Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 160


Professor: Atty. Rene B. Gorospe

Source: Gorospe, Rene B. (2006). CONSTITUTIONAL LAW Notes and Readings on the Bill of Rights, Citizenship and Suffrage (Vol. 1 and 2).
Quezon City: Rex Printing Company, Inc.

Chapter 1
The Fundamental Powers and the Bill of Rights Police Power

The  Bill  of  Rights  is  a  “charter  of  liberties  for  the  individual  and   It   has   been   defined   as   the   ‘state   authority   to   enact   legislation  
a   limitation   upon   the   power   of   the   state.”   The   purpose   is   to   that may interfere with personal liberty or property in order to
protect the people against arbitrary and discriminatory use of promote  the  general  welfare’
political power.
It includes: (1) an imposition or restraint upon liberty or
Calalang v. Williams property, (2) in order to foster the common good
70 Phil. 726 (1940) Being what it is, police power cannot stand still. It also has to
adjust to the demands and realities of changing times
Commonwealth Act No. 548 prohibits animal-drawn vehicles from
passing along certain Manila streets during certain hours
It may be delegated to the (1) President and (2) administrative
Maximo Calalang assails its constitutionality on the ground that it boards as well as (3) the law-making body of municipal
is an unlawful interference with legitimate business or trade and corporations or local government units. Once delegated, the
abridge the right to personal liberty and freedom of locomotion agents can exercise only such legislative powers as are
conferred on them by the national lawmaking body
Held: No. It was passed in the exercise of the paramount police
power of the state Requisites -- lawful ends through lawful means
Persons and property may be subjected to all kinds of restraints
United States v. Toribio
and burdens, in order to secure the general comfort, health, and
15 Phil. 85 (1910)
prosperity of the state
Act No. 1147 regulates the registration, branding and slaughter of
Liberty should not be made to prevail over authority because then
large cattle. The provisions of the said law requires, before large
society will fall into anarchy. Neither should authority be made to
cattle may be slaughtered or killed for food at the municipal
prevail over liberty because then the individual will fall into
slaughterhouse, a permit be obtained from the Municipal

The Fundamental Powers Appellant was convicted of slaughtering an animal without the
requisite permit
They are inborn in the very fact of statehood and sovereignty.
They are necessary and indispensable as there can be no Appellant contends the constitutionality on the ground that it
effective government without them violates   the   provision   the   “no   law   shall     be   enacted   which   shall  
deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due
process  of  law”
They are all exercised primarily by the national legislature
Held:  No.   The   act   primarily   seeks  to   protect   the   “large   cattle”   of  
Police Power Eminent Domain Taxation the Philippine Islands against theft and to make easy the recovery
Maintenance of a Just Form of and return of such cattle to their proper owners, when lost,
healthy economic compensation for protection and strayed, or stolen
standard of society the property benefits from the
taken government All property is acquired and held under the tacit condition that it
shall not be so used as to injure the equal rights of others or
Regulates both Affects only greatly impair the public rights and interests of the community
liberty and property rights
property Rights of property are subject to such reasonable limitations in
May be exercised May be May be exercised their enjoyment as shall prevent them from being injurious xxx
only by the delegated to only by the
government some other government Confronted by such conditions, there can be no doubt of the right
entities in the of the Legislature to adopt reasonable measures for the
preservation of work animals, even to the extent of prohibiting
private sector
and penalizing what would, under ordinary conditions, be a
Property taken is Property taken is meant for public use perfectly legitimate and proper exercise of rights of ownership
destroyed or purpose and control of the private property of the citizen
Compensation not Receipt of market Immediate and
immediate; value of his apparent in the Police power v. Due process
sometimes leaving property that is form of
the reward to be taken protection and Due   process   is   the   “embodiment   of   the   sporting   idea   of   fair  
reaped through his benefits derived play.”   The   minimum   requirements   of   due   process   are   notice  
recognition that he from the use of and hearing which, generally speaking, may not be dispersed
has done taxes paid with because they are intended as a safeguard against official
something for the arbitrariness
public good
Previous judicial hearing, however, may be omitted without “The   drift   is   towards   social   welfare   legislation   geared   towards  
violation of due process in view of the nature of the property state policies to provide adequate social services, the
involved or the urgency of the need to protect the general promotion of the general welfare, social justice as well as
welfare from a clear and present danger human  dignity  and  respect  for  human  rights”

The protection of the general welfare is the particular function Police power is the power to prescribe regulations to promote
of the police power which both restrains and is restrained by health, morals, peace, education, good order or safety and
due process general welfare of the people

The justification is found in the venerable Latin maxims, Salus Police Power v. General Welfare Clause
populi est suprema lex and Sic utere tuo ut alienum non laedas,
which call for the subordination of individual interests to the Police power may be delegated to and exercised by local
benefit of the greater number government units through the so-called General Welfare Clause

Ynot v. IAC Villacorta v. Bernardo

148 SCRA 569 (1987) 143 SCRA 480 (1986)

EO 626-A prohibited the interprovincial transportation of carabao The Municipal Board of Dagupan City adopted Ordinance No. 22
(the  poor  man’s  tractor)  and  carabeef  and  subjected  carabao  and   seeking to regulate the subdivision plans over parcels of land
carabeef transported in violation of its provisions to confiscation located therein, which requires, among others, an approval from
and forfeiture, to be distributed to charitable institutions xxx the City Engineer and payment of a service fee and a certification
Whereas, the present conditions demand that the carabaos and from the City Engineer
buffaloes be conserved for the benefit of small farmers who rely
on them for energy needs An action was brought against its constitutionality

Six carabaos transported by Ynot in a pump boat from Masbate to Held: Yes. Ordinance No. 22 is null and void being in conflict with
Iloilo were confiscated by a police station commander of Barotac Section 44 of Act 496
Nuevo, Iloilo
So many excesses are attempted in the name of the police power
Held: Yes. We find that the challenged measure is an invalid xxx
exercise of the police power because the method employed to
conserve the carabaos is not reasonably necessary to the purpose Police Power v. Vices
of the law and, worse, is unduly oppressive. Due process is
violated because the owner of the property confiscated is denied
The power to tax (the power to destroy) cannot be allowed to
the right to be heard in his defense and is immediately
condemned and punished defeat an instrumentality or creation of the very entity which
has the inherent power to wield it
Police power is inherent in the state but not in municipal
corporations. A valid delegation of police power may arise from What is settled is that the matter of regulating, taxing or
express delegation, or be inferred from the mere fact of the otherwise dealing with gambling is a State concern and hence,
creation of the municipal corporation it is the sole prerogative of the State to retain it or delegate it
to local governments
Binay v. Domingo
201 SCRA 508 (1991) Basco v. PAGCOR
197 SCRA 52 (1991)
The Municipality of Makati approved Resolution No. 60 ratifying
the ongoing Burial Assistance Program, extending financial The PAGCOR was created by virtue of PD 1067-A (and PD 1869)
assistance coming from the municipal treasury to bereaved and  was  granted  a   franchise   “to   establish,   operate   and   maintain  
families with gross family income of less than P2,000.00 gambling casinos on land or water within the territorial
jurisdiction  of  the  Philippines”
The COA disapproved Resolution 60. It held that the resolution
cannot be sustained as a legitimate exercise of the police power Petitioners alleged that such law is   “null   and   void”   for   being  
due to a lack of perceptible connection or relation between the “contrary   to   morals,   public   policy   and   public   order”;   it   further  
objective sought to be attained and the alleged public safety, contends that its exemption from paying any tax is violative of the
general welfare, etc. of the inhabitants of Makati, and, that the principle of local autonomy (waiver of right of City of Manila to
disbursement of funds was not for a public purpose since it was impose tax)
for the benefit of only a few individuals and not the whole or
majority of the inhabitants of the Municipality Held: No. Gambling in all its forms, unless allowed by law, is
generally prohibited. But the prohibition of gambling does not
Held: Yes. The care for the poor is generally recognized as a public mean that the Government cannot regulate it in the exercise of its
duty. The support for the poor has long been an accepted exercise police power
of police power in the promotion of the common good. PAGCOR has a dual role, to operate and to regulate gambling
Resolution No. 60 is a paragon of the continuing program of our casinos. The latter role is governmental, which places it in the
government towards social justice category of an agency or instrumentality of the Government, thus,
exempt form local taxes
COA is not attuned to the changing of the times. Public purpose is
not unconstitutional merely because it incidentally benefits a Before: Tax Credit (Taxation & Eminent Domain exercised)
limited number of persons After: Tax Deduction (Taxation & Police Power exercised)

Eminent Domain

or self-preservation
It is an inherent power of the State that enables it to forcibly Entails payment of The property is precisely destroyed
acquire private lands intended for public use upon payment of just compensation as a way of promoting the greater
just compensation to the owner welfare of the populace who might
be endangered or otherwise placed
In times of national emergency, the government temporarily in  harm’s  way
takes over a public utility imbued with public interest pursuant Primarily exercised May be exercised by private
to Article XII, Section 17 of the Constitution, it exercises police by the government individuals
power and not its power of eminent domain. Accordingly the
private entity-owner cannot claim any just compensation for Taxation
the use of the said business and its properties
The power of the State to impose a charge or burden upon
The police power being the most active power of the person, property, or property rights, for the use and support of
government and the due process being the broadest limitation the government
on governmental power, the conflict between this power of
government and the due process of the Constitution is Taxation is a destructive power which interferes with the
oftentimes inevitable personal and property rights of the people and takes from them
a portion of their property for the support of the government.
City Government of QC v. Ericta Tax statutes must be construed strictly against the government
122 SCRA 759 (1983) and liberally in favor of the taxpayer
The Quezon City Council passed Ordinance No. 6118, S-64
regulating the establishment, maintenance and operation of Limitations on the Power to tax
private memorial type cemetery or burial ground. Section 9 of the
said ordinance required that at least 6% of the total area of every The rule of taxation shall be uniform and equitable. The
memorial park cemetery must be set aside for charity burial, Congress shall evolve a progressive system of tax
otherwise, such cemetery will be prohibited from selling memorial
park lots Uniformity means that persons or things of the same class shall
be taxed at the same rate. It requires that all subjects or objects
Himlayang Pilipino contends that Section 9 is not a valid exercise
of taxation, similarly situated, are to be treated alike or put on
of police power
equal footing both in privileges and liabilities
Held: Yes. The power to regulate does not include the power to Uniformity, however, is not equality, the latter term signifying
prohibit. A fortiori, the power to regulate does not include the that the taxes shall be strictly proportional to the relative value
power to confiscate of the taxable property

Section 9 is not a mere police regulation but an outright It is also an inherent limitation on the power to tax that the
confiscation. It deprives a person of his private property without proceeds be for public purpose. They could not be used for
due process of law, nay, even without compensation
purely private purposes xxx the real purpose of taxation is the
promotion of the common good
Expropriation requires payment of just compensation
Taxation is said to be equitable when its burden falls on those
This is a power that may be exercised by entities other than the
better able to pay. Taxation is progressive when its rate goes up
government itself or its subdivisions and instrumentalities. The
depending on the resources of the person affected
private corporations serving the public, such as public utilities,
may validly be delegated the power.
It is the strongest of all powers of government
xxx those engaged in the supply of electricity, water,
The taxing power has the authority to make a reasonable and
telecommunications services and some transportation firms
natural classification for purposes of taxation but the
whose services might require the acquisition of private
government’s  act  must  not  be prompted by a spirit of hostility,
property for the efficacious service to the public, may also be
or at the very least discrimination that finds no support in
vested with the power of expropriation
Before a municipal corporation may exercise its power of
Taxes are the lifeblood of the government and so should be
eminent domain, it must be sanctioned and must not violate
collected without unnecessary hindrance. However, such
any law
collection should be made in accordance with law xxx
Private lands, for purposes of socialized housing, rank last in the Reyes v. Almanzor
order of priority for acquisition, and expropriation proceedings 196 SCRA 322 (1991)
are to be resorted to only after the other modes of acquisition
have been exhausted Petitioners are owners of parcels of land in Manila which are
leased and occupied as dwelling sites by tenants. RA 6359 was
Eminent Domain v. Destruction by Necessity enacted prohibiting from increasing in monthly rentals of dwelling
units and also disallowing the ejectment of lessees upon the
expiration of the usual legal period (amended by PD 20).
Thereafter, City Assessor of Manila increased tax rates.
Connotes taking Speaks for itself--condemnation of a
for use property as a means of self-defense Petitioners  averred  that  the  reassessments  made  were  “excessive,  

unwarranted, inequitable,  confiscatory  and  unconstitutional” rights accruing to the owner in favor of the farmer-beneficiary, an
exercise of the power of eminent domain
Held: Yes. Public respondents would have this Court completely
ignore the effects of the restrictions of the said law on the market The power being exercised is eminent domain if the property
value of properties within its coverage involved is wholesome and intended for public use. Property
condemned under the police power is noxious or intended for a
Tax exemptions noxious purpose which should be destroyed in the interest of
public safety, morals, etc. The confiscation of such property is
xxx as broad as the power to tax not compensable, unlike the taking of property under the
power of expropriation, which requires the payment of just
Like any other power, it is one that may not be exercised compensation to the owner
arbitrarily or whimsically
The Bill of Rights
The  Constitution  declares  outright  that:  “Charitable  institutions,  
churches and parsonages or covenant appurtenant thereto, As a Check on Governmental Powers Only
mosques, non-profit cemeteries, and all lands, buildings, and
improvements, actually, directly, and exclusively used for It governs the relationship between the individual and the State
religious, charitable, or educational purposes shall be exempt and its agent. The Bill of Rights only tempers governmental
from  taxation” power and protects the individual against any aggression and
unwarranted interference by any department of the
No law granting any tax exemption shall be passed without the government and its agencies
concurrence of a majority of all the Members of the Congress
Partnership among Fundamental Powers In the absence of governmental interference, the liberties
guaranteed by the Constitution cannot be invoked against the
Ermita-Malate Hotel and Motel Operators Association, Inc.
State. It concerns not the relation between individuals,
v. City Mayor of Manila
20 SCRA 849 (1967)
between a private individual and other individuals. What the
Bill of Rights does is to declare some forbidden zones in the
The Municipal Board of the City of Manila enacted Ordinance No. private sphere inaccessible to any power holder
4670 regulating the operation of hotels and motels
People v. Marti
Petitioners sought to invalidate the ordinance 193 SCRA 57 (1991)

Held: No. The presumption is all in favor of validity xxx The local The appellant sought to have (4) gift -wrapped packages sent to a
legislative body, by enacting the ordinance, has in effect given friend in Zurich, Switzerland through services of a forwarding
notice that the regulations are essential to the well being of the company,   the   “Manila   Packing   and   Export   Forwarders.”   Upon  
people inspection of the box, dried leaves of marijuana were found in the
Negatively   put,   police   power   is   “that   inherent   and   plenary  
power in the State which enables it to prohibit all that is hurtful He questions the admissibility of the marijuana, contending that it
was a product of an illegal search and seizure
to the comfort, safety, and welfare of society
Held: No. The evidence sought to be excluded was primarily
There is no controlling and precise definition of due process. It discovered and obtained by a private person, acting in his private
furnishes though a standard to which governmental action capacity and without the intervention and participation of State
should conform in order that deprivation of life, liberty or authorities
property, in each appropriate case, be valid
As a Yardstick of Validity and the Standards of Review
Taxation  may  be  made  to  implement  the  state’s  police  power
As a counterweight to the great powers of the government, the
Bill of Rights would pose a constant standard of measurement
to determine the validity of any governmental act which may
The liberty of the citizen may be restrained in the interest of limit rights and liberties, or intrude into privacies of persons, or
the public health, or of the public order and safety, or otherwise impair their freedoms
otherwise within the proper scope of the police power
Determining whether there is sufficient justification for the
Association of Small Landowners of the Philippines government’s   action   depends   very   much   on   the   level   of  
v. Secretary of Agrarian Reform scrutiny or the standards of review used
175 SCRA 343 (1989)
Standards of review--the mere rationality deferential review
PD No. 27 was enacted to provide for the compulsory acquisition
of private lands for distribution among tenant-farmers (CARP)
standard, the middle-level review or intermediate review or
heightened scrutiny standard, and the strict scrutiny standard
The constitutionality of such law is challenged raising, among
others, issues of due process and just compensation Strict scrutiny--used today to test the validity of laws dealing
with the regulation of speech, gender, or race and facial
Held: No. The taking contemplated is not a mere limitation of the challenges are allowed for this purpose; for determining the
use of the land. What is required is the surrender of the title to quality and the amount of governmental interest brought to
and the physical possession of the said excess and all beneficial
justify the regulation of fundamental freedoms; focus is on the

presence of compelling, rather than substantial governmental limitations except treaty obligations that the revolutionary
interest and on the absence of less restrictive means for government, as the de jure government in the Philippines,
achieving that interest assumed under international law

We hold that the Bill of Rights under the 1973 Constitution was
Deferential review--laws are upheld if they rationally further a not operative during the interregnum. However, we rule that the
legitimate governmental interest, without the courts seriously protection accorded to individuals under the Covenant and the
inquiring into the substantiality of such interest and examining Declaration remained in effect during the interregnum
the alternative means by which the objectives could be
achieved; the substantiality of the governmental interests is xxx During the interregnum, a person could not invoke any
seriously looked into and the availability of less restrictive exclusionary right under a Bill of Rights because there was neither
alternatives are considered a constitution nor a Bill of Rights during the interregnum

To hold that the Bill of Rights xxx remained operative during the
Rational Basis Test has been described as adopting a interregnum would render void all sequestration orders issued by
“deferential”   attitude   towards   legislative   classifications;   it   the PCGG before the adoption of the Freedom Constitution
remains a primary standard for evaluating the constitutionality
of a statute Nevertheless, even during the interregnum the Filipino people
continued to enjoy, under the Covenant and the Declaration,
Strict scrutiny is applied when the challenged statute either (1) almost the same rights found in the Bill of Rights xxx
classifies on the basis of inherent suspect characteristic or (2)
Clearly the raiding team exceeded its authority when it seized
infringes fundamental constitutional rights, i.e. the right to
[such] items
procreation, the right to marry, free speech, etc
Political, Civil, Economic and Other Rights
Intermediate scrutiny or heightened scrutiny standard is
applied  when  the  challenged  statute’s  classification  is  based  on  
The Bill of Rights is basically about political and civil rights as
either (1) gender or (2) legitimacy; Intensified mean Test, in
contradistinguished from economic rights which are dealt with
which, the court should accept the legislative end, but should
in the constitutional provisions on the national economy and
closely scrutinize its relationship to the classification made
patrimony, as well as in the provisions on social justice and
human rights
What is important to bear in mind is this: To the extent that a
particular liberty interest is considered more important and
Human rights can be understood to include those that relate to
more valuable to society, to that extent must the courts utilize
an   individual’s   social, economic, cultural, political and civil
a more demanding and exacting standard with which to
relations; the universally accepted traits and attributes of an
measure that governmental intrusion protected spheres
individual, along with what is generally considered to be his
inherent and inalienable rights, encompassing almost all
The Bill of Rights and the 1986 Interregnum
aspects of life
Can the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Bill of Rights
What the law guarantees as human right in one country should
exist when there is no constitution?
be also guaranteed by law in all other countries
Republic v. Sandiganbayan
407 SCRA 10 (2003) “Right   which   inheres   in   persons   from   the   fact   of   their  
Major Gen. Josephus Q. Ramas, who was the Commanding
General of the Philippine Army, was investigated by the PCGG “Civil  rights”  refers  to  those  rights  that  belong  to  every  citizen  
through its AFP Anti-Graft Board for alleged ill-gotten and of the state or country including the rights of property,
unexplained wealth, after which the PCGG filed a complaint for marriage, equal protection of the law, freedom to contract, etc;
forfeiture under RA 1379 those rights appertaining to a person by virtue of his citizenship
in a state or community or the right of his being a member of
Elizabeth  Dimaano,   alleged  to   be   Ramas’   mistress,   was   also   later  
impleaded. The raiding team seized the items detailed in the society
seizure receipt together with other items not included in the
search warrant xxx “Political   rights”   are   said   to   refer   to   the   right   to   participate,  
directly or indirectly, in the establishment or administration of
The Sandiganbayan declared the properties confiscated xxx as government, the right to suffrage, the right to hold public
illegally seized and therefore inadmissible xxx office, etc
[The Republic] asserts that the revolutionary government
“Natural  rights”  are  those  rights  that  appertain  to  man  in  right  
effectively withheld the operation of the 1973 Constitution which
guaranteed  private  respondents’  exclusionary  right of his existence, i.e. the rights to freedom of thought, to
freedom of religious belief, etc
WON the revolutionary government was bound by the Bill of
Rights of the 1973 Constitution during the interregnum xxx; WON American Bill of Rights -- The First Ten Amendments
the protection accorded to the individuals under the xxx
(“Covenant”)   and   the   xxx (“Declaration”)   remained   in   effect   The Philippine Bill of Rights has been basically patterned after
during the interregnum the American Bill of Rights which is contained in the first ten
amendments to the United States Constitution
Held: No. The resulting government was indisputably a
revolutionary government bound by no constitution or legal

Accordingly, in view of the Philippine reliance and reference National Blood Service Act. Section 7 of RA 7719 provides phase-
every now and then to American case law on certain out of Commercial Blood Banks. Petitioners assail the
constitutional issues relative to the Bill of Rights, parallel constitutionality of the said provision on the ground, among
others, that such represents undue delegation if not outright
citations to the pertinent provisions of the US Bill of Rights have
abdication of the police power of the state.
to be made occasionally.
ISSUE: WON RA 7719 is a valid exercise of police power
International Bill of Rights
HELD: Petitions dismissed. The court upholds the validity of RA
While the Bill of Rights as found in the Constitution is the 7719.
primary basis for the determination if there is any violation of
the rights of persons, it does not necessarily mean that such is RATIO: The promotion of public health is a fundamental obligation
of the State. The health of the people is a primordial
the sole source of rights that may be recognized
governmental concern. RA 7719 was enacted in the exercise of
the  State’s  police  power  in  order  to  promote and preserve public
The Court also considers the pertinent international health and safety.
conventions and declarations in trying to determine if there is a Police power of the state is validly exercised if (a) the interest of
violation  of  a  person’s  rights the public generally, as distinguished from those of a particular
class, requires the interference of the State; and (b) the means
The most prominent of these is the Universal Declaration of employed are reasonably necessary to the attainment of the
Human Rights objective sought to be accomplished and not unduly oppressive
upon individuals
The individual may still avail of the guarantees provided by the Police power is the State authority to enact legislation that may
international instruments and covenants--from the so-called interfere with personal liberty or property in order to promote
International Bill of Human Rights to some other declarations the general welfare.
and conventions--to buttress whatever claims to freedom and
liberty that he or she may have Thus, persons may be subject to certain kinds of restraints and
burdens in order to secure the general welfare of the State and to
The Bill of Rights, Vigilance and Government as Teacher its fundamental aim of government, the rights of the individual
may be subordinated
A close and literal construction deprives them of half their
A2. PHCAP v. Duque III1
efficacy, and leads to gradual depreciation of the right, as if it
535 SCRA 265 (2007)
consisted more in sound than in substance. It is the duty of the
courts to be watchful for the constitutional rights of the citizen, Health is a legitimate subject matter for regulation by the DOH
and against any stealthy encroachments thereon (and certain other administrative agencies) in exercise of police
powers delegated to it. The superiority of breastfeeding and
The lead should come from the Government itself if ever it correct information as to infant feeding and nutrition, as in this
wants the citizens to follow and abide by its commands and case,  is  infused  with  public  interest  and  welfare.  The  DOH’s  power  
demands under the Milk Code to control information regarding breastmilk
vis-à-vis breastmilk substitutes is not absolute as the power to
control does not encompass the power to absolutely prohibit the
Decency, security, and liberty alike demand that government advertising, marketing, and promotion of breastmilk substitutes.
officials shall be subjected to the same rules of conduct that are Implementing rules and regulations imposing labeling
commands to the citizens. In a government of laws, existence requirements and limitations, as well as a prohibition against
of the government will be imperiled if it fails to observe the law certain health and nutrition claims are inconsistent with the Milk
scrupulously. Our government is the potent, the omnipresent Code.
Nonetheless, the DOH, in imposing an absolute prohibition on
advertising, promotion, and marketing, the same went beyond its
If the government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt
authority since the same was not within the provisions of the Milk
for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it Code itself.
invites anarchy
A3. Carlos Superdrug Corp. v. DSWD
The rights and guarantees may exist. But it takes some 526 SCRA 130 (2007)
vigilance, some action on the part of the people in order that
those guarantees may come to life and become part of the FACTS: Petitioners are domestic corporations and proprietors
human spirit operating drugstores in the Philippines. Petitioners assail the
constitutionality of Section 4(a) of RA 9257, otherwise known as
Additional Cases the   “Expanded   Senior   Citizens   Act   of   2003.”   Section   4(a)   of   RA  
9257 grants twenty percent (20%) discount as privileges for the
(A) The Bill of Rights and the Fundamental Powers
Senior Citizens. Petitioner contends that said law is
unconstitutional because it constitutes deprivation of private
A1. Beltran v. Secretary of Health property.
476 SCRA 168 (2005)
ISSUE: WON RA 9257 is unconstitutional
FACTS: Petitioners comprise the majority of the Board of Directors
of the Philippine Association of Blood Banks, a duly registered HELD: Petition is dismissed.
non-stock and non-profit association composed of free standing
blood banks. Public respondent Secretary of Health is being sued RATIO: The law is a legitimate exercise of police power which,
in his capacity as the public official directly involved and charged
with the enforcement and implementation of RA 7719 or the
1 UST Golden Notes 2010, Political Law
similar to the power of eminent domain, has general welfare for
its object. HELD: Petition denied. EO 179 is null and void.

Accordingly,  it  has  been  described  as  “the  most  essential,  insistent   RATIO: MMDA has no police power, let alone legislative power. In
and the least limitable of powers, extending as it does to all the light of the administrative nature of its powers and functions, the
great  public  needs.”  It  is  the  power  vested  in  the  legislature  by  the   MMDA is devoid of authority to implement the Project as
constitution to make, ordain, and establish all manner of envisioned by the EO; hence it could not have been validly
wholesome and reasonable laws, statutes, and ordinances, either designated by the President to undertake the Project. It follows
with penalties or without, not repugnant to the constitution, as that the MMDA cannot validly order the elimination of the
they shall judge to be for the good and welfare of the respondents’  terminals
commonwealth,  and  of  the  subjects  of  the  same.”
Police power rests primarily with the legislature, such power may
For this reason, when the conditions so demand as determined by be delegated, as it is in fact increasingly being delegated. By virtue
the legislature, property rights must bow to the primacy of police of a valid delegation, the power may be exercised by the
power because property rights, though sheltered by due process, President and administrative boards as well as by the lawmaking
must yield to general welfare. bodies of municipal corporations or local government under an
express delegation by the LGC of 1991
586 SCRA 210 (2009) Measures calculated to promote the safety and convenience of
the people using the thoroughfares by the regulation of vehicular
The Court therefore strikes down the two percent threshold only traffic present a proper subject for the exercise of police power
in relation to the distribution of the additional seats as found in
the second clause of Section 11 (b) of RA 7941. The two percent On  Constitutional   Law,   “The   true   role   of   Constitutional   Law   is   to  
threshold presents an unwarranted obstacle to the full effect an equilibrium between authority and liberty so that rights
implementation of Section 5 (2), Article VI of the Constitution and are exercised within the framework of the law and the laws are
prevents  the  attainment  of  the  “broadest  possible  representation   enacted  with  due  deference  to  rights.”
of party, sectoral or group interests in the House of
Representatives” A7. Yamane v. BA Lepanto Condominium Corporation
474 SCRA 258 (2005)
A5. Mirasol v. DPWH
490 SCRA 318 (2006) FACTS: Petitioner City Treasurer of Makati holds respondent, in a
Notice of Assessment, liable to pay the correct business taxes,
FACTS: Petitioners sought the declaration of nullity of certain fees and charges totaling to P1.6M in which the respondents
administrative issuances of the DPWH for being inconsistent with protested contending that condominium does not fall under the
RA  2000,  entitled  “Limited  Access  Highway  Act.”  Among  others,  is   definition of a business, thus, they are not liable for such taxes
AO1 which requires motorcycles shall have an engine
displacement of at least 400cc. ISSUE: WON the City Treasurer of Makati may collect business
taxes on condominium corporations
ISSUE: WON said administrative issuances are unconstitutional
HELD: Petition denied. Accordingly, and with significant degree of
HELD: Petition partly granted. It is the DOTC, not the DPWH, comfort, we hold that condominium corporations are generally
which has authority to regulate, restrict, or prohibit access to exempt from local business taxation under the LGC, irrespective
limited access facilities. of any local ordinance that seeks to declare otherwise.

We find that AO1 does not impose unreasonable restrictions. It RATIO: The power of the local government units to impose taxes
merely outlines several precautionary measures, to which toll way within its territorial jurisdiction derives from the Constitution
users must adhere. These rules were designed to ensure public itself,   which   recognizes   the   power   of   these   units   “to   create   its  
safety and the uninhibited flow of traffic within limited access own sources of revenue and to levy taxes, fees, and charges
facilities. subject to such guidelines and limitations as the Congress may
RATIO: The use of public highways by motor vehicles is subject to provide,  consistent  with  the  basic  policy  of  local  autonomy.”
regulation as an exercise of the police power of the state. The
police power is far-reaching   in   scope   and   is   the   “most   essential,   A8. PPI v. Fertphil Corporation
insistent  and  illimitable”  of  all  government  powers.  The  tendency 548 SCRA 485 (2008)
is to extend rather than to restrict the use of police power. The
sole standard in measuring its exercise is reasonableness. FACTS: Petitioner and private respondent are private corporations
incorporated under Philippine laws. They are both engaged in the
A6. MMDA v. Viron Transportation Co., Inc. importation and distribution of fertilizers, pesticides and
530 SCRA 341 (2007) agricultural chemicals. President Marcos issued LOI 1465 which
provided, among others, for the imposition of a capital recovery
FACTS: PGMA issued EO 179, which provided for the component on the domestic sale of all grades of fertilizers in the
establishment of a Mass Transport System for Greater Manila. Philippines. Pursuant to the LOI, private respondent paid P10 for
Pursuant to this EO, the Metro manila Council of the MMDA cited every bag of fertilizer it sold in the domestic market to the
the need to remove the bus terminals located along major Fertilizer and Pesticide Authority (FPA). After the 1986 Edsa
thoroughfares of Metro Manila. Respondents, provincial bus Revolution, FPA voluntarily stopped the imposition of the P10
operators who had bus terminals that were threatened to be levy. Private respondent then demanded from petitioner a refund
removed, alleges that EO should be declared unconstitutional and of the amounts it paid under LOI 1465
illegal for transgressing the possessory rights of owners and
operators of public land transportation units over their respective ISSUE: WON the issuance of LOI 1465 is a valid exercise of police
terminals3 power of the State
ISSUE: WON EO 179 is a valid exercise of police power
HELD: Petition denied. The RTC and the CA did not err in ruling
against the constitutionality of the LOI
2 UST Golden Notes 2010, Political Law
3 Stef Macapagal

RATIO: Police power and the power of taxation are inherent ordinary citizens against arbitrary government action, but not
powers of the State. These powers are distinct and have different from acts committed by private individuals or entities.
tests for validity. Police power is the power of the State to enact
legislation that may interfere with personal liberty or property in The right to due process guards against unwarranted
order to promote the general welfare, while the power of taxation encroachment by the state into the fundamental rights of its
is the power to levy taxes to be used for public purpose. The main citizens and cannot invoked in private controversies involving
purpose of police power is the regulation of a behavior or private parties.
conduct,   while   taxation   is   revenue   generation.   The   “lawful  
subjects”   and   “lawful   means”   tests   are   used   to   determine   the   The discipline of members by a political party does not involve the
validity of a law enacted under the police power. The power of right to life, liberty or property within the meaning of the due
taxation, on the other hand, is circumscribed by inherent and process clause.
constitutional limitations.
Chapter 2
An inherent limitation on the power of taxation is public purpose. Due Process
Taxes are exacted only for a public purpose. They cannot be used
for purely private purposes or for the exclusive benefit of private
persons. “No  person  shall  be  deprived  of  life,  liberty  or  property  without  
due  process  of  law.”
The power to tax exists for the general welfare; hence, implicit in
its power is the limitation that it should be used only for a public Due Process of Law
A9. Yrasuegui v. PAL
569 SCRA 467 (2008) Life, Liberty and Property
FACTS: Petitioner was a former international flight steward of
PAL, herein respondent. Petitioner was dismissed because of his
failure to adhere to the weight standards of the airline company.
Petitioner claims that he was illegally dismissed. Liberty

ISSUE: WON petitioner was discriminated against when he was Roe v. Wade
dismissed. 410 US 113, 35 L Ed 2d 147, 93 S Ct 705 (1973)

HELD: Petition denied. Caunca v. Salazar

82 Phil. 851, 1 SCUD 177 (1 January 1949)
RATIO: To make his claim more believable, petitioner invokes the
equal protection clause guaranty of the Constitution. However, in
Lupangco v. CA
the absence of governmental interference, the liberties
160 SCRA 848 (1988)
guaranteed by the Constitution cannot be invoked. Put
differently, the Bill of Rights is not meant to be invoked against
acts of private individuals. Indeed, the US Supreme Court, in Property
interpreting the 14th Amendment, which is the source of our equal
protection guarantee, is consistent in saying that the equal Ayog v. Cusi, Jr
protection erects no shield against private conduct, however 118 SCRA 492 (1982)
discriminatory or wrongful. Private actions, no matter how
egregious, cannot violate the equal protection guarantee. Public Office

A10. Atienza, Jr. v. COMELEC Layno, Sr. v. Sandiganbayan

612 SCRA 761 (2010) 136 SCRA 536 (1985)

FACTS:   Drilon,   as   president   of   the   LP,   announced   his   party’s  

withdrawal of support for the administration of PGMA. Petitioner,
LP chairman, and a number of party members denounced  Drilon’s  
move. In a party conference, petitioner moved to declare all Corona v. United Harbor Pilots Association of the Philippines
positions  in  the  LP’s  ruling  body  vacant  and  elected  new  officers,   283 SCRA 31 (1997)
with petitioner as LP president. Drilon filed a petition before the
COMELEC and the latter nullified the elections. Eventually, Roxas Right-Privilege Dichotomy
was installed as the new LP president. Petitioners were deemed
resigned for holding the illegal election of LP officers and were RIGHT PRIVILEGE
dropped from the roster of LP members. The former come under the They are just by way of grant
ISSUE:  WON  respondents  violated  petitioners’  constitutional  right
protection of the Due Process by the State
to  due  process  by  the  latter’s  expulsion  from  the  party. Clause

HELD: Petition denied. The requirements of administrative due The American Supreme Court now has rejected the concept
process do not apply to the internal affairs of political parties. that constitutional rights turn upon whether a governmental
benefit   is   characterized   as   a   “right   “   or   as   a   “privilege.”   .   .   .  
RATIO: The constitutional limitations on the exercise of the state’s   Whether any procedural protections are due depends on the
powers are found in Article III of the Constitution or the Bill of
extent   to   which   an   individual   will   be   “condemned to suffer
Rights. The Bill of Rights, which guarantees against the taking of
life, property, or liberty without due process under Section 1 is
grievous  loss”
generally   a   limitation   on   the   state’s   powers   in   relation to the
rights of its citizens. The right to due process is meant to protect 4 CONSTITUTION, Art. III, § 1
Hierarchy of Rights It started off originally as simply a guarantee of procedural
The  Due  Process  Clause  protects  “life,  liberty  and  property”
‘Due   process   law’   was   originally   used   a   shorthand   expression  
PBMEO v. Philippine Blooming Mills Co., Inc. for  governmental  proceedings  according  to  the  ‘law  of  the  land’  
51 SCRA 189 (1973) as it existed at the time of those proceedings
PBMEO allegedly informed the respondent Company of the proposed
The guaranties of due process, though having their roots in
demonstration. A day before the planned demonstration, the Company
informed the workers that even as their right to demonstrate is
Magna  Carta’s  ‘per legem terrae’  and  considered  as  procedural  
recognized, the normal operations of the Company should not be safeguards  ‘against  executive  usurpation  and  tyranny,’  have  in  
unduly prejudiced this  country  ‘become  bulwarks  also  against  arbitrary  legislation’

Company filed with the COR a complaint for violation of the CBA, PROCEDURAL SUBSTANTIVE
particularly  the  “No  Strike-No  Lockout”  clause The method or manner by Requires that the law itself,
which the law is enforced not merely the procedure by
(2) The Bill of Rights is designed to preserve the ideals if liberty, equality
which the law would be
and   security   “against   assaults   of   opportunism,   the   expediency   of   the  
passing hour, the erosion of small encroachments, and the scorn and enforced, is fair, reasonable,
derision of those who have no patience with general principles and just
Basically addressed to those Primarily directed at the
Held: Yes. The respondent is the one guilty of unfair labor practices. who adjudicate lawmakers
Because the refusal on the part of the respondent firm to permit all its Revolves around the right to Implicates fundamental
employees and workers to join the mass demonstration against alleged be heard notions of fairness and justice
police abuses and the subsequent separation of the eight (8)
petitioners from the service constituted an unconstitutional restraint
Focuses on rules that are Concerns itself with the law,
on their freedom of expression, freedom of assembly and freedom of established in order to ensure its essence, and its
petition for redress of grievances, the respondent firm committed, meaningful adjudications concomitant efficacy
[among   others],   unfair   labor   practice   for   an   employer   “to   interfere   appurtenant thereto
with, retrain or coerce employees on the exercise of their rights
guaranteed  in  Section  Three” In other words, substantive due process looks to whether there
is  a  sufficient  justification  for  the  government’s  action
Property and property rights can be lost thru prescription; but
human rights are imprescriptible Procedural Due Process

In the hierarchy of civil liberties, the rights of free expression Procedural due process is basically associated with the right to
and of assembly occupy a preferred position as they are be notified and heard. This accordingly presupposes that one
essential to the preservation and vitality of our civil and has been adequately and meaningfully informed of a case or
political institutions;  and  such  priority  “gives  these  liberties  the   matter in which his rights are involved and that jurisdiction has
sanctity  and  the  sanction  not  permitting  dubious  intrusions.” been validly acquired over him

As heretofore stated, the primacy of human rights over ‘Jurisdiction’   is   the   right   to   hear   and   determine,   not   to  
property rights has been sustained determine without hearing

xxx habeas corpus is the remedy to obtain the release of an That due process is the equivalent of law of the land which
individual, who is convicted by final judgment through a forced means  ‘the  general  law;  a  law  which  hears  before  it  condemns,  
confession, which violated his constitutional right against self- which proceeds upon inquiry and renders judgment only after
incrimination; or who is denied the right to present evidence in trial xxx that every citizen shall hold his life, liberty, property,
his defense as a deprivation of his liberty without due process and immunities under the protection of the general rules which
of law, even after the accused has already served sentence for govern  society’
twenty-two years
Classic procedural due process issues are concerned with what
The liberties of any person are the liberties of all of us kind of notice and what form of hearing the government must
provide when it takes a particular action
“When  freedom  of  the  mind  is  imperilled  by  law,  it  is  freedom  
that commands a momentum of respect; when property is The fundamental requirement of due process is the opportunity
imperilled   it   is   the   lawmakers’   judgment   that   commands   to  be  heard  ‘at  a  meaningful  time  and  in  a  meaningful  manner’
respect. This dual standard may not precisely reverse the
presumption of constitutionality in civil liberties cases, but It is a well-established doctrine that rules of procedure may be
obviously it does set up a hierarchy of values within the due modified at any time to become effective at once, so long as
process  clause.” the change does not affect vested rights

Related to the hierarchy of rights are the so-called   “standards   Additional Cases
of  review”  discussed  earlier  in  Chapter  1 (B) Due Process [14]

The Two Faces or Components of Due Process -- Substantive and B1. Republic v. Cagandahan
Procedural 565 SCRA 72 (2008)

People v. Cayat
68 Phil. 12 (1939)

The accused, Cayat, a native of Baguio, Benguet, Mountain Province,

and a member of the non-Christian tribes, was found guilty of violating
Act No. 1639 for having acquired and possessed one bottle of A-1-1 gin,
an intoxicating liquor, which is not a native wine

Cayat challenges the constitutionality of Act 1639 on the grounds that it

is discriminatory and denies equal protection of the laws xxx

HELD: No. Act 1639 satisfies all the requirements:

1.  The  ‘non-Christian  tribes’  refers,  not  to  religious  belief,  but  to natives
of the Philippine Islands of a low grade of civilization
2. It is designed to insure peace and order in and among the non-
Christian tribes xxx free use of highly intoxicating liquors by the non-
Christian tribes have often resulted in lawlessness and crimes, thereby
hampering the efforts of the government to raise their standard of life
and civilization
3. It is intended to apply at all times as long as those conditions exist
4. The Act applies equally to all members of the class

Ormoc Sugar Co., Inc. v. Treasurer of Ormoc City

22 SCRA 603 (1968)

The Municipal Board of Ormoc City passed Ordinance No. 4 imposing

“on  any  and  all  products  of  centrifugal  sugar  milled  at the Ormoc Sugar
Company Inc., in Ormoc City a municipal tax equivalent to 1% per
export sale to the United States of America and other foreign
Chapter 3
Equal Protection Petitioner alleged that the said ordinance is unconstitutional for being
violative of the equal protection clause xxx insofar as Ormoc Sugar Co.,
“No  person  shall  be  deprived  of  life,  liberty,  or  property  without   Inc. is singled out
due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal
5 HELD: Yes. A perusal of the requisites instantly shows that the
protection  of  the  laws.”
questioned ordinance does not meet them, for it taxes only centrifugal
sugar produced and exported by the Ormoc Sugar Company, Inc. and
The guarantee is against class legislation, or such legislation none other
which denies rights to one which are accorded to others, or The taxing ordinance should not be singular and exclusive as to exclude
inflicts upon one individual a more severe penalty than is any subsequently established sugar central, of the same class as
imposed upon another in like case offending plaintiff, from the coverage of the tax. As it is now, even if later a
similar company is set up, it cannot be subject to the tax because the
Equality of operation of statutes does not mean indiscriminate ordinance expressly points only to Ormoc Sugar Company, Inc. as the
entity to be levied upon
operation on persons merely as such, but on persons according
to the circumstances surrounding them. It guarantees equality,
JM Tuason & Co., Inc. v. Land Tenure Administration
not identity of rights 31 SCRA 413 (1970)

The equal protection of the law clause is against undue favor RA 2616 authorized the expropriation of the Tatalon Estate in Quezon
and individual or class privilege, as well as hostile discrimination City jointly owned by herein petitioner, Gregorio Araneta and Company,
or the oppression of inequality Inc. and Florencio Deudor

It does not demand equality among residents; it merely Petitioner sought to declare said RA unconstitutional as it is violative of
the equal protection clause since it applies only to the Tatalon Estate
requires that all persons shall be treated alike, under like
and not to any other lands in Quezon City or elsewhere
circumstances and conditions both as privileges conferred and
liabilities enforced HELD: No. The legislature is not required by the Constitution to adhere
to   the   policy   of   ‘all   or   none.’   Thus,   to   reiterate,   the   invocation  by   the  
Requisites for Valid Classification petitioner of equal protection clause is not attended with success

1. The classification is based on substantial distinctions which Gender

make real differences
2. It is germane to the purpose of the law The equality of the sexes is something that the Constitution
3. It applies not only to present conditions but also to future itself promotes. And this means basically having to treat
conditions which are substantially identical to those of the women on equal footing with men even as it still maintains a
present special solicitude for them
4. It applies equally to everyone or every member belonging to
the same class Bradwell v. Illinois
83 US (16 Wall) 130, 21 L Ed 442 (1873)

5 CONSTITUTION, Art. III, § 1 Mrs. Myra Bradwell, residing in the State of Illinois, applied with the
10 | P LATON
Supreme Court of that State for a license to practice law. Mrs. Stanley v. Illinois
Bradwell’s  application  for  a  license  was  refused,  and  it  was  stated  as  a   405 US 645, 31L Ed 2d 551, 92 S Ct 1208 (1972)
sufficient reason that under the decision of the Supreme Court of
Illinois, the applicant--“as  a  married  woman  would  be  bound  neither  by   Under the [challenged] scheme, the children of unmarried fathers,
her express contracts nor by those implied contracts which is the policy upon the death of the mother, are declared dependents without any
of  the  law  to  create  between  attorney  and  client.” hearing on parental fitness and without proof of neglect, though such
hearing and proof are required before the State assumes custody of
HELD: No. The right to control and regulate the granting of license to children of married or divorced parents and unmarried mothers
practice law in the courts of a State is one of the powers which are not
transferred for its protection to the Federal government, and its HELD:  Yes.  Stanley’s  claim  in  the  state  courts  and  here  us  that  failure  to  
exercise is in no manner governed or controlled by citizenship of the afford him a hearing on his parental qualifications while extending it to
United States in the party seeking such license other parents denied him equal protection of the laws. We have
concluded that all Illinois parents are constitutionally entitled to a
Michael M. v. Superior Court hearing on their fitness before their children are removed from their
450 US 464, 67 L Ed 2d 437, 101 S Ct 1200 (1981) custody. It follows that denying such a hearing to Stanley and those like
him while granting it to other Illinois parents is inescapably contrary to
Petitioner, then a 17-year-old male, was charged with violating the Equal Protection Clause
Clifornia’s   “statutory   rape”   law,   which   defines   unlawful sexual
intercourse  as  “an  act  of  sexual  intercourse  accomplished  with  a  female   Marriage and Legitimacy
not the wife of the perpetrator, where the female is under the age of
18  years.” GSIS v. Montesclaros
434 SCRA 441 (2004)
Petitioner   contends   that   the   law   “discriminates   on   the   basis   of   sex,  
because only females may be victims and only males may violate the Nicolas Montesclaros, 72-year old widower, married Milagros Orbiso,
section” then   43   years   old.   GSIS   approved   Nicolas’   application   for   retirement  
granting a lump sum payment of annuity for the first five years and a
HELD: No. The justification for the statute offered by the State and monthly annuity thereafter. Nicolas died. Milagros filed with the GSIS a
accepted by the Supreme Court of California, is that the legislature claim of survivorship pension. GSIS denied the claim because under
sought to prevent illegitimate teenage pregnancies Section 18 of PD 1146, the surviving spouse has no right to survivorship
pension if the surviving spouse contracted the marriage with the
Geosaert v. Cleary pensioner within three years before the pensioner qualified for the
335 US 464, 93 L Ed 163, 69 S Ct 198 (1948) pension

A Michigan law forbade any female to act as a bartender unless she be HELD: Yes. We hold that the proviso is unconstitutional because it
“the   wife   or   daughter   of   the   male   owner”   of   a   licensed   liquor   violates the due process clause. The proviso is also discriminatory and
establishment denies equal protection of the law. The proviso in question does not
satisfy these requirements. The object of the prohibition is vague.
HELD: While Michigan may deny to all women opportunities for There is no reasonable connection between the means employed and
bartending, Michigan cannot play favourites among women without the  purpose  intended  (“deathbed  marriages”)
rhyme or reasons.
Labine v. Vincent
Philippine Association of Service Exporters, Inc. v. Drilon 401 US 532, 28 L Ed 2d 288, 91 S Ct 1971 (1971)
163 SCRA 386 (1988)
Ezra Vincent died intestate, survive only by collateral relations and an
Petitioner,   PASEI,   a   firm   “engaged   principally   in   the   recruitment   of   illegitimate minor daughter, whose guardian sued to have her declared
Filipino workers, male  and  female,  for  overseas  placement,”  challenges   Vincent’s  sole  heir
the constitutional validity of Department Order No. 1 of the DOLE
“Guidelines   Governing   the   Temporary   Suspension   of   Deployment   of   Appellant   contends  that   Louisiana’s   intestate   succession   laws  that   bar  
Filipino   Domestic   and   Household   Workers”   for   “discrimination   against   an illegitimate child from sharing equally with legitimate children in the
males  or  females”  and  for  “not  applying  to  all  Filipino  workers  but  only   father’s   estate   constitutes   an   invidious   discrimination   violative   of   the  
to  domestic  helpers  and  females  with  similar  skills” Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Constitution

HELD: No. As a matter of judicial notice, the Court is well aware of the HELD: No. To further strengthen and preserve family ties, Louisiana
unhappy plight that has befallen our female labor force abroad, regulates the disposition of property upon the death of a family man
especially domestic servants, amid exploitative working conditions
marked by, in not a few cases, physical and personal abuse Age

Tuan Anh Nguyen v. Immigration and Naturalization Service A classification based on age could very well be justified
522 US 53 150 L Ed 2d, 121 S Ct 2053 (2001)
depending on particular subject matter which may require a
Tuan Anh Nguyen was born out of wedlock in Vietnem to a Vietnamese
sense of maturity and responsibility, or vigor, health or strength
mother and an American Father.
Dumlao v. COMELEC
Petitioner claims that § 1409--which imposes a set of requirements on 95 SCRA 392 (1980)
the children of citizen fathers born abroad and out of wedlock to a non-
citizen mother that are not imposed under like circumstances when the Section4   of   BP   52   disqualifies   “any   retired   elective   provincial,   city   or  
citizen parent is the mother--violates equal protection municipal official who has received payment of the retirement benefits
to which he is entitled under the law and who shall have been 65 years
HELD:  No.  The  challenged  classification  serves  ‘important  governmental   of age at the commencement of the term of office to which he seeks to
objectives   and   that   the   discriminatory   means   employed’   are   be  elected”  to  run  for  the  same  elective  local  office  from  which  he  has  
‘substantially  related  to  the  achievement  of  those  objectives’ retired

11 | P LATON
Petitioner contends that it is discriminatory and contrary to the equal disputed law was enacted to remedy a real actual threat and danger to
protection and due process guarantees of the Constitution national economy posed by alien domination and control of the retail
business and free citizens and country from such dominance and
HELD: No. The purpose of the law is to allow the emergence of younger control
blood in local governments. It is within the competence of the
legislature to prescribe qualifications for one who desires to become a Office and Employment
candidate for office provided they are reasonable, as in this case
One’s  office,  occupation  or  employment  may also provide basis
Method or Mode of Dying for some differences in treatment, such as whether it is in the
public or private sector
Vacco v. Quill
521 US 793, 138 L Ed 2d 834, 117 S Ct 2293 (1997)
It has also been held that elective officials may be treated
In New York, as in most States, it is a crime to aid another to commit or differently from appointive officials with respect to the effect of
attempt suicide, but patients may refuse even lifesaving medical the filing of their certificates of candidacy, i.e., while the latter
treatment. Respondents are physicians who practice in New York may be deemed resigned, the former may still hold on to their
Respondents’   claim   that   the   distinction   between   refusing   lifesaving  
medical  treatment  and  assisted  suicide  is  “arbitrary”  and  “irrational” Nuñez v. Sandiganbayan
111 SCRA 433 (1982)
HELD: No. The overwhelming majority of the state legislatures have
drawn a clear line between assisting suicide and withdrawing or Petitioner, accused before the Sandiganbayan of Estafa through
permitting the refusal of unwanted lifesaving medical treatment by Falsification of Public and Commercial Documents, assails the validity of
prohibiting the former and permitting the latter. PD 1486, as amended by PD 1606, which created the Sandiganbayan

Academic Performance The Snadiganbayan proceedings   violates   petitioner’s   right   to   equal  

protection, because--appeal as a matter of right became minimized into
Academic ratings could very well determine how a student gets a mere matter of discretion;--appeal likewise was shrunk and limited
classified or accepted only to questions of law, excluding a review of the facts and trial
evidence; and there is only one chance to appeal conviction, by
certiorari to the Supreme Court, instead of the traditional two chances;
Tablarin v. Gutierrez while other estafa indictees are entitled to appeal as a matter of right
152 SCRA 730 (1987) covering both law and facts and to two appellate courts
The petitioners sought admission into colleges or schools of medicine HELD: No. The general guarantees of the Bill of Rights, included among
for the school year 1987-1988. However, petitioners either did not take which are the due process of law and equal protection clauses must
or did not successfully take the National Medical Admission Test “give  way  to  a  specific  provision”
(NMAT) required by the Board of Medical Education which is
administered by private respondent Center for Educational
Measurement (CEM) International School Alliance of Educators v. Quisumbing
333 SCRA 13 (2000)
Petitioners alleged that it is violative of the Equal Protection Clause by
reason of the yearly changes in the cut-off scores for successful The School hires both foreign and local teachers as members of its
applicants faculty, classifying the same into two: (1) foreign-hires and (2) local-
hires. Foreign-hires are then granted certain benefits not accorded
HELD: No. We conclude that prescribing the NMAT and requiring local-hires.
certain minimum scores therein as a condition for admission to medical
schools in the Philippines do not constitute an unconstitutional Petitioner contested the difference in salary rates between foreign and
imposition local-hires

HELD: No. There is no reasonable distinction between the services

Nationality and Alienage rendered by foreign-hires and local-hires. The practice of the School of
according higher salaries to foreign-hires contravenes public policy and,
The Constitution itself has made classifications based on certainly, does not deserve the sympathy of this Court
citizenship, such a in the political field
Crimes and Punishments
Ichong v. Hernandez
101 Phil. 1155 (1957) Different offenses could not possibly be meted the same
penalty but crimes of the same nature should be treated no
RA  No.  1180  “An  Act  to  Regulate  the  Retail  Business”  prohibits  persons,  
not citizens of the Philippines, and associations, partnerships, or
corporations the capital of which are not wholly owned by citizens of
the Philippines, from engaging directly or indirectly in the retail trade Skinner v. Oklahoma
unless such aliens have actually been engaged in said business on 15 316 US 535, 86 L Ed 1655, 62 S Ct 1110 (1942)
May 1954
Oklahoma’s   Habitual   Criminal   Sterilization   Act   provides   for   the  
Petitioner attacks the constitutionality of the Act contending that it sterilization,   by   vasectomy   or   salpingectomy,   of   “habitual   criminals.”  
denies to alien residents the equal protection of the laws and deprives Petitioner, convicted of the crimes of stealing chickens, and robbery
them of their liberty and property without due process of law with firearms twice, challenged the constitutionality of the Act but the
Oklahoma Supreme Court sustained the Act
HELD: No. The difference in status between citizens and aliens
constitutes a basis for reasonable classification in the exercise of police HELD: The equal protection clause does not prevent the legislature
power. Resuming what we have set forth above we hold that the from  recognizing  “degrees  of  evil”

12 | P LATON
People v. Ching Kuan In the case at bar, the challenged proviso operates on the basis of the
74 Phil. 23 (1942) salary grade or officer-employee status. It is akin to a distinction based
on economic class and status, with the higher grades as recipients of a
Ching Kuan was accused of violating section 86 of the Revised benefit specifically withheld from the lower grades
Ordinances of the City of Manila in that he constructed a 297-square-
meter building of strong materials in the district of Tondo without the Inverse Equal Protection
proper permit from the city engineer
“All   persons   or   things   differently   situated   should   be   treated  
Petitioner alleged the unconstitutionality of Article 66 of the revised
Penal Code which permits the court to take into consideration the
wealth and means of the culprit in the imposition of fines
Philippine Judges Association v. Prado
HELD: No. It may seem paradoxical, but the truth is that the codal 227 SCRA 703 (1993)
provision in question, in authorizing the imposition of unequal fines,
aims precisely at equality before the law The petitioners, members of the lower courts who feel that their official
functions as judges will be prejudiced by the withdrawal of the franking
privilege of the Judiciary [while retaining the same for the President of
People v. Jalosjos
the Philippines, et. al.], assail the constitutionality of Section 35 of RA
324 SCRA 689 (2000)
7354 as implemented by the Philippine Postal Commission [as
the accused-appellant, Romeo F. Jalosjos is a member of Congress,
confined at the national penitentiary while his conviction for statutory
HELD: Yes. The respondents are in effect saying that the franking
rape on two counts and acts of lasciviousness on six counts is pending
privilege should be extended to only those who do not need it very
much, if at all, but not to those who need it badly.
Petitioner filed a motion asking that he be allowed to fully discharge
the duties of a Congressman, including attendance at legislative Equalizing Illegality
sessions and committee meetings despite his having been convicted in
the first instance of a non-bailable offense. This he primarily anchors on What is illegal is plainly against the law and the fact that others
the  “mandate  of  sovereign  will” were able to get away with it is no justification to provide equal
chances for others under the Equal Protection Clause
HELD: No. Allowing the accused-appellant to attend congressional
meeting for five (5) days or more in a week will virtually make him a
Alunan III v. Mirasol
free man with all the privilege appurtenant to his position
276 SCRA 501 (1997)

People v. Vera The DILG through then Secretary Rafael M. Alunan III, issued a letter-
65 Phil. 56 (1937) resolution exempting the City of Manila from holding election for the
SK on the ground that the election previously held on 26 May 1990 was
Mariano Cu Unjieng applied for probation. Respondent Judge denied to be considered he first under the newly enacted LGC
the application for probation Private respondents claimed equal protection clause violation

HELD: Yes. In the case at bar, the resultant inequality may be said to HELD: No. Even assuming that only barangays in Manila were not
flow from the unwarranted delegation of legislative power, although permitted to hold SK elections on December 4, 1992 while the rest of
perhaps this is not necessarily the result in every case the 5,000 barangays were allowed even if KB elections had already
been held there before, this fact does not give the youth voters in the
One province may appropriate the necessary fund to defray the salary 897 Manila barangays ground for complaint because what the other
of a probation officer, while another province may refuse or fail to do barangays did was contrary to law. There is no discrimination here
so. In such a case, the Probation Act would be in operation in the
former province but not in the latter. this means that a person
Delegated Discrimination
otherwise coming within the purview of the law would be liable to
enjoy the benefits of probation in one province while another person
similarly situated in another province would be denied those same A violation of the guarantee of equal protection may be seen
benefits on the face of the law itself, or perceived and felt in the manner
in which what pretends to be a just and fair regulation is
This basic individual right sheltered by the Constitution is a actually utilized as a tool to camouflage a discriminatory act
restraint on all three grand departments of our government
and in the subordinate instrumentalities and subdivisions Affirmative Action--A Case of Compensatory Discrimination
thereof, and on many constitutional powers, like the police
power, taxation and eminent domain Affirmative action is a sort of reverse discrimination in the
sense that minorities have been discriminated against in the
Central Bank Employees Association, Inc v. BSP past, are given preference in certain areas, like employment
446 SCRA 299 (2004) and layoff, as well as admission to educational institutions

The   thrust   of   the   petitioner’s   challenge   is   that   the   proviso (on Classifications necessarily mean making distinctions. And
exemption from the coverage of the Salary Standardization Law) makes
grouping people or things always raises the issue as to whether
an unconstitutional cut between two classes of employees in the BSP
there is too much or there is too little in it
HELD: Yes. It is clear in the legislative deliberations that the exemption
of officers (SG 20 and above) from the SSL was intended to address the There should be no hesitation in using the equal protection
BSP’s  lack  of  competitiveness  in  terms  of  attracting  competent  officers clause as a major cutting edge to eliminate every conceivable
and executives. It was not intended to discriminate against the rank- irrational discrimination in our society
13 | P LATON
Additional Cases HELD: No. The equal protection clause is not violated, because there is
(C) Equal Protection a substantial basis for a different treatment of a member of a foreign
military armed forces allowed to enter our territory and all other
C1. Serrano v. Gallant Maritime Services, Inc.
582 SCRA 254 (2009)
The rule in international law is that a foreign armed forces allowed to
th enter   one’s   territory   is   immune   from   local   jurisdiction,   except   to   the  
Antonio Serrano, a Filipino seafarer, claims that the last clause in the 5
extent agreed upon
paragraph of Section 10, RA 8042 deprives them of equal protection
and denies them due process, for it treats OFWs differently from local
Filipino workers Chapter 4
Searches and Seizures
Petitioner was hired by Gallant Maritime Services, Inc. and Marlow
Navigation Co., Ltd. under a POEA approved Contract of Employment. “The  right  of  the  people  to  be  secure  in  their  persons,  houses,  
He as constrained to accept a downgraded employment contract for papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures
the position of Second Officer with a monthly salary of $1,000.00, upon of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and
the assurance and representation of respondents that he would be
no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon
made Chief Officer by the end of April 1993. Respondents did not
deliver. Hence, petitioner refused to stay on as Second Officer and was probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after
repatriated to the Philippines on May 26, 1998. examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and
the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the
Petitioner filed with the Labor Arbiter a Complaint against respondents place  to  be  searched  and  the  persons  or  things  to  be  seized.”
for constructive dismissal and for payment of his money claims in the
total amount of $26,442.73. The dismissal was declared illegal; and This constitutional guarantee is a liberty safeguard that
awarding him monetary benefits amounting to $8,770.00 based on the prohibits and directs. While laying down the general rule
salary period of three months only (in accordance with the 5th
against unreasonable searches and seizures, it also provides the
paragraph of Section 10, RA 8042)
guidelines for acceptable conduct on the part of government
HELD: Yes. Section 18, Article II and Section 3, Article XIII accord all authorities in regard to any intrusion into or invasion of the
members of the labor sector, without distinction as to place of people’s   right   “to   be   secure   in   their   persons, houses, papers,
deployment, full protection of their rights and welfare xxx All monetary and  effects”
benefits should be equally enjoyed by workers of similar category,
while all monetary obligations should be borne by them in equal It has also been held that the warrant is not meant to authorize
degree; none should be denied the protection of the laws which is fishing expeditions
enjoyed by, or spared the burden imposed on, others in like
The finding of evidence cannot be the immediate reason for
The subject clause has a discriminatory intent against, and an invidious issuing a search warrant. To use a search warrant for this
impact on, OFWs purpose would be  ‘unreasonable’  use  of  the  remedy  by  search  
warrant, which is prohibited by law
C2. Santos v. People
563 SCRA 341 (2008) It  assures  one’s  entitlement  to  privacy  and  right  to  be  left  alone  
and do whatever he wishes within bounds without having to be
Criminal prosecution was recommended against MS. JUDY ANNE subjected to the prying eyes of Big Brother
LUMAGUI SANTOS for substantial underdeclaration of income, which
constitutes as prima facie evidence of false or fraudulent return
The  embodiment  of  a  “spiritual  concept:  the  belief  that  to  value  
The information is void ab initio, being violative of due process and the the privacy of home and person and to afford its constitutional
equal protection of the laws protection against the long reach of government in no less than
to value human dignity, and that his privacy must not be
HELD: No. Petitioner cannot aver that she has been denied equal disturbed except in case of overriding social need, and then
protection of the laws. Recognizing the existence of real differences only  under  stringent  procedural  safeguards”
among men, the equal protection does not demand absolute equality.
It merely requires that all persons shall be treated alike, under like
The privacy of the home has always been regarded by civilized
circumstances and conditions, both as to the privileges conferred and
liabilities enforced
nations as one of the most sacred personal rights to which men
are entitled
The  only  basis  for  petitioner’s  claim  of  denial  of  equal  protection  of  the   “A  man’s  home  is  his  castle,”  has  become  a  maxim  among  the  
laws was the dismissal of the charges against Velasquez while those civilized people of the earth
against her were not
The right extends to all persons, including aliens. So are
C3. Nicolas v. Romulo corporations also included within its protection, though to a
578 SCRA 438 (2009) lesser extent
Lance Corporal (L/CPL) Daniel Smith is a member of the United States
Requirements for Issuance of Warrants
Armed Forces. He was charged with the crime of rape committed
against a Filipina, petitioner herein, sometime on November 1, 2005
1. There should be a search warrant or warrant of arrest
Petitioners argue that to allow the transfer of custody of an accused to 2. Probable cause supported the issuance of such warrant
a foreign power is to provide for a different rule of procedure for that
accused, which also violates the equal protection clause of the
14 | P LATON
3. Such probable cause had been determined personally by a opposition candidate. This should have put the judge on guard as to the
judge motivations of the witnesses and alerted him of possible
4. The judge personally examined the complaint and his misrepresentations from them. One may wonder why it did not occur
to the respondent judge to ask how the witnesses would be so certain
even to the caliber of the guns, or how far he was from the window or
5. The place to be searched and the persons or to be seized whether it was on the first or second floor, or why his presence was not
have been particularly described noticed at all, or if the acts related were really done openly, in the full
view of the witnesses, considering that these acts were against the law.
The Constitution requires that [the judge] carefully determine These would have been judicious questions that were omitted and
the basis for the issuance of such warrant in order that the instead, the declarations of the witnesses were readily accepted and
protection declared be not set at naught the search warrant sought was issued forthwith. The above discussed
defects have rendered the search warrant invalid. Nonetheless, the
Solicitor general argues that whatever defect there was, was waived
The test of sufficiency of an affidavit or testimony to justify the
when the petitioner voluntarily submitted to the search and manifested
issuance of a warrant is whether the affiant or the witness could his conformity in writing. We do not agree because what we see here is
be held for perjury and made liable for damages in case his pressure exerted by the military authorities, who coerced the petitioner
statements are false to sign the supposed waiver was a guaranty against a possible challenge
later to the validity of the search they were conducting. Confronted
Nature of Search Warrants Proceedings with the armed presence of the military and the presumptive authority
of the writ, the petitioner had no choice but to submit. The
A search warrant proceeding is, in no sense, a criminal action or respondents argued that the possession of colt magnum pistols and 18
live bullets are illegal per se, being malum prohibitum, hence it could be
the commencement of a prosecution. The proceeding is not
taken even without a warrant. The SC held that it does not follow that
one against any person, but is solely for the discovery and to because an offense is malum prohibitum, the subject thereof is
get possession of personal property. It is a special and peculiar necessarily illegal per se. Motive is immaterial in mala prohibita but the
remedy, drastic in nature, and made necessary because of subjects of this kind of offense may not be summarily seized because
public necessity they are prohibited. A search warrant is still necessary. WHEREFORE,
the search warrant issued by the respondent judge is declared null and
Determination of Probable Cause void.

This responsibility of determining such cause has been vested Bache and Co (Phil.) v.Ruiz
solely in judges, a duty which cannot be delegated to anybody 37 SCRA 823 (1971)
FACTS: The Commissioner of Internal Revenue wrote the respondent
judge requesting the issuance of the search warrant against petitioners
If the determination is done by one directly interested in law for violating Sec. 46 (a) of the National Internal Revenue Code. The
enforcement the process would very likely be tainted and following day, National Revenue examiner De Leon and his witness,
clouded by his need to produce result in line with his job, and, Logronio, went to the court together with documents i.e. application
in the process, obscure some other considerations which would for search warrant, affidavits, and other documents already filled out
otherwise be seen and appreciated by one not similarly but unsigned. At that time, Judge Ruiz was hearing a certain case and so
circumstanced he simply instructed the deputy clerk of court to take their depositions.
After the session adjourned, the judge asked for the stenographer to
read to him the stenographic notes and without propounding any
Roan v. Gonzales
questions, asked Logronio to take the oath and warned him that is his
145 SCRA 687 (1986)
deposition was found to be false, he would be charged with perjury.
The search warrant was then signed and BIR agents served the same on
FACTS: Petitioner challenged the admission of one Colt Magnum
the   petitioners’   office.   Petitioner’s   lawyers   protested   on   the   ground  
revolver and 18 live bullets which were found after a search in his
that no formal complaint or transcript of testimony was attached to the
house pursuant to a search warrant issued by the respondent judge,
warrant. Nevertheless, the agents proceeded with the search which
which warrant he also assails. None of the articles listed in the warrant
yielded 6 boxes of documents. Hence, this petition for certiorari,
was discovered during the search. However, the officers conducting the
prohibition and mandamus to declare the search warrant void.
search found in the premises the revolver and the bullets which they
confiscated. They are now the bases of the charge against the
HELD: The petition should be granted because the respondent judge
failed to personally examine the complainant and his witness. As
provided in the Constitution and the Rules of Court, the examination of
HELD: To be valid, the search warrant must be supported by probable
the complainant and witness he may produce shall be conducted by the
cause to be determined by the judge or some other authorized office
judge himself and not by others. The participation of the judge in the
after examining the complainant and the witnesses he may produce.
proceedings which led the to the issuance of the search warrant was
No less important, there must be a specific description of the place to
thus  limited   to   listening   to   the   stenographer’s  reading   her   notes,   to   a  
be searched and the things to be searched to prevent arbitrary and
few words of warning against the commission of perjury and to
indiscriminate use of the warrant. Probable cause, in the case of Burgos
administering the oath to the complainant and his witness. This cannot
V.   Chief   of   Staff   refers   to   “such   facts   and   circumstances   which would
be considered a personal examination. The reading of the stenographic
lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense
notes to respondent judge did not constitute sufficient compliance with
has been committed and the objects sought in connection with the
the constitutional mandate and the rule for by that manner respondent
offense are in the place sought to be searched. As held in a long line of
judge did not have the opportunity to observe the demeanor of the
decision, the probable cause must refer to only one specific offense.
complainant and his witness, and to propound initial and follow up
The petitioner has claimed that no deposition was taken by the
questions which the judicial mind on account of its training, was in the
respondent judge , however, this is not entirely true because
best position to conceive. These were important in arriving at a sound
depositions were taken of the complainants 2 witnesses in addition to
inference on the all important question of whether or not there was
the affidavit executed by them. However, there is still the question of
probable cause. Petition is granted, search warrant is declared null and
the sufficiency of their deposition. A study of one of the depositions of
the witnesses, who claimed that their intelligence informers show that
they were suspicious of the petitioner because he was a follower of the

15 | P LATON
Particularity of Description and General Warrants namely 1) that no warrant shall issue but upon probable cause, to be
determined by the judge in the manner set forth in said provision and
Notwithstanding the authority granted by a warrant, resulting 2) that the warrant shall particularly describe the things to be seized.
None of these requirements has been complied with in the contested
search or seizure may still be violative of the guarantee if such
warrants. Relying on the Moncado doctrine, the respondents
instrument is in the nature of a general warrant, or one which petitioners maintain that even if the search and seizures were
practically authorizes a blanket search or seizure, a roving unconstitutional, the documents, papers and things thus seized are
authority of officers serving it to look everywhere and get admissible in evidence against petitioners. We are unanimously in the
anything that may be associated with what is being sought, opinion that this position be abandoned. Common law jurisdictions
“authorizing  searches  in  any  place  for  anything have already given up in this approach and eventually adopt the
exclusionary rule realizing that this is the only practical means of
The general warrants, whereby any officer or messenger may enforcing the constitutional injunction against unreasonable searches
and seizures.
be commenced to search suspected places without evidence of
a fact committed, or to seize any person or persons not named,
Central Bank v. Morfe
or whose offense is not particularly described and supported by
20 SCRA 507 (1967)
evidence, are grievous and oppressive, and ought not to be
granted FACTS: Respondent is a non stock corporation, the main purpose of
which is to encourage and implement savings and thrift among its
To obviate and prevent an avenue for abuse and arbitrary members and to extend financial assistance in the form of loans. CB
exercise of power, the Constitution specifically requires then published an announcement that such associations and others
particularity of description of things or people to be searched similar in nature have never been authorized to engage in the banking
and seized business. Moreover, CB directed the investigation and gathering of
evidences on the activities of such associations which are operating
contrary to law. Thereafter, a member of the intelligence division of CB
The warrant may be said to particularly describe the things to filed a verified application for a search warrant alleging that after close
be seized when the description therein is as specific as the observation and personal investigation, the organization is illegally
circumstances will ordinarily allow, or when the description engaged in banking activities. A search warrant was issued. Petitioner
expresses conclusion of fact--not of law--by which the warrant filed an action to annul the said search warrant on the grounds that it is
officer may be guided in making the search and seizure, or a  roving  commission,  general  in  its  terms  and  the  use  of  the  word    “and  
when the things described are limited to those which bear others”   in   the   search   warrant   permits   the   unreasonable search and
direct relation to the offense for which the warrant if being seizure of documents which have no relation whatsoever to any specific
criminal act.
HELD: It is to noted that the action taken by CB is predicated on the
Stonehill v Diokno theory that the organization is illegally engaged in banking. The
20 SCRA 383 (1967) respondent judge found the searches and seizure in question to be
unreasonable because the depositions given in support of the search
FACTS; Upon application of the respondents-prosecutors, several warrant states that the deponent personally knows threat the premises
judges issued on several dates, a total of 42 search warrants against the of the organization were being used unlawfully for banking purposes.
petitioners and/or corporations of which they are officers, to search the He deduced that the deponent know specific baking transaction of the
persons above named and/or premises of their offices, warehouses petitioner with specific persons and then concluded that said deponent
and/or residences, and to seize and take possession of certain personal could have if he really knew of actual violation of the law applied for a
properties i.e. books of accounts, ledgers, financial records, vouchers , search want to search and seize only books. To authorize and seize all
correspondences and other documents and/or papers showing all the records without referred to specific alleged victims of the
business transactions as the subjects of the offense. Petitioners alleged purported illegal banking transactions would be to harass the
that said warrants are null and void because, inter alia, they do not petitioners.
describe with particularity the documents, books and things to be
seized. Hence, this petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus. The aforementioned order would seem to assume that an illegal
banking transaction of the kind contemplated in the contested action of
HELD: The documents, papers and things under the alleged authority of the  offices  of  the  bank,  must  always  connote  the  existence  of  a  “victim”  
the warrants in question may be split into 2 major groups, namely a) If this term is used to denote a party whose interests have been
those found and seized in the offices of the aforementioned actually injured, the assumption is not necessarily justified. The law
corporations and b) those found seized in the residences of petitioners requiring compliance with certain requirements before anybody can
herein. As regards the first group, we hold that the petitioners have no engage in banking obviously seeks to protect the public against actual,
cause of action to assail the legality of the contest warrants and of the as well as potential, injury.
seizures made for the simple reason that said corporations have their
respective personalities, separate and distinct from the personality of It is true that such funds referred to are their savings and the
petitioners, It is well settled that the legality of the seizure can be depositors thereof are members, but even a cursory examination of
contested only by the party whose rights have been impaired and that said documents will readily show that anybody can be a depositors and
the objection to the unlawful search is purely personal and cannot be thus be a participating member. Hence, it is open to the public.
availed of by third parties. With respect to the documents, papers and Moreover, the power to so dispose of the funds is placed exclusive
things seized in the residences of the petitioners, the respondent authority of the founding members and participating members are
prosecutors are restrained from using them in evidence against the expressly denied the right to vote or be voted for. This situation is
petitioners. In connection with the documents, papers and things , 2 fraught, precisely with the very dangers or evils which RA 337 seeks to
important questions need to be settled 1) whether the search warrants forestall, by exacting compliance with the requirements of said act,
in questions and the search and seizures made under the authority before the transaction in question could be undertaken. WHEREFORE,
thereof are valid or not and 2) if the answer to the preceding questions the order is hereby annulled.
is in the negative, whether said documents, papers and things may be
used in evidence against petitioners herein. Petitioners maintain that
the search warrants are in the nature of general warrants an that A search warrant may be partially void, such as when it
accordingly the seizures effected are null and void. We agree. 2 points provided for the search and seizure of items which have not
must be stressed in connection with this constitutional mandate been testified to during the application for such warrant

16 | P LATON
159 SCRA 599 (1988)
The constitutional requirement of reasonable particularity of
the things to be seized is primarily meant to enable the law FACTS: A shooting incident occurred in Lanao del Sur which left at least
five persons dead and two others wounded. In the course of events, a
enforcers serving the warrant to: (1) readily identify the
warrant of arrest was issued against 64 persons: 14 (the petitioners in
properties to e seized and this prevent them from seizing the this case) who were identified by three witnesses, and 50 John Does.
wrong items; and (2) leave said peace officers with no
discretion regarding the articles to be seized and thus prevent ISSUE:   WON   the   warrant   of   arrest   is   valid;   i.e.   “Can   a   court   issue   a  
unreasonable searches and seizures warrant  of  arrest  against  an  unknown  accused?”  

The rule is that a description of a place to be searched is HELD: NO, it is not valid as far as the 50 John Does are concerned (as for
sufficient if the officer with the warrant can, with reasonable the 14 petitioners in this case, it’s   an   entirely   different   story   because  
their names and identities are already known; the warrant of arrest is
effort, ascertain and identify the place intended and distinguish
valid as regards to them). The warrant in question is of the nature of a
it from other places in the community general warrant, one of a class of writs long prescribed as
unconstitutional   and  once   anathematized  as   “totally   subversive   of   the  
“John  Doe”  Warrants liberty   of   he   subject.”   Clearly   violative   of   the   constitutional   injunction  
that warrants of arrest should particularly describe the person or
The warrant should, as a rule, identify the person whose place persons to be seized, the warrant as against unidentified subjects will
is to be searched, or the individual to be arrested. It may be considered as null and void.
happen, however, that the name could not be readily
ascertained, in which event some description sufficient to Service Warrants - Time, Place and Manner
identify the person may be resorted. If the description contains
enough details so that the officer serving the warrant would The  time  must  not  be  one  which  is  intrusive  or  violative  of  one’s  
have no difficulty identifying the person, then the warrant privacy, like at the middle of the night
would be considered valid
As for place, the warrant limits the area that may be searched
People v. Veloso and the warrant could not be utilized as authority to search
48 Phil. 169 (1925) everywhere until the item or articles sought for are found

FACTS: Manila police, armed with a search warrant, raided the The manner of service should not also be oppressive or
Parliamentary Club, an establishment managed by Jose Ma. Veloso, a otherwise abusive
member of the House of Representatives, acting on reliable
information that said club was actually a gambling house. They
apprehended nearly 50 people, including Veloso. Veloso asked what It could be served out at any time within its ten-day lifetime,
they wanted and was shown the search warrant; he read it and told the and if its object or purpose cannot be accomplished in one day,
police that he was Representative Veloso and not John Doe (since the the same may be continued the following day or days until
name of Veloso did not appear in the search warrant but instead the completed
pseudonym John Doe was used), and that the police had no right to
search the establishment. Being armed with a warrant does not give leeway to a law enforcement
officer in doing whatever he wants without regard to the time, place,
The police noticed   that   Veloso’s  pockets  were   bulging   as   if   containing   and manner of execution of the warrant.
gambling utensils and as such they required him to show the evidence
they are searching for. After five minutes of conversation (with Veloso 1. The time must not also be one which is intrusive or violative
constantly refusing to be searched all the while), the officers’  patience   of   one’s  privacy (e.g.   in  the   middle   of   the   night).   It’s  also   a  
reached its limit and one of them took hold of Veloso who promptly given that what is considered as reasonable time in one
retaliated, injuring the officer quite severely. It took two officers to locality may not be deemed the same way in another.
restrain Veloso, and with that, it was found that gambling utensils really 2. As for place, the warrant limits the area that may be
were in his pockets. searched and the warrant could not be utilized as authority
to search everywhere until the items or articles sought for
All of the persons apprehended – Veloso included – were arrested, are found.
promptly searched and taken to the patrol wagons. Veloso again 3. Lastly, the manner of execution should not be oppressive or
refused to obey and shouted offensive epithets against the police otherwise abusive.
department, resisting so tenaciously that it took three policemen were
needed to place him in the patrol wagon. Because of his actions, Veloso Q: May the implementation of search warrants be done on different
was charged and convicted of the crime of resistance to agents of the days?
authority (governed by Art. 252 of the Penal Code back then). On A: Yes, it could be served at any time within its 10-day lifetime. If its
appeal, Veloso held on to the proposition that his resistance was purpose cannot be accomplished in one day, it may be continued in the
justifiable on account of the illegality of the John Doe search warrant. next following day/s until completed.

ISSUE: WON the search warrant and the arrest of Veloso were valid. Q: May the search warrant be used or a different purpose on each day?
A: No. A warrant can no longer be utilized as authority to make another
HELD: YES. Both the affidavit for the search warrant and the search search once the items specified in it have already been seized.
warrant itself described the address of the building where the
Parliamentary Club is. That sufficed as a sufficient designation of the
People v. Court of Appeals
premises to be searched. As the search warrant stated that John Doe
347 SCRA 453 (2000)
had gambling utensils in his possession in the building occupied by him
(which, of course, is the building where the Parliamentary Club is) and
FACTS: Private respondent Ortiz was arrested carrying a pistol and
as that John Doe was Jose Ma. Veloso, the manager of the club, the
shabu. Soon after his arrest a search warrant was obtained from the
police could identify John Doe as Jose Mar. Veloso without difficulty.
MTC   of   Parañaque   commanding   the   PNP   officers   “to   make   an  
immediate search at any reasonable hour of day or night of the
Pangandaman v. Casar house/s, closed receptacles and premises above-described and
17 | P LATON
forthwith   seize   and   take   possession”   of   the   property   subject   of   the   to abuse of the search process, and grant to officers executing a search
offense described (that is, unlicensed firearms – a Baby armalite M-16, warrant that discretion which the Constitution has precisely removed
a shotgun, a pistol cal. 45 and the like). Armed with the warrant, the from them. The particularization of the description of the place to be
police – accompanied by a representative of the MTC judge and a searched may properly be done only by the Judge, and only in the
barangay security officer – went  to  Ortiz’s  residence  at  about  7:30  PM   warrant itself; it cannot be left to the discretion of the police officers
to search the premises, which resulted in the seizure of several conducting the search.
unlicensed firearms and ammunition. Ortiz was subsequently charged
with illegal possession of firearms; he moved to quash the search Wilson v. Layne
warrant but the trial court denied it. The Court of Appeals (hereinafter 526 US 603, 143 L Ed 2d 818, 119 S Ct 1692 (1999)
CA) reversed, holding as inadmissible in evidence the seized firearms
and ammunition. There is a warrant of arrest  for  the  petitioner’s  son  in  their  home.
Respondents,   deputy   federal   marshals   and   local   sheriff’s   deputies,  
ISSUE: WON the CA a quo erred in holding that the firearms and invited the Washington Post (reporter and photographer) as part of
ammunition  seized  from  private  respondent’s  house  are  inadmissible  as   Marshal’s  Service  “ride-along”  policy.
evidence for being the fruits of an illegal search.
Warrant was silent about the media ride-along.
HELD: YES. In this case, there is no illegal search. The general rule is that
search warrants must be served in the daytime. However, when the 6:45 am petitioners were still in bed. Husband wearing pair of briefs ran
application asserts that the property is on the person or place ordered to the living room to investigate discovering 5 men wearing street
to be searched, a search at any reasonable hour of the day and night clothes with guns in their living room. The respondents, believing him
can be ordered. As to whether the time during which the search was to be the person sought by the warrant, immediately subdued him on
executed was unreasonable or not, the Supreme Court (hereinafter SC) the floor.
stated that the exact time of the execution of the warrant should be
left at the discretion of the law enforcement officers. Judicial notice Wife follows wearing only nightgown saw her husband being restrained
may be taken not just from the realities of law enforcement but also by the armed officers.
the prevailing conditions in the place to be searched. As such, the SC
deemed that 7:30 PM was a reasonable time, taking notice that said Reporters observed and photographed the incident BUT WERE NOT
time in a suburban subdivision in Metro Manila in an hour at which the INVOLVED IN THE EXECUTION OF THE WARRANT. The newspaper
residents are still up and about. NEVER published the photographs.

People v. Court of Appeals After  a  protective  sweep  of  the  house  revealed  that  the  petitioner’s  son  
291 SCRA 400 (1998) is not in the house, the officers left.

FACTS: Quezon City police have procured a search warrant against Azfar ..Petitioners sued the officers in their personal capacities for money
Hussain who had allegedly in his possession firearms and explosives at damages.
Abigail Variety Store (hereinafter AVS) in Bulacan. However, the next ..District court denied on basis of qualified immunity.
day, the search warrant against Hussain was served not at AVS but at ..Court of Appeals declined to decide whether it is a violation of the 4th
the adjacent apartment (hereinafter Apartment 1), resulting in the amendment but concluded that because no court had held at the time
arrest of four Pakistani nationals and the seizure of their personal of the search that media presence during a police entry into a residence
belongings, papers and effects, including cash (apparently quite a lot, constituted such   a   violation,   the   right   alleged   was   NOT   “CLEARLY  
too) which was never mentioned in the warrant. ESTABLISHED”   and   thus   the   respondents   are   entitle   to   qualified  
Included allegedly among those taken were a piece of dynamite stick, CHIEF JUSTICE REHNQUIST delivered the opinion of the court.
two pieces of C-4-type explosives and one fragmentation grenade, ………..  such  a  media  ride-along does VIOLATE the 4th amendment. BUT
along with some firearms and ingredients for explosives. On because the state of the law was not clearly established at that time
arraignment, the four Pakistani nationals pleaded not guilty and the search in this case took place, the officers are entitled to the
submitted a motion to quash the search warrant and declare the defense of qualified immunity.
evidence obtained by the police officers as inadmissible; the trial court
granted the motion. The People brought forth a petition for certiorari Petitioners sued the federal officials under Bivens (Hanlon v. Bivens 525
but the CA dismissed it, basing on the proposition that the place US 981, [1988]) and the state officials under §1983. Both allows a
actually searched was different and distinct from the place described in plaintiff to seek money damages from government officials who have
the search warrant. violated the 4th amendment. But government officials are shielded from
liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate
ISSUE: WON a search warrant was validly issued as regards the CLEARLY ESTABLISHED statutory or constitutional right of which a
apartment in which private respondents were then actually residing (or, reasonable person would have known. (Harlow v. Fitzgerald 457 US
put differently, WON the apartment had been specifically described in 800, [1982])
the warrant).
The court evaluating a claim for immunity Must first determine
HELD: NO. (The SC noted that the discrepancy concerning the premises whether the alleged right was clearly established at the time of
to  be  searched  appeared  to  have  resulted  from  the  police  officers’  own   alleged violation. (Conn v. Gabbert 525 US 286 [1999])
faulty description of said premises in their application for the search
warrant, which was exactly what the Judge of the Quezon City Regional In 1604 an English court made the now-famous   observation   that   “the  
Trial Court reproduced – at AVS. The Judge also made the scope of the house of everyone is to him as his castle and fortress, as well for his
search more particular and restrictive by his admonition in the warrant defense against injury and violence, as for  his  repose”
that  the  search  be  “limited  only  to  the  premises  herein  described”.)  The  
place to be searched, as set out in the warrant, cannot be amplified or “The   law   of   England   has   so   particular   and   tender   a   regard   to   the  
modified  by   the   officers’   own  personal   knowledge   of   the   premises,   or   immunity   of   a   man’s   house,   that   it   stiles   in   its   castle,   and   will   never  
the evidence they adduced in support of their application for the suffer  it  to  be  violated  with  impunity………….from  this  reason  no  doors  
warrant. Such a change is proscribed by the Constitution which requires may be broken to execute any civil process; though, in criminal cases,
inter alia the search warrant to particularly describe the place to be the  public  safety  supersedes  the  private.”  William  Blackstone
searched as well as the persons or things to be seized. It would concede
to police officers the power of choosing the place to be searched, even The 4th amendment:   “   the   right   of   the   people   to   be   secured   of   their  
if it not be that delineated in the warrant. It would open wide the door persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable search and

18 | P LATON
seizures shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon This exception requires that there must be a lawful arrest which
probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly precedes the search, the search must be contemporaneous with
describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be the arrest, and the area searched is within the immediate
control of the person arrested
Respondents concede that the reporters did not assist them in their
task. But they are there to assert that the officers should be able to Nolasco v. Paño
exercise reasonable discretion, for good public relations, and also could 139 SCRA 152 (1985)
serve as to minimize abuse of the officers.
Own purpose of the Reporters, and the fact that it is not the officers Aguilar-Roque was one of the accused in the criminal case for rebellion
who kept the photographs, though in some cases, presences of 3rd before Special Military Commission No.1, and also one of the accused in
parties are justifiable, this is not. a criminal case for subversion before the Military Commission no. 25.

The court held that it is a violation of the 4th amendment for police to ….August  6,  1984..  She  and  Nolasco  was  arrested  at  the  intersection  of  
bring members of the media or other 3rd parties into a home during the Mayon street and Piy Margal Street, Quezon City at 11:30 am. At noon
execution of a warrant when the presence of the third parties in the on the same day, elements of the Constabulary Security Group
house was not in aid of the execution of the warrant. searched the premises at 239-B mayon Street, Quezon City.

It is not unreasonable for the respondents at that time to believe that ….The   search   resulted   in   the   seizure   of428   documents   and   written  
bringing media along is lawful. materials, and additionally a portable typewriter, and 2 wooden boxes,
making 431 items in all, and the arrest of Tolentino, the person in
It is common practice to them. And there is no persuasive authority yet charge of the premises.
on the case.
…  Aguilar-Roque raised the issue of inadmissibility of evidence obtained
-judgment of CA is affirmed pursuant to the search warrant.
……………                                                                                    ………………
… Judge   Paňo   admitted   to   the   amended   Return   and   ruled   that   the  
Outright entry also is not justified seized documents be subject to disposition of the tribunal trying the
case against the respondent.
knock and announce rule (US)
Rule 126, section 7 of the rules of criminal procedure (Philippines) …Petitioners   filed   the   instant   petition   for   certiorari,   prohibition   and  
mandamus to annul and set aside the
Sec7. Right to break door or window to effect search – the officer, if 1. search  warrant  issued  by  the  respondent  Judge  Paňo
refused admittance to the place of directed search after giving notice of 2. his Order admitting the Amended Return and granting
his purpose and authority, may break open any outer or inner door or the Motion to Retain Seized Items
window of a house or any part of a house or anything therein to 3. Order of the judge in the subversive documents case
execute the warrant or liberate himself or any person lawfully aiding denying  petitioner’s  Motion  to    Suppress.
him when unlawfully detained therein.
…..balancing  of  person’s  right  and  public  interest.
Further, being armed with a warrant does not also justify Petitioners principally argue that Search warrant is void because it is a
outright entry or barging into the place to be searched. In the general warrant since it did not sufficiently describe with particularity
U.S., there is the so-called  “knock  and  announce”  rule  whereby   the things subject of the search and seizure, and that probable cause
an officer executing a warrant must knock and introduce had not been properly established for lack of searching questions
himself and announce his purpose and only in exceptional propounded  to  the  applicant’s  witness.  The  SC  held  the  warrants  void,  
circumstances may he dispense with the same, as when his but did not order the return of the seized items. Temporary restraining
safety is at stake, or there is danger of the evidence being order enjoining the respondents from introducing evidence obtained
pursuant to the search warrant in the subversive documents case is
made permanent, personalties seized may be retained by the CSG for
possible introduction as evidence in Criminal case no. SMC 1-1. Pending
Warrantless Searches and Seizures before Special Military Commission No. 1, without prejudice to
petitioner Mila Aguilar-Roque objecting to their relevance and asking
The recognized exceptions to the warrant requirement include: said Commission to return to her any and all irrelevant documents and
1. Search incident to a lawful arrest articles.
2. Evidence in plain view
3. Search of moving vehicles Teehankee, J., concurring and dissenting:
4. Customs search
Search warrant = void
5. Stop and frisk Warrantless search = still void because she was arrested on board a
6. Exigent and emergency circumstances public vehicle. Warrantless search cannot be made in a place other
7. Consented search than the place of arrest.

Search Incident to Lawful Arrest Resolution on Motion for Reconsideration

147 SCRA 509 (1987)
This is primarily justified by the need to ensure the safety of the
arresting officers against any possible harm arising from the use The solicitor general, on behalf of  public  respondents,  “in  deference  to  
the dissenting opinion of then SC Justice (now Chief Justice) Claudio
by the arrested individual of any weapon that he might have
Teehankee,”   now   offer   no   further   objection   to   a   declaration   that   the  
concealed in his person or which is within immediate reach as subject search is illegal and to the return of the seized items to the
well as the need to preserve evidence that might otherwise be petitioners. Respondents state, however, that they cannot agree to
destroyed having the arrest of petitioners declared illegal

Search warrant =void

19 | P LATON
FACTS: Detective Belland received information from a confidential
Temporary restraining order enjoining the respondents from informer that unknown persons were smoking opium in a hotel. The
introducing evidence obtained pursuant to the search warrant in the detective called for federal narcotic agents and went to the hotel with
subversive documents case is made permanent. such agents. The agents, who are experienced in narcotic work
recognized the smell of opium. The odor led them to Room 1. As
Personalities seized by virtue of the illegal search warrant are hereby Belland went to the door and introduced himself, there was a slight
ordered returned to petitioners. delay in the door before the defendant open the door. The defendant,
a woman, stepped back and admitted the officers. Belland then told her
People v. Leangsiri about the opium smell, the defendant denied that there is such a smell.
252 SCRA 213 (1996) Belland told her to consider herself under arrest because they were
going to search the room. The officers found opium and smoking
Leangsiri was arrested at the arrival area of NAIA bringing 8225.31 apparatus, the latter being warm, apparently from recent use. The
grams of heroin hidden under the false bottom of a black suitcase. defendant objected to the admission of the evidence but the District
Informed of the authorities that he is to deliver the contraband to 3 Court refused to suppress the same. She was convicted and the Court
people at the Las Palmas Hotel in Manila. of Appeals affirmed.

An entrapment was devised by NARCOM (narcotics command) and ISSUE: Whether or not there was a violation of a valid search and
agents of the bureau of customs then ensued. seizure (Specifically yung sa violation ng fourth amendment rights.)

The 3 were arrested. Decision: Search and arrest not valid.

They learned that Amidu stays at room 413 of the same hotel. While Rationale: No reason for not obtaining a search warrant except
Omogbolahan and Bhola were billeted at Royal Palm Hotel. inconvenience to the officers and some slight delay necessary to
prepare papers and present the evidence to magistrate. There are no
Accompanied by hotel owner and security officer, they searched convincing reasons to bypass the constitutional requirement. No
Amidu’s  room. evidence or contraband was threatened with removal or destruction,
except perhaps the fumes which suppose in time will disappear. The
Got there a piece of paper with the name Suchinda Leangsiri written on evidence of their existence before the search was adequate and the
it tucked within the pages of his telephone and address book. And testimony of the officers to that effect would not perish from the delay
other possessions were confiscated. of getting a warrant.

NARCOM went to Royal Palm Hotel. Coordinated with security officers Since it was a search without warrant, it could be valid only if for a
of the hotel who stood as witnesses when they entered and searched crime committed in the presence of the arresting officer for a felony of
the room. They yielded 2 black suitcases, each with false bottoms and which he had reasonable cause to believe defendant guilty. –The
both smaller than that confiscated from Leangsiri. The appellants were arresting officer did not have probable cause to arrest petitioner until
convicted of conspiring to transport heroin. he had entered her room and found her to be the sole occupant.

Whether or not the piece of paper found in the room of Amidu is An officer gaining access to private living quarters under color of his
admissible as evidence. office and of the law which he personifies must then have valid basis in
law for the intrusion. Valid basis is lacking.
Revised Rules of Court provides that a person lawfully arrested may be
searched for dangerous weapons or anything which may be used as Plain View Doctrine
proof of the commission of an offense, without a search warrant.
Under this exception, contraband in plain view of officers who
Strict application of the exception that such warrantless search
have a right to be in that place where they are and see the
obviously cannot be made at a place other than the place of arrest.
contraband have the right to seize it without having to secure a
Immediate Control testwas enunciated in the American case of Chimel warrant
vs. State of California. (Arrested at his house.. searched the entire
house and things found were allowed to be admitted as evidence. But Requisites:
the SC reversed the conviction and held that the search went far 1. Prior justification for the entry or intrusion
beyond his person and the area from which he might have obtained 2. Inadvertent discovery of the evidence
either a weapon or something that could have been used as evidence 3. Immediate apparent illegality of the item as evidence of a
against him.)
crime, contraband or otherwise subject to seizure
The exception obtains when the plain view doctrine applies.
4. Plain view justifies mere seizure of evidence without further
In the case a car, appellants were arrested in room 504 of the Las
Palmas Hotel. The piece of paper bearing the name of leangsiri People v. Musa
obtained in room 413 of the same hotel found through warrantless 217 SCRA 597 (1993)
search is illegal and the piece of paper is held to be inadmissible as
evidence against the appellants. The inadmissibility of the paper as In a buy-bust operation, a poseur buyer went to the house of Musa
evidence will not however exculpate the appellants. Its exclusion does (Present in the house of Musa: a boy, two women, one of which is his
not  destroy  the  prosecutor’s  case  against  the  appellants.  The  remaining   wife) and asked for marijuana. After receiving the 20 Php marked
evidence still established their guilt beyond reasonable doubt. money,  Musa  gave  the  marijuana  to  the  “buyer”,  the  “buyer”  went   to  
the Narcotics Command and showed them marijuana. NARCOM team
Johnson v. US then   rushed   to   the   buyer’s   house.   The   marked   money   could   not   be  
333 U.S. 10, 92 L Ed, 436, 68 S Ct 367 (1948) found. Musa said that he has given the money to his wife na wala na
dun nung panahon nay un. Apparently, two team members went to a
Petitioner challenges her conviction on four counts charging violation of kitchen and noticed  a  “cellophane  colored  white  and  stripe  hanging  at  
federal narcotic laws on the ground that there were violations of her the   corner   of   the   kitchen.”   The   two   asked   Musa   but   Musa   did   not  
Fourth Amendment rights. answer. They opened it and found dried marijuana leaves. Musa was
convicted of selling marijuana.

20 | P LATON
12 small plastic bags containing and paper clip bags containing shabu
ISSUE: Whether or not the evidence was admissible. and two bricks of dried leaves which appeared to be marijuana. The
accused was charged with the unlawful possession of shabu and
Decision:  No  it’s  not.  (Under  the  Plain  View  Doctrine) marijuana. Accused was convicted. On appeal, he questions the validity
of the search warrant and the seizure of the bricks of marijuana.
Rationale: In a buy bust operation, the authorities may seize the
marked money found on the person of the pusher immediately after ISSUE: whether or not the seizure of the latter drug (marijuana) was
the arrest even without arrest and search warrants. Apparently, the justified on the ground that the drug was seized within the plain view of
NARCOM agents searched the person of the appellant after arresting the searching party.
him in his house but found nothing.  That’s  the  time  they  searched  the  
whole house and found the plastic bag hanging in the corner which Decision: Not justified. The decision of the trial court was reversed and
contains the marijuana. set aside. Accused is acquitted.
Rationale: For the plain view doctrine to apply, there must be: (a) prior
The warrantless  search  and  seizure,  as  an  incident  to  a  suspect’s  lawful   justification, (b) inadvertent discovery of the evidence, (c) immediate
arrest, may extend beyond the person of the one arrested to include apparent illegality of the evidence before the police.
the premises or surroundings under his immediate control. Objects in
the  “plain  view”  of  an  officer  who  has  the  right  to  be  in  the position to The question is whether these requisites have been complied with.
have that view are subject to seizure and may be presented as (Hindi, lalo na yung a at b)
The only justification for an intrusion by the police is the conduct of a
The plain view doctrine cannot justify the seizure of the object where search   pursuant   to   accused   appellant’s   lawful   arrest   for   possession   of  
the  incriminating  nature  of  the  object  is  not  apparent  from  the  “plain   shabu. The police failed to allege in this case the time when the
view”   of   the   object.   THE   PLASTIC BAGS WERE NOT WITHIN THEIR marijuana was found; whether or prior to, or contemporaneous with,
“PLAIN  VIEW”  WHEN   THEY   ARRESTED   THE   APPELANT  TO   JUSTIFY   ITS   the shabu subject of the warrant, or whether it was recovered on
SEIZURE. THE NARCOM AGENTS HAD TO MOVE FROM ONE PORTION accused-appellant’s  person  or  in  an  area  within  his  immediate  control.  
OF THE HOUSE TO ANOTHER BEFORE THEY SIGHTED THE PLASTIC Its recovery, therefore, presumably during the search conducted after
BAG. THE AGENTS HAD NO CLUE AS TO THE PLASTIC BAGS’  CONTENTS,   the shabu, had been recovered from the cabinet. Moreover, the
THEY HAVE TO OPEN IT FIRST TO KNOW WHETHER ITS CONTENTS IS A marijuana was in the form of two bricks wrapped in newsprint. Not
CONTRABAND  OR  NOT.  WHAT’S  WITHIN  THEIR  PLAIN  VIEW  WAS  THE   being in a transparent container, the contents wrapped in newsprint
PLASTIC BAG, NOT THE MARIJUANA. could not have been readily discernible as marijuana. The recovery of
marijuana is INVALID. It is inadmissible in evidence against accused and-
People v. Doria appellant.
301 SCRA 668 (1999)
Search of Moving Vehicles
Buy-bust operation.
If a warrant were first required before a car may be searched, it
View of the Prosection: PO3 Manlangit acted as the buyer, gave 1600
may only be an exercise in futility as by the time the warrant is
pesos to Doria who thereafter told the former to wait for him as he
went to get the marijuana from his associate. After an hour, Doria gave
issued the vehicle to be searched may have been driven to
PO3 an object wrapped in plastic and gave it to PO3 who forthwith some far away and unknown places
arrested Doria. Marked money could not be found so they went to the
associate’s  house.  PO3  was  standing  by  the  door  and  saw  a  box  which   One has a lesser expectation of privacy in a motor vehicle
has something wrapped in plastic which appear to be what just like because its function is transportation, and it seldom serves as
what Doria gave him. As  PO3’s  suspicion  aroused,  he  entered  Neneth’s   one’s   residence   or   as   the   repository of personal effects. A car
house and took hold of the box. Other officers recovered the marked has little capacity for escaping public scrutiny. It travels public
money bills from Neneth. Defense denies these allegations.
thoroughfares where both its occupants and its contents are in
ISSUE: Whether or not what happened is a reasonable seizure.(Plain
plain view
view doctrine again)
Related to this kind of searches is the issue of checkpoints
Decision: no. where the rule is that only visual searches or inspection may be
had unless there is justifiable reason for conducting a more
Rationale: It is clear that an object is in plain view if the object itself is extended search
plainly exposed to sight.
Standing  by  the  door  of  appellant  Gaddao’s  house,  PO3  Manlangit  had  
The Court differentiated the checkpoint--which was primarily
a view of the interior of the said house. Two and a half meters away
was the dining table and underneath it was a carton box. The box was
intended   to   determine   if   the   vehicle’s   occupants   were  
partially open and revealed something wrapped in plastic. In a cross committing a crime--from  an  “information-seeking”  checkpoint  
examination, Manlangit admitted that he merely presumed the where police stop vehicles and ask the occupants for help in
contents to be marijuana because it had the same plastic wrapping as providing information about a crime that has been committed
the   “buy-bust”   marijuana.   A   close   scrutiny   of   the   records   reveals   that   by others. This latter form was considered valid
the plastic wrapper was not colorless and transparent as to clearly
manifest its contents to a viewer. The marijuana was not in plain view People vs. Barros
and its seizure without requisite search warrant was in violation of the 231 SCRA 557 (1994)
law and the constitution.
FACTS: 2 police officers while riding a bus saw a man(Barros) carrying a
People v. Salanguit carton and placed it under his seat. When the officers reached their
356 SCRA 683 destination, they informed another policeman to inspect the carton
carried by Barros. When the said policeman inspected the carton, he
Police   officers   went   to   Salanguit’s   house   with   a   search   warrant   for   found that it contained marijuana. When asked whether he owned the
shabu. When they knocked on the door, no one opened the door. They carton of marijuana, he denied the same. But later on admitted the
heard people panicking so they forced the door open and entered the ownership  of  such  after  the  bus  driver  affirmed  Barros’  ownership.  He  
house. After showing the warrant, they searched the house, they found was charged for the violation of the Dangerous Drug Act of 1972. The

21 | P LATON
trial court convicted him. On appeal he claims that, among others, his which has been declared no to be illegal per se, for as long as it is
Constitutional right; against unreasonable search and seizures was warranted by the exigencies of public order and conducted in a way
violated by the police authorities. least intrusive to the motorists.

ISSUE: whether or not the act of the policemen constitutes Routine  inspections  are  not  regarded  as  violative  of  an  individual’s  right  
unreasonable search and seizures? against unreasonable search. Limitations of routine inspections:
a. Where the police officer merely draws aside the curtain of a
HELD: there was an unreasonable search and seizures. vacant vehicle which is parked on the public fair grounds.
b. Simply looks into a vehicle
General rule, a search and seizure must be carried out through a c. Flashes  a  light  therein  without  opening  the  car’s  door
judicial warrant. d. Where the occupants are not subjected to a physical or body
Exceptions (1): in case of moving vehicles, warrant less search can be e. Where the inspection of vehicles is limited to a visual search
conducted because it is not practicable to secure a judicial warrant or inspection
before searching the same since such can be quickly moved out of the f. Routine check is conducted in a fixed area
locality or jurisdiction in which the warrant may be sought.
None of the following circumstances are present in the case at bar. The
Limitations for the exception: police did not merely conducted a visual inspection of the vehicle, they
a. it is limited only to routine checks, that is, the vehicle had   to   reach   inside   the   vehicle…it   is   not   considered   a   simple   routine  
are neither really searched not their occupants subject check.
to physical or body searches, the examination of the
vehicles being limited to visual inspection. The fact that the vehicle looked suspicious simply because it is not
common for such to be covered   with   “kakawati”   leaves   does   not  
Exception (2): if there is probable cause. constitute probable cause as would justify the conduct of a search
without warrant.
In the case at bar, there was no probable cause for the policemen to
suspect that the carton he carried contained marijuana. Neither did Rule: accused is acquitted.
the carton emanate a distinct smell as that of marijuana. Nor did Barros
act suspiciously while boarding the bus. It did not indicate nor suggest Valmonte v. De Villa
the presence of any such probable cause. 178 SCRA 221 (1989)

Waiver  of  unlawful  search  and  seizure…  to  constitute  a  waiver,  it  must   FACTS: certain checkpoints in certain parts of Valenzuela and other
appear first that the right exists; second, that the person involved had cities were set-up by the NCRDC which some of its residents complain
knowledge, actual or constructive, of the existence if such right; last, because they claim they are violation of their right against search and
the person had an actual intention to relinquish the right. The fact that seizures. Furthermore, they claim they are worried of being harassed
the accused failed to object to the entry to his house does not amount and of their safety being placed in arbitrary, capricious and whimsical
to permission to make a search therein. disposition of the military. The checkpoints by the military have been
issued to maintain, among others, peace and order.
Ruling: Barros is acquitted.
ISSUE: whether the military checkpoints are constitutional and not an
Caballes v. Court of Appeals infringement upon the right from warrantless search and seizures?
373 SCRA 221 (2002)
HELD: there was no issue to begin with because the petitioners are not
FACTS: 2 policemen, while performing a routine patrol, spotted a the real party in interest. It was ruled that petitioners who do not
passenger  jeep  covered  with  “kakawati”  leaves  driven  by  the  appellant.     allege that any of their rights were violated are not qualified to bring
The policemen stopped the jeep, and when asked what was loaded on action as real party in interest. In the case at hand, no proof to show
such, the appellant did not answer appearing pale and nervous. They that, in the course of the routine checks, the military indeed committed
checked the cargo and discovered that it contained specific   violations   of   petitioner’s   right   against   unlawful   search and
aluminum/galvanized conductor wires exclusively owned by seizure or other rights.
NPC(national power corporation) He was convicted of theft. However
on appeal, he raised the validity of the warrantless search and the Between the inherent right of the state to protect its existence and
admissibility of the evidence thus obtained. promote   public   welfare   and  an   individual’s  right   against   a   warrantless  
search, which is however reasonably conducted, the former should
ISSUE: whether or not police officers who were on routine patrol, prevail.
merely   on   “suspicion”   that   “it   might   contain   smuggled   goods,”  
constitutes probable cause that will justify warrantless search and Rule: petition dismissed.
Anag, Jr. v. COMELEC
HELD: there is no probable cause and therefore illegal. 237 SCRA 424 (1994)

The mere mobility of vehicles, does not give the police officers FACTS: COMELEC  issued  resolution  2323  otherwise  known  as  the  “Gun  
unlimited discretion to conduct indiscriminate searches without Ban.”  Pursuant  to  such  resolution,  the  petitioner  instructed  his  driver  to  
warrant if made within the interior of the territory and the absence of immediately send his gun that was given to him by the House of
probable cause. Representatives. Following such order, the driver immediately went to
Manila. At about 20 meters from the Batasang Pambansa, police
Probable cause signifies a reasonable ground of suspicion supported by authorities conducted a checkpoint. About 14 men search the car
circumstances sufficiently strong, in themselves, to warrant a cautious driven by the driver, thus the gun that was to be delivered was seized
man’s  belief  that  the  person  accused  is  guilty  of  the  offense  with  which   and he was charge for the violation of the gun ban.
he is charged. The required probable cause will justify a warrantless
search and seizure is not determined by a fixed formula but is resolved ISSUE: whether or not the search and seizure of the gun was in violation
according to the facts of each case. of  an  individual’s  right  against  warrantless  search?

“stop-and-search”   without   warrant   at   military   or   police   checkpoint   HELD: It was a violation of such right, since there were no justifying

22 | P LATON
circumstances specifically pointing the culpability of the petitioner and Almeida – Sanchez v. United States
his driver, therefore, the search was invalid. The action of the 413 US 266, 37 L Ed 2d 596, 93 S Ct 2535 (1973)
policemen unreasonably intruded to the privacy and the security of his
property. Consequently, the firearms obtained in the search cannot be FACTS: Mexican and holder of a valid work permit, was stopped by the
admitted as evidence for any purposes of proceeding. Border Patrol on a state highway 78 in California and hi car was
thoroughly searched. The point where the petitioner was stopped, the
The submissive actions of the driver with regards to the search, seems road meanders north as well as east. But nowhere does the road reach
like a waiver of the need for a warrant to search. However, considering the Mexican border, and at all points it lies north of US 80 a major east
the circumstance wherein 14 armed men who were there to search the – west highway entirely within the United States that connects the
vehicle, without his master, herein petitioner, thus he is in no way Southwest with the west coast. It is obvious that the Border Patrol had
capable of resisting such actions. no search warrant, and that there was no probable cause of any kind
for the search. Marihuana was uncovered from the search. The only
asserted justification is 287a3 of the Immigration and Nationality Act,
Aniag, Jr. Vs Comission on Elections 66 Stat. 233 8 U.S.C. 1357a3, that provides for warrantless searches of
237 SCRA 424 (1994) automobiles and other conveyances within reasonable distance from
any external boundary of United States.
FACTS: In the preparation for the synchronized election for the national
and local elections in 1992. COMELEC issued resolution No. 2323 also ISSUE: W/N the Border Patrol search is constitutional
known   as   “Gun   Ban”   containing   rules   and   regulations   on   bearing,  
carrying and transporting of firearms or other deadly weapons. HELD: No claim is made nor could one be that the search of the
COMELEC also issued resolution No. 2327 providing disqualification of petitioner’s   car   was   constitutional   under   any   previous   decision   of   this  
candidates engaged in gunrunning, using and transporting of firearms, court involving the search of an automobile. The search in this case was
organizing special strike forces, and establishing spot checkpoints. conducted in the unfettered discretion of the members of the Border
Patrol without warrant, probable cause or consent. Search on a
A congressman of 1st district of Bulacan was compelled to return 2 California road that lies at all points at least 20 miles north of the
firearms issued to him by the House of Representatives. Petitioner Mexican border was a wholly of different sort. In the absence of a
instructs his driver Arellano to pick the firearms and return it to the probable cause search violated the right to be free from unreasonable
congress. In the same day PNP set up a check point outside Batasan, search and seizures.
where Arellano was stop and searched finding the two firearms
properly packed. Arellano was detained and the firearms confiscated. United States v, Brigoni
Later Arellano was released and the petitioner was invited to give light 422 US 873 (1975)
to the situation. Petitioner explained that Arellano did not commit any
crime and that the driver actually complying with the law apprehended Case involving the not the Border Patrol but to question the occupants
by returning the firearms to the congress. about their citizenship and immigration status. The officer may
question the driver and passengers about their citizenship and
ISSUE: W/N such search and seizure is a violation to the constitutional immigration status.
right to due process.
United States v. Martinez – Fuente
HELD: Extensive search without warrant could only be resorted to if 428 US 543 (1976)
the officers conducting the search had reasonable or probable cause. In
the case at hand there was no evidence to show that the policeman Brief questioning is consistent with the fourth amendments, thus not
were impelled to do such, for there is no confidential report leading need ne authorized by warrant.
them to reasonably believe that certain motorist is engage in
gunrunning. Therefore the search could not be valid. Customs Searches

People v. Usana Items which are imported and which are to be subjected to
323 SCRA 754 (2000)
payment of customs duties are not considered as properly
FACTS: During the COMELEC gun ban period, policemen set up a check
within the territory of the taxing authority if the appropriate
point at the corner of Senator Gil Puyat Ave. Those manning said taxes have not yet been paid
checkpoint, check merely those they found to be suspicious an
imposing merely a running stop on others. Past midnight they stopped “Search   and   seizure   without   search   warrant   of   vessels   and   air  
a KIA Pride driven car by Escano with two passengers with it namely crafts for violations of the customs laws have been the
Usana and Lopez. One of the Policemen saw a long firearm on the lap traditional exception to the constitutional requirement of a
of Usana who was seated at the passenger seat. The three were search warrant, because the vessel can be quickly moved out of
brought to the police station together with the car. The car was
the locality or jurisdiction in which the search warrant must be
searched and found within is hashish.
sought before such warrant could be secured; hence it is not
ISSUE: W/N such search and seizures is a violation of the constitutional practicable to require a search warrant before search or seizure
rights of the accused. can be constitutionally effected

HELD: Court ruled that not all checkpoints are illegal. Those which are Papa v. Mago
warranted by exigencies of public order and are conducted in a way 22 SCRA 857 (1968)
least intrusive to motorists are allowed. As long as the inspection is
limited to a visual searched it cannot be regarded as violative of FACTS: Counter intelligence unit of the Manila Police Department
individual’s   right   against   unreasonable   searched.   There   are   six   misdeclared that a certain shipment of personal effects would be
recognize exceptions to warrant requirement 1) searched incidental to release from the customs zone pier in manila. When the trucks left the
an arrest 2) searched moving vehicles 3) evidence in plain view 4) vicinity other counter – intelligence group seize the said trucks.
custom searches 5) consented warrantless searched and 6) stop – frisk
– situations. Therefore checkpoint conducted was in pursuance of the ISSUE: W/N such act by the counter intelligence of Manila Police
gun ban enforced by the COMELEC. prejudiced the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure.

HELD: 2d section of the Act of March 3, 1815 it was made lawful for

23 | P LATON
customs offices not only to board and search vessels within their own search is warranted for his and others' safety.
and adjoining examine any vehicle beast or person which is suspected In delivering the opinion of the Court, Chief Justice Warren stated:
which are introduce contrary to the law. In the instant case the "Where a reasonably prudent officer is warranted in the circumstances
petitioner could not question the search for their only complain they of a given case in believing that his safety or that of others is
were just intercepted without any search warrant. But even if there is a endangered, he may make a reasonable search for weapons of the
search there is still authority to the effect that no search warrant would person believed by him to be armed and dangerous regardless of
be needed under the circumstances obtaining in the instant case. Thus whether he has probable cause to arrest that individual for crime or the
freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures is construed as to absolute certainty that the individual is armed.
recognize the difference between search in the dwelling and search of a "(a) Though the police must, whenever practicable, secure a warrant to
ship, motorboat, wagon or automobile where it is not practicable to make a search and seizure, that procedure cannot be followed where
secure a search warrant. For the reason a vehicle could quickly move swift action based upon on-the-spot observations of the officer on the
out. beat is required."

Stop and Frisk Exception - The Terry Patdown The majority of the Court concluded the "stop and frisk" technique was
constitutional as long as the action could be rationally justified by
In certain situations, a police officer on the beat may observe
certain unusual and suspicious activity which his training and
Adams v. Williams
experience would indicate that something wrong is afoot. He 407 US 143, 32 L Ed 2d 612, 92 S Ct 1921 (1972)
need not wait for an explicit criminal conduct be manifested
before he may take action. In such an instance, he may FACTS: While on duty, a police officer was approached by a reliable
approach the suspicious person and undertake a limited check-- informant who told the officer that a person sitting in a nearby car, i.e.,
a stop and frisk--patting down the outside clothing of the the defendant, was carrying drugs and a gun. The officer went to
person for possibly concealed weapons. This is justified by the defendant’s  car  and  grabbed  a  gun  from  exactly  the  same  place  where  
need  to  act  expeditiously  in  a  case  where  a  minute’s  delay  may   the informant said the gun would be. Then the officer searched the car
and found additional weapons and drugs.
prove dangerous if not disastrous
ISSUE: Can the officer rely on information obtained from a reliable
A Terry stop   must   be   justified   at   its   inception   and   ‘reasonably   informant for reasonable suspicion for a search?
related  in  scope  to  the  circumstances  which  justified’ the initial
stop HELD: Yes. The Court held that the officer had reasonable suspicion to
The reasonableness of seizures that are less intrusive than a conduct the search. Here, the Court noted that the officer had
traditional   arrest   depends   ‘on   a   balance   between   the   public   reasonable suspicion because the officer knew the informant to be
interest   and   the   individual’s   right   to   personal   security   from   reliable. Thus, the officer had reason to believe that the suspect was
armed and dangerous and he could constitutionally frisk the suspect for
arbitrary  interference  by  law  officers’
Terry v. Ohio
392 U. S. 1, 20 L Ed 2d 889 S Ct 1868 (1968) Malacat v. Court of appeals
283 SCRA 159 (1997)
FACTS: A Cleveland police officer (Martin McFadden) observed two
unidentified men on a street corner in his beat. As the officer watched, FACTS: On 27 August 1990, at about 6:30 p.m., allegedly in response to
the men took turns walking a short distance down the sidewalk and bomb threats reported seven days earlier, Rodolfo Yu of the Western
peering in a particular store window. After each circuit, the men would Police District, Metropolitan Police Force of the Integrated National
appear to confer about something. This occurred a total of twenty-four Police, Police Station No. 3, Quiapo, Manila, was on foot patrol with
times (according to the Supreme Court opinion; McFadden's earlier three other police officers (all of them in uniform) along Quezon
testimony indicates the men walked to the store and peered through Boulevard, Quiapo, Manila, near the Mercury Drug store at Plaza
the window approximately 3-5 times each). Miranda. They chanced upon two groups of Muslim-looking men, with
each group, comprised of three to four men, posted at opposite sides
McFadden watched as the men were briefly joined by a third person of the corner of Quezon Boulevard near the Mercury Drug Store. These
who left quickly. The suspicious activity caused McFadden to suspect men  were  acting  suspiciously  with  “their  eyes  moving  very  fast.”  Yu  and  
the men were planning to rob the store. his companions positioned themselves at strategic points and observed
both groups for about 30 minutes. The police officers then approached
After the third individual left, the men began walking away in the one group of men, who then fled in different directions. As the
direction of the store. McFadden followed and observed from a policemen gave chase, Yu caught up with and apprehended Sammy
distance until they met up with the third party. McFadden then Malacat y Mandar. Upon searching Malacat, Yu found a fragmentation
approached the group, identified himself as police, and asked the men's grenade   tucked   inside   the   latter’s   “front   waist   line.”   Yu’s   companion,  
names. police officer Rogelio Malibiran, apprehended Abdul Casan from whom
a .38 caliber revolver was recovered. Malacat was charged with
The men mumbled something unintelligible, at which point McFadden violating Section 3 of Presidential Decree 1866. The trial court ruled
turned one of the suspects and patted down the outside of his clothing. that  the  warrantless  search  and  seizure  of  Malacat  was  akin  to  a  “stop  
In the process, the officer found a gun in the pocket of the suspect's and   frisk,” where   a   “warrant   and   seizure   can   be   effected   without  
jacket. He then directed all three men to enter a store with their hands necessarily  being  preceded  by  an  arrest”  and  “whose  object  is  either  to  
raised, and proceeded to pat down the other two suspects, recovering maintain the status quo momentarily while the police officer seeks to
a revolver from one. The three were taken to the local police station, obtain   more   information”;   and   that   the   seizure   of   the   grenade from
where two were charged with carrying a concealed weapon. Malacat was incidental to a lawful arrest. The trial court thus found
Malacat guilty of the crime of illegal possession of explosives under
ISSUE: Whether it is always unreasonable for a policeman to seize a Section 3 of PD 1866.
person and subject him to a limited search for weapons unless there is
probable cause for an arrest. ISSUE: Whether the search made on Malacat is valid, pursuant to the
exception of “stop  and
HELD: The Court held that the stop, or seizure, and frisk, or search, was frisk.”
valid when a "reasonably prudent officer" has cause to believe a limited
HELD: The general rule as regards arrests, searches and seizures is that

24 | P LATON
a warrant is needed in team. No search warrant was secured by the raiding team. Accused was
order to validly effect the same. The Constitutional prohibition against found guilty of illegal possession of firearms.
unreasonable arrests, searches and seizures refers to those effected
without a validly issued warrant, subject to certain exceptions. As ISSUE: Whether or not there was a valid search and seizure in this case.
regards valid warrantless arrests, these are found in Section 5, Rule 113
of theRules of Court. A warrantless arrest under the circumstances Ruling: YES. It is admitted that the military operatives who raided the
contemplated under Section 5(a) has been denominated   as   one   “in   Eurocar Sales Office were not armed with a search warrant at that time.
flagrante  delicto,”  while  that  under  Section  5(b)  has  been  described  as   The raid was actually precipitated by intelligence reports that said
a   “hot   pursuit”   arrest.   Turning   to   valid   warrantless   searches,   they   are   office was being used as headquarters by the RAM. Prior to the raid,
limited to the following: (1) customs searches; (2) search of moving there was a surveillance conducted on the premises wherein the
vehicles; (3) seizure of evidence in plain view; (4) consent searches; (5) surveillance team was fired at by a group of men coming from the
a   search   incidental   to   a   lawful   arrest;   and   (6)   a   “stop   and   frisk.”   The   Eurocar building. When the military operatives raided the place, the
concepts   of   a   “stop-and-frisk”   and   of   a   search   incidental   to   a   lawful   occupants thereof refused to open the door despite requests for them
arrest must not be confused. These two types of warrantless searches to do so, thereby compelling the former to break into the office. The
differ in terms of the requisite quantum of proof before they may be Eurocar Sales Office is obviously not a gun store and it is definitely not
validly effected and in their allowable scope. In a search incidental to a an armory or arsenal which are the usual depositories for explosives
lawful arrest, as the precedent arrest determines the validity of the and ammunition. It is primarily and solely engaged in the sale of
incidental search. Here, there could have been no valid in flagrante automobiles. The presence of an unusual quantity of high-powered
delicto or hot pursuit arrest preceding the search in light of the lack of firearms and explosives could not be justifiably or even colorably
personal knowledge on the part of Yu, the arresting officer, or an overt explained. In addition, there was general chaos and disorder at that
physical act, on the part of Malacat, indicating that a crime had just time because of simultaneous and intense firing within the vicinity of
been committed, was being committed or was going to be committed. the office and in the nearby Camp Aguinaldo which was under attack by
Plainly, the search conducted on Malacat could not have been one rebel forces. The courts in the surrounding areas were obviously closed
incidental to a lawful arrest. On the other hand, while probable cause is and, for that matter, the building and houses therein were deserted.
not   required   to   conduct   a   “stop   and   frisk,”   it   nevertheless holds that Under the foregoing circumstances, it is our considered opinion that
mere   suspicion   or   a   hunch   will   not   validate   a   “stop   and   frisk.”   Here,   the instant case falls under one of the exceptions to the prohibition
there   are   at   least   three   (3)   reasons   why   the   “stop-and-frisk”   was   against a warrantless search. In the first place, the military operatives,
invalid:  First,  there  is  grave  doubts  as  to  Yu’s  claim  that  Malacat  was  a   taking into account the facts obtaining in this case, had reasonable
member of the group which attempted to bomb Plaza Miranda 2 days ground to believe that a crime was being committed. There was
earlier. This claim is neither supported by any police report or record consequently more than sufficient probable cause to warrant their
nor corroborated by any other police officer who allegedly chased that action. Furthermore, under the situation then prevailing, the raiding
group.   Second,   there   was   nothing   in   Malacat’s   behavior   or   conduct   team had no opportunity to apply for and secure a search warrant from
which could have reasonably elicited even mere suspicion other than the courts. Under such urgency and exigency of the moment, a search
that  his  eyes  were  “moving  very  fast”  — an observation which leaves us warrant could lawfully be dispensed with.
incredulous since Yu and his teammates were nowhere near Malacat
and it was already 6:30 p.m., thus presumably dusk. Malacat and his Consented Searches
companions were merely standing at the corner and were not creating
any commotion or trouble. Third, there was at all no ground, probable
Where the person to be searched acquiesces in the search of
or otherwise, to believe that Malacat was armed with a deadly weapon.
None was visible to Yu, for as he admitted, the alleged grenade was his person or property, then obviously no warrant need be
“discovered”   “inside   the   front   waistline”   of   Malacat,   and   from   all   procured. He in effect waives his right to otherwise have a
indications as to the distance between Yu and Malacat, any telltale warrant justify the invasion of his liberty and privacy
bulge, assuming that Malacat was indeed hiding a grenade, could not
have been visible to Yu. What is unequivocal then are blatant violations It   should   not   be   presumed   from   a   person’s   silence   that   he  
of   Malacat’s   rights   solemnly   guaranteed   in   Sections   2   and   12(1)   of   waived the illegality of a search
Article III of the Constitution.
Such a passive conformity given under coercive or intimidating
Exigent and Emergency Circumstances circumstances is considered no consent at all within the
purview of the constitutional guarantee
The Court justified the warrantless search by reason of the
“urgency  and  exigency  of  the  moment” Consent must be made voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently
People v. De Gracia
233 SCRA 716 (1994)
1. It must appear first that the right exists
FACTS: The incidents involved in this case took place at the height of 2. The person involved had knowledge, actual or constructive,
the  coup  d’état  staged  in  December,  1989.  Accused-appellant Rolando of the existence of such right
de Gracia was charged in two separate informations for illegal 3. Said person had an actual intention to relinquish the right
possession of ammunition and explosives in furtherance of rebellion,
and for attempted homicide. Appellant was convicted for illegal Consent to a search is not to be lightly inferred but must be
possession of firearms in furtherance of rebellion, but was acquitted of shown by clear and convincing evidence
attempted homicide. Surveillance was undertaken by the military along
EDSA because of intelligence reports & nbsp; &n bsp; about a coup.
Members of the team were engaged by rebels in gunfire killing one
Relevant to this determination are the following characteristics
member of the team. A searching team raided the Eurocar Sales Office. of the person giving consent and the environment In which
They were able to find and confiscate six cartons of M-16 ammunition, consent is given:
five bundles of C-4 dynamites, M-shells of different calibers, and 1. The age of the defendant
"molotov" bombs inside one of the rooms belonging to a certain Col. 2. Whether he was in public or secluded location
Matillano. De Gracia was seen inside the office of Col. Matillano, 3. Whether he objected to the search of passively looked on
holding a C-4 and suspiciously peeping through a door. The team 4. The education and intelligence of the defendant
arrested appellant. They were then made to sign an inventory, written
5. The presence of coercive police procedures
in Tagalog, of the explosives and ammunition confiscated by the raiding

25 | P LATON
6.  The  defendant’s  belief  that  no  incriminating  evidence  will  be   online tickets(Sec.9 RA 6235) that they are subject to search and, if any
found prohibited materials or substances are found, such would be subject to
7. The nature of the police questioning seizure. These announcements place passengers on notice that
ordinary constitutional protections against warrantless searches and
8. The environment in which the questioning took place
seizures do NOT apply to routine airport passengers.
9. The possibly vulnerable subjective state of the person
The Terry search   or   the   “stop   and   frisk”   situation   refers   to   a  
case where a police officer approaches a person who is acting
It is the State which has the burden of proving, by clear and
suspiciously, for the purpose of investigating possibly criminal
positive testimony, that the necessary consent was obtained
behavior in line with the general interest of effective crime
and that it was freely and voluntarily given
prevention and detection. To assure himself that the person
with whim he is dealing is not armed with a weapon that could
United States v. Drayton
536 U.S. 194, 153 L Ed 2d 242, 122 S Ct 2105 (2002) unexpectedly and fatally be used against him, he could validly
conduct a carefully limited search of the outer clothing of such
At a scheduled stop, police officers board the bus as part of a routine person to discover weapons which might be used to assault him
drug and weapons interdiction effort. Lang approached the
respondents – Drayton and Brown – who were seated together, he Miscellaneous Searches and Seizures
declared that the police were looking for drugs and weapons and asked
if   the   respondents  had  any   bags.  Lang   searched  the   bag   with  Brown’s   Extends to non-tangible things and other forms of searches and
consent, the bag revealed no contraband. The officer noticed that both
seizures involving alcohol and drug testing, for instance, or
respondents were wearing heavy jackets and baggy pants despite the
warm weather. He asked Brown whether he minded if Lang checked his transportation and communication, as well as in electronically
person. Brown agreed, and a pat-down revealed hard objects similar to enhanced intrusions
drug packages in both thigh areas. Brown was arrested. Same thing
happened to Drayton. A further search revealed that respondents had Alih v. Castro
taped cocaine between their shorts. 151 SCRA 279 (1987)

Respondents moved to suppress the cocaine on the ground that the In 1984, two hundred (200) Philippine marines and elements of the
pat-down searches was invalid. Lang did not inform the respondents home defense forces conducted   “zona”7. The initial reaction of the
(passengers in that bus) of their right to refuse to cooperate. people in the compound was to resist invasion with a burst of gunfire –
no one was hurt; intended to warn the intruders. Unfortunately, the
Although Officer Lang did   not   inform   respondents’   right   to   refuse   the   situation aggravated. The soldiers returned fire and a bloody shoout-
search, he did request permission to search, and the totality of the out followed, resulting to a number of casualties. The besieged
circumstances indicates that their consent was voluntary, so the compound surrendered the next morning, sixteen (16) male occupants
searches were reasonable. The Court has rejected in specific terms the were arrested, finger-printed, paraffin-tested, and photographed over
suggestion that police officers must always inform citizens of their right their objection. The military also inventoried and confiscated nine M16
to refuse when seeking permission to conduct a warrantless consent rifles, an M14 rifle, and nine rifle grenades, and several round of
search. While knowledge of the right to refuse consent is one factor to ammunitions found in the premises.
be taken into account, the government need not establish such
knowledge as sine qua non of an effective consent. The precarious state of Zamboanga City at the time in question
certainly did not excuse the non-observance of the constitutional
Airport Searches guaranty against unreasonable searches and seizures. The record does
not disclose that the petitioners were wanted criminals or fugitives
from justice. At the time of the zona they were merely suspected of the
Correlated to the lessened expectation of privacy which a mayor’s  slaying  and  had  not  in  fact  even  been  investigated for it. Search
passenger must necessarily have to recognize and accept, part of   petitioners’   premises   is   declared   illegal   and   all   articles   seized   as   a  
of the price for traveling in a mode of transportation that has result thereof are inadmissible evidence against the petitioners in any
special concerns for safety and security proceedings. However, said articles shall remain in custodia legis
pending the determination of legality of such.
People v. Johnson
348 SCRA 526 (2000) Guazon v. De Villa
181 SCRA 623 (1990)
Leila Johnson was about to fly back to USA. At NAIA departure area,
Olivia Ramirez, the lady in charge of frisking deporting passengers Petitioners, claiming to be bona fide residents of Metro Manila and
frisked Johnson.   Ramirez   felt   something   hard   on   Johnson’s   abdominal   taxpayers and leaders in their respective communities, seek to prohibit
area. Upon inquiry, Johnson explained she needed to wear girdle as she the military and police officers represented by public respondents from
had undergone an operation. Not satisfied with the explanation and conducting   “Areal   Target   Zonings”   or   “Saturation   Drives”   in   Metro  
with  the   consent   of   her   superior,   took   Johnson  to   the   lady’s  room for Manila. Saturation Drives were conducted in 1987in several critical
inspection. Ramirez asked her to bring out the thing under her girdle. areas pinpointed by police and military as places where the subversives
Johnson brought out three plastic bags, which when examined turned were hiding. The petitioners claim that the saturation drives follow a
out to be methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu). She was taken to common pattern of human rights abuses.
the to the Security office where her passport and ticket were taken.
The petition is REMANDED to the RTCs of Manila, Malabon, and Pasay.
She questions the legality of the warrantless search conducted at her The remedy is not an original action for prohibition brought through a
person. taxpayers’  suit.  (1)No  proper  parties. Where one victim complains and
not one violator is properly charged, the problem is not initially for SC.
Persons may lose the protection of the search and seizure clause by It is basically one for the executive departments and for trial courts. (2)
exposure of their persons or property to the public in a manner There is no proof. A method of pinpointing human rights abuses and
reflecting a lack of subjective expectation of privacy, which expectation identifying violators is necessary.
society is prepared to recognize as reasonable. Such recognition is
implicit in airport security procedures. Travellers are often notified 7Zona- military operation – raid of a compound in search of loose firearms,
through airport public address systems, signs, and notices in their ammunition and other explosives.
26 | P LATON
In the meantime and in the prima facie showing that some abuses were In our view, requiring an employer to obtain warrant whenever
probably committed and could be committed during future police the  employer  wishes  to  enter  an  employee’s  office,  desk,  or  file  
actions, banging on walls, kicking in of doors, violation of residences,
cabinets for a work-related purpose would seriously disrupt the
etc. are temporarily restrained.
routine conduct of business and would be unduly burdensome
Oliver v. United States
Camara v. Municipal Court Of The City And Country Of San Francisco
466 US 170 (1984)
387 US 523 (1967)
Whether the open fields doctrine permits police officers to enter and
Appellant was charged with violating san Francisco housing code for
search marijuana fields without warrant where the fields are secluded
refusing after 3 efforts by inspectors to secure his consent, to allow
and  contain  “no  trespassing”  signs.
warrantless inspection of the ground floor quarters which he leased
and  whose   residential   used  allegedly   violated   the   apartment’s  permit.    
Reports that marijuana was being raised on the farm of oliver, two
He argued that the sec503 of housing code is contrary to the 4th and
narcotics agents went to the farm to investigate. They entered the farm
14th amendments in that it authorizes municipal officials to enter
gate that has no trespassing sign and found a field of marijuana 1 mile
private dwelling without a search warrant and without probable cause
away from his house.
to believe that a violation of the code exist.
SC: as sated in Hester vs US, the government’s   intrusion   upon   open  
Administrative searches are significant intrusions upon the interest
fields   is   not   one   of   those   “unreasonable”   searches   proscribed   in   the  
protected by the 4th amendment that such searches when authorized
fourth amendment. The amendment does not protect the merely
and conducted without a warrant; lack the traditional safeguards which
subjective expectation of privacy but only those expectations that
the 4th amendment guarantees to the individual.
society is prepare to recognize as reasonable. That an individual may
not legitimately demand privacy for activities conducted out of doors in
The warrant procedure is designed to guarantee that decision to search
fields, except in the area immediately surrounding the home. An
private property is justified by a reasonable governmental interest. The
individual has no legitimate expectation that open fields will be free
ultimate standard is the reasonableness.
from warrantless intrusion by the government.
Area   inspection   is   “reasonable   search   of   private   property   within   the  
Oliver : circumstances may indicate reasonable expectations of privacy
meaning of the 4th amendment. It is obvious  that  “probable  cause”   to  
were violated, it should be decided case to case basis.
issue warrant to inspect must exist if reasonable legislative or
Sc: no. it will make it difficult for the policeman to discern the scope of
administrative standards are satisfied.
his authority; it also creates a danger that constitutional rights will be
arbitrarily and inequitably enforced.
However, there was no emergency demanding immediate access; they
in fact made 3 trips to obtain consent. Yet no warrant was obtained and
“no  trespassing”  sign  and    fences  do  not  effectively  bar  the  public  from  
thus the appellant was unable t verify either the need for or
viewing open fields and do not demonstrate that the expectation of
appropriate limits of inspection... Appellant has constitutional right to
privacy was legitimate. The test is whether the intrusion of the
insist them to obtain a warrant to search.
government infringes upon the personal and societal values protected
by the fourth amendment.sc finds no basis for concluding that a police
inspection of open fields accomplishes such infringement.
Alcohol, Drugs and Related Tests
People v. Valdez
341 SCRA 25 (2000) Requiring a person to submit urine or blood, or to undergo
breathalyzer testing for the purpose of determining whether he
A tip was given about a plantation of marijuana allegedly owned by is under the influence of alcohol or drugs are considered a
valdez. The police were instructed to uproot the plants and arrest species of search that is governed by the constitutional
cultivator. They found him in a nipa hut then looked around and saw proscription against unreasonable searches and seizures. This
marihuana plant He admitted ownership but later on alleged that he
means, generally, that such a search may only be had pursuant
only admitted ownership out of fear.
General rule: search and seizure nust be carried on a judicial warrant.
to a probable cause, or an individualized suspicion
Otherwise, it is unreasonable.
They first located the marijuana before appellant was arrested without Canine  “Sniff  Test”
a warrant. There was no valid warrantless arrest which preceeded the
search   of   appellant’s   premises.   The seizure of evidence in plain view While this may also implicate the privacy interest of the owner,
applies only where the police officer is not searching for evidence this is deemed as not approaching constitutional dimensions so
against the accused, but inadvertently comes across an incriminating as to rule out the practice
object. The marijuana plants were not in plain view because further
search was needed. There was illegal search and seizure thus the plant
cannot b admitted as evidence against him. The confession of
“A   sniff   by   a   dog   that   simply   walks   around   a   car   is   much   less  
ownership without a counsel is also violative of the bill of rights. intrusive  than  a  typical  search”

Administrative and Other Searches The  “Special  Needs”  Exception

Searches and seizures by government employers or supervisors Under this exception, the Court upheld an extended
of the private property of their employees are subject to the warrantless search   of   a   student’s   purse   after   a   report   of  
restraints of the Fourth Amendment smoking   in   the   school   lavatory   and   following   the   student’s  
denial of said report
Public  employees’  expectations  of  privacy  in  their  offices,  desks,  
and file cabinets, like similar expectations of employees in Our precedents establish that the proffered special need for
private sector, may be reduced by virtue of actual office drug testing must be substantial--important enough to override
practices and procedures, or by legitimate regulation the individual’s  acknowledged  privacy  interest,  sufficiently  vital  

27 | P LATON
to   suppress   the   Fourth   Amendment’s   normal   requirement   of  
individualized suspicion Umil v. Ramos
187 SCRA 311 (1990)
Warrantless Arrest
Dural, a member of the NPA liquidation squad responsible for killing 2
soldiers on Jan. 31, 1988, was arrested on Feb. 1, while being treated
These arrests without warrant are justified by the fact that the for a gunshot in a hospital. Dural was arrested for being a member of
person to be arrested is caught in the act (in flagrante delicto), the NPA, an outlawed subversive organization. Subversion as a
is apprehended pursuant to a hot pursuit, or is an escaped continuing offense, the arrest without warrant is justified.
The case filed involves subversion and illegal possession of firearm and
In Flagrante Delicto ammunition. On Aug. 17, 1988, the lower court found them guilty of
the charge.
Under this exception, the arrest is justified by the very fact that
the crime is committed or is about to be committed in the very Resolution on the Motion for Reconsideration
202 SCRA 292 (1991)
presence of the person making the arrest
The   court’s   decision   on   July   9,   1990   rules   that   the   arrest   of   Dural  
There is no more need for a warrant as the culprit is caught red- without warrant is justified because under Section 5 (a) Rule 113, Dural
handed was committing an offense, when arrested, because he was a member
of the NPA.
“Reliable   information”   alone   is   not   sufficient   to   justify   a   Sec 5 (b), Rule 113 of the Rules of Court requires 2 conditions for a valid
warrantless arrest under Section 5(a), Rule 113. The rule arrest without warrant:
requires, in addition, that the accused perform such overt act 1) That the person arrested had just committed an offense
2) That the arresting officer or the private person has personal
that would indicate that he has committed, is actually
knowledge of facts (based on probable cause)
committing, or is attempting to commit an offense
Accordingly, the motion for reconsideration of the decision dated July 9
Elements: is denied.
1. The person to be arrested must execute an overt act
indicating he has just committed, is actually committing, or is People v. Aminnudin
attempting to commit a crime 163 SCRA 40 (1988)
2. Such overt act is done in the presence or within the view of
the arresting officer Aminnudin was arrested after disembarking from M/V Wilcon. Police
officers received a tip that he was carrying marijuana, and conducted a
warrantless search and arrest. The only justification was the tip
People v. Burgos
received 2 days before the arrest.
144 SCRA 1 (1986)
The accused-appellant was not caught inflagrante nor was a crime to be
committed or had just been committed to justify the warrantless arrest
Cesar masalmok personally and voluntarily surrendered to the
under Rule 113 of the Rules of Court.
authorities and gave intelligence information that he was forcibly
recruited by Burgos using a firearm. They found the accused plowing his
Without the evidence of marijuana allegedly seized from Aminnudin,
field, he denied possessing firearm. His wife pointed where the gun was
the case of prosecution shall fall. The evidence cannot be admitted for
then the accused showed subversive documents that were allegedly
the simple fact that the marijuana was seized illegally.
issued to him by a team leader of NPA. He was convicted of the crime
of illegal possession of firearm in furtherance of subversion.
State of Rebellion
In the constitutional provision against wanton and unreasonable
invasion of privacy and liberty of a citizen, his person, property papers In quelling or suppressing the rebellion, the authorities may
and   effects,   What   is   sought   to   be   guarded   is   a   man’s   prerogative   to   only resort to warrantless arrests of persons suspected of
choose who is allowed entry to his residence. rebellion, as provided under Section 5, Rule 113 of the Rules of
Court, if the circumstances so warrant
Under rule112, the officer arresting a person who has just committed,
is committing or is about to commit an offense must have a personal
knowledge of that fact. There is no personal knowledge in this case, it Sanlakas v. Executive Secretary
came from masalmok and the location of gun was given by the wife. At 421 SCRA 656 (2004)
the time of his arrest, he was not in actual possession of the firearm
and the documents. Neither was he committing any act subversive. On July 27, 2003, some 300 junior officers and enlisted men of the AFP,
armed with ammunitions and explosives stormed into the Oakwood
The right of a person to be secure against unreasonable seizure of his Apartments in Makati City. Bewailing the corruption in the AFP, the
body and any deprivation of liberty is most basic and fundamental. The soldiers demanded for the resignation of high officials, including the
statute granting exceptions should be strictly construed. President. The President then issued Proclamation No. 427 and General
Order   No.   4   declaring   a   “state   of   rebellion”   and   calling   out   the   AF   to  
In arrest without a warrant, it is not enough that there is a reasonable suppress the rebellion. On Aug. 1, 2003, Proclamation No. 435 lifted the
ground to believe that the person to be arrested has committed a declaration of the state of rebellion. Several petitions were filed
crime. A crime must in fact or actually have been committed first. The challenging   the   validity   of   the   Proclamation,   the   President’s   authority  
fact of commission must be undisputed. The test of reasonable ground and the consequence of such declaration, specially in relation to the
applies only to the identity of perpetrator. arrest of those implicated in the rebellion.

No compelling reason for haste and not secure warrant of arrest. Arrest The mere declaration of the state of rebellion cannot diminish or
of the accused while he was plowing is illegal. The arrest was unlawful, violate constitutionally protected rights. Simple declaration of the state
the search and seizure is likewise not legal since these are mere of rebellion does not suspend the operation of the constitution or
incidents of a valid arrest. automatically suspend the privilege of writ of habeas corpus.

28 | P LATON
with the Prosecutor, the latter should have immediately scheduled a
Hot Pursuit preliminary investigation to determine whether there was a probable
cause for charging petitioner. Since petitioner had not been arrested,
with or without warrant, he was entitled to be released immediately
When a crime has just been committed, the law enforcers
and concerned only to his appearance in the preliminary investigation.
ordinarily would have to try to get the culprit as soon as
possible before he eludes them
Posadas v. Ombudsman
341 SCRA 388 (2000)
They may be in possession of enough information or knowledge
by which to identify their quarry and make the arrest before FACTS: Dennis Venturina, a member of Sigma Rho at UP was killed in a
their job would become more difficult through the passage of rumble between his fraternity & another on Dec. 8, 1994. Roger
time Posadas, petitioner, and the chancellor of UP Diliman, asked the NBI for
the identification & apprehension of the suspects. Respondent Dizon,
Go v. CA the Chief of the Special operations group of the NBI and his men went
206 SCRA 138 (1992) to UP and upon the basis of the identification by 2 eyewitnesses,
attempted to arrest Taparan and Narag who were members of the
FACTS: Rolito Go, petitioner, was driving in the opposite direction along other fraternity, as suspects but they just came to the UP police station
a one-way street in San Juan Metro Manila, when he nearly bumped for a peace talk between their fraternities. Posadas objected because
into  Eldon  Maguan’s  car.  Petitioner  got  out  of  his  car,  shot  Maguan,  and   the NBI agents do not have warrants of arrest and he & his lawyer
left. A security guard nearby was able to take down the plate number of promised to take the 2 to the NBI office the next day. However, the
Go’s   car   then   the   police   came   at   the   crime   scene.   After obtaining next day, they were not surrendered & have apparently escaped. Dizon
information from (1) the verification of LTO that the car was registered filed to the Office of the Prosecutor a complaint charging Petitioner for
under  the  petitioner’s  wife’s  name,  (2)  the  impression  of  the  credit  card   violating PD 1829 which states that obstruction of the apprehension &
used by him in the bakeshop where he went before the incident prosecution of criminal offenders is unlawful. Prosecutor
happened, and (3) the positive identification of the guard therein, the recommended for dismissal but was disapproved and was ordered by
police launched a manhunt. 6 days after the incident, Go, with 2 the Ombudsman to proceed with the prosecution in Sandiganbayan.
lawyers, presented himself to the San Juan police station for
verification. He was then detained and the police filed a complaint for Issues: (1) WON the attempted warrantless arrest of the student
frustrated homicide in the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Rizal. suspects by the NBI could be validly made; (2) WON there was probable
The Prosecutor filed before the RTC, an information for murder instead cause for prosecuting petitioner for violation of PD 1829
of frustrated homicide, since Maguan died after a few days.
Nevertheless, petitioner was allowed to bail. The RTC judge (1) recalled HELD:
the bail, and gave petitioner 48 hrs from receipt of the Order to (1) Negative.
surrender, (2) recalled and cancelled the Order which granted the leave Art.3 Sec.2 of the Constitution:
of the Prosecutor to conduct preliminary investigation, and (3) treated No arrest may be made except in the case of a warrant issued by a
as   petition   for   bail   the   petitioner’s   motion   for immediate release and judge after examining the complainant and the witnesses he may
preliminary investigation and set it for hearing. produce after finding probable cause to believe that the person to be
arrested has committed the crime. The case does not fall within the
Petitioner then filed for a petition for certiorari, prohibition and exceptions provided in Rule 113 Sec. 5 of the Rules of Criminal
mandamus before the SC, contending that the information was null and Procedure since neither the arresting officers witnessed the crime
void because no preliminary investigation has been previously being committed nor the students are fugitives from justice or
conducted. The SC remanded the petition to the CA wherein petitioner prisoners who had escaped from confinement.
was found not guilty since he refused to enter to a plea. The CA
dismissed  the  petitions  and  held  that  Go’s  warrantless  arrest  was  valid   The respondents invoked the ruling in People vs. Tonog,Jr wherein the
because   the   (1)   offense   was  ‘’freshly   committed’’,   (2)   his   identity   was   accused therein voluntarily went with the police after being invited and
established through investigation, (3) when he showed up, there was the arresting officer found bloodstains on the pants of the accused
an existing manhunt and (4) there were witnesses. which made the former conclude that the latter is the suspect and the
arrest was also made on the day when the crime was committed. Thus,
ISSUE: WON a lawful warrantless arrest had been effected by the San Tonog case is not applicable in the case at bar since the NBI agents
Juan police in respect of petitioner tried to arrest Taparan & Narag 4 day after the commission of the
crime, they had no personal knowledge about the suspects to indicate
HELD: The reliance of the petitioner and the Solicitor General in Umil v. that they are guilty and they had obtained the information merely from
Ramos, is misplaced since in the said case, it was held that warrantless eyewitnesses, which is insufficient to justify a warrantless arrest.
arrests made from 1- 14 days after the actual commission of the crime Their attempt to arrest Taparan and Narag without a warrant was
is legal in as much as such crime is a continuing crime. In the case at illegal for their failure to comply with constitutional and procedural
bar, the crime committed was that of murder and cannot be considered requirements.
as a continuing crime since it was commenced and completed at once.
(2) As petitioners are also being prosecuted under PD 1829, it is a rule
The warrantless arrest in this case does not fall under Sec. 5 of Rule 113 that a criminal prosecution cannot be enjoined but it has been held that
of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure. Since the police arrested respect for the citizen's right to be free from arbitrary arrest and
petitioner 6 days after the shooting incident, it is apparent that the punishment and unwarranted and vexation prosecution is more impt.
‘’arresting   officers’’   were   not   present   during   such   incident   and   than criminal procedure. As held in Venus vs. Desierto that the Court
therefore   cannot   be   also   regarded   as   one   which   ‘’…had   just   been   does not interfere with the discretion of the Ombudsman in the
committed’’.   determination of the existence of a reasonable ground to believe that a
crime has been committed. The exceptions as stated in Brocka vs.
Likewise,   the   said   officers   do   not   have   ‘’personal   knowledge’’   of   the   Enrile are as follows: (a)to afford protection to the constitutional rights
facts indicating that petitioner was the gunman. The information of the accused, (b) when necessary for the orderly administration of
derived   from   eyewitnesses   did   not   constitute   ‘’personal   knowledge’’.   justice or to avoid oppression or multiplicity of actions, (c) when there
Thus, there was no lawful warrantless arrest. is a prejudicial question which is sub judice, (d)where the acts of the
officer are without or in excess of authority, (e) where the prosecution
Petitioner was not arrested at all. He walked in, with 2 lawyers, and is under an invalid law, ordinance or regulation, (f)when double
placed himself at the police disposal without stating the he is jeopardy is clearly apparent, (g) where the court has no jurisdiction
surrendering. When the police filed complaint for frustrated homicide over the offense, (h) where it is a case of persecution rather than

29 | P LATON
prosecution, (i) where the charges are manifestly false and motivated can be ordered only in the event that the prosecutor files the
by the lust for vengeance, (j) where there is clearly no prima facie case case and the Judge of the Regional Trial Court finds probable
against the accused and a motion to quash on that ground has been cause  for  the  issuance  of  the  warrant  of  arrest”
denied, and (k) preliminary injunction has been issued by the SC to
prevent the threatened unlawful arrest of the petitioners.
Lim, Sr. v. Felix
194 SCRA 292 (1991)
In the case at bar, PD 1829 was not violated since petitioner had a right
to prevent the arrest bec. it was illegal.
FACTS: Vicente Lim, petitioner, was one of those who were charged
with multiple murder with frustrated murder in connection with the
It was found out however by the Office of the Ombudsman that the
ambush of Masbate Congressman Espinosa and his bodyguards (only
intervention by the petitioners allowed the escape of Taparan and
one survived) in the domestic airport of the said province Preliminary
Narag. However, the student suspect, a certain Joel Carlo Denosta, was
investigation was conducted and the RTC judge was able to find a
not one of those who were attempted to be arrested by the NBI.
probable cause for the issuance of the warrant of arrest. The Fiscal
ruled that the crime of the suspects must be murder for each of the 4
The NBI agents are at fault bec. they were unable to arrest Taparan and
victims killed and physical injuries for the survivor. The Fiscal however
Narag. If they believed the information given to them, they should have
filed 4 separate Informations for murder against the 12 accused, with
applied first for a warrant before attempting to arrest.
no bail. As the petition for change of venue by Lim was granted by the
SC, the cases were transferred to Judge Felix of Makati. Petitioner filed
Sanchez v. Demetriou a motion and manifestation for the transmittal of initial records of
227 SCRA 627 (1993) preliminary investigation for the best enlightenment of the court in its
determination of the existence of a probable cause based on the
FACTS: Petitioner Sanchez, mayor of Calauan, Laguna, and other 6 Constitutional   mandate   that   “no   warrant   shall   issue   unless   the   issuing  
people were accused of rape with homicide. Charges were filed against magistrate   have   been   personally   convinced   of   such   probable   cause’’  
them in connection with the rape-slay of Mary Eileen Sarmenta and the but it was opposed by the prosecution & denied by the respondent
killing of Allan Gomez. Preliminary investigation was conducted as court. It later issued warrants of arrest against the petitioner and the
petitioner was represented by his counsel. The PNP sent petitioner an others who were accused.
invitation requesting him to appear for an investigation. When he was
taken to the camp, he was positively identified by 2 witnesses. He was ISSUE: WON a judge may issue a warrant of arrest without bail by
later placed on "arrest status" and taken to DOJ in Manila. An inquest simply relying on the prosecution's certification & recommendation
was conducted upon his arrival and a warrant of arrest was issued after that a probable cause exists
the hearing. He remained confined in Camp Crame while information
charges were filed with the others who were accused. A warrant arrest HELD: A  judge  may  rely  on  the   fiscal’s  certification  of   the   existence  of  
was then issued and the SC ordered the transfer of such case to Pasig probable cause and issue a warrant of arrest. However, such
City, M. Manila. Petitioner filed motion to quash the information since certification does not bind the judge to come out with the warrant of
his warrantless arrest was illegal and the court has no jurisdiction over arrest (Placer vs. Villanueva 126 SCRA 463 [1983]).
him. However, Judge Demetriou denied the petition.
The judge must have a personal determination of the existence of a
Issues:  (1)  WON  petitioner’s  warrantless  arrest  was  illegal;  (2)  WON  the   probable cause for a warrant of arrest to be issued, but it does not
court has no jurisdiction over him necessarily mean that he must personally examine the complaint
(Soliven vs. Makasiar 167 SCRA 393 [1988].
HELD: (1) The warrantless arrest was illegal. The arresting officers were
not present during the commission of the alleged crime and they have The determination of probable cause is a function of the judge.
no personal knowledge that petitioner is responsible because their Preliminary investigation is done by the prosecutor and does not bind
basis was the statement by the witnesses. However, (2) the RTC has the judge. Also, there must be distinction between (1) the preliminary
jurisdiction over him because it issued a warrant arrest against him and inquiry which determines the probable cause for the issuance of the
the others. It was delayed, but legal though. warrant of arrest and (2) the preliminary investigation which ascertains
if the offender should be held for trial or be released (People v.
Probable Cause for Issuance of Warrants of Arrest and Role of Honorable Enrique Inting GR No. 88919, July 25 1990).
RTC judges no longer have authority to conduct preliminary
What is required is that the judge must have sufficient investigations (Castillo v. Villaluz 171 SCRA 39 [1989]).
supporting documents upon which to make his independent
The judge may rely on the COMELEC's resolution to file for the
judgment, or at the very least, upon which to verify the findings information in the same way that he may rely on the Prosecutor's
of the prosecutor as to the existence of probable cause certification (People v Delgado GR Nos. 93419-32, Sept. 18, 1990.

If the judge disagrees, or finds the evidence insufficient, *The constitutional mandate has not been satisfied and the judge
contrary to the conclusions of the prosecutor, the judge should committed a grave abuse of discretion for relying solely on the
not dismiss the case but instead require the fiscal to present Prosecutor's certification where all the records of investigation are in
additional evidence to show probable cause Masbate. He has not personally determined the probable cause but it
was the Provincial Prosecutor who had done such.
The Court explained that the issuance of a warrant is not a The extent of reliance depends on the circumstances of each case and
mere ministerial function. It calls for the exercise of judicial subject to the sound discretion of the judge. But when he issues a
discretion on the part of the issuing magistrate warrant of arrest without evidence before him, he abuses such
“While  before,  it  was  mandatory  for  the  investigating  Judge  to  
issue a warrant for the arrest of the accused if he found Webb v. De Leon
probable   cause,   the   rule   now   is   that   the   investigating   Judge’s   247 SCRA 652 (1995)
power to order the arrest of the accused is limited to instances
in  which  there  is  a  necessity  for  placing  him  in  custody  ‘in  order   FACTS: The National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) filed with the
Department of Justice a letter-complaint charging petitioners Hubert
not  to  frustrate  the  ends  of  justice.’  The  arrest  of  the  accused  

30 | P LATON
Webb, Michael Gatchalian, Antonio Lejano and six (6) other persons, HELD:   Respondent’s   issuance   of   Warrant   of   Arrest   was   in   violation   of  
with the crime of Rape with Homicide. Meanwhile, petitioner Webb the constitutional requirement of personal determination as to the
claimed during the preliminary investigation that he did not commit the existence of probable cause.
crime as he went to the United States on March 1, 1991 and returned
to the Philippines on October 27, 1992. Thereafter, the DOJ Panel REASON: “No  warrant  of  arrest  shall  issue  except  upon  probable  cause  
issued a 26-page   Resolution   “finding   probable   cause   to   hold   to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath
respondents  for  trial”  and  recommending  that  an  Information  for  rape   or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce,
with homicide be filed against petitioners and their co-respondents. It and  particularly  describing  xxx  the  persons  xxx  to  be  seized.”  (Section 2,
then filed the corresponding Information against petitioners and their Article III 1987 Constitution)
co-accused with the Regional Trial Court. Respondent judge issued
warrants of arrest. Petitioner Webb voluntarily surrendered to police The   phrase   “personal   determination”   emphasizes   the   EXCLUSIVE  
authorities. Petitioners Gatchalian and Lejano likewise gave themselves and PERSONAL RESPONSIBILTY of the issuing judge to satisfy himself as
up to the authorities after filing their petitions before the Supreme to the existence of probable cause.
Court. The Warrant of Arrest issues not on the strength of the certification
standing alone but because of the records that sustain it. In the case at
ISSUE:   “Whether   or   not   the   warrants   of   arrest   issued   by   respondent   bench,   there   was   not   even   a   prosecutor’s   certification   to   rely   upon  
Judge Raul de Leon and later, respondent Judge Amelita Tolentino met since no information had even been filed yet in court.
the constitutional requirement of probable  cause”. Respondent cannot exculpate himself from administrative liability by
contending that the mistake was entirely attributable to the Criminal
HELD: Docket   clerk   who   failed   to   faithfully   comply   with   her   ‘duty”   of   going  
The Constitution, the Rules of Court, and our case law over the records of the criminal case and ensuring first that an
repudiates the submission of petitioners that respondent information had already been filed in court before preparing the
judges   should   have   conducted   “searching   examination   of   warrant of arrest.
witnesses”  before  issuing  warrants  of  arrest  against  them.
The Court   also   rejects   the   petitioner’s   contention   that   a   * Options available to the judge upon personal determination of
judge must first issue an order of arrest before issuing a probable cause:
warrant of arrest. There is no law or rule requiring the (1) Personally evaluate the report and the supporting documents
issuance of an Order of Arrest prior to a warrant of arrest. submitted by the prosecutor regarding the existence of probable cause,
DOJ   Panel’s   26-page report, testimonies of witnesses and and on the basis thereof, issue a warrant of arrest.
counter- affidavits of petitioners satisfied both respondent (2) If on the basis thereof he finds no probable cause, disregard the
judges that there is probable cause in issuing said warrants prosecutor’s  report  and  require  the  submission  of  supporting  affidavits  
of arrest. of witnesses to aid him in determining its existence.
Before issuing warrants of arrest, judges merely determine
personally the PROBABILITY, NOT THE CERTAINTY OF GUILT Administrative Warrants
of the accused. They just personally review the initial
determination of the prosecutor finding a probable cause to
The Constitution is explicit that it is only a judge who can issue
see if it is supported by substantial evidence.
In search cases:
(1) Items sought are in fact seizable by virtue of their being The   1973   Charter   allowed   such   other   “responsible   officer   as  
connected with criminal activity. may  be  authorized  by  law”  to  determine  probable  cause
(2) The items will be found in the place to be searched.
Qua Chee Gan v. Deportation Board
In arrest cases: 9 SCRA 27 (1963)
(1) There must be probable cause that a crime has been
committed. FACTS: Petitioners were charged before the Deportation Board of
(2) The person to be arrested committed it. having purchased US Dollars in the total amount of $130,000.00
without the necessary license from the Central Bank of the Philippines,
*”Upon   filing   of   an   information   the   Regional Trial Court may issue a and of clandestinely remitting the same to Hong Kong. A warrant of
warrant  for  the  arrest  of  the  accused.” arrest of said aliens was issued by the presiding member of the
Deportation Board. Petitioners filed a motion to dismiss the charges
Talingdan v. Eduarte against them in the Deportation Board on the grounds of lack of
366 SCRA 559 (2001) jurisdiction and that the charges do not constitute legal basis for
deportation. The lower court held that the Board has the power to
FACTS: Petitioner, a private practitioner, charged respondent Judge issue warrants of arrest and fix the amount of the bond for the
Eduarte, with improvidently issuing a warrant of arrest in a criminal temporary release of the alien.
case for libel without the requisite preliminary investigation being first
conducted by the Office of the Public Prosecutor. He alleged that ISSUE:
sometime in April 2000, elements of PNP stormed into his residence to (1) “Whether   or   not   the   President   has   the   power   to   deport  
arrest him and his client on the strength of a Warrant of Arrest issued aliens and consequently, the validity of delegation to the
by respondent Judge. Complainant then filed a Very urgent Motion to Deportation  Board  of  the  ancillary  power  to  investigate”
Quash and/or Set Aside Warrant  of  Arrest  and  Direct  Prosecutor’s  Office  
to Conduct Preliminary Examination since they had not been previously (2) “Whether   or   not   the   President’s   power   to   conduct  
notified of the charge against them and no preliminary investigation investigation carries with it the power to order the arrest of
was   ever   conducted   by   the   public   prosecutor’s   office   yet.   The   the  alien  complained  of”
respondent granted the motion and recalled the warrant of arrest,
admitting that he issued the same under the mistaken belief that a * Pertinent Laws:
preliminary investigation had already been conducted and an CA No. 613 (Immigration Act of 1940) – Commissioner of Immigration
information filed in court. Thus, when he saw the Warrant of Arrest, he was empowered to effect the arrest and expulsion of an alien, after
signed the same honestly thinking that the Criminal Docket Clerk had previous determination by the Board of Commissioners of the existence
faithfully complied first with her duty of going over the records of the of grounds therefore.
case. Section 69 of Act No. 2711 (Revised Administrative Code) – Lays down
the procedure to be observed should there be deportation

31 | P LATON
* Order of Deportation-The return to his country of an alien who has
HELD: broken the conditions upon which he could continue to reside within
(1) our borders.
The charges against the herein petitioners constitute in effect an act
of profiteering, hoarding or blackmarketing of US dollars –an economic Exclusionary Rule - The Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine
sabotage –which is a ground for deportation.
There   seems   to   be   no   doubt   that   the   President’s   power   of  
In the past it was held that sanctions against erring law
investigation may be delegated. This is clear from a reading of Section
69   of   the   Revised   Administrative   Code   which   provides   for   a   “prior   enforcers would be enough vindication of a violated right while
investigation, conducted by said Executive (the President) or his allowing the results of such an unreasonable search and seizure
authorized agent.” to be admissible in evidence
Section 69 of the Revised Administrative Code, upon whose A fruit of an illegal or unconstitutional act could not and should
authority   the   President’s   power   to   deport   is   predicated,   does   not   not be given any form of legitimacy by its admission in evidence
provide for the exercise of the power to arrest.
An implied grant of power, considering that no express authority
Along with the discarding of the old rule came the demise of
was granted by the law on the matter under discussion, that would
serve as a curtailment or limitation upon the fundamental right of a the so-called Silver Platter Doctrine which allowed federal
person, such as his security to life and liberty, must be viewed with judicial use of evidence seized in violation of the Constitution
caution. Then, a delegation of that implied power must be REJECTED as by state agents
inimical to the liberties of the people.
It is said that the exclusionary rule has three purposes:
*The Executive Order insofar as it empowers the Deportation Board to
issue warrant of arrest upon the filing of formal charges against an alien First, the rule is calculated to prevent, not repair. Its purpose is
or aliens and to fix bond and prescribe the conditions for the temporary
to deter--to compel respect for constitutional guaranty in the
release of said aliens, is declared ILLEGAL. The order of arrest issued by
the respondent Deportation Board is declared NULL AND VOID. only effective available way--by removing the incentive to
disregard it.
Harvey v. Defensor-Santiago
162 SCRA 840 (1988) Second, the   “imperative   of   judicial   integrity,”   i.e.,   that   the  
courts  do  not  become  “accomplices  in  the  willful  disobedience  
FACTS: Petitioners were apprehended from their respective residences of a Constitution they   are   sworn   to   uphold…by   permitting  
on February 27 1988 by agents of the Commission on Immigration and unhindered  governmental  use  of  the  fruits  of  such  invasions…A  
Deportation (CID) by virtue of Mission Orders issued by Commissioner ruling  admitting  evidence  in  a  criminal  trial…has  the  necessary  
Miriam Defensor-Santiago. Petitioners were among the twenty-two
effect of legitimizing the conduct which produced the evidence,
(22) suspected alien pedophiles who were rounded up after three
months of close surveillance by CID agents. Seized during the
while an application of the exclusionary rule withholds the
apprehension were photo negatives, pictures, posters and other constitutional  imprimatur”
literature advertising the child prostitutes. After being denied bail,
petitioners availed a petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus. Third, that   “of   assuring   the   people--all potential victim of
unlawful government conduct--that the government would not
HELD: The petition is dismissed and the Writ of Habeas Corpus is profit from its lawless behavior, thus minimizing the risk of
denied. seriously  undermining  popular  trust  in  government”
*Probable Cause –such facts and circumstances antecedent to the
No man is to be convicted on unconstitutional evidence
issuance of the warrant that in themselves are sufficient to induce a
cautious man to rely on them and act in pursuance thereof. Silverthorne Lumber Co., Inc. v. United States
In this case, the arrest of petitioners was based on probable cause 251 US 385, 64 L Ed 319, 40 S Ct 182 (1920)
determined after close surveillance for three (3) months during which
period their activities were monitored. The existence of probable cause Facts: Indictment was filed against Frederick W. Silverthorne and his
justified the seizure of the photo negatives, photographs and posters father, who were arrested at their home. Representatives of
without warrant. Those articles were seized as an incident to a lawful Department of Justice and the United States marshal without authority
arrest and therefore, admissible in evidence. go to the office of the company, made a clean sweep of all the books,
The requirement of probable cause, to be determined by a Judge papers and documents found and directed all employees to the office
does not extend to deportation proceedings. of the district attorney of US. Photographs and copies of material
What is essential is that there should be a specific charge against the papers were made, and a new indictment was framed based upon the
alien intended to be arrested and deported, that a fair hearing be knowledge thus obtained. The District Court ordered the return of the
conducted with the assistance of counsel, if desired, and that the originals, but impounded the photographs and copies. Subpoenas to
charge should be substantiated by competent evidence. produce the originals then were served, and on the refusal of the
In deportation proceedings, the right to bail is not a matter of right plaintiffs in error to produce them, the Court made an order that the
but a matter of discretion on the part of the Commissioner of subpoena should be compiled with. Contempt was filed against the
Immigration and Deportation. corporation and its owner
The power to deport aliens is an act of State, an act done by and
under the authority of the sovereign power. Issue: W/N there is an infringement of constitutional rights of the
Writ of habeas corpus will not be granted when the confinement is parties under the Fourth Amendment which constitutes indictment?
or has become legal, although such confinement was illegal from the
beginning. Ratio: Taken from the dissenting opinion of CJ Holmes: The protection
of the Constitution covers physical possession, but not any advantages
*Deportation proceedings are administrative in character. An order of that the government can gain over the object of its pursuit by doing a
deportation is never construed as a punishment. It is preventive, not a forbidden act.
penal process.

32 | P LATON
If knowledge of them is gained from an independent source they may encompassing protection extends against intrusions directly done both
be proved like any others, but the knowledge gained by the government and indirectly by private entities.
Government’s  own  wrong  cannot  be  used  by  it  in  the  way  proposed
GROH v. Ramirez
Additional Sanctions for Violations of the Guarantee 540 U.S. 552, 257 L Ed 2d 1068, 124 S Ct 1284 (2004)

In addition to the exclusionary rule as a means of deterrence, Facts: The petitioner, a Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms agent,
prepared and signed an application for a warrant to search the
the erring officers may also be subjected to criminal and civil
respondent’s   ranch   for   specified   weapons,   explosives   and   records  
liabilities for violating the constitutional proscription against which is based on the information of a concerned citizen. Application
unreasonable searches and seizures was supported by the   petitioner’s   affidavit   that   such   items   are   there  
together with a warrant form he has completed. The Magistrate (judge)
MHP Garments, Inc. v. Court of Appeals signed the warrant form even it did not identity any of the items that
236 SCRA 227 (1994) the   petitioner   intended   to   seize.   The   description   of   the   “person or
property”  described  respondents’  two  story  blue  house  rather  than  the  
Facts: MHP Garments, Inc was awarded to be the exclusive franchiser alleged stockpile of firearms. The petitioner led federal and local law
to sell and distribute official Boy Scouts uniforms, supplies, badges and enforcement officers to the ranch the next day but found no illegal
insignias by the Boy Scouts of the Philippines. MHP has been given the weapons or explosives, then left the copy of the warrant but not the
authority  to  “undertake  or  cause  to   be  taken  the  prosecution  in  court   application. Respondents sued petitioner in violation of the Fourth
of  all  illegal  sources  of  scout  uniforms  and  other  scouting  supplies.”  In   Amendment.
October 1983, petitioner received information that the private
respondents (Agnes Villa Cruz, Mirasol Lugatiman and Gertrudes Issue: (1) W/N the search violated the Fourth Amendment; (2) W/N is
Gonzales) are selling unauthorized Boy Scout items and paraphernalia. entitled to qualified immunity, given the Magistrate Judge, relying on
The petitioner, who was tasked to conduct surveillance and report, an affidavit that particularly described the items in question; found
together with two Philippine Constabulary officers (PC), went to the probable cause to conduct the search.
respondents store and   without   warrant,   seized   boy   and   girl   scouts’  
pants, dresses and suits which are on display. The respondents files a
criminal complaint for unfair competition, but was dismissed by the Ruling: Affirmed (decision of the Court of Appeals). Warrant is invalid
Provincial Fiscal of Rizal, then later order returned the seized items to
the respondent. But seized items were not immediately returned, thus Ratio:
private   respondents   personally   went   to   the   petitioner’s   place   of   *Warrant was plainly invalid.
business to recover the goods. Not all goods were returned and the *Fourth Amendment states: no Warrants shall issue, but upon the
items that were returned were of that inferior quality. probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly
describing the place to be search and the persons or things to be seized
Issue: W/N there is reasonable search and seizure even without *The warrant complied with 1st three of the requirements:
warrant -based on probable cause
-supported by sworn affidavit
Ruling: Search and seizure is illegal -particularly described the place of search
*Warrant failed in particularity, because it did not provide description
Ratio: The constitutional protection of our people against unreasonable of the type of evidence sought.
search and seizure is not merely a pleasing platitude. It vouchsafes our *Fourth Amendment by its terms requires particularity in the warrant,
right to privacy and dignity against undesirable intrusions committed by not in supporting documents.
any public officer or private individual. An infringement of this right *The   stated   description   of   items   to   be   seized   in   the   warrant   “single  
justifies an award for damages. dwelling   residence…blue   in   color”   did   not   describe   the   items   to   be  
*Section 2, Article III of the 1987 Constitution protects not only those seized at all.
who appear to be innocent but those who appear guilty, but are *The mere fact that the Magistrate issued a warrant does not
nevertheless to be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved. necessarily establish that he agreed that the scope of the search should
*There is a progression of time between the receipt of information and be  as  broad  as  the  affiant’s  request.  Even  though  petitioner  acted  with  
the raid of the stores of private respondents. It shows sufficient time restraint   in   conducting   the   search,   “inescapable   fact   is   that   this  
for the petitioners and the PC raiding party to apply for a judicial restraint was imposed by the agents themselves, not by a judicial
warrant. officer”  (Katz  v.  United  States,  389  U.S.  347  [1967]).
*Purpose of the particularity requirement is not limited to the
Citing   case   of   “Lim   vs.   Ponce   de   Leon”,   recovery   of   damages   for   prevention of general searches.
violation of constitutional rights and liberties from public officer or *Petitioner did not have in his possession a warrant particularly
private individual as provided under Art. 32 of the Civil Code, in relation describing the things he intended to seize; proceeding with the search
to Article 2219 (6) of the same code. Recovery for Moral damages was  clearly  “unreasonable”  under  the  Fourth  Amendment.  
*No reasonable officer could believe that a warrant that plainly did not
*Art. 32 of the Civil Code make the persons who are directly, as well as comply with that requirement was valid.
indirectly responsible for the transgression joint tortfeasors. *“If   the   law   was   clearly   established,   the   immunity   defense   ordinarily
*Neither can it be said that only those shown to have participated should fail, since a reasonably competent public official should know
“directly”  should  be  held  liable.  Art.   32  of  the  Civil  Code  encompasses   the   law   governing   his   conduct”   (Harlow   v.   Fritzgerald,   457   U.S>   800,  
within the ambit of its provisions those directly, as well as indirectly, 818-819 [1982])
responsible for its violations. *Petitioner himself prepared the warrant and cannot reasonably relied
*Petitioners miserably failed to report the unlawful peddling of on  the  Magistrate’s  assurance that the warrant contained an adequate
scouting goods to the Boy Scouts of the Phil. for the proper application description of the things to be seize and was therefore valid. (Cf.
of a warrant. Sheppard, 468 U.S., at 989-990)
*Moral damages are not awarded to penalize the defendant but to
compensate the plaintiff for the injuries he may have suffered. “The   uniformly   applied   rule   is   that   a   search   conducted   pursuant   to   a  
warrant that fails to conform to the particularity requirement of the
The wantonness of the wrongful seizure justifies the award of Fourth  Amendment  is  unconstitutional”  (Cf.  Sheppard,  468  U.S.,  at  988,  
exemplary damages. It will also serve as a stern reminder to all and n. 5)
sundry that the constitutional protection against unreasonable search
and seizure is a virile reality and not a mere burst of rhetoric. The all Extra-territorial Reach of the Guarantee
33 | P LATON
of those territories.
The Court held that the Fourth Amendment does not have
extraterritorial effect sp as to cover searches made in another Scientific and Technological Advancements and the Search and
country involving non-American citizen. The social impact is Seizure Clause
only between the government and those governed, including
aliens who have gone into the territory of the United States and As technology advances, the level of reasonably expected
developed substantial connections with that country. Thus, if privacy decreases. The measure of protection granted by the
the person affected is a citizen, it might be an entirely different reasonable expectation diminishes as relevant technology
matter becomes more widely accepted

United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez In this area, again the courts would have to see how the
494 U.S. 259, 108 Led 2d 222, 110 S Ct 1056 (1990) constitutional guarantee of privacy could be adjusted to meet
modern needs and demands, for as always there would be the
Facts: Respondent is a citizen and resident of Mexico. He was believed never-ending push and pull between the need of government
by the United States Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) to be one of the
to maintain its role as protector against equally modernizing
leaders of a large and violent organization in Mexico that smuggles
narcotics into the United States. He was apprehended by the Mexican criminal elements and the constant demand to safeguard
Police and transported him to United States Border Patrol station in enduring liberty interests
Calexico, California, then arrested by the United States Marshals and
moved him to a correctional center in San Diego, California, pending his Klyllo v. US
trial. DEA agents, working with Mexican officials, with Director General 533 US 27, 150 L Ed 2d 94, 121 S Ct 2038 (2001)
of the Mexican Federal Judicial Police (MFJP), authorizing the searches,
searched his Mexican residences in Mexicali and San Felipe and seized Suspicious that marijuana was being grown in petitioner Kyllo`s home in
certain documents. The search of his residence uncovered a tally sheet, a triplex, agents used a thermal imaging device to scan the triplex to
which the Government believes reflects the quantities of marijuana determine if the amount of heat emanating from it was consistent with
smuggled by the respondent into the United States. District Court the high – intensity lamps typically used for indoor marijuana growth.
granted  respondent’s  motion  to  suppress  the  evidence,  concluding  that  
the Fourth Amendment applied to the searches and DEA agents had Kyllo was indicated on a federal drug charge of manufacturing
failed to justify searching of the premises without a warrant. Court of marijuana, he unsuccessfully moved to suppress the evidence seized
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Court, divided panel, held that American from his home and then entered a conditional guilty plea.
citizens tried abroad by United States military officials were entitled to
Fifth and Sixth Amendment protections – The court concluded that the This case presents the question whether the use of a thermal – imaging
Constitution imposes substantive constraints on the Federal device aimed at a private home from a public street detect relative
Government, even it operates abroad. (citing Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1, amounts of heat   within   the   home   constitutes   a   “search”   within   the  
[1957]). Majority assumed that illegal aliens in the United States have meaning of the fourth amendment.
Fourth Amendment rights. (relying on INS v. Lopez-Mendoza, 468 U.S.
1032 [1984]). Majority recognized that American search warrant would The fourth amendment is to be construed in the light of what was
be no legal validity in Mexico, but it is deemed sufficient that a warrant deemed an unreasonable search and seizure when it was adopted, and
would  have  “substantial  constitutional  value  in  this  country”,  because  it   in a manner which will conserve public interest as well as interests and
would  reflect  a  magistrate’s  determination  that  there  existed probable rights of individual citizens.
cause to search and would define the scope of the search.
The government uses a devise that is not in general public use, to
Issue: W/N Fourth Amendment applies to the search and seizure by the explore details of the home that would previously have been
United States agents of property that is owned by a non-resident alien unknowable without physical intrusion, the surveillance is a “search”  
and located in a foreign country. and is presumptively unreasonable without warrant

Ruling: Reversed (Decision of the Court of Appeals) The judgment of the court of appeals is reversed: the case is remanded
for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
*The Fourth Amendment operates in a different manner that the Fifth The Big Brother Spectre and the Right to Privacy
Amendment, because the Fifth Amendment guaranteed the privilege
against self-incrimination, which is a fundamental trial right of criminal
The limits of tolerable governmental intrusions and the extent
defendants, which the constitutional violation will occur only at trial.
*As   suggested   by   Madison,   “the   driving   force   behind   the   adoption   of   of privacy that society may reasonably recognize in various
the Amendment was widespread hostility among the former Colonists situations would necessarily have to be considered by the
to the issuance of writs of assistance empowering revenue officers to courts every now and then, as what might not be allowable
search suspected places for smuggled goods and general search now would become a matter of necessity at some other time,
warrants permitting the search of private houses, often to uncover under different circumstances
papers that might be used to convict persons of libel. (Boyd v. United
States, 116 U.S. 616, 625 – 626, [1886]) It is necessary to stress that unless the creeping interference of the
*Purpose for the Amendment was to protect the people of the United government in essentially private matters is moderated, it is likely to
States against arbitrary action by their own Government; it was never destroy that prized and peculiar virtue of the free society:
suggested to be intended to restrain the actions of the Federal individualism. Every member of society, while paying proper deference
Government against aliens outside of the United States. to the general welfare, must not be deprived of the right to be left
*Not every constitutional provision applies to governmental activity alone  or,  in  the  idiom  of  the  day,  “to  do  his  thing”.  As  long  as  he  does  
even where the United States has sovereign power. not prejudice others, his freedom as an individual must not ne unduly
*Congress   was   not   required   to   adopt   “a   system   of   laws   which   shall   curtailed.
include the right of trial by jury and that the Constitution does not
without legislation and its own force, carry such right to territory so
Ople v. Torres
293 SCRA 141 (1998)
Only  “fundamental”  constitutional  rights  are  guaranteed  to  inhabitants  

34 | P LATON
The instant petition prays for the invalidation of Administrative order cause indeed, to issue a warrant of arrest. The complainant and the
no.   308   entitled   “Adoption   of   a   National   Computerized   Identification   witnesses did not show up and because of that, the trial court judge
Reference  System”  on  constitutional  grounds – usurpation of the power dismiss the case. This was elevated to the SC.
of congress to legislate and violation of the right to privacy. A.O. no.
308 was issued by then President Fidel V. Ramos on 12 December 1996, HELD: it is not mandatory for the judge to conduct a hearing for the
was published in four newspaper of general circulation on 22 and 23 purpose of determining probable cause if there has already been a case
January 1997. filed before him and the records are sufficient to justify the finding of a
probable cause for the issuance of a warrant to arrest. In this case, the
Yes. Assuming, arguendo, that A.O. No. 308 need not be the subject of SC itself determined that the records are already enough to justify the
a law, still it cannot pass constitutional muster as an administrative issuance of a warrant of arrest, such that the act of the judge in
legislation because facially it violates the right to privacy. A.O. 308 is so requiring the complainant to show up together with her witnesses and
vague. The vagueness, the overbreadth of A.O. No. 308 which if eventually dismissing the case for their failure to show up was
implemented will put our people's right to privacy in clear and present considered as a grave abuse of discretion.
danger. There are no vital safeguards the indefiniteness of A.O. No.
308 can give the government the roving authority to store and retrieve When it comes to the kind of information that would justify a probable
information for a purpose other than the identification of the individual cause   there’s   of   course   the   requirement   that   those   appearing   before  
through his PRN the judge must have personal knowledge and not simply hearsay.
Because if its hearsay then the judge could obviously not carry on a
The data may be gathered for gainful and useful government purposes; follow up manner of questioning. The witness would simply say that is
but the existence of this vast reservoir of personal information what was told me so how could the judge now prove further and
constitutes a covert invitation to misuse, a temptation that may be too deeper. But if the person appearing before him has personal knowledge
great for some of our authorities to resist. then he could satisfy his curiosity of the judge whether he is really
telling the truth or not.
Even that hospitable assumption will not save A.O. No. 308 from
constitutional infirmity for again said order does not tell us in clear and D3. United States v. Grubbs
categorical terms how these information gathered shall be handled. It 547 U.S. 90 (2006)
does not provide who shall control and access the data, under what
circumstances and for what purpose. These factors are essential to FACTS: Jeffrey Grubbs purchased a videotape containing child
safeguard the privacy and guaranty the integrity of the information. pornography from a Website operated by an undercover postal
inspector. Officers from the Postal Inspection Service arranged a
It is plain and we hold that A.O. No. 308 falls short of assuring that controlled   delivery   of   a   package   containing   the   videotape   to   Grubb’s  
personal information which will be gathered about our people will only residence. A postal inspector submitted an "anticipatory" search
be processed for unequivocally specified purposes. warrant application to a Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of
California, accompanied by an affidavit describing the proposed
They threaten the very abuses that the Bill of Rights seeks to prevent. operation in detail, explaining that the warrant would be executed only
upon the receipt of the parcel by a person(s) and has been physically
The petition is granted and A.O. no 308 declared null and void. taken into the residence (triggering condition). The warrant was issued.
Two days later, an undercover postal inspector delivered the package.
Additional Cases Grubb’s  wife   signed  for   it   and  took   the   unopened  package   inside.   The  
(D) Searches and Seizures [11-12] inspectors detained Grubbs as he left his home a few minutes later,
then entered the house and commenced the search. Roughly 30
D1. NBI – Microsoft Corp. v. Hwang minutes into the search, Grubbs was provided with a copy of the
warrant, which included both attachments but not to supporting
A former authorize distributor of Microsoft products was raided for affidavit that explained when the warrant would be executed. Grubbs
allegedly selling fake Microsoft products. During  the  raid,  installer  CD’s   consented to interrogation by the postal inspectors and admitted
were   found.   What   are   installer   CD’s?   They   lump   together   in   one   CD   ordering the videotape. He was placed under arrest, and various items
several programs so how could that be indicative of copyright were seized, including the videotape.
infringement. The DOJ however dismiss the case saying that there was
no probable cause because this person who was the subject of the A grand jury for the Eastern District of California indicted Grubbs on
search warrant was an authorize distributor in the past. one count of receiving a visual depiction of a minor engaged in sexually
explicit conduct. Grubbs moved to suppress the evidence seized during
HELD:  the  presence  of  installer  CD’s  is  indicative  of  a  probable  cause  of   the search of his residence, arguing as relevant here that the warrant
software infringement because Microsoft does not produce installer was invalid because it failed to list the triggering condition. The district
CD’s.   Microsoft   only   comes  up   with   CD’s  of   particular   programs  but   it   court denied the motion. The court of appeals for the ninth circuit
does   not   put   them   together   in   only   one   CD.   If   its   windows   it’s   just   reversed; it held that the particularity requirement of the Fourth
windows  if  its  office  it’s  just  office.  But  if  you  find  them  in  only  one  CD,   Amendment applies with full force to the conditions precedent to an
that’s  installer  CD,  and  then  obviously  those  are  fake  or  counterfeit. So anticipatory search warrant, because the postal inspectors failed to
the SC said that is indicative of counterfeiting. Therefore there is present the affidavit the warrant was inoperative, and the search was
probable cause to continue with the case. illegal.

ISSUE: Whether anticipatory search warrants are categorically

D2. AAA v. Carbonell
DECISION: No. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and
The names of victims in crimes involving violence against women and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this
their children would now have to be identified through this manner opinion
AAA and so on in order to protect their privacy. In this case, there was a
charge for rape and the accused asked the judge for judicial REASON: The Fourth Amendment does not set forth some general
determination of probable cause. Instead of the judge simply issuing “particularity  requirement”,  it  specifies  only  two  matters  that  must  be  
the warrant as a result of the filing of the case, he was asked to particularly described in the warrant: (1) the place to be search and (2)
determine if there is really a probable cause for the purpose of issuing a the persons or things to be seized. The court defined an anticipatory
warrant. Acting on this motion, the judge required the complainant to search  warrant  as  “a  warrant  based  upon  an  affidavit  showing  probable  
appear together with her witnesses to determine if there was probable cause that at some future time (but not presently) certain evidence of

35 | P LATON
crime will be located at a specified place. The court further held that
the probable-cause requirement looks to whether evidence will be REASON: When the deputies ordered respondents from their bed, they
found when the search is conducted, all warrants are in a sense, had no way of knowing whether the African-American suspects were
anticipatory. Anticipatory warrants are, therefore, no different in elsewhere in the house. The presence of some Caucasians in the
principal from ordinary warrants. They require a magistrate to residence did not eliminate the possibility that the suspects lived there
determine (1) that it is now probable that (2) contraband, evidence of a as well. The deputies, who were searching a house where they believed
crime, or a fugitive will be on the described premises (3) when the a suspect, might be armed, possessed authority to secure the premises
warrant is executed. It should be noted, however, that where the before deciding whether to continue with the search. In executing a
anticipatory warrant places a condition (other than the mere passage of search warrant officers may take reasonable action to secure the
time) upon its execution, the first of these determinations goes not premises and to ensure their own safety and the efficacy of the search.
merely to what will probably be found if the condition is met. Rather,
the probability determination for a conditioned anticipatory warrant Unreasonable actions include the use of excessive force or restraints
looks also to the likelihood that the condition will occur, and thus that a that cause unnecessary pain or are imposed for a prolonged and
proper object of seizure will be on the described premises. Two pre- unnecessary period of time. The orders by the police to the occupants,
requisites of probability must be satisfied (1) It must be true that if the in the context of this lawful search, were permissible, and perhaps
triggering   condition   occurs  “there   is   a  fair   probability   that   contraband   necessary, to protect the safety of the deputies. Blankets and bedding
or   evidence   of   a   crime   will   be   found   in  a  particular   place”   (2)   there   is   can conceal a weapon, and one of the suspects was known to own a
probable cause to believe that the triggering condition will occur. firearm, factors which underscore this point. The Constitution does not
require an officer to ignore the possibility that an armed suspect may
D4. Los Angeles County v. Rettele sleep with a weapon within reach. The deputies needed a moment to
550 U.S. 90 (2006) secure the room and ensure that other persons were not close by or
did not present a danger. The Fourth Amendment allows warrants to
FACTS:   Los   Angeles   County   Sheriff’s   Department   Deputy   Dennis   issue on probable cause, a standard well short of absolute certainty.
Watters investigated a fraud and identity-theft crime ring. There were Valid warrants will issue to search the innocent, and people like Rettele
four suspects of the investigation. The four suspects were known to be and Sadler unfortunately bear the cost. When officers execute a valid
African-Americans. Watters obtained a search warrant for two houses warrant and act in a reasonable manner to protect themselves from
in Lancaster, California, where he believed he could find the suspects. harm, however, the Fourth Amendment is not violated.
The warrant authorized him to search the homes and three of the
suspects for documents and computer files. Watters briefed six other D5. Valeroso v. Ca
deputies in preparation for the search of the houses. Watters informed 598 SCRA 41 (2009)
them they would be searching for three African-American suspects.
However, Watters did not know that one of the houses (the first to be FACTS: For resolution is the Letter-Appeal of Senior Inspector Jerry
searched) had been sold to Max Rettele. He had purchased the home Valeroso praying that the Feb. 22, 2008 decision and June 30, 2008
and moved into it three months earlier with his girlfriend Judy Sadler resolution be set aside and a new one be entered acquitting him of the
and  Sadler’s  17-year-old son Chase Hall. All three, respondents here, crime of illegal possession of firearm and ammunition.
are Caucasians.
During trial there were two versions as to where Valeroso was arrested.
The   deputies’   announcement   awoke   Rettele   and   Sadler.The   deputies   Prosecution claims that Valeroso was arrested near the INP central
entered their bedroom with guns drawn and ordered them to get out Police Station in Culiat, Quezon City, while he was about to board a
of their bed and to show their hands. They protested that they were tricycle; after placing him under arrest, the arresting officers bodily
not wearing clothes. Rettele and Sadler were held at gunpoint for one searched him, and they found the subject firearms and ammunition. On
to two minutes before Rettele was allowed to retrieve a robe for the other hand, the defense insists that he was sleeping inside a room
Sadler. He was then permitted to dress. By that time the deputies in the boarding house of his children in Quezon City and was awakened
realized they had made a mistake, they apologized to Rettele and by four heavily armed men in civilian attire who pointed their guns at
Sadler. him and pulled him out of the room, tied his hands and placed him near
the faucet outside the room then went back inside, searched and
Rettele and Sadler, individually and as guardians ad litem for Hall, filed ransacked the room and forcibly opened a locked cabinet where they
this suit against Los Angeles County, the Los Angeles County   Sheriff’s   discovered the subject firearm.
Department,   Deputy   Watters,   and   other   members   of   the   sheriff’s  
department. Respondents alleged petitioners violated their Fourth The RTC, branch 97, QC, convicted Valeroso as charged. On appeal, the
Amendment rights by obtaining a warrant in reckless fashion and CA affirmed the RTC decision with modification to the penalty. On
conducting an unreasonable search and detention. The District Court petition for review, SC affirmed in full the CA decision. He then filed a
held that the warrant was obtained by proper procedures and the motion for reconsideration which was denied with finality on June 30,
search was reasonable. It concluded in the alternative that any Fourth 2008. The present letter-appeal focused on his breached constitutional
Amendment rights the deputies violated were not clearly established rights against unreasonable search and seizure.
and that, as a result, the deputies were entitled to qualified immunity.
OSG filed a manifestation in lieu of comment  recommending  Valeroso’s  
On appeal respondents did not challenge the validity of the warrant; acquittal, considering the testimonies of the witnesses for the defense
they did argue that the deputies had conducted the search in an more credible. The OSG agrees with Valeroso that the subject firearms
unreasonable manner. The Court of Appeals concluded that the search was obtained by the police officers in violation of his constitutional
and detention were   ‘unnecessarily   painful,   degrading,   or   prolonged,’   right against illegal search and seizure, and should thus be excluded
and   involved   ‘an   undue   invasion   of   privacy.’   Turning   to   whether   from the evidence for the prosecution.
respondents’   Fourth   Amendment   rights   were   clearly   established,   the  
majority held that a reasonable deputy should have known the search ISSUE: whether the warrantless search and seizure of the firearm and
and detention were unlawful. ammunition valid.

ISSUE: whether the act of the deputies constitute an unreasonable DECISION: No. The Feb. 22, 2008 decision and June 30, 2008 resolution
manner of conducting a search. are reconsidered and set aside. Sr. Insp. Jerry Valeroso is acquitted of
illegal possession of firearm and ammunition.
DECISION: No. The court held that the search was reasonable under the
circumstances. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and REASON: Must give more credence to the version of the defense.
the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this Sec. 2 of Art. III of the Constitution , as a general rule, the procurement
opinion. of a warrant is required before a law enforcer can validly search or

36 | P LATON
seize the person, house, papers, or effects of any individual. cocaine possession. On the other hand, the Arizona Supreme Court
Furthermore,   Art.   III,   Sec.   3(2)   states   that   “any   evidence   obtained   in   concluded that the search   of   Gant’s   car   was   unreasonable   within   the  
violation of this or the preceding section shall be inadmissible in meaning of the Fourth Amendment.
evidence   for   any   purpose   in   any   proceeding”.   However,   this   is   not  
absolute, there are exceptions or instances where searches and ISSUE: whether the search conducted by police officers after
seizures are allowed even without a valid warrant among these are: (1) handcuffing the defendant and securing the scene a violation of the
warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest and (2) seizure of Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches and
evidence  in  “plain  view”.   seizures.

The Court explained that when an arrest is made, it is reasonable for DECISION: Yes. The judgment of the State Supreme Court is affirmed.
the arresting officer to search the person arrested in order to remove
any weapon that the latter might use in order to resist arrest or effect REASON:   Police   may   search   a   vehicle   incident   to   a   recent   occupant’s  
his escape, or for the protection of the officer, as well as to prevent the arrest only if the arrestee is within reaching distance of the passenger
concealment  or  destruction  of  evidence  on  the  suspect’s  person.  A  valid   compartment at the time of the search or it is reasonable to believe the
arrest allows the seizure of evidence or dangerous weapon either on vehicle contains evidence of the offense of arrest. When these
the person of the one arrested or within the area of his immediate justifications   are   absent,   a   search   of   an   arrestee’s   vehicle   will   be  
control, within which he might gain possession of weapon or unreasonable unless police obtain a warrant or show that another
destructible evidence. exception to the warrant requirement applies. The Arizona Supreme
In the present case, the arresting officers served the warrant of arrest Court correctly held that this case involved an unreasonable search.
without any resistance from Valeroso, his hands were tied and he was
placed outside the room, and also the cabinet, which was locked, could The court observed that the search-incident-to-arrest exception to the
no   longer   be   considered   as   an   “area   within   his   immediate   control”   warrant requirement is justified by interests in officer safety and
because there was no way for him to take any weapon or to destroy evidence preservation. In this case, the justifications no longer exist
any evidence that could be used against him. The purpose of the because the scene is secure and the arrestee is handcuffed, secured in
exception is to protect the arresting officer from being harmed by the the back of a patrol car, and under the supervision of an officer, the
person arrested, based on the said circumstances, the search exceeded court  concluded,  a  “warrantless  search  of  the  arrestee’s  car  cannot  be  
the bounds of what may be considered as an incident to a lawful arrest. justified as necessary to protect the officers at the scene or prevent the
The warrantless search in this case cannot also be justified under the destruction  of  evidence.”  Accordingly,  the  court  held  that  the  search  of  
plain view doctrine because it may not be used to launch unbridled Gant’s  car  was  unreasonable.
searches and indiscriminate seizure or to extend a general exploratory
search  made  solely   to   find   evidence   of  defendant’s  guilt.  The  doctrine D7. Brigham city v. Stuart
usually applied where a police officer is not searching for evidence 547 U. S. 398 (2006)
against the accused, but nonetheless unintentionally comes across an
incriminating object. However, in this case, the police officers did not Facts: Four police officers responded to a call regarding a loud party at
just accidentally discover the subject firearm and ammunition; they a residence. Upon arriving at the house, they heard shouting from
actually searched for evidence against Valeroso. inside, and proceeded down the driveway to investigate. There, they
Clearly,   the   search   made   was   illegal,   a   violation   of   Valeroso’s   right   observed two juveniles drinking beer in the backyard. They entered the
against unreasonable search and seizure. Consequently, the evidence backyard, and saw—through a screen door and windows—an
obtained in violation of said right is inadmissible in evidence against altercation taking place in the kitchen of the home. Four adults were
him.   Without   the   illegally   seized   firearm,   Valeroso’s  conviction  cannot   attempting, with some difficulty, to restrain a juvenile. At this point, an
stand. officer opened  the  screen  door  and  announced  the  officers’  presence.      
The officers subsequently arrested respondents and charged them with
D6. Arizona v. Gant contributing to the delinquency of a minor, disorderly conduct, and
556 U.S. ___ (2009) intoxication. In the trial court, respondents filed a motion to suppress
all evidence obtained after the officers entered the home, arguing that
FACTS: On August 25, 1999, acting on an anonymous tip that the the warrantless entry violated the Fourth Amendment.
residence at 2524 North Walnut Avenue was being used to sell drugs,
Tucson police officers Griffith and Reed knocked on the front door and Issue: Whether police may enter a home without a warrant when they
asked to speak to the owner. Gant answered the door and, after have an objectively reasonable basis for believing that an occupant is
identifying himself, stated that he expected the owner to return later. seriously injured or imminently threatened with such injury?
The officers left the residence and conducted a records check, which
revealed  that  Gant’s  driver’s  license  had  been  suspended  and  there  was   Held:   It   is   a   “basic   principle   of   Fourth   Amendment   law   that   searches  
an outstanding warrant for his arrest for driving with a suspended and seizures inside a home without a warrant are presumptively
license. When the officers returned to the house that evening, the unreasonable.”   Groh   v.   Ramirez,   540   U.   S. 551, 559 (2004) (quoting
officers recognized his car as it entered the driveway Gant parked at Payton v. New York, 445 U. S. 573, 586 (1980) (some internal quotation
the end of the driveway, got out of his car, and shut the door. Griffith marks omitted)). Nevertheless, because the ultimate touchstone of the
immediately arrested Gant and handcuffed him. They locked Gant in Fourth   Amendment   is   “reasonableness,”   the   warrant   requirement   is  
the back-seat of their patrol car, after which two officers searched his subject to certain exceptions. Flippo v. West Virginia, 528 U. S. 11, 13
car: One of them found a gun, and the other discovered a bag of (1999) (per curiam); Katz v. United States, 389 U. S. 347, 357 (1967).
cocaine in the pocket of a jacket on the backseat. Gant was charged
with two offenses—possession of a narcotic drug for sale and The officers had an objectively reasonable basis for believing both that
possession of drug paraphernalia. the injured adult might need help and that the violence in the kitchen
was just beginning. Nothing in the Fourth Amendment required them
He moved to suppress the evidence seized from his car on the ground to  wait  until  another  blow  rendered  someone  “unconscious”  or  “semi-
that the warrantless search violated the Fourth Amendment's conscious”   or   worse   before   entering.   The   role   of   a   peace   officer  
prohibition of unreasonable searches and seizures. Among other things, includes preventing violence and restoring order, not simply rendering
Gant argued that it did not authorize the search of his vehicle because first aid to casualties; an officer is not like a boxing (or hockey) referee,
he posed no threat to the officers after he was handcuffed in the patrol poised to stop a bout only if it becomes too one-sided.
car and because he was arrested for a traffic offense for which no
evidence could be found in his vehicle. The trial court declined Gant's The  officer’s  announcement  of  his  presence  was  at  least  equivalent  to  a  
request, stating that the search was a direct result of Gant's lawful knock on the screen door. Indeed, it was probably the only option that
arrest and therefore an exception to the general Fourth Amendment had even a chance of rising above the din. Under these circumstances,
warrant requirement. The court convicted Gant on two counts of there   was   no   violation   of   the   Fourth   Amendment’s   knock-and-

37 | P LATON
announce rule. Furthermore, once the announcement was made, the individual’s  claim  to  security  against  the  government’s  intrusion  into  his  
officers were free to enter; it would serve no purpose to require them dwelling place. However, society can have the benefit of these interests
to stand dumbly at the door awaiting a response while those within without  relying  on  a  theory  of  consent  that  ignores  inhabitant’s  refusal  
brawled on, oblivious to their presence. to allow a warrantless search. The cotenant acting on his own initiative
may be able to deliver evidence to the police, and can tell the police
what he knows, for use before a magistrate in getting a warrant. Lastly,
D8. Georgia v. Randolph the court drew a fine line between other similar cases Matlock and
547 U.S. 103 (2006) Rodriguez by stating if a potential defendant with self-interest in
objecting is in fact at the door and objects, the co-tenant’s  permission  
Facts: Respondent Scott Randolph and his wife, Janet, separated in late does not suffice for a reasonable search, whereas the potential
May 2001, when she left the marital residence in Americus, Georgia, objector, nearby but not invited to take part in the threshold colloquy,
and went to stay with her parents in Canada, taking their son and some loses out.
belongings. In July, she returned to the Americus house with the child,
though the record does not reveal whether her object was Concurring: Justice Breyer who write a concurring opinion, stated that if
reconciliation or retrieval of remaining possessions. On the morning of Fourth Amendment law forced us to choose between two bright-line
July 6, she complained to the police that after a domestic dispute her rules;   (1)   a   rule   that   always   found   one   tenant’s   consent   sufficient   to  
husband took their son away, and when officers reached the house she justify a search without a warrant and (2) a rule that never did, I believe
told them that her husband was a cocaine user whose habit had caused we should choose the first. A rule permitting such searches can serve
financial troubles. She mentioned the marital problems and said that important law enforcement needs (for example, in domestic abuse
she and their son had only recently returned after a stay of several cases)  and  the  consenting  party’s  joint  tenancy diminishes the objecting
weeks with her parents. Shortly after the police arrived, Scott Randolph party’s   reasonable   expectation   of   privacy.   Furthermore,   he   stressed  
returned and explained that he had removed the child to a neighbor's that   the   court   should   take   a   ‘totality   of   the   circumstances’   approach  
house out of concern that his wife might take the boy out of the because if the circumstances change significantly, so should the result.
country again; he denied cocaine use, and countered that it was in fact
his wife who abused drugs and alcohol. One of the officers, Sergeant
Murray, went with Janet Randolph to reclaim the child, and when they D9. Dizon v. Lambino,
returned she not only renewed her complaints about her husband's 498 SCRA 233 (2006)
drug   use,   but   also   volunteered   that   there   were   “‘items   of   drug  
evidence’”   in   the   house. Sergeant Murray asked Scott Randolph for Facts: The killing during a rumble on December 8, 1994 of University of
permission to search the house, which he unequivocally refused. The the Philippines graduating student Dennis Venturina, the chairperson of
sergeant turned to Janet Randolph for consent to search, which she the UP College of Public Administration Student Council, drew the then
readily gave. She led the officer upstairs to a bedroom that she Chancellor of UP Diliman Roger Posadas to seek the assistance of the
identified as Scott's, where the sergeant noticed a section of a drinking National Bureau of Investigation (NBI).
straw with a powdery residue he suspected was cocaine. He then left
the house to get an evidence bag from his car and to call the district As two student-suspects in the killing, Francis Carlo Taparan and
attorney's office, which instructed him to stop the search and apply for Raymundo Narag, were at the time in the office of Col. Bentai, Atty.
a warrant. When Sergeant Murray returned to the house, Janet Marichu Lambino, Legal counsel of UP Diliman, who repaired to the
Randolph withdrew her consent. The police took the straw to the police Office  of  Col.  Bentain,  advised  against  Atty.  Dizon’s  move,  however,  he  
station, along with the Randolphs. After getting a search warrant, they not being armed with a warrant for their arrest.
returned to the house and seized further evidence of drug use, on the
basis of which Scott Randolph was indicted for possession of cocaine Chancellor Posadas and Vice Chancellor for students Rosarion Torres-
. Yu, who also repaired to the office of the colonel, joined Atty. Lambino
Procedural Posture: Trial court denied motion to suppress ruling that in opposing the turn-over of the suspects to Atty. Dizon, despite the
Janet Randolph had common authority to consent to the search. Court latter’s   claim   that   under   its   Charter   the   NBI   was   authorized   to   make  
of Appeals reversed. warrantless arrests.

Issue(s): Whether such an evidentiary seizure is likewise lawful with the Issues: (1) Whether the attempted arrest of the student suspects by the
permission of one occupant when the other, who later seeks to NBI could be validly made without a warrant; and (2) Whether there
suppress the evidence, is present at the scene and expressly refuses to was probable cause for prosecuting petitioner for violation of P.D. No.
consent. 1829.

Judgment/Disposition: Affirmed Held: Respecting the complaint against Atty. Dizon, this court, also in
Posadas v. Ombudsman,  held  that  “[f]or  the  failure  of  the  NBI  agents  to  
Holding: A physically present co-occupant’s   stated   refusal   to   permit   comply   with   the   constitutional   and   procedural   requirements,…   their  
entry prevails. attempt to arrest [the two student-suspects] without a warrant was
Reasoning: Justice Souter, who authored the majority opinion, began
by  providing  an  analogy  similar  to  this  case  by  stating  “To  begin  with,  it   The NBI Charter clearly qualifies the power to make arrests   to   be   “in  
is fair to say that a caller standing at the door of shared premises would accordance  with  existing  laws  and  rules.”
have   no   confidence   that   one   occupant’s   invitation   was   a   sufficiently  
good   reason   to   enter   when   a   fellow   tenant   stood   there   saying   ‘stay   Members of the investigation staff of the Bureau of Investigation shall
out’.   Without   some   very   good   reason,   no   sensible   person   would   go be peace officers, and as such have the following powers:
inside under those conditions. Fear for the safety of the occupant (a) To make arrests, searches and seizures in accordance
issuing the invitation, or of someone else inside, would be thought to with existing laws and rules. xxxx(Emphasis supplied)
justify entry, but the justification then would be the personal risk, the
threats to life or limb, nit the disputed invitation”.   He   further   states   D10. Social Justice Society (SJS) v. Dangerous Drugs Board
that there is no common understanding that one co-tenant generally 570 SCRA 410 (2008)
has a right or authority to prevail over the express wishes of another,
whether the issue is the color of the curtains or invitations to outsiders. Facts: In these kindred petitions, the constitutionality of Section 36 of
The court also applied the balancing test by stating that in the balancing Republic Act No. (RA) 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive
of competing individual and governmental interest entailed by the bar Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, insofar as it requires mandatory drug
to   unreasonable   searches,   the   cooperative   occupant’s   invitation   adds   testing of candidates for public office, students of secondary and
nothing  to   the  government’s  side  to  counter  the  force of an objecting tertiary schools, officers and employees of public and private offices,

38 | P LATON
and persons charged before the prosecutor’s   office   with   certain   unit, and the inherent right of the employer to maintain discipline and
offenses, among other personalities, is put in issue. efficiency in the workplace. Their privacy expectation in a regulated
office environment is, in fine, reduced; and a degree of impingement
The Commission on Elections issued Resolution No. 6486, prescribing upon such privacy has been upheld.
the rules and regulations on the mandatory drug testing of candidates
for public office in connection with the May 10, 2004 synchronized The reduced expectation of privacy on the part of the employees, the
national and local elections. compelling state concern likely to be met by the search, and the well-
defined limits set forth in the law to properly guide authorities in the
Petitioner Aquilino Q. Pimentel, Jr., a senator of the Republic and a conduct of the random testing, we hold that the challenged drug test
candidate for re-election in the May 10, 2004 elections. He seeks (1) to requirement is, under the limited context of the case, reasonable and,
nullify Sec. 36(g) of RA 9165 and COMELEC Resolution No. 6486 dated ergo, constitutional.
December 23, 2003 for being unconstitutional in that they impose a
qualification for candidates for senators in addition to those already The situation is entirely different in the case of persons charged before
provided for in the 1987 Constitution; and (2) to enjoin the COMELEC the  public  prosecutor’s  office  with  criminal  offenses  punishable  with  six  
from implementing Resolution No. 6486. Pimentel Invokes Sec. 3, years and one day imprisonment. The operative concepts in the
Article VI of the Constitution. mandatory   drug   testing   are   “randomness”   and   “suspicionless.”   In   the  
Petitioner Social Justice Society (SJS), a registered political party, seeks case of persons charged with a crime before the prosecutor’s  office,  a  
to prohibit the Dangerous Drugs Board (DDB) and the Philippine Drug mandatory drug testing can never be random or suspicionless. To
Enforcement Agency (PDEA) from enforcing paragraphs (c),(d),(f), and impose mandatory drug testing on the accused is a blatant attempt to
(g) of Sec. 36 of RA 9165 on the ground that they are constitutionally harness a medical test as a tool for criminal prosecution, contrary to
infirm. For one, the provisions constitute undue delegation of the stated objectives of RA 9165. Drug testing in this case would violate
legislative power when they give unbridled discretion to schools and a   persons’   right   to   privacy   guaranteed   under   Sec.   w,   Art.   III   of   the  
employers to determine the manner of drug testing. Constitution. Worse still, the accused persons are veritably forced to
incriminate themselves.
Petitioner Atty. Manuel J. Laserna, Jr., seeks in his petition that Sec. 36
(c),(d),(f), and (g) of RA 9165 be struck down as unconstitutional for Sec. 36(g) of RA 9165 and COMELEC Resolution No. 6486 –
infringing on the constitutional right to privacy, the right against UNCONSTITUTIONAL
unreasonable search and seizure, and the right against self-
incrimination, and for being contrary to the due process and equal Sec. 36(c) and (d) of RA 9165 - CONSTITUTIONAL but declaring its Sec.
protection guarantees. 36(f) UNCONSTITUTIONAL

Issues: (1) Do Sec. 36(g) of RA 9165 and COMELEC Resolution No. 6486
impose an additional qualification for candidates for senator?
Corollarily, can Congress enact a law prescribing qualifications for
candidates for senator in addition to those laid down by the
Constitution? And (2) Are paragraphs (c),(d),(f), and (g) of Sec. 36, RA
9165 unconstitutional? Specifically, do these paragraphs violate the Chapter 5
right to privacy, the right against unreasonable searches and seizure, Privacy of Communications and Correspondence
and the equal protection clause? Or do they constitute undue
delegation of legislative power? “The   privacy   of   communication   and   correspondence   shall   be  
inviolable except upon lawful order of the court, or when public
Held: The congress cannot validly amend or otherwise modify these safety or order requires otherwise, as prescribed by law.
qualification standards, as it cannot disregard, evade, or weaken the
force of a constitutional mandate, or alter or enlarge the Constitution.
Any evidence obtained in violation of this or the preceding
Accordingly, Sec. 36(g) of RA 9165 should be declared unconstitutional. section shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any
The Constitution is the basic law to which all laws must conform; no act proceeding.”
shall be valid if it conflicts with the Constitution.
Part of the right to be let alone is necessarily the corresponding
The provisions of RA 9165 requiring mandatory, random, and freedom to communicate in confidence with some other
suspicionless drug testing of students are constitutional. The right to persons   of   one’s   choosing   without   the   contents   of   that  
enroll is not absolute; it is subject to fair, reasonable, and equitable
communication being disclosed to others, especially the
requirements. The Court can take judicial notice of the proliferation of
prohibited drugs in the country that threatens the will-being of the government
people, particularly the youth and school children who usually end-up
as victims. Accordingly, and until a more effective method is Privacy of Communications and Searches
conceptualized and put in motion, random drug testing of students in
secondary and tertiary schools is not only acceptable but may even be To ensure respect and observance of the guarantee, the
necessary if the safety and interest of the student population, Constitution requires that there be a court order, or some
doubtless a legitimate concern of the government, are to be promoted weighty, justifiable and substantial state interest, such as public
and protected.
safety or order, before interference with the privacy of
Just as in the case of secondary and tertiary level students, the communications and correspondence could be allowed
mandatory but random drug test prescribed by Sec. 36 of RA 9165 for
officers and employees of public and private offices is justifiable, albeit The guidelines are supposed to be set out in law. Finally, as
not  exactly  for  the  same  reason.  Reasonableness’  is  the  touchstone  of   further deterrence, it mandates that any evidence obtained in
the validity of a government search or intrusion. And whether a search violation of its proscriptions shall be useless--“inadmissible   for  
at issue hews to the reasonableness standard is judged by the balancing any proceeding
of the government-mandated   intrusion   on   the   individual’s   privacy  
interest against the promotion of some compelling interest. The
Katz v. US
employees’   privacy   interest   in   an   office   is   to   a   large   extent  
389 US 347, 19 L Ed 2d 576, 88 S Ct 507 (1967)
circumscribed  by  the  company’s  work  policies,  the  collective  bargaining
agreement, if any, entered into by management and the bargaining
8 CONSTITUTION, Art. III, § 3(1) and (2)
39 | P LATON
The aforestated provision clearly and unequivocally makes it illegal for
Petitioner was convicted under an indictment charging him with any person, not authorized by all the parties to any private
transmitting wagering information by telephone across state lines-- communication to secretly record such communication by means of a
from LA to Miami and Boston--in violation of a federal statute. Evidence tape recorder. The law makes no distinction as to whether the party
of  petitioner’s  end  of  the  conversations,  overheard  by  FBI  agents  who   sought to be penalized by the statute ought to be a party other than or
had attached an electronic listening and recording device to the different from those involved in the private communication
outside of the telephone booth from which the calls were made, was
introduced and admitted at the trial The word communicate comes from the latin word
communicare,  meaning   “to  share  or  to  impart.”  In   its  ordinary  
Held: No. The Government’s   activities   in   electronically   listening   and  
signification, communication connotes the act of sharing or
recording   the   petitioner’s   words   violated   the   privacy   upon   which   he  
justifiably relied while using the telephone booth, and thus constituted imparting, as in a conversation,   or   signifies   the   “process   by  
a  “search  and  seizure”  within  the  meaning  of  the  Fourth  Amendment which meanings or thoughts are shared between individuals
through a common system of symbols (as language signs or
Wherever a man may be, he is entitled to know that he will remain free gestures)”  these  definitions  are broad enough to include verbal
from unreasonable searches and seizures or non-verbal, written or expressive communications of
“meanings   or   thoughts”   which   are   likely   to   include   the  
“The  Fourth  Amendment  protects  people,  not  places” emotionally-charged exchange
There is a twofold requirement:
1. That a person have exhibited an actual )subjective) expectation of What the law prohibits is the overhearing, intercepting, or
privacy recording of private communications. Thus, a tape recording of
2. That the expectation be one that society is prepared to recognize as an altercation or verbal exchange between a policeman and a
“reasonable” radio reporter at a police station is admissible even if said
recording was done without the knowledge of the participants.
the   point   is   not   that   the   booth   is   “accessible   to   the   public”   at   other   And, as noted in Ramirez, the use of a telephone extension for
times, but that it is a temporarily private place whose momentary the purpose of overhearing does not violate RA 4200
occupants’   expectations   of   freedom   from   intrusion   are   recognized   as  

Zulueta v. CA
Salcedo-Ortañez v. CA
253 SCRA 699 (1996)
235 SCRA 111 (1994)
Petitioner Cecilia Zulueta, wife of private respondent Alfredo Martin,
Private respondent Rafael S. Ortañez filed with the RTC of QC a
entered the clinic of her doctor husband, a doctor of medicine, and in
complaint for annulment of marriage with damages against petitioner
the   presence   of   her   mother,   a   driver   and   private   respondent’s  
Teresita Salcedo-Ortañez on grounds of lack of marriage license and/or
secretary,   forcibly   opened   the   drawers   and   cabinet   in   her   husband’s  
psychological incapacity of the petitioner. Among the exhibits offered
clinic and took 157 documents consisting of private correspondence
by private respondent were three (3) cassette tapes of alleged
between Dr. Martin and his alleged paramours, i.e. greeting cards,
telephone conversations between petitioner and unidentified persons
cancelled  checks,   diaries,   Dr.   Martin’s  passport,   and  photographs.   The  
documents and papers were seized for use in evidence in a case for
The trial court issued the assailed order admitting all of the evidence
legal separation and for disqualification from the practice of medicine
offered by private respondent, including tape recordings of telephone
which petitioner had filed against her husband
conversations of petitioner with unidentified persons. these tape
recordings were made and obtained when private respondent allowed
Held: No. The only exception to the prohibition in the Constitution is if
his friends from the military to wire tap his home telephone
there   is  a   “lawful   order   [from   a]   court   or   when  public   safety   or   order  
requires   otherwise,   as   prescribed   by   law.”   Any   violation   of   this  
Held:   No.   RA   4200   entitled   “An   Act   to   Prohibit   and   Penalize   Wire-
provision renders the evidence  obtained  inadmissible  “for  any  purpose  
Tapping and Other Related Violations of the Privacy of Communication,
in  any  proceeding”
and   for   other   purposes” expressly makes such tape recordings
inadmissible in evidence
Clearly, respondents trial court and Court of Appeals failed to consider Warrant Requirement
the afore-quoted provisions of the law in admitting in evidence the
cassette tapes in question. Absent a clear showing that both parties to Consistent with Section 2 of Article III, searches and seizures,
the telephone conversations allowed the recording of the same, the whether of tangible or intangible things, must be authorized by
inadmissibility of the subject tapes is mandatory under RA 4200 a warrant supported by probable cause and with a particularity
of description of what is sought to be searched or seized
The subject cassette tapes are declared inadmissible in evidence

Accordingly, what might only be possible is a reasonable

Ramirez v. CA
248 SCRA 590 (1995)
description of the persons whose communication is sought to
be intercepted, identification of the crime that might be
A civil case for damages was filed by petitioner Socorro D. Ramirez in committed by means of such communication, as well as a
the RTC of QC alleging that the private respondent, Ester S. Garcia, in a delimitation of the period of the allowable search and seizure
confrontation   in   the   latter’s   office,   allegedly   vexed,   insulted   and  
humiliated   her   in   a   “hostile   and   furious   mood”   and   in   a   manner   Additional Cases
offensive   to   petitioner’s   dignity   and   personality,   “contrary   to   morals,   (E) Privacy of Communications and Correspondence
good  customs  and  public  policy”--Garcia  essentially  belittled  Ramirez’s  
intelligence,   and   attributing   her   employment   to   Garcia’s   help.   In  
E1. City of Ontario, California, et al. v. Quon et al
support of her claim, petitioner produced a verbatim transcript of the
560 U. S. ____ (2010)
event   and  sought   moral   damages,   attorney’s   fees   and  other   expenses  
of litigation. the transcript on which the civil case was based was culled
Petitioner acquired alphanumeric pagers able to send and receive text
from a tape recording of the confrontation made by petitioner
messages. Its contract with its service provider, Arch Wireless, provided

40 | P LATON
for a monthly limit on the number of characters each pager could send that Arch Wireless violated the SCA by giving the City the transcript.
or receive, and specified that usage exceeding that number would Whether the audit was nonetheless reasonable, the court concluded,
result in an additional fee. The City issued the pagers to respondent turned on. Whether Scharf used it for the improper purpose of
Quon and other officers in its police department (OPD). When Quon determining if Quon was using his pager to waste time, or for the
and others exceeded their monthly character limits for several months legitimate purpose of determining the efficacy of existing character
running,   petitioner   Scharf,   OPD’s   chief,   sought   to   determine   whether   limits to ensure that officers were not paying hidden work-related
the existing limit was too low, i.e., whether the officers had to pay fees costs.      After  the  jury  concluded  that  Scharf’s  intent  was  legitimate,  the  
for sending work-related messages or, conversely, whether the court granted petitioners summary judgment on the ground they did
overages were for personal messages. After Arch Wireless provided not violate the Fourth Amendment. The Ninth Circuit reversed.
transcripts   of   Quon’s   and   another   employee’s   August   and   September   Although it agreed that Quon had a reasonable expectation of privacy
2002   text   messages,   it   was  discovered  that   many   of   Quon’s  messages   in his text messages, the appeals court concluded that the search was
were not work related, and   some   were   sexually   explicit.   McMahon’s   not reasonable even though it was conducted on a legitimate, work-
report noted that Quon sent or received 456 messages during work related rationale. The opinion pointed to a host of means less intrusive
hours in the month of August 2002, of which no more than 57 were than the audit that Scharf could have used. The court further
work related; he sent as many as 80 messages during a single day at concluded that Arch Wireless had violated the SCA by giving the City
work; and on an average workday, Quon sent or received 28 messages, the transcript.
of which only 3 were related to police business. The report concluded
that Quon had violated OPD rules. Quon was allegedly disciplined. Chapter 6
Freedom of Expression and Assembly
The employee contends that the privacy of the messages is protected
by   the   ban   on   “unreasonable   searches   and   seizures”   found   in   the  
Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution “No   law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of
expression, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably
HELD:  No.  “[O]ffices  of  government  employees...are  [generally]  covered   to assemble and petition the government for redress of
by Fourth Amendment protections, but government searches to grievances.”
retrieve work-related materials or to investigate violations of workplace
rules—searches of the sort that are regarded as reasonable and normal Among the most cherished liberties in a free society, where
in the private-employer context—do  not  violate  the...Amendment” freedom of thought and conscience is a bedrock principle, one
that occupies a preferred and predominant status, is the right
[T]he correct analysis has two steps: First,   because   “some   to  freely  speak  one’s  mind
[government] offices may be so open...that no expectation of
privacy  is  reasonable,”  a  court  must  consider  “[t]he  operational   Freedom of expression is the matrix, the indispensable
realities   of   the   workplace”   to   determine   if   an   employee’s   condition of nearly every freedom. The guarantee of the
constitutional rights are implicated. Second, where an freedom   of   speech   has   been   defined   as   “the   instrument   and  
employee   has   a   legitimate   privacy   expectation,   an   employer’s   guarantee  and  the  bright  and  consummate  flower  of  all  liberty”
intrusion   on   that   expectation   “for   non   investigatory,   work-
related purposes, as well as for investigations of work-related [I]t was made part of the First Amendment to the American
misconduct, should be judged by the standard of Constitution
reasonableness under all the  circumstances.”
Under this guarantee, the people are to determine their own
E1. Ontario vs Quon
direction and chart their own destiny through the free
560 U.S. ___ (2010)
exchange of ideas and not through dictation from or coercion
Petitioner Ontario (hereinafter City) acquired alphanumeric pagers able of  the  government  or  anybody  else’s
to send and receive text messages. Its contract with its service
provider, Arch Wireless, provided for a monthly limit on the number of The theory of freedom of expression involves more than a
characters each pager could send or receive, and specified that usage technique for arriving at better social judgments through
exceeding that number would result in an additional fee. The City democratic procedures. It comprehends a vision of society, a
issued the pagers to respondent Quon and other officers in its police faith and a whole way of life
department (OPD), also a petitioner here. When Quon and others
exceeded their monthly character limits for several months running,
petitioner   Scharf,   OPD’s   chief,   sought   to   determine   whether   the  
Scope of Guarantee -- Prior Restraint, Subsequent Punishment
existing limit was too low, i.e., whether the officers had to pay fees for and Damages
sending work-related messages or, conversely, whether the overages
were for personal messages. After Arch Wireless provided transcripts The Freedom of Expression Clause is basically directed against
of   Quon’s   and   another   employee’s   August   and   September   2002   text   prior restraint or censorship and subsequent punishment
messages,   it   was   discovered   that   many   of   Quon’s   messages   were   not  
work related, and some were sexually explicit. Scharf referred the [I]t means that the people are kept free from any undue
matter  to  OPD’s  internal  affairs  division.    The  investigating  officer  used  
interference from the government in their thoughts and words
Quon’s   work   schedule   to   redact   from   his   transcript   any   messages   he  
sent while off duty, but the transcript showed that few of his on-duty
messages related to police business. Quon was disciplined for violating [T]he people should be allowed to see and discuss for
OPD rules. themselves what is best for them
The employee contends that the privacy of the messages is protected
by   the   ban   on   “unreasonable   searches   and   seizures”   found   in   the   The First   Amendment’s   guarantee   of   “the   freedom   of   speech,  
Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, made applicable or   of   the   press”   prohibits   a   wide   assortment   of   government  
to the States by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth restraints upon expression, but the core abuse against which it
Amendment. He and the other respondents each of whom had
was directed was the scheme of licensing laws implemented by
exchanged text messages with Quon during August and September—
filed this suit, alleging, inter alia, that petitioners violated their Fourth
Amendment rights and the federal Stored Communications Act (SCA) by
obtaining  and  reviewing  the   transcript  of  Quon’s  pager  messages,  and   9 CONSTITUTION, Art. III, § 4
41 | P LATON
the monarch and Parliament   to   contain   the   “evils”   of   the   General Considerations
th th
printing press in the 16 - and 17 -century England
To properly understand the value of the freedom of speech, of
It punished the publication of any book or pamphlet without a the press and of expression, it would be best to consider the
license and required that all works be submitted for approval to background, the history and the circumstances which called
a government official, who wielded broad authority to suppress forth such guarantee
works  that  he  found  to  be  “heretical  seditious,  schismatical,  or  
offensive” Near v. Minnesota
283 US 697, 75 L Ed 2d 1357, 51 S Ct 625 (1931)
The freedom has also expanded its coverage through the years.
A Minnesota statute declared that one who engages "in the business of
While it may have been primarily meant to assure the right to
regularly and customarily producing, publishing," etc., "a malicious,
speak  one’s  mind  on  matters   affecting government affairs and scandalous and defamatory newspaper, magazine or other periodical,"
politics, it has gradually encompass expressions which are of is guilty of a nuisance, and authorizes suits, in the name of the State, in
private and commercial concerns which such periodicals may be abated and their publishers enjoined
from future violations. In such a suit, malice may be inferred from the
The guarantee has also come to ensure that claims for damages fact of publication. The defendant is permitted to prove, as a defense,
arising from the utilization of the freedom be not so that his publications were true and published "with good motives and
unreasonable or exorbitant as to practically still or chill its for justifiable ends." Disobedience of an injunction is punishable as a
Under said statute, the County Attorney of Hennepin County brought
[T]he right of free speech is not absolute at all times and under action to enjoin the publication of what was describe as a "malicious,
all circumstances scandalous and defamatory newspaper, magazine and periodical"
known as "The Saturday Press," published by the defendants in the city
These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, of Minneapolis.
and  the  insulting  or  “fighting”  words--those which, by their very
utterance, inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of Held: Yes. The statute is not directed at threatened libel, but at an
existing business which, generally speaking, involves more than libel"
the peace
The object of the statute is not punishment, in ordinary sense, but
The First Amendment protects the press from governmental suppression of the offending newspaper or periodical
interference; it confers no analogous protection on the
Government The statute not only operates to suppress the offending newspaper or
periodical, but to put the publisher under an effective censorship (in a
The Chilling Effect Principle -- The Danger of Self-Censorship way that, unless the owner or publisher is able and disposed to bring
competent evidence to satisfy the judge that the charges are true and
are published with good motives and for justifiable ends, his
If the freedom to speak is not adequately shielded from
newspaper or periodical is suppressed and further publication is made
overbearing and misdirected zeal to check or restrict it, people punishable as a contempt)
who might otherwise be minded to say something would rather
keep quiet than risk the danger of being prosecuted or For these reasons we hold the statute, so far as it authorized the
otherwise subjected to disagreeable and unwelcome proceedings in this action under clause (b) of section one, to be an
consequences infringement of the liberty of the press guaranteed by the Fourteenth
This form of censorship is likewise something that the Free
Speech Clause seeks to prevent, for in having people keep quiet New York Times Co v. US
out of their own self-induced fears society suffers just as much 403 US 713, 29 L Ed 2d 822, 91 S Ct 2140 (1971)
as when their mouths are kept shut by the authorities
The United States brought these actions to enjoin publication in the
New York Times and in the Washington Post of the contents of a
The chilling effect need not emanate only from threats coming classified study entitled "History of the US Decision-Making Process on
from the government itself. It may also be effected by means of Viet Nam Policy"
the use of libel laws that may directly enforce silence through
the threat of financial ruin brought about by claims for Held: Any system of prior restraints of expression comes to this Court
damages or prosecution under criminal laws for defamation bearing a heavy presumption against its constitutional validity.

J. Black & J. Douglas: The amendments were offered to curtail and

Facial Challenges and the Overbreadth Doctrine
restrict the general powers granted to the Executive, Legislative and
the Judicial Branches two years before in the original Constitution.
The overbreadth doctrine permits a party to challenge the
validity of a statute even though as applied to him it is not In the case at bar, we are asked to hold that, despite the First
unconstitutional but it might be if applied to others not before Amendment's emphatic command, the Executive Brach, the Congress,
the Court whose activities are constitutionally protected and the Judiciary can make laws enjoining publication of current news
and abridging freedom of the press in the name of "national security"
Accordingly, considering the preferred and paramount position
The dominant purpose of the First Amendment was to prohibit the
of the freedom of speech and of the press, such extraordinary
widespread practice of governmental suppression of embarrassing
safeguards   as   the   “facial   challenge”   and   the   use   of   the   information.
overbreadth doctrine are allowed to be engaged in whenever
speech is threatened Babst v. National Intelligence Board
132 SCRA 316 (1984)

42 | P LATON
Just like any other liberty, the freedom of expression is not
The petitioners are journalists and columnists. On different dates in July absolute
1980, they were summoned by military authorities for interrogation
regarding their work, feelings, sentiments, beliefs, associations and
There are three basic standards--the   “dangerous   tendency
even private lives. In addition, one of them was charged with libel by a
General who sought to recover P10 million in damages. They brought
rule,”   the   “clear   and   present   danger”   test   and   the   “balancing-
an action for prohibition to stop the NIB from questioning them and of-interest”  test.  Of  the  three,  he  clear and present danger test
from filing libel suits on matters that had been the subject of inquiry by is the most liberal and latitudinarian
the NIB.
Under the dangerous tendency rule,   “if   the   words   uttered  
The petition has become moot and academic. Be that as it may, it is not create a dangerous tendency which the state has a right to
idle to note that, while ordinarily, an invitation to attend a hearing and prevent, ten such words are punishable. It is not necessary that
answer some questions is not illegal or constitutionally objectionable,
some definite or immediate acts of force, violence, or
under certain circumstances, however, such an invitation can easily
assume a different appearance as when it comes from a powerful
unlawfulness be advocated. It is sufficient that such acts be
group composed predominantly of ranking military officers and the advocated in general terms. Nor it is necessary that the
designate interrogation site is a military camp. language used be reasonably calculated to incite persons to
acts of force, violence, or unlawfulness. It is sufficient if the
Forms and Variations of the Freedom and Relativity of State natural tendency and probable effect of the utterance be to
Regulation bring about the substantive evil which the legislative body
seeks to prevent
Depending on the form and medium in which speech is being
exercised, to that extent may it also affect the extent of The clear and present danger test posits that the evil
governmental power expended consequence  of  the  comment  or  utterance  must  be  “extremely  
serious   and   the   degree   of   imminence   extremely   high”   before  
It is also true that speech has its own hierarchy, that is, some the utterance can be punished. The danger to be guarded
specie of speech are given more weight and importance, and against  is  the  “substantive  evil”  sought  to  be  prevented
thus a greater extent of protection, compared to others. One
could not equate, for instance, the right to speak on matters The question in every case is whether the words used are used
affecting public matters with the right to comment on some in such circumstances and are of such a nature as o create a
private concerns clear and present danger that they will bring about the
substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent. It is a
Eastern Broadcasting Corporation v. Dans, Jr. question of proximity and degree
137 SCRA 628 (1985)
This [clear and present danger] test then as a limitation on
The SC held that radio broadcast also enjoys the protection of the freedom of expression is justified by the danger or evil of a
freedom of expression. If close down, the owner enjoys the rights to substantive character that the state has a right to prevent.
due process according to the standards set in Ang Tibay v. CIR.
Unlike the dangerous tendency doctrine, the danger must not
But radio deserves greater regulation than newspapers because it could
only be clear but also present. The term clear seems to point to
invade the privacy of everyone for no fee, and it is such that one is a causal connection with the danger of the substantive evil
likely to listen to what is being said. arising from the utterance questioned. Present refers to the
time element. It used to be identified with imminent and
The petitioner filed this action to compel respondent government immediate danger. The danger must not only be probable but
officials to allow the reopening of Radio Station DYRE after it had been very likely inevitable
closed for allegedly having been used to incite the people to sedition.
The petitioner contended that it was denied due process because no
The essential difference between the two doctrines related to
hearing was held and no proof was submitted to establish a factual
basis for the closure. However, before the Court could promulgate its
the degree of proximity of the apprehended danger which
decision the petitioner filed a motion to withdraw its action on the justified the restriction upon speech
ground that it had sold the radio station to Manuel Pastrana and that
the National telecommunications Commission had expressed its Dangerous Tendency Clear and Present Danger Rule
willingness to grant the requisite license. Doctrine
Permits the restrictions once Requires the Government to
The case has been moot and academic. However, for the guidance of
a rational connection defer application of restrictions
the inferior courts and administrative bodies, the following guidelines
must be observed: The cardinal primary requirements in administrative
between the speech until the apprehended danger
proceedings as laid down in Ang Tibay v. CIR should be followed before restrained and the danger was much more visible, until its
a broadcast station may be closed; All forms of communication are apprehended--the realization was imminent and
entitled to the broad protection of the freedom of expression clause. “tendency”   of   one   to   create   nigh at hand
Necessarily, the freedom of television and radio broadcasting is the other--was shown
somewhat lesser in scope than the freedom accorded to newspapers
and print media. This limitation derives from the fact the broadcast The latter rule was thus considerably more permissive of
media have a uniquely pervasive presence in the lives of all Filipinos;
speech than the former, in context for the testing of which they
The government has a right to be protected against broadcasts which
incite listeners to violently overthrow it; and Broadcast stations deserve were originally designed
the special protection given to all forms of media by the due process
and freedom of expression clauses of the Constitution. The third test, the balancing-of-interests”   test,   the   crucial  
question is: how much deference should be given to the
Standards for Regulations and Restrictions legislative judgment?

43 | P LATON
Factors in ascertaining the point or line of equilibrium:
1. The social value and importance of the specific aspect of the The defendants were indicted in three counts. The first charges a
particular freedom restricted by the legislation conspiracy to violet the Espionage Act by causing and attempting to
cause insubordination, in the military and naval forces of the United
2. The specific thrust of the restriction, i.e., whether the
States, and to obstruct the recruiting and enlistment service of the
restriction is direct or indirect, whether or not the persons United States. The second count alleges a conspiracy to commit an
affected are few offence against the United States. The third count charges an unlawful
3. The value and importance of the public interest sought to be use of the mails for the transmission of the same matter. The
secured by the legislation--the reference here is to the nature defendants were found guilty on all the counts.
and gravity of the evil which the Congress seeks to prevent
4. Whether the specific restrictions decreed by the Congress is But the character of every act depends upon the circumstances in
reasonably appropriate and necessary for the protection of which it is done.
such public interest
The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such
5. Whether the necessary safeguarding of the public interest circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present
involved may be achieved by some other measures less danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress
restrictive of the protected freedom has a right to prevent. It is a question of proximity and degree.

Relevant also to any discussion of the balancing test would be If the act (speaking, or circulating a paper), its tendency, and the intent
the so-called O’Brien test,   as   well   as   the   “time,   place   and   with which it is done are the same, we perceive no ground for saying
manner”  restrictions that success alone warrants making the act a crime. (Goldman v. United
States, 245 U.S. 474, 477). Indeed, that case might be said to dispose of
the present contention if the precedent covers all media concludendi.
Under the O’Brien test, a government regulation is sufficiently
justified if:
Content-Based and Content-Neutral Regulations
1. It is within the constitutional power of the Government
2. It furthers an important or substantial government interest
Content-based are those which either approve or disapprove
3. The governmental interest is unrelated to the suppression of
based on contents of expression, such as favoring or disfavoring
free expression
some topics
4. The incident restriction on expression is no greater than is
essential to the furtherance of the interest
Content-based prohibitions, enforced by severe criminal
penalties, have the constant potential to be a repressive force
Under   the   reasonable   “time,   place   and   manner”   rule,   an  
in the lives and thoughts of a free people
expression, whether oral or written or symbolized by conduct,
is subject to reasonable time, place or manner restrictions.
Consistent with the idea that the government is not supposed to be
Restrictions of this kind are valid, provided that they are: dictating to the people what to think or believe in, what to read or see
1. Justified without reference o the content of the regulated or hear, regulations which are content based-those which either
speech approve or disapprove based on the contents of the expression, are
2. They are narrowly tailored to serve a significant subjected to strict scrutiny. To justify them by the presence of a
governmental interest compelling state interest and a showing of an absence of any other
3. They leave open ample alternative channels for means which the state objective could be attained.
communication of the information
“Content   based-prohibitions, have the constant potential to be a
repressive force in the lives and thoughts of the free people. The
And then again, one must take note of the differences between government through its public libraries, public television and public
a law or regulation, on one hand, and court injunction, on the funding for the arts, has broad discretion to make content-based
other judgments in deciding what private speech to make available to the
An injunction, by its nature, applies only to a particular group
(or individuals) and regulates the activities, and perhaps the R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul
speech, of that group. It does so, however, because of the
group’s   past   actions   in   the   context   of   a   specific   dispute   In the predawn hours one day in June 1990, petitioner R.A.V. and
between real parties several other teenagers allegedly assembled a crudely made cross by
taping together broken chair legs which they then burned inside the
fenced yard of a black family that lived across the street from the house
Ordinances represent a legislative choice regarding the where petitioner was staying. Respondent city chose to charge
promotion of particular societal interests. Injunctions, by petitioner was the St. Paul Bias- Motivated Crime Ordinance, which
contrast, are remedies imposed for violations (or threatened prohibits the display of a symbol which one knows or has reason to
violations) of a legislative or judicial decree know   “arouses   anger,   alarm   or   resentment   in   others   on   the   basis   of  
race,   color,   creed,   religion   or   gender.”   The   trial   court   dismissed   this  
Injunctions also carry greater risks of censorship and charge on the ground that the ordinance was substantially overbroad
discriminatory application than do general ordinances and impermissibly content-based, but the State Supreme Court
Injunctions, of course, have some advantages over generally The court also concluded that the ordinance was not impermissibly
applicable statutes in that they can be tailored by a trial judge content-based, because it was narrowly tailored to serve a compelling
to afford more precise relief than a statute where a violation of governmental interest in protecting the community against the bias-
the law has already occurred motivated threats to public safety and order.

Schenck v. United States Let there be no mistake about our belief that burning across in
39 S Ct 247 (1919) someone’s  front  yard  is  reprehensible.  But  St.  Paul  has  sufficient  means

44 | P LATON
at its disposal to prevent such behavior without adding the First apply   to   “public   figures”   who   sued in libel on the basis of alleged
Amendment to the fire. defamatory falsehoods.

The judgment of the Minnesota Supreme Court is reversed, and the If a matter is a subject of public or general interest, it cannot suddenly
case is remanded for proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion. become less so merely because a private individual is involved or
because   in   some   sense,   the   individual   did   not   “voluntarily’   choose   to  
Libel and the Deliberate Falsehood become   involved.   The   public’s   primary   interest   is   in   the   event,   the  
public focus is on the conduct of the participant and the content, effect
and  significance  of  the  conduct,  not  the  participant’s  prior  anonymity  or  
As noted earlier, one of the exceptions to the freedom of
notoriety. The present case illustrates the point.
expression would be libel or defamation. Freedom to speak
does not include the knowing lie or falsehood Petitioner’s   argument   that   the   Constitution   should   be   held   to   require  
that the private individual prove only that the publisher failed to
At the same time, he freedom also means that one may not be exercise   “reasonable   care”   in   publishing   defamatory   falsehoods  
accurate, pr may even be wrong, in the presentation of facts, or proceeds along two lines. First, he argues that the private individual,
might be guilty of a lot of exaggerations and overstatements in unlike the public figure, does not have access to the media to counter
the narration of events and other circumstances, but these the defamatory material and that the private individual, unlike the
public figure, has not assumed the risk of defamation by thrusting
would not be enough to take them out of the mantle of the
himself in to the public arena. Second, petitioner focuses on the
protection accorded by the guarantee important values served by the law of defamation in preventing and
redressing attacks upon reputation. We have recognized the force of
New York Times Co. v. Sullivan petitioner’s  arguments.
376 US 254, 11 L Ed 2d 686, 84 S Ct 710 (1964)
Borjal v. CA
Particularly applicable to public officials and public figures. Under this FACTS: During the congressional hearings on the transport crises in
test, it is not enough that what might have been published is false. 1988, the attendees agreed to organize the First National Conference
There must be an element of malice in it. Namely, that the one who on Land Transportation (FNCLT) to be participated by the private and
publish it knew very well that it was false or he did it with other government sector in order to find ways to solve the transportation
disregard of whether it was true or false. crises. The estimated cost of conference estimated at P 1.8M would be
funded thru solicitations. During its first organizational meeting, private
With regard to people who are not public officials but considered as respondent Francisco Wenceslao was elected as Executive Director and
public figures, they are also open to criticisms and comments he then undertook to solicit support for the conference from the
business sector. Between May and July 1989, a series of articles written
Rosenbloom v. Metromedia by petitioner Borjal was published in his column in the Philippine Star.
403 US 29, L ED 2d 296, 91 S Ct 1811 (1971) The  articles  dealt  with  the  alleged  anomalous  activities  of  an  “organizer
of   a  conference”   without   naming   private   respondent     nor   referring   to  
FACTS: Petitioner was a distributor of nudist magazines in the FNCLT. Private respondent reacted to the articles and refuted the
Philadelphia metropolitan area. During the fall of that year, in response matters adverted to by Borjal. Thereafter a complaint was lodged by
of citizen complaints, the Philadelphia Police arrested several private respondent with the National Press Club for unethical conduct.
newsstand operators, including the petitioner, in charge of selling This was followed by a criminal case for libel which was, however,
obscene material. Three days later, the police obtained a warrant to dismissed for insufficiency of evidence. A civil action for damages based
search  petitioner’s  home  and  the  rented  barn  he  used  as  a  warehouse   on libel was then filed against petitioners. Borjal and Soliven, publisher
and seized the inventory of magazines and books found there. Upon and chairman of the editorial board of Philippines today, owner of
learning of the seizure, the petitioner who had been released on bail Philippine Star. The trial court decided in favor of private respondent,
after his first arrest, surrendered to the police and was arrested for a which decision was affirmed by CA, although the amount of damages
second time. Following the second arrest, the police informed the was reduced. Hence, this petition.
respondent’s  radio   station  WIP  and  another   local  radio  station,  a  wire  
service  and  a  local  newspaper  of  the  raid  on  the  petitioner’s  home  and   HELD: The petition is impressed with merit. In order to maintain a libel
of his arrest. WIP reported   news   stories   of   the   petitioner’s   arrest   for   suit, it is essential that the victim be identifiable although it is not
possession of obscene literature and of the police seizure of the necessary that he be named. It is also not sufficient that the offended
obscene   books.   It   did   not   mention   petitioner’s   name   but   used   the   party recognized himself as the person attacked or defamed but it
terms   “smut   literature   racket”   and   “girlie   book   peddlers”.   Following   must be shown that at least, a third person could identify him as the
petitioner’s   acquittal   of   criminal   obscenity   charges,   he   filed   action   in   object of the libelous publication. Regrettably, these requirements
District  Court  seeking  damages  under  Pennsylvania’s  libel  law.  The  jury   have not been complied with in the case at bar. Identification is grossly
found  for  petitioner  but  CA  reversed  the  decision  holding  that  the  “fact   inadequate when even the alleged offended party is himself unsure
that plaintiff was not a public figure cannot be accorded decisive that he was the object of the verbal attack. It is well to note that the
significance.”   The   issue   here   is   whether,   because   he   is   not   a   “public   revelation of the identity of the person alluded to came not from
official”   or   a   “public   figure”,   but   a   private   individual,   those   limits   petitioner Borjal but from the private respondent himself when he
required that he prove that the falsehoods resulted from a failure of supplied the information through his June 4 letter to the editor. Had
the respondent to exercise reasonable care, or required that he prove private respondent not revealed that he was the organizer of the FNCLT
that the falsehoods were broadcast with knowledge of their falsity or referred to in the Borjal articles, the public would have remained in
with reckless disregard of whether they were false or not. blissful ignorance of his identity. It is therefore clear that on the
element of identifiability alone the case fails.
HELD: In the series of cases beginning with New York Times Co v.
Sullivan, 376 US 254 (964), the Court has considered the limitations Indisputably,   Borjal’s   articles   are   neither   private   communications   nor  
upon state libel laws imposed by the constitutional guarantees of fair and true report without any comments or remarks. However, this
freedom of speech and of the press. It held that in a civil libel action by does not necessarily mean that they are not privileged. To be sure, the
a pubic official against a newspaper those guarantees required clear enumeration on Art 354 of the Revised penal code (on the requirement
and convincing proof that a defamatory falsehood alleged as libel was for publicity of defamatory materials) is an exclusive list of qualifiedly
uttered with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of privileged communications since fair commentaries on matters of
whether it was false or not. The same requirement was later held to public interest are likewise privileged. The rule on privileged

45 | P LATON
communication had its genesis not  in  the  nation’s  penal  code  but  in  the   the broadcasts are not privileged and remain libelous per se. FBNI is
Bill of Rights of the Constitution guaranteeing freedom of speech and of solidarily liable to pay for damages arising from the libelous broadcasts.
the press. An employer and employee are solidarily liable for defamatory
statement by the employee within the scope and course of his
Borjal did not act with malice, we find the petitioner Borjal to have employment, at least when the employer authorizes or ratifies the
acted in good faith. Moved by the civic duty and prodded by his defamation. Moreover, FBNI, as shown by circumstances (e.g. no clear
responsibility as a newspaperman, he proceeded to expose and and  convincing  evidence  shows  that  they  underwent  FBNI’s  regimented  
denounced what he perceived to be a public deception. Every citizen process of application and their deficiencies in their KBP accreditation)
has the right to enjoy a good name and reputation, but we do not lacked the diligence in selecting and supervising Rima and Alegre,
consider that petitioner Borjal has violated that right (of the Hence, FBNI is solidarily liable to pay damages together with Rima and
respondent’s)   nor   abused   his   press   freedom.   We   must   however   take   Alegre.
this opportunity to likewise remind media practitioners of the high
ethical standards attached to and demanded by their noble profession. Flor v. People
454 SCRA 440 (2005)
Filipinas Broadcasting Network Inc (FBNI) v. Ago Medicaland
Educational Center-Bicol Christian College of Medicine (AMEC-BCCM) FACTS: Petitioner Flor and Nick Ramos, managing editor and news
448 SCRA 413 (2005) correspondent respectively of the Bicol forum, a local weekly
newspaper circulated in the Bicol Region were charged with libel, for
FACTS:  Mel  Rima  and  Jun  Alegre,  host  of  radio  program  “Expose”  aired   having published an allegedly defamatory news article regarding
every morning over DZRC-AM owned by FBNI heard over Legaspi City. financial irregularities involving then minister of the Presidential
Rima and Alegre exposed various alleged complaints from students, Commission on Govt. Reorganization and concurrently Camarines Sur
teachers and parents against AMEC-BCCM. Alegre said among other Gov. Luis Villafuerte. The news article reported, inter alia that the
things that 1) AMEC students in Physical Theraphy complained that the official’s  denial  that  he  did  not  spend  government money for his recent
course is not recognized by DECS 2)students are required to take and trips to Japan and Israel failed to convince the people and that the
pay for he subject even if he subject does not have an instructor, people knew that the trips were purely junket. It also stated that about
commenting   such   greed   for   money   on   the   part   of   AMEC’s   P700,000 was collected by way of cash advances by ranking provincial
administration 3) the administrators of AMEC BCCM, AMEC Science HS officials, at the instance of the Governor and without resolution
and the AMEC Institute of Mass Communication in their effort to approving its release, was allegedly used for the two trips. It also
minimize expenses in terms of salary are absorbing or continues to reported that Villafuerte claimed that he spent his own money for the
reject making reference to many teachers in AMEC who were former trips. The petitioner admitted that he wrote the questioned news items
teachers of Aquinas University but were removed because of on the basis of a note given to him by a source whom he refused to
Immorality. In offering to prove that AMEC is a dumping ground, identify. Said source was allegedly connected with the Provincial
garbage, not merely of moral and physical misfits, mention was made Treasurer’s  office.   He   said  that   prior   to   writing   the   article,   he   went   to  
of the case of the Dean of Student Affairs of AMEC, Justita Lola, which his source to ask some clarificatory questions and was given
according to Alegre, as the family name implies she is too old to work, authenticated records of the cash advances. Villafuerte claimed that no
being an old woman. On the other hand, Rima echoed Alegre’s   one from Bicol Forum made any attempt to get his side of the story nor
allegations about Dean Lola. AMEC filed a complaint for damages confirm the veracity of the contents of the article from any source at
claiming that the broadcasts were defamatory, against FBNI, Rima and the provincial capitol. To him, the Bicol Forum seemed to be making a
Alegre. In reply, they claimed that they were plainly impelled by a sense mockery of his previous explanations regarding the cash advances and
of public duty to report the going on in AMEC, which is an institution his trips abroad and such a sweeping statement subjected him to public
imbued with public interest. The trial court rendered a decision finding ridicule and humiliation. The trial court rendered a decision convicting
FBNI and Alegre liable for libel and held that the broadcasts are libelous both accused which CA affirmed.
per se. In absolving Rima from the charge, the trial court ruled that
Rima’s only   participation   was   when   he   agreed   with   Alegre’s   expose.   HELD: The sole issue here is if the questioned news is libelous. We
The   parties   appealed   to   the   CA,   which   affirmed   the   trial   court’s   reverse. Clearly when confronted with libel cases involving publication
judgment with modification, but made Rima solidarily liable with FBNI which deal with public official and the discharge of their official
and Alegre. Hence, this petition. functions, this Court is not confined within the wordings of the libel
statute; rather, the case should likewise be examined under the
HELD: We deny the petition. There is no question that the broadcasts constitutional precept of the freedom of the press. A public official is
were made public and imputed to AMEC defects or circumstances barred from recovering damages in cases involving defamations. His
tending to cause it dishonor, discredit and contempt. We do not agree entitlement, however, is limited to instances when the defamatory
with FBNI contention that Rima and Alegre did not act with malicious statement was made with actual malice-that is with the knowledge
intent. Every defamatory imputation is presumed malicious. Rima and that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or
Alegre failed to show adequately their good intention and justifiable not.
motive in airing the supposed gripes of the students.
Vasquez v. CA
Some  US  courts  apply  the  privilege  of  “neutral  reportage” in libel cases 314 SCRA 460 ( 1999)
involving matter so of public interest or public figures. Under this
privilege, a republisher who accurately and disinterestedly reports FACTS: Petitioner Vasquez, a resident of Tondo Foreshore area,
certain defamatory statements made against public figures is shielded together with other families went to see then NHA General manager
from liability regardless of the republisher’s  subjective  awareness  of  the   Lito Atienza regarding their complaint against their Bgy. Chairman,
truth or falsity of the accusation. Rima and Alegre cannot invoke the Jaime Olmedo. After their meeting with Atienza and other NHA
privilege of neutral reportage because unfounded comments abound in officials, petitioner and his companions were interviewed by newspaper
the broadcasts. Moreover, there is no existing controversy involving reporters concerning their complaint. The following day, a news article
AMEC when the broadcasts were made. The privilege of neutral appeared in the newspaper Ang Tinig ng Masa saying that the families
reportage applies where the defamed person is a public figure who is of the Tondo Foreshore Area complained about their Bgy. Chairman
involved in an existing controversy and a party to that controversy who, in connivance with some of the project managers of NA, managed
makes the defamatory statement. to get for themselves some 14 lots in the said area. It was also reported
that Olmedo was involved in illegal gambling and theft of fighting cocks.
Had the comment been an expression of opinion based on established Based on the article, Olmedo filed a complaint for libel against
facts, it is immaterial that the opinion happened to be mistaken, as long petitioner   alleging   that   the   latter’s   statements   cast   aspersions   in   him  
as it might reasonably be inferred from the facts. However, the and his damaged reputation. The trail court found petitioner guilty of
comments of Rima and Alegre were not backed up by facts. Therefore, libel. The CA affirmed.

46 | P LATON
amnesty under PD 1740 and 1840. In both, petitioner did not recognize
HELD:The question for determination in this case is the liability for libel that his sale of land to AYALA was on cash basis. Reacting to the news
of a citizen who denounces a bgy official for misconduct in office. SC article, petitioner filed with the RTC an action for damages against BIR
held that the decision of CA must be reversed. Petitioner contends that for   extortion   and   malicious   publication   of   the   BIR’s   tax   audit   report,  
what he said was true and was made with good motives and for claiming that the filing of criminal complaints against him for violation
justifiable ends which the SC found merit. of tax laws were improper because he had already availed of 2 tax
amnesty decrees, The trial court decided in favor of the respondents
To find a person guilty of libel under Art 353 of the Revised Penal Code, and the CA affirmed. Before the SC, petitioner questions the propriety
the following elements must be proved: a) the allegation of a of awarding damages to Larin.
discreditable act or condition concerning another, b) publication of
the charge, and c) identity of the person defamed, and d) existence of
malice. In this case, the first 3 elements are present. The question is HELD: Moral damages may be recovered in cases involving acts referred
whether from the fact that the statements were defamatory, malice to in Art 21 of the Civil code. As a rule, a public official may not recover
can be presumed so that it was incumbent upon petitioner to damages for charges of falsehood related to his official conduct unless
overcome such presumption. Under Art. 361 of the Revised Penal code, he proves that the statement was made with actual malice.
if the defamatory statement is made against a public official with
respect to the discharge of his official duties and functions and the We   appreciate   petitioner’s  claim   that   he   filed  his  1972 return in good
truth of the allegation is shown, the accused will be entitled to an faith and he had honestly believed that the law allowed him to declare
acquittal even though he does not prove that the imputation was the sale of the land in installment. We can further grant that the
published with good motives and for justifiable ends. In this case, pertinent tax laws needed construction. The petitioner was offended by
contrary to the findings of the lower court, petitioner was able to prove the headlines alluding him as a tax evader is fully understandable,
the truth of his charges against the bgy official. however, all these, do not justify what amounted to a baseless
prosecution of respondent Larin. Petitioner presented no evidence to
It   was   error   for   the   lower   court   to   hold   that   petitioner   “only   tried   to   prove Larin extorted money from him. He even admitted that he never
prove that the complainant (bgy official) is guilty of the crimes alluded met nor talked to the   respondent.   On   Larin’s   instruction,   the   tax  
to; Accused, however, has not proven that the complainant committed assessment was reduced. Petitioner went on to file the extortion cases
the  crimes.  ”For  that  is  not  what  petitioner said as reported in the Ang against Larin in different fora and this is where actual malice could
Tinig ng Masa. The fact that charges had been filed against the bgy. attached  on  petitioner’s  part.  We  are  constrained  to  agree  that  there is
official, not the truth of such charges, was the issue. sufficient basis for the award of moral and exemplary damages in favor
of the respondent. He suffered anxiety and humiliation because of the
Privacy, Expression and Damages unfounded charges against him.

The award is in favor of a government official in connection with his

The question here is in determining to what extent such an
official function, it is with caution that we affirm granting moral
action for vindication of private rights or sense of self-esteem damages, for it might open the floodgates for government officials
and worth may be held consistent with the guarantees of the counter claiming damages in suits filed against them in connection with
liberty   to   speak   one’s   mind   and   publicize   what   he   may   have   their functions. Moreover, we must be careful lest the amounts
discovered or learned awarded make citizens hesitate to expose corruption in the
government, for fear of lawsuits from vindictive government officials.
Bañas, Jr. v. CA Hence, we reduce the moral and exemplary damages in this case.
325 SCRA 259 (2000)
Lopez vs. Court of Appeals
FACTS: In 1976 petitioner sold to Ayala Investment Corp. 28,265 sq. 34 SCRA 116 (1970)
mtrs. Located in Muntinlupa, for P 2.3M. The Deed of Sale provided
that upon signing of the contract, Ayala shall; pay 400K with the Sanitary inspector assigned to babuyan islands, Fidel Cruz , sent a
balance of 1.8M++ was to be paid in 4 equal consecutive annual distress signal that there are series of killings in the island, however
installments, with 12% interest pa on the outstanding balance. The when Philippine defense team got there, they found out that he only
periodic payment of 400K shall be payable starting on Feb 20 1977 and wanted transportation to manila. He was called “hoax  of  the  year”.  But  
every year thereafter or until Feb 20 1980. On the same day, however, Together with the article, The Manila Chronicle mistakenly published
petitioner discounted the promissory note with AYALA, for its face the photograph of Fidel G. Cruz,former mayor of bulacan. The
value of P 1.8M evidenced by a Deed of Assignment signed by the publishing was corrected by the MC. Cruz filed for damages, He was
petitioner and AYALA. The latter then issued 9 checks to petitioner, all awarded P11,000 by CA.
dated Feb. 20 1976, drawn against BPI with the uniform amount of
200K++. In his 1976 Income tax Return, petitioner reported the 400K++ SC: So long as it is done in good faith, newspapers have the legal right
initial payment as income from disposition of capital asset. In the to have and express opinions on legal questions. To deny them of that
succeeding years, until 1979, petitioner reported a uniform income of right would infringe upon the freedom of the press. The newspapers
200K++ as gain from sale of capital asset. In is 1980 income tax amnesty should be given leeway and tolerance to enable them to courageously
return, petitioner also reported the same amount of 200K++ as the and effectively perform their important role in our democracy. They
realized gain on disposition of capital asset for the year. In 1978, BIR should not be punished for honest mistakes and imperfect choice of
examined the books of petitioner for 1976. They discovered that he had words if done in good faith. However in this case, there was no
no outstanding receivable from the 1976 land sale, concluding that the pressure of a deadline to meet, no occasion to haste and they should
sale was cash and the entire profit should have been taxable in said have imposed reasonable care. The correction promptly made would
year since the income was wholly derived then instead of being spread reduce   the   damages   awarded.   The   practice   being,   “more   likely   to  
over 4 years. They assessed a tax deficiency of P 2.4M. After reviewing reduce  damages  for  libel  than  to  increase  them”
the    examiner’s  report,  Larin  as Regional Director of Manila Region IVA
of BIR directed the revision of the report in order to consider the land BULLETIN PUBLISHING CORPORATION V. NOEL
as capital asset, which resulted to the reduced tax deficiency of 900K++. 167 SCRA 255 (1988)
On Sept. 1980, petitioner acknowledged receipt of the BIR assessment
but insisted that the sale of his land to AYALA was on installment. In Bulletin publishing corp published an article claiming Lanao politics
1981, BIR charged the petitioner with tax evasion. It appeared in the being dominated by big royal families and the only time one who was
Evening News Express, Evening Post and Bulletin Today. All news items not of any royal house became a leader was during the American era
mentioned   petitioner’s   false   income   tax   return concerning the sale of when the late Amir Mindalano held some sway. Relatives of mindalano
land to AYALA. Meanwhile on July 2 1981, petitioner availed of tax filed a complaint for damages against petitioners for libel because

47 | P LATON
mandalanos belong to royal houses and he did not live with an Collective bargaining negotiations between chief negotiator(bartnicki)
American family. and president (kane) of union representing teachers were unlawfully
intercepted and recorded. Vopper, a radio commentator played it in his
SC: PETITION GRANTED. Libel has not been committed. Personal hurt or show. Yocum, who delivered the tape to vopper, said that he found it in
embarrassment is not automatically equivalent to defamation. The law his mailbox. The information was acquired by the respondents lawfully.
against   defamation   protects   one’s   interest   in   acquiring,   retaining,   and   According to district court, under statutory language, an individual
enjoying   a   reputation   “as   good   as   one’s   character and conduct violates the federal act by intentionally disclosing the contents of an
warrant”   in   the community and it is to community standards- not electronic communication when he knows or has reason to know that
personal or family standards-that a court must refer in evaluating a the information was obtained by illegal interception even if the
publication claimed to be defamatory. A newspaper should be free to individual was not involved in the interception. CA stated the statute
report on events and developments in which the Public has legitimate invalid because they dettered more speech than necessary to protect
interest, wherever they may take place within the nation and as well as the private interest at stake.
in the outside world, with minimum fear of being hauled to court so
long as newspapers keep within the standards of morality and civility Whether the punished publisher of information has obtained the
prevailing within the general community. Any other rule on defamation information in question in a manner lawful in itself but from a source
in a national community like ours with many, diverse cultural, social who has obtained it unlawfully, may the government punish the
religious and other groupings is likely to produce an unwholesome ensuing publication of that info based on the defect of the chain?
“chilling   effect”   upon   the   constitutional   protected   operations   of the
press. Privacy of communication is an important interest. Privacy concerns
give way when balanced against the interest in publishing matters of
Ayer Productions PTY. LTD. VS Capulong public importance.
160 SCRA 861 (1988)
SC   .   AFFIRMED.   Stranger’s   illegal   conduct   does   not   suffice   to   remove  
Petitioner proposed a motion picture to re enact the events that made the first amendment shield from speech about a matter of public
possible the EDSA revolution. Juan Ponce Enrile did not approve his and concern.
his   family’s   inclusion   in   the   docu-drama. He was deleted from the
script. Thereafter, he still filed to enjoin production of the film without Miller vs California
his consent and that it constitutes violation of his right to privacy. 413 US 15, 37 ED 2d 419, 93 S Ct 2607 (1973)
Petitioners claim they are exercising their freedom of speech and
expression. Appellant   conducted   mass   mailing   campaign   to   advertise   “adult  
materials”.   An   unsolicited   mail   containing   pictures   and   drawings  
The right of privacy like the right of free expression is not absolute. depicting men and women engaging in various sexual activities was
Limited intrusion is permissible where the person is a public received by a restaurant manager and his mother. He was convicted of
figure(anyone who has arrived at a position where public attention is misdemeanor.
focused upon him as a person) and the information is matters of public
character. The interest protected by the right of privacy is the right to The first amendment protects works which , taken as a whole, have
be free from unwarranted publicity, wrongful publicizing of private serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value regardless of
affairs and activities outside the realm of legitimate public concern. 1. whether the government or a majority of the people approve of the
Clear and present danger rule 2. Balancing of interest test are ideas these works represent. The protection given speech and press
limitations of freedom of speech and of the press. was fashioned to assure unfettered interchange of ideas for the
bringing about of political and social changes desired by the people. But
Such public figures have lost to some extent their right to privacy. The the portrayal of hardcore sexual conduct for its own sake and for
press had a privilege under the constitution to inform the public about commercial gain is a different matter. Roth holding that Obscene
those who have became legitimate matters of public interest. The material is not protected by the first amendment is affirmed. Obscenity
privilege of enlightening the public was not limited to the dissemination is   determined   by   applying   “contemporary   community   standards”   not  
of news in the sense of current events. It extended to information or “national  standards”
education or even entertainment and amusement, by books, articles,
pics, films and broadcasts concerning interesting phases of human Stanley vs. Georgia
activity in general, as well as the reproduction of the public scene in 394 US 557 , 22 L Ed 2d 524 (1969)
newsreels and travelogues.
An   investigation   of   appelant’s   bookmaking   activities   led   to   a   search  
The film itself limits portraying only the participation of Enrile that are warrant. While searching, obscene films were found and seized.
directly related to the public facts of Edsa. Such can be carried out
without license from him. However, there must be no reckless Won a statute imposing criminal sanctions upon mere possession of
disregard of truth in depicting of Enrile, no representation of private obscene matter is constitutional.
No. First and 14th amendments prohibit making mere possession of
Arts, Letters and Obscenity obscene material as a crime. The states retain broad power to regulate
obscenity but that power does not extend to mere possession by the
The problem is in discerning to what extent it may be individual in the privacy of his home. If the first amendment means
anything it means that the state has no business telling a man what
considered art and allowed expression and display and where it
books he may read or what films he should watch. The case cannot be
crosses over to obscenity, an area that falls beyond the decided simply by citing roth. Publication and mere possessing does not
protection of freedom of expression impose same dangers.

The constant challenge to the courts then is how to provide New York v. Ferber
guidelines by which people may determine what is allowed 458 U.S. 747, 73 L Ed 2d 1113, 102 S Ct 3348 (1982)
form what is proscribed
Facts: A New York statute prohibits person from knowingly promoting a
Bartnicki vs. Vopper sexual performance by a child under age of 16 by distributing material
532 US 514, 149 Led 787, 121 S Ct 1753 (2001) which depicts such performance. Respondent sold to an undercover
police officer two films devoted almost exclusively to depicting young

48 | P LATON
boys masturbating.
As to what might be permissible regulations or restrictions
Issue: Whether or not New York criminal statute which prohibits beyond that is something that the courts may continue to
persons from knowingly promoting sexual performances b children
grapple with as cases are presented before the, questioning, for
under the age of 16 by distributing material which depicts such
performances is constitutional or overbroad.
instance, the classification that might have been accorded a
particular work, and so on
Held: No, a trier of fact need not find that the material appeals to the
prurient interest of the average person, it is also not required that Times Film Corporation v. City of Chicago
sexual conduct portrayed be done so in a offensive manner and the 365 U.S. 43, 5 L Ed 2d 403, 81 S Ct 391 (1961)
material at issue need not be considered as a whole. The law should
not be invalidated for overbreadth unless it reaches a substantial Facts: Municipal Code of Chicago requires submission of all motion
number of permissible application is hardly novel. Therefore it is pictures for examination or censorship prior to their public exhibition
considered as a paradigmatic case of a state statute whose legitimate and forbids their exhibition unless they meet certain standards. The
reach dwarf its arguably impermissible applications. film   known   as   “Don   Juan”   applied   for   a   permit   but   refused   to   submit  
the film for examination. Appropriate city officials refused to issue
Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition permit  for  the  reason  of  the  petitioner’s  denial  to  submit  the  film.  The  
535 U.S. 234, 152 L Ed 2d 403, 122 S Ct 1389 (2002) petitioner on the other hand brought a suit seeking injunctive relief
ordering the issuance of the permit. For the reason that the provision
Facts: Child Pornography Act of 1996 (CCPA) expanded the prohibition of the ordinance requiring submission of the film constitutes, on its face
on child pornography to include not only pornographic images made a prior restraint within the prohibition of the first and Fourteen
using actual children but also any visual depiction like photograph, film, amendments.
video, picture or computer or computer–generated image or picture
that depict a minor engage in sexual explicit conduct, also known as Issue: the precise question at issue here never having been specifically
virtual child pornography. Free speech coalition an adult entertainment decided.
trade   association   filed   a   suit   alleging   that   the   “appears   to   be”   and  
“conveys  the  impression”  provisions  are  overboard  and  vague,  chilling   Held: Motion picture censorship cases which reached the court
production of works protected by First amendment. involved  question  of  standards.  The  challenge  here  is  the  censor’s  basic  
authority; it does not go to any statutory standards employed by the
Issue: Whether or not the mentioned provision abridges the freedom of censor or procedural requirements as to the submission of the film.
Movie and Television Review and Classification Board (MTRCB) v. ABS –
Held: CPPA prohibits speech despite its serious literary, artistic, political CBN Broadcasting Corporation 448 SCRA 575 (2005)
or scientific value. The statute proscribes the visual depiction of an idea
teenager engaging in sexual activity that is a fact of modern society and Facts:   “The   Inside   Story”   a   public affairs show of the ABS – CBN
has been a theme in art and literature throughout the ages. Virtual network,   had   aired   “Prosti–tuition”   episode   which   the   main   topic   is  
child pornography is not intrinsically related to the sexual abuse of about students who enters into prostitution in order to earn money, to
children. The harm does not necessarily follow from the speech, but be use for their enrolment. It was alleged that the school the most of
depends upon some unquantified potential for subsequent criminal these students   came   from   is   from   Philippine   Women’s   University  
acts. Therefore provision is considered overbroad and (PWU). The reason was in the said episode PWU was the background.
unconstitutional. The parents and teacher association of PWU filed a complaint under
the MTRCB, alleging that the episode is a besmirched the name of
Pita v. Court of Appeals PWU. That the petitioner did not submit the episode to the petitioner
178 SCRA 362 (1989) for review and that they exhibit it without permission violating
presidential decree No. 1986.
Facts: Pursuant to an Anti – Smut Campaign, Western Police district,
INP of Metropolitan Police Force of Manila, seized and confiscated from Issue: whether or not the MTRCB has authority to review the above
dealers, distributors, newsstand owners and peddlers along Manila mentioned show.
sidewalks magazines, publications and other reading materials believed
to be obscene, pornographic and indecent and later burned the seized Held: Yes, there are only two exceptions where MTRCB cannot review a
materials. Among seized publication seized was Pinoy Playboy certain show; 1) that the television program imprinted or exhibited by
magazine. The company filed a case for injunction seeking to restrain the Philippine Government, its department or agencies 2) newsreels.
respondents   confiscating   petitioner’s   magazine   claiming   that   the   Newsreels are straight news reporting and therefore such program is
magazines are decent, artistic and educational magazine, which not considered to be one for it is more of a public affairs program which
protected by the constitution which guarantees of freedom of speech is in no contest is subjected to MTRCB review.
and of the press.
Freedman v. Maryland
Issue: Whether or not such confiscation is unconstitutional. 380 US 51, 13 L Ed 2d 649, 85 S Ct 734 (1965)

Held: The court rejected the argument that there is neither Facts: Appellant sought to challenge the constitutionality of the
constitutional nor legal provision which would free the accused from all Maryland motion picture censorship statute Md. Ann. Code, 1957, Art.
criminal responsibility because of the absence of the warrant. The 66A,   and   exhibited   the   film   “Revenge   at   Daybreak”   at   his   Baltimore  
reasons are first there is no accused to speak of and second would be theatre without first submitting the picture to the State Board of
the Mayor could have directly ordered the raid without search warrant Censors as required.
for the reason that the violation of the penal law was already
committed. Issue: Whether or not non issuance of license prior to the failure to
submit the picture is unconstitutional.
Films, Review, Classifications and Censorship
Held: Maryland does not satisfy the following criteria 1) once the
censor disapproves the film, the exhibitor must assume the burden of
An issue that also presents itself to the courts is the matter of instituting judicial proceedings and persuading the courts that the film
censorship or prior review of motion pictures or pre-recorded is protected expression 2) once the board has acted against a film,
broadcasts before exhibition exhibition is prohibited pending judicial review 3) Maryland statute

49 | P LATON
provide no assurance of prompt judicial determination. Maryland to potentially harmful speech, the CDA effectively suppresses a large
scheme fails to provide safeguards against inhibition of protected amount of speech that adults have a constitutional right to receive and
expression, and this renders the requirement of prior submission of to address to one another.
films to the Board an invalid previous restraint.
Where obscenity is involved, we have consistently held that the fact
Gonzalez v. Kalaw Katigbak that protected speech may be offensive to some does not justify its
137 SCRA 717 (1985) suppression. It is true that we have repeatedly recognized the
governmental interest in protecting children from harmful materials
Facts: Gonzalez president of the Malaya Films produced the movie but that interest does not justify an unnecessarily broad suppression of
“Kapit  sa  patalim.”  In  a  resolution  of  a  sub  – committee of respondent speech addressed to adults ( example: since ang gusto ng government
Board of Review for Motion Pictures and Television (BRMT) a permit para macheck kung minor ka is magswipe pa ng credit card, etc. E since
was exhibit but the film was under the classification “For  adults  only.”  A   yung ibang adult walang credit card, Boom!)
motion for reconsideration was filed by the petitioners stating that the
classification of the film was without legal basis. Moreover,   the   general,   undefined   terms   “indecent”   and   “patently  
offensive”   cover   large   amounts   of   nonpornographic   material   with  
Issue: Whether or not there was been a grave abuse of discretion by serious educational or other value.
the board in the light of the difficulty and travail undergone by
petitioners  before  Kapit  sa  Patalim  was  classified  as  for  “Adults  Only.”   United States v. Playboy Entertainment Group, Inc.
529 U.S. 803, 146 L Ed. 2d 865, 120 S Ct 1878 (2000)
Held: Obscene material is material which deals with sex in a manner
appealing to prurient interest. The perception of what constitutes Playboy Entertainment Group owns and prepares programs for adult
obscenity appears to be unduly restrictive. Light of the facts in this case television networks. Playboy transmits its programming to cable
should be construed in such fashion top avoid any taint of television operators, who retransmit it to their subscribers. Playboy
unconstitutionality. Court concludes then that there was an abuse in challenges 505 of the Television Communication Act of 1996, which
discretion nonetheless there is no enough votes to maintain that such requires   cable   television   operators   who   provide   channels   “primarily  
abuse can be considered grave. All that remains to be said is that the dedicated to sexually-oriented  programming”  either  to  “fully  scramble  
ruling is to be limited to the concept of obscenity applicable to motion or  otherwise  fully  block”  those  channels  or  to  limit  their  transmission  to  
pictures. hours when children are unlikely to be viewing, set by administrative
regulation as the time between 10 pm to 6am. Playboy contends that
Modern Amenities and State Regulations the stature is unnecessarily restrictive content-based legislation
violative of the First Amendment. Disctrict court ruled content based
restriction on speech violates the First Amendment because the
There would necessarily have to be adaptations and
Government might further its interests in less restrictive ways.
adjustments as some features of these advances may not
readily fit into the traditional molds in which the rights and Issue: Whether or not DC erred in its ruling that the legislation violated
regulations coexisted in the past the First Amendment

Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union Decision: Laws designed or intended to suppress or restrict the
521 U.S. 844, 138 L Ed 2d 874, 117 S Ct 2329 (1997) expression of specific speakers contradict the First Amendment
principles.   Section   505   limited   Playboy’s   market   as   a   penalty   for   its  
Two provisions of Communications Decency Act of 1996 seek to protect programming choice, though other channels capable of transmitting
minors from harmful material on the internet. 223 (a)(1)(b)(ii) like material are altogether exempt.
criminalizes   the   “knowing   transmission   of   “obscene   and   indecent”  
message to any recipient under 18 years of age. Section 223(d) 505 is a content based speech restriction, it can only stand of it satisfies
prohibits  the  “knowin[g]”.  Sending  or  displaying  to  person  under  18  of   strict scrutiny. If a statute regulates speech based on its content, it
any   message   “that,   in   context,   depicts,   describes,   in   terms   patently   must be narrowly tailored to promote compelling Government interest.
offensive as measured by contemporary community standards, sexual If a less restrictive alternative would serve  the  Government’s  purpose,  
or   excretory   activities   or   organs.”   A   number   of   plaintiff   files   suit the legislature must use that alternative.
challenging the constitutionality of 223(a)(1) and 223(d). Three judge
of District court convened and entered a preliminary injunction against As we consider a content-based regulation, the answer should be clear:
enforcement   of   both   challenged   provisions.   The   court’s   judgment   The standard is strict scrutiny. This case involves speech alone, and
enjoins the government from enforcing 223(a)(1)(B)’s   prohibitions   even where speech is indecent and enters the home, the objective of
insofar as they relate to indecent communications, but reserves the shielding children does not suffice to support a blanket ban if the
right of the Government to investigate and prosecute the obscenity or protection can be accomplished by a less restrictive alternative.
child pornography activities prohibited therein. The injunction against
223(3) is unqualified because that section contains no separate Cable systems have the capacity to block unwanted channels on a
reference to obscenity and child pornography. Government appealed household-by-household basis. Targeted blocking is less restrictive than
arguing the DC erred in its ruling. banning, and the Government cannot ban speech if targeted blocking is
a feasible and effective means of furthering its interests.
Issue: Whether or not the two provisions enacted to protect minors
from indecent and patently offensive communications on the internet In problems like these, the Government has the burden to formulate a
constitutional solution to address such problems. It must do so in way consistent
with First Amendment Principles. The Government has failed to show
Decision: Yes there is a violation. The Court upheld the decision of the that 505 is the least restrictive means for addressing a real problem.
District Court.
Fighting Words Doctrine
Rationale:  The  stature  abridges  “the  freedom  of  speech”  protected  by   -One of the exceptions to the guarantee of freedom of expression.
the First Amendment. -Those which, by their very utterance, inflict injury or tend to incite an
immediate breach of the peace.
The CDA is a content based regulation on speech.
Heckler’s  veto
The CDA lacks the precision that the First Amendment requires when a -The opposition of a rowdy or obstreperous crowd might as well drown
stature regulates the content of speech. In order to deny minors access out the voice of the one seeking to exercise the right to speak. In legal

50 | P LATON
context, that might come from in the form of regulations tending to is a valid limitation under the clear and present danger doctrine.
prevent the expression of an idea in view of the reaction that might be
engendered among those opposed to it. Once such situation is found to exist, there is no limit to the allowable
-This may be in the guise of a permit requirement in the holding of limitations on such constitutional rights. Evils substantial in character
rallies, parades or demonstrations conditioned on the payment of a fee taint the purity of the electoral process.
computed on the basis of the cost needed to keep order in view of the
expected opposition by persons holding contrary views. It is no exaggeration to state that violence and even death did
frequently occur because of the heat engendered by such political
activities. The opportunity for dishonesty and corruption, with the right
The  “Fighting  Words”  Doctrine  and  the  “Heckler’s  Veto” to suffrage being bartered, was further magnified. The legislative body
must have felt impelled to impose the foregoing restrictions. Without
such restrictions, the laudable purpose of R.A. 5880 would be
As noted earlier, one of the exceptions to the guarantee of
frustrated and nullified.
freedom of expression is the species of speech referred to as
“fighting   words”--those which, by their very utterance, inflict We give due recognition to the legislative concern to cleanse, and if
injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace--since possible, render spotless, the electoral process.
they   are   “no   essential   part   if   any   exposition   of   ideas,   and   are  
such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that Sanidad v. Commission on Elections
may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social 181 SCRA 529 (1990)
interest in order and morality
In relation to the holding of a plebiscite for the ratification of the
Organic Act for Cordillera Autonomous Region, Resolution no. 2167
“Heckler’s   veto”   comes   in   the   form   of   regulations   tending   to  
prohibits columnists, commentators or announcers during the
prevent the expression of an idea in view of the reaction that plebiscite campaign period, on the day before and on plebiscite day,
might be engendered among those opposed to it. This may be from using their columns or radio or television times to campaign for or
in the guise of a permit requirement in the holding of rallies, against the plebiscite issues. Petitioner, who claims to be a newspaper
parades or demonstrations conditioned n the payment of a fee columnist   of   “overview”   fir   the   Baguio   Midland   Carrier,   alleges   that  
computed on the basis of the cost needed to keep order in view such provision is void. He maintains that unlike regular news reporter,
of the expected opposition by persons holding contrary views his column obviously and necessarily contains his opinions, views, and
beliefs on any issue. Comelec counters that the provision is a valid
implementation of their power to supervise and regulate media during
Governance, Elections and Speech
election or plebiscite period under Article IX-C, section 4 of the
Constitution Moreover; he may still express his views for or against the
At the core of the freedom of expression is speech directed at act through the Comelec space and airtime.
the political order
Issue: Whether or not Resolution 2167 is unconstitutional.
The   assertion   of   one’s   freedom   to   speak   or   to   express   one’s  
thoughts would have to be balanced against the other interests Decision: Unconstitutional.
of the state, be it in keeping peace and order, clean, honest and
Rationale: It is clear from Art. IX-C that the evil sought to be avoided is
credible elections, making equitable access to media for
the possibility that a franchise holder may favour or give any undue
publicity or in preventing visual blights, all of which may come advantage to a candidate in terms of advertising space or radio or
as an inevitable consequence of campaign activities, spending television time. This is also the reason why a columnist, commentator,
and posting election materials announcer or personality, who is a candidate for any elective office is
required to take a leave of absence from his work during the campaign
Gonzales v. Commission on Elections period. It shall not be construed to mean that the Comelec has also
27 SCRA 835 (1969) been granted the right to supervise and regulate the exercise by media
practitioners themselves of their right to expression during plebiscite
Petitioners, a private individual and a councillor and a candidate for periods. Media practitioners exercising their freedom of expression are
vice-mayor of Manila, challenged the validity of two sections in the neither the franchise holder nor the candidates; in fact there are no
Revised Election Code, under R.A. 4880, which prohibited the too early candidates involved in a plebiscite.
nomination of candidates and limiting the period of election campaign
or partisan political activity. The law provides however that simple Osmena v. Commission on Elections
expression of opinion and thoughts concerning the election shall not be 288 SCRA 447 (1998)
considered as part of an election campaign, and further provision that
nothing stated in the   Act   “shall   be   understood   to   prevent   any   person   In National Press Club v. Comelec, the court upheld the constitutionality
from expressing his views on current political problems or issues, or of Section 11(b) of R.A. no. 6646 which prohibits mass media from
from mentioning the candidates for public office whom he supports. selling or giving free of charge print space or air time for campaign or
other political purposes, except the COMELEC. Petitioners, candidates
Issue: Whether or not the enforcement of R.A. 4880 prejudice the basic for public office, seek a re-examination of the validity of aforecited
rights such as freedom of speech and assembly. provision, contending that events after the ruling in National Press Club
“have   called   into   question   the   validity   of   the   very   premises”   if   that  
Decision: Does not prejudice. R.A. is constitutional. decision.

Rationale: Freedom of speech or of the press involves the liberty to There is no case or controversy to decide, only an academic discussion
discuss publicly and truthfully any matter of public interest without to hold.
censorship or punishment. It means something more than the right to
approve existing political beliefs or economic arrangements, to lend Decision: Petition is dismissed.
support to official measures, to take refuge in the existing climate of
opinion on any matter of public consequence. Petitioners claim that the experience in the last five years since the
decision has shown undesirable effects of the law. However, petitioners
Freedom  of  speech  could  only  be  limited  if  there  through  the  “clear  and   do not complain of any harm suffered as a result of the operation of the
present  danger”  rule  and  the  “dangerous  tendency”  rule.  The  said  R.A.   law. What petitioners seek is not the adjudication of a case but simply

51 | P LATON
the holding of an academic exercise. conflict with official COMELEC count as well as the unofficial quick
count of NAMFREL, and ABS-CBN did not have any authorization nor
The  law’s  concern  is  not  with  the  message  or  content  of  the  ad  but  with   deputized by the Commission. Thus, the petition for certiorari,
ensuring  media  equality  between  candidates  with  “deep  pockets”  and   petitioner arguing that holding of exit polls and the nationwide
those with less resources. There is not total ban on political ads, much reporting of their results are valid exercises of freedoms of speech and
less restriction on the content of the speech. Given money could be of a of the press.
disadvantage of a poor candidate, there is a substantial or legitimate
governmental interest justifying exercise of the regulatory power of the Holding of exit polls and the dissemination of their results through mass
COMELEC. media constitute an essential part of the freedoms of speech and of the
press. The COMELEC cannot ban them totally in the guise of promoting
Puno, J. Concurring: clean, honest, orderly and credible elections.
The guaranty of freedom of speech should not be used to frustrate
legislative attempts to level the playing field in politics. R.A. 6646 does Social Weather Stations, Inc. v. Commission on Elections
not curtail speech as it no more than prevents the abusive wealth by 357 SCRA 496 (2001)
the rich to frustrate the poor  candidate’s  access  to  media.  If  we  allow  
money to monopolize the media, the political framework will cease to Social Weather Stations, Inc. (SWS) is a non-stock social research
be a market of ideas but a market for influence of the rich. institution which conducts surveys in various fields and thereafter
processes, analyzes, and publicly reports the results thereof, while
Blo Umpar Adiong v. COMELEC petitioner Kamahalan Publishing Corporation publishes the Manila
207 SCRA 712 (1992) Standard, a newspaper of general circulation. Petitioners bring action
for prohibition from implementing Sec. 5.4 of R.A. No. 9006, the Fair
Comelec promulgated Resolution no. 2347, regulating election Election Act, which the former claim unconstitutional. Sec. 5.4 provides:
propaganda. The said resolution allows pamphlets, decals, stickers, etc. “Surveys   affecting   national   candidates   shall   not   be   published   fifteen  
To be posted only in any of the authorized posting areas provided in the (15) days before an election and surveys affecting local candidates shall
same resolution and declares it unlawful to draw, paint, inscribe, post, not be published seven (7) days before an election. SWS, which wishes
display, or publicly exhibit, any election propaganda in any place, to conduct survey throughout the period of elections and to release to
whether public or private, mobile or stationary, except in Comelec the media the results as well as publish them directly, and Kamahalan
common posting area. Petitioner assails the resolution as regards the Publishing, which intends to publish election survey results to the last
prohibition  of  posting  of  decals  and  stickers  in  “mobile”  places  like  cars   day of election survey results to the last day of elections, assail the
and other moving vehicles. The posting of decals and stickers, according aforecited provision as equivalent to prior restraint without any
to him, shall be his last medium to inform the electorate that he is a justification.
senatorial candidate (neophyte sya) since there is already a ban on
radio, television, and print political advertisements. O’Brien   test   – used to determine the constitutional validity. A
government regulation is sufficiently justified: [1] if it is within the
Issue: Whether or not the COMELEC may prohibit the posting of decals constitutional power of the government; [2] if it furthers an important
and   stickers   on   “mobile”   places,   public   or   private   and   limit   their   or substantial government interest; [3] if the governmental interest is
location or publication to the authorized posting areas that it fixes. unrelated to the suppression of free expression.

Decision: Null and void. Sec. 5.4 of RA 9006 constitutes an unconstitutional abridgment of
freedom of speech, expression, and the press. It is invalid because: [1] it
Rationale:  First:  The  prohibition  unduly  infringes  on  the  citizen’s  right  of   imposes a prior restraint on the freedom of expression; [2] it is a direct
free speech. Considering the period of legitimate campaign activity is and total suppression of a category of expression even though such
limited, it becomes obvious that unduly restrictive regulations may suppression is only for a limited period, and [3] the governmental
prove unfair to affected parties and the electorate as well. interest sought to be promoted can be achieved by other means other
than the suppression of freedom of expression.
The posting of decals and stickers in mobile places like cars and other
moving vehicles does not endanger and substantial government Courts, Criticism and Contempt
interest. There is no clear public interest threatened by such activity so
as to justify the curtailment of such right. (Di siya pasok sa clear and
The courts may also express sensitivity at times to their delicate
present danger rule)
and important ole in society such that they feel the need to
Second: The restriction as to where the decals and stickers should be preserve the kind of respect and dignity that they should
posted  is  so  broad  that  it  encompasses  even  citizen’s  private  property,   deserve in order that they could effectively continue to
which in this case a privately-owned vehicle. (Violation ng property discharge their critical function of dispensing justice
without  due  process  of  law  na  ‘to.)
United States v. Bustos
There are many candidates whose names alone evoke qualifications, 37 Phil. 731 (1918)
platforms, programs and ideologies which voter may accept or reject.
When a person attaches a sticker with such a candidate’s  name  on  his   Numerous citizens of Pampanga assembled, prepared and signed a
car and bumper, he is pressing more than the name, he is espousing petition to the Executive Secretary charging Roman Punsalan, justice of
ideas. Our view of the validity of the challenged regulation includes its the peace and Macabebe and Masantol, Pampanga, with malfeasance
effects  in  today’s  particular  circumstances.  We  are  constrained  to  rule   in office and asked for his removal. It was contended that said justice of
against the Comelec prohibition. peace exacted money and property from a complainant, asked for
money in exchange of victory in litigation and paid a complaint in
ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation v. Commission on Elections another to justify the shelving of his case. Charges had been instituted
323 SCRA 811 (2000) and Punsalan was acquitted.

During the 1998 National Elections, ABS-CBN prepared a project to Criminal   action   for   libel   against   those   who   petitioned   for   Punsalan’s  
conduct radio-TV coverage of the elections and to make an exit survey removal was then instituted. Defendants contend that their petition for
of the vote during the elections for national officials particularly for the removal of the justice of the peace falls within the protection of the
President and the Vice President. COMELEC issued a Resolution which freedom of speech and right to assembly and to petition for the redress
approved the restraining order to stop ABS-CBN or any other groups of their grievances. Moreover, they contend that the content of their
from conducting such exit survey, believing that such project might petition is to be considered privileged communication and thus, cannot

52 | P LATON
be the basis for a libel case. front of the Justice Hall of Las Piñas was prohibited under the Supreme
Court’s  En Banc Resolution  dated  7  July  1998,  entitled,  “Re:  Guidelines  
The guaranties of a free speech and a press include the right to criticize on the Conduct of Demonstrations, Pickets, Rallies and Other Similar
judicial conduct. The administration of law is a matter of public Gatherings in the Vicinity of the Supreme Court and All Other Courts.
concern. The right to assemble10 and petition11 is the necessary They submit that the Supreme Court gravely abused its discretion
consequence of republican institutions and the complement of the and/or acted without or in excess of jurisdiction in promulgating those
right of free speech. A communication made bona fide upon any guidelines. Freedom of speech and expression despite its
subject-matter in which the party communicating has an interest, or in indispensability has its limitations. It has never been understood as the
reference to which he has a duty, is privileged. Qualified privilege is a absolute right to speak whenever, however, and wherever one pleases,
complaint made in good faith and without malice in regard to the for the manner, place, and time of public discussion can be
character or conduct of a public official when addressed to an officer or constitutionally controlled. As well put by our Justice Isagani Cruz, the
board having some interest on the duty or in the matter. better policy is not liberty untamed but liberty regulated by law where
every freedom is exercised in accordance with law and with due regard
In the case, it is not a case of direct and vicious accusations published in for the rights of others. Court reiterates that judicial independence and
the press, but of charges predicated on affidavits made to proper the fair and orderly administration of justice constitutes paramount
official and thus qualifiedly privileged. Although charges are probably governmental interests that can   justify   the   regulation   of   public’s   right  
not true as to the justice of peace but believed to be true by the of free speech and peaceful assembly in the vicinity of the courthouses.
petitioners. Good faith surrounded their action. Probable cause for Even in the United States, a prohibition against picketing and
them to think that malfeasance or misfeasance in office existed is demonstrating in or near courthouses has been ruled as valid
apparent. The manner in commenting on the conduct of justice of the constitutional.
peace was proper. And finally, charges and the petition were submitted
through reputable attorneys to proper functionary, the Executive Petitioners also claim that this Court committed an act of judicial
Secretary. legislation in promulgating the assailed resolution. They charged that
this Court amended the provisions of Batas Pambansa (B.P.) Blg. 880,
Nestle Philippines, Inc. v. Sanchez otherwise   known   as   “The   Public   Assembly   Act,”   by   converting   the  
154 SCRA 542 (1987) sidewalks and streets within a radius of two hundred (200) meters from
every   courthouse   from   a   public   forum   place   into   a   “no   rally”   zone.  
Union of Filiro Employees and Kimberly Independent Labor Union for Contrary   therefore   to   petitioners’   impression,   B.P.   Blg.   880   did   not  
Solidarity, activism and Nationalism-Olalia intensified the intermittent establish streets and sidewalks, among other places, as public fora. A
pickets they have been conducting in front of Padre Faura gate of the close look at the law will reveal that it in fact prescribes reasonable
Supreme Court building.  They  set  up  pickets’  quarters  on  the  pavement   time, place, and manner regulations. It requires a written permit for the
in front of the SC building, constructed provisional shelters along the holding of public assemblies in public places subject, even, to the right.
sidewalks, set up a kitchen and littered the place. They waved their red Existence of B.P. Blg. 880, however, does not preclude this Court from
streamers and placards with slogans, and took turns haranguing the promulgating rules regulating conduct of demonstrations in the vicinity
court all day using loudspeakers. These acts were done even after their of courts to assure our people of an impartial and orderly
leaders had been received by the SC Justices who were chairpersons of administration of justice as mandated by the Constitution.
the Division s where their cases are pending. Thus, thereafter, the SC en
banc issued a resolution giving the said unions the opportunity to SC is especially vested by the Constitution with the power to adopt
withdraw graciously and requiring the union leaders and their counsels measures essential to an orderly administration of justice. These rules
to show cause why they should not be held in contempt of court. The are designed to ensure the orderly and expeditious conduct of court
counsel for one of the unions apologized to the Court for the acts, business as well as to secure the rights of parties. These court-made
together with an assurance that they will not be repeated. rules have the force and effect of law.

The apologies offered by the respondents were accepted by the Court. Social Weather Stations, Inc. v. Asuncion
The individuals cited who are non-lawyers are not aware that even as 228 SCRA xi (1993)
the rights of free speech and of assembly are protected by the
Constitution, any attempt to pressure or influence courts of justice Manila  Standard  published  an  item  entitled  “Judiciary  worse  than  PNP”,  
through the exercise of either right amounts t an abuse thereof, is no which reported that, according to the opinion polls conducted by the
longer within the ambit of constitutional protection, nor did they Social Weather Station (SWS), the Judiciary had an even lower
realize any such efforts to influence the course of justice constitutes satisfaction rating than the PNP. The report prompted Judge
contempt of Court. The duty and responsibility of advising them, Maximiano Asuncion to initiate, motu proprio,  proceedings  entitled  “In  
therefore, rest primarily and heavily upon the shoulders of their the Matter of Findings of Social Weather Research Group Derogatory to
counsel of record. Atty. Jose Espinas, when his attention was called by the   Judiciary”.   He   then   ordered   the   President   of   SWS,   Prof.   Mahar  
the Court, did his best to demonstrate to the pickets the untenability of Mangahas, to explain why he should not be held in contempt for
their acts. It is their duty as officers of the court to properly apprise distributing to the general public without prior permission from any
their clients on matters of decorum and proper attitude toward courts court findings which tend to directly or indirectly degrade the
of justice. No demonstrations or pickets intended to pressure or administration of justice. An explanation was submitted to the court
influence courts of justice into acting one way or the other on pending and the contempt charge against SWS President was dismissed after
cases shall be allowed in the vicinity and/or within the premises of any finding the explanation submitted satisfactory. After some time, Prof.
and all courts. Mangahas addressed a letter to the Chief Justice intended as formal
complaint against Judge Asuncion for grave abuse of authority and
gross ignorance of the law, in connection with the contempt charge
In Re Petition to Annual En Banc Resolution A.M. No. 98-7-02-SC that was initiated by respondent judge.
296 SCRA xi (1998)
A publication which tends to impede, obstruct, embarrass or influence
Petitioner   Valmonte   applied   for   a   Mayor’s   permit   to   hold   a   rally   and   the courts in administering justice in a pending suit or proceeding,
camp out in front of the Justice Hall of Las Piñas. Office of the Mayor constitutes criminal contempt which is summarily punishable by courts.
refused to issue the permit on the ground that the holding of a rally in A publication which tends to degrade the courts and to destroy public
confidence in them or that which tends to bring them in any way into
disrepute, constitutes likewise criminal contempt, and is equally
10 Assembly – a right on the part of the citizens to meet peaceably for punishable by courts. In the first there is no contempt where there is no
consultation in respect to public affairs. decision which might in any way be influenced by newspaper
11 Petition – any person or group of persons can apply, without fear of penalty,
publication. In the second, the contempt exists, with or without a
to appropriate branch or office of the government for redress of grievances.
53 | P LATON
pending case, as what is sought to be protected is the court itself and the performance of his duties.
its dignity would lose their utility if public confidence is destroyed.
The contention that Professor Mangahas was improperly cited for [His] actuations, in the context in which they were done, demonstrate
contempt for acts or utterances not related to a pending action must, gross irresponsibility, and indifference to factual accuracy and the
therefore, be rejected. What was clearly implicit in the newspaper injury that he might cause to the name and reputation of those whom
report about the results of the SWS poll – in the words of Judge he wrote. They constitute contempt of court, directly tending as they
Asuncion,  “that  the  people  have  more  confidence  with  the  police  that   do to degrade or abase the administration of justice and the judges
with  the  judges”  – in light of the fact, of which judicial notice is taken, engaged in that function.
that said report came out at a time when there already was widespread
publicity adverse to the judiciary, there can be no doubt of its clear WHEREFORE, the Court declares Atty. Emil (Emiliano) P. Jurado guilty
tendency to degrade the administration of justice. Judge Asuncion can of contempt of court.
hardly be faulted for what, at a minimum, he must have felt duty-
bound to do in the circumstances. No question of prior restraint or Speech, Professions and Callings
violation of the guarantee of free speech arises here, what he did being,
in essence, merely to initiate an inquiry into the source and basis of the
While  the  right  to  freely  speak  one’s  mind  may  be  available  to  
derogatory news report. And he forthwith abated the proceedings
upon receiving an explanation he deemed satisfactory. the people, it does not necessarily mean that it is allowed to
the  same  extent  for  everyone.  Depending  on  one’s  occupation  
In Re Emil P. Jurado or calling, the extent to which he may exercise that right may
243 SCRA 299 (1995) be affected, and his behavior, including the manner by which
he may express himself, would have to be accordingly adjusted
Facts: Jurado is a journalist who writes a column entitled “Opinion” in a
newspaper of general circulation, the “Manila  Standard.” He describes Zaldivar v. Sandiganbayan
himself  as  a  columnist,  who  “incidentally  happens   to  be  a  lawyer.”  He   166 SCRA 316 (1988)
wrote about alleged improprieties and irregularities in the judiciary
over several months. In light of these abnormal developments, the Facts: Petitioner Zaldivar is one of the several defendants in criminal
Chief Justice took an extraordinary step. He issued Administrative Order cases pending before the Sandiganbayan for violation of the Anti-Graft
No. 11-93 dated 25 January 1993, “Creating   an   Ad   Hoc   Committee   to   and Corrupt Practices Act. Petitioner asserts that respondent Gonzales,
Investigate   Reports  of   Corruption   in   the   Judiciary,”   tasked to ascertain as Tanodbayan and under the provisions of the 1987 Constitution, was
the truth respecting said reports and statements, and to interview at no longer vested with power and authority independently to
closed-door sessions or otherwise, such persons as may appear to it to investigate and to institute criminal cases for graft and corruption
have some knowledge of the matter and who may be appealed to share against public officials and employees. Hence, the criminal informations
that knowledge with the court, and otherwise gather such evidence as filed were all null and void.
may be available.
The Court issued a Temporary Restraining Orders directing the
Material to the present inquiry are Jurado’s  published  statements  from   Tanodbayan from acting upon cases already filed and from filing
late 1992 to the middle of February, 1993 where he wrote of graft and additional criminal informations. Thereafter, petitioner Zaldivar filed
corruption in the judiciary. There were calls for impeachment of the with the Court a Motion to Cite in Contempt directed against Gonzales
justices, for resignation of judges. There were insistent and more alleging that Gonzales issued contemptuous statements to the media.
widespread reiterations of denunciations of incompetence and He either released his Motion for Reconsideration with facsimiles of
corruption in the judiciary. For shortly afterwards, on 10 February 1993, said notes to the press or repeated the same to the press. And, for the
Mr. Vicente R. Samson, First Vice-President of the PLDT addressed a next several days, the metropolitan papers carried long reports on
letter   to   the   chief   Justice   and   requesting   that   the   Court   “take   such   those statements and variations and embellishments thereof. The
action  as  may  be  appropriate”. Court issued a resolution ordering Gonzales to explain why he should
not be punished for contempt and/or subjected to administrative
Jurado moved for the termination of the proceeding on the following sanctions.
posited premises: 1) the court has no administrative supervision over
him as a member of the press or over his work as a journalist; 2) the Issue: Whether  or  not  respondent  Gonzales’  statements  are  covered  by  
present administrative matter is not a citation for (a) direct contempt Constitutional provision of freedom of speech?
as there is no pending case or proceeding out of which a direct
contempt charge against him may arise, (b) indirect contempt as no Held: His [Gonzales] defense is not that he did not make the statements
formal charge for the same has been laid before the court in ascribed to him but that those statements give rise to no liability on his
accordance with Section 3 (Rule 71) of the Rules of Court; and,, 3) his part, having been made in the exercise of his freedom of speech.
comments would be more relevant and helpful to the Court if taken
together with the other evidence and reports of other journalists “***  A  free  press  is  not  to  be  preferred  to  an  independent  judiciary,  nor  
gathered before the Ad Hoc Committee. He perceives no reason why an independent judiciary to a free press. Neither has primacy over the
his comments should be singled out and taken up in a separate other; both are indispensable to a free society.
administrative proceeding.
The freedom of the press in itself presupposes an independent judiciary
Issue:  Whether  or  not  Jurado’s  acts  are  protected  by  the  Constitutional   through which that freedom may, if necessary, be vindicated. And one
provision of Freedom of Expression? of the potent means for assuring judges their independence is a free
Held:  “There  is  no  constitutional  value  in  false  statements  of  fact,”  and  
“the   erroneous   statement   of   fact   is   not   worthy   of   constitutional   This constitutional right must be protected in its fullest extent. The
protection   (although)   **   nevertheless   inevitable   in   free   debate.”   Court has heretofore given evidence of its tolerant regard for charges
“Neither   the   intentional   lie   nor   the   careless   error,”   it   said,   “materially   under the Libel Law which come dangerously close to its violation. But
advances   society’s   interest   in   ‘unhibited,   robust,   and   wide-open’   license or abuse of liberty of the press and of the citizens should not be
debate on public issues. confused with liberty in its true sense. As important as is the
Jurado [failed] to undertake even the most cursory verification of their maintenance of unmuzzled press and the free exercise of the rights of
objective   truth;   the   abdication   of   the   journalist’s   duty   to   report   and   the citizens is the maintenance of the independence of the Judiciary.
interpret the news with scrupulous fairness; and  the  breach  of  the  law’s  
injunction that a person act with justice, give everyone his due and Some  courts  have  held,  persuasively  it  appears  to  us,  that  a  lawyer’s  
observe honesty and good faith both in the exercise of his rights and in right of free expression may have to be more limited than that of a

54 | P LATON
layman. Bates v. State Bar of Arizona
433 US 350, 53 L Ed 2d 810,97 S Ct 2691 (1977)
Respondent Gonzalez claims to be and he is, of course, entitled to
criticize the rulings of this court. But it is the cardinal condition of all Facts: The appellants, licensed attorneys and members of the Arizona
such criticism that it shall be bona fide, and shall not spill over the walls State   Bar,   placed   a   newspaper   advertisement   for   their   “legal   clinic,”  
of decency and propriety. Intemperate and unfair criticism is a gross listing their fees for certain routine services, namely, uncontested
violation of the duty of respect to courts. It is such a misconduct that divorces, uncontested adoptions, simple personal bankruptcies, and
subjects   a   lawyer   to   disciplinary   action.   The   lawyer’s   duty   to   render   changes of name. Because of this they were charged in a complaint
respectful subordination to the courts is essential to the orderly filed   by   the   State   Bar’s   president   with   violating   the   State   Supreme  
administration of justice Court’s   disciplinary   rule,   which   prohibits   attorneys   from   advertising   in  
newspapers or other media. The Arizona Supreme Court upheld the
The Court concludes that respondent Gonzales is of guilty both of conclusion of a bar committee that appellants had violated the rule,
contempt court in facie curiae and of gross misconduct as an officer of rejecting,   among   others,   appellants’   claim   that   the   rule   infringed  
the court and member of the Bar. appellants’  First  Amendment  rights.

Resolution on Motion for Reconsideration Issue: Whether or not the State may prevent the publication in a
170 SCRA 1 (1989) newspaper   of   appellants’   truthful   advertisement   concerning   the  
availability and terms of routine legal services?
Facts:   In   his   point   D,   respondent’s   [Gonzales]   counsel   urges   that it is
error  “for  this  Court  to  apply  the  ‘visible  tendency’  rule  rather  than  the   HELD: We rule simply that the flow of such information may not be
‘clear  and  present  danger’  rule  in  disciplinary  and  contempt  charges. restrained, and we therefore hold the present application of the
disciplinary rule against appellants to be violative of the First
Held:   The   “clear   and   present   danger”   doctrine   has   been   an   accepted   Amendment.
method for marking out the appropriate limits of freedom of speech
and of assembly in certain contexts. It is not, however, the only test
which has been recognized and applied by courts. Symbolic   Speech,   Expressive   Conduct   and   the   “Public   Forum”  
‘From   the   language   of   the   specific   constitutional   provision,   it   would  
appear that the right is not susceptible of any limitation. No law may be
Speech is not confined to words. It can also be expressed
passed abridging the freedom of speech and of the press. The realities
of life in a complex society preclude however, a literal interpretation.
through   a   person’s   conduct   or   other   symbolic manner of
Freedom of expression is not an absolute. It would be too much to delivering a message, either alone or in collaboration with
insist that all times and under all circumstances it should remain other. The Constitution itself guarantees as part of the freedom
unfettered and unrestrained. There are other societal values that press of   expression   the   right   of   the   people   “peaceably   to   assemble  
for  recognition.’ and petition the Government for redress of grievances

The prevailing doctrine is that the clear and present danger rule is such Public Forum Doctrine posits that public areas such as streets
a limitation. Another criterion for permissible limitation on freedom of
and parks are traditionally considered as proper venues for the
speech  and  of  the  press  is  the  ‘balancing  of  interests  test’.  The  principle  
‘requires   a   court   to   take   conscious   and   detailed   consideration   of   the  
free articulation of ideas and views and that, therefore, the
interplay of interests observable in a given situation or type of exercise of such freedom should not be unnecessarily restricted
situation’. or impaired

ACCORDINGLY, the Court Resolved to DENY the Motion for The   “public   forum”   doctrine   holds   that   restrictions   on   speech  
Reconsideration for lack of merit. The denial is FINAL. should be subject to higher scrutiny when, all other things
being equal, that speech occurs in areas playing a vital role in
communication--such as in those places historically associated
Commercial Speech with first amendment activities, such as streets, sidewalks, and
parks--especially because of how indispensable communication
As noted earlier, at the core of the freedom of speech and of in these places is to people who lack access to more elaborate
the press is political expression, or those in connection with the (and more costly) channels
people’s  relationship  with  their  government  and  politics.  It  was  
only subsequently that the freedom was also considered to United  States  v.  O’Brien
encompass commercial speech 391 U.S. 367, 20 L Ed 2d 672, 88 S Ct 1673 (1968)

For commercial speech to come within that provision, it at least Facts:   O’Brien   and   three   companions   burned   their   Selective   Service  
must concern lawful activity and not be misleading. Next, we certificates on the steps of the South Boston Courthouse. A sizeable
ask whether the asserted governmental interest is substantial. crowd, including several agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation,
witnessed the event and immediately after the burning members of the
If both inquiries yield positive answers, we must determine
crowd   began   attacking   O’Brien   and   his   companions.   O’Brien   stated   to  
whether the regulation directly advances the governmental FBI agents that he had burned his registration certificate because of his
interest asserted, and whether it is not more extensive than is beliefs, knowing that he was violating federal law. He stated in
necessary to serve that interest argument to the jury that he burned the certificate publicly to influence
others to adopt his antiwar beliefs. He also argued that the 1965
Intrinsically related to commercial speech is the advertising Amendment prohibiting the knowing destruction or mutilation of
industry, whose power to influence could either be for good or certificates was unconstitutional because it was enacted to abridge free
bad. Accordingly, the Constitution provides for its regulation by speech, and because it serve no legitimate legislative purpose, which
arguments the District Court rejected.
holding  that  “The  advertising  industry  is  impressed  with  public  
interest, and shall be regulated by law for the protection of Issue: Whether or not the 1965 Amendment prohibiting the knowing
consumers and the promotion of the general welfare destruction or mutilation of certificates was unconstitutional because it
was enacted to abridge free speech?

55 | P LATON
public streets and parks, is examined under strict scrutiny. Regulation
Held:   This   court   has   held   that,   when   “speech”   and   “non-speech”   of speech on property that the Government has expressly dedicated to
elements are combined in the same course of conduct, a sufficiently speech activity is also examined under strict scrutiny. But regulation of
important governmental interest in regulating the non-speech element speech activity where the Government has not dedicated its property
can justify incidental limitations on First Amendment freedoms. to First Amendment activity is examined only for reasonableness.

Whatever impression inheres in these terms, we think it clear that a Regulation of speech activity n governmental property that has
government regulation is sufficiently justified if it is within the been traditionally open to the public for expressive activity,
constitutional power of the Government; if it furthers an important or
such as public streets and parks, is examined under strict
substantial governmental interest; if the governmental interest is
unrelated to the suppression of free expression; and if the incidental scrutiny
restriction on alleged First Amendment freedoms is no greater than is
essential to the furtherance of that interest. Regulation of speech on property that the Government has
expressly dedicated to speech activity is also examined under
The governmental interest and the scope of the 1965 Amendment are strict scrutiny
limited to preventing harm to the smooth and efficient functioning of
the   Selective   Service   System.   When   O’Brien   deliberately   rendered   But regulation of speech activity where the Government has
unavailable his registration certificate, he willfully frustrated this
not dedicated its property to first Amendment activity is
governmental interest. For this non-communicative impact of his
conduct, and for nothing else, he was convicted. examined only for reasonableness

Since the 1965 Amendment to § 12(b)(3) of the Universal Military Anonymous Speech
Training and Service Act is constitutional as enacted and as applied.
Accordingly, we vacate the judgment of the Court of Appeals, and The speaker need not always have to identify himself in order
reinstate the judgment and sentence of the District Court. This that he may avail of the protection of the guarantee of freedom
disposition  makes  unnecessary  consideration  of  O’Brien’s  claim  that  the   of   speech.   Anonymity   need   not   result   in   loss   of   one’s   right   to  
Court of Appeals erred in affirming his conviction on the basis of the
speak freely
non-possession regulation.

Clark v. Community for Creative Nonviolence

The anonymity of an author is not ordinarily a sufficient reason
468 U.S. 288, 82 L Ed 2d 221, 104 S Ct 3065 (1984) to exclude her work product from the protections of the First
Facts: In 1982, the National Park Service issued a renewable permit to
respondent Community for Creative Non-Violence (CCNV) to conduct a The freedom to publish anonymously extends beyond the
wintertime demonstration in Lafayette Park and Mall, which are literary realm
National Parks in the heart of Washington, D.C., for the purpose of
demonstrating the plight of the homeless. The permit authorized the
If the State can show a compelling interest to be subserved by a
erection of two symbolic tent cities. However, the Park Service, relying
on its regulations – particularly   on  that  permits  “camping”  (defined  as  
regulation which requires identification of the speaker,
the use of park land for living accommodation purposes such as however, then the same may be upheld, but again it would
sleeping activities, or making preparations to sleep) only in designated have to be subjected to an exacting scrutiny which is the usual
campgrounds, no campgrounds having ever been designated in standard in relation to speech-related restrictions
Lafayette Park or the Mall – denied  CCNV’s  request  that  demonstrators  
be permitted to sleep in the symbolic tents. CCNV and the individual Freedom of Assembly and Right to Petition
respondents then filed an action in the District Court, alleging, inter
alia, that application of the regulations to prevent sleeping in the tents
The   expression   of   one’s   opinion   or   plaints need not only be
violated the First Amendment. The District Court granted summary
judgment for the Park Service, but the Court of Appeals reversed.
limited to pure words. An individual with a grievance that needs
to be articulated may find a more effective manner of having
Issue: Whether or not a National Park Service regulation prohibiting his message get across by associating and joining with others
camping in certain parks violates the First Amendment when applied to and expressing themselves in a collaborative manner and
prohibit demonstrators from sleeping in Lafayette Park and the Mall in through a collective voice
connection with a demonstration intended to call attention to the
plight of the homeless? As stated in Reyes v. Bagatsing,   “it   was   not   by   accident   or  
coincidence that the rights to freedom of speech and of the
HELD: Expression, whether oral or written or symbolized by conduct, is
subject to reasonable time, place, or manner restrictions. Symbolic
press were coupled in a single guarantee with the rights of the
expression of this kind may be forbidden or regulated if the conduct people peaceably to assemble and to petition the government
itself may constitutionally be regulated, if the regulation is narrowly for redress of grievances. All these rights, while not identical,
drawn to further a substantial governmental interest, and if the interest are inseparable
is unrelated to the suppression of free speech.
In relation to regulation of activities or conduct on Reyes v. Bagatsing
government property, a distinction would have to be made on whether 125 SCRA 553 (1983)
such   property   is   traditionally   considered   as   “public   forums”   – streets
and parks – or not. Facts: Petitioner, retired Justice J.B.L. Reyes, on behalf of the Anti-Bases
The   Government’s   ownership   of   property   does   not   Coalition, sought a permit from the City of Manila to hold a peaceful
automatically open that property to the public. It is a long-settled march and rally on 26 October 1983, starting from Luneta, a public
principle that governmental actions are subject to a lower level of First park, to the gates of the United States Embassy, hardly two blocks
Amendment   scrutiny   when   “the   government   function   operating…   [is]   away. It turned out that on 19 October such permit was denied.
not   the   power   to   regulate   or   license,   as   lawmaker…   but,   rather,   as   Petitioner was unaware of such a fact as the denial was sent by
proprietor, to manage [its] internal operation[s]…” ordinary  mail.  The  reason  for  refusing  a  permit  was  due  to  “persistent  
Regulation of speech activity on governmental property that intelligence reports affirm[ing] the plans of subversive/criminal
has been traditionally open to the public for expressive activity, such as elements to infiltrate and/or disrupt and assembly or congregations

56 | P LATON
where   a   large   number   of   people   is   expected   to   attend.”   On   the   same   individual or a group. There can be no legal objection, absent the
day the Court heard the parties on oral argument and in the afternoon, existence of a clear and present danger of a substantive evil, on the
a minute resolution was issued by the Court granting the mandatory choice of Luneta as the place where the peace rally would start. Time
injunction prayed for on the ground that there was no showing of the immemorial Luneta has been used for purposes of assembly,
existence of a clear and present danger of a substantive evil that could communicating thoughts between citizens, and discussing public
justify the denial of a permit. questions.

Issue: Whether or not the mayor of the city of Manila acted in lack or Such use of the public places has from ancient times, been a part of the
excess of jurisdiction in denying the rally permit to petitioner and if privileges, immunities, rights, and liberties of citizens.
such decision abridge their right of expression and assembly? With regard to the ordinance, there was no showing that there was
violation and even if it could be shown that such a condition is satisfied
Held: It is true that the licensing official, here respondent Mayor, is not it does not follow that respondent could legally act the way he did. The
devoid of discretion in determining whether or not a permit would be validity of his denial of the permit sought could still be challenged.
granted. It is not, however, unfettered discretion. While prudence
requires that there be a realistic appraisal not of what may possibly A summary of the application for permit for rally: The applicants for a
occur but of what may probably occur, given all the relevant permit to hold an assembly should inform the licensing authority of the
circumstances, still the assumption – especially so where the assembly date, the public place where and the time when it will take place. If it
is scheduled for a specific public place – is that the permit must be for were a private place, only the consent of the owner or the one entitled
the assembly being held there. to its legal possession is required. Such application should be filed well
ahead in time to enable the public official concerned to appraise
While the general rule is that a permit should recognize the right of the whether there may be valid objections to the grant of the permit or to
applicants to hold their assembly at a public place of their choice, its grant but at another public place. It is an indispensable condition to
another place may be designated by the licensing authority if it be such refusal or modification that the clear and present danger tests be
shown that there is a clear and present danger of a substantive evil if the standard for the decision reached. Notice is given to applicants for
no such change were made. Hence the discretion reached by the Court. the denial.
The mere assertion that subversives may infiltrate the ranks of the
demonstrators does not suffice. Academic Freedom
Ordinarily, the remedy in cases of this character is to set aside the
The   Constitution   guarantees   that   “academic   freedom   shall   be  
denial or the modification of the permit sought and order the
respondent official to grant it. Nonetheless, as there was urgency in this enjoyed   in   all   institutions   of   higher   learning.”   This   freedom  
case, the proposed march and rally being scheduled for the next day essentially involves the right of such institutions of learning to
after the hearing, this Court, in the exercise of its conceded authority, determine what to teach, how to teach them, who may teach
granted the mandatory injunction in the resolution of October 25, them, and who to admit to study therein
The  classroom  is  peculiarly  the  “marketplace  of  ideas”
Reyes v. Bagatsing
125 SCRA 553 (1983) “Academic   freedom,”   the   term   as   it   evolved   to   describe   the  
emerging rights related to intellectual liberty, has traditionally
Facts: Petitioner sought a permit from the City of Manila to hold a
peaceful march and rally on October 26, 1983 from 2:00 to 5:00 in the
been associated with freedom of thought, speech, expression,
afternoon, starting from the Luneta to the gates of the United States and the press; in other words, the right of individuals in
Embassy. Once there, and in an open space of public property, a short university communities, such as professors, researchers and
program would be held. The march would be attended by the local and administrators, to investigate, pursue, discuss and, in the
foreign participants of such conference. That would be followed by the immortal words of Socrates,  “to  follow  the  argument  wherever  
handing over of a petition based on the resolution adopted at the it   may   lead,”   free   from   internal   and   external   interference   or  
closing session of the Anti-Bases Coalition. There was likewise an pressure
assurance in the petition that in the exercise of the constitutional rights
to free speech and assembly, all the necessary steps would be taken by
it "to ensure a peaceful march and rally. However the request was
The component of this aspect of academic freedom have been
denied. Reference was made to persistent intelligence reports affirming categorized under the areas of: (1) who may teach and (2) how
the plans of subversive/criminal elements to infiltrate or disrupt any to teach
assembly or congregations where a large number of people are
expected to attend. Respondent suggested that a permit may be issued As corporate entities, educational institutions of higher learning
if it is to be held at the Rizal Coliseum or any other enclosed area where are inherently endowed with the right to establish their
the safety of the participants themselves and the general public may be policies, academic and otherwise, unhampered by external
ensured. An oral argument was heard and the mandatory injunction
controls or pressure. In the Frankfurter formulation, this is
was granted on the ground that there was no showing of the existence
of a clear and present danger of a substantive evil that could justify the
articulated in the areas of: (1) what shall be taught, e.g., the
denial of a permit. However Justice Aquino dissented that the rally is curriculum and (2) who may be admitted to study
violative of Ordinance No. 7295 of the City of Manila prohibiting the
holding of rallies within a radius of five hundred (500) feet from any Admission to an institution of higher learning is discretionary
foreign mission or chancery and for other purposes. Hence the Court upon a school, the same being a privilege on the part of the
resolves. student rather than a right
Issue: Whether or not the freedom of expression and the right to The   Constitution  guarantees  that   “academic   freedom   shall   be   enjoyed  
peaceably assemble violated. in  all   institutions  of  higher   learning.”  This  freedom  essentially   involves  
the right of such institutions of learning to determine what to teach,
Ruling: Yes. The invocation of the right to freedom of peaceable how to teach them, who may teach them, and who to admit to study
assembly carries with it the implication that the right to free speech has therein. It has also been held that if, pursuant to its academic freedom,
likewise been disregarded. It is settled law that as to public places, such institutions of higher learning can decide who can and who cannot
especially so as to parks and streets, there is freedom of access. Nor is study in it, it certainly can also determine on whom it can confer the
their use dependent on who is the applicant for the permit, whether an honor and distinction of being its graduates, including the revocation or
57 | P LATON
withdrawal of the honor or distinction it may have conferred where it is the special characteristics of the school environment.
subsequently shown that the same was obtained through fraud.
The power of the school to investigate is an adjunct of its power to
Garcia v. Faculty Admission Committee, Loyola School of Theology suspend or expel. It is a necessary corollary to the environment
68 SCRA 277 (1975) conducive to learning: that power, like the power to suspend or expel,
is an inherent part of the academic freedom of institutions of higher
Facts: This is a mandamus case compelling the respondent to allow the learning guaranteed by the Constitution. Therefore, the Miriam College
petitioner to continue studying there. The petitioner contends that she has the authority to her and decide.
was denied re – admission for the reason given by the respondent
school,   namely,   that   “her   frequent questions and difficulties were not Among   the   reasons   for   the   indispensability   of   the   people’s  
always pertinent and had the effect of slowing down the progress of freedom of speech and of assembly to democracy are that
the class, is not a valid ground for her expulsion. While the respondent freedom of expression is essential as a means of assuring
contends that the school has discretion to admit or continue admitting
individual fulfillment and that it is an essential process for
in said school any particular student, considering not only academic or
intellectual standards but also other students, space limitations,
advancing knowledge and discovering
facilities, professors and optimum classroom size.
Additional Cases
Issue: Whether or not the petitioner is deemed possessed of such a (F) Freedom of Expression, Right of Assembly
right that has to be respected. and Academic Freedom [3-8]

Ruling: The petition is deemed not only on general principle, but also in Chavez vs. Gonzales
view of the character of the particular educational institution involved. 545 SCRA 441 (2008)
It is a seminary. Also, there is the autonomy recognized by the
Constitution  in  this  explicit  language:  “All  institutions  of  higher  learning   The case originates from events that occurred a year after the 2004
shall  enjoy  academic  freedom.”  In  connection  to  this,  the  four  essential   elections. On June 5, 2005 Press Secretary Ignacio Bunye told reporters
freedoms of a university are to determine for itself on academic that the opposition is planning to destabilize the administration by
grounds who may teach, what may be taught, how it shall be taught, releasing an audiotape of a mobile phone conversation allegedly
and who may be admitted to study. between Pres. GMA and a high-ranking official of the Comelec
(Garcillano) through wire-tapping. He produced two kinds of tape a
Justice Makasiar dissenting: What is involved here is not merely complete  version  and  a  “doctored”  version.    That  which  instructed the
academic freedom of the higher institutions of learning as guaranteed comelec   official   to   manipulate   the   election   results   in   the   president’s  
by Section 8 (2) of Art. XV of the 1973 Constitutions. The issue here favor. There were also conversations of President, First gentleman,
strikes at the broader freedom of expression of the individual – the very Garci and the late senator Barbers.
core of human liberty.
On the June, 2005 respondent DOJ secretary Gonzales warned
Miriam College Foundation, Inc. v. CA reporters that who had copies of the CD or those who will publish the
348 SCRA 265 (2000) contents will be liable under the Anti-wiretapping Act because of the
continuing the offense that had the personal knowledge of the crime
Facts: The petitioner took disciplinary action against some of its that included Sec. Bunye and Atty. Paguia.
students who were members of the   editorial   boards   of   the   college’s  
school paper (Chi – Rho) and magazine (Ang Magazing Pampanitikan Ng Because of the incident the NTC gives fair warning to radio and
Chi – Rho) for contents therein that were allegedly described by some television owners/operators to observe anti-wire-tapping law and
members   of   the   Miriam   College   community   as   “obscene”,   “vulgar”,   pertinent circulars on program standards. It has been subsequently
“indecent”,   “gross”,   “sexually   explicit”,   “injurious   to   young   readers”,   established that the said tapes are false and/or fraudulent after a
and  “devoid  of  all  moral  values.”  The  students  then  filed  a  petition  for   prosecution or appropriate investigation, the concerned radio and
prohibition and certiorari with preliminary injunction/restraining order television companies are hereby warned that their broadcast/airing of
before the RTC of Quezon City questioning the jurisdiction of the such false information and/or willful misrepresentation shall be just
Discipline Board of Miriam College over them. The RTC eventually cause for the suspension, revocation and/or cancellation of the licenses
granted the writ of preliminary injunction but subsequently dismissed or authorizations issued to the said companies.
the petition on the ground raised by both parties that it is the DECS
which has jurisdiction. Eight of the eleven students elevated to the SC, On June 14, 2005, NTC held a dialogue with the Board of Directors of
but the court referred to the C.A. in due time the appellate court the Kapisanan ng mga Brodkaster sa Pilipinas (KBP). NTC allegedly
granted the petition of the students and declared the RTC order, as well assured the KBP that the press release did not violate the constitutional
as  the  students’  supervision  and  dismissed,  void. freedom of speech, of expression, and of the press, and the right to
Issue: Who has the jurisdiction over the case?
Petitioner Chavez filed a petition under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court
Ruling: Sec. 5(2), Article XIV of the Constitution guarantees all against   respondents  Secretary   Gonzales  and  the   NTC,   “praying   for   the  
institutions of higher learning academic freedom. The essential issuance of the writs of certiorari and prohibition, as extraordinary legal
freedoms  subsumed  in  the  term  “academic  freedom”  encompasses  the   remedies, to annul void proceedings, and to prevent the unlawful,
freedom to determine for itself an academic grounds: unconstitutional and oppressive exercise of authority by the
(1) Who may teach, respondents.”   Alleging   that   the   acts   of   respondents   are   violations   of  
(2) What may be taught, the freedom on expression and of the press, and the right of the people
(3) How it shall be taught, and to information on matters of public concern.
(4) Who may be admitted to study.
We rule that not every violation of a law will justify straitjacketing the
The right of the school to discipline its students is at once apparent in exercise of freedom of speech and of the press. Our laws are of
the  third  freedom,  i.e.,  “how  it  shall  be  taught.”  Accordingly,  the  right   different kindsand doubtless, some of them provide norms of conduct
to discipline   the   student   likewise   finds   basis   in   the   freedom   “what   to   which  even  if  violated  have  only  an  adverse  effect  on  a  person’s  private  
teach”. comfort but do not endanger national security. There are laws of great
significance but their violation, by itself and without more, cannot
The right of the students to free speech in school premises, however, is support suppression of free speech and free press. In fine, violation of
not absolute. The right to free speech must always be applied in light of law is just a factor, a vital one to be sure, which should be

58 | P LATON
weighed in adjudging whether to restrain freedom of speech and of the 1986, creating the MTRCB, in relation to Sec. 3, Chapter XIII of the 2004
press. The totality of the injurious effects of the violation to private and Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of PD 1986 and Sec. 7, Rule
public interest must be calibrated in light of the preferred status VII of the MTRCB Rules of Procedure.5The same order also set the case
accorded by the Constitution and by related international covenants for preliminary investigation. The following day after the suspension
protecting freedom of speech and of the press. In calling for a careful the petitioner sought for reconsideration of the preventive suspension
and calibrated measurement of the circumference of all these factors and Laguardia ( MTRCB chair person) recuse from hearing the case.
to determine compliance with the clear and present danger test, the After the case was heard in this court it was given 3 months suspension
Court should not be misinterpreted as devaluing violations of law. By all of the program Ang Dating Daan.
means, violations of law should be vigorously prosecuted by the After which they again filed for petition for certiorari and prohibition
State for they breed their own evil consequence. But to repeat, the with prayer for injunctive relief with the following issues: (A) BY
need to prevent their violation cannot per se trump the exercise of REASON THAT THE [IRR] IS INVALID INSOFAR AS IT PROVIDES FOR THE
free speech and free press, a preferred right whose breach can ISSUANCE OF PREVENTIVE SUSPENSION ORDERS; (B) BY REASON OF
lead to greater evils. For this failure of the respondents alone to offer LACK OF DUE HEARING IN THE CASE AT BENCH; (C) FOR BEING
proof to satisfy the clear and present danger test, the Court has no VIOLATIVE OF EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW; (D) FOR BEING
option but to uphold the exercise of free speech and free press. There VIOLATIVE OF FREEDOM OF RELIGION; AND (E) FOR BEING VIOLATIVE
is no showing that the feared violation of the anti-wiretapping law OF FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND EXPRESSION.
clearly endangers the national security of the State. In ending, what petitioner obviously advocates is an unrestricted
speech paradigm in which absolute permissiveness is the norm.
This is not all the faultline in the stance of the respondents. We slide to Petitioner’s  flawed  belief  that  he  may  simply  utter   gutter profanity on
the issue of whether the mere press statements of the Secretary of television without adverse consequences, under the guise of free
Justice and of the NTC in question constitute a form of content-based speech, does not lend itself to acceptance in this jurisdiction. We
prior restraint that has transgressed the Constitution. In repeat: freedoms of speech and expression are not absolute freedoms.
resolving this issue, we hold that it is not decisive that the press To say "any act that restrains speech should be greeted with furrowed
statements made by respondents were not reduced in or followed up brows" is not to say that any act that restrains or regulates speech or
with formal orders or circulars. It is sufficient that the press statements expression is per se invalid. This only recognizes the importance of
were made by respondents while in the exercise of their official freedoms of speech and expression, and indicates the necessity to
functions. Undoubtedly, respondent Gonzales made his statements as carefully scrutinize acts that may restrain or regulate speech.
Secretary of Justice, while the NTC issued its statement as the WHEREFORE, the decision of the MTRCB in Adm. Case No. 01-04 dated
regulatory body of media. Any act done, such as a speech uttered, for September 27, 2004 is hereby AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION of
and on behalf of the government in an official capacity is covered by limiting the suspension to the program Ang Dating Daan. As thus
the rule on prior restraint. The  concept  of  an  “act”  does  not  limit  itself   modified, the fallo of the MTRCB shall read as follows:
to acts already converted to a formal order or official WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, a Decision is hereby
circular. Otherwise, the non formalization of an act into an official rendered, imposing a penalty of THREE (3) MONTHS SUSPENSION on
order or circular will result in the easy circumvention of the prohibition the television program, Ang Dating Daan, subject of the instant
on prior restraint. The press statements at bar are acts that should be petition.
struck down as they constitute impermissible forms of prior restraints Co-respondents Joselito Mallari, Luzviminda Cruz, and UNTV Channel
on the right to free speech and press. 37 and its owner, PBC, are hereby exonerated for lack of evidence.Costs
against petitioner.
There is enough evidence of chilling effect of the complained acts on
record. The warnings given to media came from no less the NTC, a Soriano v. Laguardia
regulatory agency that can cancel the Certificate of Authority of the (2009)
radio and broadcast media. They also came from the Secretary of
Justice, the alter ego of the Executive, who wields the awesome power Ang Dating Daan host Eliseo S. Soriano uttered the following
to prosecute those perceived to be violating the laws of the land. After statements in his TV program against Michael Sandoval (Iglesia ni
the warnings, the KBP inexplicably joined the NTC in issuing an Cristo’s   minister   and   regular   host   of   the   TV   program   Ang   Tamang  
ambivalent Joint Press Statement. After the warnings, petitioner Chavez Daan):
was left alone to fight this battle for freedom of speech and of the Lehitimong anak ng demonyo[!] Sinungaling [!]
press. This silence on the sidelines on the part of some media Gago ka talaga[,] Michael[!] [M]asahol ka pa sa putang babae[,] o di
practitioners is too deafening to be the subject of misinterpretation. ba[?]   [‘]Yung   putang   babae[,]   ang   gumagana   lang   doon[,]   [‘]yung  
ibaba, dito kay Michael[,] ang gumagana ang itaas, o di ba? O, masahol
In VIEW WHEREOF, the petition is GRANTED. The writs of certiorari and pa   sa   putang   babae   [‘]yan.   Sobra   ang   kasinungalingan   ng   mga  
prohibition are hereby issued, nullifying the official statements made by demonyong ito.
respondents on June 8, and 11, 2005 warning the media on airing the As   a   result,   The   MTRCB   initially   slapped   Soriano’s   Ang   Dating Daan,
alleged wiretapped conversation between the President and other which  was  earlier  given  a  “G”  rating  for  general  viewership,  with  a  20-
personalities, for constituting unconstitutional prior restraint on the day preventive suspension after a preliminary conference. Later, in a
exercise of freedom of speech and of the press decision, it found him liable for his utterances, and was imposed a
three-month suspension from his TV program Ang Dating Daan. Soriano
Soriano v. Laguardia challenged the order of the MTRCB.
HELD:   The   SC   ruled   that   “Soriano’s   statement   can   be   treated   as  
This is a petition regarding Eliseo Soriano who seeks to nullify and set obscene,   at   least   with   respect   to   the   average   child,”   and   thus   his  
aside an order and decision of the MTRCB in connection with certain utterances cannot be considered as protected speech. Citing decisions
utterances he made in the television show, Ang Dating Daan. from the US Supreme Court, the High Court said that the analysis
On August 10, 2004, at 10pm, the petitioner, as host of the television should   be   “context   based”   and   found   the   utterances   to   be   obscene  
show Ang Dating Daan made following remarks: after considering the use of television broadcasting as a medium, the
Lehitimong anak ng demonyo, sinungaling; time  of  the  show,  and  the  “G”  rating  of  the show, which are all factors
Gago ka talaga Michael, masahol ka pa sa putang babae o dib ba. that made the utterances susceptible to children viewers. The Court
Yung putang babae ang gumagana lang doon ung ibaba, ditto kay emphasized on how the uttered words could be easily understood by a
Michael ang gumagana ang itaas. O dib a! o masahol pa sa putang child  literally  rather  than  in  the  context  that  they  were  used.”
babae yan. Sabi ng lola ko masahol pa sa putang babae yan sora ang The  SC  also  said  “that  the suspension is not a prior restraint, but rather
kasinungalingan ng mga demonyong ito. a   “form   of   permissible   administrative   sanction   or   subsequent  
Because of that the MTRCB ordered the suspension of the program for punishment.”  In  affirming  the  power  of  the  MTRCB  to  issue  an  order  of  
20 days in accordance with Section 3(d) of Presidential Decree No. (PD) suspension,  the  majority  said  that  “it  is  a  sanction  that  the  MTRCB  may  

59 | P LATON
validly impose under its charter without running afoul of the free and criticism. His irresponsible and baseless statements, his
speech   clause.”   visit   fellester.blogspot.com   The   Court   said   that   the   unrepentant stance and smug insistence of his malicious and
suspension   “is   not   a   prior   restraint   on   the   right   of   petitioner   to   unfounded accusation against Justice Tinga have sullied the dignity and
continue with the broadcast of Ang Dating Daan as a permit was authority of this Court. Beyond question, therefore, De La Serna's
already   issued   to   him   by   MTRCB,”   rather,   it   was   a   sanction   for   “the   culpability for indirect contempt warrants the penalty of a fine not
indecent   contents   of   his   utterances   in   a   “G”   rated   TV   program.”   exceeding P30,000.00 or imprisonment not exceeding six (6) months or
(Soriano v. Laguardia; GR No. 165636, April 29, 2009) both under the Rules.

Dissenting Opinion: Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno, in a separate The power to declare a person in contempt of court and in dealing with
dissenting opinion, said that a single government action could be both a him accordingly is a means to protect and preserve the dignity of the
penalty and a prior restraint. The Chief Magistrate pointed out that the court, the solemnity of the proceedings therein and the administration
three month suspension takes such form because it also acts as a of justice from callous misbehavior and offensive personalities. Respect
restraint   to   petitioner’s   future   speech   and thus deserves a higher for the courts guarantees the stability of the judicial institution.
scrutiny   than  the   “context   based”  approach  that   the   majority   applied.   Without such guarantee, the institution would be resting on a very
In  voting  to  grant  Soriano’s  petition,  the  Chief  Justice  said  that  “in  the   shaky foundation. The Court will not hesitate to wield this inherent
absence of proof and reason, he [Soriano] should not be penalized with power to preserve its honor and dignity and safeguard the morals and
a three-month suspension that works as a prior restraint on his ethics of the legal profession.
F11. Pleasant Grove City v. Summum
F9. In Re: Amado P. Macasaet 555 U.S. __ (2009)
561 SCRA 395 (2008)
Summum, a religious organization, sent a letter to the mayor of
The case stemmed from certain articles that appeared in the "Business Pleasant Grove, Utah asking to place a monument in one of the city's
Circuit" column of Amado P. Macasaet in the Malaya, a newspaper of parks. Although the park already housed a monument to the Ten
general circulation of which he is the publisher. The articles, containing Commandments, the mayor denied Summum's request because the
statements and innuendoes about an alleged bribery incident in the monument did not "directly relate to the history of Pleasant Grove."
Supreme Court, came out in four (4) issues of the newspaper on Summum filed suit against the city in federal court citing, among other
September 18, 19, 20 and 21, 2007. things, a violation of its First Amendment free speech rights. The U.S.
Upon evaluation of the columns "Business Circuit" of Amado P. District Court for the District of Utah denied Summum's request for a
Macasaet in the September 18, 19, 20, and 21, 2007 issues of the preliminary injunction.
Malaya, it appears that certain statements and innuendoes therein
tend, directly or indirectly, to impede, obstruct, or degrade the The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reversed the district
administration of justice, within the purview of Section 3(d), Rule 71 of court and granted Summum's injunction request. The Tenth Circuit held
the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. Amado P. Macasaet is ordered to that the park was in fact a "public" forum, not a non-public forum as
explain why no sanction should be imposed on him for indirect the district court had held. Furthermore, Summum demonstrated that
contempt of court it would suffer irreparable harm if the injunction were to be denied,
and the interests of the city did not outweigh this potential harm. The
The High Court created an investigating committee composed of retired injunction, according to the court, was also not against the public
Supreme Court justices. The Investigating Committee held hearings and interest.
gathered affidavits and testimonies from the parties concerned
Does a city's refusal to place a religious organization's monument in a
The Court declares respondent Amado P. Macasaet guilty of indirect public park violate that organization's First Amendment free speech
contempt of court. Unfortunately, the published articles of respondent rights when the park already contains a monument from a different
Macasaet are not of this genre. On the contrary, he has crossed the religious group?
line, as his are baseless scurrilous attacks which demonstrate nothing
but an abuse of press freedom. They leave no redeeming value in No. The Supreme Court reversed the Tenth Circuit holding that the
furtherance of freedom of the press. They do nothing but damage the placement of a monument in a public park is a form of government
integrity of the High Court, undermine the faith and confidence of the speech and therefore not subject to scrutiny under the Free Speech
people in the judiciary, and threaten the doctrine of judicial Clause of the First Amendment. The Court reasoned that since Pleasant
independence Grove City had retained final authority over which monuments were
displayed, the monuments represented an expression of the city's
He published his highly speculative articles that bribery occurred in the viewpoints and thus government speech. Although a park is traditional
High Court, based on specious information, without any regard for the public forum for speeches and other transitory expressive acts, the
injury such would cause to the reputation of the judiciary and the display of a permanent monument in a public park is not a form of
effective administration of justice. Nor did he give any thought to the expression to which forum analysis applies.
undue, irreparable damage such false accusations and thinly veiled
allusions would have on a member of the Court. F12. PHCAP v Duque III
535 SCRA 265 (2007)
F10. Fudot v. Cattleya Land, Inc.
570 SCRA 86 (2008) Facts: Before the Court is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the
Rules of Court, seeking to nullify A.O No. 2006-0012 entitled, “Revised
Mr. Chan had already bought the interest of Cattleya Land, Inc. Implementing Rules and Regulations of Executive Order No 51,
(Cattleya) over a property adjacent to the property subject of the case Otherwise   known   as   the   "Milk   Code,”,   Relevant   International  
and that he was interested in putting up a resort/hotel in the property. Agreements, Penalizing Violations Thereof and for Other Purposes
He wanted to purchase Carmelita Fudot's interest in the property as (RIRR)”.   Petitioner   posits   that   the   RIRR   is   not   valid   as   it   contains
well to put an end to the litigation. On 9 November 2007, the Court provisions that are not constitutional and go beyond the law it is
received from De La Serna a request for the inhibition of Associate supposed to implement.
Justice Dante O. Tinga, claiming that Justice Tinga received P10 Million
from Mr. Johnny Chan (Mr. Chan) in exchange for a favorable decision Issue: WON RIRR is valid and constitutional
in the instant case.
Held: Only Sections 4(f), 11 and 46 of A.O. No. 2006-0012 are declared
After hearing the explanation of both parties, the court holds that Atty. as beyond the authority of the DOH and are therefore null and void.
De La Serna has transcended the permissible bounds of fair comment The rest of the Code is in consonance with the objective, purpose and

60 | P LATON
intent of the Milk Code since it constitutes reasonable regulation of an same day, she issued G.O. No. 5 setting the standards which the AFP
industry which affects public health and welfare. Thus, the rest of RIRR and the PNP should follow in the suppression and prevention of acts of
do not constitute illegal restraint of trade nor are they violative of the lawless violence. Prof. Randolf David and others were then arrested
due process clause of the Constitution. without warrant while they were exercising their right to peaceful
assembly. The authorities also raided the office of the newspaper
Concurring Opinion of Chief Justice Puno: Tribune, threatened the media, imposed censorship and threatened
Another reason why the absolute ban on advertising and promotion of take over public utilities. Petitioners were charged with the crime of
breast milk substitutes found under Sections 4(f) and 11 of A.O. No. inciting  to  sedition  and  violation  of  BP  880,  “The  Public  Assembly Act of
2006-0012 should be struck down: 1985”.

The advertising and promotion of breast milk substitutes is considered Issue: WON PP 1017 and G.O. No. 5 are constitutional
a commercial speech which is a kind of speech that proposes an
economic transaction. It is a separate category of speech which is not Held: PP 1017 is constitutional on the ground that it constitutes a call
accorded the same level of protection as that given to other by the President for the AFP to prevent pr suppress lawless violence.
constitutionally guaranteed forms of expression but is nonetheless But its provisions regarding the President’s   power   to   issue   decrees,  
entitled to protection. Commercial speech must concern lawful activity direct the AFP to enforce obedience to all laws even those which are
and not be misleading if it is to be protected under the First unrelated to lawless violence and to impose standards on media or any
Amendment. The asserted governmental interest must be substantial. for, or prior restraint on the press are unconstitutional.
If both of these requirements are met, it must next be determined
whether the state regulation directly advances the government interest G.O. No. 5 is valid since it is as order issued by the President acting as
asserted, and whether it is not more extensive than is necessary to the Commander-in –Chief addressed to the AFP to carry out the
serve the interest. provision of PP 1017.

The absolute ban on advertising prescribed under Sections 4 (f) and 11 However, the warrantless arrest of the petitioners, the dispersal of
of the RIRR is unduly restrictive and is more than necessary to further rallies and warrantless arrest of others and the imposition of standards
the avowed governmental interest of promoting the health of infants on media or any prior restraint on the press, and the warrantless search
and young children. It must be self-evident, for instance that the of the Tribune offices and the seizures of some articles for publication
advertisement of such products which are strictly informative cuts too are neither authorized by the Constitution nor by the provisions of PP
deep on free speech. The laudable concern of the respondent for the 1017 and G.O. No. 5.
promotion of the health of infants and young children cannot justify the
absolute, overarching ban. *Assembly is a right of the citizens to meet peaceably for consultation
regarding public affairs. It is a necessary consequence of our republican
F13. Bayan v. Ermita institution and complements the right of speech. In connection with
488 SCRA 226 (2006) the freedom of expression, such right is not limited or denied except on
a showing of a clear and present danger of a substantive evil that
Facts:   Petitioners   come   in   three   groups   and   they   assail   BP   880   “The   Congress has a right to prevent. The right to assemble, like other rights
Public   Assembly   Act   of   1985”   ,   some   of   them   in   toto   and   others   only   of freedom of expression, is not subject to previous restraint or
Sections 4, 5, 6, 12, 13(a), and 14(a), as well as the policy of Calibrated censorship. It may not also be conditioned upon the prior issuance of a
Preemptive Response (CPR). They also seek to stop violent dispersals of permit or authorization from the government authorities except if the
rallies under the "no permit, no rally" policy and the CPR policy recently assembly is intended to be held in a public place, a permit for the use of
announced. the place and not the assembly itself may be validly required.

Issues: (1) WON the Calibrated Preemptive Response policy is valid In the case at bar, the petitioners were not notified and heard on the
(2) WON BP 880 is valid and constitutional revocation of their permits. The first time they learned of it was at the
time of the dispersal. Thus, such absence of notice is a fatal defect.
Held: The right to peaceably assemble and petition for redress of
grievances is, together with freedom of speech, of expression, and of *The search conducted in the office of Tribune, even though it has
the press, a right that enjoys primacy in the realm of the constitutional anti-government sentiments, is considered as illegal as it violated
protection. Since these rights constitute the very basis of a functional petitioners’   freedom   of   the   press.   It   must   be   noted   that   freedom   to  
democratic polity, without which all the other rights would be comment on public affairs is essential to the vitality of a representative
meaningless and unprotected. However, such right is not absolute. democracy.
Thus, BP 880 provides restriction that simply regulates the time, place
and manner of the assemblies. It does not impose an absolute ban on *(1) The overbreadth doctrine is an analytical tool developed for testing
public assemblies. ‘’on   their   faces’’   statutes   in   free   speech   cases   known   under   the  
American laws First Amendment Cases. In connection to that, a plain
(1) The Calibrated Preemptive Response (CPR) policy has no place in reading of PP 1017 shows that it is not primarily directed to speech or
our legal firmament and must be struck down. It serves no valid even a speech-related conduct. Also, it is not intended for testing the
purpose if   it   is  also  means  “maximum   tolerance”   under   BP   880   and  is   validity of a law that reflects legitimate interest in maintaining
illegal if it means something else. comprehensive control over harmful constitutionally unprotected
conduct. The claims of facial overbreadth are entertained in cases
(2) BP 880 is valid and constitutional since it does not curtail or unduly involving  statutes  which,  by  their  terms,  seek  to  regulate  only  ‘’spoken  
restrict freedom. It merely regulates the use of public places as to the words  and  again  that  “overbreathed  claims,  if  entertained  at  all  ,  have  
time, place and manner of assemblies.   Moreover,   “maximum   been curtailed when invoked against ordinary criminal laws that are
tolerance" is for the benefit of rallyists, not the government. The sought to be applied to protected conduct.”   Therefore,   PP   1017  
delegation to the mayors of the power to issue rally "permits" is pertains to a spectrum of conduct, not free speech, which is manifestly
likewise valid because it is subject to the constitutionally-sound "clear subject to state regulation.
and present danger" standard.
(2)   Facial   invalidation   of   laws   is   considered   as   “manifestly   strong  
medicine”   to   be   used   “sparingly   and   only   as   a   last   resort” and is
F14. David v. Macapagal-Arroyo
“generally  disfavored”  for  the  reason  that  a  person  to  whom  a  law  may  
486 SCRA 160 (2006)
be applied will not be heard to challenge a law on the ground that it
may be conceivably be applied unconstitutionally to others, for
Facts: As part of the commemoration of EDSA I, Pres. GMA
example, in situations not before the Court. Thus, a facial challenge
promulgated PP 1017 declaring the state of national emergency. On the

61 | P LATON
using the overbreadth doctrine will require the Court to examine pp Although such issuance and sale may be inseparably linked with
1017 and pinpoint its flaws and defects not on the basis of its actual theRoman Catholic Church, any benefit and propaganda incidentally
operation to petitioners but on the assumption that its very existence resulting from it was no the aim or purpose of the Government.
may cause others not before the Court to refrain from constitutionally
protected speech or expression. Defining and Divining Religion
(3) A facial challenge on the ground of overbreadth is the most difficult
In having to decide issues that implicate freedom of religion,
challenge to mount successfully because the challenger must establish
that there can be no instance when the assailed law may be valid. In courts must necessarily have to define what religion is
the case at bar, petitioners did not even attempt to show whether this
situation exists. Defining religion is a difficult task for even theologians,
philosophers and moralists cannot agree on a comprehensive
Chapter 7 definition
Freedom of Religion
Religion is derived from the Middle English religioun, from Old
“No  law  shall  be  made  respecting  an  establishment  of  religion,   French religion, from Latin religio,  vaguely  referring  to  a  ‘bond  
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The free exercise and between  man  and  the  gods’
enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without
discrimination or preference, shall forever be allowed. No The  term  ‘religion’  has  reference  to  one’s  views  of  his  relations  
religious test shall be required for the exercise of civil or to his Creator, and to the obligations they impose of reverence
political  rights.” for his being and character, and of obedience to his will

A   man’s   faith   and   belief are his alone and the State has no The  test  of  belief  “in  a  relation  to  s  Supreme  Being”  is  whether  
business interfering with that a given belief that is sincere and meaningful occupies a place in
the life of its possessor parallel to that filled by the orthodox
The   Constitution   also   provides   in   emphatic   terms”   “The   belief in God of one who clearly qualifies for the exemption
separation  of  Church  and  State  shall  be  inviolable”
Four criteria to qualify as religion under the First Amendment:
The assurance of religious freedom under the Constitution 1. There must be belief in God or some parallel belief that
principally consists of two guarantees, embodied in the so- occupies  a  central  place  in  the  believer’s  life
called  “Establishment  Clause”  and  “Free  Exercise  Clause” 2. The religion must involve a moral code transcending
individual belief, i.e., it cannot be purely subjective
Aglipay v. Ruiz 3. A demonstrable sincerity in belief is necessary, but the court
64 Phil. 201 (1937) must not inquire into the truth or reasonableness of the belief
4. There must be some associational ties, although there is also
Facts: Petitioner seeks the issuance of a writ of prohibition against a view that religious beliefs held by a single person rather than
respondent Director of Posts from issuing and selling postage stamps
being part of the teachings of any kind of group or sect are
commemorative of the 33rd International Eucharistic Congress.
Petitioner contends that such act is a violation of the Constitutional
entitled to the protection of the Free Exercise Clause
provision stating that no public funds shall be appropriated or used in
the benefit of any church, system of religion, etc. This provision is a In Aglipay v. Ruiz, religion has been described as that
result of the principle of the separation of church and state, for the “profession  of  faith  to  an  active  power  that  binds  and  elevates  
purpose of avoiding the occasion wherein the state will use the church, man  to  his  Creator”
or vice versa, as a weapon to further their ends and aims. Respondent
contends that such issuance is in accordance to Act No. 4052, providing American Bible Society v. City of Manila also spoke of religion as
for the appropriation funds to respondent for the production and
having   “reference   to   one’s   view   of   his   relations   to   His   Creator  
issuance of postage stamps as would be advantageous to the
and to the obligations they impose of reverence to His being
and character, and obedience to His Will
Issue: Whether or not there was a violation of the freedom to religion.
The Establishment Clause
Ruling: What is guaranteed by our Constitution is religious freedom and
not mere religious toleration. It is however not an inhibition of This clause principally prohibits the state from sponsoring any
profound reverence for religion and is not a denial of its influence in religion, or favouring any religion as against other religions. It
human affairs. Religion as a profession of faith to an active power that
mandates a strict neutrality in affairs among religious groups
binds and elevates man to his Creator is recognized. And in so far as it
instills into the minds the purest principles of morality, its influence is
deeply felt and highly appreciated. The phrase in Act No. 4052 The state may not favor religion to the extent of enforcing
“advantageous  to the  government”  does  not  authorize  violation  of  the   people to believe in a god or any other supernatural being.
Constitution. The issuance of the stamps was not inspired by any With the freedom to believe also comes the liberty not to
feeling to favor a particular church or religious denomination. They believe in any other being
were not sold for the benefit of the Roman Catholic Church. The
postage stamps, instead of showing a Catholic chalice as originally In the Philippine jurisdiction, there us substantial agreement on
planned, contains a map of the Philippines and the location of Manila,
the values sought to be protected by the Establishment Clause,
with   the   words   “Seat   XXXIII   International   Eucharistic   Congress.”   The  
focus of the stamps was not the Eucharistic Congress but the city of
namely voluntarism and insulation of the political process from
Manila,   being   the   seat   of   that   congress.   This   was   to   “to advertise the interfaith dissension
Philippines   and   attract   more   tourists,”   the   officials   merely   took  
advantage of an event considered of international importance. Religion requires voluntarism because compulsory faith lacks
religious efficacy
62 | P LATON
faith at all. This is not to say, however that religion has been so
Such voluntarism cannot be achieved unless the political identified with our history and government that religious freedom is
process is insulated from religion and unless religion is not likewise as strongly imbedded in our public and private life. Nothing
but the most telling of personal experiences in religious persecution
insulated from politics
could have implanted such belief.
School District of Abington Township v. Schempp
374 U.S. 203, 10 L Ed 2d 844, 83 S Ct 1560 (1963) Marsh v. Chambers
463 U.S. 783, 77 L Ed 2d 1019, 103 S Ct 3330 (1983)
Applicable Amendments: Facts: The Nebraska Legislature begins each of its sessions with a prayer
First Amendment, Establishment Clause: Congress shall make no law by a chaplain paid by the State with the legislature's approval.
respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise Respondent member of the Nebraska Legislature brought an action in
thereof. Federal District Court, claiming that the legislature's chaplaincy practice
violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, and seeking
-No. 142 – The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania requires that at least injunctive relief. The District Court held that the Establishment Clause
ten verses from the Holy Bible shall be read without comment, at the was not breached by the prayer but was violated by paying the chaplain
opening of each Public school on each school day. Any child shall be from public funds, and accordingly enjoined the use of such funds to
excused from such Bible reading, or attending such Bible reading, upon pay the chaplain. The Court of Appeals held that the whole chaplaincy
the request of his parent or guardian. The exercises are broadcast into practice violated the Establishment Clause, and accordingly prohibited
each room in the building through an intercom system. This is followed the State from engaging in any aspect of the practice.
by   the   recitation   of   the   Lord’s   Prayer. Participation in the open
exercises was considered voluntary. The student reading the bible must Issue: Whether or not the legislature's chaplaincy practice violates the
select the passages and read any form or version he chases. (King James Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
version, Douay or the Revised Standard versions as well as the Jewish
Holy Scriptures) Ruling: By a 6-3 vote the Supreme Court permitted the practice of
beginning a legislative session with a prayer delivered by a publicly
-The constitutionality of the said statute was assailed by Edward funded chaplain, with Chief Justice Warren Burger writing the majority
Schempp, a member of the Unitarian faith who, along with his wife and opinion.
children, questioned the validity of the statute, contending that his The Court relied almost entirely on historical practice and tradition.
rights have been violated, under the 14th of table and to the Congress had paid a chaplain and opened sessions with prayers for
Constitution of the United States. almost 200 years. Indeed, the fact that Congress had continued the
practice after considering constitutional objections in the Court's view
-The children study in Abington Senior High School strengthened rather than weakened the historical argument.

-Schempp testified that he at first refused to exercise his prerogative of The opening of sessions of legislative and other deliberative public
excusing his children from the morning exercises upon fear that his bodies with prayer is deeply embedded in the history and tradition of
children would be labeled as odd balls. Their classmates would be liable this country. From colonial times through the founding of the Republic
for lumping religious differences and objections as atheism with and ever since, the practice of legislative prayer has coexisted with the
immoral and un-patriotic overtones. principles of disestablishment and religious freedom. In the very
courtrooms in which the United States District Judge and later three
-Doctor Solomon Grayzel (witness for the appellees): The reading of Circuit Judges heard and decided this case, the proceedings opened
such with an announcement that concluded, "God save the United States
verses without explanation may be psychologically harmful to the and this Honorable Court." The same invocation occurs at all sessions of
children and may cause a divisive force in the social media of the this Court.
In light of the unambiguous and unbroken history of more than 200
-Doctor Luther A. Weigle (witness for the defense): The Bible is a non- years, there can be no doubt that the practice of opening legislative
sectarian piece of literature within among the Christian faiths. The sessions with prayer has become part of the fabric of our society. To
exclusion of the New Testament would be in itself a sectarian practice. invoke Divine guidance on a public body entrusted with making laws is
-The trial court struck down the practices and the statute requiring not, in these circumstances, an "establishment" or a step toward
them after making the specific findings of fact that attendance to establishment; it is simply a tolerable acknowledgement of beliefs
Abington and undergoing the practices were compulsory. The court widely held among the people of this country.
further found that the reading of the verses without comment would
constitute in effect a religious observance. Basically, the decision argued that both the Supreme Court and
Congress have traditionally begun their sessions with prayers. Since
-The   court   rejected   the   defence’s   argument   that   the   children   were   individual states do not have to abide by more stringent First
allowed  to  excuse  themselves  via  their  parents’  request, saying that it Amendment limits than the federal government, then they, too, are
did not mitigate the obligatory nature of the ceremony. This was still in permitted to use prayers. The "Establishment Clause does not always
violation of the establishment clause in that it threatens religious bar a state from regulating conduct simply because it harmonizes with
liberty by putting a premium upon belief as opposed to non-belief, religious concerns."
rendering sinister, alien, and suspect the beliefs, ideals, and even
morality of the petitioners. Marsh vs. chambers
463 us 783 (1983)
Issue: WON rule 142 of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania is
unconstitutional under the violation of the Establishment Clause under Facts: Nebraska Legislature begins its sessions with a prayer offered by
the Fourteenth Amendment. a chaplain who is chosen biennially by the Executive Board of
Legislative Council and paid out of public funds. Respondent, claims
Ruling: Yes. It is true that religion has been closely identified with that   the   Legislature’s   chaplaincy   practice   violates   the   Establishment  
American history and government. This background is evidence today Clause of the First Amendment.
in our public life through the continuance in our oaths of office from
the   Presidency   to   the   Alderman   of   the   final   supplication,   “So   help  me   Issue: whether or not the prayer offered upon the start of every session
God.”  Indeed,  only  last  year,  an  official  survey  of  the  country  indicated   of the Nebraska Legislature and the payment of public funds thereof
that 64% of our people have church membership while 3% profess no constitutes a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First

63 | P LATON
Ammendment? Held: the assistance was unconstitutional. There are three criteria that
should be used to assess legislation: "First, the statute must have a
Held: the prayer offered by the chaplain and the funds paid thereon are secular legislative purpose; second, its principal or primary effect must
not a violation of the Establishment Clause. be one that neither advances or inhibits religion; finally, the statute
must not foster and excessive government Entanglement with religion."
The offering of prayer in the opening of sessions is deeply rooted in the The two statutes in question violate the third of these criteria. The
history and tradition of this country. The practice has coexisted with teachers whose salaries are being partially paid by the State are
the principles of disestablishment and religious freedom. It has religious agents who work under the control of religious officials. There
continued without interruption ever since that early session of is an inherent conflict in this situation of which the state should remain
Congress. However, standing alone, historical patterns cannot justify clear. To ensure that teachers play a non-ideological role would require
contemporary violations of constitutional guarantees. In this context, the state to become entangled with the church. Allowing this
historical evidence shed light not only on what the draftsmen intended relationship could lead to political problems in areas in which a large
the Establishment Clause mean, but also on how they thought that number of students attend religious schools.
Clause applied to the practice authorized by the First Congress- their
actions reveal their intent. Tilton v Richardson
403 us 672 (1971)
392 US 236 (1968) facts: the higher education facilities act was passed in response to a
strong nationwide demand for the expansion of college and university
Facts:   Section   701   of   New   York’s   Education   law   requires   local   public   facilities to meet the sharply rising number of young people demanding
school authorities to lend textbooks free of charge to all students in higher education. Act provides federal construction grants and loan for
grade  …  including  those  in  private  and  parochial  schools.    The  appellant   college   and   university   facilities,   excluding   “any   facility   used   or   to   be  
school board sought a declaration that the statutory requirement was used   for   sectarian   instruction   or   as   a   place   of   religious   worship,   or   …  
invalid as violative of the State and Federal Constitutions, an order primarily in connection with any part of the program of a school or
barring the appellee Commissioner of Education from removing department of divinity.”    The  act  stipulated  that  after  twenty  years,  the  
appellant’s   members   from   office   for   failing   to   comply   with   it,   and   an   school could use the facilities for whatever purpose they chose.
order preventing the use of state funds for the purchase of textbooks
to be lent to parochial students. Held:

Held: the express purpose of the law is the furtherance of the the Court decided that the grants for non-religious school facilities did
educational opportunities available to the young. There is nothing that not violate the Establishment Clause. it decided that the provision
shows about the necessary effects of the statute that is contrary to its limiting   the   statutes’   interest   to   twenty   years   was   unconstitutional.
stated purpose. The law merely makes available to all children the
benefits of a general program to lend school books free of charge. The primary effect of the Higher Education Facility Act was not to aid
religious institutes. The objective was to encourage education among
WALZ VS. TAX COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK the   country’s   youth.   In   an   earlier case (Bradfield v. Rob) the Court
397 US 664 (1970) decided that not all of financial aid to church-sponsored activities
violates the religious clauses of the constitution. The beneficiaries of
facts: appellant imsiccessfully sought an injunction in the New York the act are secondary schools in which children are not as susceptible
courts to prevent the NY Tax Commission fom granting property tax to religious coercion and in which religious instruction is not as central
exemptions to religious organizations for properties used solely for to  the  curriculum.  Because  the  State’s  interest  in  the  structure  remains  
religious worship, as authorized by the state constitution and the after twenty years, the provision giving the schools the ability to use
implementing statue. The appellant contends that the grant of tax the facility for religious purposes is unconstitutional. This finding does
exemptions to church property indirectly requires the appellant to not require the invalidating of the entire act because it was not
make a contribution to religious bodies, and thereby violates the essential to the whole law. The HEFA(higher education financial aid) did
Establishment and Free Exercise Clause. not lead to excessive entanglement because the aid was aimed at
religiously neutral facilities. Also, the aid was non-ideological and was a
Held: the legislative purpose of the property tax exemptions is neither one-time, single-purpose program. The taxpayers� rights were not
the advancement nor the inhibition of religion; it is neither sponsorship violated by the act because there was no coercion directed at the
nor hostility. NY has determined thath certain entities that exist in practice or exercise of their religious beliefs.
harmonious relationship to the community at large, and that foster its
“moral   and   mental   improvement”   should   not   be   inhibited   in   their  
activities by property taxation or the hazard of loss of its property for In making this decision the Court did not discuss whether the assistance
nonpayment of taxes. Nothing in this national attitude towards to the religious schools for non-religious purposes would enhance their
religious tolerance and two centuries of uninterrupted freedom from ability to further their religious instruction. Taxpayers, whose money
taxation has given the remotest sign of leading to an established church was given to religious institutions, were not harmed provided their own
or religion, it has operated affirmatively to guarantee the free exercise religious practices were not affected.
of all forms of religious beliefs.
Agostini v. Felton
Lemon v. Kurtzman 521 US 203 (1997)
403 US 602 (1971)
Facts: A New York parochial school board challenged the District Court's
Facts: a Pennsylvania and Rhode Island statutes providing state aid to upholding of a twelve year-old decision in Aguilar v. Felton which
church-related elementary and secondary schools. Both statutes are prohibited public school teachers from teaching in parochial schools.
challenged as violative of the Establishment and Free Exercise Clause. The current proposal offered help to needy students in private schools
The Pennsylvanian statutes reimburse the cost of teachers’   salaries,   by sending public school teachers to tutor them after school. New York
textbooks, and instructional materials in specified secular subjects. was forced to offer remedial help to students through 'local educational
Rhode Island pays directly to teachers in nonpublic elementary shools a agencies'. Students did not need to attend public schools in order to be
supplement of 15% of their salaries. A federal court upheld the eligible for the assistance. Those who were to receive tutoring were
Pennsylvania law while a District Court ruled that the Rhode Island law students who a) reside in low income areas or b) failed or were at risk
fostered 'excessive entanglement'. of failing the state's student performance standards.

64 | P LATON
Held: the Court allowed public school teachers to tutor private school the individual from obedience to a general law not aimed at the
students in their private schools. Because of the Supreme Court's ruling promotion or restriction of religious beliefs. The mere possession of
in Aguilar, the State had been forced to tutor students in either public religious convictions which contradict the relevant concerns of a
schools or mobile units outside of the parochial schools. As a result, the political society does not relieve the citizen from the discharge of
school board was forced to deduct $7.9 million dollars from their political responsibilities." Finally, compulsion is not a legitimate means
budget for transportation and establishing the mobile units. An earlier for creating national unity.
ruling in Zobrest disavowed a ban of placing all public employees in
sectarian schools (a sign language interpreter had been provided for a Gerona v. Secretary of Education
deaf student). Additionally, not all government aid that directly assists 106 Phil. 2 (1959)
in the educational function of religious schools is invalid. The location of
the classroom (either in public or religious schools) should not matter. Facts: In accordance to Sec. 2 of R.A. 1265 of June 11, 1995, authorizing
Furthermore, there is little difference between providing a sign and directing the Sec. of Education to issue or cause to be issued rules
language interpreter, which the Court already allowed, and a tutor. The and regulations for the proper conduct of the flag ceremony, he issued
interaction that would result between the state and church is allowable Department Order No. 8 series of 1995 making it compulsory for public
because a relationship between the two is inevitable. This decision and private schools to have daily flag ceremonies. Petitioners,
reinforces the belief that the state can conduct public programs in members of the religious group known as   Jehovah’s   Witnesses,   have  
religious schools without becoming excessively entangled with the children attending a school in Masbate and said children refused to
religion. This is contrary to the earlier attitude that there must be an salute the flag, sing the national anthem and recite the patriotic pledge.
absolute wall between public and religious schools. As a result, they were expelled from school. They wrote to the
Secretary of Education petitioning that their children be allowed to
The Free Exercise Clause remain silent, stand at attention and that they be exempted from
saluting the flag, singing the national anthem and reciting the patriotic
Under this part of the religious freedom guarantee, the state is pledge.   Their   ground   is   their   belief   as   Jehovah’s   witnesses   that   they
must  not  “bow  down  nor  serve”  any  image  (Ex  20:  4-5), and the flag, for
prohibited from unduly interfering with the outward
them, is considered as an image of the State. However, the Secretary
manifestations  of  one’s  beliefs  and  faith denied such petition. Petitioners filed a complaint against them and
prayed for the declaration of Department Order No. 8 as invalid and
With this free exercise guarantee, the individual is assured that contrary to the Bill of Rights, but the trial court dismissed such
his religion would not be confined to thought only but also may complaint.
find   expression   through   action.   “The   Free   Exercise   Clause  
accords absolute protection to individual religious convictions Issue: WON Department Order No. 8, which made it compulsory for
and beliefs and proscribes government from questioning a public and private schools to have daily flag ceremonies, is valid and
person’s   beliefs   or   imposing   penalties   or   disabilities   based  
solely on those beliefs. The Clause extends protection to both Held: The Filipino flag is not an image which requires religious
beliefs and unbelief” veneration but it is a symbol of the Republic of the Philippines. Also, the
flag salute is not a religious ceremony but an act of profession of love
Further, while freedom to believe may be absolute, the liberty and allegiance and pledge of loyalty to the fatherland which the flag
to act on said belief is not so. The same may be subject to valid stands for. By the authority of the legislature, the Secretary of
state regulations designed to promote the general welfare and Education was duly authorized to promulgate Department Order No. 8
the interests of society which does not violate the Constitutional provision about freedom
and religion and exercise of religion. And since compliance with the
non-discriminatory and reasonable rules and regulations and school
The government must be able to show a compelling state discipline, which includes the observance of the flag ceremony, is a pre-
interest in order to justify any regulation that may impair requisite to attendance in public schools, the failure and refusal of the
religious exercise petitioners to participate in the flag ceremony led to their proper
exclusion and dismissal.
The Free Exercise Clause principally guarantees voluntarism,
although the Establishment Clause also assures voluntarism by Ebralinag v. Division of Superintendent of schools of Cebu
placing the burden of advancement of religious groups on their 219 SCRA 256 (1993)
intrinsic merits and not on the support of the state
Facts: The petitioners, assisted by their parents, are high school and
West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette grade school students  who   belong   to   the   religious   group   of   Jehovah’s  
319 US 624 (1943) Witnesses. They were expelled from school by the public authorities in
Cebu because they refuse to salute the flag, sing the national anthem,
Facts: s part of instituting a required curriculum teaching American and recite the patriotic pledge as required by R.A. No. 1265 of July 11,
values, the state of West Virginia forced students and teachers to 1995 and by Department Order No. 8 of July 21, 1995 of DECS which
participate in saluting the flag. Failure to comply with this resulted in made the flag ceremony compulsory in all educational institutions.
expulsion and the student was considered illegally absent until Jehovah’s   Witnesses   admittedly   teach   their   children   not   to   salute   the  
readmitted. A group of Jehovah's Witnesses refused to salute the flag flag, sing the national anthem and recite the patristic pledge for they
because it represented a graven image that was not to be recognized. consider  such  acts  as  ‘’acts  of  worship’’  which  should  be  only  given  to  
God.   They   feel   bound   by   the   Bible’s   command   to   ‘’guard   themselves  
Held: the Court ruled that the school district violated the rights of against  idols’’  (1  John  5:21)  as  they  also  consider  the  flag  as  an  image  or  
students by forcing them to salute the American flag. The refusal of the idol representing the State.
students to say the pledge did not infringe on the rights of other
students. The flag salute required students to declare a belief that was Issue: WON the school children who are members of a religious sect
contrary to their faiths. The state did not claim that a clear and present known   as   Jehovah’s   Witnesses   may   be   expelled   from   school   for  
danger would be created if the students remained passive during the refusing, on account of their beliefs, to take part in the flag ceremony,
pledge. Unlike the decision in Gobitis, this Court does not believe that which includes playing by a band or singing the Philippine national
allowing an individual's rights to be supported over government anthem, saluting the Philippine flag, and reciting the patriotic pledge
authority is a sign of a weak government. "Conscientious scruples have
not, in the course of the long struggle for religious toleration, relieved Held: Although the petitioners do not take part in the compulsory flag
ceremony,  they  do  not,  however,  engage  in  ‘’external  acts’’  or  behavior  

65 | P LATON
that would offend their countrymen who express their love of country not a regulation. If a certificate is procured, solicitation is permitted
through the flag ceremony. They quietly stand at attention during the without restraint, but in the absence of which, solicitation is altogether
flag ceremony to show respect for the right of those who participate in prohibited. However, they argue that requiring them to procure a
the solemn proceedings. Since they do not engage in disruptive certificate would be a restraint on the exercise of their religion. The
behavior, there is no warrant for their expulsion. conviction of Jesse must be reversed since there was no evidence that
his deportment was noisy, truculent, overbearing or offensive. He
The sole justification for a prior restraint or limitation on the exercise of actually had not invaded a right or interest of the public or of the men
religious freedom is the existence of a grave and present danger of a accosted. It likewise did not amount to a breach of the peace. The
character both grave and imminent, of a serious evil to public safety, petitioner’s   communication   raised   no   such   clear   and   present   danger  
public morals, public health, or any other legitimate public interest, to public peace and order.
that the State has a right and duty to prevent. Without such threat to
public safety, the expulsion of the petitioners from school is not Iglesia Ni Cristo v. CA
justified. 259 SCRA 529 (1996)

Also, the  expulsion  of  the  members  Jehovah’s  Witnesses  from  schools   Facts:   Petitioners   were   members   of   the   “Iglesia   ni   Cristo”   religious  
where they are enrolled will violate their right as citizens of the group. As they have TV programs aired during Saturdays and Sundays,
Philippines, under the 1987 constitution, to receive free education, about the propagation of their religion, they submitted to the Board of
because  it  is  the  duty  of  the  State  to  “protect  and  promote the right of Review for Moving Pictures and Television the VTR series of their
all citizens to quality education... and to make such education program.   However,   the   Board   classified   such   series   as   “X”   or   not   for  
accessible  to  all”  Sec.  1,  Art.  XIV. public viewing since they offend and constitute an attack against other
religions which is expressly prohibited by law. Petitioner filed two
Resolution on Motion for Reconsideration courses of action against the Board and appealed to the Office of the
251 SCRA 569 (1995) President which reversed the decision of the respondent Board and
allowed the series for public viewing. Petitioner also filed an case
Facts: The State moves for a reconsideration of the decision on March against the respondent Board with the RTC of Quezon City on the
1, 1993  which  granted  private   respondents’   petition  for   certiorari   and   ground that the Board acted without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of
prohibition and annulled the expulsion orders issued by said discretion in requiring them to submit their VTR tapes and x-rating
respondents on the ground that the decision created and exemption in them. The RTC ordered the Board to grant the petitioner the necessary
favor  of  the  Jehovah  Witnesses’  religious  group  members  ,  in violation permit for public viewing but it directed the petitioner to refrain from
of  the  “Establishment  Clause”  of  the  Constitution.    Although  they  refuse attacking  or  offending  other  religions.  Upon  the  petitioner’s  motion  for  
to salute the flag, they are willing to stand quietly and peacefully at reconsideration, the directive to refrain from attacking other religions
attention in order not to disrupt the ceremony or to disturb those who was deleted and the Board was prohibited from requiring the petitioner
believe differently. to submit a review of their VTR of their program. The CA however
reversed the RTC decision and held that the Board has the jurisdiction
Issue: WON the compulsory flag salute is valid and  power  to  review  the  petitioner’s  TV  program  and  that  it  did  not  act  
with grave abuse of discretion. The CA likewise found the series
Held:   The   refusal   of   the   Jehovah’s   Witnesses   in   saluting   the   flag   is   “indecent,  contrary  to  law  and  contrary  to  good  customs”.
based on their religious belief which is shared by their entire
community. As the petitioners were expelled because of their religious Issues:  (1)  WON  respondent  Board  has  the  power  to  review  petitioner’s  
belief, such action, as stated by the Court, was against religious TV program
practice. It is likewise apparent that the said orders and memoranda (2) assuming it has power, WON it gravely abused its discretion when it
would gravely endanger the free exercise of the religious beliefs of the prohibited   the   airing   of   petitioner’s   religious   program   series   on   the  
members of their sects. The refusal to salute the flag is not the same as ground that they constitute an attack against other religions and that
the refusal to pay taxes and to submit to compulsory vaccination since they are indecent, contrary to law and good customs.
the former has no threat to the life or health of the State. Thus, there is
no reason for compulsory or coercive flag salute. Although the Held: (1) PD No. 1986 gives the Board the power to screen, review,
Constitution provides for a national flag, it does not give the State the examine   all   “television   programs,   and   to   “approve,   delete,   and/or  
power to compel a salute to the flag. prohibit   the  exhibition  and/or  television  broadcast  of  TV  programs”.  It  
also directs the Board to apply contemporary Filipino cultural values as
Cantwell v. Connecticut standard   to   “determine those which are objectionable for being
310 U.S. 296, 84 L Ed 1213, 60 S Ct 900 (1940) immoral, indecent, contrary to law and/or good customs, injurious to
the prestige of the Republic of the Philippines and its people, or with a
Facts: Newton Cantwell and his 2 sons, Jesse and Russell, are members dangerous tendency to encourage the commission of violence or of a
of  the  religious  group  Jehovah’s  Witnesses.  They  were  arrested  because wrong   or   a   crime.”   Thus,   it   has   jurisdiction   to   review   petitioner’s   TV  
they were engaged in selling books and soliciting in a neighborhood program  entitled  “Ang  Iglesia  ni  Cristo”.
street which is thickly populated by 90% Roman Catholics. Jesse *The right to religious profession and worship has a 2-fold aspect:
Cantwell, asked two men to listen to a phonograph record which freedom   to   believe   and   freedom   to   act   on   one’s   belief.   The   first   is  
attacked their religion as they were Catholics. They were tempted to absolute as long as the belief is confined within the realm of thought
strike Cantwell unless he went away. Thus, Cantwell went away and while the second is subject to regulation where the belief is translated
there was no evidence that he was personally offensive or had entered into external acts that affect the public welfare.
into any argument with them. However, the Cantwells were arrested in (2) However, the Court reversed the ruling of the CA since the claim of
violation of the General Statutes of Connecticut which prohibited the Board that such TV programs attack the Catholic faith, has no basis.
solicitation of money, services, subscriptions, or any valuable thing for The CA has not even viewed the tapes as they were not presented as
any alleged religious, charitable or philanthropic cause unless such evidence but it considered them as indecent, contrary to law and good
cause is approved by the secretary of public welfare council. They were customs. Such   ruling   suppresses   petitioner’s freedom of speech and
also convicted of the common law offense of inciting breach of peace. interferes with its right to free exercise of religion. The respondents
cannot   also   rely   on   the   ground   “attacks   another   religion””   in   x-rating
Issue: WON the method adoption by Connecticut to that end the religious program of the petitioner since such claim was merely
transgresses the liberty safeguarded by the Constitution added by the Board to its Rules. They have also failed o apply the clear
and present danger rule since there is no showing of the type of harm
Held: The statute deprives the appellants of their liberty without due that the tapes would bring about especially the gravity ad imminence of
process of law in contravention of the 14th Amendment for which they the threatened harm.
were arrested. They were also right in their insistence that the Act is

66 | P LATON
US v. Ballard
322 U.S. 78, 88 L Ed 1148, 64 S Ct 882 (1944) It is a flat license tax levied and collected as a condition to the pursuit of
activities whose enjoyment is guaranteed by the constitutional liberties
Facts:   Respondents   belong   to   the   “I   Am”   movement   which   promotes   of press and religion and inevitably tends to suppress their exercise.
the religious belief and doctrines that a certain Guy W. Ballard, now
deceased, alias Saint Germain, had been selected and designated by Ordinance No. 3000 does not impose any charge upon the enjoyment
alleged   “ascertained   masters”   as   a divine messenger. They also of a right granted by the Constitution, nor tax the exercise of religious
believed   that   the   messages   of   such   “ascertained   masters”   and   of   the   practice.
alleged divine entity, Saint Germain, would be transmitted to mankind
through Guy W. Ballard. Edna W. Ballard and Donald Ballard were also In Re Summers
allegedly selected as messengers just like Guy. They also believed that 325 US 561, 89 L Ed 1795, 65 S Ct 1307 (1945)
they have supernatural powers which enable them to heal persons with
ailments. They were indicted and convicted for using and conspiring to FACTS:  Petitioner’s  prayer  for  admission  to  the  practice  of  law  in  Illinois  
use mails to defraud in the organization and promotion of their was  denied  by  the  State’s  Supreme  Court  allegedly  “on  the  sole  ground  
movement.   They   were   also   charged   since   they   “well   knew”   that   what   that   he   is   a   conscientious   objector   to   war,”   or,   “because   of   his  
they believed in was false. conscientious scruples against participation in  war”.  From  the  record,  it  
appears that Clyde Wilson Summers has complied with all the
Issues:   WON   in   respondents’   good   faith,   i.e.   whether   they   did   not   prerequisites for admission to the bar of Illinois except that he has not
believe those things, that Jesus or Saint Germain came down and obtained the certificate of the Committee on Character and fitness,
dictated, or those things that they wrote, and preached, they used the which committee declined to sign a favourable certificate on the
mail for the purpose of getting money ground that petitioner was a conscientious objector to war.

Held: On appeal, the Circuit CA reversed, holding that the decision of THE   COURT’S   RULING:   The   decision   of   the   Supreme   Court   of   Illinois  
the   District   Court   in   restricting   the   jury   to   the   issue   of   respondents’   denying  the  petitioner’s  admission  to  the  practice  of  law  in  Illinois  was  
good faith was error and granted a new trial. The SC granted certiorari AFFIRMED.
because of the importance of the question presented. The Circuit CA
held that the question of the truth of the representations concerning REASON: A conscientious belief in nonviolence to the extent that the
respondents’  religious  beliefs  or  doctrines  should  have  been  submitted   believer will not use force to prevent wrong, no matter how
to the jury and thus, it remanded the case for a new trial. aggravated, and so cannot swear in good faith to support the Illinois
Constitution, must disqualify such a believer for admission.
We   do   not   agree   that   the   truth   or   verity   of   respondents’   religious  
doctrines or beliefs should have been submitted to the jury. The The responsibility for choice as to the personnel of its bar rests with
District court ruled properly when it withheld from the jury all Illinois. Only a decision which violated a federal right secured by the
questions concerning the truth or falsity of the religious beliefs or Fourteenth Amendment would authorize our intervention...We cannot
doctrines   of   respondents.   “The   law   knows   no   heresy,   and   is   say that any such purpose to discriminate motivated the action of the
committed  to  the  support  of  no  dogma,  the  establishment  of  no  sect” Illinois Supreme Court.
(Watson v Jones, 13 Wall. 679, 728). The First Amendment does not
only   “forestall   compulsion   by   law   of   the   acceptance   of   any   creed   or   It is impossible for us to conclude that the insistence of Illinois that an
the  practice  of  any  form  of  worship”  but  it  also  “safeguards  the  free   officer who is charged with the administration of justice must take an
exercise of the chosen form of religion”   (Cantwell   v   Connecticut,   310   oath  to  support  the  Constitution  of  Illinois  and  Illinois’  interpretation of
U.S. 296, 303). It also does not select any one group or any type of that oath to require a willingness to perform military service violates
religion for preferred treatment. the principles of religious freedom.

American Bible Society v. City of Manila *However, Mr. Justice Black filed a DISSENT stating among other things
101 Phil. 386 (1957) that,  “Under  our  (US)  Constitution,  men  are  punished  for  what they do
or  fail  to  do,  and  not  for  what  they  think  and  believe.”
FACTS: The American Bible Society is a foreign, non-stock, non-profit,
religious, missionary corporation doing business in the Philippines Wisconsin v. Yoder
through its Philippine agency established in manila in 1898. In the 406 US 205, 32 L Ed 2d 15, 92 S Ct 1526 (1972)
course of its ministry, the Society has been distributing and selling
bibles and/or gospel portions thereof. Sometime in 1953, the acting FACTS: Respondents were members of the Amish religion. They and
City treasurer of manila required the Society to secure the their families are residents of Green County, Wisconsin.   Wisconsin’s  
corresponding   Mayor’s   permit   and   license   fees.   The   Society   paid   the   compulsory school attendance law required them to cause their
accumulated permit and license fees (P5,891.45) under protest and children to attend public or private school until reaching age 16, but the
then filed a complaint in court to question the constitutionality and respondents declined to send their children. They believed that, by
legality of the ordinances under which the said fees were being sending their children to high school, they would not only expose
collected. themselves to the danger of censure of the church community, but also
endanger their own salvation and that of their children. The Wisconsin
ISSUE:  “Whether  or  not  Ordinance  2529  (requiring  every  entity  engaged   Supreme Court sustained respondents claim under the Free Exercise
in business to pay a license fee based on gross sales) and ordinance Clause of the First Amendment, and reversed the convictions.
3000 (requiring that a municipal permit to be first obtained before
engaging in business) could be made applicable to the American Bible THE  COURT’S   RULING:  The   First   and  Fourteenth  Amendments  prevent  
Society.” the State from compelling respondents to cause their children to attend
formal high school to age 16.
THE   COURT’S   RULING:   Defendant   was   sentenced   to   return   to   the  
plaintiff the sum of P5,891.45 unduly collected from it. REASON: Old Order Amish communities today are characterized by a
fundamental belief that salvation requires life in a church community
REASON: The Constitutional guarantee of the free exercise and separate and apart from the world and worldly influence. In the Amish
enjoyment of religious profession and worship carries with it the right belief, higher learning tends to develop values they reject as influences
to disseminate religious information. Any restraint of such right can that alienate man from God.
only be justified like other restraints of freedom of expression on the
grounds that there is a CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER OF ANY As the record strongly shows, the values and programs of the modern
SUBSTANTIVE EVIL which the State has the right to prevent. secondary school are in sharp conflict with the fundamental mode of

67 | P LATON
life mandated by the Amish religion. familiar inscribed yellow T-shirts, they started to march down said
street with raised clenched fists and shouts of government invectives.
The   enforcement   of   the   State’s   requirement   of   compulsory   formal   However, they were barred from proceeding any further, on the ground
education after the eighth grade would gravely endanger, if not that St. Jude Chapel was located within the Malacañang security area.
destroy,  the  free  exercise  of  respondents’  religious  beliefs. However, because of the alleged warning given them by respondent
Major Lariosa that any similar attempt by petitioners to enter the
The Amish alternative to formal secondary school education has church in the future would likewise be prevented, petitioners took this
enabled them to function effectively in their day-to-day life under self- present recourse.
imposed limitations on relations with the world, and to survive and
prosper in contemporary society as a separate, sharply identifiable and THE  COURT’S  RULING:  The  instant  petition  is  hereby  dismissed.
highly self-sufficient community for more than 200 years in this
country. REASON: Undoubtedly, the yellow T-shirts worn by some of the
marchers, their raised clenched fists, and chants of anti-government
slogans strongly   tend   to   substantiate   the   respondents’   allegation   that  
*To have the protection of the religion Clauses, the claims must be the petitioners intend to conduct an anti-government demonstration.
rooted in religious belief.
While it is beyond debate that every citizen has the undeniable and
Victoriano  v.  Elizalde  Rope  Workers’  Union inviolable right to religious freedom, the exercise thereof, and of all
59 SCRA 54 (1974) fundamental rights for that matter, must be done in good faith.

FACTS:  Appellee,  a  member  of  the  religious  sect   known  as  the  “Iglesia   The restriction imposed is necessary to maintain the smooth
ni   Cristo”   had   been   in   the   employ   of   the   Elizalde   Rope   Factory,   Inc. functioning of the executive branch of the government, which
since 1958. As such employee, he was a member of the Elizalde Rope petitioners’  mass  action  would  certainly  disrupt.
Workers’   Union.   A   closed-shop provision was contained in the
collective bargaining agreement which required membership in the DOCTRINE   LAID   DOWN   IN   THIS   CASE:   “If   the   exercise   of   said   religious  
Union as a condition of employment for all permanent employees. belief clashes with the established institutions of society and with the
However,  RA  3350  was  enacted,  providing  that,  “such  agreement  shall   law,  then  the  former  must  yield  and  give  way  to  the  latter.”
not cover members of any religious sects which prohibit affiliation of
their members in any such labor organization. Thereupon, the Union However, several justices filed separate opinions:
wrote a formal letter to the Company asking the latter to separate
appellee from the service in view of the fact that he was resigning from FERNANDO, C.J. –concurs in the result but dissents insofar as the
the Union as a member. The management of the company informed opinion fails to declare that the freedom of exercise of religious
appellee that unless he could achieve a satisfactory arrangement with profession and worship could only be limited by the existence of a clear
the Union, the company would be constrained to dismiss him from the and present danger of a substantive evil.
ABAD SANTOS, J. (dissenting) –“It  is  highly  presumptuous  for  both  the  
THE   COURT’S   RULING:   The   decision   of   the   Court   of   First   Instance   of   respondents and this Court to attribute unstated and unadmitted
Manila enjoining the Company from dismissing the appellee and motives to the petitioners. I fail to perceive the presence of any clear
sentencing   the   Union   to   pay   Appellee   P500   for   attorney’s   fees   and   danger to the security of Malacañang due to the action of petitioners.”
costs of the action is AFFIRMED.
MELENCIO-HERRERA, J. (dissenting) –“The   location   of   the   St.   Jude  
REASON: It is clear that the right to join a union includes the right to Chapel within the perimeter of the Malacañang security area is not, to
abstain from joining any union. my  mind,  sufficient   reason  for  a  prior  restraint  on  petitioner’s  right  to  
freedom of religious worship.
RA 3350 merely excludes ipso jure from the application and coverage of
the closed shop agreement the employees belonging to any religious RELOVA, J. (Separate vote and statement) –“The   fact   that   petitioners  
sects which prohibit affiliation of their members with any labor chose a Tuesday to hear mass and/or pray for their special intention
organization. In spite of any closed shop agreement, members of said negates the suspicion that they were out to stage a demonstration.
religious sects cannot be refused employment or dismissed from their Respondents should have allowed petitioners to hear mass and/or pray
jobs on the sole ground that they are not members of the collective and,  thereafter,  see  what  they  would  do.”
bargaining union.
Estrada v. Escritor
The free exercise of religious profession or belief is superior to contract 408 SCRA 1 (2003)
rights. It is only where unavoidably necessary to prevent an IMMEDIATE
AND GRAVE DANGER to the security and welfare of the community that FACTS: Compalinant Alejandro Estrada wrote to the presiding judge of
infringement of religious freedom may be justified, and only to the Branch 253, Regional Trial Court of Las Piñas City, requesting for an
smallest extent necessary to avoid the danger. investigation of rumors that respondent Soleded Escritor, court
interpreter in said court, is living with a man not her husband. They
The exemption from the effects of the closed shop agreement does not allegedly have a child of eighteen to twenty years old. She admitted
directly advance, or diminish, the interests of any particular religion. that she has been living with Luciano Quilapio Jr., without the benefit of
The benefit upon the religious sects is merely incidental and indirect. marriage for twenty years and that they have a son. Quilapio was
likewise married at that time, but had been separated in fact from his
*A statute in order to withstand the strictures of constitutional wife.   But   as   a   member   of   the   religious   sect   known   as   the   Jehovah’s  
prohibition, must have a secular legislative purpose and a primary Witnesses and the Watch Tower and Bible Tract Society, their conjugal
effect that neither advances nor inhibits religion. arrangement is in conformity with their religious beliefs. In fact, the
respondent has executed a Declaration of Pledging Faithfulness that is
German v. Barangan recognized as giving the parties the right to marital relationship even if
135 SCRA 514 (1985) not recognized by civil authorities.

FACTS: Petitioners –composed of about 50 businessman, students and PRINCIPAL  ISSUE:   “Whether   or   not   respondent   should   be   found  guilty  
office employees—converged at J.P. laurel Street, Manila, for the of  the  administrative  charge  of  gross  and  immoral  conduct”.
ostensible purpose of hearing mass at the St. Jude Chapel which adjoins
the Malacañang grounds located in the same street. Wearing the SUB-ISSUE:   “Whether   or   not   respondent’s   right   to   religious   freedom  

68 | P LATON
should carve out an exception from the prevailing jurisprudence on in carefully balancing the interests and values implicated in
illicit relations for which government employees are held each case that may be brought before them
administratively  liable.”
Religious Affairs, Intramural Disputes and Secular Jurisdiction
THE   COURT’S   RULING:     The   case   is   REMANDED   to   the   Office   of   the  
Court Administrator.
While generally it should be no business of the government
The Solicitor General is ordered to intervene in the case where it will be trying to meddle in problems among members of the same
given the opportunity: (a) to examine the sincerity and centrality of sectarian group, the same would hold true only on matters of
respondent’s   claimed   religious   belief   and   practice;   (b)   to   present   purely religious dogma and discipline. It cannot, withhold its
evidence  on  the  state’s  “compelling  interest”  to  respondent’s  religious   judicial or administrative machineries when the dispute spills
belief and practice and (c) that the means the state adopts in pursuing over to the secular concerns of society
its  interest  is  the  least  restrictive  to  respondent’s  religious  freedom.

REASON: The jurisdiction of the Court extends only to public and

When the problem is about more mundane matters, however,
secular morality. such as when they involve conflicting claims to the same
property, or when they are concerned with civil aspects of
Should   the   Court   declare   respondent’s   conduct   as   immoral and held membership in society, such as employment, then the courts
her administratively liable, the Court will be holding that in the realm of and secular authorities would have to interpose their power
public morality, her conduct is reprehensible or there are state
interests overriding her religious freedom. But in so ruling, the Court In matters purely ecclesiastical the decisions of the proper
does not and cannot say that her conduct should be made
church tribunals are conclusive upon the civil tribunals
reprehensible in the realm of her church where it is presently
sanctioned and that she is answerable for her immorality to Jehovah
God nor that other religions prohibiting her conduct are correct. Austria v. NLRC
312 SCRA 410 (1999)
In any event, even if the court  deems  sufficient  respondent’s  evidence  
on the sincerity of her religious belief and centrality to her faith, the Petitioner was a pastor of private respondent Central Philippine Union
case  at  bar  cannot  still  be  decided  using  the  “compelling  state  interest”   Mission Corporation of the Seventh Day Adventist, a religious
test. corporation duly organized and existing under Philippine Law.
Petitioner worked with the SDA for 28 years. Petitioner one day
The government should be given the opportunity to demonstrate the received a letter of dismissal citing misappropriation of funds, willful
compelling state interest it seeks to uphold in opposing the breach of trust, serious misconduct, gross and habitual neglect of duties
respondent’s  stance  that  her  conjugal  arrangement  is  not  immoral  and   and the like as grounds for the termination of his services. Petitioner
punishable as it comes within the scope of the free exercise protection. then filed a complaint against SDA and its officers before the Labor
Arbiter for illegal dismissal and ruled in his favor. On appeal, the NLRC
*The benevolent neutrality approach is used in interpreting the vacated  the  arbiter’s  decision  and  dismissed  the  case  for  want  of  merit.  
religious clauses in the Philippine Constitution. The private respondents filed a motion for reconsideration and ruled
*Benevolent Neutrality Approach –looks further than the secular that it has no jurisdiction over the matter because it involves
purposes of government action and examines the effect of these ecclesiastical affair to which state cannot interfere.
actions on religious exercise.
*Tests must be applied to draw the line between permissible and HELD: The separation of church and state finds no application in this
forbidden religious exercise: case. What is involved is the relationship of the church as an employer
and  the  minister  as  an  employee.  The  grounds  invoked  for  petitioner’s  
CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER TEST; IMMEDIATE AND GRAVE DANGER dismissal are all based on Article 282 of the Labor code which
TEST –involves religious speech as this test is often used in cases of enumerates just causes for termination of employment. By this alone, it
freedom of expression. is  palpable  that  the  reason  for  petitioner’s  dismissal from the service is
not religious in nature. And it is clear that when the SDA dismissed the
COMPELING STATE INTEREST TEST –is proper where conduct is petitioner, it was merely exercising its management prerogative to fire
involved. an employee which it believes to be unfit for the job.

In a vain attempt to support their claim of breach of trust, private

The Tension Between the Establishment Clause and the Free respondents pin on the petitioner the alleged non-remittance of the
Exercise Clause tithes collected by his wife. As proven by convincing and substantial
evidence it was the wife of the petitioner who collected the tithes and
The two subclauses of the provision on religion are meant to failed to remit the same and not the petitioner. There being no
ensure the guarantee that they were meant to vivify conspiracy or collusion, the petitioner cannot be held accountable for
the alleged infraction of his wife.
The First Amendment forbids both the abridgment of the free
Wherefore, the petition for certiorari is granted. The challenged
exercise   of   religion   and   the   enactment   of   laws   ‘respecting   an  
resolution of the public respondent NLRC, is nullified and set aside. The
establishment  of  religion’ decision of the Labor Arbiter is reinstated and hereby affirmed.

Even as they might have common purpose, the two clauses Islamic  Da’wah  Council  Of  The  Phils.,  Inc  v.  Office  of  the  Executive  
may somehow come into conflict if they were allowed to be Secretary
extended to their logical end 405 SCRA 497 (2003)

There is a natural antagonism between a command not to Petitioner is a non-governmental organization that extends voluntary
establish religion and a command not to inhibit its practice; this services to the Filipino, especially to Muslim communities. It claims to
be a federation of national Islamic organization and an active member
tension between the religion clauses often leaves the courts
of international organizations such as RISEAP which had accredited the
with a choice between competing values in religion cases. petitioner to issue halal certifications in the Philippines. However, EO
Resolving the tension, of course, would again involve the courts 46 was issued creating the Philippine Halal Certification Scheme and

69 | P LATON
designing the Office of the Muslim Affairs to oversee its state’s  limited  constitutional   convention  deprived   appellant   McDaniel,  
implementation. OMA sent letters to food manufacturers asking them of the right to the free exercise of religion guaranteed by First and
to secure the halal certification only from it lest they violate EO 46 and Fourteenth Amendment.
RA 4109. As a result, petitioner lost revenues after food manufacturers
stopped securing certification from it. Petitioner filed instant petition Tennessee has failed to demonstrate that its views of the dangers of
for prohibition, contending that EO 46 violates the constitutional clergy participation in the political process have not lost whatever
provision on separation of the church and state since the halal validity they may once have enjoyed. The essence of the rationale
certification scheme is a function only of religious organization. restriction on ministers is that, if elected to public office, they will
necessary exercise their powers and influence and promote the
HELD: The petition is granted. OMA deals with the societal, legal, interests of one sect or thwart the interest of another, thus pitting one
political and economic concerns of the Muslim community as a against the others, contrary to the anti-establishment principle with its
“national   cultural   community”   and   not   as   a   religious   group.   Without   command of neutrality. However, the American experience provides no
doubt, classifying food product as halal is a religious function because persuasive support for the fear that clergymen in the public office will
the   standards   used  are   drawn  from   the   Qu’ran   and  Islamic   beliefs.  By   be less careful of anti-establishments interests or less faithful to their
giving OMA the exclusive power to classify food products as halal, EO oaths of civil office than their unordained counterparts.
46 encroached on the religious freedom of Muslim organizations to
interpret for Filipino Muslims what food product are fit for Muslim We  hold  that  S4  of  ch.  848  violates  McDaniel’s  First  Amendment  right  
consumption. The halal certifications issued by petitioner and similar to free exercise of his religion made applicable to the states by the
organizations come forward as the religious approval of a food product Fourteenth Amendment. Accordingly, the judgment of Tennessee SC is
fit for Muslim consumption. reversed, and the case is remanded to that court for further
Wherefore, the petition is granted. EO 46 is hereby declared null and
void. Consequently, respondents are prohibited from enforcing the Religious Leaders and Participation in Political Affairs
While on one side may be the claim that as members of society,
Conscientious Objectors as citizens themselves, such religious leaders and their flock are
still entitled to participate in political affairs and help chart the
The right of conscientious objectors is based more on statutory course of the country, on the other side is the need to keep
provisions than the constitutional freedom of religion. It is a those same sectarian principals from intruding into purely
governmental accommodation extended to those, who out of secular concerns thereby limiting them to their spiritual
religious scruples, may find themselves opposed to war and the province
concomitant taking of lives
Additional Cases
In order to qualify for classification as a conscientious objector, (G) Freedom of Religion [1-2]
a registrant must satisfy three basic tests:
1. He must show that he is conscientiously oppose to war in any Chapter 8
form Liberty of Abode and Freedom of Movement
2. He must show that his opposition is based upon religious
training and belief, as the term has been construed in our “The   liberty   of   abode   and   of   changing   the   same   within   the  
decisions limits prescribed by law shall not be impaired except upon
3. He must show that this objection is sincere lawful order of the court. Neither shall the right to travel be
impaired except in the interest of national security, public
Religious Test and Exercise of Political and Civil Rights safety,  or  public  health,  as  may  be  provided  by  law.”

The last sentence of the religion clause declares that no The assurance of the right to live and stay where [one] wants
religious test shall be required for the exercise of civil and within legal bounds. Thus, unless there be important societal
political rights. This should follow if the State is really to be free considerations   and   interests   that   are   implicated   by   a   person’s  
from meddling into religious affairs decision to stay anywhere, he should be given complete
freedom of choice as to where he may want to dwell and set up
This prohibition against religious test has reference to the his abode. This right, pursuant to the Constitution, may only be
historically and constitutionally discredited policy of probing impaired by lawful order of the court
religious beliefs by test oaths or limiting public offices to
persons who have, or perhaps more properly profess to have, a Corollary  to  this  liberty  to  establish  one’s  abode  is  the  freedom  
belief in some particular kind of religious concept of locomotion, of moving about, travelling from place to place
as an individual may so deem appropriate or desirable
McDaniel v. Paty
435 US 618, 55 L Ed 2d 593, 98 S Ct 1322 (1978)
If there are no countervailing national security, public safety or
Paty, a candidate for delegate to the Tennessee constitutional public health interests that are implicated, a person should be
convention, sued for a declaratory judgment that McDaniel, an free to go where he pleases
opponent who was Baptist minister, was disqualified as serving as
delegate. That court held that the statutory provision violated the First Also, another limitation on freedom of locomotion involves
and Fourteenth Amendments. After the election, the Tennessee SC those applicable to people who might have pending criminal
reversed, holding that the clergy disqualification imposed no burden on cases, in which event their movement or choice of abode may
“religious   belief,”   and   restricted   religious   action   .   .   .   [only]   in   the   law
be restricted by the courts as part of the condition of their
making process of the government – where religious action is
absolutely prohibited by the establishment clause.
being out on bail

WON, Minister or priest is barred from serving as delegates to the

70 | P LATON
Rubi v. Provincial Board of Mindoro
39 Phil. 660 (1919) FACTS: After the US had broken diplomatic relations with Cuba and the
Department of State had eliminated Cuba from the area for which
Resolution No. 25 of the Provincial Board of Mindoro creates for a passports were not required, Louis Zemel applied to have his passport
permanent settlement of the Manguianes. Pursuant to Resolution No. validated  for   travel   to   Cuba  “to   satisfy   [his]   curiosity . . . and to make
25 and Section 2145 of the Administrative Code of 1917, the Governor [him]   a  better   informed  citizen”.  His   request   was  denied,   and  he   filed  
directed the Mangyanes in the province to take up their habitation on suit seeking a judgment declaring that:
Sitio of Tigbao on Lake Naujan. Any mangyan who refuses to comply 1. He was entitled under the Constitution and the laws of the
with the order shall, upon conviction, be sentenced to imprisonment. US to travel to Cuba and to have his passport validated for
Petitioners challenge the constitutionality of Section 2145 of the AC on that purpose;
among others, due process and equal protection grounds. 2. The  Secretary  of  State’s  travel  restrictions  were  invalid;  and  
The reasons for the action of the Resolution of the Provincial board are 3. The Passport Act of 1926 and Section 215 of the Immigration
as follows: (1) the failure of former attempts for the advancement of and Nationality Act of 1952 were unconstitutional.
non-Christian people of the province; (2) the only successful method for
educating the Mangyans was to oblige them to live in a permanent ISSUE: WON the Secretary of State is statutorily authorized to refuse to
settlement; (3) the protection of the Mangyans; (4) the protection of validate the passports of US citizens for travel to Cuba, and, if he is,
the public forests in which they roam; and (5) the necessity of WON the exercise of that authority is constitutionally permissible.
introducing civilized customs among the Mangyans. What the
government wished to do by bringing them into a reservation was to RULING: YES. The court thinks that the Passport Act of 1926 embodies a
gather the children for educational purposes, and to improve the health grant of authority to the Executive to refuse to validate the passports of
and ,orals – was in fine, to begin the process of civilization. US  citizens  for  travel  to  Cuba.  That  Act  provides,  in  pertinent  part:  “The  
The Mangyans, in order to fulfill this governmental policy, must be Secretary of State may grant and issue passports . . . under such rules as
confined for a time, for their own good and good of the country. the President shall designate and prescribe for and on behalf of the
United   States.   .   .   .”   The   right   to   travel   within   the   United   States   is,   of  
The action pursuant to section 2145 of the AC does not deprive a course, also constitutionally protected. But that freedom does not
person of hid liberty without due process of law and does not deny to mean that areas ravaged by flood, fire or pestilence cannot be
him the equal protection of laws, and that confinement in reservation quarantined when it can be demonstrated that unlimited travel to the
in accordance with said section does not constitute slavery and area would directly and materially interfere with the safety and welfare
involuntary servitude. Further, section 2145 of the AC is a legitimate of the area or the nation as a whole. So it is with international travel (as
exertion of the police power. Section 2145 of the AC of 1917 is is the case here).
Marcos v. Manglapuz
Petitioners are not lawfully imprisoned or restrained of their liberty. 177 SCRA 668(1989)
Habeas corpus can, therefore, not issue.
FACTS: In February 1986, Ferdinand E. Marcos was deposed from the
Edwards v. California presidency via the non-violent   “people   power”   revolution   and   forced  
62 S Ct 164 (1941) into exile in Hawaii. Corazon Aquino was declared President of the
Republic. Soon, the Marcos family sought to be allowed to return to the
FACTS: Edwards, a citizen of the United States and a resident of country but President Aquino barred their return. The Marcos family
California, bought to California from Texas his indigent brother in law, filed the instant petition for mandamus and prohibition asking the
likewise a citizen of the US and a resident of Texas. He was Court to order the respondents to issue travel documents to Mr.
subsequently charged with and convicted of violating a California law Marcos and the immediate members of his family and to enjoin the
which penalizes one who knowingly brings into the State an indigent implementation  of  the  President’s  decision  to  bar  their  return  from  the  
person who is not a resident of the State, knowing him to be such an Philippines.
indigent person.
ISSUE: WON, in the exercise of the powers granted by the Constitution,
ISSUE: WON the prohibition embodied in said California law against the the President may prohibit the Marcoses from returning to the
“bringing”  or  transportation  of  indigent  persons  into  California  is  within   Philippines.
the police power of that State.
RULING: YES. The President did not act arbitrarily or with grave abuse
RULING: NO. It is not a valid exercise of the police power of California, it of discretion in determining that the return of former President Marcos
imposes an unconstitutional burden upon interstate commerce, and and his family at the present time and under present circumstances
thus the conviction under it cannot be sustained. Article 1, 8 of the poses a serious threat to national interest and welfare and in
Constitution delegates to the Congress the authority to regulate prohibiting their return to the Philippines. That the President has such
interstate commerce. And it is settled beyond question that the power under the Constitution has been recognized by members of the
transportation   of   persons   is   “commerce”   within   the   meaning   of   that   Legislature. The request or demand of the Marcoses to be allowed to
provision. But this does not mean that there are no boundaries to the return to the Philippines cannot be considered in the light solely of the
permissible area of State legislative authority. There are. And none is constitutional provisions guaranteeing liberty of abode and the right to
more certain than the prohibition against attempts on the part of any travel, subject to certain exceptions, or of case law which clearly never
single state to isolate itself from difficulties common to all of them by contemplated situations even remotely similar to the present one. It
restraining the transportation of persons and property across its must be treated as a matter that is appropriately addressed to those
borders. The California law in question is squarely in conflict with this as residual unstated powers of the President which are implicit in and
its express purpose and inevitable effect is to prohibit the correlative to the paramount duty residing in that office to safeguard
transportation of indigent persons across the California border. and protect general welfare. In that context, such request or demand
should submit to the exercise of a broader discretion on the part of the
CONCURRING OPINION: The right to move freely from State to State is President to determine whether it must be granted or denied. The
an incident of national citizenship protected by the privileges and petition was dismissed.
immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment against state
interference. DISSENTING   OPINION:   It   is   of   the   dissenters’   belief   that   Marcos,   as   a
citizen of the Philippines, is entitled to return to and live – and die – in
Zemel v. Rusk his own country. The government failed dismally to show that the
85 S Ct 1271 (1965) return of Marcos dead or alive would pose a threat to the national

71 | P LATON
security as it had alleged. Publication should be a prerequisite to effectivity

Resolution on the Motion for Reconsideration In so far as publication is concerned, it would be preferable that
178 SCRA 760 (1989) the same be done through the means which is more readily
accessible to the people, i.e., newspapers of general circulation,
FACTS: The SC, in its decision on Marcos v. Manglapuz, dismissed said
in addition to the traditional manner of doing through the
petition (close fight, voting 8 to 7). On September 28, 1989, Marcos
died in Honolulu, Hawaii. President Aquino then declared that his
Official Gazette
remains will not be allowed to be brought to the Philippines until such
time as the government shall otherwise decide, and thus the Tañada v. Tuvera
petitioners filed their motion for reconsideration. 136 SCRA 27 (1985)

RULING: The death of Marcos has not changed the factual scenario FACTS: Invoking the  people’s  right  to  be  informed  on  matters  of  public  
under which   the   Court’s   decision   was   rendered.   The   threats   to   the   concern (Sec. 6, Art. IV of the 1973 Constitution), petitioners seek a writ
government have not been shown to have ceased and on the contrary, of mandamus to compel respondent public officials to publish or cause
instead of erasing fears as to the destabilization that will be caused by the publication in the Official Gazette of various presidential decrees,
the return of the Marcoses, Mrs. Marcos reinforced the basis for the letters of instruction, letters of implementation, GOs, EOs,
decision  to  bar  their  return  when  she  called  President  Aquino  “illegal”,   proclamations and administrative orders. The respondents seek the
claiming  that  Mr.  Marcos  is  the  “legal”  President  of  the  Philippines,  and   outright dismissal of the petition on the ground that petitioners have
declared   that   the   matter   “should   be   brought   to   all   the   courts   of   the   no legal personality or standing to bring said petition, as there is no
world”.  President  Aquino’s decision to bar the return of the Marcoses showing that petitioners are personally and directly affected by the
and  subsequently,  Mr.  Marcos’  remains  at  the  present  time  and  under   alleged non-publication of the presidential issuances concerned.
the present circumstances is in compliance with her bounden duty to
protect and promote the interest of the people. In the absence of a ISSUE: WON publication in the Official Gazette is a sine qua non
clear showing that she had acted with arbitrariness or with grave abuse requirement for the effectivity of laws where the laws themselves
of discretion in arriving at this decision, the Court will not enjoin its provide for their own effectivity dates, and WON petitioners have legal
implementation. The motion was thus denied for lack of merit. standing to bring the petition in the first place.

RULING: YES. The SC held that Article 2 of the Civil Code does not
Additional Cases
preclude the requirement of publication in the Official Gazette, even if
(H) Liberty of Abode and Freedom of Movement [1] the law itself provides for the date of its effectivity. Publication of all
presidential  issuances  “of  a  public  nature”  or  “of  general  applicability”  
is mandated by law. Presidential issuances of general application which
have not been published shall have no force and effect. This is covered
Chapter 9 by Section 1 of Commonwealth Act 638 which object is to give the
Right to Information general public adequate notice of the various laws which are to
regulate their actions and conduct as citizens. Without such notice and
publication, there would be no basis for the application of the maxim
“The   right   of   the   people   to   information   on   matters   of   public  
“ignorantia   legis   non   excusat”. As for the second issue, when the
concern shall be recognized. Access to official records, and to question is one of public right and the object of the petition is to
documents and papers pertaining to official acts, transactions, procure the enforcement of a public duty, the people are regarded as
or decisions, as well as to government research data used as the real party in interest and need not show that he has any legal or
basis for policy development, shall be afforded the citizen, special interest in the result, it being sufficient to show that he is a
subject  to  such  limitations  as  may  be  provided  by  law.” citizen and as such interested in the execution of the laws.

If the people are really and effectively to participate in charting Resolution on the Motion for Reconsideration
their own destiny and that of their government, then they must 146 SCRA 446 (1986)
be given sufficient data and information upon which to base
FACTS: Petitioners move for clarification in regard to the following:
any intelligent and meaningful decisions
a. Meaning  of  “law  of  public  nature”  or  “general  applicability”;
b. Whether distinction must be made between laws of general
The incorporation of the right to information in the applicability and laws which are not;
Constitution is a recognition of the fundamental role of free c. Meaning  of  “publication”;
exchange of information in a democracy--there can be no d. Where the publication is to be made; and
realistic  perception  by  the  public  of  the  nation’s  problems,  nor   e. When the publication is to be made.
a meaningful democratic decision-making if they are denied
access to information of general interest RULING:  The  SC  held  that  clause  “unless  it  is  otherwise  provided”  refers  
to the date of effectivity and not to the requirement of publication
itself, which cannot in any event be omitted. Petition is indispensable in
A person could not be presumed to know what was not open to any case, but the legislature may in its discretion provide that the usual
view, much more so if deliberately kept from sight 15-day  period  be  shortened  or  extended.  The  term  “laws”  should  refer  
to all laws and not only to those of general application, for strictly
Publication and Effectivity speaking all laws relate to the people in general albeit there are some
that do not apply to them directly. As such, all statutes, including ones
The  Civil  Code  proclaim:  “Ignorance  of  the  law  excuses  no  one   of local application and private laws, shall be published as condition for
from  compliance  therewith.”  But  it  would  hardly  be  fair  for  the   their effectivity. Interpretative regulations and those merely internal in
nature need not be published, and so are letters of instruction issued
law to presume knowledge if the government does not
by administrative superiors concerning rules and guidelines to be
disseminate the laws and rules that govern the norms of followed by their subordinates in the performance of duties.
conduct that it expects from its citizens Publication should be done in the Official Gazette (Art. 2 of the Civil
Code was not yet amended to its present form at the time of this
decision). Publication must be made forthwith, or at least as soon as
possible, to give effect to the law pursuant to said Art. 2.
72 | P LATON
Bengzon v. Drilon Relative to the case of Bengzon, timely publication of laws
208 SCRA 133 (1992) would also be a manner of giving flesh to the principle of
accountability of public officers
FACTS: The petitioners are retired Justices of the Supreme Court and
Court of Appeals who are currently receiving monthly pensions under
Umali v. Estanislao
R.A. 910 as amended by R.A. 1797.
209 SCRA 446 (1992)
R.A. 910 provides for the retirement pension of Justices of the Supreme
FACTS: In 1991, Congress enacted R.A. 7167 providing for upward
Court and Court of Appeals, it was amended in 1957 by R.A. 1797
adjustments in basic personal and additional exemptions allowable to
providing in Section 3-A thereof for automatic adjustments of pensions
individuals for income tax purposes. Its effectivity clause provided:
if salaries of justices were increased or decreased. Identical retirement
“This  Act   shall   take   effect   upon  its  approval”.   The   Act   was  signed  and  
benefits were also given, by President Marcos, to the members of the
approved by the President on Dec. 19, 1991 and was published on Jan.
constitutional commissions under R.A. 3595 and to the members of the
14, 1992 in a newspaper of general circulation. On Dec. 1992
Armed Forces under P.D. 578. Two months later, he issued P.D. 644
respondents promulgated Revenue Regulations No. 1-92, providing that
repealing Section 3-A of the previous R.As and P.Ds. Subsequently, the
said regulations shall take effect on compensation income from Jan. 1,
president decreed the restoration of the automatic readjustment of the
1992. Two petitions were then filed by several taxpayers to compel the
retirement pension of officers and enlisted men. A later decree also
respondents to implement R.A. 7167 with respect to taxable income
issued providing for the automatic readjustment of the pensions of
earned or received in 1991.
members of the Armed Forces. On the other hand, the same was not
restored for the retired Justices of the Supreme Court and Court of
ISSUE: (1) Whether or not R.A. 7167 took effect upon its approval by
the President on Dec. 1991, or on Jan. 30, 1992, after 15days following
its publication on Jan. 14, 1992 in a newspaper of general circulation.
In 1990, Congress, realizing the unfairness of the discrimination,
(2) Whether or not, assuming it took effect on Jan. 30, 1992, the said
approved a bill for the reenactment of the repealed provisions of R.A.
law nonetheless covers or applies to compensation income earned or
1797 and R.A. 3595. However, the president vetoed the bill, stating that
received during calendar year 1991.
“it   would   erode   the   very   foundation   of   the   government’s   collective  
effort to adhere faithfully to and enforce strictly the policy on
DECISION: (1) The court rules that R.A. 7167 took effect on Jan. 30,
standardization of compensation as articulated in the Compensation
1992, which is after 15 days following its publication on Jan. 14. (2) Sec.
and   Position     Classification   Act   of   1989”.   The   following   year,   retired  
1, 3, and 5 of Revenue Regulations No. 1-92 which provide that the
Justices of the Court of Appeals filed a letter/petition asking the court
regulations shall take effect on compensation income earned or
for a readjustment of their monthly pensions in accordance with R.A.
received from Jan. 1 1992 are hereby SET ASIDE. They should take
1797 claiming that P.D. 644 repealing R.A. 1797 did not become law as
effect on compensation income earned or received from Jan. 1, 1991.
there was no valid publication, it only appeared for the first time in the
supplemental issue of the Official Gazette. Since, P.D. 644 has no
REASON:  (1)  The  clause  ‘unless  it  is  otherwise  provided’,  in  Article  2  of  
binding force and effect of law, it therefore did not repeal R.A. 1797.
the Civil Code, refers to the date of effectivity and not to the
The court, in its resolution, acted favorably on the request and
requirement of publication itself, which cannot in any event be
pursuant to the resolution, Congress included in the General
omitted. Publication is indispensable in every case, but the legislature
Appropriations Bill for the Fiscal Year 1992 certain appropriations for
may in its discretion provide that the usual 15 day period shall be
the judiciary intended for the payment of the adjusted pension rates
shortened or extended.
due to them. The President vetoed provisions of the bill related to
(2) The personal exemptions as increased by R.A. 7167 cannot be
aforesaid appropriations, reiterating the earlier reasons for vetoing the
regarded as available only in respect of the compensation income
former house bill.
received during 1992. Revenue Regulations No. 1-92 would in effect
postpone the availability of the increased exemptions to Jan 1 – April
ISSUE: (1) Whether or not the veto by the President (cory) of certain
15, 1993, and thus literally defer the effectivity of R.A. 7167 to Jan. 1,
provisions in the general appropriations act for the fiscal year 1992
1993. Thus, the implementing regulations collide frontally with Sec. 3 of
relating to the payment of the adjusted pensions of retired justices of
the   said   Act   which   states   that   the   statute   “shall   take   effect   upon   its  
the aforementioned courts constitutional.
(2) Whether or not P.D. 644 became law.

DECISION: Petition is GRANTED. (1) The court declared the questioned An   effectivity   clause   which   provides   that   the   law   “shall   take  
veto invalid, set aside as illegal and unconstitutional. (2) The court effect  immediately  upon  its  approval”  is  defective which, while
agreed that P.D. 644 never became a law. not invalidating the whole laws, means that, pursuant to Article
2 of the Civil Code, the enactment takes effect fifteen days after
REASON: (1) It is invalid for being in contravention of the constitutional its publication
guidelines in the exercise of the same, i.e., that it vetoed provisions and
not items. And also what were really vetoed are the R.A. 1797 of 1957
People v. Veridiano II
and the Resolution of the Supreme Court in 1991, thus no President
132 SCRA 523 (1984)
may veto the provisions of a law enacted 35 yrs. before his or her term
of office and neither may the President set aside or reverse a final and
FACTS: Benito Go Bio, Jr. was charged with violation of BP Blg. 22 for a
executory judgment of the Supreme Court through the exercise of the
check he issued in the second week of May 1979. Bio filed a motion to
veto power.
quash the information on the ground that it failed to charge an offense,
(2) P.D. 644 which purportedly repealed R.A. 1797 never achieved that
pointing out that on the date of the alleged commission of the offense
purpose because it was not properly published, it never became a law
BP. Blg. 22 had not yet taken effect. Although BP. Blg. 22 was published
and consequently, it did not have the effect of repealing R.A. 1797. As
in April 9, 1979 issue of the Official Gazette, the said issue was only
justified   in   the   case   of   Tañada   v.   Tuvera   “all   laws   shall   immediately  
released on June 14, 1979 and, considering that the questioned check
upon their approval or as soon thereafter as possible, be published in
was issued about the second week of May 1979, then he could not
full in the Official Gazette, to become effective only after 15days from
have violated the said statute because it was not yet released for
their publication, or on another date specified by the legislature, in
circulation at that time.
accordance  with  Article  2  of  the  Civil  Code”.  P.D.  644  was  promulgated  
by President Marcos in 1975, but was not immediately or soon
Petitioner contends that B.P. Blg. 22 was published in April 9, 1979
thereafter published. It took more than 8 years to publish the decree
issue of the Official Gazette and 15 days therefrom would be April 24,
after its promulgation.
1979, or several days before respondent Go Bio, Jr. issued the
73 | P LATON
questioned check around the second week of May 1979 and that violation of Central Bank Foreign Exchange Restrictions. These cases
respondent judge should not have taken into account the date of had been filed by the complainant prosecutors against Mrs. Imelda
release of the Gazette for circulation because Sec. 11 of the Revised Marcos. The prosecutors alleged that respondent judge issued his
Administrative Code provides that for the purpose of ascertaining the Order dated Aug. 13, 1992 solely on the basis of newspaper reports
date   of   effectivity   of   a   law   that   needed   publication,   “the   Gazette   is   concerning the announcement on Aug. 10, 1992 by the President of the
conclusively presumed to be published on the day indicated therein as lifting by the government of all foreign exchange restrictions. The
the  date  of  issue”. judge, taking judicial notice of what allegedly were of public knowledge,
dismissed the cases even before the Central Bank Circular or Monetary
ISSUE: whether or not Go Bio, Jr. violated B.P. Blg. 22 when he issued a Board Resolution had been officially issued.
check around the second week of May 1979.
Respondent judge contended that there was no need to await
DECISION: No. The accused cannot be held liable for bouncing checks publication of the Central Bank Circular repealing the existing law on
prior to the effectivity of B.P. Blg. 22 although the check may have foreign exchange controls for the simple reason that the public
matured after the effectivity of the said law. announcement made by the President in several newspapers of general
circulation lifting foreign exchange controls was total,, absolute,
REASON: The Solicitor General admitted the certification issued by Ms. without qualification, and was immediately effective, and that having
Charito A. Mangubat stating – “This  is  to  certify  that  Vol.  75,  No.  15,  of   acted only on the basis of such announcement, he cannot be blamed
the April 9, 1979 issue of the Official Gazette was officially released for for relying on the erroneous statement of the President that the new
circulation on June 14, 1979”.   It   is   therefore,   certain   that   the   penal   foreign exchange rules rendered moot and academic the cases filed
statute in question was made public only on June 14, 1979 and not on against Mrs. Marcos, which erroneous statement was corrected only on
the printed date April 9, 1979. Therefore, June 14, 1979 was the date of Aug. 17, 1992 but published in the newspapers on Aug. 18, 1992, and
publication of B.P. Blg. 22, before the public may be bound by its only after he had issued his order of dismissal dated Aug. 13, 1992.
contents especially its penal provisions, the law must be published and
the people officially informed of its contents and/or its penalties. For, if ISSUE: whether or not respondent judge committed gross ignorance of
a statue had not been published before its violation, then in the eyes of the law in dismissing the eleven cases solely on the basis of newspaper
the law there was no such law to be violated and, consequently, the reports concerning the announcement by the President of the lifting of
accused could not have committed the alleged crime. When Go Bio, Jr. all foreign exchange restrictions.
committed the act complained of in May 1979 there was then no law
penalizing such act. DECISION: Yes. The court finds respondent judge guilty of gross
ignorance of the law and is dismissed from the service.
De Roy v. Court of Appeals
157 SCRA 757 (1988) REASON: The doctrine of judicial notice rests on the wisdom and
discretion of the courts. Matters of judicial notice have three material
FACTS: On Aug. 17, 1987, the Court of Appeals promulgated a decision requisites: (1) the matter must be one of common and general
affirming a lower court judgment adverse to the petitioners. Said knowledge; (2) it must be well and authoritatively settled and not
decision of the appellate court was received by petitioners on Aug. 25, doubtful or uncertain; and (3) it must be known to be within the limits
1987. On Sept. 9, 1987, the last day of the 15-day period to file an of the jurisdiction   of   the   court.   Things   of   “common   knowledge”   are  
appeal, petitioners filed a motion for extension of the time to file a matters coming to the knowledge of men generally in the course of the
motion for reconsideration, which was eventually denied by the ordinary experience of life, or mattes which are generally accepted by
appellate court. The petitioners herein filed this instant petitione for mankind as true and are capable of ready and unquestioned
certiorari. The appellate court applied the rule laid down in Habaluyas demonstration. Respondent judge, in the guise of exercising discretion
Enterprises, Inc. v. Japzon, that the 15-day period for appealing or for and on the basis of a mere newspaper account which is sometimes
filing a motion for reconsideration cannot be extended. This ruling has even referred to as hearsay evidence twice removed, took judicial
been reiterated in several cases relating to such. Petitioners contend notice of the supposed lifting of foreign exchange controls, a matter
that the rule enunciated in the Habaluyas case should not be made to which was not and cannot be considered of common knowledge or of
apply to the case at bar owing to the non-publication of the Habaluyas general notoriety. Worse, he took cognizance of an administrative
decision in the Official Gazette as of the time the subject decision of the regulation which was not yet in force when the order of dismissal was
Court of Appeals was promulgated. issued. Jurisprudence dictates that judicial notice cannot be taken of a
statute before it becomes effective.
ISSUE: whether or not the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of
discretion  when  it   denied  petitioners’   motion  for   extension  of   time   to   The assertion of respondent judge that there was no need to await
file a motion for reconsideration, directed entry of judgment and publication of the circular for the reason that the public announcement
denied their motion for reconsideration. made by the President in several newspapers of general circulation is
beyond comprehension. As a judge of the RTC of Manila he is supposed
DECISION: This court finds that the Court of Appeals did not commit a to be well-versed in the elementary legal mandates on the publication
grave abuse of discretion. of laws before they take effect. The very act of respondent judge in
altogether dismissing the eleven criminal cases without even a motion
REASON: The CA correctly applied the rule laid down in Habulayas case. to quash having been filed by the accused, and without at least giving
Also,   contrary   to   petitioners’   view,   there   is   no   law   requiring   the   the prosecution the basic opportunity or an oral argument, is not only a
publication of Supreme Court decisions in the Official Gazette before blatant denial or elementary due process to the Government but is
they can be binding and as a condition to their becoming effective. It is palpably indicative of bad faith and partiality. In order that bias may not
the bounded duty of counsel as lawyer in active law practice to keep be imputed to a judge, he should have the patience and circumspection
abreast of decisions of the Supreme Court particularly where issues to give the opposing party a chance to present his evidence even if he
have been clarified, consistently reiterated, and published in the thinks  that  the  oppositor’s  proof  might not be adequate to overthrow
advance reports of Supreme Court decisions and in such publications as the case for the other party. At the very least, respondent judge acted
the Supreme Court Reports Annotated and law journals. injudiciously and with unjustified haste in the outright dismissal of the
eleven cases, and thereby rendered his actuation highly dubious.
236 SCRA 505 (1994) Nature of the Guarantee and Matters of Public Concern

FACTS: Respondent Judge Manuel Muro was charged with ignorance of

the law, grave misconduct and violation of Rules 2.01, 3.01 and 3.02 of
the Code of Judicial Conduct, for having dismissed eleven cases for

74 | P LATON
The guarantee is a self-executory provision under both the and submission of names of nominees under the party-list system of
1973 and 1987 Constitution. It can be invoked by any citizen representation in connection with the May 14, 2007 elections. Pursuant
before the courts thereto, a number of organized groups filed the necessary
manifestations. Some were ostensibly subsequently accredited by the
Comelec to participate in the 2007 elections
The   “information”   and   the   “transactions”   referred   to   in   the  
subject provision of the Constitution have as yet no defined Two consolidated petitions for certiorari and mandamus to nullify and
scope and extent set aside certain issuances of the Commission on Elections (Comelec)
respecting party-list groups which have manifested their intention to
Recognized restrictions: participate in the party-list elections on May 14, 2007.
1. National security matters and intelligence information
2. Trade secrets and banking transactions In the first petition, petitioners Bantay Republic Act (BA-RA 7941, for
short) and the Urban Poor for Legal Reforms (UP-LR, for short) assail
3. Criminal matters
the various Comelec resolutions accrediting private respondents
4. Other confidential information Biyaheng Pinoy et al., to participate in the forthcoming party-list
elections on May 14, 2007 without simultaneously determining
whether or not their respective nominees possess the requisite
qualifications defined in Republic Act (R.A.) No. 7941, or the "Party-List
Confidential Matters System Act" and belong to the marginalized and underrepresented
sector each seeks to represent.
While people have the general right to know most everything, it
does not mean, however, that they have an unfettered access In the second, petitioners Loreta Ann P. Rosales, Kilosbayan Foundation
and Bantay Katarungan Foundation impugn Comelec Resolution 07-
to everything in the possession of the government. In the very
0724 dated April 3, 2007 effectively denying their request for the
nature of things, some matters have to be kept confidential if release or disclosure of the names of the nominees of the fourteen (14)
the government is to be effective. One such instance is in accredited participating party-list groups mentioned in petitioner
diplomatic negotiations Rosales’  previous  letter-request.

The nature of diplomacy requires centralization of authority While both petitions commonly seek to compel the Comelec to disclose
and expedition of decision which are inherent in executive or publish the names of the nominees of the various party-list groups
action. Another essential characteristic of diplomacy is its named in the petitions, the first have the following additional prayers:
1) that the 33 private respondents named therein be "declare[d] as
confidential nature
unqualified to participate in the party-list elections as sectoral
organizations, parties or coalition for failure to comply with the
Indeed, while the Constitution guarantees a right to guidelines prescribed by the [Court] in [Ang Bagong Bayani v. Comelec]"
information  on  “matters  of  public  concern,”  for  which  purpose   and, 2) correspondingly, that the Comelec be enjoined from allowing
access to official records, documents, and papers pertaining to respondent groups from participating in the May 2007 elections.
official acts, transactions, or decisions, as well as to government
research data used as basis for policy development, shall be Issue
afforded the citizens, it states at the same time that the same 1. Whether respondent Comelec, by refusing to reveal the names of the
nominees of the various party-list groups, has violated the right to
shall  be  “subject  to  such  limitations  as  may  be  provided  by  law”
information and free access to documents as guaranteed by the
Constitution; and
What is sought to be had then is the grant of enough 2. Whether respondent Comelec is mandated by the Constitution to
information to enable the citizens to exercise their political disclose to the public the names of said nominees.
rights as the ultimate source of power without sacrificing the Comelec based its refusal to disclose the names of the nominees of
need for the government to keep sacrosanct and confidential subject party-list groups on Section 7 of R.A. 7941.
those that need to be kept secret. Where the demarcation line
might be between what should be publicly accessible and what SEC. 7. Certified List of Registered Parties.- The COMELEC shall, not
later than sixty (60) days before election, prepare a certified list of
is to be kept sub rosa is a question that the courts may have to
national, regional, or sectoral parties, organizations or coalitions which
visit every now and then have applied or who have manifested their desire to participate under
the party-list system and distribute copies thereof to all precincts for
Privacy Interests posting in the polling places on election day. The names of the party-list
nominees shall not be shown on the certified list.
The people also have the right to keep matters to themselves,
and having certain data and information about them which had COMELEC   Chairman   Benjamin   S.   Abalos,   Sr.   …   said   he   and   [the   other  
been gathered and stored by the Government does not five COMELEC] Commissioners --- believe that the party list elections
must not be personality oriented.Abalos   said   under   [R.A.]   7941   …,  
authorize others, pursuant to their right to information, to have
the people are to vote for sectoral parties, organizations, or coalitions,
access to the same either for their personal consumption or for not for their nominees.He said there is nothing in R.A. 7941 that
publication requires the Comelec to disclose the names of nominees. xxx (Words in
brackets and emphasis added)Insofar as the disclosure issue is
Additional Cases concerned, the petitions are impressed with merit.
(I) Right to Information [1]
Assayed against the non-disclosure stance of the Comelec and the given
rationale therefor is the right to information enshrined in the self-
executory Section 7, Article III of the Constitution, viz:
I2. Bantay vs. COMELEC
Sec.7. The right of the people to information on matters of public
G.R. No. 177271 May 4, 2007
concern shall be recognized. Access to official records, and to
documents, and papers pertaining to official acts, transactions, or
The Comelec issued Resolution No. 7804 prescribing rules and
decisions, as well to government research data used as basis for policy
regulations to govern the filing of manifestation of intent to participate
75 | P LATON
development, shall be afforded the citizen, subject to such limitations advanced in their petition. The exercise would require the Court to
as may be provided by law. make a factual determination, a matter which is outside the office of
judicial review by way of special civil action for certiorari.
Complementing and going hand in hand with the right to information is In certiorari proceedings, the Court is not called upon to decide factual
another constitutional provision enunciating the policy of full disclosure issues and the case must be decided on the undisputed facts on record.
and transparency in Government. We refer to Section 28, Article II of The sole function of a writ of certiorari is to address issues of want of
the Constitution reading: jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion and does not include a review
of  the  tribunal’s  evaluation  of  the  evidence.  (note  that  nowhere  in  R.A.  
Sec. 28. Subject to reasonable conditions prescribed by law, the State No. 7941 is there a requirement that the qualification of a party-list
adopts and implements a policy of full public disclosure of all its nominee be determined simultaneously with the accreditation of an
transactions involving public interest. organization. )

..The right to information is a public right and for every right of the I3. Senate of the Philippines v. Ermita
people recognized as fundamental lies a corresponding duty on the part 488 SCRA 1 (2006)
of those who govern to respect and protect that right. However, the
right to information and its companion right of access to official records The people as well as their representatives are entitled to know what
are not absolute and is limited to "matters of public concern" and is are happening around them especially those of public concern involving
further subject to such limitation as may be provided by law. the use of public funds, as well as other deals entered into by those
who are in temporary ascendancy in the government. Also, there are
The terms "public concerns" and "public interest" have eluded precise things that should be kept confidential for the proper and efficient
definition. But both terms embrace, to borrow from Legaspi, a broad functioning of the Government.
spectrum of subjects which the public may want to know, either
because these directly affect their lives, or simply because such matters “  a  transparent  government  is  one  of  the  hallmarks  of  a  truly  republican  
naturally whet the interest of an ordinary citizen. At the end of the day, state however, even in the early history of republican thought, it has
it is for the courts to determine, on a case to case basis, whether or not been recognized that the head may keep certain information
at issue is of interest or importance to the public. confidential in pursuit of the public interest.

Here.. no national security or like concerns is involved in the disclosure EO 464 (does it ring a bell? Buset.. minumulto ako ng poli bat gnun?)
of the names of the nominees of the party-list groups in question.
Doubtless, the Comelec committed grave abuse of discretion in refusing .. for the purpose of ensuring the observance of the separation of
the legitimate demands of the petitioners for a list of the nominees of powers
the party-list groups subject of their respective petitions. Mandamus, Executive privilege and power of legislative inquiries in aid of
therefore, lies. legislation.

The last sentence of Section 7 of R.A. 7941 is certainly not a justifying EO 64 practically sealed the lips of everyone in the executive
card for the Comelec to deny the requested disclosure. department. Not only department heads but also minor functionaries
are prevented as the executive privilege was also bestowed on them-
The prohibition imposed on the Comelec under said Section 7 is limited meaning no appearance without clearance.
in scope and duration, meaning, that it extends only to the certified list
which the same provision requires to be posted in the polling places on Inquiry in aid of legislation..
election day. To stretch the coverage of the prohibition to the absolute
is to read into the law something that is not intended. If the info is necessary for wise legislation, Congress has the right to
compel disclosure thereof.
The Comelec obviously misread the limited non-disclosure aspect of the
provision as an absolute bar to public disclosure before the May 2007 Executive privilege- (Schwartz) the power of the government to
elections. The interpretation thus given by the Comelec virtually tacks withhold information from the public the courts and the congress.
an unconstitutional dimension on the last sentence of Section 7 of R.A.
No. 7941. (Rozell) the right of the president and high level officials to withhold
information from Congress, the courts, and ultimately the public
The  Comelec’s  reasoning  that  a  party-list election is not an election of
personalities is valid to a point. It cannot be taken, however, to justify (tribe) 3 distinct kinds
its assailed non-disclosure stance which comes, as it were, with a 1. State secrets privilege- (on the ground that
weighty presumption of invalidity, impinging, as it does, on a the information is of such nature that
fundamental right to information, While the vote cast in a party-list disclosure would subvert crucial military or
elections is a vote for a party, such vote, in the end, would be a vote for diplomatic objectives)
its nominees, who, in appropriate cases, would eventually sit in the 2. Informers privilege- (not to disclose the
House of Representatives. identity of persons who furnish info of
violations of law to officers charged with
DENIED insofar as it seeks to nullify the accreditation of the the enforcement of that law)
respondents named therein. However, insofar as it seeks to compel the 3. Generic privilege (for internal deliberations
Comelec to disclose or publish the names of the nominees of party-list attaching to intragovernmental documents
groups, sectors or organizations accredited to participate in the May reflecting advisory opinions,
14, 2007 elections, the same petition and the petition in G.R. No. recommendations and deliberations
177314 are GRANTED. comprising part of a process by which
governmental decisions and policies are
Comelec is hereby ORDERED to immediately disclose and release the formulated.
names of the nominees of the party-list groups, sectors or organizations
accredited to participate in the May 14, 2007 party-list elections. The A president and those who assist him must be free to explore
Comelec is further DIRECTED to submit to the Court its compliance alternatives in the process of shaping policies and making decisions and
herewith within five (5) days from notice hereof. to do so in a way many would be unwilling to express except privately.
The privilege is fundamental to the operation of government and
The Court is unable to grant the desired plea of petitioners BA-RA 7941 inextricably rooted in the separation of powers under the Constitution.
and UP-LR for cancellation of accreditation on the grounds thus

76 | P LATON
Recognized only in certain types of information of a sensitive character. legislation is not only intended to benefit Congress but also the
citizenry. The people are equally concerned with this proceeding and
A claim therefore maybe valid or invalid. Noticeably absent is the have the right to participate therein in order to protect their interests.
recognition that executive officials are exempt from the duty to disclose The extent of their participation will largely depend on the information
information by the mere fact of being executive officials. The gathered and made known to them. In other words, the right to
extraordinary character of the exemptions indicates that the information really goes hand-in-hand with the constitutional policies of
presumption inclines heavily against executive secrecy and in favor of full public disclosure and honesty in the public service. It is meant to
disclosure. enhance the widening role of the citizenry in governmental decision-
making as well as in checking abuse in the government." They also
Sec 2(a) of EO 464, the reference to persons being covered by the mentioned that some of our standing jurisprudence, such as the case of
executive privilege may be read as an abbreviated way of saying that Tañada v. Tuvera, "have recognized a citizen's interest and personality
the person is in possession of info which is in the judgment of the head to enforce a public duty and to bring an action to compel public officials
office concerned, privileged. Executive privilege refers to information and employees to perform that duty.)
and not to persons. The claim therefore under section 3 of EO 464 in
relation to section 2(b)is thus invalid per se because, it is not asserted I5. Air Philippines Corporation v. Pennswell, Inc.
but merely implied instead of providing precise and certain reasons for 540 SCRA 215 (2007)
the claim, it merely invokes eo464 coupled with the announcement
that the President has not given consent. It severely frustrates the FACTS: Air Philippines Corporation (APC) is a domestic corporation
power of inquiry of Congress. In Fine, Section 3 and 2 (b) must but engaged in air transportation services. APC purchased chemical
invalidated. lubricants from Pennswell, a company that manufactures and sells
The president may not authorize her subordinates to exercise such industrial chemicals. In the course of events, APC alleged that
power. Pennswell defrauded it: APC insisted that Pennswell committed to
deliver lubricants of the type belonging to a new line instead of what it
Right of people to information v the right of Congress to information. had previously delivered to them, which were apparently lubricants of
second-grade quality not fit for APC's specific use. The second batch of
The demand of a citizen has no same obligatory force as that of a lubricants demanded for, though, turned out to be of the same type as
subpoena duces tecum. that of the first delivery. APC demanded return of its money, but
Pennswell ignored the demand and billed APC instead for its
Also,  it  doesn’t  give  an  individual  to  exact  a  testimony  from  government   outstanding debts. APC now seeks to convince the Supreme Court that
officials. it has a right to obtain the chemical composition and ingredients of
respondent’s   products   to   conduct   a   comparative   analysis   of its
It does not follow in every sense that when the congress exercises the products.
power of inquiry, that the people are exercising their right to info.
ISSUE: Can chemical components of Pennswell products be accessed
To the extent that investigations in aid of legislation are generally pursuant to right to information under Sec. 7, Art III?
conducted in public, however, any executive issuance tending to unduly
limit disclosures of information in such investigations necessarily HELD: No. Jurisprudence has consistently acknowledged the private
deprives the people of information which being presumed to be in aid character of trade secrets, as there is a privilege not to disclose them.
of legislation, is presumed to be a matter of public concern. The citizens The Supreme Court has declared that trade secrets and banking
are thereby denied access to information which they can use transactions are among the recognized restrictions to the right of the
formulating their own opinions on the matter before congress- people to information as embodied in the Constitution.
opinions which they can then communicate to their representatives
and other government officials through the various legal means
I6. Antolin vs. Domondon15
allowed by their freedom of expression.
G.R. No. 165036; 5 July 2010
Moreover, even as EO 464 applies only to officials of the executive
Facts: Hazel Ma. C. Antolin (Petitioner) failed the Certified Public
branch, it does not follow that the same is exempt from publication.
Accountant (CPA) Licensure Exam she took in October 1997. Convinced
Since this concerns public interest, the challenged order must be
she deserved to pass the Exam, she wrote to the Board of Accountancy
covered by the publication requirement.
(Board), requesting that her answer sheets be re-corrected. She was
shown her answer sheets but since these showed only shaded marks,
I4. Sabio v. Gordon she was unable to determine why she failed the Exam. Consequently,
504 SCRA 704 (2006) she asked the Board for copies of the questionnaire, her answer sheets,
the answer keys and an explanation of the grading system (collectively,
FACTS: Then-President Corazon Aquino issued E.O. No. 1, creating the the Examination Papers). Her request was denied on two grounds: (1)
PCGG, a body tasked with recovering the ill-gotten wealth obtained by Section 36, Article III of the Rules and Regulations Governing the
deposed President Ferdinand Marcos and his close associates. Section 4 Regulation and Practice of Professionals, as amended by Professional
(b)  of  said  E.O.  provides  that  “[n]o  member  or  staff  of  the  Commission   Regulation Commission (PRC) Resolution No. 332, series of 1994, only
shall be required to testify or produce evidence in any judicial, allowed access to her answer sheets, and reconsideration of the result
legislative or administrative proceeding concerning matters within its of her examination can be made only on grounds of mechanical error in
official   cognizance.”   This   was   to   ensure   the   PCGG's   unhampered   the grading of the answer sheets, or malfeasance; and (2) the Board
performance of its duties. 20 years later, the Senate invited PCGG was precluded from releasing the Examination Papers (other than the
Chairman Camilo Sabio to be one of the resource persons in a Senate answer sheets) by Section 20, Article IV of PRC Resolution No. 338,
investigation, who declined the invitation invoking Section 4 (b) of E.O. series of 1994. The Board later informed her that her exam was
No. 1. investigated and no mechanical error was
found in the grading.
ISSUE: May Section 4 (b) of E.O. No. 1 be invoked by Chairman Sabio to
justify non-appearance on legislative investigations? Issues: Whether or not petitioner has the constitutional right to have
access to the Examination papers.
HELD: No. Section 4 (b) of E.O. No. 1 has been repealed by the 1987
Constitution, particularly by Sec. 21, Art. VI (power of legislative Held: Like all the constitutional guarantees, the right to information is
inquiry). not  absolute;  it  is  limited  to  “matters  of  public  concern”  and  is  further  

(The Supreme Court said, "[T]he conduct of inquirires in aid of 15 Source: Lexforiphilippines.com
77 | P LATON
“subject   to   such   limitations   as   may   be   provided   by   law”   (Section 7, It operates through chartered affiliates which are independent
Article III, 1987 Constitution). Similarly, the   State’s   policy   of   full   unincorporated associations with membership therein equivalent to
disclosure   is   limited   to   “transactions   involving   public   interest,”   and   is   petitioner.
“subject   to   reasonable   conditions   prescribed   by   law”   (Sec. 28, Art. II,
1987 Constitution). National board examinations such as the CPA Board Had local affiliates in Alabama and operated there without complying
Exams are matters of public concern. The populace in general, and the with an Alabama statute that requires a foreign corporation to qualify
examinees in particular, would understandably be interested in the fair before doing business there by filing its corporate charter with the
and competent administration of these exams in order to ensure that secretary of the state and designating a place of business and an agent
only those The Court, nonetheless, realizes that there may be valid to receive service of process.
reasons to limit access to the Examination Papers in order to properly
administer the exam. That there exist inherent difficulties in the The association has never complied with the statute from which it
preparation, generation, encoding, administration, and checking of considered itself exempt.
these multiple choice exams that require that the questions and
answers remain confidential for a limited duration. The PRC had not Alleging   the   petitioner’s   activities- such as opening a regional office,
been given an opportunity to explain the reasons behind their organizing organized various activities in Alabama, recruiting members
regulations for keeping the Examination Papers confidential. The Court and soliciting contributions within the state, giving financial support
deemed it best to remand the case to the RTC for further proceedings. and furnishing of legal assistance to Negro boycott of the bus lines in
Montgomery to compel the seating of passengers without regard to
Chapter 10 race-were causing irreparable injury to the citizens of the state for
Right of Association which criminal prosecution and civil actions at law afforded no
adequate relief.
“The  right  of  the  people,  including  those  employed  in  the  public   The Attorney general of Alabama brought an equity suit to enjoin the
and private sectors, to form unions, associations, or societies petitioner from conducting further activities in and taking steps to
for  purposes  not  contrary  to  law  shall  not  be  abridged.” further activities in the state.

Man being gregarious by nature would find it natural to Court issued a restraining order.
associate with others, whether for intimate companionship or
for social political and other reasons Petitioner demurred to the allegations of the bill and moved to dissolve
the restraining order. It contended that what the state sought to
accomplish by its suit would violate rights to freedom of speech and
An individual may join or organize whatever associations and assembly guaranteed by the 14th amendment to the constitution of the
societies he and kindred minds and hearts like him might want US.
to form
The state moved for the production of a large number of records and
Just like any other rights, however, the right to associate is still papers, including bank statements, lease, deeds, and records containing
subject to limitation that it must not be for purposes contrary the names of all Alabama members and agents of the association.
to law
Petitioner produced all except its membership list and was adjudged in
contempt for that and was fined $100000.
Unlike the cases of other guarantees, which are mostly
American in origin, this particular freedom has an indigenous Whether Alabama, consistently with the due process clause of the 14th
cast. It can trace its origin to the Malolos Constitution amendment, can compel petitioner to reveal the names and addresses
of the members and agents without regard to their positions and
General Considerations functions in the association.

The right to association may involve such intimate and personal Petitioner’s  claim  is  that  the  order,  in  the  circumstances  shown  by  this
record violated rights assured to petitioner and its members under the
relations as friendship or marriage to the more impersonal
groupings as those of unions and societies where objectives
might range from purely social to economic and political. The Can the association validly assert the right of its members? Yes
first one may be considered as the freedom of intimate because it and its members are in the practical sense identical.
association and the latter the freedom of expressive association
The rights are personal to the members, who are not immediately
The right to form associations also include the liberty not to before the court, may be asserted by the association on their behalf for
join at all. A person can not be compelled to join a group that the right could not be effectively vindicated except through an
appropriate party before the court.
he does not want to associate with. The constitutionally
guaranteed freedom of association includes the freedom not to Petitioner argues that the effect of compelled disclosure of
associate. The right to choose with whom one will associate membership list will be to abridge the rights of their rank-and-file
oneself is the very foundation and essence of that partnership. members to engage in lawful association in support of their common
It should be noted that the provision guarantees the right to beliefs.
form an association. It does not include the right to compel
others to form or join one The fact that Alabama has taken no direct action to restrict the right of
the  petitioner’s  members to associate freely, does not end inquiry into
the effect of the production order.
National Association for the Advancement of Colored People v.
Alabama ex rel. Patterson
Inviolability of privacy in group association may in many circumstances
357 US 449, 2 L Ed 2d 1488, 78 S Ct 1163 (1958)
be indispensable to preservation of freedom of association, particularly
when the group espouses dissident beliefs.
Petitioner is a nonprofit membership corporation organized under the
laws of New York for the purpose of advancing the welfare of Negroes.
It is not sufficient to answer that whatever repressive effect
compulsory   disclosure   of   names   of   petitioner’s   members,   may   have  
78 | P LATON
upon  participation  by  Alabama  citizens  in  petitioner’s  activities  follows   2. That compelling organizations to register and list their
not from private community pressures. The crucial factor here is the members on a showing merely that they are foreign-
interplay of governmental and private action, for it is only after the denominated and operate primarily to advance the
initial exertion of state power represented by the production order that objectives of the world Communist movement constitutes a
private action takes hold. restraint on freedom of expression and association in
violation of the 1st amendment
Whether Alabama has demonstrated an interest in obtaining the 3. That requiring Party officers to file registration statements
disclosures it seeks from petitioner which is sufficient to justify the for the Party subjects them to self-incrimination forbidden
deterrent effect which we have concluded these disclosures may well by the 5th amendment
have   on   the   free   exercise   by   petitioner’s   members   of   their   4. That the act violates due process by legislative
constitutionally protected right of association. predetermination of facts essential to the communist party
within the definition of a communist action organization,
The exclusive purpose was to determine if the association is conducting and that the evidentiary elements prescribed for
intrastate business in violation of the Alabama foreign corporation consideration by the board bear no rational relation to that
registration statute. definition
5. That, in several aspects the act is unconstitutionally vague
The court is unable to perceive the substantial bearing of the 6. That the subversive activities control board is so necessarily
membership list. As matters stand in the state court that the petitioner biased against the communist party as to deprive it of fair
has (1) admitted its presence and conduct of activities in Alabama since hearing
1918 (2) has offered to comply in all respects with the qualification
statute, although preserving its contention that the statute does not in threats to public safety, the congress meets the threat by the
apply to it, and (3) has apparently complied satisfactorily with the requirement of registration or disclosure.
production order except from its membership list.
The congress may entail restraints on speech and association to require
Whatever interest the state may have in obtaining the names of the publicity demanded by rational interests high in scale of national
ordinary members has not been shown to be sufficient to overcome concern.