Bill of Rights

Definition

Bill of Rights - the series of prescriptions setting forth the fundamental civil and political
rights of the individual, and imposing limitations on the powers of government as means of
securing the enjoyment of those rights

- it is designed to preserve the ideals of liberty, equality and security against

the assaults of opportunism, the expediency of the passing hour, the erosion of
small encroachments, and the scorn and derision of those who have no patience
with general principles

Generally, any governmental action in violation of the Bill of Rights is void; these provisions
are generally self-executing.

Civil Rights - those rights that belong to every citizen of the state or country, or, in a wider
sense, to all its inhabitants, and are not connected with the organization or administration of
government.

Political Rights - they refer to the right to participate, directly or indirectly, in the
establishment or administration of government e.g., the right of suffrage, the right to hold
public office, the right to petition ….. management of the government.

Due process of law (sec. 1, Article III):

A law which hears before it condemns, which proceeds upon inquiry and renders judgment
only after trial.

Who are protected?

 Universal in application to all persons, without regard to any difference in race, color or
nationality.

Artificial persons are covered by the protection but only insofar as their property is
concerned (Smith Bell & Co. v. Natividad)

Meaning of life, liberty and property

Life - includes the right of an individual to his body in its completeness, free from
dismemberment, and extends to the use of God-given faculties which make life enjoyable

Liberty - includes the right to exist and the right to be free from arbitrary personal restraint
or servitude. It includes the right of the citizen to be free to use his faculties in all lawful
ways.

Property is anything that can come under the right of ownership and be the subject of
contract. It includes the right to secure, use and dispose of them.

Public office is not a property. You cannot acquire a vested right of the public office,
nevertheless it is a protected right.

One’s employment, profession or trade or calling = property right

Thus, an order of suspension, without opportunity for hearing, violates property rights.

But its proper regulation has been upheld as a legitimate subject of police power of the State.

Being a mere privilege, a mining license does not vest absolute rights in the holder.

The license to carry a firearm is neither a property nor a property right. Neither does it create
a vested right.
Aspects of due process:

A. Substantive - this serves as a restriction on government’s law and rule making powers
requisites:
i.) the interests of the public require the intervention of the State
ii.) the means employed are reasonably necessary for the accomplishment of the
purpose, and not unduly oppresive on individuals.

Where the employee retires and meets the eligibility requirements, he acquire
a vested right to benefits protected by the due process clause.

B. Procedural - This serves as a restriction on actions of judicial and quasi-judicial agencies of

government
requisites:
i.) an impartial court or tribunal clothed with judicial power to hear and
determine the matter before it

the SC reiterated the rule that a public officer who decided the case should not
be the same person to decide it on appeal because he cannot be an impartial
judge.

the SC said that the test is whether the intervention of the judge tends to
prevent the proper presentation of the case or the ascertainment of the truth in
the matter where he interposes his questions or comments.

ii.) jurisdiction must be lawfully acquired over the person of the defendant and
over the property which is the subject matter of the proceeding.

Summons is not only required to give the court jurisdiction over the person of
the defendant but also to afford the latter the opportunity to be heard .
Thus, compliance with the rules regarding the service of summons is as much
an issue of due process as of jurisdiction.

Juris. over defendant can be acquired by : service of summons, voluntary

appearance (ex. Submission of pleadings… )

iii.) the defendant must be given an opportunity to be heard.

Due process is satisfied as long as the party is accorded the opportunity to be
heard. If it is not availed of, it is deemed waived or forfeited without violating
the constitutional guarantee (Bautista v. CA)

But this presumption ( knowledge of insufficiency of funds with bank is presumed

from the act of making, drawing, and issuing a check payment which is refused by
the drawee bank, within 90 days from date of issue) does not hold when the maker
or drawer pays or makes arrangements for the payment of check within 5 banking
 days after receiving notice that such check has been dishonored.
Thus, absent such notice of dishonor, the maker or the drawer cannot be convicted
of violating B.P. 22, as there would be a violation of procedural due process.
(Caras v. CA)

Not all cases require a trial-type hearing. Due process in labor cases before a Labor
Arbiter is satisfied when the parties are given the opportunity to submit their
position papers.

In Mejoff v. Director of Prisons, The SC, in granting bail to a prospective deportee,

held that under the Constitution, the principles set forth in the Declaration are part
of the law of the land. If bail can be granted in deportation cases, considering that
the Universal Declaration of Human Rights applies to deportation cases, there is no
reason why it cannot be invoked in extradition cases. After all, both are
administrative proceedings where the innocence or guilt of the person detained is
not in issue.

Neither is the respondent entitled to notice and hearing during the evaluation
stage of the extradition process. PD 1069 affords an extraditee sufficient
opportunity to meet the evidence against him once the petition is filed in
court.
Prior to the issuance of warrant of arrest, the judge must not inform or notify
the potential extraditee of the pendency of the petition, lest the latter be given
opportunity to escape and frustrate the proceedings.

The right of a party to cross-examine the witness against him in a civil case is
an indispensable part of due process. But in administrative proceedings,
technical rules of procedure and evidence are not strictly applied.

iv.) Judgement must be rendered upon lawful hearing.

No decision shall be rendered by any court without expressing therein clearly and
distinctly the facts and the law on which it is based.

Due process demands that the parties to a litigation be informed how the case
was decided with an explanation of the factual and legal reasons that led to the
conclusions of the court.

Denial of the right to appeal constitutes a violation of due process, where there is a
statutory grant of the right to appeal, denial of that remedy also constitutes a
denial of due process.

A preliminary investigation is not a quasi-judicial proceeding since the prosecutor

in a preliminary investigation does not determine the guilt or innocence of the
respondent. A preliminary investigation determines: 1) whether a crime has been
committed, and 2) whether there is probable cause that the accused is guilty
thereof. The court shall not interfere.
C. Administrative due process
requisites:
i.) the right to a hearing, which includes the right to present one’s case and submit
evidence in support thereof;
ii.) the tribunal must consider the evidence presented;
iii.) the decision must have something to support itself;
iv.) the evidence must be substantial;
v.) the decision must be rendered on the evidence presented at the
hearing, or at least contained in the record and disclosed to the parties;
vi.) the tribunal or any of its judges must act on its or his own independent
consideration of facts and the law of the controversy, and not simply
accept the views of a subordinate in arriving at a decision; and
vii.) the board or body should, in all controversial questions, render its decision in
such manner that the parties to the proceeding will know the various issues
involved, and the reasons for the decision.

Due process in quasi-judicial proceedings before the COMELEC requires notice and hearing.
The proclamation of a winning candidate cannot be annulled if he has not been notified of
any motion to set aside his proclamation.
Equal Protection of the laws (sec. 1, Art III “xxx nor shall any person be denied the equal
protection of laws”)

Meaning; persons protected. All persons or things similarly situated should be treated alike,
both as to rights conferred and responsibilities imposed. Natural and juridical persons are
entitled to this guarantee; but with respect to artificial persons, they enjoy the protection
only insofar as their property is concerned.

Scope of Equality:

a. Economic

b. Political

c. Social

Economic : free access to courts(Sec. 11, Art. III), marine wealth reserved for Filipino Citizens
(Sec. 2 , par 2, Art. XII), Congress may reserve certain areas of investment (Sec. 10, Art. XII),
and reduction of social, economic and political inequities (sec. 1,2,3 of Art. III)

SC held the constitutionality of RA 7496 limiting the allowable deductions from gross income
of single proprietorship and professionals. It was held that uniformity of taxation does not
prohibit classification, provided requirements of valid classification are complied with.

Political: free access to courts, bona fide candidates being free from harassment or
discrimination (Sec. 10, Art. IX-C), reduction of social, economic and political inequities (Sec.
1, Art. XIII)

As a general rule, the Constitution places the civil rights of aliens on an equal footing with
those of citizens; but their political rights do not enjoy the same protection.
Social: Sec.1 ,Art XIII…

Valid Classification. Persons or things ostensibly similarly situated may nonetheless, be

treated differently if there is a basis for valid classification

Requisites for valid classification:

1. Substantial distinctions which make for real differences

2. Germane to the purpose of the law

3. Not limited to existing conditions only

4. Must apply equally to all members of the same class

The SC held that there is a real and substantial distinction between a motorcycle and other
motor vehicles.

The SC upheld the validity of the Retail Trade Nationalization Law despite the objection that
it violated the equal protection clause, because there exit real and actual, positive and
fundamental differences between an alien and a national.

There is substantial distinction between policemen and other government employees;

policemen carry weapons and the badge of the law, which can be used to harass or
intimidate witnesses against them.

Germane… - the distinctions which are the bases for the classification should have a
reasonable relation to the purpose of the law.

It was held that when a Mayor issued a permit in favor of unidentified vendors while
imposing numerous requirements upon the Baclaran Credit Cooperative, he violated the
equal protection clause because he failed to show that the two were not similarly situated.

Any special grant of tax exemption in favor of the Marcon family would constitute class
legislation.

A classification based on valid and reasonable standards does not violate the equal
protection clause.
Searches and seizures (Sec. 2, Art. III)

Basis of scope of Protection:

A. Right to privacy or the right to be let alone

B. Available to all persons, including aliens, whether accused of a crime or not

C. The right is personal; it may be invoked only by person entitled to it.

D. The right applies as a distraint directed only against the government and its agencies
tasked with the enforcement of the law.

E. What constitutes a reasonable or unreasonable search and seizure in any particular case is
purely a judicial question.

F. Objections to warrant of arrest must be made before the accused enters his plea. Failure
to do so constitutes a waiver of his right against unlawful restraint of liberty.

“Zones of Privacy” (recognized and protected in our laws). Within this zones, any form of
intrusion is impermissible unless excused by law and in accordance with customary legal
process. This is in keeping with constitutional right and those under the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights(‘no one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his
privacy’, and ‘everyone has the right to protection against such interference or attacks’).

Two constitutional guarantees create these zones of privacy, namely:

a. The right against unreasonable searches and seizures, which is the basis of right to be let
alone; and

b. The right to privacy of communication and correspondence.

Privacy:

Decisional privacy

Informational privacy

Decisional privacy involves the right to independence in making certain important decisions,
while informational privacy refers to the interest in avoiding disclosure of personal matters.
Informational privacy has to aspects: 1. the right not to have private info. disclosed, 2. right
to live freely without surveillance and intrusion.

Subjective test = where one claiming the right must have an actual or legitimate expectation
of privacy over a certain matter.

Objective test = where his or her expectation of privacy must be one society is prepared to
accept as objectively reasonable.

Artificial persons are also entitled to the guarantee, although they may be required to open
their books of accounts for examination by the State in the exercise of police power and
taxing power.

The right may be waived (impliedly or expressly), but the waiver must be made by the
person whose right is invaded, not by one who is not duly authorized to effect such waiver.

The protection cannot extend to acts committed by private individuals so as to bring them
within the ambit of alleged unlawful intrusion by the government. - SC does not protect
citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures by private individuals.

Some procedural rules:

The conspicuous illegality of the arrest cannot affect the jurisdiction of the trial court,
because even in instances not allowed by law, a warrantless arrest is not a jurisdictional
defect, and any objection thereto is waived when the person arrested submits to
arraignment without objection (People v. Del Rosario)

Only a judge may validly issue a warrant. The constitution grants the authority to issue a
warrant of arrest or a search warrant only to a judge upon fulfillment of certain basic
constitutional requirements.

In Jose Jesus Disni v. Secretary of Justice, the SC declared invalid Sec. 19 , RA 10175
(Cybercrime law), which provides that when the computer data is prima facie found to be in
violation of the provisions of the Act, the DOJ shall issue an order to restrict or block access
to such computer data. In declaring this section unconstitutional, the Court said that here,
the government, in effect seizes and places the computer data under its control and
disposition without a valid warrant (which only can issue). It also violates the freedom of
speech because the data can also constitute speech.

Requisites of a valid warrant:

1. Probable cause

2. Determination of probable cause personally by a judge

3. After examination, under oath or affirmation, of the complainant and the witness he may
produce

Probable cause - such facts and circumstances antecedent to the issuance of the warrant
that, in themselves, are sufficient to induce a cautious man to rely on them and act in
pursuance thereof. For a search: “such facts and circumstances which would lead a
reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed and
that the objects sought in connection with the offense are in the place sought to be
searched.

Must refer to one specific offense….

Where a search warrant was issued for the seizure of shabu and rug paraphernalia, but
probable cause was found to exist only with respect to the shabu, the warrant cannot be
invalidated in toto: it is still valid with respect to the shabu (People v. Salanguit)

SC ruled that the issuance of a warrant of arrest is not a ministerial function of the judge.
While he could rely on the findings of the fiscal, he is not bound thereby. Thus, the
determination of probable cause depends to a large extent upon the finding or opinion of
the judge who conducted the required examination of the applicant.

It is sufficient that the judge personally determine the existence of probable cause. It is not
necessary that should personally examine the complainant and witnesses. The judge should
evaluate the report of the prosecutor with the supporting documents. It was held that the
judge merely determines the probability , no the certainty, of guilt of the accused and, in so
doing, he need not conduct a de novo hearing.
It is sufficient that the judge “personally determine” the existence of probable cause. It is
not necessary that he should personally examine the complainant and his witnesses

Two kinds of determination of probable cause (accdg to SC):

1. Executive

2. Judicial

Executive determination of probable concerns itself with whether there is enough evidence
to support information being filed.

Judicial determination of probable cause on the other hand, determines whether a warrant
of arrest should be issued.

Following established doctrine and procedure, the judge shall:

1. Personally evaluate the report and the supporting documents submitted by the fiscal
regarding the existence of probable cause and, on the basis thereof, issue a warrant of arrest;
or

2. If, on the basis thereof, he finds no probable cause, he may disregard the prosecutor’s
report and require the submission of supporting affidavits of witnesses to aid him in arriving
at a conclusion on the existence of probable cause.

It is not obligatory, but merely discretionary, upon the judge to issue a warrant of arrest,
even after having personally examined the c. and w..

In People v. Judge Inting:

1. The determination of probable cause is a function of the judge and the judge alone

2. The preliminary inquiry made by the prosecutor does not bind the judge…

3. Judges and prosecutors alike should distinguish the preliminary inquiry which determines
probable cause for the issuance of the warrant of arrest from preliminary investigation
proper which ascertains whether the offender should be held for trial or be released

4. Only a judge may issue a warrant of arrest.

If the judge relied solely on the certification of the prosecutor (since all the records of the
preliminary investigation were still in Masbate) then he cannot be said to have personally
determined the existence of probable cause. Therefore, the warrant of arrest issued by him
is null and void.

In the cases when it is the judge who himself conducts the preliminary investigation, for him
to issue a warrant of arrest, the investigating judge must:

1. Have examined, under oath and in writing, the complainant and his witnesses;

2. Be satisfied that there is probable cause;

3. That there is a need to place the respondent under immediate custody in order not to
frustrate the ends of justice.

Issuance of a Search Warrant.

The proceeding is not one against any person, but solely for the discovery and to get
possession of personal property. It is a special and peculiar remedy, drastic in nature, and
made necessary because of public necessity.

Where the judge failed to conform with the essential requisites of taking the deposition in
writing and attaching them to the record, it was held that search warrant is invalid. However,
the Bill of Rights does not make it an imperative necessity that the depositions be attached
to the records of an application for a search warrant. The omission would not be fatal if
there is evidence in record showing that such personal examination was conducted and
what testimony was presented.

The personal examination must not be merely routinary or pro forma, but must be probing
and exhaustive. The purpose of this rule is to satisfy the examining magistrate as to the
existence of probable cause.
The evidence offered by the complainant and his witnesses should be based on their own
personal knowledge and not on mere information or belief.

Where the police officers acted not merely on the information given by the Thai Royal Police,
but also conducted thorough surveillance on the accused, it was held that the police officers
had personal knowledge.

If the judge fails to determine probable cause by personally examining the applicant and his
witnesses in the form of searching questions before issuing a search warrant, it constitutes
grave abuse of discretion.

“General Warrants” are proscribed and unconstitutional. Where the search warrant charged
violations of two special laws, it was considered a “scatter-shot warrant”, and was declared
null and void.

The Cosnti seeks to avoid search warrants of broad and general characterization or sweeping
descriptions which will authorize police officers to undertake a fishing expedition to seize
and confiscate any and all kinds of evidence or articles relating to an offense.

A warrant of arrest is said to particularly describe the person to be seized if it contains the
name/s of the person/s to be arrested. If the name of the person to be arrested is not
known, then a “John Doe” warrant may be issued. A “John Doe” warrant will satisfy the
constitutional requirement of particularity of description if there is some description
persona which will enable the officer to identify the accused.

Warrants issued against “50 John Does”, none of whom the witnesses could identify, were
considered as “general warrants”, and thus, void.

A search warrant may be said to particularly describe the things to be seized when the
description there is a specific as the circumstances will ordinarily allow; or when the
description expresses a conclusion of fact, not of law.

However, it was held that the failure to specify detailed descriptions in the warrant does not
necessarily make the warrant a general warrant. The SC said that the “description of the
property to be seized need not be technically accurate nor necessarily precise, and its nature
will necessarily vary according to whether the identity of the property or its character, is a
matter of concern.

Only the articles particularly described in the warrant may be seized. Where the warrant
authorized only the seizure of shabu, and not marijuana, the seizure of the latter was held
unlawful.

The place to be searched should, likewise, be particularly described.

The description of the place to searched is sufficient if the officer with the warrant can, with
reasonable effort, ascertain and identify the place intended, and distinguish it from other
places in the community.

The constitution requires search warrants to particularly describe not only the place to be
searched, but also the persons to be searched.

Properties subject seizure:

1. Subject to offense

2. Stolen or embezzled property and other proceeds or fruits of the offense

3. Property used or intended to be used as means for the commission of an offense

It is not necessary that the property to be searched or seized should be owned by the person
against whom the warrant is issued; it is sufficient that the property is within his control or
possession.

Requirement: search must be made in the presence of the lawful occupant thereof or any
member of his family, or in absence of the latter, in the presence of two witnesses of
sufficient age and discretion, residing in the same locality. Failure to comply with this
requirement invalidates the search.
Warrantless arrest (Sec. 5, Rule 113) by peace officer or even a private person:

1. When the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing or is attempting to

commit an offense in his presence.

2. When an offense had just been committed and there is probable cause to believe, based
on his personal knowledge of facts or of other circumstances, that the person to be arrested
has commited offense.

3. When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal
establishment or place where he is serving final judgment or temporarily confined while his
case is pending, or has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to another.

4. When the right is voluntarily waived.

The SC held that rebellion is a continuing offense. Accordingly, a rebel may be arrested at
any time, with or without warrant, as he is deemed to be in the act of committing the
offense at any time of day or night.

The arrest of the accused inside his house following hot pursuit of the person who
committed the offense in flagrante was held valid.

An arrest made after an entrapment operation does not require a warrant of arrest; it is
reasonable and valid.

The police officer, acting as poseur-buyer in a “buy-bust operation”, instead of arresting the
suspect and taking him into custody after the sale, returned to police headquarters and filed
his report. It was only in the evening of the same day the police officer, without warrant,
arrested the suspect at the latter’s house where dried marijuana leaves were found and
confiscated. It was held that the arrest and the seizure were unlawful.

Requisites of valid flagrante arrest:

1. The person to be arrested must execute an over act indicating that he had just
committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit a crime;

2. Such overt act is done in the presence or within the view of the arresting officer.

In Molina, the accused while holding a bag on board a tricycle cannot be said to be
committing, attempting to commit or to have committed a crime.

For a successful prosecution for the sale of illegal drugs after a buy-bust operation, what is
important is the fact that the poseur-buyer received the goods from the accused-appellant
and the same was presented in court as evidence. The failure to use marked money or to
present it in evidence is not material since the sale cannot be essentially disproved by the
absence thereof.

Within 24 hours from confiscation/seizure, the same shall be submitted to the PDEA forensic
laboratory for a qualitative and quantitative examination

The SC said that compliance with the chain of custody requirement ensures the integrity of
confiscated, seized and/or surrendered drugs and/or drug paraphernalia in four aspects
namely:

1. The nature of the substances or items seized

2. The quantity of the substances

3. The relation of the substances to the incident allegedly causing their seizure

4. The relation of the substances to the persons alleged to have been in possession of or
pedding them.

The prosecution must be able to account for each link in the chain of custody over the
dangerous drug, from the moment it was seized from the accused up to the time it was
presented in court as proof of the corpus delicti.

Marking after seizure is the starting point in the custodial chain, thus it is vital…

#2 requisites:

1. An offense had just been committed

2. The person making the arrest has probable cause to believe, based on his personal
knowledge.

It was held that the policemen, not having personal knowledge of facts indicating that the
accused committed the crime, the arrest was invalid.

The search of Gerente’s person and the seizure of the marijuana leaves were valid as an
incident to a lawful arrest.

When the attempted arrest does not fall under any of those warrantless arrest under the
Rules,the NBI agents could not, regardless of their suspicion authorize the arrest of the
students without a warrant, or effect the arrest themselves, because only the courts could
decide the question of probable cause.
When the right is voluntarily waived, then the illegality of the arrest may no longer be
invoked to effect the release of the person arrested. Appellant is estopped from questioning
the illegality of his arrest when he voluntarily submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the
court by entering a plea of not guilty and participating in the trial.

It is necessary, therefore, that the petitioner should question the validity of the arrest before
he enters his plea. Failure to do so would constitute a waiver of his right against unlawful
restraint of his liberty.

Note, however, that the waiver is limited to illegal arrest. It does not extend to the search
made as an incident thereto, or to the subsequent seizure of evidence allegedly found
during the search. - - inadmissible in evidence under exclusionary rule.

In a number of cases, the SC held that the posting of bail bond constitutes a waiver of any
irregularity attending the arrest. But under Sec. 26, Rule 114, an application for, or
admission to, bail, shall not bar the accused from challenging the validity of his arrest,
provided that her raises the challenge before entering plea.

Allowed Warrantless Searches:

1. When the right is voluntarily waived.

2. When there is valid reason to “stop-and-frisk”

3. Where the search (and seizure) is an incident to a lawful arrest

4. Search of vessels and aircraft

5. Search of moving vehicles

6. Inspection of buildings and other premises for the enforcement of fire, sanitary and
building regulations.

7. Where the prohibited articles are in plain view

8. Search and seizure under exigent and emergency circumstances