1- Judicial Review-Unconstitutionality

Judicial Power- power of the courts to settle disputes or actual controversies

Judicial Activism- before 1897: merely to interpret the law; deciding a case or interpreting a law different from what is
expected
Judicial Review / Inquiry- 1987 onwards: power of the courts not just to interpret laws but also to test the validity and
constitutionality of governmental acts; the constitution confers limited powers on the national government and if they
overstep there must be some authority competent to hold it in control, to thwart its unconstitutional attempt and
vindicate and preserve inviolate the will of the people as expressed in the Constitution

procedural requisites- prevent intruding into the prerogative of co-equal branches; absence thereof means no
justification for SC to take cognizance as court will not have any authority to inquire; before deciding on merits
actual case which is ripe for adjudication- involves a conflict of rights which are legally demandable
and enforceable, an assertion of opposite legal claims susceptible of judicial determination; cannot be
merely advice
premature- conflict/controversy not present at the time of petition; hypothetical, giving
advisory opinion
PACU v Secretary of Education- wouldn’t be accredited but didn’t even apply
moot- conflict does not continue until the end
Pormento v Estrada- 6 year term; Estrada didn’t win; case pending after election;
dismissed
may set aside procedural requisites and decide cases otherwise moot and academic
grave violation of the Constitution
transcendental importance
David v Arroyo- Pres declared state of national emergency; Arroyo lifted while
case was pending; not dismissed because transcendental importance
controlling principle to guide the bench, the bar and at the public
capable of repetition yet evading review
GR: only justiciable questions (legality, constitutionality) can be subject to inquiry (political
question- questions of policy, wisdom not legality of the act)
EXC: political question to be answered by the people who in their sovereign capacity elected
members of Congress and delegated the exercise of the power either by the President
(discretion in enforcing the laws) or by Congress; one the resolution od which is vested by the
Constitution exclusively in either the people, in their sovereign capacity, or in which
full discretionary authority has been delegated to a co-equal branch of government
EX. suspension of the writ of HC and proclamation of Martial Law no longer
considered political questions
Ocampo v Enriquez- Marcos burial case; no law but guidelines providing qualifications
to be buried in the Libingan ng mag Bayani, president simply enforced the law after
determining eligibility; questions as to propriety is for the president to answer to the
people not to the court; no grave abuse of discretion amounting to a lack or excess of
jurisdiction thus beyond jurisdiction of the courts
legal standing / locus standi
direct injury principle- personal and substantial interest in the case such that he has sustained
or will sustain direct injury as a result; actual or imminent danger of public rights or public
interests being affected; pertains to legal standing in order to pursue questions of
constitutionality
EXC
concerned citizen’s suit
showing that the issues raised are of transcendental importance which must
be settled early and requires injury, causation, and redressability
locus standi (personal and substantial interest) to pursue questions of
constitutionality; allows those who are not real parties in interest to file cases
on behalf of those who are
EX. validity of declaration of martial law and suspension of habeas corpus-
any ordinary citizen can question even if not aggrieved
EX. validity of the ratification of the Constitution; whether amendment or
revision
Resident Marine Mammals v Secretary of the Department of Energy- rules of
procedure for environmental cases allow filing of citizen’s suit for the
 enforcement of environmental law on behalf of minors or generations yet
unborn
Oposa v Factoran- intergenerational responsibility of the government to
maintain a balanced and healthful ecology; for enforcement of environmental
laws for the next generation and generations yet unborn
taxpayer’s suit
question propriety / claim of illegal disbursement- anomalous disbursement of
public funds leading to misappropriation or misapplication of public funds; all
funds in all branches even if discretionary
tax measure is unconstitutional- exorbitant collection / imposition
voter’s suit
showing of obvious interest in the validity of the election law in question
legislator’s suit
impairs prerogative or prejudices the exercise of of legislative functions
Drilon v Ermita- Drilon as Senate Pres questioned EO 464 extends the
executive privilege of the president to Cabinet members thus needing to seek
approval of president before submitting to legislative inquiry; impairs
prerogative to conduct legislative inquiry; proper party because intrudes into
the prerogative of a co-equal branch
Akbayan v Aquino- sought to learn the details of treaty negotiations; Aquino
refused to disclose; alleged it impaired their power to conduct legislative
inquiry; SC said treaty negotiations confidential unless agreement concurred
otherwise covered by the executive privilege of the president; unless they
concur; not member of HR thus not a proper party

government
not in estoppel to question the validity of its own laws which it passed
People v Vera- probation law was originally subject to availability of funds for
application; can only avail of privilege if funds are available; violates equal
protection clause; government is a proper party as they must be concerned
that only valid and constitutional laws are enforced
EXC: SC in its discretion can set aside the requirement of proper party as a mere procedural
technicality
transcendental importance
flagrant, obvious, patent violation of the Constitution
exceptional character of its inclusion and the paramount public interest is
involved
Constitutional issue raised requires for the creation of controlling principles to
guide the bench, the bar and the public
capable of repetition yet evading review
Kilosbayan v Ermita- injunction against appointment as Justice of
Sandiganbayan; no locus standi but SC proceeded due to primordial
importance involving compliance with a constitutional mandate of natural-born
citizenship to be appointed
facial challenge- operates in the area of freedom of expression; must establish that no
set of circumstances exists under which the act would be valid (not applicable to
penal statutes)
strict scrutiny
overbreadth
void-for-vagueness
earliest opportunity (raise question of unconstitutionality)
constitutionality
pleadings- petition or answer; allege unconstitutionality otherwise may not be allowed
to present evidence because not alleged thus never an issue
trial- refute if defendant alleges constitutionality in answer
appeal-cannot be raised for the first time coz not earliest opportunity
EXC
jurisdiction: can be raised anytime in every case because void as if not acted upon
criminal cases: unconstitutionality at any time at the discretion of the court; even
during appeal because if void then no crime; no law punishing then not a crime
civil cases: lis mota is constitutionality; constitutionality must first be resolved before
deciding on reliefs sought
 lis mota
co-equality; Court will not touch the issue of unconstitutionality unless it really is unavoidable
or is the very lis mota
must accord respect to prerogatives of a co-equal branch and not intrude into their
prerogatives; judicial overreaching for acting beyond its jurisdiction
motu proprio exercise of judicial review

trial courts can exercise judicial review and declare laws unconstitutional
Sec 1 Art 8: judicial power conferred with the SC and such other courts as may be established by law;
judicial review included in judicial power
Sec 5 Art 8: SC has the power to review the constitutionality of any law; thus they review decisions of
lower courts exercising the power of first instance
limitation: decision of lower courts only binding as to a specific case whereas the decisions of SC are
biding on whole country, everyone
Garcia v Drilon- accused questioned constitutionality of RA 9262 in family court thus question
of jurisdiction of family court arose over whether it can touch on the issue of constitutionality
of RA 9262 VAWC; invoking equal protection clause; lower courts can exercise judicial review;
substantial distinction between genders
judgment of SC binds the whole world even if not a party to the case while judgment of RTC or lower
court is only valid and binding insofar as the case is concerned and the parties with respect to the
case; thus lower courts must exercise the power of judicial review with utmost caution and prudence
as it is not yet final and binds only the parties

Declaration of Unconstitutionality

always decided en banc: collegiate body as a whole

majority of quorum (which must reach half so minimum 8)- majority those who actually took part in the
deliberations and voted thereon
GR: law’s effects void and inoperative as if it had not been passed at all; confers no rights, imposes no
duty, creates no office
EXC. Doctrine of Operative Fact- applied under extraordinary circumstances exist and only when
they have met the stringent conditions that will permit its application
Chavez v JBC- “a representative”; practice of sending 2 representatives from Congress void
but appointments subsist as legal effects must be respected
Yap v Thenamaris- doctrine of operative fact only applies as a matter of equity and fair play;
recognizes existence of statute prior to declaration of unconstitutionality as an operative fact
which may have consequences which cannot be ignored; applicable only when the decree
of unconstitutionality will impose an undue burden on those who have relied on such law; court
of law presupposes an applicable law which court are compelled to apply before becoming a
common court applying rules of equity and justice and fair play upon decree of
unconstitutionality
if requisite number of votes is not reached: constitutionality sustained and petition dismissed
partial unconstitutionality
legislature must be willing to retain the valid portions usually shown by separability clause
valid portion can stand independently as law
[1973 Constitution required 10 votes- can win the case without the law being declared unconstitutional as
majority only (8) to win the case]
2- Inherent Powers & Safeguards
Inherent Powers

regulate the rights of individuals which put limitations on the powers of the state; balance between authority
and the rights of individuals
even without express express conferment as essential to sovereignty; cannot be a state without these powers
cannot be compelled to exercise police power as it lies in the discretion of the legislative department
courts cannot interfere with the exercise as long as the requisites for a valid exercise are complied with as
the choice for measures and remedies lies within its exclusive discretion
right to life, liberty, property- not absolute as can be regulated by the state
natural persons
citizens
qualified voter
non-voter
foreigner (prohibited from owning “land”)
permanent
transient
juridical persons- can acquire property, can sue and be sued

Police Power

law making power of the state; power of Congress to pass laws in order to promote the general welfare
basis is welfare of the people which is the supreme law; welfare of the people is not subordinated to and
prevails over individual rights; exercise rights without hurting the rights of others; most prevalent since
from womb to tomb
EX. building blocking the way to fire; building became noxious; police power to destroy
requisites
lawful subject matter- interest of the general public requiring the interference of the state
lawful means (protection and promotion of general welfare)- reasonable means employed necessary
for the achievement of the purpose
if means of achieving is unreasonable and oppressive there may still be a violation of law and a
question on the validity of the exercise
primarily vested in Congress; plenary power of Congress subject only to such substantive and procedural
limitations as provided by the Constitution; can be delegated for expediency
president- Sec 23 Art 6: emergency powers to carry out a declared national policy for the promotion of
public welfare (exercise legislative powers)
for as long as emergency exist but no longer than the next adjournment
national emergency- affecting the whole nation; ex. oil crisis, econ crisis, power failure,
traffic in EDSA
war
exercise must be in consonance with the power granted
declaration of existence of a state of war- 2/3 voting separately
Congress can withdraw anytime through a resolution not requiring approval by president-
cannot be vetoed
declaration of war- pres as commander; cannot exercise emergency powers because cannot
appropriate funds for war; declaration merely describes state of nature, status or condition
and is not asource of power
justification for calling out armed forces
when public safety requires it (actual)
rebellion
invasion
David v Exec Sec- mere declaration of a state of national emergency does not enable the
president to exercise legislative powers as those can only be exercised upon delegation by
Congress by law
administrative bodies- under subordinate legislation (primary: law itself)
dept, bureaus, agencies under the executive branch; rule execution to enforce laws: make IRRs
to execute laws (for parameters or boundaries; ex. labor laws); with the force and effect of
laws but not laws
completeness test- nothing left to delegates to determine what the law is
Santiago v Ramos- RA 6735 not sufficient as does not provide mechanism on
 how to amend Constitution; COMELEC passed law providing for the
procedure when the law itself is not clear; COMELEC as an administrative
body has no basis and cannot promulgate rules as the law itself is not
complete; abuse of discretion by COMELEC as it had no authority
sufficient standard
Disini v Sec of Justice- Anti-Cyber Crime Law is complete as only need to
promulgate rules; council merely provided what constitutes the crime as
defined by the law itself and provided possible sanctions; no violation of non-
delegation
Geroche v Dept of Energy- universal charge charged for transmission
distribution of electricity; dept of energy which is an administrative body
promulgated procedure for collection and manner of charging based on a law;
valid delegation because not exercise of taxation but police power for
promotion of public welfare; sufficient standard present to guide the Dept of
Energy on its enforcement
LGUs- RA 7160 under the general welfare clause (Sec 19)
pass laws through ordinances and resolutions but not contrary to the Constitution and existing
laws passed by Congress
GR: LGUs cannot, in the guise of promoting general welfare, prohibit activities allowed under
existing laws or allow activities prohibited by law (prostitution legalization); can only regulate as
LGUs cannot rise above the source of its authority; cannot amend a law through an ordinance
Cruz v Paras- closure of nightclubs, SC sustained the right of the owner because no
law prohibiting it; although for public welfare cannot prohibit but regulate
Basco v PAGCOR, Pryce v PAGCOR- cannot ban casinos for promoting vices,
gambling and being contrary to public safety and public morals; despite promoting
public welfare it is invalid as
Francisco v MMDA- MMDA not a political subdivision cannot exercise police power;
only make laws an admin body (confiscation of licenses) to coordinate with LGUs
and cooperate for purposes of basic services by express delegation of the ordinances
of the LGUs; promulgate rules and ordinances to enforce traffic rules; water splashing
thing not a violation of due process as precautioning measure; limited exercise of
power by LGUs, except MMDA, because only delegated thus ordinances and
resolutions cannot be contrary to Constitution or existing laws; wet flag skin case
people- RA 6735 initiative and referendum; source of sovereignty thus police power inherent in the
people
Santiago v Ramos- Congress needs to pass a law for the people to be able to pass laws
limitations for the protection of rights
due process of law: observance justifies police power
equal protection of laws
non-impairment of obligations and contracts

Eminent Domain

power of the state limiting the ownership of property, confiscating property for public use upon payment of just
compensation
there must be a prior offer to property owner definite in money & prior refusal otherwise dismissed as
premature compelling the exercise of the power of eminent domain
if there is a previous agreement and and property owner subsequently refuses to comply the remedy is
not eminent domain but specific performance of the contract to sell
there must be an ordinance authorizing mayor or LGU to expropriate and subject to review
requisites
taking of the property in the constitutional sense
entry in the property under color of title or authority
entry is permanent
owner is deprived of the beneficial use of the property or at least the purpose for which the
property is intended
property is private property
anything subject to expropriation or subject to the commerce of men
services included
patrimonial property or property owned by a municipal corporation is subject to compensation
 EXC money
purpose is public use
anything that redounds to the benefit of the community or a greater number of the people in
the community (even if only a few people)
property for public use taken for another public use
NG: valid as the power is plenary insofar as Congress is concerned
delegate: special law authorizing required; LGC insufficient to grant power to LGU
property expropriated for public use sold for private purpose: valid as the govt is now the
absolute owner; determining factor is only at the time of taking that is was for public use
Solicitor General v AyalaLand- State cannot impose the obligation of providing free parking by
generally invoking police power as such exercise amounts to a taking of property without
payment of just compensation; police power is not a justification for prohibiting the collection
of parking fees
Heirs of Ardona v Reyes- as long as the purpose of the taking is for public use then the
exercise of the power of eminent domain is justifiable; whatever may be beneficially employed
for the promotion of general welfare satisfies the requirement of public use
payment of just compensation
observance of due process of law
recovery of the property
absolute: no obligation on the part of the government to reconvey
conditional: if purpose is not served it is like a donation and the owner of the property may recover
but payment of reconveyance and improvements made thereon are to be considered
subject to judicial inquiry
NG: only issue for the court to determine is the matter of payment of just compensation; beyond
judicial inquiry whether or not the taking is for public use
delegate: whether the taking is for public use is subject to judicial inquiry
just compensation= FMV + (incidental damage - consequential benefit); not a reward but compensation for
loss, forbearance for delay in payment of 6% interest & 12% for extraordinary delay
GR: reckoned from time of taking (constitutional taking or actual entry whichever is earlier)
EXC: reckoned from the time of filing not time of payment
local government expropriates
the law which was the basis of taking was declared unconstitutional
person files to sue the government
there must be prompt payment as demanded by due process
just compensation- the value of the property at the time of its taking and its determination is a
justiciable question requiring the consideration of all facts which can only be done in
a judicial proceeding
EDSA v Dulay- expropriation for export procession zone; amount of just compensation determined as
assessed value or FMV whichever is lower; property owners complained and appealed; matter of
determining amount of just compensation is the sole and exclusive power and prerogative of the courts
otherwise there is a tendency of rendering the court inutile in a matter which is reserved to them for
final determination under the Constitution
first part / initial determination / when the government enters the property and has to make a
downpayment for the issuance of a writ of possession (Rule 67)- ministerial
complaint is valid
allegation that the taking is for public use
deposit
Rule 67- ordinary expropriation cases [local and international]
10% of assessed value based on assessment by municipal or city assessor; to be
assessed when a writ of possession os to be issued so government can enter while
court determines just compensation
ministerial duty thus after 10% deposit courts cannot deny issuance of writ; no more
hearing on just compensation yet because assessed value is used
barangay use and NG expropriations before Nov. 26, 2000
RA 8974- national improvements on infrastructure of NG
100 % of BIR zonal valuation or MV (full and fair equivalent value) whichever is higher
amended Rule 67 regarding basis
Nov. 26, 2000- not retroactive in effect
RA 6657- agrarian cases for distribution of rural lands to tenants
MV- full and fair equivalent value
writ of possession- no conflict; otherwise court will decide
 second part- discretion not ministerial; evidence to determine final just compensation
FMV + (ID - CB)
FMV- full and fair value; price at which a buyer and seller are willing to exchange a
good
ID- damage suffered as a consequence of the taking
CB- value increase of property retained due to taking
no longer just if CB deducted from FMV
constitution of Board of Commissioners to receive evidence form owners indispensable to due
process
representative of the court [chairman]
representative of owners
representative of court- BIR [assessor]
courts not bound by their recommendation as they have the sole prerogative
to determine just compensation; reduction cost method used
rural- highland / lowland
urban- residential, commercial, industrial
size
actual use / potential
adjacent properties
improvements
mode of payment
usually in money
agrarian cases: partly in money, partly in land bank bonds (collateral for loans), and
partly in tax credits; government decides
tax credits: since the privilege enjoyed does not come directly from the state
but from private establishments there has to be compensation
Heirs of Ardona v Reyes- socialized housing as a form of payment
delay in payment (EX. due to appeal; reckoned from finality of judgment)
GR: owner cannot recover property but deadline enforced and interest implemented
ordinary delay- 6% on top of just compensation
unreasonable delay- 12%
EXC: Republic v Lim- full payment within 5 years from finality of judgment after which
owner has the right to recover; no transfer of property until full payment; return to
owner in case of non-payment within the prescribed period even if substantially
performed
BIR valuation used- must be 100% deposit thus no more 2nd stage
Secretary of DPWH v Heracleo - subsequent filing for determination of just compensation does
not nullify expropriation by govt but just compensation to be determined; failure to initiate the
necessary expropriation proceedings prior to actual taking cannot simply invalidate the State’s
exercise of eminent domain as this would weaken one of the State’s inherent powers the
ultimate objective of which os to serve the common good; while it may appear inequitable the
long-established rule is that fair equivalent of property should be reckoned from the time of
taking not the time of payment as just compensation is not to reward the owner but to
compensate for the loss
GR: reckoned from taking if government took property without expropriation
reckoned from filing if victim files to sue government
immunity from suit cannot be invoked
corporations public utilities (GOCC)
board resolution -> approval -> case for expropriation

Taxation Power

power of the state to raise revenue; limitation to fruits of property; compelled / enforced contribution to
government for its support
equitable- according to capacity of taxpayer
uniform- applies to all in the same income bracket
progressive- corresponding increase in tax rate as income tax base increases
basis: need for a government
limitation: should not be used to destroy property [duck & golden egg];
EXC: can incidentally kill if also for public welfare [sin tax]
 tax exemption
constitutional basis
charitable & educational institutions actually, directly and exclusively; regardless of ownership;
property tax only
non-stock & non-profit educational institution- exempt from revenue tax, duties and
endorsements as well as property tax
even proprietary unless otherwise provided by law
Congress grants tax exemption- majority of all members voting separately
doubt as to exemption of instrumentality of LGU: not exempt
doubt as to exemption of instrumentality of National Government: exempt
owned by the government in its proprietary capacity: not exempt
tax treaty- 2/3 of Senate
statute
onerous exemption- contract thus not subject to impairment by subsequent law
EX. exemption of multinational corporations; valuable
taxation cannot be exorbitant otherwise it would amount to taking of property without due process of law
double taxation: Constitution is silent thus unconstitutional only if it violates equal protection and is
discriminatory; as long as it is applied to all properties situated under the same circumstances there is no
violation
taxation of property by the same taxing authority for the same purpose within the same taxing period
LGUs can tax even where there is no law passed by Congress delegating the power as there is a constitutional
provision granting the power to the LGUs ensuring local autonomy as they can levy tax and raise revenues

Police Power Eminent Domain Taxation Power

make limit ownership of

laws; exercise of property; confiscation of private limit the rights to fruits of
what rights without property or limitation on right to property; raising of revenues;
harming the property; collection done by the enforced contribution
rights of others executive branch through DOF

Congress because plenary

who lodged in NG
& appropriation needed for just Congress because law
exercises (Congress)
compensation

president, president, LGU, private

valid
administrative corporations engaged in public
delegation
bodies, people utilities

limitation to limits only use, limits ownership; govt becomes limiting the fruits; compelled to
rights not ownership new owner after expropriation share fruits

illegal, noxious,
deleterious items can use taxes to destroy
confiscated to takes property for public use
property noxious property, vices
protect public for just compensation
(regulating use of cigarettes)
welfare

not monetary;
altruistic feeling
just promoted, monetary; recover property if not not monetary; services and
compensation welfare of the compensated infrastructure
people
 protected

must not be oppressive or

of the payment of
validity of the unreasonable as would amount
due process just compensation and just
law itself to a taking of property without
payment
payment of just compensation

all persons situated under the

equal
same circumstances treated alike equitable and uniform
protection
by the law

non-impairment is subordinate to only on the matter of tax

eminent domain thus is exemption
non-impairment
non- expropriated property is subject to gratuitous- revocable anytime
of obligations
impairment lease the lessee may be onerous- partakes of the nature
and contracts
prejudiced upon termination but of a contract protected by non-
may be compensable impairment clause

Safeguards against arbitrary exercise of the State

invoke liberties guaranteed by the Constitution under the Bill of Rights against the State
cannot be invoked against individual persons

Due Process
- life, liberty, property

SJS v Atienza- property rights must bow to the primacy of police power as although it is protected by
the due process clause it must yield to general welfare and right to life enjoys precedence over right
to property
Chavez v Romulo- revocation of firearms license without notice does not violate due process as it does
not involve life, liberty or property; firearm license is a privilege which is revocable through State’s
exercise of police power
Garin v MMDA- license can be confiscate without hearing because not protected by due process
substantive due process
fair, just and reasonable otherwise denial of due process and right to life, liberty & property
validity of the law itself
valid exercise of police power
test: lawful subject matter and lawful means
procedural due process
requirements of procedure in judicial process as well as quasi-judicial and administrative processes
only observed by government agencies exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions (administrative,
educational, impeachment)
Duterte exercising executive functions so drug announcements not violative
Shu v Dy- no violation because NBI only investigative office, informational agency, cannot
even determine probable cause thus findings cannot be questioned for violation of due
process
prior notice and opportunity to be heard (not actual hearing; what is abhorred is the total denial of
hearing)
person whose right will be regulated must invoke
Civil
parties must submit to jurisdiction through filing complaint -> summons -> file answer to be
heard
summons: 3 attempts (personal service)
summons by substitution -> not at residence: archive -> reinstate -> dismiss for failure
to prosecute the action
 service through publication gen circulation (complaint + summons + supporting
documents) once a week for 3 consecutive weeks at the place of last residence
civil cases: place with property (constructive notice since accessory [person] follows
principal [property])
jurisdiction: impartial & competent; cold neutrality
opportunity of hearing to present evidence
EXC:
self-defense / self-help
abatement of nuisance per se- valid
abatement of property- hearing
admin agencies (LTO or MTC) fixing rate (quasi-legislative) and then subsequent
change (quasi-judicial)
not a provisional order and therefore must observe the requisites of procedural
due process
hearing because vested right; reduction or increase of rates: contrariety
of rights to be resolved using quasi-judicial functions thus hearing is required
grant of provisional / precautionary remedies (writ of replevin, attachment)
no prior notice because can be disposed of thus granted right away
summons and writ of replevin simultaneously or immediately after
preventive suspension
no notice needed since not a penalty only precautionary and only temporary
due process intact as there is still a hearing
precautionary measures
clamping / towing- not present, blocking road, no prior hearing required
Francisco v Fernando- wet flag scheme not a penalty but a precautionary
measure
RA 9262 Anti-VAWC
Garcia v Drilon- TPO is urgent; mere allegation in information sufficient
cancellation of passports of persons who have pending cases
cannot notify because absconded- rendered stateless and to be deported to
origin country
Enrile v Estrada- no case filed and passports already issued thus the
revocation of the right to travel requires a hearing
hold departure order for those charged with criminal cases
without hearing because at large thus whereabouts unknown so ex party
ONLY COURTS (RTC) CAN BAR TRAVEL NOT DOJ
to compel Bureau of Immigration to bar travel
EXC. hearing needed if already under jurisdiction of the court such as when
out on bail as constitutional right cannot be restrained due to pending case
DOJ watchlist
delay only but cannot bar travel [not due to watchlist but because wala na ang
plane]
issuance of warrant of distraint or levy by BIR Commissioner
already prior notice of tax deficiency
Central Bank take over
can take over based on prima facie evidence of liquidity problem to prevent
bank run
dismissing temporary govt employee
no hearing or notice required as they do not enjoy security of tenure
sequestration order
recovery of ill-gotten wealth; can be seized by PCGG without prior hearing
then subsequently determine ownership at hearing
extradition
urgency of circumstances as notice and hearing will give accused opportunity
to escape
arrested first then question validity of apprehension at hearing so due process
intact
Lantion v Sec of Justice- (1) not a criminal case (2) case pending not in PH but
in USA (3) prevent fleeing to country without extradition treaty
Criminal
submit to jurisdiction through filing of the case; accused through arrest or surrender
due process in the courts and stricter than civil cases; opportunity to provide
 controverting evidence
warrant of arrest and arraignment (nature and cause of charges in the language known
and understood by accused to enable him to defend himself): mandatory and
indispensable
knowledge of case filed- arrest
knowledge of nature and cause- arraignment
no substantial amendments after arraingment- only typographical
can only be charged for facts alleged in the body of information not even
if aggravating circumstances presented in evidence)
fiscal to conduct a preliminary hearing to determine existence of probable cause however not
demandable as a matter of right unless crime punishable by 4y2m1d since only granted by
statute not the Constitution [below minimum fiscal not obligated]; fiscal not obligated to
furnish copy of resolution during prelim investigation as already accorded due process by trial
on merits
if cannot be found then probable cause is to be determined based on allegations
in complaint and a warrant of arrest is to be issued upon positive finding; after arrest
accused can demand for a preliminary investigation through a motion for
reinvestigation thus court remands the case to lower court and accused can present
controverting evidence; fiscal upon positive finding can recommend reiteration of
earlier finding of probable cause and prosecute; no need to provide copy of decision
to accused
judgment of court must precede from the hearing and must be based on the evidence or
records of the case otherwise no due process because no opportunity to defend himself
Ang Tibay v CIR- dismissal invalid for violating due process because evidence used to qualify
the penalty was not taken from the evidence of the 1st case and not event from the subject
matter of the 1st case thus no opportunity to defend
after 2nd sinking [worker’s watch] during pendency of the appeal of the case for the
1st sinking wherein he was charged for gross negligence and was suspended
Estrada v Office of the Ombudsman- no law or rule requiring co-respondents to furnish their
responses; due process only requires notification of charges
Administrative
jurisdiction through service of notice requiring the respondent to file controverting evidence
reason: adversarial in nature
fact finding investigation by investigation of office then recommend to director who will then
make his own judgment; appeal goes to Secretary of the department
if regional director who decided becomes Secretary cannot be the one to review his
own decision
Pichay Jr v ODESLA- complaint filed with Ombudsman and PAGSI; PAGSI removed
and replaced with ODESLA; asked for his case to be consolidated with cases with
Ombudsman; as long as there was a opportunity given to present evidence there can be no
violation of due process
educational
student or teacher is investigated; adversarial in nature thus entitled to due process as
guaranteed by the Constitution
notice in wiring of the charges filed
assisted by counsel
opportunity to controvert the charges
tribunal must be impartial
judgment must be rendered only after hearing
Ardiano- motion for suspension denied and chase proceeded based on allegation in info;
motion for reconsideration denied; given opportunity but chose not to exercise opportunity;
due process simply requires notice and opportunity and does not guarantee a hearing; motion
of reconsideration also considered

Equal Protection of Laws

merely guarantees legal equality not absolute equality

GR: persons situated under the same circumstances should be treated alike by the law in terms of rights and
obligations conferred
EXC: substantial distinction thus valid classification allowed
requisites
substantive distinction
not superficial
 test for suspect classification (gender, race, doubtful)- strict scrutiny to test
relevance thus burden on govt to prove compelling interest that needs to be enforced;
prove valid classification by going into the purpose of the law to justify
international teachers- despite the fact of relocation and salary needing to be
according to foreign standard there is no substantial difference thus violates
equal protection
Biraogo v Philippine Truth Commission- investigated the Arroyo administration only; no
substantive distinction as the administration is not a class of its own as it belongs to
the same class of past administration; SC deemed it selective and
therefore unconstitutional for violating equal protection since no other past
administrations were investigated [PCGG valid because no one complained so SC
could not review constitutionality
People v Jalosjos- no substantial distinction between congressmen convicted felon
and ordinary convicted felin in terms of application of penal laws
Trillanes v Pimentel- applied for bail in non-bailable offense of coup d’etat alleging the
principle in People v Jalosjos cannot be applied as he was not yet guilty; fact of
the accusation distinguishes him from someone who is free; no substantial distinction
in this case; accused thus detained
distinction is germane to the purpose of the law- distinction must be relevant to the purpose of
the law
foreigners cannot vote- valid because purpose is to select govt officials; foreigners not
citizens thus not affected by administration hence valid to disallow voting based on
race or citizenship justified
applies to existing and future conditions- relativity of the constitutionality of the law as long as
reason is still relevant; continues to be applied as long as reason subsists; invalid if reason for
the law ceases because it becomes discriminatory
Ormoc City Sugar Company v City Treasurer- only one sugar company when the law
was passed; Ormoc City Sugar Company taxed for each production of sugar;
circumstances changed as more sugar companies created which were not taxed as
the ordinance was specific to Ormoc City Sugar Co.; became discriminatory
thus violative of equal protection as the reason for the ordinance ceased
Central Bank Employees Association v Central Bank- law creating CB also classified
the salary of rank-and-file from management to attract financial experts their salary
was exempt from salary classification; law was never questioned by rank-and-
file; classification was justified; another law passed exempting all financial institutions
of govt from salary standardization thus they don’t follow salary grade; salaries of
workers in financial institution higher than other govt workers; CB employees not
exempt from standardization; rank-and-file salaries not exempt; law was constitutional
when it was passed due to substantial distinction but subsequent law applying it to all
financial institutions of the govt ceased to be relevant thus violative of equal protection
People v Cayat- law prohibited natives from drinking foreign liquor; valid classification
due to adverse reaction to liquor; applicable to future conditions for as long as the
problem sought to be prevented continues to exists
applies to all persons situated under similar circumstances
Villanueva v JBC- equal protection clause does not require the universal application of laws to all persons or
things without distinction as what it requires is simply equality among equals as determined according to a valid
classification; substantial differences do exist and the classification enshrined in the assailed policy is
reasonable and relevant to its legitimate purpose the number of years of service is a valid basis to determine
proven competence
Subic tax exemption- after troops investors were invited; tradcrsoutside Subic complained; SC said there was
a substantial distinction because purpose of the law is to encourage investment

Non-impairment of Contracts

Congress and courts should not pass laws impairing obligations and contracts; cannot intrude as contracts
are sacred between parties as long as not violative of law, morals, good customs, public policy and public
order
invalid order for courts or delegates to change the terms and conditions of existing contracts or
agreements the mode of payment of agreement since agreements are the governing law of the parties which
should be respected
courts cannot change mode of payment- order is unconstitutional as it changes the agreement from
 sale to barter; as long as such is the agreement it should be respected
mortgage / redemption case- previously 1 year but law amended to 3 months only from registration
of foreclosure sale with Registry of Deeds; when the mortgage was foreclosed the applicable law was
the old law; applying the new law would mean redemption period expired; qualification!! law is
constitutional if not applied retroactively
GR: any contract entered into cannot be changed or modified by a law that may be passed by Congress
thereafter; Congress is not prohibited from passing a law that may change or repeal the law applicable under
which the agreement was entered into as long as the subsequent law is not applied retroactively
EXC: [can impair]
marriage contracts: not an ordinary contract as the State always has an interest in the social
institution being the basis of the family and therefore is subject to the protection or interference of
State by law; not the contract contemplated under the non-impairment clause; can be retroactive if
favorable
law on marriage with prescription periods proposed: law can be retroactively applied to
existing marriages
licenses and permits granted: state revokes before expiration valid as while an agreement with
government they are mere privileges; not property nor property rights subject to a contract thus can be
revoked anytime by the State through police power
elected position in the govt; public office: dismissed from service in Office of Ombudsman before
expiry; no violation as the office which is the subject of the covenant is not a property right but a public
trust and cannot be the subject of a contract therefore not protected under the non-impairment clause
tax law executed subsequent to execution of contract: contract to supply table for P100; Congress
passed law increasing sales tax in production of tables; supplier increases price to P150 to shift
burden to buyer; buyer then shifts to customer; change in contract but applicable although contrary
since there is no change in rights and obligations; must pay sales tax; customer who ultimately paid
for the tax cannot complain because not a party to the contract between manufacturer and
buyer (table); no law shall be passed impairing changing the conditions and terms of the agreement of
the parties only when it affects the obligations and rights of the parties under the contracts (that
is what is prohibited)
usurious tax: unconscionable thus contrary to law, morals, public policy thus void; violative thus not a
violation of non-impairment
police power to cure existing evil: even if it changes the agreement that law will always prevail over
any contract
leasehold tenancy: agreement before that any produce would be divided between the
landowner and tenant 60-40 in favor of the land owner; Congress passed a law 60-40 in favor
of tenants; can be applied retroactively even if it changes the agreement as law valid since it
was passed to cure injustice against tenant
procedural laws: Congress may pass as long as no substantive rights affected thus can be applied
retroactively; no violation of non-impairment; Rule of Procedure and Rules of Court can be amended
and applied to proceedings already started before the change without violating non-impairment as
long as they do not prejudice the rights of the parties
eminent domain: State expropriated land subject to a lease; eminent domain is superior to non-
impairment; without prejudice to demand for payment of just compensation and incidental damages to
lessee for loss of the period, and to the lessor for loss of rentals
taxation: VAT; agreement was to build structure and contract had no taxes; VAT applied to contract
retroactively; contractor had to pay; client doesn’t pay because not anticipated thus cannot be
compelled to pay the tax; contractor is to absorb the tax; SC held that while it may change the
contract and affects the rights of the contractor, taxation is superior as it is the lifeblood of the
government to enable it to operative; thus can be applied retroactively as taxation prevails over non-
impairment
EXC. onerous taxation- grant of exemption for valuable consideration; onerous tax exemption
partakes of the nature of the contract thus cannot be changed by subsequent law such as
repealing, withdrawing or revoking the law that granted the exemption
waiver stipulated in the contract: “unless otherwise provided by law”; contract can be changed by
subsequent law even if contrary to what has been agreed upon; law is applicable to contracts
executed prior to increase because of agreement due to waiver
public utilities: franchise to operate or engage in such business (for 25 year renewable for another
25) is a contract; can be revoked as no less than the Constitution made a reservation when the public
welfare so requires subject to repeal, amendment and alterations ? (communication, transportation,
water, electricity)
[Jag v NLRC] Rizalde case: closed shop agreements with private company as employer; union which
is effective only if they can enter into agreements with the company to get benefits; company only
recognized one union; if certain benefits are obtained through collective bargaining agreement by
union then logically only members can enjoy but if cannot join because of religion then it violated
freedom of religion (Iglesia Ni Cristo) as it violates free exercise; Congress passed a law exempting
them from closed shop agreement; despite complaint by union as they do not pay union fees SC held
that this is an exemption thus freedom of religion is superior to non-impairment; unprecedented
because not the usual conflict
3- Bill of Rights
Section 1. [Equal Protection and Due Process] 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.

Due Process- life, liberty, property

SJS v Atienza- property rights must bow to the primacy of police power as although it is protected by
the due process clause it must yield to general welfare and right to life enjoys precedence over right
to property
Chavez v Romulo- revocation of firearms license without notice does not violate due process as it does
not involve life, liberty or property; firearm license is a privilege which is revocable through State’s
exercise of police power
Garin v MMDA- license can be confiscate without hearing because not protected by due process
substantive due process
fair, just and reasonable otherwise denial of due process and right to life, liberty & property
validity of the law itself
valid exercise of police power
test: lawful subject matter and lawful means
procedural due process
requirements of procedure in judicial process as well as quasi-judicial and administrative processes
only observed by government agencies exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions (administrative,
educational, impeachment)
Duterte exercising executive functions so drug announcements not violative
Shu v Dy- no violation because NBI only investigative office, informational agency, cannot
even determine probable cause thus findings cannot be questioned for violation of due
process
prior notice and opportunity to be heard (not actual hearing; what is abhorred is the total denial of
hearing)
person whose right will be regulated must invoke
Civil
parties must submit to jurisdiction through filing complaint -> summons -> file answer to be
heard
summons: 3 attempts (personal service)
summons by substitution -> not at residence: archive -> reinstate -> dismiss for failure
to prosecute the action
service through publication gen circulation (complaint + summons + supporting
documents) once a week for 3 consecutive weeks at the place of last residence
civil cases: place with property (constructive notice since accessory [person] follows
principal [property])
jurisdiction: impartial & competent; cold neutrality
opportunity of hearing to present evidence
EXC:
self-defense / self-help
abatement of nuisance per se- valid
abatement of property- hearing
admin agencies (LTO or MTC) fixing rate (quasi-legislative) and then subsequent
change (quasi-judicial)
not a provisional order and therefore must observe the requisites of procedural
due process
hearing because vested right; reduction or increase of rates: contrariety
of rights to be resolved using quasi-judicial functions thus hearing is required
grant of provisional / precautionary remedies (writ of replevin, attachment)
no prior notice because can be disposed of thus granted right away
summons and writ of replevin simultaneously or immediately after
preventive suspension
no notice needed since not a penalty only precautionary and only temporary
due process intact as there is still a hearing
precautionary measures
clamping / towing- not present, blocking road, no prior hearing required
Francisco v Fernando- wet flag scheme not a penalty but a precautionary
 measure
RA 9262 Anti-VAWC
Garcia v Drilon- TPO is urgent; mere allegation in information sufficient
cancellation of passports of persons who have pending cases
cannot notify because absconded- rendered stateless and to be deported to
origin country
Enrile v Estrada- no case filed and passports already issued thus the
revocation of the right to travel requires a hearing
hold departure order for those charged with criminal cases
without hearing because at large thus whereabouts unknown so ex party
ONLY COURTS (RTC) CAN BAR TRAVEL NOT DOJ
to compel Bureau of Immigration to bar travel
EXC. hearing needed if already under jurisdiction of the court such as when
out on bail as constitutional right cannot be restrained due to pending case
DOJ watchlist
delay only but cannot bar travel [not due to watchlist but because wala na ang
plane]
issuance of warrant of distraint or levy by BIR Commissioner
already prior notice of tax deficiency
Central Bank take over
can take over based on prima facie evidence of liquidity problem to prevent
bank run
dismissing temporary govt employee
no hearing or notice required as they do not enjoy security of tenure
sequestration order
recovery of ill-gotten wealth; can be seized by PCGG without prior hearing
then subsequently determine ownership at hearing
extradition
urgency of circumstances as notice and hearing will give accused opportunity
to escape
arrested first then question validity of apprehension at hearing so due process
intact
Lantion v Sec of Justice- (1) not a criminal case (2) case pending not in PH but
in USA (3) prevent fleeing to country without extradition treaty
Criminal
submit to jurisdiction through filing of the case; accused through arrest or surrender
due process in the courts and stricter than civil cases; opportunity to provide
controverting evidence
warrant of arrest and arraignment (nature and cause of charges in the language known
and understood by accused to enable him to defend himself): mandatory and
indispensable
knowledge of case filed- arrest
knowledge of nature and cause- arraignment
no substantial amendments after arraingment- only typographical
can only be charged for facts alleged in the body of information not even
if aggravating circumstances presented in evidence)
fiscal to conduct a preliminary hearing to determine existence of probable cause however not
demandable as a matter of right unless crime punishable by 4y2m1d since only granted by
statute not the Constitution [below minimum fiscal not obligated]; fiscal not obligated to
furnish copy of resolution during prelim investigation as already accorded due process by trial
on merits
if cannot be found then probable cause is to be determined based on allegations
in complaint and a warrant of arrest is to be issued upon positive finding; after arrest
accused can demand for a preliminary investigation through a motion for
reinvestigation thus court remands the case to lower court and accused can present
controverting evidence; fiscal upon positive finding can recommend reiteration of
earlier finding of probable cause and prosecute; no need to provide copy of decision
to accused
judgment of court must precede from the hearing and must be based on the evidence or
records of the case otherwise no due process because no opportunity to defend himself
Ang Tibay v CIR- dismissal invalid for violating due process because evidence used to qualify
the penalty was not taken from the evidence of the 1st case and not event from the subject
 matter of the 1st case thus no opportunity to defend
after 2nd sinking [worker’s watch] during pendency of the appeal of the case for the
1st sinking wherein he was charged for gross negligence and was suspended
Estrada v Office of the Ombudsman- no law or rule requiring co-respondents to furnish their
responses; due process only requires notification of charges
Administrative
jurisdiction through service of notice requiring the respondent to file controverting evidence
reason: adversarial in nature
fact finding investigation by investigation of office then recommend to director who will then
make his own judgment; appeal goes to Secretary of the department
if regional director who decided becomes Secretary cannot be the one to review his
own decision
Pichay Jr v ODESLA- complaint filed with Ombudsman and PAGSI; PAGSI removed
and replaced with ODESLA; asked for his case to be consolidated with cases with
Ombudsman; as long as there was a opportunity given to present evidence there can be no
violation of due process
educational
student or teacher is investigated; adversarial in nature thus entitled to due process as
guaranteed by the Constitution
notice in wiring of the charges filed
assisted by counsel
opportunity to controvert the charges
tribunal must be impartial
judgment must be rendered only after hearing
Ardiano- motion for suspension denied and chase proceeded based on allegation in info;
motion for reconsideration denied; given opportunity but chose not to exercise opportunity;
due process simply requires notice and opportunity and does not guarantee a hearing; motion
of reconsideration also considered

Equal Protection of Laws

merely guarantees legal equality not absolute equality

GR: persons situated under the same circumstances should be treated alike by the law in terms of rights and
obligations conferred
EXC: substantial distinction thus valid classification allowed
requisites
substantive distinction
not superficial
test for suspect classification (gender, race, doubtful)- strict scrutiny to test
relevance thus burden on govt to prove compelling interest that needs to be enforced;
prove valid classification by going into the purpose of the law to justify
international teachers- despite the fact of relocation and salary needing to be
according to foreign standard there is no substantial difference thus violates
equal protection
Biraogo v Philippine Truth Commission- investigated the Arroyo administration only; no
substantive distinction as the administration is not a class of its own as it belongs to
the same class of past administration; SC deemed it selective and
therefore unconstitutional for violating equal protection since no other past
administrations were investigated [PCGG valid because no one complained so SC
could not review constitutionality
People v Jalosjos- no substantial distinction between congressmen convicted felon
and ordinary convicted felin in terms of application of penal laws
Trillanes v Pimentel- applied for bail in non-bailable offense of coup d’etat alleging the
principle in People v Jalosjos cannot be applied as he was not yet guilty; fact of
the accusation distinguishes him from someone who is free; no substantial distinction
in this case; accused thus detained
distinction is germane to the purpose of the law- distinction must be relevant to the purpose of
the law
foreigners cannot vote- valid because purpose is to select govt officials; foreigners not
citizens thus not affected by administration hence valid to disallow voting based on
race or citizenship justified
 applies to existing and future conditions- relativity of the constitutionality of the law as long as
reason is still relevant; continues to be applied as long as reason subsists; invalid if reason for
the law ceases because it becomes discriminatory
Ormoc City Sugar Company v City Treasurer- only one sugar company when the law
was passed; Ormoc City Sugar Company taxed for each production of sugar;
circumstances changed as more sugar companies created which were not taxed as
the ordinance was specific to Ormoc City Sugar Co.; became discriminatory
thus violative of equal protection as the reason for the ordinance ceased
Central Bank Employees Association v Central Bank- law creating CB also classified
the salary of rank-and-file from management to attract financial experts their salary
was exempt from salary classification; law was never questioned by rank-and-
file; classification was justified; another law passed exempting all financial institutions
of govt from salary standardization thus they don’t follow salary grade; salaries of
workers in financial institution higher than other govt workers; CB employees not
exempt from standardization; rank-and-file salaries not exempt; law was constitutional
when it was passed due to substantial distinction but subsequent law applying it to all
financial institutions of the govt ceased to be relevant thus violative of equal protection
People v Cayat- law prohibited natives from drinking foreign liquor; valid classification
due to adverse reaction to liquor; applicable to future conditions for as long as the
problem sought to be prevented continues to exists
applies to all persons situated under similar circumstances
Villanueva v JBC- equal protection clause does not require the universal application of laws to all persons or
things without distinction as what it requires is simply equality among equals as determined according to a valid
classification; substantial differences do exist and the classification enshrined in the assailed policy is
reasonable and relevant to its legitimate purpose the number of years of service is a valid basis to determine
proven competence
Subic tax exemption- after troops investors were invited; tradcrsoutside Subic complained; SC said there was
a substantial distinction because purpose of the law is to encourage investment

Section 2. [Right to Privacy and Right against Unreasonable Searches and Seizures] 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

guarantee of security to one’s rights by the government; right to be secure; constitutes the right to privacy as
there is no specific provision providing for the right to privacy
invoke against law enforcers only [security from and right against intrusions of law enforcers]
EX. PNP, NBI, CIDG, PDEA, brgy police & bantay bayan (agents of persons in authority having a similar
function of a barangay police therefore a law enforcer)
EXC. AFP unless authorized
EXC. can never be invoked against private individuals (security guards can search without warrant and
evidence is admissible and contraband can be confiscated [acts of lasciviousness, unjust vexation or
theft of malicious motive] never Sec 2)
scope: applies to citizens and foreigners alike [right of the “people”]
Secretary of National Defense v Manalo- issuance of writ of amparo (order of the court to protect a violation
of a person’s life, liberty, security) against Department of National Defense
life or liberty- Sec 1 [due process, equal protection], Sec 2 [unreasonable searches and seizures]
privacy- Sec 2, Sec 3 [privacy of communications and correspondence]

right to be secure in their persons (warrantless search -> unreasonable -> unconstitutional)
cannot be frisked, arrested or body seized without a warrant
body integrity includes psychological integrity- drug test and DNA test intrusive into privacy (includes
internal)
body does not include only the outer skin but the integrity of the whole body
mandatory drug testing if penalty imposable is 6 years or higher
SJS v Dangerous Drugs Board- RA 9165 mandatory drug testing for candidates who have
 been charged with offenses declared by SC as unconstitutional as it violates right to privacy of
person
EXC: SC allows random drug testing, where no particular individual or class of persons is
targeted, of high school, tertiary school or govt and private companies; exercise of police
power to minimize drug prevalence
right to be secure in house
as long as considered home cannot be entered into without consent or warrant otherwise subject to
criminal, civil, administrative liabilities
EXC: Espinosa case- detention cell can be searched without a warrant becasue there is no reasonable
expectation of privacy; judge issued warrant tho because of compelling reasons
right to be secure in papers and effects
cannot be searched and seized without warrant whatever may be the reason or purpose
is unreasonable

GR: unreasonable searches are unconstitutional and any evidence that may be obtained shall be inadmissible,
excluded and cannot be used against the person whose rights were violated
EXC: search warrant (in the search of the place and seizure of the things found in the place) or warrant of arrest
(to seize the person subject of the warrant)
only state one offense of the person subject of the search: scattershock warrant considered as
a general warrant which is unconstitutional because it does not comply with the requirement of
particularity; order to direct the search of a place or a thing that are probably used in the commission
of the crime, are the subject of the crime; means to commit the crime
Rule 126 ROC- subject of a search warrant
when it is the subject of the crime [EX. shabu]
fruit of the crime [EX. embezzled money, proceeds from sale of shabu]
means in committing the crime [EX. weighing scale, drug paraphernalia, lighter]
suspect neighbor -> brgy (optional) -> police -> validate report / allegation -> surveillance to confirm->
apply for search warrant -> prove and execute affidavit with witnesses to corroborate testimony -
> judge mandated by the Constitution to examine probable cause personally
1973 Constitution- “and such other persons authorized by law” police can determine
existence of probable cause; deleted so now only a judge [due to experience of
political detainees during Marcos time as police could issue Arrest, Search and. Seizure Order;
replaced with Presidential Commitment Order; replaced with Preventive Detainment Authority]
administrative agencies- the proceeding conducted, if any, is administrative in nature; warrants are usually
for criminal proceedings
Bureau of Immigration- there is already a final finding of violation of the law prior to arrest by the
Bureau of Immigration thus no more investigation to ascertain whether he violated the law; reason for
arrest is to carry out final finding because cannot deport if not under the control or in the custody of
immigration officers thus needs to arrest; court need not issue the warrant as deportation proceedings
are outside the jurisdiction of the courts
Bureau of Customs- when concealed to avoid payments taxes there is urgency; BOC, not the
courts, has the exclusive jurisdiction to ascertain whether goods were concealed which is a final
finding of violation of Tariff Laws; jurisdiction [becomes final if no appeal to CA or SC]; no more
subsequent investigation; carry out final finding by having them declared as smuggled and ordering
them to be forfeited in favor of govt which cannot be done without seizing them first
Fontanilla case
court determination of probable cause- searching question, summary proceeding [record of the proceedings
attached to the records of the case in case there is a question on the conduct of the searching question
and answer that led to the issuance of the warrant then the person affected can make reference to the record]
probable cause: based on finding by fiscal; does not need to call defendant; can issue warrant
as long as investigates; if judge does not agree then dismiss case
search warrant: particularity in the description of place to be searched and things to be seized so
there is no doubt [be very specific]
sufficient: as long as it can be properly described and identified [through sketch; no need for
title or tax declaration]
Constitution requires that the search can only be conducted in the place subject of
the warrant
goods found in another room can be seized if contraband but since had no authority
to search they cannot be used as evidence as search and seizure was illegal since
without authority; all items seized excluded as evidence [if part of the same room then
valid and admissible]
warrant of arrest
John Doe sufficient as long as can be particularly described when is presented to victim;
 particular description which would identify him from the rest of human race; name of the
accused not necessarily determinative of identification (may use false names) as long as
particularly identified by person who witnessed the crime
multiple John Does- SC general warrant as it is difficult to particularly identify each
person
name of the accused not necessarily determinative of identification (may use false names) as
long as particularly identified by person who witnessed the crime
address of the accused also describes the accused and requires particularity
particular charge; cannot be two offenses in one warrant
EXC. search warrant not required
mall frisk- law addressed to law officers; security guards and private individuals; entering into a
private establishment owned by a private entity who has a right to protect their property; authority to
conduct search
frisking by policeman before entering a public establishment or policeman requests you to open
your bag
waiver / consent- no problem; if contraband found -> can be admissible
no waiver / mere acquiescence- contraband found -> coerced into submission; coercion is a
defense; mere acquiescence or submission not a valid waiver as requisites lacking
knowledge of such right (actual or constructive)
freely, voluntarily, and intelligently waived or relinquished such right
goods concealed in warehouse to evade taxes, customs seized; valid without warrant
EXC. goods in house- not valid
checkpoints and moving vehicles- limited to visual search (evidence in plain sight immediately
apparent to the naked eye or to the hand or sense of smell) & limited to the purpose for the condition of
the checkpoint
urgency because involving motorized / moving vehicles; no time to procure a search warrant
EXC. not motorized -> warrant required because no urgency (trisikad, habal-
habal, bangka)
requisites / requirements
in uniform (not a blanket of authority to conduct a checkpoint
require order of superior
notice in well-lighted place seen 100 yards from checkpoint
placard with purpose (for scope since intrusion into right to privacy thus must be
strictly observed; no expedition)
visual search- peek through window; cannot ask driver to disembark, move things, or open
door
EX. gun found in glove box while getting registration paper -> valid because immediately
apparent [not obliged to open box]
EX. passenger jeepney- asking men to go down valid; frisking invalid
EXC. gun case in car- newspaper moved by driver; no longer a visual search because now
extensive search or further search; not immediately identifiable / apparent; search
invalid without a warrant thus inadmissible
EXC. bulge in shirts- gun found- further search; even if at checkpoint; coerced; not
immediately visible to the eye thus further search unjustified; unless saw butt of gun protruding
from shirt
EXC. white powder on seat in car- tested and then confirmed to be shabu; not immediately
apparent thus requiring further search to ascertain
NBI forensic chemist- smelled shabu in bus; found box under bench; put finger and
ascertained it to be shabu; valid coz expert no need for examination to determine
EXC. firearm in newspaper, found marijuana instead- can seize because prohibited by
law but needed further search because cannot be determined without unwrapping thus not
evidence in plain view
EXC. warrant to search for firearm, found shabu in teacup- inadmissible because deliberate
search (not accidental); shabu not that which was described in the warrant; only justification to
seize would be evidence in plain view; although presence lawful due to warrant the shabu was
not immediately apparent as firearm could not have been in teacup
EXC. no probable cause for evading a checkpoint
consented search- no presumption of regularity; burden of proof on searching officer to prove
regularity
airport search- consent upon purchase of ticket (fine print) presumed to have read
EXC. parked in nipa hut- took the vehicle and presented as evidence; illegally seized because no
warrant; SC: while it was a moving vehicle there was no urgency at the time it was seized because it
 was parked thus can secure a search warrant
EXC. surreptitiously entered neighbor’s home suspected of dealing; can seize because prohibited
but cannot be admitted as evidence; presence in home not legal as there is neither a search warrant
nor consent of the owner
EXC. falsification of visa- seal seized without warrant as it was not listed as one of the items used in
the commission of the crime; only confirmed as counterfeit after; not immediately apparent as required
further search by Bureau of Immigration and Chinese Embassy
EXC. searched during exigency / emergency (following coup d'etat)- valid because urgency; no
time to apply for warrant in pursuit of perpetrators
EXC. saturation drive / target zone- valid searches can be conducted even without a warrant; any
person who enters or exits the zone has to be searched
EXC. People v Aminnudin- suspect disembarked from vessel; arrested him upon alighting and
searched thus finding contraband; no justification of urgency because already disembarked, no valid
search, no valid arrest, no valid search incidental to valid arrest
Terry v Ohio- stop and frisk where there is mere suspicion [not reasonable search or probable
cause] that a person is committing a crime such person can be stopped and clothing searched, not
body; not extensive but protective search only for determining or ascertaining that he is not in
possession of any object or weapon that may be used to harm the arresting or searching police; no
arrest prior to search; only when contraband is found can he be arrested; justified under in flagrante
delicto where search comes after or simultaneously to arrest
search incidental to a lawful arrest- arrest based on probable cause; manifested overt acts indicting
that he is committing or was committing a crime in the presence of the arresting officer; search
incidental to a lawful arrest; search is now extensive to find evidence that may be damaged or
destroyed if not found or weapons not just protective; arrest precedes arrest
People v Malmstedt- report of white man in bus carrying marijuana; police asked foreigner for
identification; he cannot produce thus considered a violator of the law and was arrested;
searched and found marijuana; arrested first for failure to provide identification thus search
incidental to a lawful arrest
EXC. warrant of arrest not required [evidence in plain view immediately apparent thus no further search
required; conditions to observe and comply to justify seizure of contraband without warrant]
particularly described
arrest first
valid warrant
in flagrante delicto
hot pursuit
escapee
EXC. man with hand in pocket staring at buildings- hand grenade found in jacket; suspicious face
or looking around not enough as there must be overt acts indicating the commission of a crime or that
one is about to commit a crime in the presence of the arresting officer; SC rejected evidence because
no justification for arrest much less a search incidental to lawful arrest
flagged down for not wearing helmet [Luz v People]- apprehension for traffic violation penalized
with fine; issued citation then frisked; shabu found on person; violation not incidental to a lawful arrest
nor was there any intention to arrest; search done before arrest
war- no need for warrant to go after rebels/perpetrators; no judges available to entertain applications
airports/bus terminals/seaport- national security; public safety-> police power is the justification
People v Suzuki- Japs bringing boxes of piaya; detected illegal substances through sensor; asked to
open & shabu found; used as evidence; Japs claimed no probable cause and that they were not asked
thus no consent; police said they asked; Japs said they didn’t understand; SC there was consent;
probable cause and due to location everything has to be examined for public safety
K9 sniff search- probable cause determined by dog; SC: dog cannot speak thus trainor has personal
knowledge as he knows the behavior of the dog as the dog is trained in that manner and the dog
acted as expected of him
remedy
invoke exclusionary rule: poisonous tree doctrine- obtained through illegal search then cannot be
used as evidence in any proceeding against the person whose right was violated; contraband remains
in custodia legis; dismissed case of illegal possession of drugs because no more drugs once
excluded; no corpus delicti thus no crime committed
can retrieve if not contraband; not illegal per se; crime was not established if corpus delicti
inadmissible thus money not proceeds of a crime thus should be returned; if police refuses to return
then file action for replevin without prejudice to civil, criminal, administrative cases
 warrantless arrest Rule 113 of ROC [search incidental to lawful arrest]
in flagrante delicto- crime committed, has been committed, about to commit-> in presence of PO ->
can arrest without warrant (can be citizen’s arrest)
immediately apparent to the naked eye, touch, or sense of smell
must have witnessed or heard or is in hearing distance
legitimate / legal ratio to be in the premises subject of the search (search warrant or
consent of owner)
mere suspicion-ran away upon being ordered to stop; if contraband found then probable
cause to arrest then extension search to find evidence; bag fell exposing shabu; can arrest
and shabu admissible because in flagrante delicto
offense is continuing- AO may not be in presence during commission but as if continually
committing until arrested
EX. shot pres to destroy govt; rebellion continuing; AO may arrest without
warrant even if not present during killing
EX. kidnapping continuing until released or body produced; can be arrested by any
law enforcer without a warrant
Robin Padilla case- hit pedestrian; police within earshot thus heard the victim thus crime of
hitting deemed in presence of AO although he did not see the hitting; victim
described perpetrator who were then pursued; peeking through window saw firearms on floor
hot pursuit- reasonable ground to believe based on personal knowledge of facts that the person to be
arrested must have commuted the crime
reliable evidence of a witness must be validated and presented by police
must be in continuity of facts and event; once there is an interruption no longer in hot pursuit
and warrant necessary
cannot just arrest person pointed to because must not be based on personal knowledge of
witness; must perform own investigation
invitation then detained; detention got validated upon issuance of warrant by the court
EX. child witnessed neighbor killing family and raping sister; police immediately arrested
neighbor; found bloodied knife and pants; SC: crime was in fact committed; cannot be in
flagrante delicto as the policer were not present when the crime was committed; based on
knowledge of child thus no personal knowledge and no valid justifiable basis for hot pursuit
thus arrest illegal and no search incidental to a lawful arrest; inadmissible evidence since
seized illegally; no matter how reliable it is personal to witness not AO thus AO must perform
investigation and secure warrant to confirm testimony
escapee- even if not convicted yet is detained due to pending case he can be arrested without
a warrant
extra exception: administrative arrests
contempt, arrest for public nuisance, obstruct traffic flow -> valid warrantless arrest
asked for documentation for identification- bar; brawl- can be arrested without a warrant
enters country without legal papers- can be arrested without a warrant
remedy for illegal arrest
habeas corpus- on the ground of deprivation of physical liberty; illegal detention (filing of case- cures
the defect of the illegal detention and renders moot and academic the habeas corpus without
prejudice to questioning of validity of arrest to exclude evidence that may have been obtained as
a consequence)
post bail- petition in a special proceeding asking the court to place the amount of bail while the case
is being prosecuted
file aggrieved cases against arresting officers (criminal, civil, administrative)

Section 3. [Right to Privacy] 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

guarantee of protection and the privacy of communication and correspondence [nobody can just listen, hack,
record]
EXC. when required by public safety or public order the government may intrude or intercept
EXC. may be violated by private individuals not just law enforcers [unlike Sec 2]
 Zulueta v CA- wife ransacked office of husband and found love letter and used them as evidence;
SC inadmissible because seized in violation of privacy of communications and correspondence of the
husband
all forms of communication- private conversations, telephone, texts, social media, email, letters, telegrams
[protected under the Constitution despite failure to foresee tech advancement in means of communication]
telecommunication companies record for a period of time but cannot be obtained without a warrant
there must be an expectation of privacy for an intrusion to constitute a violation of the right to privacy
extent of protection- persons arguing in lobby of hotel which was heard and recorded; witnesses
testified; no expectation of privacy thus no right violated and can be testified to and record can be
used as evidence against any party involved in the conversation
Vivares v STC- insisting on privacy of communication and habeas data; informational privacy giving
the choice or option to the extent of disclosure; moment it is disclosed there is no expectation of
privacy as it is open to consumption despite “friends only” because no mechanism to prevent friends
of friends; therefore cannot invoke the right to privacy of communication protected under the writ of
habeas data; before one can have an expectation of privacy in his or her OSN activity, it is first
necessary that said user, in this case the children of petitioners,manifest the intention to keep certain
posts private, through the employment of measures to prevent access thereto or to limit its
visibility; utilization of these privacy tools is the manifestation,in cyber world, of the user’s invocation of
his or her right to informational privacy; a Facebook user who opts to make use of a privacy tool to
grant or deny access to his or her post orprofile detail should not be denied the informational privacy
right which necessarily accompanies said choice; It is well to emphasize at this point that setting a
post’s or profile detail’s privacy to "Friends" is no assurance that it can no longer be viewed by another
user who is not Facebook friends with the source of the content. The user’s own Facebook friend can
share said content or tag his or her own Facebook friend thereto, regardless of whether the user
tagged by the latter is Facebook friends or not with the former
locational or situational privacy- choice not to disclose but once disclosed then no reasonable
expectation of privacy
decisional privacy
jail guards random search- search warrant to intrude into privacy; letter found asking complainant for
forgiveness (admitting to crime); gave to prosecutor; objected on grounds of privacy; SC: no violation
for there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in jail or penal establishments for detention prisoners
mass de campo, trillanes- coup d’etat- letter first to be read prior to bringing out; objection on
ground of right to privacy; SC: no reasonable expectation of privacy in detention cell and no showing
that the letters were addressed to the lawyer to fall within attorney-client privilege as they were
addressed to people outside with the lawyer only acting as courier; may open and not read if indicated
laws punishing invasion of privacy
Art 290, 291, 292, 299 RPC
RA 4200 Anti- Wiretapping Law- no one may record any conversation between 2 or more persons;
recording, relaying, transcribing are crimes
Chavez v Gonzales- no less than Congress violated the right of privacy; recorded and played
in House of Congress; transcribed and published
Roxas v Zuzuarregei- went to SC to express disgust against Justices through letter; cited in
contempt by the SC using his own later as the basis; Roxas claimed privacy of
correspondence; SC: freedom of speech not absolute, moment letter left his hand there
was no more privacy, letter formed part of public records; thus no invocation of right to privacy
of communication
EXC. extension line then no privacy; must be main line
GR: evidence obtained from recorded conversation is inadmissible and cannot be used agaisnt
the person whose right has been violated
EXC: person whose right has been violated may use as evidence
Reyes case
Gaanan v IAC
EXC. Human Security Act & Anti-Terrorism Act- public order and safety; allows bugging
of conversations between judicially declared terrorist groups; must first obtain search warrant
conforming with the requirements of particularity (describing anticipated conversation)
EXC: law protects privileged conversation nonetheless [cannot be bugged]
attorney-client
doctor-patient
journalist-source
business correspondence
Section 4. [Freedom of Speech | Preferred Rights] No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of
expression, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for
redress of grievances.

corollary rights guaranteed by jurisprudence otherwise freedom of expression rendered a hollow provision of
the law
freedom from prior restraint (censorship)
cannot be stopped or regulated by the State exercising their freedom of expression
before actually exercising or enjoying the right
EX. asking for permit from government before speaking / holding rally or asking for fees for
circulation of publication
EX. Marcos- license from military before politician delivers speech
EXC. permit required before rally BP 880 not for license but for use of public place
freedom from subsequent liability
chilling effect on exercise of freedom of expression if arrested after exercise
EX. Anti-Cyber Crime Law- derogatory comments not absolute right thus if libelous to
another person it is a crime, however, even just liking held equally liable under Cyber Crime
Law; SC: violates freedom of speech
EX. freedom of assembly- not liable to death for death/injury of participant because just
enjoying freedom of expression even if organizer unless directly responsible then liable
3 tests in ascertaining liability of a person exercising freedom of expression
clear and present danger- substantive evil is so clear and is sure to happen then may be
stopped or regulated as it is the duty or obligation of the State to prevent any substantive evil
especially when it affects public policy, safety, national security; if already exercised then may
be punished
default used under normal circumstances
shout fire middle of street- no clear and present danger of any substantive evil
because merely exercising or enjoying freedom; cannot be charged with public
scandal; no one will believe; not dangerous as can run away
inferior courts derogatory remarks- if no proof that it affects the integrity of the
courts or undermine the administration of justice as long as it does not constitute sub
ju dice
EXC. sub ju dice- affects administration of justice; cannot make comments
on a pending case lest the court be influence in its resolution
dangerous tendency- however remote but it is a possibility that a substantive evil
shout fire theater- possibility of substantive evil; dark and crowded; if panic caused
and there is possibility of injury even if remote (alarm and scandal / disruption of
peace and order / PI)
Supreme Court derogatory remarks- public contempt; even if doesn’t affect
reputation as risk is high if people believe; eroding trust of people in SC no longer
believe in the courts and make take the law into their own hands and destroy
democracy and rule of law
balancing of interest- used when no public order, public safety, or national security is involved
as against the freedom of expression
conflict between freedom of expression and other rights of individuals also entitled to
protection by the State -> courts decide which right is accorded more protection by
the State
Lagunsad v Sotto- thief described as Robin Hood; producers wanted to make film;
depicted as womanizer which widow did not like alleging intrusion into privacy;
producer refused to remove; SC ordered the showing to be stopped as the family is
private thus the right to privacy prevails over freedom of expression
Enrile- participation in Martial Law; people interested in EDSA Revolution;
film produced about the story; Enrile opposed to his presence in movie; SC freedom
of expression because Enrile is a public figure and it would change history if his
participation is excluded
freedom of speech

encompasses oral utterances, placards, picketing during strikes

picketing when not an employee: supporting cause of employee; cannot be stopped
because picketing forms part of freedom of speech as it is not limited to oral utterances
freedom of speech includes right to be listened to (not just delivering or conversing: if those wanting
to listen are barred then violation of freedom of speech)
corps speech: clear and present danger thus if no substantial evil then there cannot be an
intrusion or regulation; required to regulate subject matter which is political,
socioeconomic, cultural, religious, historical
commercial speech: proposes commercial transactions such as advertisements; still
protected but not as must as corps; regulated especially when item promoted is false,
misleading, or proposes illegal transactions and the government has substantive interest in the
promotion such that regulation directly advances the interest
“nakatikin ka na ba nang 15 anyos?” billboard- SC: State has an obligation to protect
minors thus must remove billboard; commercial speech not as protected as corps
speech
Disini Jr. v DOJ- spam mail: advertisements of products, goods, services; SC:
unconstitutional as it would violate the freedom of expression of addressee as it is
tantamount to prohibiting him from reading and violates advertisers right to promote
through mail; may be commercial speech but nonetheless still protected
Adiong v COMELEC- Fair Election Act only authorizes campaign materials to be posted in
designated area so that everyone has an equal chance to be exposed; posting of campaign decals
all over car which is mobile and goes everywhere; COMELEC said this is not only a question of
ownership over the car but also a violation of the Fair Election Act; SC: the posting of decals on mobile
places does not endanger any substantial government interest; there is no clear public interest
threatened by such activity so as to justify the curtailment of the cherished citizen’s right of free speech
and expression; under the clear and present danger rule not only must the danger be patently clear and
pressingly present but the evil sought to be prevented must also be so substantive as to justify a clamp
over one’s mouth or a writing instrument to be stilled
1-UTAK v COMELEC- decals all over jeepneys and jeepney terminals; ordered removed by COMELEC
as it is violative of Fair Election Act also invoking audience captive where the people are compelled to
read the election materials; SC: prohibiting posting of decals violative of freedom of expression as
posting of decals is a part thereof, and even right to property ow ownership over the vehicles especially
the owners and operators of the vehicles; passengers not compelled to read or even glance
Heckler’s veto- does not violate freedom of speech as one may be stopped from giving speech if it
would affect public order of safety in the premises wherein the speech is to be delivered to prevent
untoward incidents
Unprotected speech: obscene, libelous, seditious speech
libelous- private individual whose integrity is affected through public contempt, public ridicule then
one cannot invoke freedom of speech as the speech is unprotected; includes social media through
Anti-Cyber Crime law
EXC: good faith is a defense; as long as purpose is to correct mistake or encourage reform-
defense
EXC: public officer is a public trust thus criticism by commentators that is fair and honest
should be seen as means or merely holding officer accountable
criticizing the courts
pending: journalists through freedom of press cannot make comments, give opinion or
relay what was said by the witnesses as they can only relay facts [without malice to
put court in public contempt] otherwise liable for sub ju dice and may be declared in
contempt; might influence the court and may violate due process of law
final: may comment as long as it is not an insult or will put the court
in public contempt or public ridicule [clear and present danger]
SC: last bastion of democracy thus dangerous even if it does not at all produce the
substantive evil as mere possibility of people losing their trust in the court as
the purpose is to prevent the destruction democracy and the rule of law; criminal
liability or cited for contempt [dangerous tendency]
seditious- instigate people to take up arms and rise to destroy an established government
US v Wood- not protected by the Constitution thus cannot invoke freedom of expression as a
defense
obscene- test is whether a material has no significance of value or has no philosophical, political,
 social, economic, scientific or even artistic value and it is only for the purpose of arousing the natural
human instinct of man [particularly sexual]; only the Court can ultimately determine and cannot
invoke freedom of expression if found and held liable
tests for regulation (not violation)
content-based: State can only regulate if there is a [clear and present danger of a substantive evil]
which the State has the obligation to prevent
pertains to the subject matter itself of the expression which State cannot intrude
EX: prevailing principle on max tolerance: allowed maximum tolerance on content but once
content exceeds then may be restricted in the exercise of the freedom of expression
EX: prior restraint- speech to be checked before delivering
Chavez v Garcia- recorded conversation replayed to the public and in Congress Hall;
broadcasters also played; Chavez threatened broadcasters to stop otherwise their permits
would be revoked without prejudiced to prosecution for violation of RA 4200;
Chavez questioned such orders for violating freedom of expression; SC: violation of freedom
of expression because goes into content of the tape itself which is being prohibited from
being broadcast; no clear and present danger thus cannot be regulated as the persons
alluded to in the conversation denied their participation
content-neutral: manner, time, place regulated not the subject matter [mere suspicion that it will
affect some compelling State interest]
EX. BP880: no permit no rally
Reyes v Bagatsing- permit required for a rally in a public place; SC: no violation of freedom of
expression or freedom of assembly intention of the govt to prevent conflict of use or
to regulate conduct the rally as they are responsible for any untoward incident; not stopped
from exercising freedom of expression; led to creation of BP880
facial attack: when a law involves preferred rights such as right to speed then one can always
challenge its constitutionality even prior to implementation due to chilling effect on freedom of
expression
void for vagueness- not understandable; violative of due process
overbreadth- not well-defined thus practically covers everything that is violative of freedom
of expression as everything is considered a restriction

freedom of press

freedom of information
right of non-disclosure of source
freedom to circulate
includes anything that is a medium of communication
unprotected press- libelous, obscene, seditious
MTRCB- not a prior restraint as it only supervises and merely classifies films for general consumption
or for adults; cannot even stop showing of obscene pornographic shows as they have to obtain
an injunction from Court to stop as Court determines whether or not obscene; does not even authority
over the personalities
Iglesia Ni Cristo v CA- program discussing religion vis a vis the Catholic dogma was rated X; SC:
sustained INC and held that MTRCB abused their discretion as there was no clear and present danger
that would happen if they are to be allowed to freely discuss their doctrine in comparison with another
religion
Soriano v Laguardia [Ang Dating Daan]- attacked INC and used profane language; right of MTRCB
to suspend the program as such is under MTRCB’s supervision; however MTRCB also suspended the
personality; SC: MTRCB does not have any authority over TV personalities who breached
professionalism as the stations discipline; MTRCB only exercises self- regulation by pressuring stations
to discipline personalities by suspending programs
ABS-CBN v COMELEC- question polls before and after the election; COMELEC ordered the
stoppage; SC: no violation because [no clear and present danger ]that it will affect the conduct of the
election thus valid exercise of freedom of expression; ordered COMELEC instead to enhance
mechanisms to ensure elections are honest and that voters are not brainwashed

freedom of assembly

by nature gregarious and social beings thus free to convene with countrymen in public places to converse on
issues of public concern
guarantees freedom from prior restraint, censorship, subsequent liability of organizers [guarantees organizers
are not liable for injuries of participants as long as not tumultuous]
permit for use of public place
 auspices- what determines the application to be granted is based on the identity of the organizers
purpose test
EXC: no permit needed
park is designated as freedom park
campus owned by the state university / college
private place [EDSA shrine]
rallyists invited students to go out of classrooms while teachers were discussing; converged in quadrangle;
organizers were identified and not allowed to enroll; SC: while schools have the academic freedom to
discipline for violation of rules, students don’t leave constitutional rights upon enrollment in the university and
this includes freedom of expression; as long as not tumultuous can freely exercise [even if makes
comments regarding the priests]; if tumultuous and there is a clear and present danger of a substantive evil to
happen then not the school but state’s duty to regulate or even punish
St. Jude- Ninoy supporters invoked freedom of religion alleging they wanted to hear mass; clear and
present danger because purpose was to rally in front of Malacañang thus can be regulated as the chapel is
adjacent to Malacañang thus wanted to enter under the guise of going to St. Jude
teachers rallied for salary increase; classes suspended; Secretary of Education ordered them to return to work;
they refused; DepEd ordered their dismissal; SC: not a violation of freedom of assembly as dismissal was due
to insubordination for failure to heed the lawful order of a superior to return; cannot exercise freedom
of assembly if it prejudices the students; freedom of association does not include freedom of assembly or
demonstration as the latter does not form a vital part

petition to govt for redress

right of the people: source of sovereignty thus can comply

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

non-establishment of religion
State has no religion and cannot impose nor prohibit any religion upon its citizens
[includes atheists]
State cannot use public funds to support any priest
EXC: Vatican is a State and the Pope is a head of that State thus visit of the Pope is primarily
a state, legislative, or secular visit and the religious benefit is only incidental
test:
purpose is purely secular- legislative; purpose is to welcome a Head of State
primary effect that neither advances nor inhibits religion; purpose was not to promote the
Catholic Church and the religious benefit was merely incidental
must not require excessive entanglement with the recipient institutions- does not make the
Church chummy with the Church just because the Church benefits from it
EX: Muslim employees asked SC to work only 10-3 to practice Ramadan; SC: purely religious purpose
to accommodate only Muslims; advances a religion thus violating equal protection
EXC: Holy Week- purpose is family reunion and tourism is promoted; religious benefit is only
incidental; everybody enjoys even atheists
EXC: Eid l fitr- secular due to preservation of culture not based on religion; prior to Christianization we
were Malays thus merely acknowledgment of culture
enforcement in government:
prohibition of use of public funds
prohibition against accreditation of party list representing a religious sector
LGBT not religious but their exclusion was based on the Bible; SC: violation of non-
establishment of religion cause as Bible has nothing to do with morality as a
qualification for accreditation as a party-list
establishing a religion violating
EXC: accommodations by the State
exemption from taxation properties actually, directly, and exclusively used for religious
purposes
ownership of educational institution by religious group or mission corps [even if all foreigners]
teaching of religion- optional with consent, no additional cost, taught during school hours by
 accredited religion teacher
use of public funds for priests working in military, penal institutions, government orphanage
and leprosarium
freedom of religion
freedom to believe: absolute
freedom to exercise belief: not absolute
as long as not violative of law, morals, good customs, public policy, pubic order
no clear and present danger of a substantive evil to happen then allowed to freely exercise
freedom of religion
Gerona v Secretary of Education- refuse to salute Phil flag; Jehovah witness do not
allow witnesses to salute the flag as it is considered a manifestation idolatry; SC: saluting flag
has no religious significance but expresses love of country through respecting flag which is a
representation; expulsion sustained
Ebralinag v Superintendent- Gerona case reversed; SC: who are we in the State to dictate
upon them how they should interpret their belief; must respect the beliefs of their religion; love
of country can be expressed in other forms; no threat to national security or danger of war; no
expulsion out of respect of religion
Estrada v Escritor- stenographer and judge; SC dismissed for being immoral; motion for
recommendation decision was reversed; Jehovah’s witnesses thus by religion can live together
or have a common law relationship and considered legal and binding as any commitment;
pledge of fidelity as cannot marry due to legal impediments; if legal impediments cease then
they must marry; morality is based on religion thus benevolent neutrality accommodation as
there is no compelling State interest prejudiced as there is no proof that it destroys family as an
institution
no religious test- in the exercise of one’s civil or political right; right to run is a political right thus
entitled regardless of religion
law: priests prohibited to prevent possibility of union between the Church and the
State; relationship between Church and State as the Church has a
concentrated influence within a municipality
Pamil v Teleron- priest ran and won but was disqualified; challenged constitutionality as
religion should not be used as a test; won the case because got the majority (8) but failed to
have the law declared unconstitutional (10) because 1973 Constitution; not considered strictly
a priest but a common citizen of the country
USC- private entity thus restriction does not apply; can require applicants to be Catholic
UP- State-owned

Section 6. [Liberty of Abode & Right to Travel] The liberty of abode and of changing the same within the limits
prescribed by law shall not be impaired except upon lawful order of the court. Neither shall the right to travel be
impaired except in the interest of national security, public safety, or public health, as may be provided by law.

Liberty of Abode

GR limitation: lawful order of the court

cannot prevent helper from returning home otherwise illegal detention; remedy is sue for civil for return
of salary plus damages
Ceunea v Salazar
Villavicencio v Lukban- Manila Mayor deporting prostitutes to Davao; prostittues did not want to live
in Davao as there is not business there thus petition for habeas corpus; SC: right to choose where to
reside
Creek near ayala- mayor ordered their evacuation due to rain; refused; mayor cannot compel because
only lawful order of the court; but State’s police power can compel

Right to Travel

GR limitation: national security, public safety, public health

 Salonga v Hermosa- Marcos prohibited Salonga to travel for health purposes and charged him with
rebellion to prevent travel clearance; subsequently revoked and issued travel certificate then
invoked defense of moot and academic; SC: should not impress upon the people that the right to
travel can be curtailed upon the whims and caprices of the administration
EX: hanging- prevent deployment of domestic workers for public safety
EX: public health administration agencies of the govt- DOH
EX: prevent judges from traveling to manage dockets of courts and prevent questions of integrity
(money-corruption)
EXC: lawful order of the court- hold departure when facing criminal charges and posting bail because such is
a guarantee to appear; warrant cannot be served if abroad as outside jurisdiction
right to travel does not include right to return to port of origin as it was not anticipated by the Constitution
Marcos v Manglapus: SC said there is a Declaration on Human Rights and covenant on civil
and political rights that guarantee that if you leave your country you can always return to country of
origin; since GAP of intl law automatically adopted as part of legal system)

Section 7. [Right to Information] The right of the people to information on matters of public concern shall be
recognized. Access to official records, and to documents and papers pertaining to official acts, transactions, or
decisions, as well as to government research data used as basis for policy development, shall be afforded the
citizen, subject to such limitations as may be provided by law.

right to information- absolute as long as matter of public concern thus ministerial upon the government to
make these information available subject only to such limitations as may be provided by law [includes govt
research data, decisions and other acts of the government]
SC defines at present information which should be made available [copy of SALN of govt employee
and officer is a matter of public concern]
EX: Legaspi v CSC- qualifications of an employee is a matter of public concern and knowledge is a
matter of right
EX: Valmonte v Belmonte- who incurred loans against GSIS is a matter of public concern; access is
not absolute- asked for GSIS to summarize
EX: Chavez v Public Estates Authority- on-going negotiations of the government as long as there
are definite propositions are matters of public concern; people should know even prior to
consummation as they will result to a loss of public funds
EXC: court records not confidential
EXC. adoption and minors- confidential and cannot be disclosed to the public
right to access: not absolute
limitations: office hours & copies at your own expense
EXC
national security matters
intelligence information
EXC. remedy: writ of habeas data for production of information no matter how confidential as
Court can order it to be disclosed and can be corrected or destroyed it if
patently untrue, misleading, offensive
EXC. violates right to life, liberty, property
trade secrets
banking transactions under Bank Secrecy Law
EXC: account is subject to litigate / impeachment
diplomatic correspondence
executive privilege
executive sessions in Congress
closed-door Cabinet meetings
SC deliberations
Section 8. [Right to Association] The right of the people, including those employed in the public and private
sectors, to form unions, associations, or societies for purposes not contrary to law shall not be abridged.

can make any association, union, or because by nature men are gregarious
legal personality [registration with SEC] is not an integral part of right to association thus not a
matter of right [association no guarantee of juridical personality thus property acquisition not
guaranteed]
association of foreigners: cannot acquire land for clubhouse because proscribed; not a
violation of right to association as it is not an integral part; can rent
engaging in strikes does not form an integral part thus no violation
EX. government employee: government salary or terms of employment not determined by association
but by availability of funds determined by Congress thus can make union as long as no strikes or
concerted activities [against public interest and salary fixed by law anyway]
EX. managers: no longer prohibited thus can form but no strikes or concerted acts because of conflict
of interest; prohibited before because supposed to represent the company
EXC. security guards: no union because armed; especially to negotiate terms of employment
EXC. teachers striking can be ordered terminated for insubordination for failure to return to work after
being ordered to do so as it affects public interest
includes right not to be compelled to be a member of an association or union
EXC. Lex Circle: not the government; has a choice to join or not; benefitted from dues thus pay for the
privileges; but not forced to join activities
EXC. Homeowner’s Association: not government; compelled because stated in title of property; free
not to join by not buying
EXC. In Re: Edillon- compelled to pay IBP dues as required by pleadings otherwise mere scrap of
paper; SC: legal profession is dangerous thus must be regulated; organization formed to supervise
lawyers and it is directly accountable to SC as it is better equipped as it knows the members; justified
by police power; dangerous if people lose their trust in lawyers and eventually the courts

Section 10. [Non-impairment of Contracts] No law impairing the obligation of contracts shall be passed.

Congress and courts should not pass laws impairing obligations and contracts; cannot intrude as contracts
are sacred between parties as long as not violative of law, morals, good customs, public policy and public
order
invalid order for courts or delegates to change the terms and conditions of existing contracts or
agreements the mode of payment of agreement since agreements are the governing law of the parties which
should be respected
courts cannot change mode of payment- order is unconstitutional as it changes the agreement from
sale to barter; as long as such is the agreement it should be respected
mortgage / redemption case- previously 1 year but law amended to 3 months only from registration
of foreclosure sale with Registry of Deeds; when the mortgage was foreclosed the applicable law was
the old law; applying the new law would mean redemption period expired; qualification!! law is
constitutional if not applied retroactively
GR: any contract entered into cannot be changed or modified by a law that may be passed by Congress
thereafter; Congress is not prohibited from passing a law that may change or repeal the law applicable under
which the agreement was entered into as long as the subsequent law is not applied retroactively
EXC: [can impair]
marriage contracts: not an ordinary contract as the State always has an interest in the social
institution being the basis of the family and therefore is subject to the protection or interference of
State by law; not the contract contemplated under the non-impairment clause; can be retroactive if
favorable
law on marriage with prescription periods proposed: law can be retroactively applied to
existing marriages
licenses and permits granted: state revokes before expiration valid as while an agreement with
government they are mere privileges; not property nor property rights subject to a contract thus can be
revoked anytime by the State through police power
elected position in the govt; public office: dismissed from service in Office of Ombudsman before
expiry; no violation as the office which is the subject of the covenant is not a property right but a public
trust and cannot be the subject of a contract therefore not protected under the non-impairment clause
 tax law executed subsequent to execution of contract: contract to supply table for P100; Congress
passed law increasing sales tax in production of tables; supplier increases price to P150 to shift
burden to buyer; buyer then shifts to customer; change in contract but applicable although contrary
since there is no change in rights and obligations; must pay sales tax; customer who ultimately paid
for the tax cannot complain because not a party to the contract between manufacturer and
buyer (table); no law shall be passed impairing changing the conditions and terms of the agreement of
the parties only when it affects the obligations and rights of the parties under the contracts (that
is what is prohibited)
usurious tax: unconscionable thus contrary to law, morals, public policy thus void; violative thus not a
violation of non-impairment
police power to cure existing evil: even if it changes the agreement that law will always prevail over
any contract
leasehold tenancy: agreement before that any produce would be divided between the
landowner and tenant 60-40 in favor of the land owner; Congress passed a law 60-40 in favor
of tenants; can be applied retroactively even if it changes the agreement as law valid since it
was passed to cure injustice against tenant
procedural laws: Congress may pass as long as no substantive rights affected thus can be applied
retroactively; no violation of non-impairment; Rule of Procedure and Rules of Court can be amended
and applied to proceedings already started before the change without violating non-impairment as
long as they do not prejudice the rights of the parties
eminent domain: State expropriated land subject to a lease; eminent domain is superior to non-
impairment; without prejudice to demand for payment of just compensation and incidental damages to
lessee for loss of the period, and to the lessor for loss of rentals
taxation: VAT; agreement was to build structure and contract had no taxes; VAT applied to contract
retroactively; contractor had to pay; client doesn’t pay because not anticipated thus cannot be
compelled to pay the tax; contractor is to absorb the tax; SC held that while it may change the
contract and affects the rights of the contractor, taxation is superior as it is the lifeblood of the
government to enable it to operative; thus can be applied retroactively as taxation prevails over non-
impairment
EXC. onerous taxation- grant of exemption for valuable consideration; onerous tax exemption
partakes of the nature of the contract thus cannot be changed by subsequent law such as
repealing, withdrawing or revoking the law that granted the exemption
waiver stipulated in the contract: “unless otherwise provided by law”; contract can be changed by
subsequent law even if contrary to what has been agreed upon; law is applicable to contracts
executed prior to increase because of agreement due to waiver
public utilities: franchise to operate or engage in such business (for 25 year renewable for another
25) is a contract; can be revoked as no less than the Constitution made a reservation when the public
welfare so requires subject to repeal, amendment and alterations ? (communication, transportation,
water, electricity)
[Jag v NLRC] Rizalde case: closed shop agreements with private company as employer; union which
is effective only if they can enter into agreements with the company to get benefits; company only
recognized one union; if certain benefits are obtained through collective bargaining agreement by
union then logically only members can enjoy but if cannot join because of religion then it violated
freedom of religion (Iglesia Ni Cristo) as it violates free exercise; Congress passed a law exempting
them from closed shop agreement; despite complaint by union as they do not pay union fees SC held
that this is an exemption thus freedom of religion is superior to non-impairment; unprecedented
because not the usual conflict

Section 18. No person shall be detained solely by reason of his political beliefs and aspirations. No involuntary
servitude in any form shall exist except as a punishment for a crime whereof the party shall have been duly
convicted.

Involuntary Servitude

should not exist in any form thus cannot be compelled to render service against will or without
consent [including debts paid through service thus cannot be compelled because of debt even if there is a
contract; remedy is sue for breach of contract -> damages]
 EXC:
forced labor for punishment of a crime
patria protestas for discipline of a child under parental authority
service in defense of state
force commitatus for able-bodied citizens of the community to render service for the community
naval enlistment / merchant vessel -> cannot abandon ship during transit; nature of employment
includes the duty to bring back vessel to point of origin; abandoning crew constitutes mutiny thus
cannot invoke right against involuntary servitude
OJT as SC compels before graduation; not violative as enrolled + knew of requirement = consent
NLRC can order striking teachers to return to work as it affects public interest and failure to heed order
constitutes insubordination and can be ordered terminated

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

GR: contractual obligations- guilt arose from civil contract resulting in a civil obligation thus the liability
is civil
reason: humanitarian reasons not to be jailed for a debt you cannot anymore pay [because in jail
because duh]
not only a guarantee under the Constitution but the Declaration of Human Rights as well
EX: subsidiary imprisonment for failure to pay civil liability of damages
EX: rentals unpaid then ran away- boarding house: obligation arising from contract thus only collection
of sum of money
EX: rentals unpaid but did not leave- boarding house: ejectment + damages
EX: community tax unpaid: cannot be imprisoned
EXC:
fines imposed by the state
subsidiary liability: consequence of inability to pay fine arising from a crime
commission of a crime
civil liability arising from the commission of a crime
post-dated check bounced: BP22 violation- fined double the amount of the check
deceit or fraud in the issuance of checks: estafa
rentals unpaid- pension house or hotel: estafa + damages; presumed to be able to pay
community tax underpaid / income understated: perjury because supposed to declare gross income
4- Rights of the Accused

Section 11. [Rights of the Suspect: Access to Courts] Free access to the courts and quasi-judicial bodies and
adequate legal assistance shall not be denied to any person by reason of poverty.

Constitution guarantees one of rights from moment of arrest to time of conviction and even appeal to put one
in equal footing with the State who has the power to take away rights: police or law enforcer representing the
State makes the arrest; then brought to the fiscal’s office, also representing the State, for the inquest or the
preliminary investigation to determine whether there is probable cause for the filing of a case; judge, still
representing the State, determines guilt or innocence
rights of the accused before a criminal prosecution
rights of the accused during a criminal prosecution
access to courts: poverty should not be an excuse to deny one of justice
Public Attorney’s Office: to assist to any party in a criminal, civil or custodial investigation case;
extension of free legal services
pauper litigant privilege: after declaration by the court then exempt from all court fees, filing
fees, stenographic notes fees
IBP pro bono service: deserving poor litigants
association of lawyers rendering free legal services
substantive due process
cannot be made to answer if there is no law punishing the act no matter how evil or immoral

Section 12. [Rights of the Suspect: Custodial Rights; Procedural Due Process]

(1) Any person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have the right to be informed of his
right to remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel preferably of his own choice. If the
person cannot afford the services of counsel, he must be provided with one. These rights cannot be waived
except in writing and in the presence of counsel.

custodial rights of a suspect in a custodial investigation derived from Miranda v Arizona; to protect one from
being abused or violation of his rights by law enforcers
custodial investigation: investigation conducted by a law enforcer immediately after the arrest of a
suspect depriving him of his liberty in any significant way
usually without a warrant because a suspect was caught in the act of committing a crime
“invited” to the police station for questioning (RA 7438)
law enforcer: policemen, CIDG, PNP, brgy tanods (agent of a person in authority)
Miranda v Arizona- got away with murder as his confession was excluded on appeal and there was no
other evidence linking him to the crime charged thus acquitted
People v Lauga- bantay bayan or auxiliary police in the barangay with the same tasks, duties
and responsibilities of a barangay police; rapist confessed to bantay bayan after apprehension that he
raped his neighbor; bantay bayan testified but did not inform him of his rights and the accused was
not assisted by counsel when he confessed; SC: there was a custodial investigation as bantay
bayan is likened to a barangay tanod therefore law enforcer and as such he should have
informed the accused of his custodial rights; confession is inadmissible as evidence and cannot
be considered extra-judicial investigation as it was made to a law enforcer
man goes to precinct and confesses to crime: confession admissible as there was no custodial
investigation there being no arrest; confession was voluntary and spontaneous therefore
can hardly be considered as an investigation being conducted by the desk officer
suspect arrested and presented: to president who then presented the same to the media;
suspect confessed to media; no custodial investigation as although he was arrested he was not
being investigated by a law enforcer when he made the confession as the media is not law
enforcement thus admissible in evidence as extra-judicial confession
police lineup without counsel: admissible because although he was arrested he was not yet being
investigated as merely placed in police lineup for identification by the
witness mere exploratory investigation thus custodial investigation had not yet begun and he is
not yet entitled to the custodial rights as guaranteed by the Constitution; standing is a
mechanical act wherein intelligence and free will are not required
EXC: lines up alone: custodial investigation started and identification inadmissible because the
accused is not assisted by counsel
 arrested and identified in HK for drug trafficking: representative of the Philippines went to
HK; confession to NBI agent inadmissible; there was custodial investigation as he was arrested or
deprived of freedom in a significant way and was investigated by a law enforcer the NBI; was
not accorded custodial rights thus inadmissible regardless of where he is he is entitled to rights
as a citizen when subject to investigation conducted by law enforcer; depriving is a violation of the
Constitution
right to remain silent- to prevent self-incrimination as one cannot be compelled to be a witness against himself
GR: testimonial compulsion prohibited; not limited to verbal answers but also being asked to
perform an act which may be used against you
EX: provide handwriting sample: cannot be compelled thus may refuse and invoke right to
remain silent
EX: re-enact the crime: cannot be compelled
EX: signing arrest booking or inventory receipt: self-incriminating thus must be informed of
Miranda rights
EXC: put foot on foot print: SC said mechanical act thus can be compelled
EXC: sample of hair, blood, saliva, sperm for DNA testing: present jurisprudence the
prevailing principle is that providing these samples are mechanical acts thus can be
compelled
EXC: photograph for mugshots, height, weight- physical examination to compare with witness’
description; mechanical act as these are constants thus body is now the object evidence;
can be compelled and is admissible
EXC: fluorescent powder, gunpowder testing: result admissible; SC: mechanical as no
intelligence or free will needed thus can be compelled to submit hands to testing and
evidence is admissible
EXC: accused asked to remove clothes and re-wear: victim noticed manner;
while incriminating it is mechanical thus accused can be compelled and it is admissible
EXC: thief swallowed necklace, police compelled him to vomit: used as evidence; SC:
admissible because mechanical act to vomit
EXC: urine test to determine filiation of child: husband came home from abroad
after knowledge of wife’s pregnancy; SC: wife can be compelled to give urine and results
are admissible since peeing is a mechanical act; inclusive search but can still be compelled
by court; court to determine between right to privacy and conduct of investigation
EXC: voluntarily offers truth free from duress
free, voluntary, intelligently
in writing
in presence of lawyer
under oath
EXC: waived under oath subscribed and sworn to by a lawyer, in the presence of lawyer, relative,
parish priest, principal, superintendent, person of good standing in community [someone who can
attest that the confession or admission was made voluntarily free from any force, intimidation, duress]

(2) No torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation, or any other means which vitiate the free will shall be used
against him. Secret detention places, solitary, incommunicado, or other similar forms of detention are
prohibited.

subjects are entitled to compensation and rehabilitation

violators can be held administratively, civilly and criminally liable

(3) Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this or Section 17 hereof shall be inadmissible in
evidence against him.

COA auditor conducts examination: COA auditor locked office and started questioning treasurer who
then admitted to using money for personal benefit; although not arrested the treasurer was deprived of
freedom of action; no custodial investigation because not conducted by law enforcer mere investigation
by administrative office thus admissible even if not informed or afforded custodial rights
policeman’s wife caught in bed with another man; policeman husband interrogated wife who admitted;
not arrested but deprived of freedom of action; interrogated in personal capacity [res gestae] as a
husband and being a policeman only incidental; no custodial investigation thus admissible
(4) The law shall provide for penal and civil sanctions for violations of this section as well as compensation to
and rehabilitation of victims of torture or similar practices, and their families.

Section 13. [Right to Bail] All persons, except those charged with offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua
when evidence of guilt is strong, shall, before conviction, be bailable by sufficient sureties, or be released on
recognizance as may be provided by law. The right to bail shall not be impaired even when the privilege of the
writ of habeas corpus is suspended. Excessive bail shall not be required.

application for bail or to petition the court for bail: suspect detained or deprived of liberty
case has not yet been filed but subjected to preliminary investigation: can already demand right to bail
as only requirement is that one is detained
bail is a guarantee of appearance in court whenever required
GR: only available in criminal proceedings
less than 6y imprisonment: matter of right before and after conviction [appeal] because penalty
is not serious thus allowed regardless of number of times bail jumped; increase amount of bail but
can never deny
more than 6y imprisonment
capital offenses [more than 20y1d]: RP-death / LI-death
before conviction: discretionary as one of the requisites to be determined by
the courts [mandatory even if fiscal recommends no bail] is whether or not the
evidence [before conviction] of guilt to the charge is strong thus hearing
is necessary [apply for bail otherwise deemed waived]
strong [murder]: denied, discretion removed
convicted [not of murder but of homicide]: bail still denied during
pendency of appeal of homicide conviction because charge is still
murder [appeal opens case to new trial and appellee court may go back to
original charge of murder] and evidence of guilt is not only strong but
beyond reasonable doubt
minor charged with murder: privileged thus imposable penalty only PM-RT
before conviction: matter of right
convicted: discretionary
convicted penalty more than 6y attended by habitual delinquency,
recidivism, etc: denied and discretion removed
non-capital [less than 20y1d]
before conviction [homicide]: matter of right even if evidence of guilt is strong
convicted then appeal: discretionary on the court whether or not to allow temporary
liberty during pendency under the same bail bond
attended by habitual delinquency, recidivism, or past records of evading sentence, violating
conditions of probation, jumped bail, flight risk: denied bail, discretion of courts removed
EXC:
deportation [administrative] and extradition [diplomatic]- not a matter of right
EXC: humanitarian reasons- discretion of deportation court may allow posting of bail
through clear and convincing evidence [esp when country of origin refuses his return]
not a flight risk
abide by rules of deportation court
not violate the laws of the country wherein he is found
Culanilla case- SC: while extradition proceedings are not criminal in nature the fact
remains that the accused is detained to prevent fleeing to another country that does
not have extradition treaty with the requesting country may be allowed to post bail
military proceedings: not criminal regardless of charge; considering the hierarchy where there is
camaraderie as well as the fact that they are armed may intimidate witnesses; detained while
being investigated
guaranty for provisional or temporary liberty
bail bonds
cash: fixed in information as recommended by the fiscal and determined by
the court; includes coins in piggy bank but not checks, manager’s checks
jump: money deposited forfeited in favor of the government otherwise returned upon
termination of the case with finality
property: real estate [of accused or friends] by bringing title or tax dec with annotation that
 the property is subject to the bail [to Clerk of Court]
jump: property forfeited in favor of the government otherwise annotations cancelled
upon termination with finality
surety: insurance that one will appear in court when required; pays for guarantee by way of
premiums [one-time payment]
jump: surety to produce the body otherwise pay the amount of bail [not including
premium]
recognizance: last resort; mere promise by a respectable member of community that he accused
be released to him on recognizance while the case is being heard and he is to act as jailer or warden
of the accused
minor offenses [not serious]
minor offender [to parents or DSWD]
convicted but pending probation application [to anyone who can guarantee during
pendency]
amount of bail [fiscal recommends but ultimately Court determines]
not excessive
financial capacity
nature of the offense charged
imposable penalty [1 year =P 20,000]
state of health
age
Ponce Enrile- plunder is non-bailable; SC: considered age and state of health
Hecleo- testimony from expert on heart condition claiming he is a walking bomb thus allowed to post
bail for humanitarian reasons
criminal investigation: custodial investigation -> police brings suspect to fiscal’s office for inquest proceedings
/ PI [period allowable for detention expiring thus court allows fiscal determination based on evidence of
plaintiff] -> 10 days within which to submit counter-affidavit
PI: granted by a statute not the Constitution
less than 4y2m1d: not a matter of right and can be denied without violating due process
4y2m1d or higher: matter of right thus mandatory and denial violates due process
People v Go- charged with the shooting of a student; demanded that the case be remanded to
the fiscal’s office for a PI; denied by the court; SC: reversed and ordered the conduct of a
PI because it is a matter of right of a person charged with an offense punishable by
more than 4y2m
Tatad v Sandiganbayan- delay in conduct of PI for more than 3 years violative of due process of
law of the accused and is a ground for dismissal of case
Garcia v Sandiganbayan- Sandiganbayan dismissed the case because it took the Ombudsman 6yrs to
conduct the PI and finally file the case; violated the right to speedy disposition and right of due
process of law under the Constitution
no cross-examination of witness because should be speedy; after all there is still cross-
examination if the case is filed in court

Section 14. [Rights During Criminal Prosecution]

(1) No person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense without due process of law.

(2) In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved, and shall
enjoy the right to be heard by himself and counsel, to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation
against him, to have a speedy, impartial, and public trial, to meet the witnesses face to face, and to have
compulsory process to secure the attendance of witnesses and the production of evidence in his behalf.
However, after arraignment, trial may proceed notwithstanding the absence of the accused provided that he
has been duly notified and his failure to appear is unjustifiable.

presumption of innocence

burden of proof lies with the prosecution

conviction of the accused does not lie on weakness of defense but strength of evidence of prosecution thus if
case is equally weak then case is to be decided in favor of presumption of evidence
cannot be convicted on prima facie evidence must be proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt [beyond the
point of moral certainty]
 equipoise rule: where the evidence in a criminal case is evenly balanced, the constitutional, presumption of
innocence tilts the scales in favor of the accused; where the inculpatory facts and circumstances are
capable of two or more explanations, one of which is consistent with the innocence of the accused and the
other consistent with his guilt, then the evidence does not fulfill the test of moral certainty and is not sufficient
to support a conviction

presumptions of law [guilt] v presumption of innocence

Anti-Fencing Law- SC: as long as there is a logical connection resulting to the fact that is ultimately
proven there is no violation of the presumption of innocence as it merely shifts burden of proof from
prosecution to accused thus if he can explain possession in the ordinary course of human
experience he overcomes the burden which then shifts back to innocence; prosecution must
then prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt
presumption of regularity in performance of duty- innocence > regularity; one cannot rely on such
presumption on order to convict the accused; must prove that he did witness the commission of
the crime

right to be informed of the nature and the cause of the accusations against him

right to know the charges upon reading of the information to him- liability or responsibility of the accused
does not depend on the title but on the allegations in the body of the information
charged with murder but none of the qualifying circumstances were alleged then cannot be convicted
of murder even if aggravating circumstances proven during trial
victim died of stabbing but during trial it was proven that death was through shooting- accused cannot
be convicted of the stabbing as alleged in the information as it would violate his right to be informed
thus can only be acquitted
victim is a minor but not alleged in the information- cannot be qualified even if one obtains a birth
certificate in the course of the trial as prosecution failed to inform him of the nature and cause of
the accusations against him
remedy: amend information before arraignment
test: when the change of the information will also change the theory of defense on the part of
the accused then there is violation of the right to be informed of the nature and causes of the accusations
against him

right to be heard by himself and by counsel

every stage [arraignment of the accused - promulgation of sentence]- right to be present and to be assisted by
competent and effective lawyer
arraignment: presence indispensable and assistance by lawyer mandatory and cannot be waived
thus if one cannot afford the judge is obliged to appoint a counsel de officio to assist during the
arraignment otherwise the arraignment is void and subsequent proceedings likewise invalid
trial: if one cannot attend then application for postponement should be granted as long as
justifiable as it is a right to be present in every stage of the trial of one’s case
lawyer abandons for failure to pay: Court not obliged to appoint a counsel de officio as
they are only obliged to do so during arraignment
People v Larrañaga- two accused assisted by PAO the rest assisted by private counsels;
wanted to postpone presentation of evidence thus they dismissed their lawyer and demanded
time to seek new representation; court denied the resetting of the presentation and appointed
PAO lawyers which they refused; court considered them to have waived assistance of
counsel and all convicted; no denial of due process
sentencing: right to be informed of the date, time, and place of the promulgation of sentence
conviction: has the right to be present and be assisted thus postpone if cannot attend due
to justifiable reasons
reason: if convicted then he has only 15 days from promulgation of judgment within
which to file his appeal unlike in civil cases where it is reckoned from receipt of
decision
acquittal: can be ex parte as accused will not be prejudiced by the promulgation
conviction of light penalty: sufficient that lawyer is around thus can be promulgated even
in the absence of accused
appeal: presence of accused not mandatory because usually no trial as the court will
 decide the case based on the pleadings submitted by the parties; however assistance of
lawyer is still guaranteed
unjustifiable non-appearance: can be ex parte

speedy, impartial and public trial

speedy [conduct of trial during presentation of evidence in criminal cases]

no hard and fast rule as it depends on the circumstances
does not prohibit reasonable postponements; prohibits whimsical, capricious and
unreasonable postponements that would only delay proceedings;
only in criminal proceedings and if the court finds the postponement is unreasonable
then can grant motion to dismiss; case can no longer be reinstated after dismissal due to
double jeopardy
public trial: not synonymous with publicized trial as broadcasts may be contemptuous as
they might influence the court in deciding the case and the accused may be exposed to the bar of
public opinion; violative of due process
EXC: evidence to be adduced is offensive to public decency or public morals [rape]
EXC: involves minors
Estrada v Perez- prohibition of the broadcasting of the conduct of
the preliminary investigation; SC also rejected broadcasting of plunder case
Maguindanao- SC allowed broadcasting of proceedings as it was a special case [number
of victims, number of accused, family residing outside Manila who could not attend for
financial reasons, courtroom insufficient to accommodate those who can attend]; Ampatuans
filed a motion for reconsideration which was granted thus reverted back to Estrada ruling
where broadcasting of trial proceedings is prohibited

face to face confrontation

right of accused to cross examine all witnesses of prosecution

test veracity of testimony and for the court to observe the behavior of the witnesses while
testifying
no document or testimony shall be admitted in evidence unless the persons who
prepared the documents are presented for cross-examination otherwise testimony
inadmissible and to be expunged from the records for violating right to face to face
confrontation of witnesses
EXC: unjustifiable non-appearance of accused- failure to cross not attributable to prosecution as
accused failed to cross; testimony admissible even if not cross-examined [jumps bail or escaped]
EXC: accused had the opportunity to cross but asked for postponement and witness was then
unavailable
EXC: dying declaration- person who made the declaration can no longer be crossed but the witness
may be subject of cross-examination
EXC: minor- no physical face to face confrontation to protect the child; video-taking where the child
testifies and answers questions of the lawyer of the accused coursed through the judge
EXC: document/affidavit but witness unavailable during trial- admissible

compulsory processes

compel presentation of witnesses [if not willing to testify] or submission of evidence, object, or
documents to the court
subpoena duces tecum: compel a witness to submit document and testify thereon
subpoena ad testificandum: compel a witness to testify
witness cannot refuse to take the stand -> contempt and if convicted can be arrested and
detained until cooperation agreed
self-incrimination -> cannot refuse to take stand; can only refuse to answer incriminating
questions if asked
immunity [to compel one to testify even if self-incriminating]
transactional: state witness; absolute immunity and compelled testimony or evidence cannot
be used in all other future cases that may be filed against him
 use and fruit: limited; applies only to case wherein he is compelled to testify or compelled to
produce the evidence; in other cases in relation to compelled testimony he may still be
prosecuted
trial in absencia: proceed with trial based on evidence of prosecution even in absence of accused
must have been arraigned: for court to acquire jurisdiction otherwise archive subject to
reinstatement upon apprehension so that it will not prescribe [can never proceed with trial if
accused has not been arrested yet and arraigned]
notified and absence is unjustifiable

Section 16. [Right to Speedy Disposition of Cases] All persons shall have the right to a speedy disposition of
their cases before all judicial, quasi-judicial, or administrative bodies.

all cases once submitted for decision

lower courts: 3 months
CA: 12 months
SC: 18 months
right of all persons insofar as access to judicial, quasi-judicial, or administrative bodies

Section 17. No person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.

invocable in all cases [crim, civil, admin] and all government investigations including legislative
inquiries and impeachment
civil
ordinary witness: cannot refuse to take stand; can only refuse when to answer when asked self-
incriminating questions; invoke right only when asked
hostile witness: treated like ordinary witness thus cannot refuse to take stand
criminal / administrative: involves deprivation of rights as punishment or loss of property [fine]
GR: compulsory testimony prohibited thus cannot be compelled to take the stand to testify
against himself; accused cannot be compelled to take the stand from the very start and can invoke
right before taking the stand
not limited to answering queries; includes acts which are communicative in nature [re-enact,
sample of handwriting]
EXC: mechanical acts: can be compelled even if incriminating
EXC: body is the object evidence: can be compelled [no self-incrimination and no violation of
privacy as there is a court order]
EXC: volunteers truth

Section 19. [Cruel Punishment]

(1) Excessive fines shall not be imposed, nor cruel, degrading or inhuman punishment inflicted. Neither shall the
death penalty be imposed, unless, for compelling reasons involving heinous crimes, the Congress hereafter
provides for it. Any death penalty already imposed shall be reduced to reclusion perpetua.

(2) The employment of physical, psychological, or degrading punishment against any prisoner or detainee or
the use of substandard or inadequate penal facilities under subhuman conditions shall be dealt with by law.

inhuman, degrading and cruel punishment: torturing the convict before execution or punishment or it
involves a lingering suffering on the part of the person
1987 Constitution: suspended implementation of death penalty but the provision in the Constitution makes
a reservation "unless for compelling reasons, Congress may impose death penalty for heinous crimes";
Congress passed Anti-Heinous Crimes enumerating the crimes where death penalty is imposed;
dispositive portion of decisions “because of the suspension of the penalty of death it is automatically
commuted to RP”
PP v Echiggerei: first and last person ever to have been the sample of death penalty; SC: imposition of
death penalty not a violation of the Constitution as it is not cruel, inhuman or degrading as it is the most
humane way to take the life of the convict
Section 21. No person shall be twice put in jeopardy of punishment for the same offense. If an act is punished
by a law and an ordinance, conviction or acquittal under either shall constitute a bar to another prosecution for
the same act.

kinds
cannot be exposed to being tried or punished for the same offense
when an act or omission is punished by statute and ordinance: if already prosecuted under
either cannot be prosecuted under the other
requisites: can ask for dismissal of all other related cases for constituting double jeopardy proscribed under
Sec 21
there must be a first jeopardy
complaint of information must be valid [charges a crime]
refiling after quashal: valid case as one cannot tried or punished based on a
defective information thus no first jeopardy
must have had jurisdiction
refiled in RTC homicide case initially filed in MTC: valid as there was never a first
jeopardy since never exposed to being tried or punished as the MTC does
not have jurisdiction; RTC filing as if the first
must have been arraigned and entered valid plea
plea bargained offense to lower penalty penalty: prior complainant objects; court
sentenced to serious physical injuries instead of homicide; prior complainant appeals;
no double jeopardy because plea entered into by the accused was not valid as it
was without the consent of the prior complainant [valid plea: consent of counsel
and complainant otherwise as if no plea then no first jeopardy]
accused pleaded guilty to homicide, present evidence for mitigating: presented
evidence for exempting [self-defense] thus acquitted without giving prosecution
chance to rebut; SC: when he presented exempting circumstances he impliedly
withdrew plea of guilty due to inconsistency because cannot be guilty if
exempted; no other plea was entered thereafter; no plea thus no first jeopardy;
court should have re-arrainged prosecution was practically deprived of due
process; exception to general rule that acquittal cannot be appealed
first jeopardy must be terminated
acquittal: if valid [whether the judgment is right or wrong there can be no appeal as long as no
patent abuse of discretion]
Webb case: SC: to give due course to motion of reconsideration, as SC is court of last
resort , subjects all accused to double jeopardy by reviewing the case again
accused discharged as state witness: tantamount to acquittal as he can no longer
be reinstated as an accused after he testifies
EXC: did not cooperate after discharge
conviction
prosecution cannot appeal: because double jeopardy
accused can appeal: waives right against double jeopardy allowing himself to be
charged again; prosecution can also now appeal; other accused if several will not
be affected as they did not appeal thus they should not be prejudiced by any increase
in penalty otherwise subjecting them to double jeopardy [People v Larrañaga]
dismissal without the consent of accused [terminates the first jeopardy]
with consent then waiver of right against double jeopardy then complainant can
refile
more than 6y: 2 years to refile
less than 6y: 1 year to refile
vehemently object provisional dismissal and invoke right to speedy trial
court grants motion to dismiss by accused then tantamount to acquittal
motion to dismiss tantamount to acquittal
right to speedy trial is violated: without consent
dismissed on merits: evidence of prosecution after it rests its case is insufficient to
prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt then case is dismissed
and cannot be reinstated-> accused to file a demurrer to evidence on the ground
of insufficiency of evidence of prosecution
double jeopardy; identical case
identical: evidence that is required to prove is the same; arose from the same facts
 or circumstances
one offense is merely an attempt or frustration of the other [cannot
charge according to stage]
one offense necessarily includes or is necessarily included by the other
EX: slight physical injuries in homicide, acts of lasciviousness in rape
EXC: supervening event transforming slight physical injuries into homicide if
victim dies due to injuries he sustained-> prosecution could not have
anticipated death thus can file after termination of first jeopardy; amend
information and rearraign
EX: victim dies during pendency then did not amend information: double
jeopardy if another case for homicide filed
EXC: prosecution did not know: rule on supervening event still applies
thus no double jeopardy
Disini Jr v DOJ Secretary- libel and Anti-Cyber Crime; SC: it will be double
jeopardy once tried under Cyber thus can no longer be tried under RPC;
pornography also punished under Cyber Crime Law thus if charged under
Cyber Crime cannot be charged under Anti-Pornography
not identical [although may arise from the same facts and circumstances]
bouncing check [mere issuance] and estafa [deceit and fraud]
can file as many cases
EX: estafa and BP22- not identical
EXC: malversation, plunder, and falsification- difference in amount; if convicted of least serious offense
other cases are subject to double jeopardy

Section 22. No ex post facto law or bill of attainder shall be enacted.

ex post facto
punished for an act not punishable when committed; law applied retroactively
punishes
aggravates the crime
increases penalty
removes a protection [presumption of guilt]
requisites
must be criminal matter
applied retroactively
disadvantageous to accused (pre-judicial)
also applies to decisions of SC [prevailing principle which form part of the law]
cannot be retroactively applied to cases filed before the decision if disadvantageous to
the accused
bill of attainder
legislative enactment imposing penal sanction without judicial trial
Congress not only making laws but acting as judge and executioner
violates not only separation of powers but also due process