Constitutional Law II - World peace, healthful ecology, clean

environment
Fundamental Powers of the State
Art. III (Bill of Rights) are self-enabling provisions (CPR)
State’s inherent Purpose Means Art. XIII-XIV, II (SEC) – need enabling laws passed by
powers Congress
Police Power To promote Limits a XPN: Art. II Sec. 16. The State shall protect and
general welfare person’s advance the right of the people to a balanced and
right healthful ecology in accord with the rhythm and
Eminent Domain To make the Takes a harmony of nature (Oposa v Factoran) 
property available private intergenerational rights
for public use property
Taxation To raise funds for Collect D. Basic classification
the government contribution 1. Life – right to have a good life (pursuit of
from the happiness)
people 2. Liberty – freedom
3. Property – the right to engage in a lawful
Similarities: business, occupation, profession, craft and
1. All inherent powers of the state to enter into contracts.
2. When exercised, a person’s right is affected;
society is benefitted and a person affected get Importance of Classification of Rights:
something in return (1) Some rights are more preferred than others
3. Legislative in nature – there must be a law (Doctrine of Preferred Freedoms or Hierarchy of Rights)
authorizing the exercise of these powers; (2) To know which test to apply in checking the validity
Congress may delegate the power to other of a law/statute
governmental agencies (rule-making power or
subordinate legislation)
A. Police Power
- the power of promoting the public welfare by
restraining and regulating the use of liberty and property
- the most pervasive, the least limitable, and the most
demanding of the three powers

Basis:
- salus populi est suprema lex (the welfare of the people
is the supreme law)
- sic utere tuo ut alienum non laedas (so as to use your
property as not to injure the property of others)

Police power is lodged primarily in the national

legislature. By virtue of a valid delegation of legislative
power, it may also be exercised by the President and
administrative boards as well as the lawmaking bodies
on all municipal levels, including the barangay.

Local Government Code Section 16:

Classification of Rights
A. Source
1. Natural right (God, human rights)
2. Constitutional rights (constitution)
3. Statutory Rights (statute)
B. Nature
1. Civil Rights – rights as a citizen as member
of a political community
2. Political rights – to participate in the
governance of the state
3. Economic rights – right to develop oneself
4. Social rights – right to associate
5. Cultural rights – right to preserve, practice
belief, customs, traditions; or to belong to
a cultural group
C. New Classification
1. First Generation Rights (CPR)
2. Second Generation Rights (ECS)
3. Third Generation Rights/Solidarity Rights
General Welfare. - Every local government unit shall
exercise the powers expressly granted, those
necessarily implied therefrom, as well as powers
necessary, appropriate, or incidental for its efficient and
effective governance, and those which are essential to
the promotion of the general welfare. Within their
respective territorial jurisdictions, local government
units shall ensure and support, among other things, the
preservation and enrichment of culture, promote health
and safety, enhance the right of the people to a
balanced ecology, encourage and support the
development of appropriate and self-reliant scientific
and technological capabilities, improve public morals,
enhance economic prosperity and social justice,
promote full employment among their residents,
maintain peace and order, and preserve the comfort
and convenience of their inhabitants.
Tests to determine valid exercise of police power:
(1) Reasonable Connection Test

A reasonable relation must exist between the purposes
of the measure and the means employed for its
accomplishment.
Applicable to life, liberty and property rights
(a) Check the purpose: it must be for general welfare:
1. Public morals;
2. Public safety;
3. Public health;
4. Public order;
5. Public comfort and convenience;
6. Social Justice;
7. Public policy
(b) Check the means employed: limit a person’s rights
Regulate Prohibit
Lawful Acts ✔ ✘
Unlawful Acts ✘ ✔
(c) Is there a relation between the purpose and the
means employed?
(d) Is the relation reasonable?
Relation between the purpose and the means employed
may be established by:
- Empirical evidence
- Statistics, medical and scientific
studies
(2) Clear and Present Danger Test
Is there a clear and present danger of substantive evil
that the state must prevent/prohibit?
Clear: degree of danger; must be real
Present: proximity, imminent
(3) Dangerous Tendency Test – used during the
Marcos era; not applicable anymore
When the two conflicting rights are between private
persons:
Balancing of Interests Test
- which right is more important?
-life and liberty rights over property rights
Cases:
(1) Southern Luzon Drug Corporation vs. DSWD
G.R. No. 199669, April 25, 2017
The law is a legitimate exercise of police power which,
similar to the power of eminent domain, has general
welfare for its object. Police power is not capable of an
exact definition, but has been purposely veiled in
general terms to underscore its comprehensiveness to
meet all exigencies and provide enough room for an
efficient and flexible response to conditions and
circumstances, thus assuring the greatest benefits.
Accordingly, it has been described as "the most
essential, insistent and the least limitable of powers,
extending as it does to all the great public needs." It is
"[t]he power vested in the legislature by the constitution
to make, ordain, and establish all manner of wholesome
and reasonable laws, statutes, and ordinances, either
with penalties or without, not repugnant to the
constitution, as they shall judge to be for the good and
welfare of the commonwealth, and of the subjects of the
same."
For this reason, when the conditions so demand as
determined by the legislature, property rights must bow
to the primacy of police power because property rights,
though sheltered by due process, must yield to general
welfare.
xxxx
Moreover, the right to property has a social dimension.
While Article XIII of the Constitution provides the
precept for the protection of property, various laws and
jurisprudence, particularly on agrarian reform and the
regulation of contracts and public utilities, continuously
serve as a reminder that the right to property can be
relinquished upon the command of the State for the
promotion of public good. Undeniably, the success of
the senior citizens program rests largely on the support
imparted by petitioners and the other private
establishments concerned. This being the case, the
means employed in invoking the active participation of
the private sector, in order to achieve the purpose or
objective of the law, is reasonably and directly related.
Without sufficient proof that Section 4(a) of RA. No.
9257 is arbitrary, and that the continued implementation
of the same would be unconscionably detrimental to
petitioners, the Court will refrain from quashing a
legislative act.
In the exercise of police power, "property rights of
private individuals are subjected to restraints and
burdens in order to secure the general comfort, health,
and prosperity of the State." Even then, the State's
claim of police power cannot be arbitrary or
unreasonable. After all, the overriding purpose of the
exercise of the power is to promote general welfare,
public health and safety, among others. It is a measure,
which by sheer necessity, the State exercises, even to
the point of interfering with personal liberties or property
rights in order to advance common good. To warrant
such interference, two requisites must concur: (a) the
interests of the public generally, as distinguished from
those of a particular class, require the interference of
the! State; and (b) the means employed are reasonably
necessary to the: attainment of the object sought to be
accomplished and not unduly oppressive upon
individuals. In other words, the proper exercise of the
police power requires the concurrence of a lawful
subject and a lawful method.
(2) Social Justice Society vs. Atienza
G.R. No. 156052, March 7, 2007
The Sangguniang Panlungsod of Manila enacted
Ordinance No. 8027. Ordinance No. 8027 was enacted
pursuant to the police power delegated to local
government units, a principle described as the power
inherent in a government to enact laws, within
constitutional limits, to promote the order, safety, health,
morals and general welfare of the society. Ordinance
No. 8027 reclassified the area described therein from
industrial to commercial and directed the owners and
operators of businesses disallowed under Section 1 to
cease and desist from operating their businesses within
six months from the date of effectivity of the ordinance.

(3) Carlos Superdrug Corp. vs. DSWD
G.R. No. 166494, June 29, 2007
Police power as an attribute to promote the common
good would be diluted considerably if on the mere plea
of petitioners that they will suffer loss of earnings and
capital, the questioned provision is invalidated.
Moreover, in the absence of evidence demonstrating
the alleged confiscatory effect of the provision in
question, there is no basis for its nullification in view of
the presumption of validity which every law has in its
favor.
(4) Manila Memorial Park vs. DSWD
G.R. No. 175356 December 3, 2013
Police power is the inherent power of the State to
regulate or to restrain the use of liberty and property for
public
welfare.
The only limitation is that the restriction imposed should
be reasonable, not oppressive.5
In other words, to be a valid exercise of police power, it
must have a lawful subject or objective and a lawful
method of accomplishing the goal.
Under the police power of the State, "property rights of
individuals may be subjected to restraints and burdens
in order to fulfill the objectives of the government."
The State "may interfere with personal liberty, property,
lawful businesses and occupations to promote the
general welfare [as long as] the interference [is]
reasonable and not arbitrary."
Eminent domain, on the other hand, is the inherent
power of the State to take or appropriate private
property for public use.
The Constitution, however, requires that private
property shall not be taken without due process of law
and the payment of just compensation.
Traditional distinctions exist between police power and
eminent domain. In the exercise of police power, a
property right is impaired by regulation, or the use of
property is merely prohibited, regulated or restricted to
promote public welfare. In such cases, there is no
compensable taking, hence, payment of just
compensation is not required. Examples of these
regulations are property condemned for being noxious
or intended for noxious purposes (e.g., a building on the
verge of collapse to be demolished for public safety, or
obscene materials to be destroyed in the interest of
public morals)67 as well as zoning ordinances
prohibiting the use of property for purposes injurious to
the health, morals or safety of the community (e.g.,
dividing a city’s territory into residential and industrial
areas).
It has, thus, been observed that, in the exercise of police
power (as distinguished from eminent domain),
although the regulation affects the right of ownership,
none of the bundle of rights which constitute ownership
is appropriated for use by or for the benefit of the public.
On the other hand, in the exercise of the power of
eminent domain, property interests are appropriated
and applied to some public purpose which necessitates
the payment of just compensation therefor. Normally,
the title to and possession of the property are
transferred to the expropriating authority. Examples
include the acquisition of lands for the construction of
public highways as well as agricultural lands acquired
by the government under the agrarian reform law for
redistribution to qualified farmer beneficiaries. However,
it is a settled rule that the acquisition of title or total
destruction of the property is not essential for "taking"
under the power of eminent domain to be present.
Examples of these include establishment of easements
such as where the land owner is perpetually deprived of
his proprietary rights because of the hazards posed by
electric transmission lines constructed above his
property or the compelled interconnection of the
telephone system between the government and a
private company.
In these cases, although the private property owner is
not divested of ownership or possession, payment of
just compensation is warranted because of the burden
placed on the property for the use or benefit of the
public.
(5) Meralco vs. Spouses Ramos
G.R. No. 195145, February 10, 2016
The distribution of electricity is a basic necessity that is
imbued with public interest. Its provider is considered as
a public utility subject to the strict regulation by the State
in the exercise of its police power. Failure to comply with
these regulations gives rise to the presumption of bad
faith or abuse of right.
(6) MMDA vs. Viron
G.R. No. 170656, August 15, 2007
Even assuming arguendo that police power was
delegated to the MMDA, its exercise of such power
does not satisfy the two tests of a valid police power
measure, viz: (1) the interest of the public generally, as
distinguished from that of a particular class, requires its
exercise; and (2) the means employed are reasonably
necessary for the accomplishment of the purpose and
not unduly oppressive upon individuals. Stated
differently, the police power legislation must be firmly
grounded on public interest and welfare and a
reasonable relation must exist between the purposes
and the means.
Notably, the parties herein concede that traffic
congestion is a public concern that needs to be
addressed immediately. Indeed, the E.O. was issued
due to the felt need to address the worsening traffic
congestion in Metro Manila which, the MMDA so
determined, is caused by the increasing volume of
buses plying the major thoroughfares and the inefficient
connectivity of existing transport systems. It is thus
beyond cavil that the motivating force behind the
issuance of the E.O. is the interest of the public in
general.
Are the means employed appropriate and reasonably
necessary for the accomplishment of the purpose. Are
they not duly oppressive?
The Court fails to see how the prohibition against the
existence of respondents’ terminals can be considered
a reasonable necessity to ease traffic congestion in the
metropolis. On the contrary, the elimination of
respondents’ bus terminals brings forth the distinct
possibility and the equally harrowing reality of traffic
congestion in the common parking areas, a case of
transference from one site to another.
Less intrusive measures such as curbing the
proliferation of "colorum" buses, vans and taxis entering
Metro Manila and using the streets for parking and
passenger pick-up points, as respondents suggest,
might even be more effective in easing the traffic
situation. So would the strict enforcement of traffic rules
and the removal of obstructions from major
thoroughfares.
Even then, for reasons which bear reiteration, the
MMDA cannot order the closure of respondents’
terminals not only because no authority to implement
the Project has been granted nor legislative or police
power been delegated to it, but also because the
elimination of the terminals does not satisfy the
standards of a valid police power measure.
(7) Association of Medical Clinic for Overseas
Workers, Inc. vs. GCC Approved Medical Center
G.R. No. 207132, December 06, 2016
By its very nature, the exercise of the State's police
power limits individual rights and liberties, and subjects
them to the "far more overriding demands and
requirements of the greater number." Though vast and
plenary, this State power also carries limitations,
specifically, it may not be exercised arbitrarily or
unreasonably. Otherwise, it defeats the purpose for
which it is exercised, that is, the advancement of the
public good.
To be considered reasonable, the government's
exercise of police power must satisfy the "valid object
and valid means" method of analysis: first, the interest
of the public generally, as distinguished from those of a
particular class, requires interference; and second, the
means employed are reasonably necessary to attain
the objective sought and not unduly oppressive upon
individuals.
These two elements of reasonableness are undeniably
present in Section 16 of RA No. 10022. The prohibition
against the referral decking system is consistent with
the State's exercise of the police power to prescribe
regulations to promote the health, safety, and general
welfare of the people. Public interest demands State
interference on health matters, since the welfare of
migrant workers is a legitimate public concern.
(8) St. Luke’s Medical Center Employees
Association vs. NLRC
G.R. No. 162053, March 7, 2007
While the right of workers to security of tenure is
guaranteed by the Constitution, its exercise may be
reasonably regulated pursuant to the police power of
the State to safeguard health, morals, peace,
education, order, safety, and the general welfare of the
people. Consequently, persons who desire to engage in
the learned professions requiring scientific or technical
knowledge may be required to take an examination as
a prerequisite to engaging in their chosen careers. The
most concrete example of this would be in the field of
medicine, the practice of which in all its branches has
been closely regulated by the State. It has long been
recognized that the regulation of this field is a
reasonable method of protecting the health and safety
of the public to protect the public from the potentially
deadly effects of incompetence and ignorance among
those who would practice medicine. The same rationale
applies in the regulation of the practice of radiologic and
x-ray technology.
The enactment of R.A. (Nos.) 7431 and 4226 are
recognized as an exercise of the State's inherent police
power. It should be noted that the police power
embraces the power to prescribe regulations to promote
the health, morals, educations, good order, safety or
general welfare of the people. The state is justified in
prescribing the specific requirements for x-ray
technicians and/or any other professions connected
with the health and safety of its citizens.
Respondent-appellee being engaged in the hospital
and health care business, is a proper subject of the cited
law; thus, having in mind the legal requirements of these
laws, the latter cannot close its eyes and [let]
complainant- appellant's private interest override public
interest.
Section 1. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty
or property without due process of law, nor shall
any person be denied the equal protection of the
laws.
The story of constitutional jurisprudence is the story of
great minds striving to strike a balance between
governmental power and personal freedom.
The principal yardsticks against which police power
exercise must be measured are the ‘due process’
clause and the ‘equal protection’ clause.
The restrictions found in the Bill of Rights, as
constitutional law, are directed against the state. They
do not govern the relations between private persons.
Hierarchy of Rights
While the Bill of Rights also protects property rights, the
primacy of human rights over primacy rights is
recognized.
Property and property rights can be lost through
prescription; but human rights are imprescriptible.
I. Due process
- The constitution did not define due process because if
it did, it will be stuck to that definition. What the law does
not include, it excludes. It left to the Courts the
discretion on how to apply it so it can fit the changing
times.
- No attempt was made to spell out the meaning of due
process or to define the concept with some degree of
exactitude. Due process continues to be dynamic and
resilient, adaptable to every situation calling for its
application. The very elasticity of the provision makes
this possible and thus enlarges the rights of the
individual to his life, liberty or property.
– General understanding: a law which hears before it
condemns; which proceeds upon enquiry, and renders
judgment only after trial
Two Aspects:
Requisites Exercised by:
Substantive (1) Law = Legislative
reasonable and quasi
(2) Publication legislative
Procedural Notice and Judicial and
Hearing Quasi-judicial
Quasi-legislative v Quasi-judicial function:
If the rules and regulations are directed to a particular
person, the function becomes quasi-judicial.
A. Procedural Due Process
Requisites of procedural due process:
1. There must be a court or tribunal clothed with judicial
power to hear and determine the matter before it
2. Jurisdiction must be lawfully acquired over the person
of the defendant or over the property which is the
subject of the proceedings
3. The defendant must be given an opportunity to be
heard
4. Judgment must be rendered upon lawful hearing
Once the court acquires jurisdiction, jurisdiction is never
lost until the finality of the case.
The essence of procedural due process is opportunity
to be heard, it does not always require a trial-type
hearing.
Doctrine of prejudicial publicity – allegation and
proof that the judge was actually influenced by the
barrage of publicity.
Totality of circumstances doctrine
Administrative due process (CFI vs. Ang Tibay):
1. The right to a hearing, which includes the right to
present one’s case and submit evidence in support
thereof
2. The tribunal must consider the evidence presented
3. The decision must have something to support itself
4. The evidence must be substantial
5. The decision must be based on the evidence
presented at the hearing, or at least contained in the
record and disclosed to the parties affected
6. The tribunal or body or any of its judges must act on
its own independent consideration of the law and facts
of the controversy, and not simply accept the views of a
subordinate
7. The board or body should, in all controversial
questions, render its decision in such a manner that the
parties to the proceeding can know the various issues
involved, and the reason for the decision rendered.
The heart of procedural due process is the need for
notice and an opportunity to be heard.
There is violation of due process when the officer who
reviews a case is the same person whose decision is on
appeal.
While notice and hearing are required in judicial and
quasi-judicial proceedings, they are not prerequisites in
the promulgation of general rules.
Due process in school: Right of students to education
vs. the right of schools to academic freedom
The contractual obligation of school to afford its
students a fair opportunity to complete the course a
student has enrolled for is recognizes. However, when
a student commits serious breach of discipline or fails
to maintain the required academic standards of the
school, the student forfeits his rights and courts are not
at liberty to reverse the discretion of university
authorities in this matter.
Requisites:
1. The students must be informed in writing of the nature
and cause of accusation against them
2. They shall have the right to answer the charges
against them, with the assistance of counsel, if desired
3. They shall be informed of the evidence against them
4. They shall have the right to adduce evidence in their
own behalf
5. The evidence must be duly considered by the
investigating committee of official designated by the
school authorities to hear and decide the case
B. Substantive Due Process – deals with the intrinsic
validity of the law (that the law must be reasonable)
1. Publication Requirement
- Legislative and quasi-legislative bodies
Test of substantive due process:
1. Void-for-vagueness
- a law may be said to be vague when it lacks
comprehensible standards that men of common
intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and
differ as to its application
Repugnant to the Constitution in two respects:
a. it violates due process for failure to accord persons,
especially the parties targeted by it, fair notice of the
conduct to avoid
b. it leaves law enforcers unbridled discretion in carrying
out its provisions and become an arbitrary flexing of the
Government muscles
2. Overbreadth doctrine - a proper governmental
purpose, constitutionally subject to state regulation,
may not be achieved by means that unnecessarily
sweep its subject broadly, thereby invading the area of
protected speech. [prohibits unprotected speech but it
also affects/invades protected speech]
Cases:
(1) GMA Network, Inc. vs. MTRCB
G.R. No. 148579, February 5, 2007
While MTRCB had jurisdiction over the subject
program, Memorandum Circular 98-17, which was the
basis of the suspension order, was not binding on
petitioner. The Administrative Code of 1987, particularly
Section 3 thereof, expressly requires each agency to file
with the Office of the National Administrative Register
(ONAR) of the University of the Philippines Law Center
three certified copies of every rule adopted by it.
Administrative issuances which are not published or
filed with the ONAR are ineffective and may not be
enforced. Memorandum Circular No. 98-17, which
provides for the penalties for the first, second and third
offenses for exhibiting programs without valid permit to
exhibit, has not been registered with the ONAR as of
January 27, 2000. Hence, the same is yet to be
effective. It is thus unenforceable since it has not been
filed in the ONAR. Consequently, petitioner was not
bound by said circular and should not have been meted
the sanction provided thereunder.
(2) Knights of Rizal vs. DMCI Homes, Inc.
G.R. No. 213948, April 25, 2017
In Manila Electric Company v. Public Service
Commission, 60 Phil. 658 (1934), the Court held that
“what is not expressly or impliedly prohibited by law may
be done, except when the act is contrary to morals,
customs and public order.” This principle is fundamental
in a democratic society, to protect the weak against the
strong, the minority against the majority, and the
individual citizen against the government. In essence,
this principle, which is the foundation of a civilized
society under the rule of law, prescribes that the
freedom to act can be curtailed only through law.
Without this principle, the rights, freedoms, and civil
liberties of citizens can be arbitrarily and whimsically
trampled upon by the shifting passions of those who can
shout the loudest, or those who can gather the biggest
crowd or the most number of Internet trolls. In other
instances, the Court has allowed or upheld actions that
were not expressly prohibited by statutes when it
determined that these acts were not contrary to morals,
customs, and public order, or that upholding the same
would lead to a more equitable solution to the
controversy. However, it is the law itself — Articles 1306
and 1409(1) of the Civil Code — which prescribes that
acts not contrary to morals, good customs, public order,
or public policy are allowed if also not contrary to law. In
this case, there is no allegation or proof that the Torre
de Manila project is “contrary to morals, customs, and
public order” or that it brings harm, danger, or hazard to
the community. On the contrary, the City of Manila has
determined that DMCI- PDI complied with the standards
set under the pertinent laws and local ordinances to
construct its Torre de Manila project.
(3) Evasco vs. Montanez
G.R. No. 199172, February 21, 2018
It is settled that an ordinance's validity shall be upheld if
the following requisites are present: First, the local
government unit must possess the power to enact an
ordinance covering a particular subject matter and
according to the procedure prescribed by law. Second,
the ordinance must not contravene the fundamental law
of the land, or an act of the legislature, or must not be
against public policy or must not be unreasonable,
oppressive, partial, discriminating or in derogation of a
common right.
An ordinance constitutes a valid exercise of police
power if: (a) it has a lawful subject such that the
interests of the public generally, as distinguished from
those of a particular class, require its exercise; and (b)
it uses a lawful method such that its implementing
measures must be reasonably necessary for the
accomplishment of the purpose and not unduly
oppressive upon individuals.
First, Ordinance No. 0922000 seeks to regulate all signs
and sign structures based on prescribed 3standards as
to its location, design, size, quality of materials,
construction and maintenance to: (a) safeguard the life
and property of Davao City's inhabitants; (b) keep the
surroundings clean and orderly; (c) ensure public
decency and good taste; and (d) preserve a harmonious
aesthetic relationship of these structures as against the
general surroundings.
Second, the ordinance employs the following rules in
implementing its policy, viz.: (a) Minimum distances
must be observed in installing and constructing outdoor
billboards (i.e., 150 meters unobstructed line of sight, 10
meters away from the property lines abutting the right-
ofway); (b) Additional requirements shall be observed
(i.e., billboards shall have a maximum total height of 17
meters, the top and bottom lines of billboards shall
follow a common base) in locations designated as
"regulated areas" to preserve the natural view and
beauty of the Davao River, Mt. Apo, the Davao City
Skyline, and the view of Samal Island; (c) Sign permits
must be secured from and proper fees paid to the city
government; and (d) Billboards without permits, without
the required marking signs, or otherwise violative of any
provision thereof shall be removed, allowing the owner
60 days from receipt of notice to correct and address its
violation.
(4) Mosqueda vs. Pilipino Banana Growers
G.R. No. 189185, August 16, 2016.
A valid ordinance must not only be enacted within the
corporate powers of the local government and passed
according to the procedure prescribed by law. In order
to declare it as a valid piece of local legislation, it must
also comply with the following substantive
requirements, namely:
(1) it must not contravene the Constitution or any
statute;
(2) it must be fair, not oppressive;
(3) it must not be partial or discriminatory;
(4) it must not prohibit but may regulate trade;
(5) it must be general and consistent with public policy;
and
(6) it must not be unreasonable.
Precautionary Principle:
The principle of precaution appearing in the Rules of
Procedure for Environmental Cases (A.M. No. 09-6-8-
SC) involves matters of evidence in cases where there
is lack of full scientific certainty in establishing a causal
link between human activity and environmental effect.
In such an event, the courts may construe a set of facts
as warranting either judicial action or inaction with the
goal of preserving and protecting the environment.
Elements:
(1) uncertainty;
(2) threat of environmental damage; and
(3) serious or irreversible harm.
In situations where the threat is relatively certain, or that
the causal link between an action and environmental
damage can be established, or the probability of
occurrence can be calculated, only preventive, not
precautionary measures, may be taken. Neither will the
precautionary principle apply if there is no indication of
a threat of environmental harm; or if the threatened
harm is trivial or easily reversible.
To begin with, there has been no scientific study.
Although the precautionary principle allows lack of full
scientific certainty in establishing a connection between
the serious or irreversible harm and the human activity,
its application is still premised on empirical studies.
Scientific analysis is still a necessary basis for effective
policy choices under the precautionary principle.
(5) Fernando vs. St. Scholastica’s College
G.R. No. 161107, March 12, 2013
Two Branches of General Welfare Clause:
The first, known as the general legislative power,
authorizes the municipal council to enact ordinances
and make regulations not repugnant to law, as may be
necessary to carry into effect and discharge the powers
and duties conferred upon the municipal council by law.
The second, known as the police power proper,
authorizes the municipality to enact ordinances as may
be necessary and proper for the health and safety,
prosperity, morals, peace, good order, comfort, and
convenience of the municipality and its inhabitants, and
for the protection of their property.
(1) Setback requirement:
The real intent of the setback requirement was to make
the parking space free for use by the public, considering
that it would no longer be for the exclusive use of the
respondents as it would also be available for use by the
general public. Section 9 of Article III of the 1987
Constitution, a provision on eminent domain, provides
that private property shall not be taken for public use
without just compensation.
The petitioners cannot justify the setback by arguing
that the ownership of the property will continue to
remain with the respondents. It is a settled rule that
neither the acquisition of title nor the total destruction of
value is essential to taking. In fact, it is usually in cases
where the title remains with the private owner that
inquiry should be made to determine whether the
impairment of a property is merely regulated or amounts
to a compensable taking. The Court is of the view that
the implementation of the setback requirement would
be tantamount to a taking of a total of 3,762.36 square
meters of the respondents’ private property for public
use without just compensation, in contravention to the
Constitution.
Anent the objectives of prevention of concealment of
unlawful acts and "un-neighborliness," it is obvious that
providing for a parking area has no logical connection
to, and is not reasonably necessary for, the
accomplishment of these goals.
Regarding the beautification purpose of the setback
requirement, it has long been settled that the State may
not, under the guise of police power, permanently divest
owners of the beneficial use of their property solely to
preserve or enhance the aesthetic appearance of the
community. The Court, thus, finds Section 5 to be
unreasonable and oppressive as it will substantially
divest the respondents of the beneficial use of their
property solely for aesthetic purposes. Accordingly,
Section 5 of Ordinance No. 192 is invalid.
(2) 80% See-Thru Fence Requirement
The principal purpose of Section 3.1 is "to discourage,
suppress or prevent the concealment of prohibited or
unlawful acts." The ultimate goal of this objective is
clearly the prevention of crime to ensure public safety
and security. The means employed by the petitioners,
however, is not reasonably necessary for the
accomplishment of this purpose and is unduly
oppressive to private rights. The petitioners have not
adequately shown, and it does not appear obvious to
this Court, that an 80% see-thru fence would provide
better protection and a higher level of security, or serve
as a more satisfactory criminal deterrent, than a tall
solid concrete wall. It may even be argued that such
exposed premises could entice and tempt would-be
criminals to the property, and that a see-thru fence
would be easier to bypass and breach. It also appears
that the respondents’ concrete wall has served as more
than sufficient protection over the last 40 years.
It also appears that requiring the exposure of their
property via a see-thru fence is violative of their right to
privacy, considering that the residence of the
Benedictine nuns is also located within the property.
The right to privacy has long been considered a
fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution that
must be protected from intrusion or constraint. The right
to privacy is essentially the right to be let alone, as
governmental powers should stop short of certain
intrusions into the personal life of its citizens.
(3) No Retroactivity
The petitioners argue that Ordinance No. 192 is a
curative statute as it aims to correct or cure a defect in
the National Building Code, namely, its failure to provide
for adequate guidelines for the construction of fences.
They ultimately seek to remedy an insufficiency in the
law. In aiming to cure this insufficiency, the petitioners
attempt to add lacking provisions to the National
Building Code. This is not what is contemplated by
curative statutes, which intend to correct irregularities or
invalidity in the law. The petitioners fail to point out any
irregular or invalid provision. As such, the assailed
ordinance cannot qualify as curative and retroactive in
nature.
II. Equal Protection
Concepts:
Equality and Freedom
(1) Personal/Individual Equality = Freedom/Liberty
(equality and freedom are synonymous in this respect)
All are free, but some are freer that others.
(2) Equality of opportunities – Equality is a necessary
means to liberty (To be free, you need to have access
to equal opportunities)
(3) Equality of outcome (collective equality) – equality
here is antagonistic to freedom because to achieve
similar outcome, the government would have to
regulate individual’s/person’s rights.
Equal Protection means Legal Equality:
- All persons similarly situated must be treated alike
both as to the rights conferred and the liabilities
involved.
- Classification must be reasonable; classification
has been defined as the grouping of persons or
things similar to each other in certain particulars
and different from all others in these same
particulars.
Requisites of Reasonable Classification:
1. The classification must be based on substantial
distinction
2. It must be germane to the purposes of the law
3. It must not be limited to existing conditions only
4. It must apply equally to all members of the same
class
Kinds of tests in determining the reasonableness of
classification:
1. Strict scrutiny test requires government to show that
the challenged classification serves compelling state
interest and that the classification is necessary to serve
that interest.
- presumed unconstitutional, and the burden is upon the
government to prove that the classification is necessary
to achieve a compelling state interest and that it is the
least restrictive means to protect such interest.
Applicable to: legislative classification which
impermissibly interferes with the exercise of a
fundamental right (religion, speech, privacy) or operates
to the peculiar disadvantage of a suspect class
2. Intermediate or middle-tier scrutiny test which
requires government to show that the challenged
classification serves an important state interest and that
the classification is at least substantially related to
serving that interest.
Applicable to: life and liberty rights
3. Rational basis scrutiny – the government need only
show that the challenged classification is rationally
related to serving a legitimate state interest.
Applicable to: property rights
B. Eminent Domain
Section 9. Private property shall not be taken for
public use without just compensation.
The power of eminent domain is a power inherent in
sovereignty, it is a power which need not be granted by
any fundamental law.
The provisions in the Constitution to effect that private
property shall not be taken for public use without
compensation have their origin in the recognition of a
necessity for restraining the sovereign and protecting
the individual.
In the hands of the legislature, the power of eminent
domain is an inherent power. In the hands of
government agencies, local governments and public
utilities, however, eminent domain is only a delegated
power. This distinction has important legal
consequences both with respect to the scope of the
power and with respect to the scope of judicial review of
the exercise of the power.
The following exercise the power of expropriation:
1. Congress
2. President of the Philippines
3. Various local legislative bodies
4. Certain public corporations
5. Quasi-public corporations
Where expropriation suit is filed: An expropriation suit is
incapable of pecuniary estimation. Accordingly, it falls
within the jurisdiction of RTC, regardless of the value of
the subject property.
Requisites of Eminent Domain:
(1) Taking (expropriating)
Two types of taking:
a. Possessory taking
b. Regulatory taking
There are two different types of taking that can be
identified. A "possessory" taking occurs when the
government confiscates or physically occupies
property. A "regulatory" taking occurs when the
government's regulation leaves no reasonable
economically viable use of the property.
xxxx
No formula or rule can be devised to answer the
questions of what is too far and when regulation
becomes a taking. In Mahon, Justice Holmes
recognized that it was "a question of degree and
therefore cannot be disposed of by general
propositions." On many other occasions as well, the
U.S. Supreme Court has said that the issue of when
regulation constitutes a taking is a matter of considering
the facts in each case. x x x.
What is crucial in judicial consideration of regulatory
takings is that government regulation is a taking if it
leaves no reasonable economically viable use of
property in a manner that interferes with reasonable
expectations for use. A regulation that permanently
denies all economically beneficial or productive use of
land is, from the owner's point of view, equivalent to a
"taking" unless principles of nuisance or property law
that existed when the owner acquired the land make the
use prohibitable. When the owner of real property has
been called upon to sacrifice all economically beneficial
uses in the name of the common good, that is, to leave
his property economically idle, he has suffered a taking.
xxxx
A restriction on use of property may also constitute a
"taking" if not reasonably necessary to the effectuation
of a substantial public purpose or if it has an unduly
harsh impact on the distinct investment-backed
expectations of the owner.
Requisites of taking (Republic vs. Vda. De Castellvi):
1. the expropriator must enter a private property
2. the entry must be for more than a momentary period
3. the entry must be under warrant or color of legal
authority
4. the property must be devoted for public use or
otherwise informally appropriated or injuriously affected
5. the utilization of the property for public use must be
in such a way to oust the owner and deprive him of
beneficial enjoyment of the property
(2) The property to be taken must be a private
property
Local government has two characters:
Public Function (agent of the state);
Private function (agent of its inhabitants)
Civil Code enumerates what are public properties of
local government units. Anything not enumerated are
patrimonial properties.
Patrimonial property – property of the community
Art. 424 (Civil Code): Property for public use, in the
provinces, cities and municipalities, consist of the
provincial roads, city streets, municipal streets, the
squares fountains, public waters, promenades, and
public works for public service for by said provinces,
cities or municipalities.
All other property possessed by any of them is
patrimonial and shall be governed by this Code, without
prejudice to the provisions of special laws.
Can the government expropriate a local government
private property? Yes.
Expropriation of municipal property:
If the property is owned by the municipality (municipal
corporation) in its public and governmental capacity, the
property is public and Congress has absolute control
over it. But if the property is owned in its private or
proprietary capacity then it is patrimonial and Congress
has no absolute control. The municipality cannot be
deprived of it without due process and payment of just
compensation.
(3) Use must be for public use
- as long as it is beneficial to the State
Sena v Manila Railroad Co.: whatever is beneficially
employed for the community is a public use.
Public use = public welfare, public necessity
(4) Payment of just compensation
Just compensation is the just and complete equivalent
of the loss which the owner of the thing expropriated has
to suffer by reason of the expropriation.
Fair Market Value + [Consequential Damages –
Consequential Benefits]
Market value – price fixed by the buyer and seller in the
open market in the usual and ordinary course of legal
trade and competition; the price and value of the article
established or shown by sale, public or private, in the
ordinary way of business; the fair value of property as
between one who desires to purchase and one who
desires to sell; the current price, the general or ordinary
price for which property may be sold in that locality.
It must include consequential damages (consequential
benefits must be deducted from this). In case the
consequential benefits exceed the consequential
damages, these items should be disregarded altogether
as the basic value of the property should be paid in
every case.
Form of just compensation: Cash
XPN: CARP
Association of Small Landowners vs. Secretary of
Agrarian Reform:
It cannot be denied from these cases that the traditional
medium for the payment of just compensation is money
and no other. And so, conformably, has just
compensation been paid in the past solely in that
medium. However, we do not deal here with the
traditional excercise of the power of eminent domain.
This is not an ordinary expropriation where only a
specific property of relatively limited area is sought to be
taken by the State from its owner for a specific and
perhaps local purpose.
What we deal with here is a revolutionary kind of
expropriation.
The expropriation before us affects all private
agricultural lands whenever found and of whatever kind
as long as they are in excess of the maximum retention
limits allowed their owners. This kind of expropriation is
intended for the benefit not only of a particular
community or of a small segment of the population but
of the entire Filipino nation, from all levels of our society,
from the impoverished farmer to the land-glutted owner.
Its purpose does not cover only the whole territory of
this country but goes beyond in time to the foreseeable
future, which it hopes to secure and edify with the vision
and the sacrifice of the present generation of Filipinos.
Generations yet to come are as involved in this program
as we are today, although hopefully only as
beneficiaries of a richer and more fulfilling life we will
guarantee to them tomorrow through our thoughtfulness
today. And, finally, let it not be forgotten that it is no less
than the Constitution itself that has ordained this
revolution in the farms, calling for "a just distribution"
among the farmers of lands that have heretofore been
the prison of their dreams but can now become the key
at least to their deliverance.
Determination of Just Compensation
What is the point of reference for assessing the value of
a piece of property? The value must be that as the time
of the filing of the complaint for expropriation.
XPN: when the filing of the case comes later than the
time of taking
a. when the value of the property has increased
because of the use to which the expropriator has put it,
the value is that of the time of the earlier taking
b. if the value increased independently of what the
expropriator did, then the value is that of the later filing
of the case
In Socialized Housing and CARP, it is at the time of
taking.
When there is a delay of payment, the landowner is
entitled to interest. (6% annual interest or the legal rate
as of July 1, 2013)
If more than 5 years of non-payment: the remedy is
recovery of property + damages.
If the government project is abandoned, the landowner
may recover the property but he must return the just
compensation (without interest).
If the claim is merely for damages to property (there is
really no eminent domain here), the action is subject to
prescription.
If the claim is for just compensation because there was
taking, it is not subject to prescription.
Inverse Condemnation
It is an action to recover just compensation from the
State or its expropriating agency. It has the objective to
recover the value of property taken in fact by the
government, even though no formal exercise of the
power of eminent domain has been attempted by the
taking agency.
Inverse condemnation is an action to recover, while on
the other hand, payment for damages is predicated on
statutory enactments and emanates from a
transgression of a right. (National Power Corporation
vs. Heirs of Macabangkit Sangkay, G.R. No. 165828,
August 24, 2011)
Just compensation is due not to the owner alone but to
all those who have lawful interest in the property to be
condemned.
For purposes of entry into the property prior to full
payment, Section 10 of RA 7160 requires a deposit with
the proper court of at least fifteen percent (15%) of the
FMV of the property based on the current tax
declaration of the property to be expropriated.
XPN: in expropriation for infrastructure projects, the
government must make a direct payment of the
proffered value of the property.
Can just compensation be fixed by legislation? PD 42
fixed the just compensation at either the value declared
by the owner for tax purposes or the assessed value,
whichever is lower.
EPZA v Dulay: the method of ascertaining just
compensation under the aforecited decrees constitutes
impermissible encroachment on judicial prerogatives.
The court has only to choose between the valuation of
the owner and that of the assessor, and its choice is
always limited to the lower of the two. The court cannot
exercise discretion or independence in determining
what is just or fair.
Just compensation embraces not only the correct
determination of the amount to be paid to the owners of
the land, but also payment within a reasonable time
from its taking.
The following aspects of the exercise of the power have
been subjected to judicial scrutiny:
1. the adequacy of compensation
2. the necessity of taking
3. the public use character of the purpose of the taking
Procedure in expropriation cases: judicial appointment
of three commissioners to view the premises and
assess the damages to be paid for the condemnation
Does res judicata apply in expropriation proceedings?
No. Once the right to expropriate has been denied the
state in a specific case, it does not mean that the state
may not come back to the same property. The very
nature of eminent domain dictates the right to exercise
the power be absolute and unfettered by a prior
judgment or res judicata.
Expropriation by municipal government:
Additional Requirement: Genuine Necessity of Taking
The determination of whether there is genuine
necessity for the exercise of eminent domain is a
justiciable question. However, when the power is
exercised by the Legislature, the question of necessity
is essentially a political question.
Expropriation Procedure for Local Government Units:
1. An ordinance is enacted by the local legislative
council authorizing the local chief executive, in behalf of
the LGU, to make a definite and specific writing to the
owner to buy the property stating the:
(a) purpose of expropriation; and
(b) the offer (how much)
2. Attach the copy of the Ordinance and Certification
from the City Treasurer that there are enough funds to
buy the property; and another Certification that those
funds will not be used for any purpose other than to buy
the property
3. If the owner is willing to sell, then a contract of sale
will be executed.
4. In case the owner is willing to sell but they cannot
agree on the price, a committee will be created to hold
a preliminary conference to determine the price
5. If the owner is not willing to sell OR the price cannot
be agreed upon, expropriation should follow.
6. Another Ordinance authorizing expropriation then the
Chief Executive will file a Complaint for Expropriation.
Equal protection does not apply to eminent domain.
Expropriation is always the last resort.
In case of indirect taking, there is no just compensation.
This is, in fact, an exercise of police power, not eminent
domain.
III. Taxation
Tax is the lifeblood of the government.
Article VI, Section 28. (1) The rule of taxation shall
be uniform and equitable. The congress shall
evolve a progressive system of taxation.
(2) The Congress may, by law, authorize the
President to fix within specified limits, and subject
to such limitations and restrictions as it may
impose, tariff rates, import and export quotas,
tonnage and wharfage dues, and other duties or
imposts within the framework of the national
development program of the Government.
(3) Charitable institutions, churches and
parsonages or convents appurtenant thereto,
mosques, non-profit cemeteries, and all lands,
buildings, and improvements actually, directly and
exclusively used for religious, charitable, or
educational purposes shall be exempt from
taxation.
(4) No law granting any tax exemption shall be
passed without the concurrence of a majority of all
the members of the Congress.
The obvious primary and specific purpose of the power
to tax is to raise revenue.
Justice Marshall: the power to tax is the power to
destroy
The power of taxation should only be exercised for a
public purpose.
Specific limits on the taxing power: uniform and
equitable
Progressive system of taxation – a tax is progressive
when the rate increases as the tax base increases
(taxing power may be made to fall more heavily upon
some than upon others)
Reason: social justice – more equitable distribution of
wealth
Tax exemption is only for taxes assessed as property
taxes as contra-distinguished from excise taxes.
Double Taxation: when additional taxes are laid on the
same subject by the same taxing jurisdiction during the
same taxing period for the same purpose.
The power to regulate as an exercise of police power
does not include the power to impose fees for revenue
purposes. Fees for purely regulatory purposes may only
be of sufficient amount to include the expenses of
issuing the license and the cost of the necessary
inspection or police surveillance, taking into account not
only the expense of direct regulation but also incidental
expenses.
May a local government unit levy real property tax on
submarine or undersea communications cables?
Yes. Submarine wires or cables used for
communications may be taxed like other real estate.
Submarine or undersea communications cables are
akin to electric transmission lines. To the extent that the
equipment's location is determinable to be within the
taxing authority's jurisdiction, the Court sees no reason
to distinguish between submarine cables used for
communications and aerial or underground wires or
lines used for electric transmission, so that both pieces
of property do not merit a different treatment in the
aspect of real property taxation. (Capitol Wireless, Inc.
vs. The Provincial Treasurer of Batangas, G.R. No.
180110. May 30, 2016)
Section 2. The right of the people to be secure in
their persons, houses, papers and effects against
unreasonable searches and seizures, of whatever
nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable. And
no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue
except upon probable cause to be determined
personally by the judge after examination under
oath or affirmation of the complainant and the
witnesses he may produce, and particularly
describing the place to be searched and the
persons or things to be seized.
Purpose: To protect a person’s right to privacy; the right
to be left alone
Zones of privacy are recognized and protected in our
laws. Within these zones, any form of intrusion is
impermissible unless excused by law and in
accordance with customary legal process. The
meticulous regard we accord to these zones arises not
only from our conviction that the right to privacy is a
"constitutional right" and "the right most valued by
civilized men," but also from our adherence to the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights which mandates
that, "no one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference
with his privacy" and "everyone has the right to the
protection of the law against such interference or
attacks."
Our Bill of Rights, enshrined in Article III of the
Constitution, provides at least two guarantees that
explicitly create zones of privacy. It highlights a person's
"right to be let alone" or the "right to determine what,
how much, to whom and when information about
himself shall be disclosed." Section 2 guarantees "the
right of the people to be secure in their persons,
houses, papers and effects against unreasonable
searches and seizures of whatever nature and for
any purpose." Section 3 renders inviolable the
"privacy of communication and correspondence"
and further cautions that "any evidence obtained in
violation of this or the preceding section shall be
inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding."
It operates against "unreasonable" searches and
seizures only.
Two Categories of Privacy:
1. Decisional Privacy – involves the right to
independence in making certain important decisions
2. Informational Privacy – refers to the interest of
avoiding disclosure of personal matters.
Two Aspects of Informational Privacy:
a., Right not to have private information disclosed;
b. Right to live freely without surveillance and intrusion
Entitlement to Right, two-fold test:
1. Subjective Test: one claiming the right must have an
actual or legitimate expectation of privacy over a certain
matter.
2. Objective Test: His/Her expectation of privacy must
be one society is prepared to accept as objectively
reasonable.
What are unreasonable searches and seizures? As a
general rule, searches and seizures without a validly
issued search warrant or warrant of arrest
Requisites of a valid warrant:
1. Existence of probable cause
Probable case for a search would mean 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.
Stonehill v Diokno: existence of probable cause
presupposes the introduction of competent proof that
the party against whom it is sought has performed
particular acts, or committed specific omissions
violating a given provision of our criminal law.
2. Personal determination by the judge
3. Personal examination of the witnesses
a. The judge shall personal evaluate the report and
supporting documents submitted by the prosecutor
regarding the existence of probable cause, and on the
basis thereof, he may already make a personal
determination of the existence of probable cause
b. If he is not satisfied that probable cause exists, he
may disregard the prosecutor’s report and require the
submission of supporting affidavits of witnesses to aid
him in arriving at a conclusion as to the existence of
probable cause
4. Particularity of description
Purpose: to limit the things to be seized to those, and
only those, particularly described in the search warrant
– to leave the officers of the law with no discretion
regarding what articles they shall seize, to the end that
unreasonable searches and seizures may not be made,
- that abuses may not be committed; the elimination of
general warrants
Things to be seized:
1. Things used to commit the offense;
2. Things that may be used in evidence;
3. Things that are illegal per se.
The search must be conducted in the presence of the
lawful occupant or immediate relatives or in the
presence of two witnesses.
The sufficiency of the description of the object of the
search is closely related with the sufficient particularity
of the averments of the offense. The possibility of
properly identifying the object of the search may depend
on the proper identification of the offense committed.
G.R.: One warrant for one offense.
XPN: Different offenses belonging to the same
specie/genus punished under one special law
Example: offenses under the Dangerous Drugs Act
For warrant of arrest – personal description
John Doe warrant of arrest is generally void except in
those cases where it contains a description personae
such as will enable the officer to identify the accused.
Remedy:
1. Motion to quash warrant in case of questionable
warrant;
2. Motion for investigation if there’s no warrant
(warrantless search)
Warrantless arrest:
Sec. 5 Rule 113, Rules of Court:
Arrest without warrant; when lawful. A peace officer or
private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person:
a. When in his presence, the person to be arrested has
committed, is actually committing, or attempting to
commit an offense (in flagrante delicto) – applicable to
continuing crime e.g. rebellion
b. When an offense has in fact been committed, and he
has personal knowledge of facts indicating that the
person to be arrested has committed it; and
c. 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
Arrest is the taking of a person into custody in order that
he may be forthcoming to answer for the commission of
an offense.
Any objection involving a warrant of arrest or procedure
in acquisition by the court of jurisdiction over the person
of the accused must be made before he enters his plea,
otherwise the objection is deemed waived. The accused
must move for the quashing of the information against
him before arraignment. Otherwise, he is estopped from
questioning the validity of the arrest.
Application for bail or the admission to bail by an
accused is not considered a waiver of his right to assail
a warrant issued for his arrest or the legalities or
irregularities thereof.
Warrantless searches and seizures; when valid
Why allowed?
a. Reasonable – no legitimate expectation of privacy;
b. Practical – there’s urgency
A reasonable search, on the one hand, and a
warrantless search, on the other, are mutually
exclusive. While both State intrusions are valid even
without a warrant, the underlying reasons for the
absence of a warrant are different. A reasonable search
arises from a reduced expectation of privacy, for which
reason Section 2, Article III of the Constitution finds no
application. Examples include searches done at
airports, seaports, bus terminals, malls, and similar
public ·places. In contrast, a warrantless search is
presumably an "unreasonable search," but for reasons
of practicality, a search warrant can be dispensed with.
Examples include search incidental to a lawful arrest,
search of evidence in plain view, consented search, and
extensive search of a private moving vehicle.
(1) Consent/Waiver
To be valid, the consent must be voluntary such that it
is unequivocal, specific, and intelligently given,
uncontaminated by any duress or coercion. Relevant to
this determination of voluntariness are the following
characteristics of the person giving consent and the
environment in which consent is given: (a) the age of
the consenting party; (b) whether he or she was in a
public or secluded location; (c) whether he or she
objected to the search or passively looked on; (d) his or
her education and intelligence; (e) the presence of
coercive police procedures; (f) the belief that no
incriminating evidence will be found; (g) the nature of
the police questioning; (h) the environment in which the
questioning took place; and (i) the possibly vulnerable
subjective state of the person consenting.
Note:
Implied acquiescence, if at all, may have been no more
than mere passive conformity given under coercive or
intimidating circumstances.
(2) Search incidental to arrest
The arrest must be lawful, it can either be an arrest with
warrant or a valid warrantless arrest. The arrest must
precede the search.
An officer making an arrest may take from the person
arrested any money or property found upon his person
which –
a. was used in the commission of the crime or was the
fruit of the crime
b. which might furnish the prisoner with the means of
committing violence or escaping
c. which may be used in evidence in the trial of the
cause
Purpose: to protect the arresting officer against physical
harm and to prevent the person arrested from
destroying evidence within his reach.
The search is limited to the person and the immediate
surrounding which the person being arrest has control.
(3) Emergency Circumstance
- because time is of the essence
(4) Airport/Seaport Search
Airport Search: Persons may lose the protection of the
search and seizure clause by exposure of their persons
or property to the public in a manner reflecting a lack of
subjective expectation of privacy, which expectation
society is prepared to recognize as reasonable. Such
recognition is implicit in airport security procedures.
With increased concern over airplane hijacking and
terrorism has come increased security at the nation's
airports. Passengers attempting to board an aircraft
routinely pass through metal detectors; their carry-on
baggage as well as checked luggage are routinely
subjected to x-ray scans. Should these procedures
suggest the presence of suspicious objects. physical
searches are conducted to determine what the objects
are. There is little question that such searches are
reasonable, given their minimal intrusiveness, the
gravity of the safety interests involved, and the reduced
privacy expectations associated with airline travel.
Indeed, travelers are often notified through airport
public address systems, signs. and notices in their
airline tickets that they are subject to search and, if any
prohibited materials or substances are found, such
would be subject to seizure. These announcements
place passengers on notice that ordinary constitutional
protections against warrantless searches and seizures
do not apply to routine airport procedure
Seaport Search: Seaport searches are reasonable
searches on the ground that the safety of the traveling
public overrides a person's right to privacy.
(5) Search of a moving vehicle
Reason: because a vehicle can be quickly moved out of
the locality or jurisdiction in which the warrant must be
sought
Automobile, or no automobile, there must be probable
cause for the search. Probable cause is the minimum
requirement for a reasonable search permitted by the
Constitution.
Instances that could lead to warrantless search and
seizure:
(1) Plain view doctrine – without conducting a search,
an illegal object is exposed to the eye or hand.
This doctrine is usually applied where the police officer
is not searching for evidence against the accused, but
nonetheless inadvertently comes upon an incriminating
object.
Elements:
1. Prior valid intrusion seizure based on the valid
warrantless arrest in which the police are legally present
in the pursuit of their official duties;
2. The evidence was inadvertently discovered by the
police who have the right to be where they are;
3. The evidence must be immediately apparent;
4. Plain view justified the seizure of the evidence without
any further search.
(2) Check point – must be limited to visual search
Guidelines:
a. Point;
b. Lighted;
c. Uniform;
d. Police Station Written
(3) Stop and frisk – limited protective search of outer
clothing for weapons
Elements:
a. stop = reasonable ground to suspect;
b. frisk = to search for weapons;
c. seize = plain view;
d. arrest = in flagrante delicto;
e. search = incident to a lawful arrest
Two-fold interest:
a. the general interest of effective crime prevention and
detection, which underlies the recognition that a police
officer may, under appropriate circumstances and in an
appropriate manner, approach a person for purposes of
investigating possible criminal behavior even without
probable cause
2. the more pressing interest of safety and self-
preservation which permit the police officer to take steps
to assure himself that the person with whom he deals is
not armed with a deadly weapon that could
unexpectedly and fatally be used against the police
officer.
Saluday vs. People:
Concededly, a bus, a hotel and beach resort, and a
shopping mall are all private property whose owners
have every right to exclude anyone from entering. At
the same time, however, because these private
premises are accessible to the public, the State, much
like the owner, can impose non-intrusive security
measures and filter those going in. The only difference
in the imposition of security measures by an owner
and the State is, the former emanates from the
attributes of ownership under Article 429 of the Civil
Code, while the latter stems from the exercise of police
power for the promotion of public safety. Necessarily, a
person's expectation of privacy is diminished
whenever he or she enters private premises that arc
accessible to the public.
Guidelines on bus searches:
1. Prior to entry, passengers and their bags and
luggages can be subjected to a routine
inspection akin to airport and seaport security
protocol. In this regard, metal detectors and
x-ray scanning machines can be installed at
bus terminals. Passengers can also be frisked.
In lieu of electronic scanners, passengers can
be required instead to open their bags and
luggages for inspection, which inspection must
be made in the passenger's presence. Should
the passenger object, he or she can validly be
refused entry into the terminal.
2. While in transit, a bus can still be searched by
government agents or the security personnel of
the bus owner in the following three instances:
a. First, upon receipt of information that a
passenger carries contraband or illegal
articles, the bus where the passenger is
aboard can be stopped en route to allow for
an inspection of the person and his or her
effects. This is no different from an airplane
that is forced to land upon receipt of
information about the contraband or illegal
articles carried by a passenger onboard.
b. Second, whenever a bus picks passengers
en route, the prospective passenger can be
frisked and his or her bag or luggage be
subjected to the same routine inspection by
government agents or private security
personnel as though the person boarded
the bus at the terminal. This is because
unlike an airplane, a bus is able to stop and
pick passengers along the way, making it
possible for these passengers to evade the
routine search at the bus terminal.
c. Third, a bus can be flagged down at
designated military or police checkpoints
where State agents can board the vehicle
for a routine inspection of the passengers
and their bags or luggages.
3. In both situations, the inspection of passengers
and their effects prior to entry at the bus
terminal and the search of the bus while in
transit must also satisfy the following conditions
to qualify as a valid reasonable search.
a. First, as to the manner of the search, it must
be the least intrusive and must uphold the
dignity of the person or persons being
searched, minimizing, if not altogether
eradicating, any cause for public
embarrassment, humiliation or ridicule.
b. Second, neither can the search result from
any discriminatory motive such as insidious
profiling, stereotyping and other similar
motives. In all instances, the fundamental
rights of vulnerable identities, persons with
disabilities, children and other similar
groups should be protected.
c. Third, as to the purpose of the search, it
must be confined to ensuring public safety.
d. Fourth, as to the evidence seized from the
reasonable search, courts must be
convinced that precautionary measures
were in place to ensure that no evidence
was planted against the accused.
Note: Aside from public transport buses, any moving
vehicle that similarly accepts passengers at the terminal
and along its route is likewise covered by these
guidelines. Hence, whenever compliant with these
guidelines, a routine inspection at the terminal or of the
vehicle itself while in transit constitutes a reasonable
search. Otherwise, the intrusion becomes
unreasonable, thereby triggering the constitutional
guarantee under Section 2, Article III of the Constitution.
Not applicable: The guidelines do not apply to
privately-owned cars. Neither are they applicable to
moving vehicles dedicated for private or personal use,
as in the case of taxis, which are hired by only one or a
group of passengers such that the vehicle can no longer
be flagged down by any other person until the
passengers on board alight from the vehicle.
Drug Test:
Can mandatory drug testing be imposed on the
following classes of persons:
(a) candidates for public office;
(b) students of secondary and tertiary schools;
(c) employees of public and private offices; and
(d) persons charged with certain offense?
a. No. If Congress cannot require a
candidate for Senator to meet such
additional qualification, the
Commission on Elections, to be sure, is
also without such power. The right of a
citizen in the democratic process of
election should not be defeated by
unwarranted impositions of
requirement not otherwise specified in
the Constitution. The
unconstitutionality of this requirement
is rooted on its having infringed the
constitutional provision defining the
qualification or eligibility requirements
for one aspiring to run for and serve as
Senator.
b. Yes. The constitutional viability of the
mandatory, random, and suspicionless
drug testing for students emanates
primarily from the waiver by the
students of their right to privacy when
they seek entry to the school, and from
their voluntarily submitting their
persons to the parental authority of
school authorities.
c. Yes. In the case of private and public
employees, the constitutional
soundness of the mandatory, random,
and suspicionless drug testing
proceeds from the reasonableness of
the drug test policy and requirement.
d. No. In the case of persons charged with
a crime before the Prosecutor’s Office,
a mandatory drug testing can never be
random or suspicionless. The ideas of
randomness and being suspicionless
are antithetical to their being made
Defendants in a criminal complaint.
They are not randomly picked; neither
are they beyond suspicion. When
persons suspected of committing a
crime are charged, they are
singled out and are impleaded
against their will. The persons thus
charged, by the bare fact of being
hailed before the Prosecutor’s Office
and peaceably submitting themselves
to drug testing, if that be the case, do
not necessarily consent to the
procedure, let alone waive their right to
privacy. To impose mandatory drug
testing on the accused is a blatant
attempt to harness a medical test as a
tool for criminal prosecution, contrary
to the stated objectives of Republic Act
No. 9165. (Social Justice Society vs.
Dangerous Drugs Board, G.R. No.
157870, November 3, 2008)
Section 3. (1) The privacy of communication and
correspondence shall be inviolable except upon
lawful order of the court, or when public safety or
order requires otherwise as prescribed by law.
(2) Any evidence obtained in violation of this or the
preceding section shall be inadmissible for any
purpose in any proceeding.
Invasion of communication and correspondence is one
kind of search.
Should the order also particularly describe the
communication or correspondence sought to be
seized? If the intrusion is to be done through wire-taps,
how is the description to be made? Evidently, it would
be impossible to describe the contents of a
communication that has not yet been made. Hence, it
would be unreasonable to require a description of the
contents of the communication. But the identity of the
person or persons who communication is to be
intercepted, and the identity of the offense sought to be
prevented, and the period of the authorization given can
be specified.
Exclusionary rule bars the admission of illegally
obtained evidence.
The legality of a seizure can be contested only by the
party whose rights have been impaired thereby, and
that the objection to an unlawful search and seizure is
purely personal and cannot be availed of by third
parties.
The inadmissibility of the evidence, however, does not
mean that it must be returned where it came from. If the
object is not a prohibited object, it must be returned. But
if contraband, it can be confiscated.
To come under the exclusionary rule, however, the
evidence must be obtained by government agents and
not by private individuals acting on their own.
People v Andre Marti: The constitutional proscription
against unlawful searches and seizures therefore
applies as a restraint directed only against the
government and its agencies tasked with the
enforcement of the law. Thus, it could only be invoked
against the State to whom the restraint against arbitrary
and unreasonable exercise of power is imposed.
Anti-Wire Tapping Law (RA No. 4200)
Section 1. It shall be unlawful for any person, not being
authorized by all the parties to any private
communication or spoken word, to tap any wire or
cable, or by using any other device or arrangement, to
secretly overhear, intercept, or record such
communication or spoken word by using a device
commonly known as a dictaphone or dictagraph or
detectaphone or walkie-talkie or tape recorder, or
however otherwise described:
It shall also be unlawful for any person, be he a
participant or not in the act or acts penalized in the next
preceding sentence, to knowingly possess any tape
record, wire record, disc record, or any other such
record, or copies thereof, of any communication or
spoken word secured either before or after the effective
date of this Act in the manner prohibited by this law; or
to replay the same for any other person or persons; or
to communicate the contents thereof, either verbally or
in writing, or to furnish transcriptions thereof, whether
complete or partial, to any other person: Provided, That
the use of such record or any copies thereof as
evidence in any civil, criminal investigation or trial of
offenses mentioned in Sec. 3 hereof, shall not be
covered by this prohibition.
Sec. 2. Any person who wilfully or knowingly does or
who shall aid, permit, or cause to be done any of the
acts declared to be unlawful in the preceding Sec. or
who violates the provisions of the following Sec. or of
any order issued thereunder, or aids, permits, or causes
such violation shall, upon conviction thereof, be
punished by imprisonment for not less than six months
or more than six years and with the accessory penalty
of perpetual absolute disqualification from public office
if the offender be a public official at the time of the
commission of the offense, and, if the offender is an
alien he shall be subject to deportation proceedings.
Sec. 3. Nothing contained in this Act, however, shall
render it unlawful or punishable for any peace officer,
who is authorized by a written order of the Court, to
execute any of the acts declared to be unlawful in the
two preceding Sections in cases involving the crimes
of treason, espionage, provoking war and disloyalty
in case of war, piracy, mutiny in the high seas,
rebellion, conspiracy and proposal to commit
rebellion, inciting to rebellion, sedition, conspiracy
to commit sedition, inciting to sedition, kidnapping
as defined by the Revised Penal Code, and
violations of Commonwealth Act No. 616, punishing
espionage and other offenses against national
security: Provided, That such written order shall only
be issued or granted upon written application and the
examination under oath or affirmation of the applicant
and the witnesses he may produce and a showing: (1)
that there are reasonable grounds to believe that any of
the crimes enumerated hereinabove has been
committed or is being committed or is about to be
committed: Provided, however, That in cases involving
the offenses of rebellion, conspiracy and proposal to
commit rebellion, inciting to rebellion, sedition,
conspiracy to commit sedition, and inciting to sedition,
such authority shall be granted only upon prior proof
that a rebellion or acts of sedition, as the case may be,
have actually been or are being committed; (2) that
there are reasonable grounds to believe that evidence
will be obtained essential to the conviction of any person
for, or to the solution of, or to the prevention of, any such
crimes; and (3) that there are no other means readily
available for obtaining such evidence.
The order granted or issued shall specify: (1) the identity
of the person or persons whose communications,
conversations, discussions, or spoken words are to be
overheard, intercepted, or recorded and, in the case of
telegraphic or telephonic communications, the
telegraph line or the telephone number involved and its
location; (2) the identity of the peace officer authorized
to overhear, intercept, or record the communications,
conversations, discussions, or spoken words; (3) the
offense or offenses committed or sought to be
prevented; and (4) the period of the authorization. The
authorization shall be effective for the period specified
in the order which shall not exceed sixty (60) days from
the date of issuance of the order, unless extended or
renewed by the court upon being satisfied that such
extension or renewal is in the public interest.
All recordings made under court authorization shall,
within forty-eight hours after the expiration of the period
fixed in the order, be deposited with the court in a sealed
envelope or sealed package, and shall be accompanied
by an affidavit of the peace officer granted such
authority stating the number of recordings made, the
dates and times covered by each recording, the number
of tapes, discs, or records included in the deposit, and
certifying that no duplicates or copies of the whole or
any part thereof have been made, or if made, that all
such duplicates or copies are included in the envelope
or package deposited with the court. The envelope or
package so deposited shall not be opened, or the
recordings replayed, or used in evidence, or their
contents revealed, except upon order of the court, which
shall not be granted except upon motion, with due
notice and opportunity to be heard to the person or
persons whose conversation or communications have
been recorded.
The court referred to in this Sec. shall be understood to
mean the Court of First Instance within whose territorial
jurisdiction the acts for which authority is applied for are
to be executed.
Sec. 4. Any communication or spoken word, or the
existence, contents, substance, purport, effect, or
meaning of the same or any part thereof, or any
information therein contained obtained or secured by
any person in violation of the preceding Sections of this
Act shall not be admissible in evidence in any judicial,
quasi-judicial, legislative or administrative hearing or
investigation.
Section 4. No law shall be passed abridging the
freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press,
or the right of the people peaceably to assemble
and petition the government for redress of
grievances.
Prior restraint – official governmental restrictions on
the press or other forms of expression in advance of
actual publication or dissemination. Its most blatant
form is a system of licensing administered by an
executive officer.
The freedom of broadcast media is lesser in scope than
the press because of their pervasive presence in the
lives of the people and because of their accessibility to
children.
Motion picture censorship:
1. the burden of proving that the film is unprotected
expression must rest on the censor
2. censor’s determination is not final; it must be
subjected to judicial determination
Freedom of expression v Right to privacy:
The right of privacy cannot be invoked to resist
publication and dissemination of matters of public
interest. The interest sought to be protected by the right
to privacy is the right to be free from “unwarranted
publicity, from the wrongful publicizing of the private
affairs and activities of an individual which are outside
the realm of legitimate public concern.
A public figure has been defined as a person who, by
his accomplishments, fame or mode of living, or by
adopting a profession or calling which gives the public
a legitimate interest in his doings, his affairs, and his
character, has become a public personage. He is, in
other words, a celebrity.
Such public figures were held to have lost, to some
extent at least, their right of privacy.
Fear of Subsequent Punishment – unduly curtailing
speech and expression through a system of providing
penalties after the speech/express is published.
If prior restraint were all that the constitutional
guarantee prohibited and government could impose
subsequent punishment without restraint, freedom of
expression would be a mockery and a delusion.
Test for determining the validity of curtailment of
speech:
1. Dangerous tendency rule – for speech to be
punishable, there must be a rational connection
between the speech and the evil apprehended.
2. Clear and present danger test – the question in every
case is whether the words used are used in such
circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a
clear and present danger that they will bring about
substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent
3. Balancing of interest test
Complete liberty to comment on the conduct of public
men is a scalpel in the case of free speech. The sharp
incision of its probe relieves the absences of
officialdom. A public officer must not be too thin skinned
with reference to comment upon his official acts.
Regulation:
1. content-neutral – based on the time, place or
manner of dissemination; what is being regulated is not
really the speech
Test: Intermediate Scrutiny Test
2. content-based – based on the substance being
communicated
Test: Strict Scrutiny Test
Core Speeches:
Social, Political and Religious Speech [test: strict
scrutiny]
vs.
Commercial speech – communication whose sole
purpose is to propose a commercial transaction.
Commercial speech has not been accorded the same
level of protection as that given to what is called “core
speech” such as political speech.
[test: intermediate scrutiny test]
Requirements for the protection of commercial speech:
1. The speech must not be false or misleading or
proposing an illegal activity
2. The governmental interest sought to be served by the
regulation must be substantial
3. The regulation must directly advance the government
interest
4. The regulation must not be overbroad (more
excessive than is necessary to protect state interest)
Unprotected speech:
(1) Libel and other defamatory speeches
Art. 353 (RPC). A libel is public and malicious
imputation of a crime, or a vice or defect, real or
imaginary, or any act, omission, condition, status, or
circumstance tending to cause the dishonor, discredit or
contempt of a natural or juridical person, or to blacken
the memory of one who is dead.
Publicity means making the defamatory matter, after it
has been written, known to someone other than the
person to whom it has been written.
Art. 354. Every defamatory imputation is presumed to
be malicious, even if it be true, if no good intention and
justifiable motive for making it is shown, except in the
following cases:
1. A private communication made by any person to
another in the performance of any legal, moral or social
duty; and
2. A fair and true report, made in good faith, without any
comments or remarks, of any judicial, legislative or
other official proceedings which are not of confidential
nature, or of any statement, report or speech delivered
in said proceedings, or of any other act performed by
public officers in the exercise of their functions.
It is immaterial if the statement is true or not.
(2) Alarming and Scandalous Statements
(3) Inciting to Rebellion or Sedition
(4) Obscenity/Pornography
Tests:
a. Average person test;
b. Community standard test;
c. National character test;
d. Aggregate community standard test;
e. Contemporary standard test;
f. Isolated passage test (Hicklin Test);
g. Dominant Theme Test

Hicklin rule
- whether the tendency of the matter charged as
obscene is to deprave and corrupt those whose minds
are open to such immoral influences, and into whose
hands a publication of this sort may fall (susceptible
person test)
- isolated passages test: book could be rejected on the
basis of isolated obscene passages without regard to
the total effect of the entire work
Roth case
- Dominant theme test
whether to the average person applying the
contemporary community standards, the dominant
theme of the material taken as a whole appeals to the
prurient interest
Memoirs v Massachusetts: three elements must
coalesce –
(a) the dominant theme of the material taken as a whole
appeals to a prurient interest in sex
(b) the material is patently offensive because it affronts
contemporary community standards relating to the
description or representation of sexual matters and
(c) the material is utterly without redeeming social value
Miller v California:
a. whether the average person , applying contemporary
community standards would find that the work, taken as
whole, appeals to the prurient interest
b. whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently
offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by
the applicable state law
c. whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious
literary, artistic, political or scientific value
O’Brien Test (a regulation is justified):
1. If it is within the constitutional power of the
Government;
2. If it furthers an important or substantial governmental
interest;
3. If the governmental interest is unrelated to the
suppression of free expression;
4. If the incidental restriction is no greater than is
essential to the furtherance of that interest.
Assembly and Petition
The right of assembly and petition is equally
fundamental as freedom of expression, the standards
for allowable impairment of speech and press are also
those for assembly and petition.
The granting of permit was subject only to the Mayor’s
reasonable discretion to determine or specify the
streets or public places to be used for the purpose, with
a view to prevent confusion by overlapping, to secure
convenient use of the streets and public places by
others, and to provide adequate and proper policing to
minimize the risk of disorder.
Rules on assembly and petition:
1. the applicant for a permit to hold an assembly should
inform the licensing authority of the date, the public
place where and the time when it will take place. (If it a
private place, only the consent of the owner or the one
entitled to its legal possession is required).
2. Such application should be filed well ahead in time to
enable the public official concerned to appraise whether
there may be valid objection to the grant of the permit
or to its grant but to another public place. It is an
indispensable condition to such refusal or modification
that the clear and present danger test be the standard
for the decision reached.
Government can also be over anxious in times of
frequent anti-government rallies. Thus was born what
was called by the government as calibrated preemptive
response to demonstration and rallies. But the court in
Bayan v Ermita said that calibrated preemptive
response had no place in the constitutional firmament
and that the proper response was maximum tolerance
prescribed in Batas Pambansa 880. BP 880 also orders
political units to set up freedom parks.
In case of denial of permit, it is incumbent upon the
Mayor to state the reasons for the denial (must be
based on clear and present danger).
In case of freedom parks, there is no need for a permit.
If there is no designated freedom parks, all open and
public spaces are deemed freedom parks.
There is also no need for a permit if the rally will be held
in a privately-owned property, only the consent of the
owner must be obtained.
Section 5. No law shall be made respecting an
establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free
exercise thereof. The free exercise and enjoyment
of religious profession and worship, without
discrimination or preference, shall forever be
allowed. No religious test shall be required for the
exercise of civil or political rights.
A. Free exercise clause
- embraces two concepts – freedom to believe and
freedom to act. The first is absolute, but in the nature of
things, the second cannot be.
Gerona v Secretary of Education: a challenge by
Jehovah’s Witnesses against a department order
issued which prescribed compulsory flag ceremonies in
all public schools. SC: the only object of the law was to
see to it that all schools aim to develop civic conscience
and teach the duties of citizenship. The DO is valid.
Ebralinag v Division Superintendent of Schools of
Cebu: freedom of religion requires that protesting
members be exempted from operation of the law. In
other words, accommodation.
Estrada v Escritor: benevolent neutrality
Benevolent neutrality recognizes that government must
pursue its secular goals and interests but at the same
time strives to uphold religious liberty to the greatest
extent possible within flexible constitutional limits. Thus,
although the morality contemplated by laws is secular,
benevolent neutrality could allow for accommodation of
morality based on religion, provided it does not offend
compelling state interests.
B. Non-establishment clause
- prohibits the state from passing laws which aid one
religion, aid all religions or prefer one religion over
another.
- non-establishment calls for government neutrality in
religious matters
Aglipay v Ruiz: the Philippine independent church
challenged the constitutionality of the issuance and sale
of postage stamps commemorative of the 33 rd
International Eucharistic Congress of the Catholic
Church. SC: The government should not be
embarrassed in its activities simply because of the
incidental results, more or less religious in character, if
the purpose had in view is one which could legitimately
undertaken by appropriate legislation.
Garces v Estenzo: The wooden image was purchased
in connection with the celebration of the barrio fiesta.
Barrio fiesta is a socio-religious affair. Its celebration is
an ingrained tradition in rural communities. The fiesta
relieves the monotony and drudgery of the lives of the
masses.
Pamil v Teleron: upheld the validity of Sec. 2175 of the
Administrative Code disqualifying ecclesiastics from
being appointed or elected as municipal officer.
Seven justices: free-exercise point of view
Five justices: non-establishment
The separation of church and state shall be inviolable.
The state cannot interfere in purely religious/church
affairs (one-way prohibition).
Abington School District v Schempp: The test may be
stated as follows: what are the purpose and primary
effect of the enactment? If either is the advancement or
inhibition of religion then the enactment exceeds the
scope of legislative power as circumscribed by the
Constitution. That is to say that to withstand the
strictures of the Establishment Clause there must be a
secular legislative purpose and a primary effect that
neither advances nor inhibits religion.
Requisites to pass the non-establishment clause
(Lemon Test):
1. The law must have legislative secular purpose
2. The law does not primarily inhibit or advance a
religion
3. No excessive entanglement between state ng
religion
Religion in the public schools
Article XiV Section 3(3): At the option expressed in
writing by the parents or guardians, religion shall be
allowed to be taught to their children or wards in public
elementary and high schools within the regular class
hours by instructors designated or approved by the
religious authorities of the religion to which the children
or wards belong, without additional cost to the
government.
Can Catholic Masses be held in Halls of Justice?
Yes. The holding of Catholic masses at the basement
of the QC Hall of Justice is not a case of
establishment, but merely accommodation.
1. There is no law, ordinance or circular issued by
any duly constitutive authorities expressly
mandating that judiciary employees attend the
Catholic masses at the basement.
2. When judiciary employees attend the masses
to profess their faith, it is at their own initiative,
without any coercion from the judges or
administrative officers.
3. No government funds are being spent because
the lightings and air conditioning continue to be
operational even if there are no religious rituals
there.
4. The basement has neither been converted into
a Roman Catholic chapel nor has it been
permanently appropriated for the exclusive use
of its faithful.
5. The allowance of the masses has not
prejudiced other religions (Re: Letter of Tony
Valenciano, A.M. 10-4-19-SC, 2017)
Can religious images be displayed in government
offices?
No. In no case shall a particular part of a public building
be a permanent place for worship for the benefit of any
and all religious groups. There shall also be no
permanent display of religious icons in all halls of justice
in the country. In case of religious rituals, religious icons
and images may be displayed but their presentation is
limited only during the celebration of such activities.
After any religious affair, the icons and images shall be
hidden or concealed from public view. (Re: Letter of
Tony Valenciano, A.M. 10-4- 19-SC, 2017)
NOT COVERED:
Section 6. The liberty of abode and of changing the
same within the limits prescribed by law shall not
be impaired except upon lawful order of the court.
Neither shall the right to travel be impaired except
in the interest of national security, public safety, or
public health, as may be provided by law.
1935 Consti: The liberty of abode and of changing the
same within the limits prescribed by law shall not be
impaired.
1973 Consti: The liberty of abode and of travel shall not
be impaired except upon lawful order of the court, or
when necessary in the interest of national security,
public safety or public health.
Hamletting – herding of people into a military
quarantined sanctuary within the rebel areas during the
regime of Marcos
Marcos v Manglapus - ban of President Aquino on
Marcos’ return to the Philippines. Decision pro hac vice.
While the right to travel of citizens covers both exit from
and entry into the country, aliens cannot claim the same
right. Norms for admission of aliens into the country are
political matters virtually beyond the reach of judicial
review.
Sec. 7. The right of the people to information on
matters of public concern shall be recognized.
Access to official records, and to documents, and
papers pertaining to official acts, transactions, or
decisions, as well as to government research data
used as basis for policy development, shall be
afforded the citizen, subject to such limitations as
may be provided by law.
Chavez v President Commission on Good Government:
The ff are limitations on the right to information –
1. National security matters
2, Trade secrets and banking transactions
3. Criminal matters or classified law enforcement
matters
4. Other confidential matters
What matters are of public concern and what are not?
Public concern like public interest eludes exact
definition and embraces a broad spectrum of subjects
which the public may want to know, either because
these directly affect their lives or simply because such
matters arouse the interest of an ordinary citizen.
Section 8. The right of the people, including those
employed in the public and private sectors, to form
unions, associations, or societies for purposes not
contrary to law shall not be abridged.
Freedom of association is an aspect of freedom of
expression and of belief.
Article IX B Section 2(5): The right to self-organization
shall not be denied to government employees.
Article XIII Section 3. The State shall guarantee the
rights of all workers to self-organization, collective
bargaining and negotiations, and peaceful concerted
activities, including the right to strike in accordance with
law.
The right to strike is qualified by the phrase in
accordance with law. The right to organize is seen as
broader than the right to strike.
The court ruled that employees of the SSS and public
school teachers do not have constitutional right to strike.
Right of association – labor unionism and communist
organization
The right to form associations does not necessarily
include the right to be given legal personality.
Section 10. No law impairing the obligation of
contracts shall be passed.
Impairment:
(1) change in the terms and conditions of the contract
(2) changes in the relationship of the parties
Contracts v Law
- Both imposes obligation
- Obligation must not be contrary to law
- Contracts are laws between the parties of a
contract
Section 11. Free access to the courts and quasi
judicial bodies and adequate legal assistance shall
not be denied to any person by reason of poverty.
This constitutional provision is the basis for the
provision of Sec. 22 Rule 3 of the New Rules of Court
allowing litigation in forma pauperis. Those protected
include low paid employees, domestic servants and
laborers. They need not be persons so poor that they
must be supported at public expense. It suffices that
plaintiff is indigent. Indigent persons are persons who
have no property or sources of income sufficient for their
support aside from their own labor through self-
supporting when able to work and in employment.
Section 12. (1) Any person under investigation for
the commission of an offense shall have the right to
be informed of his right to remain silent and to have
competent and independent counsel preferably of
his own choice. If the person cannot afford the
services of counsel, he must be provided with one.
These rights cannot be waived except in writing and
in the presence of counsel.
(2) No torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation or
any other means which vitiate the free will shall be
used against him. Secret detention places, solitary,
incommunicado, or other similar forms of detention
are prohibited.
(3) Any confession or admission obtained in
violation of this or Section 17 hereof shall be
inadmissible in evidence against him.
(4) The law shall provide for penal and civil
sanctions for violations of this section as well as
compensation to and rehabilitation of victims of
torture or similar practices, and their families.
Custodial investigation – the investigation is no longer a
general inquiry into an unsolved crime but has began to
focus on a particular suspect, the suspect has been
taken into police custody, the police carry out a process
of interrogations that lens itself to eliciting incriminating
statements (Escobedo v Illinois)
Miranda v Arizona: Rights available –
a. the person in custody must be informed at the outset
in clear and unequivocal terms that he has a right to
remain silent
b. after being so informed, he must be told that anything
he says can and will be used against him in court
c. he must be clearly informed that he has the right to
consult with a lawyer and to have the lawyer with him
during the interrogation. He does not have to ask for a
lawyer. The investigators should tell him that he has the
right to counsel at that point.
d. he should be warned that not only he has the right to
consult with a lawyer but also that if he is indigent, a
lawyer will be appointed to represent him.
e. even if the person consents to answer questions
without the assistance of counsel, the moment he asks
for a lawyer at any point in the investigation, the
interrogation must cease until an attorney is present
f. if the foregoing protections and warnings are not
demonstrated during the trial to have been observed by
the prosecution, no evidence obtained as a result of the
interrogation can be used against him
The rights under this section are available to “any
person under investigation for the commission of an
offense.”
That constitutional procedures on custodial
investigation do not apply to a spontaneous statement,
not elicited through questioning by the authorities, but
given in an ordinary manner whereby the accused orally
admits having committed the crime.
The rights under Section 12 are deemed waived when
the defense fails to raise objections to the admissibility
of evidence immediately.
Rights of a person under investigation
1. The right to remain silent
- also, his silence may not be used against him
2. The right to counsel
3. The right to be informed of his rights
- includes the obligation on the part of the police
investigator to explain and contemplates an effective
communication that results in understanding what is
conveyed.
When Section 12(1) rights end?
Criminal process includes
a. the investigation prior to the filing of charges
b. the preliminary examination and investigation after
charges are filed
c. the period of trial
The Miranda rights or the Section 12(1) rights were
conceived for the first phase, that is, when the enquiry
is under the control of police officers.
Waiver of rights
The right to counsel may be waived but the waiver shall
not be valid unless made with the assistance of counsel.
Even if the confession of an accused is gospel truth, if it
was made without the assistance of counsel, it is
inadmissible in evidence regardless of the absence of
coercion or even if it had been voluntarily given.
Confession v Admission
Admission is the act, declaration or omission of party as
to a relevant fact. (Rule 130, Sec. 26)
Confession is the declaration of an accused
acknowledging his guilt of the offense charged, or of any
offense necessarily included therein. (Rule 130, Section
33)
Section 13. All persons, except those charged with
offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua when
evidence of guilt is strong, shall, before conviction,
be bailable by sufficient sureties, or be released on
recognizance as may be provided by law. The right
to bail shall not be impaired even when the privilege
of the writ of habeas corpus is suspended.
Excessive bail shall not be required.
Bail is a mode short of confinement which would, with
reasonable certainty, insure the attendance of the
accused.
Particularly in cases where the accused is charged with
a capital offense, a hearing, mandatory in nature and
which should be summary or otherwise in the discretion
of the court, is required with the participation of both the
defense and a duly notified representative of the
prosecution for the purpose of ascertaining whether or
not the evidence of guilt is strong.
The quantum of evidence needed in order to deny an
accused the right to bail is described by the text simply
as strong evidence. This has been construed to mean
proof evident or presumption great. Proof evident or
evident proof in this connection means clear, strong
evidence which leads a well-guarded dispassionate
judgment to the conclusion that the offense has been
committed as charged, that the accused is the guilty
agent, and that he will probably be punished capitally if
the law administered.
Presumption great exists when the circumstances
testified to are such that the inference of guilt naturally
to be drawn therefrom is strong, clear and convincing to
an unbiased judgment and excludes all reasonable
probability of any other conclusion.
Bail must be available to one who is detained even
before formal charges are filed.
As a necessary consequence of the bail bond, which is
intended to make a person available any time he is
needed by the court, a court may prevent a person
admitted to bail from leaving the country.
After conviction by the trial court, when presumption of
innocence terminates, the constitutional right to bail
should also terminate. Moreover, in the case of one
punishable by death or reclusion perpetua, the
conviction by the trial court is indication that the
evidence of guilt is strong.
Bail in extradition: bail may be granted to a possible
extradite upon showing (a) that he will not be a flight risk
or a danger to the community (b) that there exist special,
humanitarian and compelling circumstances
Recognizance is an obligation of record entered into
before a court guaranteeing the appearance of the
accused for trial. It is in the nature of a contract between
the surety and the state.
Section 17. No person shall be compelled to be a
witness against himself.
Reason for the guarantee: it was established on the
grounds of public policy and humanity: Of policy,
because, if a party were required to testify, it would
place the witness under the strongest temptation to
commit perjury; and of humanity, because it would
prevent the extorting of confessions by duress.

A mere witness who is not an accused, in order to avail

himself of his right, must await the incriminating
question; the accused, however, may refuse to be a
witness altogether.

The kernel of the privilege was the prohibition of

testimonial compulsion.
Compelling a witness to write is incriminating: writing is
something more than moving the body, or the hand, or
the fingers; writing is not a purely mechanical act,
because it requires the application of the intelligence
and attention.

When a person, however, voluntarily answers an

incriminating question, he is deemed to have waived his
right.

The privilege against self-incrimination is a personal

one, applying only to natural individuals.