear and decide the case.
For termination of employment based on just causes as defined

in Article 282 of the Labor Code:
(i) A written notice served on the employee specifying the
ground or grounds for termination, and giving said employee
reasonable opportunity within which to explain his side.
(ii) A hearing or conference during which the employee
concerned, with the assistance of counsel if he so desires, is
given opportunity to respond to the charge, present his
evidence or rebut the evidence presented against him.
(iii) A written notice of termination served on the employee,
indicating that upon due consideration of all the circumstances,
grounds have been established to justify his termination.
Case: Placido vs NLRC
It should not be taken to mean, however, that holding an
actual hearing or conference is a condition sine qua non for
compliance with the due process requirement in case of
termination of employment
The essence of due process is simply an opportunity to be
heard or, as applied to administrative proceedings, an
opportunity to explain one's side or an opportunity to seek
a reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of.
What the law prohibits is absolute absence of the
opportunity to be heard, hence, a party cannot feign denial
of due process where he had been afforded the
opportunity to present his side. A formal or trial type
hearing is not at all times and in all instances essential to
due process, the requirements of which are satisfied where
the parties are afforded fair and reasonable opportunity to
explain their side of the controversy.
4.
REQUISITES FOR SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS

a.
b.
*Is Publication essential in due process?

Case: Republic vs Pilipinas Shell
publication is indispensable in order that all statutes, including
administrative rules that are intended to enforce or implement
existing laws, attain binding force and effect
Case: Tanada vs Tuvera
Without such notice and publication, there would be no basis
for the application of the maxim "ignorantia legis non excusat."
Laws must come out in the open in the clear light of the sun
instead of skulking in the shadows with their dark, deep secrets.
Mysterious pronouncements and rumored rules cannot be
recognized as binding unless their existence and contents are
confirmed by a valid publication intended to make full
disclosure and give proper notice to the people. The furtive law
is like a scabbarded saber that cannot feint parry or cut unless
the naked blade is drawn.
a.
In School Disciplinary Proceedings

There are minimum standards which must be met to
satisfy the demands of procedural due process; and these
are, that
1) the students must be informed in writing of the nature
and cause of any accusation against them;
The interests of the public generally as distinguished from

those of a particular class requires the interference by the
government
The means employed are reasonably for the
accomplishment of the purpose and not unduly oppressive
upon individuals
b.
Void for Vagueness Doctrine- holds that a law is facially

invalid if men of common intelligence must necessarily
guess at its meaning and differ as to its application.
Overbreadth Analysis- challengers to government action
are in effect permitted to raise the rights of third parties.
Generally applied to statutes infringing on the freedom of
speech, the overbreadth doctrine applies when a statute
needlessly restrains even constitutionally guaranteed
rights.
Page 5

Case: Sps. Romualdez vs COMELEC
In sum, the doctrines of strict scrutiny, overbreadth, and
vagueness are analytical tools developed for testing "on their
faces" statutes in free speech cases or, as they are called in
American law, First Amendment cases. They cannot be made to
do service when what is involved is a criminal statute.
To this date, the Court has not declared any penal law
unconstitutional on the ground of ambiguity." While mentioned
in passing in some cases, the void-for-vagueness concept has
yet to find direct application in our jurisdiction.
Indeed, an "on-its-face" invalidation of criminal statutes would
result in a mass acquittal of parties whose cases may not have
even reached the courts. Such invalidation would constitute a
departure from the usual requirement of "actual case and
controversy" and permit decisions to be made in a sterile
abstract context having no factual concreteness.
For this reason, generally disfavored is an on-its-face
invalidation of statutes, described as a "manifestly strong
medicine" to be employed "sparingly and only as a last resort."
In determining the constitutionality of a statute, therefore, its
provisions that have allegedly been violated must be examined
in the light of the conduct with which the defendant has been
charged.
regulate or proscribe speech and no readily apparent

construction suggests itself as a vehicle for rehabilitating the
statutes in a single prosecution, the transcendent value to all
society of constitutionally protected expression is deemed to
justify allowing attacks on overly broad statutes with no
requirement that the person making the attack demonstrate
that his own conduct could not be regulated by a statute drawn
with narrow specificity."
This rationale does not apply to penal statutes. Criminal
statutes have general in terrorem effect resulting from their
very existence, and, if facial challenge is allowed for this reason
alone, the State may well be prevented from enacting laws
against socially harmful conduct. In the area of criminal law, the
law cannot take chances as in the area of free speech.
The overbreadth and vagueness doctrines then have special
application only to free speech cases.
For these reasons, "on its face" invalidation of statutes has been
described as "manifestly strong medicine," to be employed
"sparingly and only as a last resort," and is generally disfavored.
In determining the constitutionality of a statute, therefore, its
provisions which are alleged to have been violated in a case
must be examined in the light of the conduct with which the
defendant is charged.
D. Due Process and Police Power
The rule established in our jurisdiction is, only statutes on free

speech, religious freedom, and other fundamental rights may be
facially challenged. Under no case may ordinary penal statutes
be subjected to a facial challenge. The rationale is obvious. If a
facial challenge to a penal statute is permitted, the prosecution
of crimes maybe hampered. No prosecution would be possible.
Case: People vs Siton
However, in exercising its power to declare what acts constitute
a crime, the legislature must inform the citizen with reasonable
precision what acts it intends to prohibit so that he may have a
certain understandable rule of conduct and know what acts it is
his duty to avoid. This requirement has come to be known as
the void-for-vagueness doctrine which states that "a statute
which either forbids or requires the doing of an act in terms so
vague that men of common intelligence must necessarily guess
at its meaning and differ as to its application, violates the first
essential of due process of law."
Case: Southern Hemisphere vs Anti-terrorism Council
A facial challenge is allowed to be made to a vague statute and
to one which is overbroad because of possible" chilling effect"
upon protected speech. The theory is that "[w]hen statutes
Case: Ermita-Malate Hotel vs City Mayor of Manila

Nor may petitioners assert with plausibility that on its face the
ordinance is fatally defective as being repugnant to the due
process clause of the Constitution. The mantle of protection
associated with the due process guaranty does not cover
petitioners. This particular manifestation of a police power
measure being specifically aimed to safeguard public morals is
immune from such imputation of nullity resting purely on
conjecture and unsupported by anything of substance. To hold
otherwise would be to unduly restrict and narrow the scope of
police power which has been properly characterized as the most
essential, insistent and the least limitable of powers, extending
as it does "to all the great public needs."
Case: White Light vs City of Manila
The test of a valid ordinance is well established. A long line of
decisions including has held that for an ordinance to be valid, it
must not only be within the corporate powers of the local
government unit to enact and pass according to the procedure
prescribed by law, it must also conform to the following
substantive requirements:
Page 6

(1) must not contravene the Constitution or any statute;
(2) must not be unfair or oppressive;
(3) must not be partial or discriminatory;
(4) must not prohibit but may regulate trade;
(5) must be general and consistent with public policy; and
(6) must not be unreasonable.
Police power, while incapable of an exact definition, has been
purposely veiled in general terms to underscore its
comprehensiveness to meet all exigencies and provide enough
room for an efficient and flexible response as the conditions
warrant.
The apparent goal of the Ordinance is to minimize if not
eliminate the use of the covered establishments for illicit sex,
prostitution, drug use and alike. These goals, by themselves, are
unimpeachable and certainly fall within the ambit of the police
power of the State. Yet the desirability of these ends do not
sanctify any and all means for their achievement.
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.
Lacking a concurrence of these requisites, the police measure
shall be struck down as an arbitrary intrusion into private rights.
The behavior which the Ordinance seeks to curtail is in fact
already prohibited and could in fact be diminished simply by
applying existing laws. Less intrusive measures such as curbing
the proliferation of prostitutes and drug dealers through active
police work would be more effective in easing the situation. So
would the strict enforcement of existing laws and regulations
penalizing prostitution and drug use. These measures would
have minimal intrusion on the businesses of the petitioners and
other legitimate merchants. Further, it is apparent that the
Ordinance can easily be circumvented by merely paying the
whole day rate without any hindrance to those engaged in illicit
activities. Moreover, drug dealers and prostitutes can in fact
collect "wash rates" from their clientele by charging their
customers a portion of the rent for motel rooms and even
apartments.
E. Due Process and Eminent Domain
The purpose of the guaranty is to prevent arbitrary

governmental encroachment against the life, liberty and
property of individuals. The due process guaranty serves as a
protection against arbitrary regulation or seizure. Even
corporations and partnerships are protected by the guaranty
insofar as their property is concerned.
That the Ordinance prevents the lawful uses of a wash rate
depriving patrons of a product and the petitioners of lucrative
business ties in with another constitutional requisite for the
legitimacy of the Ordinance as a police power measure. It must
appear that
a. the interests of the public generally, as distinguished from
those of a particular class, require an interference with private
rights and the means must be reasonably necessary for the
accomplishment of the purpose and not unduly oppressive of
private rights.
b. It must also be evident that no other alternative for the

accomplishment of the purpose less intrusive of private rights
can work.
Section 9. Private property shall not be taken for public use without
just compensation.
Case: OSG vs Ayala Land
Although in the present case, title to and/or possession of the
parking facilities remain/s with respondents, the prohibition
against their collection of parking fees from the public, for the
use of said facilities, is already tantamount to a taking or
confiscation of their properties. The State is not only requiring
that respondents devote a portion of the latters properties for
use as parking spaces, but is also mandating that they give the
public access to said parking spaces for free. Such is already an
excessive intrusion into the property rights of respondents. Not
only are they being deprived of the right to use a portion of
their properties as they wish, they are further prohibited from
profiting from its use or even just recovering therefrom the
expenses for the maintenance and operation of the required
parking facilities.
The Local Government Code provides that a local government unit
may,
a. through its chief executive and
b. acting pursuant to an ordinance,
c. More importantly, a reasonable relation must exist between

the purposes of the measure and the means employed for its
exercise the power of eminent domain;
Page 7

a. for public use, or purpose, or welfare for the benefit of the poor
and the landless,
determinations but when a party claims a violation of the

guarantee in the Bill of Rights that private property may
not be taken for public use without just compensation, no
statute, decree, or executive order can mandate that its
own determination shall prevail over the courts findings.
Much less can the courts be precluded from looking into
the "just-ness" of the decreed compensation.
b. upon payment of just compensation, pursuant to the provisions of

the Constitution and pertinent laws:
Provided, however,
a. That the power of eminent domain may not be exercised unless a
valid and definite offer has been previously made to the owner, and
such offer was not accepted:
Case: Sps. Abad vs Fil-Homes Realty

Expropriation of lands consists of two stages:
b. That the local government unit may immediately take possession

of the property upon the filing of the expropriation proceedings and
upon making a deposit with the proper court of at least fifteen
The first is concerned with the determination of the

authority of the plaintiff to exercise the power of eminent
domain and the propriety of its exercise in the context of
the facts involved in the suit.
percent (15%) of the fair market value of the property based on the
current tax declaration of the property to be expropriated.
The second phase of the eminent domain action is

concerned with the determination by the court of "the just
compensation for the property sought to be taken.
c. That the amount to be paid for the expropriated property shall be

determined by the proper court, based on the fair market value of
the property.
It is only upon the completion of these two stages that

expropriation is said to have been completed. The process
is not complete until payment of just compensation.
Accordingly, the issuance of the writ of possession in this
case does not write finis to the expropriation proceedings.
To effectuate the transfer of ownership, it is necessary to
pay the property owners the final just compensation.
Two stages of exporppriation proceedings

1. Determination of the authority of the plaintiff to exercise the
power of eminent domain and the propriety of its exercise in the
context of the facts involved in the suit.
This ends with an order, if not of dismissal of the action, of
condemnation [or order of expropriation] declaring that
the plaintiff has the lawful right to take the property
sought to be condemned, for the public use or purpose
described in the complaint, upon the payment of just
compensation to be determined as of the date of the filing
of the complaint; and
F. Equal Protection
The equality it guarantees is legal equality, or as it is usually put,
the equality of all persons before the law. The principle of the
requirement of equal protection of law applies to all persons
similarly situated.
Case: Pichay vs Office of the Deputy Exec. Sec
2. Determination by the court of the just compensation for the

property sought to be taken.
... in the application of the law, "all persons or things

similarly situated should be treated alike, both as to rights
conferred and responsibilities imposed." The equal
protection clause, however, is not absolute but subject to
reasonable classification so that aggrupations bearing
substantial distinctions may be treated differently from
each other.
Case: Sps. Ortega vs City of Cebu

Expropriation proceedings speak of two (2) stages, i.e.:
1.
2.
Determination of the authority of the plaintiff to

exercise the power of eminent domain and the
propriety of its exercise in the context of the facts
involved in the suit.
Determination by the court of the just compensation
for the property sought to be taken.
The determination of "just compensation" in eminent

domain cases is a judicial function. The executive
department or the legislature may make the initial
1.
Economic Equality
a. FREE ACCESS:
Section 11. Free access to the courts and quasijudicial bodies and adequate legal assistance
shall not be denied to any person by reason of
poverty. (Art III)
Page 8

b.
c.
d.
e.
LEGAL AID
Section 5. The Supreme Court shall have the
following powers: xxx
(5) Promulgate rules concerning the protection
and enforcement of constitutional rights,
pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts,
the admission to the practice of law, the
integrated bar, and legal assistance to the underprivileged. Such rules shall provide a simplified
and inexpensive procedure for the speedy
disposition of cases, shall be uniform for all
courts of the same grade, and shall not diminish,
increase, or modify substantive rights. Rules of
procedure of special courts and quasi-judicial
bodies shall remain effective unless disapproved
by the Supreme Court. (Art VIII)
MARINE RESOURCES
Section 2. xxx
The Congress may, by law, allow small-scale
utilization of natural resources by Filipino
citizens, as well as cooperative fish farming, with
priority to subsistence fishermen and fish
workers in rivers, lakes, bays, and lagoons. xxx
(ArtXII)
Section 1. The Congress shall give highest priority

to the enactment of measures that protect and
enhance the right of all the people to human
dignity, reduce social, economic, and political
inequalities, and remove cultural inequities by
equitably diffusing wealth and political power for
the common good. (Art XIII)
f.
PROTECTION TO LABOR
Section 3. The State shall afford full protection to
labor, local and overseas, organized and
unorganized, and promote full employment and
equality of employment opportunities for all.
It shall guarantee the rights of all workers to selforganization,
collective
bargaining
and
negotiations, and peaceful concerted activities,
including the right to strike in accordance with
law. They shall be entitled to security of tenure,
humane conditions of work, and a living wage.
They shall also participate in policy and decisionmaking processes affecting their rights and
benefits as may be provided by law. (Art. XIII)
2.
Political Equality
a. DISCRIMINATION-
NATIONALIZATION
Section 10. The Congress shall, upon
recommendation of the economic and planning
agency, when the national interest dictates,
reserve to citizens of the Philippines or to
corporations or associations at least sixty per
centum of whose capital is owned by such
citizens, or such higher percentage as Congress
may prescribe, certain areas of investments. The
Congress shall enact measures that will
encourage the formation and operation of
enterprises whose capital is wholly owned by
Filipinos.
In the grant of rights, privileges, and concessions
covering the national economy and patrimony,
the State shall give preference to qualified
Filipinos.
The State shall regulate and exercise authority
over foreign investments within its national
jurisdiction and in accordance with its national
goals and priorities. (Art XII)
SOCIAL JUSTICE-
Section 10. Bona fide candidates for any public office

shall be free from any form of harassment and
discrimination. (Art IX)
Section 1. The Congress shall give highest priority to
the enactment of measures that protect and enhance
the right of all the people to human dignity, reduce
social, economic, and political inequalities, and
remove cultural inequities by equitably diffusing
wealth and political power for the common good.
To this end, the State shall regulate the acquisition,
ownership, use, and disposition of property and its
increments. (Art XIII)
b.
Case: Dumlao vs COMELEC
The constitutional guarantee of equal protection of

the laws is subject to rational classification. If the
groupings are based on reasonable and real
differentiations, one class can be treated and
regulated differently from another class.
In fine, it bears reiteration that the equal protection
clause does not forbid all legal classification. What is
Page 9

proscribes is a classification which is arbitrary and
unreasonable.
as it bears a rational relationship to some legitimate

government end.
The purpose of the law is to allow the emergence of

younger blood in local governments. The classification
in question being pursuant to that purpose, it cannot
be considered invalid "even it at times, it may be
susceptible to the objection that it is marred by
theoretical inconsistencies"
No law exists to criminalize homosexual behavior or

expressions or parties about homosexual behavior.
Indeed, even if we were to assume that public opinion
is as the COMELEC describes it, the asserted state
interest here that is, moral disapproval of an
unpopular minority is not a legitimate state interest
that is sufficient to satisfy rational basis review under
the equal protection clause.
Case: Quinto vs COMELEC

The equal protection of the law clause in the
Constitution is not absolute, but is subject to
reasonable classification. If the groupings are
characterized by substantial distinctions that make
real differences, one class may be treated and
regulated differently from the other.
Substantial distinctions clearly exist between elective
officials and appointive officials. The former occupy
their office by virtue of the mandate of the electorate.
They are elected to an office for a definite term and
may be removed therefrom only upon stringent
conditions. On the other hand, appointive officials
hold their office by virtue of their designation thereto
by an appointing authority.
Another substantial distinction between the two sets
of officials is that under Section 55, Chapter 8, Title I,
Subsection A. Civil Service Commission, Book V of the
Administrative Code of 1987 (Executive Order No.
292), appointive officials, as officers and employees in
the civil service, are strictly prohibited from engaging
in any partisan political activity or take (sic) part in
any election except to vote. Under the same provision,
elective officials, or officers or employees holding
political offices, are obviously expressly allowed to
take part in political and electoral activities.
Since the classification justifying Section 14 of Rep.
Act No. 9006, i.e., elected officials vis--vis appointive
officials, is anchored upon material and significant
distinctions and all the persons belonging under the
same classification are similarly treated, the equal
protection clause of the Constitution is, thus, not
infringed.
Hence, laws of general application should apply with

equal force to LGBTs, and they deserve to participate
in the party-list system on the same basis as other
marginalized and under-represented sectors.
3.
Social Equality
Section 1. The Congress shall give highest priority to the
enactment of measures that protect and enhance the right
of all the people to human dignity, reduce social,
economic, and political inequalities, and remove cultural
inequities by equitably diffusing wealth and political power
for the common good.
To this end, the State shall regulate the acquisition,
ownership, use, and disposition of property and its
increments. (Art XIII)
Case: Reyes vs NHA
Jurisprudence has it that the expropriation of private land
for slum clearance and urban development is for a public
purpose even if the developed area is later sold to private
homeowners, commercials firms, entertainment and
service companies, and other private concerns.
Moreover, the Constitution itself allows the State to
undertake, for the common good and in cooperation with
the private sector, a continuing program of urban land
reform and housing which will make at affordable cost
decent housing and basic services to underprivileged and
homeless citizens in urban centers and resettlement areas.
The expropriation of private property for the purpose of
socialized housing for the marginalized sector is in
furtherance of the social justice provision under Section 1,
Article XIII of the Constitution.
Case: Ang Ladlad vs COMELEC

Recent jurisprudence has affirmed that if a law
neither burdens a fundamental right nor targets a
suspect class, we will uphold the classification as long
Page 10

4.
Other Cases on Equal Protection

Case: Trillanes vs Pimentel
Petitioner now pleads for the same liberal treatment
accorded certain detention prisoners who have also been
charged with non-bailable offenses, like former President
Joseph Estrada and former Governor Nur Misuari who
were allowed to attend "social functions." Finding no
rhyme and reason in the denial of the more serious request
to perform the duties of a Senator, petitioner harps on an
alleged violation of the equal protection clause.
Emergency or compelling temporary leaves from
imprisonment are allowed to all prisoners, at the discretion
of the authorities or upon court orders. That this discretion
was gravely abused, petitioner failed to establish.
In a seeming attempt to bind or twist the hands of the trial
court lest it be accused of taking a complete turn-around,
petitioner largely banks on these prior grants to him and
insists on unending concessions and blanket
authorizations.
Case: British American Tobacco vs Camacho
A legislative classification that is reasonable does not
offend the constitutional guaranty of the equal protection
of the laws. The classification is considered valid and
reasonable provided that:
(1) it rests on substantial distinctions;
(2) it is germane to the purpose of the law;
(3) it applies, all things being equal, to both present and
future conditions; and
(4) it applies equally to all those belonging to the same
class.
Case: Soriano vs Laguardia
Petitioner faults the MTRCB for denying him his right to the
equal protection of the law, arguing that, owing to the
preventive suspension order, he was unable to answer the
criticisms coming from the INC ministers.
Surely, petitioner cannot, under the premises, place himself

in the same shoes as the INC ministers, who, for one, are
not facing administrative complaints before the MTRCB.
For another, he offers no proof that the said ministers, in
their TV programs, use language similar to that which he
used in his own, necessitating the MTRCBs disciplinary
action.
Case: ABAKADA vs Purisima
Petitioners also claim that limiting the scope of the system
of rewards and incentives only to officials and employees
of the BIR and the BOC violates the constitutional
guarantee of equal protection.
Equality guaranteed under the equal protection clause is
equality under the same conditions and among persons
similarly situated; it is equality among equals, not
similarity of treatment of persons who are classified based
on substantial differences in relation to the object to be
accomplished. When things or persons are different in fact
or circumstance, they may be treated in law differently.
Equality of operation of statutes does not mean
indiscriminate operation on persons merely as such, but on
persons according to the circumstances surrounding them.
It guarantees equality, not identity of rights. The
Constitution does not require that things which are
different in fact be treated in law as though they were the
same.
Hence, legislative classification may in many cases properly
rest on narrow distinctions, for the equal protection
guaranty does not preclude the legislature from
recognizing degrees of evil or harm, and legislation is
addressed to evils as they may appear.
Both the BIR and the BOC are bureaus under the DOF. They
principally perform the special function of being the
instrumentalities through which the State exercises one of
its great inherent functions taxation. Indubitably, such
substantial distinction is germane and intimately related to
the purpose of the law.
Petitioners position does not persuade. The equal

protection clause demands that "all persons subject to
legislation should be treated alike, under like
circumstances and conditions both in the privileges
conferred and liabilities imposed."
Page 11

Case: Chamber of Real Estate vs Sec. Romulo
Again, we disagree. The equal protection clause under the
Constitution means that "no person or class of persons
shall be deprived of the same protection of laws which is
enjoyed by other persons or other classes in the same place
and in like circumstances." Stated differently, all persons
belonging to the same class shall be taxed alike.
The taxing power has the authority to make reasonable
classifications for purposes of taxation. Inequalities which
result from a singling out of one particular class for
taxation, or exemption, infringe no constitutional
limitation. The real estate industry is, by itself, a class and
can be validly treated differently from other business
enterprises.
Petitioner, in insisting that its industry should be treated
similarly as manufacturing enterprises, fails to realize that
what distinguishes the real estate business from other
manufacturing enterprises, for purposes of the imposition
of the CWT, is not their production processes but the prices
of their goods sold and the number of transactions
involved. The income from the sale of a real property is
bigger and its frequency of transaction limited, making it
less cumbersome for the parties to comply with the
withholding tax scheme.
On the other hand, each manufacturing enterprise may
have tens of thousands of transactions with several
thousand customers every month involving both minimal
and substantial amounts. To require the customers of
manufacturing enterprises, at present, to withhold the
taxes on each of their transactions with their tens or
hundreds of suppliers may result in an inefficient and
unmanageable system of taxation and may well defeat the
purpose of the withholding tax system.
Case: Biraogo vs PTC
Concept of the Equal Protection Clause: The equal
protection of the laws is embraced in the concept of due
process, as every unfair discrimination offends the
requirements of justice and fair play. It has been embodied
in a separate clause, however, to provide for a more
specific guaranty against any form of undue favoritism or
hostility from the government. Arbitrariness in general
may be challenged on the basis of the due process clause.
But if the particular act assailed partakes of an
unwarranted partiality or prejudice, the sharper weapon to
cut it down is the equal protection clause.
Applying these precepts to this case, Executive Order No. 1

should be struck down as violative of the equal protection
clause. The clear mandate of the envisioned truth
commission is to investigate and find out the truth
"concerning the reported cases of graft and corruption
during the previous administration" only. The intent to
single out the previous administration is plain, patent and
manifest.
In this regard, it must be borne in mind that 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. Such discriminating differentiation clearly
reverberates to label the commission as a vehicle for
vindictiveness and selective retribution.
The Court is not convinced. Although Section 17 allows the
President the discretion to expand the scope of
investigations of the PTC so as to include the acts of graft
and corruption committed in other past administrations, it
does not guarantee that they would be covered in the
future. Such expanded mandate of the commission will still
depend on the whim and caprice of the President. If he
would decide not to include them, the section would then
be meaningless. This will only fortify the fears of the
petitioners that the Executive Order No. 1 was "crafted to
tailor-fit the prosecution of officials and personalities of
the Arroyo administration."
Case: BOCEA vs Reyes
Equal protection simply provides that all persons or things
similarly situated should be treated in a similar manner,
both as to rights conferred and responsibilities imposed.
The purpose of the equal protection clause is to secure
every person within a states jurisdiction against
intentional and arbitrary discrimination, whether
occasioned by the express terms of a statute or by its
improper execution through the states duly constituted
authorities. In other words, the concept of equal justice
under the law requires the state to govern impartially, and
it may not draw distinctions between individuals solely on
differences that are irrelevant to a legitimate
governmental objective.
Case: Commissioner of Customs vs Hypermix Feeds
In summary, petitioners violated respondents right to due
process in the issuance of CMO 27-2003 when they failed
to observe the requirements under the Revised
Administrative Code. Petitioners likewise violated
Page 12

respondents right to equal protection of laws when they
provided for an unreasonable classification in the
application of the regulation.
b) For compelling reasons stated in the application, any court within

the judicial region where the crime was committed if the place of the
commission of the crime is known, or any court within the judicial
region where the warrant shall be enforced.
II. REQUIREMENTS FOR FAIR PROCEDURE

A.
Arrests,
searches
Communications
and
Seizures,
Privacy
of
Section 2. The right of the people to be secure in their persons,

houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and
seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable,
and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon
probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after
examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the
witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to
be searched and the persons or things to be seized. (Art III)
Section 3. The privacy of communication and correspondence shall
be inviolable except upon lawful order of the court, or when public
safety or order requires otherwise, as prescribed by law.
Any evidence obtained in violation of this or the preceding section
shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding. (Art III)
1.
Requirements for Search Warrants
However, if the criminal action has already been filed, the

application shall only be made in the court where the criminal action
is pending.
Section 3. Personal property to be seized. A search warrant may
be issued for the search and seizure of personal property:
(a) Subject of the offense;
(b) Stolen or embezzled and other proceeds, or fruits of the offense;
or
(c) Used or intended to be used as the means of committing an
offense.
Section 4. Requisites for issuing search warrant. A search warrant
shall not issue except upon probable cause in connection with one
specific offense to be determined personally by the judge after
examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the
witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to
be searched and the things to be seized which may be anywhere in
the Philippines.
Case: Anonymous Letter-Complaint Againts Atty. Morales

The right against unreasonable search and seizure in turn is at
the top of the hierarchy of rights, next only to, if not on the
same plane as, the right to life, liberty and property, which is
protected by the due process clause. This is as it should be for,
as stressed by a couple of noted freedom advocates, the right to
personal security which, along with the right to privacy, is the
foundation of the right against unreasonable search and seizure
"includes the right to exist, and the right to enjoyment of life
while existing."
RULE 126, Rules of Court
Search and Seizure
Section 1. Search warrant defined. A search warrant is an order in
writing issued in the name of the People of the Philippines, signed by
a judge and directed to a peace officer, commanding him to search
for personal property described therein and bring it before the court.
Section 2. Court where application for search warrant shall be filed.
An application for search warrant shall be filed with the following:
a) Any court within whose territorial jurisdiction a crime was
committed.
Section 5. Examination of complainant; record. The judge must,

before issuing the warrant, personally examine in the form of
searching questions and answers, in writing and under oath, the
complainant and the witnesses he may produce on facts personally
known to them and attach to the record their sworn statements,
together with the affidavits submitted.
Section 6. Issuance and form of search warrant. If the judge is
satisfied of the existence of facts upon which the application is based
or that there is probable cause to believe that they exist, he shall
issue the warrant, which must be substantially in the form prescribed
by these Rules.
Section 7. Right to break door or window to effect search. The
officer, if refused admittance to the place of directed search after
giving notice of his purpose and authority, may break open any outer
or inner door or window of a house or any part of a house or
anything therein to execute the warrant or liberate himself or any
person lawfully aiding him when unlawfully detained therein.
Section 8. Search of house, room, or premise to be made in presence
of two witnesses. No search of a house, room, or any other
premise shall be made except in the presence of the lawful occupant
thereof or any member of his family or in the absence of the latter,
two
Page 13

witnesses of sufficient age and discretion residing in the same
locality.
such court failed to resolve the motion and a criminal case is

subsequent filed in another court, the motion shall be resolved by the
latter court.
Section 9. Time of making search. The warrant must direct that it

be served in the day time, unless the affidavit asserts that the
property is on the person or in the place ordered to be searched, in
which case a direction may be inserted that it be served at any time
of the day or night.
What is a Search Warrant? - A search warrant is an order in writing

issued in the name of the People of the Philippines, signed by a
judge and directed to a peace officer, commanding him to search for
personal property described therein and bring it before the court.2
Section 10. Validity of search warrant. A search warrant shall be

valid for ten (10) days from its date. Thereafter it shall be void.
Where is the application filed? An application for search warrant

shall be filed with the following:
Section 11. Receipt for the property seized. The officer seizing
property under the warrant must give a detailed receipt for the same
to the lawful occupant of the premises in whose presence the search
and seizure were made, or in the absence of such occupant, must, in
the presence of at least two witnesses of sufficient age and
discretion residing in the same locality, leave a receipt in the place in
which he found the seized property.
a) Any court within whose territorial jurisdiction a crime was

committed.
Section 12. Delivery of property and inventory thereof to court;

return and proceedings thereon.
However, if the criminal action has already been filed, the

application shall only be made in the court where the criminal action
is pending.3
(a) The officer must forthwith deliver the property seized to the judge
who issued the warrant, together with a true inventory thereof duly
verified under oath.
What are the requisites for the issuance of a search warrant? - A

search warrant shall not issue except
(b) Ten (10) days after issuance of the search warrant, the issuing
judge shall ascertain if the return has been made, and if none, shall
summon the person to whom the warrant was issued and require
him to explain why no return was made. If the return has been made,
the judge shall ascertain whether section 11 of this Rule has been
complained with and shall require that the property seized be
delivered to him. The judge shall see to it that subsection (a) hereof
has been complied with.
(c) The return on the search warrant shall be filed and kept by the
custodian of the log book on search warrants who shall enter therein
the date of the return, the result, and other actions of the judge.
A violation of this section shall constitute contempt of court.(11a)
Section 13. Search incident to lawful arrest. A person lawfully
arrested may be searched for dangerous weapons or anything which
may have been used or constitute proof in the commission of an
offense without a search warrant.
Section 14. Motion to quash a search warrant or to suppress
evidence; where to file. A motion to quash a search warrant
and/or to suppress evidence obtained thereby may be filed in and
acted upon only by the court where the action has been instituted. If
no criminal action has been instituted, the motion may be filed in
and resolved by the court that issued the search warrant. However, if
b) For compelling reasons stated in the application, any court within

the judicial region where the crime was committed if the place of
the commission of the crime is known, or any court within the
judicial region where the warrant shall be enforced.
a.
b.
c.
upon probable cause

in connection with one specific offense
(probable cause) to be determined personally by the judge
after examination under oath or affirmation of the
complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and
particularly describing the place to be searched and the
things to be seized which may be anywhere in the
Philippines
The judge must, before issuing the warrant, personally examine in

the form of searching questions and answers, in writing and under
oath, the complainant and the witnesses he may produce on facts
personally known to them and attach to the record their sworn
statements, together with the affidavits submitted.
Particularly describing the place to be searched
Case: People vs Tuan
A description of the place to be searched is sufficient if the
officer serving the warrant can, with reasonable effort,
ascertain and identify the place intended and distinguish it from
other places in the community. A designation or description that
points out the place to be searched to the exclusion of all
others, and on inquiry unerringly leads the peace officers to it,
satisfies the constitutional requirement of definiteness.
Page 14

Upon Probable Cause
Search of Files on a Computer
Case: People vs Mamaril
Case: Pollo vs Constantino-David
Probable cause means such facts and circumstances which

would lead a reasonable discreet and prudent man to
believe that an offense has been committed and that the
objects sought in connection with the offense are in the
place sought to be searched.
Moreover, even assuming arguendo, in the absence of

allegation or proof of the aforementioned factual
circumstances, that petitioner had at least a subjective
expectation of privacy in his computer as he claims, such is
negated by the presence of policy regulating the use of
office computers (Office Memorandum No. 10, S. 2002
"Computer Use Policy (CUP)", to wit
It is presumed that a judicial function has been regularly

performed, absent a showing to the contrary. A
magistrates determination of a probable cause for the
issuance of a search warrant is paid with great deference
by a reviewing court, as long as there was substantial basis
for that determination.
1. The Computer Resources are the property of

the Civil Service Commission and may be used
only for legitimate business purposes.
xxx
Case: Sy Tan vs Sy Tiong Gue

5. Waiver of privacy rights. Users expressly waive
any right to privacy in anything they create,
store, send, or receive on the computer through
the Internet or any other computer network.
Users understand that the CSC may use human
or automated means to monitor the use of its
Computer Resources.
Jurisprudence dictates that probable cause, as a condition

for the issuance of a search warrant, is such reasons
supported by facts and circumstances as will warrant a
cautious man to believe that his action and the means
taken in prosecuting it are legally just and proper. Probable
cause requires facts and circumstances that would lead a
reasonably prudent man to believe that an offense has
been committed and that the objects sought in connection
with that offense are in the place to be searched.
xxx 6. Non-exclusivity of Computer Resources. A

computer resource is not a personal property or
for the exclusive use of a User to whom a
memorandum of receipt (MR) has been issued. It
can be shared or operated by other users.
However, he is accountable therefor and must
insure its care and maintenance.
As implied by the words themselves, "probable cause" is

concerned with probability, not absolute or even moral
certainty.
The power to issue search warrants is exclusively vested in
the trial judges in the exercise of their judicial functions. A
finding of probable cause, which would merit the issuance
of a search warrant, needs only to rest on evidence
showing that, more likely than not, a crime has been
committed and that it was committed by the accused.
xxx
13. Passwords do not imply privacy. Use of
passwords to gain access to the computer system
or to encode particular files or messages does
not imply that Users have an expectation of
privacy in the material they create or receive on
the computer system.
As to ownership of the property seized

Case: Ty vs De Jemil
The law does not require that the property to be seized
should be owned by the person against whom the search
warrants is directed. Ownership, therefore, is of no
consequence, and it is sufficient that the person against
whom the warrant is directed has control or possession of
the property sought to be seized. Petitioners cannot deny
that the seized LPG cylinders were in the possession of
Omni, found as they were inside the Omni compound.
The CSC in this case had implemented a policy that put its
employees on notice that they have no expectation of
privacy in anything they create, store, send or receive on
the office computers, and that the CSC may monitor the
use of the computer resources using both automated or
human means. This implies that on-the-spot inspections
may be done to ensure that the computer resources were
used only for such legitimate business purposes.
Page 15

A search by a government employer of an employees
office is justified at inception when there are reasonable
grounds for suspecting that it will turn up evidence that the
employee is guilty of work-related misconduct.
What is the duration of the validity of the search warrant? - A search
warrant shall be valid for ten (10) days from its date. Thereafter it
shall be void.
2.
Warrantless Searches
a.
Search of Moving Vehicles:
Case: Epie vs Ulat-Marredo

At around 4:00 p.m. of the same day, the PNP operatives
spotted the jeepney heading toward La Trinidad. They flagged it
down but it did not stop. Hence, they chased the vehicle up to
Shilan, La Trinidad where it finally halted.
in an apparent attempt to dissuade the police from
proceeding with their inspection, there exists probable cause to
justify a reasonable belief on the part of the law enforcers that
the persons on board said vehicle were officers of the law or
that the vehicle contained objects which were instruments of
some offense.
Case: Aniag vs COMELEC

Case: People vs Tuazon
Aside from a search incident to a lawful arrest, a warrantless
search had been upheld in cases of moving vehicles and the
seizure of evidence in plain view, as well as the search
conducted at police or military checkpoints which we declared
are not illegal per se, and stressed that the warrantless search is
not violative of the Constitution for as long as the vehicle is
neither searched nor its occupants subjected to a body search,
and the inspection of the vehicle is merely limited to a visual
search.
An extensive search (of the vehicle without warrant could only
be resorted to if the officers conducting the search had
reasonable or probable cause to believe before the search that
either the motorist was a law offender or that they would find
the instrumentality or evidence pertaining to the commission of
a crime in the vehicle to be searched.
There was no evidence to show that the policemen were
impelled to do so because of a confidential report leading them
to reasonably believe that certain motorists matching the
description furnished by their informant were engaged in
gunrunning, transporting firearms or in organizing special strike
forces. Nor, as adverted to earlier, was there any indication
from the package or behavior of Arellano that could have
triggered the suspicion of the policemen. Absent such justifying
circumstances specifically pointing to the culpability of
petitioner and Arellano, the search could not be valid.
In the face of fourteen (14) armed policemen conducting the
operation, driver Arellano being alone and a mere employee of
petitioner could not have marshalled the strength and the
courage to protest against the extensive search conducted in
the vehicle. In such scenario, the "implied acquiescence," if
there was any, could not be more than a mere passive
conformity on Arellano's part to the search, and "consent" given
under intimidating or coercive circumstances is no consent
within the purview of the constitutional guaranty.
Rationale for the exemption of searches of moving vehicles:

[T]he rules governing search and seizure have over the years
been steadily liberalized whenever a moving vehicle is the
object of the search on the basis of practicality. This is so
considering that before a warrant could be obtained, the place,
things and persons to be searched must be described to the
satisfaction of the issuing judge a requirement which borders
on the impossible in the case of smuggling effected by the use
of a moving vehicle that can transport contraband from one
place to another with impunity. We might add that a
warrantless search of a moving vehicle is justified on the ground
that "it is not practicable to secure a warrant because the
vehicle can be quickly moved out of the locality or jurisdiction in
which the warrant must be sought."
In recognition of the possible abuse, jurisprudence dictates that
at all times, it is required that probable cause exist in order to
justify the warrantless search of a vehicle.
In recognition of the possible abuse, jurisprudence dictates that
at all times, it is required that probable cause exist in order to
justify the warrantless search of a vehicle.
Case: People vs Mariacos
Search of a moving vehicle. Highly regulated by the
government, the vehicle's inherent mobility reduces expectation
of privacy especially when its transit in public thoroughfares
furnishes a highly reasonable suspicion amounting to probable
cause that the occupant committed a criminal activity.
A search warrant may readily be obtained when the search is
made in a store, dwelling house or other immobile structure.
But it is impracticable to obtain a warrant when the search is
conducted on a mobile ship, on an aircraft, or in other motor
vehicles since they can quickly be moved out of the locality or
jurisdiction where the warrant must be sought.
Page 16

b.
When the search is merely incidental to a valid arrest
Rule 113, Sec. 13. A person lawfully arrested may be searched

for dangerous weapons or anything which may have been used
or constitute proof in the commission of an offense without a
search warrant.
Case: People vs Agulay
Accused-appellant contends his arrest was illegal, making
the sachets of shabu allegedly recovered from him
inadmissible in evidence. Accused-appellants claim is
devoid of merit for it is a well-established rule that an
arrest made after an entrapment operation does not
require a warrant inasmuch as it is considered a valid
"warrantless arrest," in line with the provisions of Rule 113,
Section 5(a) of the Revised Rules of Court.
Considering that the legitimacy of the buy-bust operation
is beyond question, the subsequent warrantless arrest and
warrantless search and seizure, were permissible. The
search, clearly being incident to a lawful arrest, needed no
warrant for its validity.
Case: Ching vs People
Once again this Court stresses that a buy-bust operation is
a legally effective and proven procedure, sanctioned by law
at that, for apprehending drug peddlers and distributors. It
is often utilized by law enforcers for the purpose of
trapping and capturing lawbreakers in the execution of
their nefarious activities.
Having established that the buy-bust operation is factual
and legitimate, the subsequent warrantless arrest of Ching
and as well as the warrantless seizure of the illegal drugs
was permissible.
Case: People vs Racho
As appellant was about to board a tricycle, the team
approached him and invited him to the police station on
suspicion of carrying shabu. Appellant immediately denied
the accusation, but as he pulled out his hands from his
pants pocket, a white envelope slipped therefrom which,
when opened, yielded a small sachet containing the
suspected drug.
Recent jurisprudence holds that in searches incident to a
lawful arrest, the arrest must precede the search;
generally, the process cannot be reversed. Nevertheless, a
search substantially contemporaneous with an arrest can
precede the arrest if the police have probable cause to
make the arrest at the outset of the search. Thus, given the
factual milieu of the case, we have to determine whether
the police officers had probable cause to arrest appellant.
Clearly, what prompted the police to apprehend appellant,
even without a warrant, was the tip given by the informant
that appellant would arrive in Baler, Aurora carrying
shabu.
The long standing rule in this jurisdiction is that "reliable
information" alone is not sufficient to justify a warrantless
arrest. The rule requires, in addition, that the accused
perform some overt act that would indicate that he has
committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to
commit an offense.
We required the showing of some overt act indicative of
the criminal design.
As in the above cases, appellant herein was not
committing a crime in the presence of the police officers.
Neither did the arresting officers have personal knowledge
of facts indicating that the person to be arrested had
committed, was committing, or about to commit an
offense. At the time of the arrest, appellant had just
alighted from the Gemini bus and was waiting for a
tricycle. Appellant was not acting in any suspicious manner
that would engender a reasonable ground for the police
officers to suspect and conclude that he was committing or
intending to commit a crime. Were it not for the
information given by the informant, appellant would not
have been apprehended and no search would have been
made, and consequently, the sachet of shabu would not
have been confiscated.
Clearly, the police had ample opportunity to apply for a
warrant.
Obviously, this is an instance of seizure of the "fruit of the
poisonous tree," hence, the confiscated item is
inadmissible in evidence consonant with Article III, Section
3(2) of the 1987 Constitution, "any evidence obtained in
violation of this or the preceding section shall be
inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding.
Case: People vs Araneta
A search warrant or warrant of arrest was not needed
because it was a buy-bust operation and the accused were
caught in flagrante delicto in possession of, and selling,
dangerous drugs to the poseur-buyer. It was definitely
legal for the buy-bust team to arrest, and search, them on
the spot because a buy-bust operation is a justifiable mode
Page 17

of apprehending drug pushers. A buy-bust operation is a
form of entrapment whereby ways and means are resorted
to for the purpose of trapping and capturing the
lawbreakers in the execution of their criminal plan.
A person lawfully arrested may be searched for dangerous
weapons or anything which may have been used or
constitute proof in the commission of an offense without a
search warrant.
Since the buy-bust operation was established as legitimate,
it follows that the search was also valid, and a warrant
was likewise not needed to conduct it.
Case: Ong vs People
We find the Petition to be impressed with merit, but not for
the particular reasons alleged.
First, there was no valid arrest of petitioner. When he was
flagged down for committing a traffic violation, he was
not, ipso facto and solely for this reason, arrested. Under
R.A. 4136, or the Land Transportation and Traffic Code, the
general procedure for dealing with a traffic violation is not
the arrest of the offender, but the confiscation of the
drivers license of the latter.
Second, there being no valid arrest, the warrantless search
that resulted from it was likewise illegal.
c.
Evidence in plain view
The plain view doctrine applies when the following requisites

concur:
(a) the law enforcement officer in search of the evidence
has a prior justification for an intrusion or is in a position
from which he can view a particular area;
(b) the discovery of the evidence in plain view is
inadvertent; and
(c) it is immediately apparent to the officer that the item
he observes may be evidence of a crime, contraband or
otherwise subject to seizure.
Case: Abenes vs CA
(b) the discovery of the evidence in plain view is

inadvertent; and
(c) it is immediately apparent to the officer that the item
he observes may be evidence of a crime, contraband or
otherwise subject to seizure.
All the foregoing requirements are present in the instant
case. The law enforcement officers lawfully made an initial
intrusion because of the enforcement of the Gun Ban and
were properly in a position from which they particularly
viewed the area. In the course of such lawful intrusion, the
policemen came inadvertently across a piece of evidence
incriminating the petitioner where they saw the gun tucked
into his waist. The gun was in plain view and discovered
inadvertently when the petitioner alighted from the
vehicle.
Case: Esquillo vs People
Recall that the police officers were on a surveillance
operation as part of their law enforcement efforts. When
PO1 Cruzin saw petitioner placing a plastic sachet
containing white crystalline substance into her cigarette
case, it was in his plain view. Given his training as a law
enforcement officer, it was instinctive on his part to be
drawn to curiosity and to approach her. That petitioner
reacted by attempting to flee after he introduced himself
as a police officer and inquired about the contents of the
plastic sachet all the more pricked his curiosity.
Case: People vs Martinez
It cannot be said that the subject items were seized in plain
view. The elements of plain view are: (a) a prior valid
intrusion based on the valid warrantless arrest in which the
police are legally present in the pursuit of their official
duties; (b) the evidence was inadvertently discovered by
the police who have the right to be where they are; (c) the
evidence must be immediately apparent; and, (d) "plain
view" justified mere seizure of evidence without further
search.
The evidence was not inadvertently discovered as the
police officers intentionally entered the house with no prior
surveillance or investigation before they discovered the
accused with the subject items.
The "plain view" doctrine applies when the following

requisites concur:
(a) the law enforcement officer in search of the evidence
has a prior justification for an intrusion or is in a position
from which he can view a particular area;
Page 18

d.
Stop and Frisk Rule (Terry Search)
From Terry vs Ohio, a stop-and-frisk was defined as the

vernacular designation of the right of a police officer to stop a
citizen on the street, interrogate him, and pat him for
weapon(s).
In allowing such a search, the United States Supreme Court
held that the interest of effective crime prevention and
detection allows a police officer to approach a person, in
appropriate circumstances and manner, for purposes of
investigating possible criminal behavior even though there is
insufficient probable cause to make an actual arrest.
Case: Posadas vs CA
At the time the peace officers in this case identified themselves
and apprehended the petitioner as he attempted to flee they
did not know that he had committed, or was actually
committing the offense of illegal possession of firearms and
ammunitions. They just suspected that he was hiding something
in the buri bag. They did now know what its contents were. The
said circumstances did not justify an arrest without a warrant.
However, there are many instances where a warrant and
seizure can be effected without necessarily being preceded by
an arrest, foremost of which is the "stop and search" without a
search warrant
It is too much indeed to require the police officers to search the
bag in the possession of the petitioner only after they shall have
obtained a search warrant for the purpose. Such an exercise
may prove to be useless, futile and much too late. The probable
cause is that when the petitioner acted suspiciously and
attempted to flee with the buri bag there was a probable cause
that he was concealing something illegal in the bag and it was
the right and duty of the police officers to inspect the same.
Case: Esquillo vs People

. . . the act of a police officer to stop a citizen on the street,
interrogate him, and pat him for weapon(s) or contraband. The
police officer should properly introduce himself and make initial
inquiries, approach and restrain a person who manifests
unusual and suspicious conduct, in order to check the latters
outer clothing for possibly concealed weapons. The
apprehending police officer must have a genuine reason, in
accordance with the police officers experience and the
surrounding conditions, to warrant the belief that the person to
be held has weapons (or contraband) concealed about him. It
should therefore be emphasized that a search and seizure
should precede the arrest for this principle to apply.
What is, therefore, essential is that a genuine reason must exist,
in light of the police officers experience and surrounding
conditions, to warrant the belief that the person who manifests
unusual suspicious conduct has weapons or contraband
concealed about him.
Such a "stop-and-frisk" practice serves a dual purpose:
(1) the general interest of effective crime prevention and
detection, which underlies the recognition that a police officer
may, under appropriate circumstances and in an appropriate
manner, approach a person for purposes of investigating
possible criminal behavior even without probable cause; and
(2) the more pressing interest of safety and self-preservation
which permit the police officer to take steps to assure himself
that the person with whom he deals is not armed with a deadly
weapon that could unexpectedly and fatally be used against the
police officer.
e.
Consented search/Express Waiver
Case: Veroy vs Layague

Case: People vs Mengote
At the time of the arrest in question, the accused-appellant was
merely "looking from side to side" and "holding his abdomen,"
according to the arresting officers themselves. There was
apparently no offense that had just been committed or was
being actually committed or at least being attempted by
Mengote in their presence.
Case: Manalili vs CA
A stop-and-frisk was defined as the vernacular designation of
the right of a police officer to stop a citizen on the street,
interrogate him, and pat him for weapons.
Petitioners aver that while they concede that Capt. Obrero had
permission from Ma. Luisa Veroy to break open the door of their
residence, it was merely for the purpose of ascertaining thereat
the presence of the alleged "rebel" soldiers.
This shows that he himself recognized the need for a search
warrant, hence, he did not persist in entering the house but
rather contacted the Veroys to seek permission to enter the
same. Permission was indeed granted by Ma. Luisa Veroy to
enter the house but only to ascertain the presence of rebel
soldiers.
Page 19

Case: People vs Nuevas
However, it must be seen that the consent to the search was
voluntary in order to validate an otherwise illegal detention and
search, i.e., the consent was unequivocal, specific, and
intelligently given, uncontaminated by any duress or coercion.
The consent to a search is not to be lightly inferred, but must be
shown by clear and convincing evidence. The question whether
a consent to a search was in fact voluntary is a question of fact
to be determined from the totality of all the circumstances.
Relevant to this determination are the following characteristics
of the person giving consent and the environment in which
consent is given:
(1) the age of the defendant;
(2) whether he was in a public or secluded location;
(3) whether he objected to the search or passively looked on;
(4) the education and intelligence of the defendant;
(5) the presence of coercive police procedures;
(6) the defendant's belief that no incriminating evidence will be
found;
(7) the nature of the police questioning;
(8) the environment in which the questioning took place; and
(9) the possibly vulnerable subjective state of the person
consenting.
the seizure of evidence or dangerous weapons either on the

person of the one arrested or within the area of his immediate
control.
Case: Anonymous Letter-Complaint Against Atty. Morales
Consent to a search is not to be lightly inferred and must be
shown by clear and convincing evidence. It must be voluntary in
order to validate an otherwise illegal search; that is, the consent
must be unequivocal, specific, intelligently given and
uncontaminated by any duress or coercion. The burden of
proving, by clear and positive testimony, that the necessary
consent was obtained and that it was freely and voluntarily
given lies with the State. Acquiescence in the loss of
fundamental rights is not to be presumed and courts indulge
every reasonable presumption against waiver of fundamental
constitutional rights.
To constitute a valid consent or waiver of the constitutional
guarantee against obtrusive searches, it must be shown that
(1) the right exists;
(2) that the person involved had knowledge, either actual or
constructive, of the existence of such right; and
It is the State which has the burden of proving, by clear and

positive testimony, that the necessary consent was obtained
and that it was freely and voluntarily given.
(3) the said person had an actual intention to relinquish the

right.
Case: People vs Dequina
f.
When one voluntarily submits to a search or consents to have it

made of his person or premises, he is precluded from later
complaining thereof. x x x. The right to be secure from
unreasonable search may, like every right, be waived and such
waiver may be made either expressly or impliedly.
Case: BOC vs Ogario
Case: People vs Uyboco
Respondents overlook the fact, however, that under the law,

the question of whether probable cause exists for the seizure of
the subject sacks of rice is not for the Regional Trial Court to
determine. The customs authorities do not have to prove to the
satisfaction of the court that the articles on board a vessel were
imported from abroad or are intended to be shipped abroad
before they may exercise the power to effect customs' searches,
seizures, or arrests provided by law and continue with the
administrative hearings.
Even assuming that appellant did not give his consent for the
police to search the car, they can still validly do so by virtue of a
search incident to a lawful arrest under Section 13, Rule 126 of
the Rules of Court which states:
SEC. 13. Search incident to lawful arrest. A person
lawfully arrested may be searched for dangerous weapons
or anything which may have been used or constitute proof
in the commission of an offense without a search warrant.
Customs Searches
Even if the seizure by the Collector of Customs were illegal,

which has yet to be proven, we have said that such act does not
deprive the Bureau of Customs of jurisdiction thereon.
In lawful arrests, it becomes both the duty and the right of the
apprehending officers to conduct a warrantless search not only
on the person of the suspect, but also in the permissible area
within the latter's reach. Otherwise stated, a valid arrest allows
Page 20

Case: Rieta vs People
Under the Tariff and Customs Code, a search, seizure and arrest
may be made even without a warrant for purposes of enforcing
customs and tariff laws. Without mention of the need to priorly
obtain a judicial warrant, the Code specifically allows police
authorities to enter, pass through or search any land, enclosure,
warehouse, store or building that is not a dwelling house; and
also to inspect, search and examine any vessel or aircraft and
any trunk, package, box or envelope or any person on board; or
to stop and search and examine any vehicle, beast or person
suspected of holding or conveying any dutiable or prohibited
article introduced into the Philippines contrary to law.
Case: Salvador vs People
Law enforcers who are tasked to effect the enforcement of the
customs and tariff laws are authorized to search and seize,
without a search warrant, any article, cargo or other movable
property when there is reasonable cause to suspect that the
said items have been introduced into the Philippines in violation
of the tariff and customs law. They may likewise conduct a
warrantless search of any vehicle or person suspected of
holding or conveying the said articles, as in the case at bar.
g.
Exigent searches
circumstances
or
searches
during
We hold in the negative. In the absence of governmental

interference, the liberties guaranteed by the Constitution
cannot be invoked against the State.
Case: Waterous Drug Corp vs NLRC
The Bill of Rights does not protect citizens from unreasonable
searches and seizures perpetrated by private individuals. It is
not true, as counsel for Catolico claims, that the citizens have no
recourse against such assaults. On the contrary, and as said
counsel admits, such an invasion gives rise to both criminal and
civil liabilities.
Case: People vs Mendoza
The constitutional protection against unreasonable searches
and seizures refers to the immunity of one's person from
interference by government and it cannot be extended to acts
committed by private individuals so as to bring it within the
ambit of alleged unlawful intrusion.
emergency
Case: People vs De Gracia

Under the foregoing circumstances, it is our considered opinion
that the instant case falls under one of the exceptions to the
prohibition against a warrantless search. In the first place, the
military operatives, taking into account the facts obtaining in
this case, had reasonable ground to believe that a crime was
being committed. There was consequently more than sufficient
probable cause to warrant their action. Furthermore, under the
situation then prevailing, the raiding team had no opportunity
to apply for and secure a search warrant from the courts. The
trial judge himself manifested that on December 5, 1989 when
the raid was conducted, his court was closed. Under such
urgency and exigency of the moment, a search warrant could
lawfully be dispensed with.
h.
circumstances, can accused/appellant validly claim that his

constitutional right against unreasonable searches and seizure
has been violated? Stated otherwise, may an act of a private
individual, allegedly in violation of appellant's constitutional
rights, be invoked against the State?
By Private Persons
Case: People vs Marti

The case at bar assumes a peculiar character since the evidence
sought to be excluded was primarily discovered and obtained by
a private person, acting in a private capacity and without the
intervention and participation of State authorities. Under the
Case: People vs Bongcarawan

[i]n the absence of governmental interference, liberties
guaranteed by the Constitution cannot be invoked against the
State."The constitutional proscription against unlawful searches
and seizures applies as a restraint directed only against the
government and its agencies tasked with the enforcement of
the law. Thus, it could only be invoked against the State to
whom the restraint against arbitrary and unreasonable exercise
of power is imposed.
In the case before us, the baggage of the accused-appellant was
searched by the vessel security personnel. It was only after they
found "shabu" inside the suitcase that they called the Philippine
Coast Guard for assistance. The search and seizure of the
suitcase and the contraband items was therefore carried out
without government intervention, and hence, the constitutional
protection against unreasonable search and seizure does not
apply.
The vessel security officer in the case at bar is a private
employee and does not discharge any governmental function. In
contrast, police officers are agents of the state tasked with the
sovereign function of enforcement of the law.
Page 21

i.
Airport Security
3.
a.
Checkpoints and Areal Target Zonings

Checkpoints
Case: People vs Canton

Case: Valmonte vs De Villa (1989)
Persons may lose the protection of the search and seizure clause
by exposure of their persons or property to the public in a
manner reflecting a lack of subjective expectation of privacy,
which expectation society is prepared to recognize as
reasonable. Such recognition is implicit in airport security
procedures. With increased concern over airplane hijacking and
terrorism has come increased security at the nations airports.
There is little question that such searches are reasonable, given
their minimal intrusiveness, the gravity of the safety interests
involved, and the reduced privacy expectations associated with
airline travel. Indeed, travelers are often notified through
airport public address systems, signs, and notices in their airline
tickets that they are subject to search and, if any prohibited
materials or substances are found, such would be subject to
seizure. These announcements place passengers on notice that
ordinary constitutional protections against warrantless
searches and seizures do not apply to routine airport
procedures.
j.
Jail Safety
Case: People vs Conde

We find in order the search of the bag of Felicidad Macabare, at
the time she was visiting her husband who was a detainee. PO3
Sevillano testified, this search is part of police standard
operating procedure, and is recognized as part of precautionary
measures by the police to safeguard the safety of the detainees
as well as the over-all security of the jail premises.
Between the inherent right of the state to protect its existence

and promote public welfare and an individual's right against a
warrantless search which is however reasonably conducted, the
former should prevail.
But, at the cost of occasional inconvenience, discomfort and
even irritation to the citizen, the checkpoints during these
abnormal times, when conducted within reasonable limits, are
part of the price we pay for an orderly society and a peaceful
community.
Case: Valmonte vs De Villa (1990)
Thus, under exceptional circumstances, as where the survival of
organized government is on the balance, or where the lives and
safety of the people are in grave peril, checkpoints may be
allowed and installed by the government. Implicit in this
proposition is, that when the situation clears and such grave
perils are removed, checkpoints will have absolutely no reason
to remain.
One must concede to the basic right of the (government) to
defend itself from its enemies and, while in power, to pursue its
program of government intended for public welfare; and in the
pursuit of those objectives, the government has the equal right,
under its police power, to select the reasonable means and
methods for best achieving them. The checkpoint is evidently
one of such means it has selected.
For as long as
Others: instances when a warrantless search and seizure is valid, to

wit:
a. the vehicle is neither searched nor its occupants subjected to

a body search, and
a. Searches of vessels and aircraft for violation of immigration,

customs, and drug laws
b. the inspection of the vehicle is limited to a visual search
b. Searches of automobiles at borders or constructive borders;
said routine checks cannot be regarded as violative of an

individual's right against unreasonable search.
c. Searches of buildings and premises to enforce fire, sanitary, and

building regulations.
In any situation, where abuse marks the operation of a

checkpoint, the citizen is not helpless. For the military is not
above but subject to the law. And the courts exist to see that
the law is supreme.
Case: People vs Exala
Vehicles are generally allowed to pass through these
checkpoints after a routine inspection and answering a few
questions. If vehicles are stopped and extensively searched it is
Page 22

because of some probable cause which justifies a reasonable
belief of those manning the checkpoints that either the motorist
is a law-offender or the contents of the vehicle are or have been
instruments in the commission of an offense.
Case: Gaanan vs IAC

The law refers to a "tap" of a wire or cable or the use of a
"device or arrangement" for the purpose of secretly
overhearing,
intercepting,
or
recording
the
communication. There must be either a physical
interruption through a wiretap or the deliberate
installation of a device or arrangement in order to
overhear, intercept, or record the spoken words.
Case: Abenes vs CA
This Court has ruled that not all checkpoints are illegal. Those
which are warranted by the exigencies of public order and are
conducted in a way least intrusive to motorists are allowed. For,
admittedly, routine checkpoints do intrude, to a certain extent,
on motorists right to "free passage without interruption," but it
cannot be denied that, as a rule, it involves only a brief
detention of travelers during which the vehicles occupants are
required to answer a brief question or two. For as long as the
vehicle is neither searched nor its occupants subjected to a body
search, and the inspection of the vehicle is limited to a visual
search, said routine checks cannot be regarded as violative of
an individuals right against unreasonable search. In fact, these
routine checks, when conducted in a fixed area, are even less
intrusive.
b.
An extension telephone cannot be placed in the same

category as a dictaphone, dictagraph or the other devices
enumerated in Section 1 of RA No. 4200 as the use thereof
cannot be considered as "tapping" the wire or cable of a
telephone line. The telephone extension in this case was
not installed for that purpose. It just happened to be there
for ordinary office use.
Hence, the phrase "device or arrangement" in Section 1 of
RA No. 4200, although not exclusive to that enumerated
therein, should be construed to comprehend instruments of
the same or similar nature, that is, instruments the use of
which would be tantamount to tapping the main line of a
telephone. It refers to instruments whose installation or
presence cannot be presumed by the party or parties being
overheard because, by their very nature, they are not of
common usage and their purpose is precisely for tapping,
intercepting or recording a telephone conversation.
Areal Target Zonings
Case: Guazon vs De Villa

It is clear from the pleadings of both petitioners and
respondents, however, that there was no rebellion or criminal
activity similar to that of the attempted coup d' etats. There
appears to have been no impediment to securing search
warrants or warrants of arrest before any houses were
searched or individuals roused from sleep were arrested. There
is no strong showing that the objectives sought to be attained
by the "areal zoning" could not be achieved even as the rights of
squatter and low income families are fully protected.
4.
Wire Tapping
5.
What may be seized:
Rule 126, Sec. 3. A search warrant may be issued for the search
and seizure of personal property:
(a) Subject of the offense;
(b) Stolen or embezzled and other proceeds, or fruits of the
offense; or
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 4200

AN ACT TO PROHIBIT AND PENALIZE WIRE TAPPING AND OTHER
RELATED VIOLATIONS OF THE PRIVACY OF COMMUNICATION, AND
FOR OTHER PURPOSES
Section 1. It shall be unlawful for any person, not being authorized
by all the parties to any private communication or spoken word, to
tap any wire or cable, or by using any other device or arrangement,
to secretly overhear, intercept, or record such communication or
spoken word by using a device commonly known as a dictaphone or
dictagraph or detectaphone or walkie-talkie or tape recorder, or
however otherwise described
(c) Used or intended to be used as the means of committing an

offense
6.
a.
Remedies in case of violation

Exclusionary Rule
Art. III, Sec. 3 (2). Any evidence obtained in violation of this or

the preceding section shall be inadmissible for any purpose in
any proceeding.17
Page 23

Case: Stonehill vs Diokno
It would be the legal heresy, of the highest order, to
convict anybody of a "violation of Central Bank Laws, Tariff
and Customs Laws, Internal Revenue (Code) and Revised
Penal Code," as alleged in the aforementioned
applications without reference to any determinate
provision of said laws
As we understand it, the reason for the exclusion of
evidence competent as such, which has been unlawfully
acquired, is that exclusion is the only practical way of
enforcing the constitutional privilege. Only in case the
prosecution which itself controls the seizing officials, knows
that it cannot profit by their wrong will that wrong be
repressed.
b.
exceeding P1,000 pesos shall be imposed upon any public officer

or employee who shall procure a search warrant without just
cause, or, having legally procured the same, shall exceed his
authority or use unnecessary severity in executing the same.
Art. 130. Searching domicile without witnesses. The penalty
of arresto mayor in its medium and maximum periods shall be
imposed upon a public officer or employee who, in cases where
a search is proper, shall search the domicile, papers or other
belongings of any person, in the absence of the latter, any
member of his family, or in their default, without the presence
of two witnesses residing in the same locality.
Civil Action for Damages
Case: Lui vs Eulogio

Thus, it is not the actor alone (i.e., the one directly responsible)
who must answer for damages under Article 32; the person
indirectly responsible has also to answer for the damages or
injury caused to the aggrieved party.
[N]either can it be said that only those shown to have
participated "directly" should be held liable. Article 32 of the
Civil Code encompasses within the ambit of its provisions those
directly, as well as indirectly, responsible for its violations.
c.
Criminal Cases under the Revised Penal Code
Art. 128. Violation of domicile. The penalty of prision

correccional in its minimum period shall be imposed upon any
public officer or employee who, not being authorized by judicial
order, shall enter any dwelling against the will of the owner
thereof, search papers or other effects found therein without
the previous consent of such owner, or having surreptitiously
entered said dwelling, and being required to leave the premises,
shall refuse to do so.
If the offense be committed in the night-time, or if any papers
or effects not constituting evidence of a crime be not returned
immediately after the search made by the offender, the penalty
shall be prision correccional in its medium and maximum
periods.
Art. 129. Search warrants maliciously obtained and abuse in the
service of those legally obtained. In addition to the liability
attaching to the offender for the commission of any other
offense, the penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to
prision correccional in its minimum period and a fine not
Page 24

Constitutional Law 2 Prelims Condensed Notes

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Constitutional Law 2 Prelims Condensed Notes

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2: Compressed Notes and Memory Aid for Prelims

I. DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION AS LIMITATIONS ON

Case: Yrasegui vs Philippine Airlines:

However, Article 32 of the Civil Code affords the guarantee of

Case: Zulueta vs Court of Appeals

iii. HUMAN RIGHTS ENJOY A HIGHER PREFERENCE IN THE

Case: Manila Prince Hotel vs. GSIS

B. Basic Principles on the Fundamental Powers of the State, their

Police power is the power of the state to promote public

Compiled by: Kim Lorenzo G. Calatrava, 1-Wigmore/2-Sanchez Roman

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2: Compressed Notes and Memory Aid for Prelims

Case: People vs Siton

It finds no specific Constitutional grant for the plain reason that

It is based on the principle that taxes are the lifeblood of the

Case: CIR vs Reyes

Case: Reyes vs Almanzor

Eminent domain is the right or power of a sovereign state to

*Limitations on the Taxing Power

1. The rule of taxation should be uniform;

3. The Executive, pursuant to legislation

4. LGUs, pursuant to an ordinance

3. Congress should evolve a progressive system of taxation;

5. Public utilities, as may be delegated by law

4. The power to tax must be exercised for a public purpose because

Compiled by: Kim Lorenzo G. Calatrava, 1-Wigmore/2-Sanchez Roman

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2: Compressed Notes and Memory Aid for Prelims

DISTINCTIONS OF THE POWERS

Case: Chevron Philippines vs Bases Conversion Development

Police Power and Eminent Domain

In the exercise of police power, there is a restriction of property

Such is already an excessive intrusion into the property

Taxation and Eminent Domain- In taxation, what is taken

C. Due Process In General

Compiled by: Kim Lorenzo G. Calatrava, 1-Wigmore/2-Sanchez Roman

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2: Compressed Notes and Memory Aid for Prelims

Includes all kinds of property as found in the Civil Code, including

In administrative proceedings (Cardinal Primary Rights)

In the hierarchy of civil liberties, the rights of free expression

Administrative due process simply requires

"Due process of law" contemplates notice and opportunity to

REQUISITES OF PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS

For Judicial Proceedings (Non-criminal cases)

JURISDICTION simply means the power of

A court or tribunal clothed with power to hear and

Compiled by: Kim Lorenzo G. Calatrava, 1-Wigmore/2-Sanchez Roman

The tribunal must consider the evidence presented;

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2: Compressed Notes and Memory Aid for Prelims

2) they shall have the right to answer the charges against

Article 277 of the Labor Code provides: a written notice

(3) they shall be informed of the evidence against them;

For termination of employment based on just causes as defined

REQUISITES FOR SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS

*Is Publication essential in due process?

In School Disciplinary Proceedings

The interests of the public generally as distinguished from

Void for Vagueness Doctrine- holds that a law is facially

Compiled by: Kim Lorenzo G. Calatrava, 1-Wigmore/2-Sanchez Roman

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2: Compressed Notes and Memory Aid for Prelims

regulate or proscribe speech and no readily apparent

The rule established in our jurisdiction is, only statutes on free

Case: Ermita-Malate Hotel vs City Mayor of Manila

Compiled by: Kim Lorenzo G. Calatrava, 1-Wigmore/2-Sanchez Roman

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2: Compressed Notes and Memory Aid for Prelims

accomplishment, for even under the guise of protecting the