COMPILED NOTES IN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II (Fundamental Powers, Bill of Rights)
Culled primarily from the lectures of Atty. Ismael Sarangaya, Jr.
Constitutional Law – the proper balance between authority as represented by
the fundamental powers and liberty as enshrined in the Constitution.
® Too much liberty = anarchy, lack of order; too much authority =
despotism, dictatorship
Does the Constitution establish the 3 fundamental powers?
- No. The Constitution merely provides limitations because as soon as the
State commences its existence, the powers commence as well. The
powers are INHERENT.
POLICE POWER – authority of the State to enact reasonable and wholesome
laws that regulate liberty or property for the general welfare.
Should police power be strictly defined/applied?
People v. Pomar
- Act No. 3071, an State exercise of police power, imposes a condition on
the employers to pay pregnant women their maternity leave benefits.
- Police power should not infringe the freedom of individuals to contract.
- Ironically, the case which discussed police power limited it and the facts
are no longer relevant because the non-impairment clause of the
Constitution yields to the exercise of police power.
PLDT v. City of Davao
- Talks about the exercise of police power for public comfort and
convenience
U.S. v. Salaveria
- Panguingue was not a game of chance, but the SC took notice of the fact that
gambling must be exterminated because it promotes conduct that is contrary
to morals
- there is no absolute prohibition on gambling, only regulation
Goldenway v. Equitable
- The General Banking Law is the State’s only way to regulate the banking
industry and ensure the liquidity and solvency of banks.
Daverick Pacumio
UST Faculty of Civil Law
Most pervasive, least limitable
Southern Luzon Drug Corp. v. DSWD
- Petitioner questions the tax treatment of the 20% discount
- In what way did the law regulate businesses here?
- The pricing. Similar to a price control law, the law regulated the
pricing.
- The right to profit is inchoate: something yet to exist
- Therefore, there is no taking because it is hard to quantify profits as they
are mere expectancies; since they are uncertain, just compensation is still
impossible to compute/concretize
- Before there could be “taking”, there must actually be a property that
exists.
Gerochi v. Department of Energy
- NPC was trying to collect or release its share in the universal charge
- Legal basis for the universal charge as an exercise of police power: the
EPIRA Law because the EPIRA Law promotes the electrification of the
entire country
- What is the aim of the special trust fund (STF)?
- The economic survival of the electric industry.
Acebedo v. CA
- Could a government regulate a profession?
- No. there are other institutions in this case who may regulate
professions. The local government in this case overstepped when
it tried to regulate the profession.
- Could a corporation practice a profession?
- No. People practice professions. What the government may do is
to require the procurement of certification from its employees as
to their authority to practice.
Ynot v. IAC
- Transporting carabaos from one place to another is prohibited.
- Was the EO in this case a statute?
- It is in reality a presidential decree
 Nuisance per se Nuisance per accidens
Can be summarily abated Cannot be summarily
abated
Noxious At the wrong place, at the
wrong time (e.g. patis
factory in a school area)
- In this case, there was a conclusive presumption that persons
transferring carabaos are going to kill the said carabaos
U.S. v. Toribio
- Permits are being required to slaughter carabaos
- Toribio’s contention: it was taking
- This is not taking but mere regulation as to the use of the carabaos
Executive Secretary v. CA
- What happened here that made private recruitment agencies say that
there was a loss of livelihood?
- The affiliates of the recruitment agencies ceased their operations
because R.A. 8042 had the effect of equating legitimate
recruitment agencies to illegal recruitment agencies
- Processing of applications for overseas employment was in a
standstill
- The right to employment/right to conduct business is a property right.
However, a property right or property may not be used to injure other
people’s rights. Even rights to business may be regulated.
Plenary Power
- Means that Congress may choose the scope of police power
MMDA v. Viron
- MMDA was designated to implement the E.O. in the entire Metro
Manila
- Less-intrusive means could have been employed instead of an absolute
closure of bus terminals
- A prior E.O. pertained to DOTC as the proper implementing agency
Tawang v. LTWD
- Constitutional supremacy: any contract, law, executive order entered
into by the executive and legislative bodies are null and void because
the Constitution is deemed written in contracts.
- Police power should not be used to violate the Constitution
Ortigas v. FEATI
- Impairment of obligations of contracts: if a law changes, alters, modifies
stipulations without parties’ consent
- There was no impairment in this case because police power prevails
over then non-impairment clause of the Constitution
- Laws have the effect of altering contracts, but such laws are sustained if
made in the exercise of police power
BF Homes v. City Mayor
- To meet the growing needs of the subdivision, the reclassification of an
area was proper
BANAT v. COMELEC
- Role of poll watchers are imbued with public interest so prior contracts
made with them by political parties and candidates regarding their
compensation are invalidated to give way to police power.
DECS v. San Diego Tablarin v. Gutierrez
Whether the 3-flunk rule is Whether the NMAT is
constitutional valid and constitutional
The State may regulate entry into medical schools as the
medical profession is imbued with public interest. If one
aspires to be a lawyer but works better as a plumber, he
should be so advised.
Hermano Oil Manufacturing v. TRB
- Hermano Oil was asking for right of way
- The SC held that it did not constitute taking at all, but merely a
restriction on its use of its property for the welfare of the motorists who
traverse along NLEX.
OSG v. Ayala Land
- Invalid exercise of police power. There is no obligation on the part of
private property owners to grant free parking spaces under the National
Building Code as obligations arising from law are not presumed.
Quezon City v. Ericta
- Directive to owners of memorial parks to allocate 6% of their property
for the burial of paupers is confiscatory and constitutes taking of
property without just compensation
Regulation of Public Morals
Ermita-Malate Hotel v. City of Manila
 - Imposition of license fees on motels = power to tax as an implement of - MMDA wanted to destroy a wall and open Neptune Street to the public.
police power - MMDA has no police power. It is a mere administrative council
- Requirement for customers and guests to fill out public forms = valid
regulation to safeguard public morals EMINENT DOMAIN - Power of the State to take private property for public
City of Manila v. Laguio, Jr. use upon payment of just compensation.
- Ordinance prohibiting the operation of motels - Does Art. III, Sec. 9 establish the power of eminent domain?
- The ordinance which restricted the use of property to such extent that it - It does not, it merely states the limitations on such power.
cannot be used for any lawful purpose constituted taking according to - Proceeds from jus regalia or the regalian doctrine which simply states
the Court, without just compensation. that all lands are owned by the State
General Welfare Clause - Provisions implying eminent domain:
- Way by which Congress delegates police power - Art. III, Sec. 9;
- Sec. 16 of the Local Government Code - Art. XII, Sec. 18 (Public Utilities);
- Local Government Units exercise this delegated power through - Art. XVII, Sec. 22 (Agrarian Reform)
ordinances - Expropriation: proceedings to exercise eminent domain
Cruz v. Pandacan Hikers - 2 stages in expropriation:
- There was no ordinance authorizing the Brgy. Chairman to destroy the - Court determines whether the entity has authority to expropriate
basketball ring and if there is public use. This stage is appealable;
- Brgy. Chairman thinks they are authorized to abate/destroy the ring - Determination of just compensation. This stage is also appealable
pursuant to the General Welfare Clause RP v. Heirs of Saturnino Borbon
- The General Welfare Clause is vested in the Sangguniang - Should the NPC be allowed to withdraw the appeal?
Pangbaranggay (local legislative body) - Even if there is already a complaint, and even if there is already
Requisites of a valid ordinance: an order of expropriation, like in this case, the complaint could
1. Must not contravene laws; still be withdrawn if there is no more public use
2. Must be for public purpose; NAPOCOR v. Posada
3. Must not be unfair; - NPC withdrew from the case alleging that the public purpose for which
4. Must not prohibit; they sought expropriation ceased to exist.
5. Must not be partial; - Exception to the rule that expropriation proceedings must be dismissed
6. Must not be unreasonable when it is determined that it is not for a public purpose:
Social Justice Society v. Atienza - Trial court order had already been final and executory;
- Ordinance converting Pandacan Oil Depot areas from industrial to - Government already took possession of the property;
commercial was valid because the areas might have been subjected to - Expropriation case caused prejudice to the landowner
terrorist attacks - Expropriation case is not automatically dismissed when the property
Legaspi v. City of Cebu ceases to be for public use. The State must first file a motion to withdraw
- There was a specific provision in the Local Government Code vesting before the trial court having jurisdiction over the proceedings which is
the Sanggunian with authority to enact ordinances regulating subject to the sound discretion of the said court.
thoroughfares and use of roads
MMDA v. Bel-Air
Heirs of Moreno v. MCIAA - Genuine necessity was a political question in this case as P.D. 1072, the
- The relationship between the State and the landowner is converted to basis of the expropriation was made by President Marcos in the exercise
trustee and beneficiary upon the discontinuance of his legislative powers then
- When the public use for which the property was used ceases, the Court Bardillon v. Brgy. Masili
shall determine the proper way of settling the rights, which in this case, - Talks about jurisdiction
was by considering the relationship of the government and petitioners - Expropriation proceedings does not deal with the recovery of a sum of
as an implied trust. money. Expropriation proceedings deal with the exercise of the
- The effects of discontinuing the case must be determined on a case to government and its right to expropriate to take property for public use.
case basis, thus the phrase in Rule 67 “upon terms that are just” The subject of expropriation proceedings is the exercise of the
Heirs of Saturnino Borbon Heirs of Moreno government’s power of eminent domain and is thus incapable of
Withdrawal entitles owner Withdrawal converts the pecuniary estimation. Thus, it is within the jurisdiction of the RTC.
to damages relationship between the EMINENT DOMAIN POLICE POWER
State and landowner as Property taken is not Property destroyed or
trustee and beneficiary noxious regulated is noxious
RP v. CA Eminent Domain and Land Reform
- Laches: effect of delay; other party was given the impression that the Association of Small Landowners v. Secretary of Agrarian Reform
other party lost interest - In land reform cases, what separates the exercise of police power and
- Factually, landowners were actively pursuing their claims so they eminent domain?
should not be faulted - To the extent that the measures under challenge merely prescribe
- An action to recover just compensation does not prescribe retention limits for landowners, there is an exercise of the police
- Kung nag-prescribe edi sana dinelay nalang ng gobyerno palagi. NO power of the State for the regulation of private property in
EQUALITY. accordance with the Constitution. But where, to carry out such
RP v. Samson-Tatad regulation, it becomes necessary to deprive such owners of
- Collateral attack – an out-of-topic attack whatever lands they may own in excess of the maximum area
- In case of uncertainty, the trial court is authorized to rule on the involved, there is definitely a taking under the power of eminent
ownership but solely to determine one’s entitlement to just domain for which payment of just compensation is imperative.
compensation Requisites for Compensable Taking:
Forfom v. PNR 1. Entry into private property;
- Estoppel by laches: a party made a representation to another who 2. Entry must be for more than a momentary period;
believes that the other party had taken that position and stands by it 3. Entry must be made under color of legal authority;
which binds both parties. 4. The entry must be for public use;
- By continuous negotiation, landowner recognized the validity of 5. The owner is deprived of any beneficial enjoyment of his property.
expropriation NAPOCOR v. Heirs of Macabangkit-Sangkay
Manapat v. CA - Compensable taking includes destruction, diminution, restriction, or
- Propriety of exercising eminent domain could not be determined on interruption of the rights of ownership or of the common necessary use
purely quantitative basis and enjoyment of the property or lessening of its value. The same holds
true in this case as the owners here not able to dispose or introduce any
 improvements on the said property because of the constructions made
by NAPOCOR.
National Transmission Corporation v. Oroville
- The determination of just compensation must be from 1983, when the
taking of Oroville’s property was undertaken by Transco. The SC held
that the rulings in Macabangkit-Sangkay and Saludares, where the Court
determined just compensation from the date the property owners
initiated the inverse condemnation proceedings for just compensation,
were mere exceptions to the general rule that just compensation must be
reckoned from the date of actual taking.
Taking
- RP v. Castellvi
- Need not be a transfer of title or physical entry to the property (Heirs of
Macabangkit-Sangkay)
- Taking may include trespass without actual eviction of the owner,
material impairment of the value of the property, or prevention of the
ordinary uses for which the property was intended (Cruz, 2015)
Genuine Necessity
- Essentially political when decided by the national legislature and are
usually not subject to judicial review (Cruz, 2015)
- Genuine necessity is a political question: that which is submitted to the
people in their sovereign capacity in which full discretionary authority
is given to the legislative and executive authority
City of Manila v. Chinese Community
- The necessity for conferring the authority upon a municipal corporation
to exercise the right of eminent domain is admittedly within the power
of the legislature. But whether or not the municipal corporation or entity
is exercising the right in a particular case under the conditions imposed
by the general authority, is a question which the courts have the right to
inquire into
- Delegated exercise of eminent domain is no longer a political question
Requisites for a Local Government Unit’s exercise of eminent domain (Sec. 19
of the Local Government Code)
1. Ordinance
2. Just compensation
3. Public Use
4. Valid offer – which must precede everything
Exception: Deposit of 15% of the BIR Zonal Valuation
Masikip v. City of Pasig
- Judicial review of the exercise of eminent domain is limited to the
following areas of concern: (a) adequacy of compensation; (b) genuine
necessity for the taking; and (c) public use or purpose of the taking. In
this case, the Supreme Court held that there was no genuine necessity
for the taking. A review of the records revealed to the Court that the
intended beneficiaries of the expropriation of plaintiff’s property was
the Melendres Compound Homeowners Association which was a
private, non-profit organization. Clearly, it was not intended for public
use.
Jesus Is Lord Christian School Foundation, Inc. v. Municipality of Pasig
- The SC held that the witnesses adduced by respondent Municipality
proved that there was a necessity in expropriating the lands owned by
JILCSFI, which was the fact that no other vehicles, especially firetrucks,
could pass through from E.R. Santos street towards Sto. Tomas Bukid
where majority of the houses were made of light materials. Nonetheless,
the Supreme Court noted that respondent Municipality failed to prove
the necessity of constructing the road in JILCSFI’s property, and not
somewhere else.
- Genuine Necessity must be proved by preponderance of evidence; Pasig
failed to substantiate genuine necessity
Public Use
Brgy. Sindalan v. CA
- Public use has no precise meaning; it depends on diverse situations. The
SC noted that there is no precise definition of public use. There had been
a deviation in the traditional definition of public use as actual use by the
public. For all intents and purposes, public use was defined as whatever
is beneficially employed for the community.
- Public use does not depend on the numerical count.
- Standard for public use: whether or not use is exercisable in common as
opposed to a select group
Subjects of Expropriation:
- Anything that can come under the dominion of man. This includes real,
personal, tangible, and intangible properties. In RP v. PLDT, services
 were considered embraced in the concept of property subject to taking
under the power of eminent domain. (Cruz, 2015)
Just Compensation
- Full and fair market value of property taken
- Fair market value is the price the buyer and seller agreed to in the
ordinary course of legal/ordinary transactions.
- Under Rule 67, Sec. 4 of the Rules of Court, just compensation is
determined at the time of taking or at the time of institution of the
expropriation proceedings, whichever comes first.
- Payment of interest is no longer absolute if the property owner sleeps
on his rights
Ilo-Ilo v. Besana
- The SC held that non-payment of just compensation does not entitle
private respondent to recover his possession. Concededly, Javellana
slept on his rights for 16 years, and was to be faulted for not checking
with the PNB back then whether a deposit was made or not. Despite
that, respondent may still recover the just compensation that was due
him for over 30 years, and that the petitioner is liable to pay respondent
damages in view of the taking of the property without just
compensation.
Sy v. Quezon City
- The government is liable to pay exemplary damages in case of unlawful
or unauthorized taking.
Inverse Condemnation Proceedings
- Where private owners initiate the condemnation proceedings
- Is this the prevailing rule?
- No. It is more of a rule in equity. It is only an exception, such as
in the Heirs of Macabangkit-Sangkay when actual taking of the
property could not be determined.
- The prevailing rule is still Rule 67, Sec. 4 of the Rules of Court
There was taking in 2010, but the filing of the inverse condemnation
proceedings was only on 2019. How much is the interest? 6% or 12%?
- Central Bank Circular No. 905 – 22 December 1978 up to June 30, 2013
(prevailing interest rate is 12%)
- Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas Circular No. 799 series of 2013 – 01 July 2013
onwards (prevailing interest rate is 6%)
May Congress provide for amount of just compensation?
- No. Just Compensation is a judicial function
May Rule 45 of the Rules of Court be used as a remedy to assail the finding of
just compensation by a lower court?
- No. Rule 45 of the Rules of Court deals with questions of law. Just
Compensation is a question of fact.
Is res judicata applicable in Eminent Domain proceedings?
- No. In Municipality of Parañaque v. V.M. Realty, the SC held that the
principle of res judicata, which finds application in generally all cases
and proceedings, cannot bar the right of the State or its agent to
expropriate private property.
May state immunity be invoked in determining just compensation?
- No. In Amigable v. Cuenca, the SC held that the doctrine of governmental
immunity from suit cannot serve as an instrument for perpetrating an
injustice on a citizen.
Destruction from Eminent Domain
Necessity
Property destroyed is Property expropriated is
noxious wholesome
No just compensation Just compensation
Anyone could exercise;
arises from the right of
self-preservation
R.A. 10752 – Right of Way Act
Sec. 14 – Provisions of this Act apply prospectively except those already settled.
Sec. 6 – expropriation is initiated by the appropriate implementing agency,
represented by the Office of the Solicitor General or the Office of the
Government Corporate Counsel
(a) Upon filing of the expropriation complaint, the implementing agency must
immediately deposit to the court in favor of the owner the sum of:
1. 100% of the value of the land based on the current relevant zonal
valuation of the BIR issued not more than three (3) years prior to the
filing of the expropriation complaint
2. The replacement costs to be determined by:
i. The implementing agency (IA);
ii. Government Financial Institution (GFI) with adequate
experience in property appraisal;
 iii. Independent property appraisers (IPA) recognized by the BSP
3. The current market value of the crops and trees located within the
property as determined by the GFI or IPA
Upon compliance with the guidelines abovementioned, the court shall
immediately issue to the implementing agency an order to take possession
of the property and start the implementation of the project.
If, within seven (7) working days after the deposit to the court of the amount
equivalent to the sum mentioned above, the court has not issued to the
implementing agency a writ of possession for the affected property, the
counsel of the implementing agency shall immediately seek from the court
the issuance of the writ of possession. The court shall issue the writ of
possession ex parte; no hearing shall be required.
The court shall release the said amount to the owner upon presentation of
sufficient proofs of ownership.
(b) In case the owner of the property cannot be found, is unknown, or is
deceased in cases where the estate has not been settled, after exerting due
diligence, or there are conflicting claims over the ownership of the property
and improvements and/or structures thereon, the IA shall deposit the
amount in items a(1) to a(3) above for the benefit of the person to be
adjudged in the same proceeding as entitled thereto.
Upon compliance with the above guidelines, the court shall immediately
issue to the IA an order to take possession of the property.
If within seven (7) working days after the deposit with the court of the
amount equivalent to the sum under items (a)(1) to (a)(3) above, the court
has not issued to the IA a writ of possession for the affected property, the
counsel of the IA shall immediately seek from the court the issuance of the
writ of possession.
The court shall release the said amount to the person adjudged in the same
expropriation proceeding as entitled thereto.
(c) In provinces, cities, municipalities and other areas where there is no land
classification, the city or municipality assessor is hereby mandated within
the period of sixty (60) days from the date of filing of the expropriation
case, to conduct a zonal valuation for said area, based on the land
classification done by the city or municipal assessor.
(d) In case the completion of a government infrastructure is of utmost urgency
and importance and there is no land classification or no existing zonal
valuation of the area concerned, or the zonal valuation has been in force
for more than three (3) years already, the IA shall use the BIR zonal value
and land classification of similar lands within the adjacent vicinity as the
basis for the valuation.
(e) In any of the cases in items (a) to (d), upon receipt by the IA of the writ of
possession, the IA may take possession of the property and start the
implementation of the project.
(f) In the event that the owner of the property contests the IA's proffered
value, the court shall determine the just compensation to be paid the owner
within sixty (60) days from the date of filing of the expropriation case.
When the decision of the court becomes final and executory, the IA shall
pay the owner the difference between the amount already paid and the just
compensation as determined by the court.
How to Get Away with Expropriation
Government Side
Step 1: If you’re the counsel for the IA, upon filing of the expropriation
complaint, deposit the following to the court:
(a) 100% of the current zonal valuation of the BIR provided it be issued not
more than 3 years prior to the filing of the complaint.
(b) Replacement costs (determined by IA, GFI, or IPA)
(c) Current market value of the crops and trees determined by GFI, IPA
Property owner cannot be found or is unknown or deceased and his estate has
not yet been settled? Conflicting claims of ownership over the property?
Same procedure. Still deposit (a) to (c) to the court.
Step 2: Wait for seven (7) days. If within 7 days after the deposit of items (a) to
(c) above there is still no issuance of a writ of possession from the court, file a
motion ex parte. The other party does not have to comment, and there’s no
hearing required.
Step 3: After you receive the writ of possession from the court, you may take
possession of the property and commence your project.
What if the property owner contests the value proffered by the IA?
The court shall determine the just compensation to be paid within sixty (60)
days from the date of filing of the expropriation case. When the decision of the
court becomes final and executory, the IA shall pay the owner the difference
between the amount already paid and the just compensation as determined by
the court.
What if there is no land classification?
The city/municipal assessor must conduct a zonal valuation within 60 days.
Okay, but I don’t have that much time on my hands. The project is of utmost
importance and urgency and (a) there’s no land classification; and (b) the zonal
valuation has been in force for more than three (3) years already. What can I
do?
Use the BIR zonal value and land classification of similar lands within the
adjacent vicinity as the basis for the valuation.
Property owner side
Step 1: if you’re the counsel for the property owner, once the IA has made the
deposit, request the property owner to prepare the proof of his/her ownership,
and then file a motion with the court for the release of the deposit made upon
the presentation of the aforementioned proof of ownership.
What if the property owner is not satisfied with the proffered value?
The court shall then determine within sixty (60) days from the date of filing of
the expropriation case the proper amount of just compensation. When the
decision of the court becomes final and executory, the IA shall pay the owner
the difference between the amount already paid and the just compensation as
determined by the court.
TAXATION
Taxes: the enforced proportional contribution from people/property within
the State effected by the State in the exercise of its sovereignty to defray its
operational expenses.
- Enforced: mandatory
- Proportional: based on a person’s ability to pay
- Exercise of sovereignty: by authority of law and is a sovereign function
- To defray its operational expenses: to retain the government
Basis of taxation: The Lifeblood Doctrine. Taxes are what we pay for in
exchange of a civilized society for the government’s existence. (CIR v. Algue)
NAPOCOR v. Cabanatuan
- There was a previous grant of exemption but was withdrawn by the
Local Government Code
- Cabanatuan was justified in imposing a franchise fee.
- Taxation even assumes greater importance with the ratification of the
present constitution, in that the power to levy taxes was no longer
lodged exclusively with Congress, but was granted to LGUs as well.
This paradigm shift resulted from the realization that genuine
development could only be achieved by fostering local autonomy and
providing decentralization of governance.
Visayas Geothermal Power Company v. CIR
- Estoppel does not apply to the collection of taxes
- SC used the lifeblood doctrine by saying that estoppel does not apply to
the State as taxes are the lifeblood of the State and could not be impaired
by estoppel
 - Taxes are the lifeblood of the government, without which, it could
neither exist nor endure. The government cannot be estopped from
collecting taxes by the mistake, negligence, or omission of its agents.
- Petitioner contends that CIR was estopped from questioning the
jurisdiction by actively participating in the proceedings therein.
CREBA v. Romulo
- Minimum Corporate income Tax is not an additional imposition; it is in
lieu of the ordinary income tax if the normal income tax is suspiciously
low
Is the taxing power delegated by Congress to LGUs?
- No, it is a Constitutional grant. Art. X, Sec. 5 of the Constitution provides
that each LGU shall have the power to create its own sources of revenue
and to levy taxes, fees, and charges subject to such guidelines and
limitations as the Congress may provide, consistent with the basic policy
of local autonomy.
CIR v. Enron
- May the lifeblood doctrine be used in dispensing with the notice/letter?
- No. Taxation must be collected lawfully and not arbitrarily.
Reyes v. Almanzor
- Income Approach v. Comparable Sales Approach
- 2 requirements for the Comparable Sales Approach to be used:
- Sale must represent an arms-length transaction between the seller
and the buyer
- Comparable with another property
Theories behind the exercise of power to tax
1. Necessity Theory – taxes are necessary to preserve state integrity
2. Benefits-Protection Theory – persons, property are liable for taxes to
receive protection and benefits from the State
3. Symbiotic Relationship Theory – despite a person’s natural reluctance
to part with his property, he must do so for the continued operation of
the government
- Without taxes, the government will lose the motivating power to
continue its operation
- The government must respond to taxes collected with life-enhancing
services
Tax Exemptions
- Taxation is the rule and exemption is the exception. (Cruz, 2015)
- Any claim for exemption must be construed strictisimi juris against the
taxpayer.
Sea-land Service v. CA
- tax exemptions are not presumed and that they must be strictly
construed against those who claim them. In this case, the RP-US Military
Bases Agreement clearly provide that US Nationals are exempt from any
income derived under any contract made in the US or with the
Government of the US in connection with the construction, maintenance,
defense, and operation of the bases. The shipping of household goods and
effects of US military personnel clearly do not fall within the
construction, maintenance, defense, and operation of military bases.
Thus, the claim for refund must be denied.
Exceptions to the strict interpretation on tax exemptions
1. Clear legislative intent
2. Law provides for liberal interpretation
3. Special taxes relating to special cases and affecting special classes of
persons
4. Public property
5. Religious and charitable institutions
6. In favor of government, political subdivisions, or instrumentalities
Is the power to tax the power to destroy?
- It depends.
- If it is used for regulation, as when it is used as an implement of police
power, then it is the power to destroy.
- But if it is used for the purpose of generating revenues, then it cannot be
allowed to confiscate or destroy.
Purpose of Taxation
1. Revenue
2. Police Power (regulation)
3. Protection of local industries against foreign invasion
4. Promotion of growth of local industries
5. Reduction of social inequality
Stages of Taxation
1. Levy/imposition – enactment of a tax law
2. Assessment/collection
3. Payment/satisfaction
Principles of a Sound Tax System ED: may be exercised by
1. Fiscal Adequacy – to meet the needs of the government some private entities
2. Theoretical Justice – a sound tax system is based on the taxpayer’s ability Methods by which the Benefits
to pay State interferes with property/individual
3. Administrative Feasibility – tax laws and regulations must be capable of private rights enjoys as a result of the
effectively being enforced with the least inconvenience to the taxpayer. exercise of the powers
Uniformity in Taxation PP: no concrete benefit;
- Persons belonging to the same class shall be taxed at the same rate. just an altruistic feeling of
- Progressive system of taxation = directory, and not a source of being able to contribute to
justiciable right; not a self-executing provision the general welfare;
- Regressivity is not a negative standard for courts to enforce ED: Just Compensation
Tax: benefits-received
Double Taxation principle
- Why does jurisprudence prohibit double taxation? Presuppose an equivalent Benefits society derives
- It violates the equal protection clause. Other persons among the compensation for the from the exercise of the
same class are taxed twice while the others are not. private rights interfered powers
- Direct Double Taxation with PP (pinaka-KJ): General
- Indirect Double Taxation – different jurisdictions/different purpose Welfare
- International Double Taxation ED (pinaka-fair): Property
to be used for public use
How can International Double Taxation be prevented by International Tax (pinaka-dupang):
Treaties? Public service
1. Credit Method – subtract the amount taxed in one jurisdiction to the Exercised primarily by the Nature of property subject
taxable amount in the other jurisdiction Legislature ot restraint
2. Exemption Method – payment in another jurisdiction exempts a person PP: Noxious
from paying in the other ED and Tax: Wholesome

OVERVIEW OF THE THREE FUNDAMENTAL POWERS BILL OF RIGHTS

Similarities Differences - Limits the inherent powers
They are inherent powers Extent of regulation People v. Marti
of the State and may be PP: liberty and property - Bill of Rights is not applicable to private acts.
exercised without express ED and Tax: only property - There was no need for a warrant in the search and seizure in this case as
constitutional grant the evidence secured was voluntary in character; it was turned over
Not only necessary but Delegation Estrada (Jinggoy) v. Sandiganbayan
indispensable PP and Tax: may be - Sen. Jinggoy filed a motion to suppress evidence as the evidence would have
exercised only by the enabled the witness Benhur Luy to point out and specify the check and cash
government disbursement records
- Sen. Jinggoy argued that Benhur Luy’s act of accessing the computer of JLN
Corporation was unconstitutional and violated his right against unlawful
searches and seizures.
- According to Sen. Jinggoy, Benhur Luy was acting as an agent of the State
as he was under the Witness Protection Program (WPP)
- The SC ruled that the Luy’s act of accessing the records from the computer
is private in character and thus, the evidence is admissible, reiterating the
principle in People v. Marti
- Luy being under the WPP did not make him an agent of the State
Republic v. Sandiganbayan
- Revolution is the complete overthrow of the established government by
those previously subjected by it
- Interregnum is the intervening period i.e. from February 25 up to March 24,
1986
- Does the exclusionary rule apply in the interregnum?
1. YES. Even though there was no Constitution then, we were still bound
by international instruments like the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights which, although not legally-binding, contains rights which are
accepted as generally-accepted principles of international law.
2. We are still bound to assume these obligations even if we are under a de
facto government
DUE PROCESS
- There is no definite definition of due process (Ermita-Malate Hotel v. City of
Manila)
- What we can say is that it is a standard of governmental action to not be
arbitrary
- The test in determining compliance with due process is
REASONABLENESS
Saunar v. Executive Secretary
- PAGC rules provide for the right to be present in a clarificatory hearing.
- Due process is a malleable concept grounded on fairness and equity and
depends on the type of proceedings involved.
- If the very rules of the administrative agency provide for a right to a hearing,
then such shall be followed. Otherwise, it will be a deprivation of due
process.
Hildawa v. Enrile
- Law enforcers cannot kill criminals as they become prosecutors, judges, and
executioners by their acts
- Burden of proof when a suspect is killed: police #EndEJKs
- The SC directed:
1. The agencies to exercise strict supervision;
2. There must be a determination of self-defense, defense of relatives, or
fulfillment of a duty
Rights protected under Art. III, Sec. 1
- Is an unborn child entitled to due process?
o Art. II, Sec. 12. It is the obligation of the State to equally protect the life of the
mother and the life of the unborn upon conception. Thus, the legislature is
prevented from enacting a measure legalizing abortion (Imbong v. Ochoa)
- Between the life of the mother and the life of the child, which prevails?
- Both. Should the unborn be aborted, it should not be intentional.
Imbong v. Ochoa
- The SC prevented the ruling in Roe v. Wade which liberalized abortion up to
the second trimester from being applicable in this jurisdiction
- Life begins at fertilization which is the moment when the sperm cell and the
egg cell meet. Fertilization is synonymous to conception.
- Implantation is when the fertilized egg implants itself to the uterus
Cornejo v. Gabriel
- A public office is a public trust, and is not considered a property of
petitioner. Thus, not being property, public office could not come within the
constitutional guaranties of due process.
Chavez v. Romulo
- PNP issued IRR prohibiting carrying of firearms outside of homes
- Are licenses property rights?
- No. permits and licenses are revocable at will by the government. It is a
mere privilege
- Chavez asserts that there is a right to bear arms under the 2nd amendment of
the US Constitution.
- Chavez, however, interpreted it wrongly. The 2nd amendment pertains to a
collective right to bear arms to defend the State. There is no individual
entitlement to the right to bear arms.

Procedural Due Process
- Procedure before depriving a person of his life, liberty, or
property
Substantive Due Process
- Justification in depriving a person of his life, liberty, or property.
- Reasonableness of State interference
Whitelight Corporation v. City of Manila
- Requisites for substantive due process = similar to requisites for
police power:
1. Lawful subject
2. Lawful means
- It is unreasonable to immediately ascribe immorality to persons
availing of wash rates
Lawrence v. Texas
- Sodomy should not be prohibited if those engaged in it are
consenting adults
- Law prohibiting sodomy infringes on the right to privacy of
consenting adults engaging in consensual sexual activity
Procedural Due Process Requirements
1. Impartial court/impartial tribunal which is competent to hear the matter
before it
o Voluntary inhibition: discretionary upon the judge but it does not give
them unlimited prerogative. It must be based on rational and logical
assessment of the circumstances
People v. Ong
- The judge made an extrajudicial remark against a key witness. The said
extrajudicial remark should have made the judge inhibit
- However, remarks during trial are not to be taken against a judge
Kilosbayan v. Janolo
- Membership in a fraternity should not bar a judge from investigating or
acting upon a case
- Membership in a college fraternity should not compel a judge to inhibit
2. Jurisdiction over the person/subject matter
- Summons notifies a defendant of the allegations against him
- Opportunity to be heard
- Right to Appeal – a mere statutory privilege – means that there are
requirements to be complied with before one could avail of it
- Judgement rendered upon lawful hearing stating the factual and legal
bases of the decision
- So that the losing party may have the basis for appealing a
decision/judgement
- Applies only to judgement on the merits
- Violation of this rule nullifies the decision
Administrative Due Process
1. Right to a hearing (usually dispensable)
o Exception to the dispensability of the right to a hearing: when the rules of
the body expressly provide for a right to a hearing (Saunar v. Executive
Secretary)
2. Tribunal must consider the evidence presented
3. Decision must have support
4. Substantial evidence – evidence a reasonable mind would accept as true
5. Decision rendered on the basis of the evidence presented
6. Independent decision-making of the tribunal
7. Parties must know the issues and reasons for the decision rendered
Is there a right to cross-examine in administrative proceedings?
- No. Administrative proceedings are not trial-type proceedings. Litigants
may propound questions through the hearing officer.
Does the filing of a Motion for Reconsideration cure due process defects?
- Generally, yes.
- Exception: if the MR was instituted primarily to raise the issue of violation
of the right to due process and the lack of opportunity to be heard (Fontanilla
v. COA)
Right to be furnished copies of co-respondent’s counter-affidavits
Estrada v. Ombudsman Ombudsman v. Reyes
There is no right to be furnished There is a right to be furnished
copies of the co-respondents’ copies of co-respondent’s counter-
counter-affidavits affidavits as it is a substantial
evidence against him
In the preliminary investigation An administrative case
stage; criminal case
 Nothing in the rules of procedure two (2) notices, dated December 19, 2001 and January 8, 2002, for
before the Ombudsman state conferences on January 8, 2002 and January 15, 2002. Thus, the respondents
anything about the right to be had given them ample opportunity to assist their son in his disciplinary case.
furnished copies of the counter- Cudia v. Superintendent of the Philippine Military Academy
affidavits of co-respondents - The determination of whether the PMA cadet has rights to due process,
Purpose of the preliminary Purpose here is to determine education, and property should be placed in the context of the Honor Code.
investigation is to determine liability wherein penalties are - All the administrative
probable cause involved and could immediately be remedies were exhausted. A student of a military academy must be prepar
imposed ed to subordinate his private interest for the proper functioning of the
Estrada still had ways to obtain the No other ways to obtain the institution. The PMA may impose disciplinary measures and punishments
counter-affidavits of co-respondents counter-affidavits as judgement is as it deems fit and consistent with the peculiar needs of the institution. PMA
immediately rendered has regulatory authority to administratively dismiss erring cadets. PMA
Ombudsman was acting as the Ombudsman was acting as the has a right to invoke academic freedom in the enforcement of the internal
investigating officer impartial tribunal rules and regulations.
Should an administrative case lay down the charges as specific as in criminal - Cudia has been given opportunity to be heard and to counsel through the
cases? Public Attorney’s Office (PAO)
PAGCOR v. Marquez UP Board of Regents v. CA
- The SC held that the failure to designate the offense specifically and with - May a graduate’s doctorate degree be withdrawn by a university even
precision is of no moment in this administrative case. The essence of due though the deliberations regarding such withdrawal occurred after the
process in administrative proceedings is that a party be afforded a graduate had already received such degree?
reasonable opportunity to be heard and to submit any evidence he may have - Yes. In administrative proceedings, the essence of due process is simply the
in support of his defense. The law simply requires that the civil servant is opportunity to explain one's side of a controversy or a chance seek
informed of the nature and cause of accusation against him in a clear and reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of. A party who has
concise manner to give the person a chance to answer the allegations availed of the opportunity to present his position cannot tenably claim to
intelligently have been denied due process. In the case at bar, Celine was informed in
Administrative disciplinary proceedings in academic cases writing of the charges against her and given opportunities to answer them.
- Governed by the rules in Guzman v. National University, and not the rules in She was asked to submit her written explanation which she submitted. She,
Ang Tibay v. CIR as well, met with the U.P. chancellor and the members of the Zafaralla
1. Students must be informed of the nature and cause of accusations; committee to discuss her case. In addition, she sent several letters to the U.P.
2. Students must have the right to answer; authorities explaining her position
3. Students must be informed of the evidence against them; Hierarchy of Rights
4. Students may adduce evidence in their defense; Philippine Blooming Mills Employment Organization v. Philippine Blooming Mills
5. Evidence should be duly considered - Picketing is an exercise of the fundamental freedom of expression. In the
Go v. Letran hierarchy of rights, freedom of expression and fundamental rights occupy a
- Mere notice is sufficient. higher position for they are imprescriptible unlike property rights which are
- While the petitioners state that Mr. and Mrs. Go were “never given an prescriptible.
opportunity to assist Kim,” the records show that the respondents gave them
- The property rights of respondent who allegedly suffiered loss due to the Garcia v. Drilon
picketing of its employees must yield to the exercise of the fundamental - R.A. 9262 or the Anti-Violence Against Women and Children Act (VAWC)
freedom to express themselves. is valid and constitutional and does not violate the equal protection of the
Void-for-Vagueness law. History, statistics show that women are most of the time subjected to
- When men must guess and differ as to its application violence. There is a real, substantial, and valid classification between men
Facial Challenges and women.
- A facial challenge is allowed to be made to a vague statute and to one which People v. Cayat
is overbroad because of possible ‘chilling effect’ upon protected speech. The - Reaction of ethnic people who consume alcohol which causes them to
theory is that ‘[w]hen statutes regulate or proscribe speech and no readily disturb peace and order is a valid classification in penalizing them when
apparent construction suggests itself as a vehicle for rehabilitating the they are caught with liquor.
statutes in a single prosecution, the transcendent value to all society of Biraogo v. Philippine Truth Commission
constitutionally protected expression is deemed to justify allowing attacks - There was no valid classification when the Commission was formed to
on overly broad statutes with no requirement that the person making the investigate only anomalies committed by the past (Arroyo) administration.
attack demonstrate that his own conduct could not be regulated by a statute The Commission could have been saved by a single letter “s”.
drawn with narrow specificity.’ Mirasol v. DPWH
- Not applicable to assail the constitutionality of laws other than free speech - There was a valid classification and distinction between motorcycles and
cases (Romualdez v. Sandiganbayan) other vehicles such that even a child would notice the difference.
- Dispenses with the actual case/controversy requirement
Romualdez v. Sandiganbayan STANDARDS OF JUDICIAL REVIEW
- Indeed, an “on-its-face” invalidation of criminal statutes would result in a Strict Scrutiny Intermediate Review Rational Basis
mass acquittal of parties whose cases may not have even reached the courts. Standard
Such invalidation would constitute a departure from the usual requirement Quality and amount of Evaluating Economic legislations
of “actual case and controversy” and permit decisions to be made in a sterile governmental interest classifications based on and regulations
abstract context having no factual concreteness. brought to justify the gender, race, etc.
Publication regulation of
- Private laws should still be published as long as it applies to the public in fundamental freedoms
general (Tañada v. Tuvera) (i.e. regulation of free
- Exception: internal laws, letters of instructions, interpretations speech)
Government has the
EQUAL PROTECTION burden to prove that (a)
- Art. III, Sec. 1 the classification is done
- Legal Equality is not absolute equality, it admits of classifications provided pursuant to achieving a
they are: compelling state
1. Based on substantial distinctions; interest; and (b) the
2. Germane to the purpose of the law; regulation is the least
3. Not limited to present conditions; restrictive means
4. Applies to all members of the same class
 Ø A legislative
regulation that
affects a - Exception: Police power, taxation – State may examine books and accounts
fundamental
freedom is
presumed to be
unconstitutional
Samahan ng mga Progresibong Kabataan v. Quezon City
- Involves curfew
- Petitioners claim that liberty to travel is a fundamental right calling for the
application of the strict scrutiny test
- Right to travel is recognized as a fundamental right (Sec. 6, Art. III, 1987
Const.) and is embraced under the general concept of liberty
SEARCHES AND SEIZURES
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and
effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and
for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of
arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally by
the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant
and the witnesses he may produce and particularly describing the place to
be searched and the persons or things to be seized. (Sec. 2, Art. III, 1987 Const.)
Stonehill v. Diokno
- Petitioners are invoking the right which is personal to the corporation
- General warrants are prohibited by the Constitution, and the search
warrants subject of this case were too sweeping and too general. First, they
failed to indicate a specific provision of law which was violated in
connection with the documents and pieces of evidence sought to be secured.
Second, the pieces of evidence and documents sought to be secured were
also too general. The warrants pertained to the seizure of documents relating
to the business transactions of the corporations regardless of whether they
are legal or illegal.
Qua Chee Gan v. Deportation Board
- Right against unreasonable searches and seizures also apply to aliens
Bache & Co. v. Ruiz
- Corporations may object against unreasonable searches and seizures
Purpose of the right: to preserve the sanctity of the home
- The right to privacy before was confined to physical intrusion (Olmstead v.
U.S.)
- The notion changed in the case of Katz v. U.S. where the right to privacy was
applied to telephone conversations
- US Supreme Court: use of telephone booth presupposes that the
conversation is only between the two persons conversing
- What a person knowingly exposes to the public, even in his own home or
office, is not a subject of Fourth Amendment protection. But what he seeks
to preserve as private, even in an area accessible to the public, may be
constitutionally protected. In this case, petitioner, being the user of a
telephone booth, is entitled to assume that when he closes the booth’s door
behind him, the words he utters into the mouthpiece of the telephone would
not be broadcast or revealed to the world.
Ø Your mobile phone may now be used to violate your fundamental right.
That is why the Constitution must be dynamic.
Does the provision prohibit all searches and seizures?
Ø No. Only unreasonable searches and seizures.
Is the presumption of regularity a defense in violations of Sec. 2, Art. III of the
Const.?
Ø No. In Sony Music v. Concepcion, the SC said that to hold so would render
the constitutional provision nugatory. Zeal in the pursuit of criminals
cannot overcome Sec. 2, Art. III
Are checkpoints legal?
Valmonte v. De Villa
- Petitioner’s contention: checkpoints give authorities blanket authority to
apprehend and even harass
- SC: checkpoints are necessary in furtherance of public security
- SC took judicial notice of the shift to urban centers of insurgents
- While checkpoints are susceptible to abuse, all powers of government are
also susceptible to abuse
- Inconvenience is a simple price to pay for public security
Should checkpoints be announced?
- No. it would forewarn those who intend to violate the law
How should police officers conduct checkpoints?
- Only visual searches are allowed. Nobody should search the occupants of
the vehicles. When you give your consent to be searched, that is deemed to
be a waiver on your part
Requisites of a valid search warrant
1. Probable Cause – reasonable ground of suspicion backed up by
circumstances sufficiently strong in themselves.
Kinds of probable cause:
a. Executive Determination – during preliminary investigation for the
purpose of filing the information in court
b. Judicial Determination – during preliminary examination for the purpose
of issuing a warrant of arrest
Ø Note: Motion for judicial determination of probable cause is now
prohibited as it is redundant, being a constitutional duty of a judge
already
Mendoza v. People
- Judge does not act as an appellate court of the findings of the prosecutor; he
makes an independent determination
- Only a judge determines probable cause under Sec. 2, Art. III
- Although jurisprudence and procedural rules allow it, a judge must always
proceed with caution in dismissing cases due to lack of probable cause,
considering the preliminary nature of the evidence before it
General Rule: Bureau of Immigration does not have the power to issue a
warrant of arrest
Exception: if the said warrant is issued in carrying out the order of deportation
(Qua Chee Gan v. Deportation Board)
c. Determination by Police Officers – determination during hot pursuit for
the purpose of effecting an arrest under Rule 113, Sec. 5 (b) of the Revised
Rules of Criminal Procedure
2. Determined personally by the judge
Personal determination
- Evaluation of the report of the prosecutor
- Judge should not blindly adhere to the prosecutor’s report
- Failure to satisfy this guarantee may be a ground to enjoin criminal
proceedings
Hao v. People
- Judge merely tasked to determine the probability that the accused is guilty
- Probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest is the existence of such
facts and circumstances that would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent
person to believe that an offense was committed by the person sought to be
arrested. This must be distinguished from the prosecutor’s finding of
probable cause which is for the filing of the proper criminal information.
3. Examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the
witnesses he may produce
- Rule 126, Sec. 5, Rules of Court:
Section 5. Examination of complainant; record. — The judge must, before
issuing the warrant, personally examine in the form of searching
questions and answers, in writing and under oath, the complainant and
the witnesses he may produce on facts personally known to them and
attach to the record their sworn statements, together with the affidavits
submitted.
- There must be searching questions and answers; the searching questions
must be probing and exhaustive; judge must make his own inquiry into the
intent of the application
- Judge must take depositions of applicants and witnesses for the judge to
determine probable cause
4. Warrant must particularly describe the place to be searched and the
persons things to be seized
- Particularity of description is mandated in order to avoid general warrants
- General warrants: search/arrest warrant that allows the seizure of other
persons/things other than that indicated in the warrant; gives the executing
officer discretion in executing the warrant (Worldwide Web Corporation v.
People)
- Particularity is satisfied when the things described bear direct relation to the
offense
- Particularity is not technical precision. Only reasonable particularity (Vallejo
v. CA) as to leave no doubt on the part of the authorities. Otherwise, it would
be virtually impossible for applicants to obtain a search warrant
Is an application for a search warrant a criminal action?
- No. Prosecution’s conformity is needed in criminal actions
- An application for a search warrant is a special criminal process, not a
criminal action (Id.)
PLDT v. Razon
- A search warrant must be issued in connection with one specific offense to
prevent scatter-shot warrants
- Subjects of search warrants:
1. Subject of the offense;
2. Fruits of the offense; and
3. Things to be used to commit the offense
Laud v. People
- Would reasonable lapse of time between the commission of the crime and
application for search warrant affect the validity of the application for the
search warrant?
Ø No. The delay may be caused by fear
- May human corpses be subject of a search warrant?
Ø Yes. Personal property under Rule 126, Sec. 1 of the Rules of Court1
means something which is capable of being moved freely
Would 6 counts of murder violate the one specific offense rule?
- No. there’s still only one offense. (Laud citing Columbia Pictures v. CA)
Mistake in the name indicated in the warrant?
- Still valid. Mistake in the name of the accused does not invalidate the search
warrant provided there was still particularity in the place to be searched
(People v. Tiu Won Chua)
John Doe/Jane Doe warrant = still valid, provided there is sufficient descriptio
personae or the ability of the victim to identify the assailant/accused (Nalla v.
Barroso) without difficulty (Uy v. BIR)
1Section 1. Search warrant defined. — A search warrant is an order in writing issued in the name
of the People of the Philippines, signed by a judge and directed to a peace officer, commanding
him to search for personal property described therein and bring it before the court.
Uy v. BIR
- General descriptions will not invalidate the entire warrant if other items
have been particularly described
- Search warrant is severable – those generally described may be cut off
Rule 126, Sections 7-12 of the Rules of Court
Section 7. Right to break door or window to effect search. — The officer, if refused
admittance to the place of directed search after giving notice of his purpose and
authority, may break open any outer or inner door or window of a house or
any part of a house or anything therein to execute the warrant or liberate
himself or any person lawfully aiding him when unlawfully detained therein.
Ø Officer refused admittance in the place to be searched may break in or
break out, provided he gives prior notice of his purpose (“Knock and
announce principle” – an Anglo-American Law principle)
Section 8. Search of house, room, or premise to be made in presence of two witnesses.
— No search of a house, room, or any other premise shall be made except in
the presence of the lawful occupant thereof or any member of his family or in
the absence of the latter, two witnesses of sufficient age and discretion residing
in the same locality.
Ø Persons who need to be present when search is conducted:
1. Lawful occupant/any family member in his absence; or
2. 2 witnesses of legal age in the same locality
People v. Punzalan
- 2nd requirement applies only if the lawful occupant/family member is
absent
Bulauitan v. People
- Departure from the procedure renders a search invalid
People v. Court of Appeals
- Wife refused to witness the conduct of the search while the suspect was not
around
- There’s still a valid search because there is no valid reason for the witness
(the wife) to refuse
People v. Del Castillo
- Lawful occupants must be the ones to accompany the authorities
- Presence of Brgy. Tanod is not necessary
- Lawful occupants were asked by the police to stay on a particular location
and not witness the search = invalid search
Section 9. Time of making search. — The warrant must direct that it be served in
the day time, unless the affidavit asserts that the property is on the person or
in the place ordered to be searched, in which case a direction may be inserted
that it be served at any time of the day or night.
Ø Time of making a search:
General rule: Daytime
Exception: When there is a particular instruction to conduct the search
at night
Section 10. Validity of search warrant. — A search warrant shall be valid for ten
(10) days from its date. Thereafter it shall be void.
Ø How long is a search warrant valid?
10 days from its date
Section 11. Receipt for the property seized. — The officer seizing property under
the warrant must give a detailed receipt for the same to the lawful occupant of
the premises in whose presence the search and seizure were made, or in the
absence of such occupant, must, in the presence of at least two witnesses of
sufficient age and discretion residing in the same locality, leave a receipt in the
place in which he found the seized property.
Ø Receipt of property seized must be given to:
1. Lawful occupant/any family member in his absence; or
2. 2 witnesses of legal age in the same locality
Section 12. Delivery of property and inventory thereof to court; return and
proceedings thereon. — (a) The officer must forthwith deliver the property seized
2Whether the receipt has been given to (a) lawful occupant/any family member in his absence;
or (b) 2 witnesses of legal age residing in the same locality
to the judge who issued the warrant, together with a true inventory thereof
duly verified under oath.
People v. Go
- Inventory must be made under oath, otherwise, contempt may lie
- Presumption of regularity will not lie in favor of the authorities who served
the warrant
(b) Ten (10) days after issuance of the search warrant, the issuing judge shall
ascertain if the return has been made, and if none, shall summon the person to
whom the warrant was issued and require him to explain why no return was
made. If the return has been made, the judge shall ascertain whether section
112 of this Rule has been complied with and shall require that the property
seized be delivered to him. The judge shall see to it that subsection (a) hereof
has been complied with.
(c) The return on the search warrant shall be filed and kept by the custodian of
the log book on search warrants who shall enter therein the date of the return,
the result, and other actions of the judge.
A violation of this section shall constitute contempt of court.
Ø Inventory of seized items, return, and proceedings must be duly verified
and under oath
Ø Return: report on the implementation of search warrant
Ø No return: court summons person upon whom such warrant was issued
and person must explain why there was no return
Ø Violation of Sec. 12 or the above makes an officer liable for contempt of
court
People v. Huang Zen Hua
- There must be notice and demand from the officer concerned before
breaking in
- Lawful entry is an indispensable predicate of a reasonable search
- “Knock and announce” principle
 - Non-compliance with this principle renders the search invalid,
ergo, evidence seized is inadmissible in evidence
Is the rule requiring police officers to secure a search warrant absolute?
- No.
- Exceptions: Warrantless searches (IMC-PWESV)
1. Search incidental to a lawful arrest;
2. Search of moving vehicles;
3. Customs searches;
4. Plain view doctrine;
5. Waiver;
6. Emergency & exigency circumstances;
7. Stop-and-frisk; and
8. Visual searches at checkpoints
1. Search incidental to a lawful arrest (Rule 126, Sec. 13)
Section 13. Search incident to lawful arrest. — A person lawfully arrested may be
searched for dangerous weapons or anything which may have been used or
constitute proof in the commission of an offense without a search warrant.
Requisites of search incident to a lawful arrest:
a. Item to be searched is within the arrestee’s area of immediate control
b. Search is contemporaneous with the arrest
Ø Unlawful arrest = no valid warrantless search; illegal arrest =
subsequent search is illegal
Ø Is this the same as the plain view doctrine?
o No. In plain view, search precedes arrest; plain view =
inadvertent; search incident to a lawful arrest = intentional
People v. Calantiao
- Under the plain view doctrine, the discovery of an object is inadvertent;
unlike in searches incidental to a lawful arrest, the discovery/search was
deliberate
- While there could be plain view in searching a person arrested, it is under
Rule 126, Sec. 13 – it has a different legal basis. In Calantiao, the search was
made incidental to a lawful arrest
- The plain view doctrine is also inapplicable to the present case as it applies
only to cases where a police officer is not searching for evidence against the
offender, but nevertheless stumbles upon incriminating evidence.
Ø May search precede the arrest?
General Rule: Arrest precedes search
Exception:
People v. Racho
- A search substantially contemporaneous with the arrest; when there is
probable cause at the outset to effect the arrest
- Accused-appellant herein was not committing any offense in the presence
of the police officers, neither did the police officers have personal knowledge
that the accused-appellant had just committed a crime except for the
information relayed by the confidential agent.
Probable cause: Rule 113, Sec. 5 (b)
- When an offense has just been committed, and he has probable cause to
believe based on personal knowledge of facts or circumstances that the
person to be arrested has committed it
Veridiano v. People
- The basis of the arrest in this case was a tip
- SC said that a hearsay tip by itself does not justify a warrantless arrest
- A tip is not probable cause under Rule 113, Sec. 5 (b)
2. Search of moving vehicles
Ø Why is this an exception to the need for searches to have warrants?
Caballes v. People
- Kinds of searches to be done to vehicles:
a. In moving vehicles, what can be done are routine inspections; but
physical intrusion goes to far (G.R.)
b. Extensive searches are allowed when there is probable cause as to the fact
that (a) the motorist is an offender; and (b) that the things to be searched
evidence a crime (XPN)
Example: the distinctive smell of marijuana
Ø How about persistent reports of a rampant smuggling of firearms,
contrabands?
o Still does not justify warrantless search
 Ø What kind of reports, then, justify warrantless searches?
o Confidential or classified information regarding the fact that
evidence could be found in the vehicle
Search incident to a lawful arrest Extensive search of a moving
vehicle
Reliable tip is not enough for Reliable tip is sufficient
probable cause to effect a warrantless
arrest
3. Plain view doctrine
Requisites: (VIA)
a. Valid intrusion/prior justification to be in the place;
b. Discovery of evidence is inadvertent; without need of further search;
c. It is immediately apparent that the evidence is a contraband/used in the
commission of a crime
Ø Buy-bust operations where the house of the accused was searched
Ø However, a search warrant being executed whereby the officers
inadvertently came across a contraband is still covered by the plain view
doctrine
Ø Prior justification = search warrant
4. Stop-and-frisk
Terry v. Ohio
- Officer McFadden, 62, had a reputation of apprehending pickpockets
- The US Supreme Court held that there are two governmental interests
involved in this case. first, the stop and frisk search conducted by McFadden
is an effective crime prevention technique. In this case, McFadden properly
observed that a crime may be well underway because of the actuations of
Chilton and Terry. Second, it is within government interest for a law
enforcement officer, like McFadden, to protect himself and ensure that the
person he/she is dealing with is not carrying a concealed weapon which
could potentially be fatally used against him.
- The degree of evidence or state of facts sufficient to justify a limited search
for weapons, as in this case, does not have to be equivalent to that required
for the existence of probable cause. The standard is whether a reasonably
prudent man would be warranted in the belief that his safety and that of
others is at risk.
- Terry Search: there must be a genuine reason
People v. Cogaed
- Citing Esquillo v. People, the SC ruled that a single suspicious circumstance
is not enough; there must be more than 1 to make up a reasonable belief
- In Esquillo, Justice Bersamin dissented by saying that police officers must not
rely on a single suspicion. There should be the presence of more than one
seemingly innocent activity, taken together, warranted reasonable belief of
criminal activity.
- 2-fold interests served by stop-and-frisk:
a. Crime prevention & detection; and
b. Officer safety & self-preservation
Requisites for stop-and-frisk searches:
a. Genuine reason – not just a mere hunch/suspicion – more than 1
circumstance leading up to a conclusion that there is a criminal activity
afoot; a series of circumstances
b. Circumstances must be known to the police officers based on experience
and training
Veridiano v. People
- Reasonable persons act nervous in a checkpoint. Therefore, simply being
nervous is not enough for there to be a genuine reason
- Moreover, the police officers had no personal knowledge of any fact proving
that Veridiano had just committed an offense, other than the hearsay tip.
Comerciante v. People
- The act of standing & passing something to another person is not a crime
- Comerciante’s acts of standing around with a companion and handing over
something to the latter do not constitute criminal acts, or acts that are
enough to create a reasonable inference that criminal activity is afoot which
would form basis of PO3 Calag to perform a stop and frisk search.
- Waiver
Requisites of a valid waiver:
a. Existence of a right;
b. Person involved has actual/constructive knowledge of such right;
c. Intent to relinquish such right;
d. Waiver extends only to arrest

Villanueva v. People
- Waiver of right to question legality of illegal arrest is not a waiver of the
right to question the legality of search
- Example: there is a checkpoint. Police asked you to open the compartment.
You said, “Yes, by all means.” You waived your right to question the legality
of the search conducted against you and the shabu seized in your car is
admissible against you
- The proper time to assail the legality of arrest is the arraignment
Veridiano v. People
- Lack of resistance/silence is not equivalent to consent to be searched
- Consent must be proven by clear and convincing evidence
People v. Cogaed
- Burden of proof to establish waiver = prosecution
- Customs Searches
Papa v. Mago
- Rationale why customs searches is an exception: automobile is a highly
powered vehicle
- Tariff and Customs Code authorizes persons with police authority to search,
seize, and enter any land/enclosure which is not a dwelling (Sec. 2203)
Salvador v. People
- Drug trafficking and smuggling by Philippine Airlines (PAL) personnel
- Search was conducted pursuant to police authority under customs law
- Reiterated Papa v. Mago
- Also a search of a moving vehicle
- If it is a dwelling, it is immobilized. Therefore, there is an opportunity to
secure a warrant. for moving vehicles, there is no such time
Dela Cruz v. People
- Routine security check had the color of a state-related function thus, People
v. Marti does not apply
- Requirements for search to be under customs search: (PEN)
a) Persons conducting search were exercising police authority under
customs law
b) Search conducted is for the enforcement of customs law
c) Place searched is not a dwelling
- Cutiepie Flores, et al. were not conducting search pursuant to the
enforcement of customs laws
- Nevertheless, the search was valid. The search was consented. The
presentation was voluntarily made by Dela Cruz for x-ray inspection
- Entering an airport is deemed a waiver of the right to question the legality
of searches
- Exigent & Emergency Circumstances
People v. De Gracia
- Raids & searches and seizures during the existence of a coup d’etat were
made under exigent and emergency circumstances
- Police/agents had no opportunity to apply for search warrants
Ø You were apprehended for drunk driving. There’s a hunch on the part
of police authority that you were involved in a rape case that happened
5 hours ago. Police wanted to seize your phone to verify. May they do
so without a warrant?
Riley v. California
- Search and seizure incident to a lawful arrest of digital contents
of a cellphone is invalid because digital information stored on a
cellphone could not be used to harm an arresting officer making
the arrest. The inspection must be limited to the physical features
of the phone
R.A. 10586 – Anti-Drunk and Drugged Driving Act (aka dapat marunong ka
mag-dala ng kalasingan act. Jk.)
Ø Probable cause to subject person for drug screening/sobriety test: the
way one drives
Ø Apparent indications & manifestations of driving under the influence
(DUI): overspeeding, swerving, lane straddling, weaving, sudden stops
Ø Failed sobriety tests: breath analyzer to check blood alcohol
concentration levels
Ø Probable cause for drug use: drug screening
Sec. 5, Rule 113, Rules of Court – Warrantless Arrests
a. In flagrante delicto arrests
b. Hot pursuit - As opposed to Miguel v. People, the lack of criminal charges for showing of
c. Escapees private parts merely bolstered the incredibility of the arrest based on the
Note: in (a) and (b), the person arrested should be brought to the nearest police circumstances present
station or jail - Validity of warrantless arrest is crucial to the validity of a search incident
thereto
In flagrante delicto arrests People v. Doria
1. Overt act indicating that he has just committed, actually committing, - Entrapment has a negative meaning under US Jurisprudence – according to
attempting to commit a crime them, it connotes trickery
2. In view of a police officer/arresting officers - In our jurisdiction, however, there must be a distinction between
entrapment and instigation
People v. Badilla Entrapment Instigation
- Police did not have enough time to secure a search warrant because there Criminal offense comes from Criminal offense comes from
was a report of a man indiscriminately firing a gun the offender’s mind the police officer/instigator
- Badilla’s act of pulling something from his pocket is an overt act for the - Buy-bust is in the nature of an in flagrante delicto arrest which is the usual
police mode of arresting under R.A. 9165
- The time element involved in the case precluded the police officers from Umil v. People
obtaining a warrant. Badilla’s act of pulling something from his pocket - A rebel may be arrested without a warrant anytime as rebellion is a
constituted an overt act which aroused the suspicion of the police officer continuing offense
who arrested him and believed that then and there was going to be able to - In flagrante delicto arrest may be done as long as a police officer perceives that
draw a gun from his pocket considering the report relayed to him and his a crime is being committed
team.
Miguel v. People Hot Pursuit
- Brgy. Tanod & Chairman = law enforcement officers in the context of Art. Pestilos v. Generoso
III of the Const. - 3rd type of determination of probable cause
- Bantay Bayan perforns a state-related function - Police officer determines probable cause for purposes of effecting an arrest
- SC: not a valid warrantless arrest on account of public display of private under Rule 113 Sec. 5 (b)
parts. If it were so, the proper charge should have been filed. Also, not a case - A hearsay tip does not justify a warrantless arrest under hot pursuit. There
of hot pursuit; police officers had no personal knowledge. There was no must be personal knowledge of the facts and circumstances
valid arrest that preceded the search, therefore, marijuana obtained is not - NOTE: Confidential information may be sufficient for a warrantless search
admissible. of a moving vehicle
Homar v. People - SC: in determining probable cause, police officer may rely on the
- No valid in flagrante delicto arrest as the place where Homar crossed was not circumstances and reasonably trustworthy information as well as personal
identified knowledge
- Is the filing of a criminal charge a condition precedent to prove validity of - Reasonably trustworthy information: may be a witness/victim of the crime;
warrantless arrest? police officers need not verify information
o No. police officers/prosecution must still prove validity of warrantless - Requisites:
arrest 1. Crime had just been committed;
 2. Personal knowledge of the arresting officer that the person to be arrested
has committed it
Administrative arrests
Ø May administrative agencies issue warrants of arrest?
General Rule: No.
Exception: Deportation provided there is a final order of deportation;
for carrying out a final order finding a violation of the law
Ø How about the random conduct of drug tests?
Randomized drug tests to students and employees do not violate the
right to privacy
RIGHT TO PRIVACY
- The right to privacy is the right to be free from unwarranted exploitation of
one’s person or from intrusion into one’s private activities in such a way as
to cause humiliation to a person’s ordinary sensibilities (Cruz, 2015)
Olmstead Ruling v. Katz Ruling
Olmstead v. US Katz v. US
Search and seizure clause did not One who occupies a telephone booth
prohibit non-trespassory wiretaps, who closes the door behind him is
only physical trespass is prohibited; entitled to assume that the words he
objects seized must be tangible speaks to the mouthpiece would not
be broadcast to the world
- Thank God for Katz for the protection we now enjoy in our communications
Disini v. Secretary of Justice
- Realtime data collection which does not require a warrant but only due
cause is not valid. Due cause is insufficient as it has no precedence in
law/jurisprudence; leaves unbridled discretion to police officers; Sec. 12 of
the Cybercrime Law does not define due cause -- it is akin to a general search
warrant prohibited by the Constitution
2 categories of privacy:
1. Decisional privacy – right to independence in making certain important
decisions
2. Informational privacy – right to: (a) not have private information
regarding one’s self disclosed; and (b) to live free from surveillance
2 tests to determine whether or not right to privacy is infringed or the
reasonable expectation of privacy test:
1. Subjective test – person’s expectation of privacy by his conduct
2. Objective test – person’s expectation of privacy is recognized by society
as reasonable
Sps. Ching v. Choachuy
- Video surveillance cameras should not cover places where there is
reasonable expectation of privacy
- There is reasonable expectation of privacy in business areas
Vivares v. St. Theresa’s College
- Right to privacy online depends on privacy tools
- There must be a manifestation by a user of an intent to keep his posts private
(i.e. Only Me, Custom in Facebook posts)
- A setting of “Friends” or “Friends Only” does not bolster Vivares’
contention that there is a subjective reasonable expectation of privacy. It is
not a guarantee that it would not be viewed by other persons who are not
your friends
- Objective reasonable expectation of privacy = “Only Me” or “Custom”
Gamboa v. Chan
- No violation of right to privacy as surveillance on Gamboa was an inherent
factor in investigation and intelligence gathering
- The state interest of dismantling private army groups far outweighs the
alleged intrusion on the private life of Gamboa, especially when the
collection and forwarding by the PNP of information against her was
pursuant to a lawful mandate. Therefore, the writ of habeas data will not lie
Morfe v. Mutuc
- SALNs do not violate the right to privacy
- A public officer is bereft of constitutional protection.
- The Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act could also be hardly declared as
unconstitutional when one takes into account the harsh and compelling
realities of public service with its ever-present temptation to heed the call of
greed and avarice
Pollo v. Constantino-David
- Personal files in a computer obtained without consent of the user is not a
violation of the right to privacy
- It must be assessed in the context of employer relations
- There is a reduced expectation of privacy in a workplace especially in the
public sector
- Even assuming, arguendo, that he had put up a reasonable expectation of
privacy, such would be rebutted by the CSC’s policy under Office
Memorandum No. 10 S. 2002 wherein it was explicitly stated that there is no
expectation of privacy relative to the use of computer resources of the CSC.
FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION
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. (Art. III, Sec. 4, 1987 Const.)
Thomas Jefferson: You cannot say that you are free if you are uninformed.
Ø Free speech is the essence of a democratic society
Chavez v. Gonzales
- Mere statements by the Secretary of Justice were enough to violate free
speech
- Free speech entails ability to discuss only matters of public interest without
censorship or fear of punishment
- The right to dissent; constitution protects even the ideas and opinions we
hate
- As Justice Holmes put it, “Freedom for the thought that we hate as much as
the thought that we agree with.”
- Constitutional expression includes those that are instructive, informative,
religious, etc.
- A governmental action that restricts freedom of speech or of the press based
on content (content-based regulation) is given the strictest scrutiny, with the
government having the burden of overcoming the presumed
unconstitutionality by the clear and present danger test. This rule applies
equally to all kinds of media, including broadcast media
Ø Art. III, Sec. 4 does not compel you to speak, it includes the right to be
silent
Ø In Diocese of Bacolod, the SC cited Commissioner Lino Brocka’s proposal
to include “expression” in Art. III, Sec. 4 in order to make it more
expansive
Ø Are all speeches treated the same?
o No. even if a speech is protected, the level of protection varies.
Not everything we say/express is protected
o Commercial speeches are not the same as political speeches, the
latter is given more protection
3 tests:
1. Dangerous Tendency Doctrine – permits limitation on speech if there
is a rational correlation with the speech and the evils feared
- Under this test, a person could be punished for his ideas even if
they only tended to create the evil sought to be prevented. It was
not necessary to actually create the evil; a mere tendency toward
the evil was enough (Cruz, 2015)
2. Balancing of Interest Test – if in a given situation it should appear that
there is urgent necessity for protecting the national security against
improvident exercise of freedom of expression, the right must yield (Id.)
3. Clear and Present Danger Test – where speech must be restrained as
the speech will lead to a substantive danger the government has a right
to prevent
- Requires proximity and degree
- The rule is that the danger created must not only be clear and
present but also traceable to the ideas expressed. The term clear
seems to point to a causal connection with the damage of the
substantive evil arising from the utterance questioned. Present
refers to the time element (Cruz, 2015)
4 aspects of Art. III, Sec. 4:
1. Freedom from prior restraint – imposed prior to utterance
2. Freedom from subsequent punishment
3. Freedom of access to information
4. Freedom of circulation
 1. Freedom from Prior Restraint
- Prior restraint bears heavy presumption of unconstitutionality
Content-based regulation Content-neutral regulation
Pertains to the subject matter of the Merely concerned with the incidents
expression of speech (time, place, manner)
Strict scrutiny test; apply the clear Maybe intermediate test/rational
and present danger test basis test
- The distinction is important for us to know the test applicable
- In Chavez v. Gonzales, respondent argued that print media is not the same as
broadcast media. The SC disagreed. All subjects of media are subject to the
clear and present danger rule even for broadcast media. Unlike the US, the
Philippines does not dichotomize. But the clear and present danger test still
applies only to content-based regulation. Not every violation of the law
justifies the straitjacketing of freedom of speech and of the press
- In Chavez, a press statement warning media practitioners is a governmental
act. In this case, the SOJ made the press statement in his official capacity
- Statements made in an official capacity may be a governmental act; it does
not have to be formalized as an Executive Order, Administrative Order, etc.
Diocese of Bacolod v. COMELEC
- Does size matter?
- Even a COMELEC opinion may be construed as a governmental act
- Art. IX-C, Sec. 4 is not applicable because the Diocese is not a holder of a
franchise
- Provisions cited by the COMELEC only pertain to candidates
- If Art. IX-C, Sec. 4 and the Fair Elections Act are invoked, distinguish
between public/private individual
- Why is the issue of being a content-based and content-neutral regulation
relevant in this case?
- Size matters:
1. It enhances the efficiency of the communication
2. It conveys the idea that the message is important
3. The larger the tarpaulin, the more message it bears
- Thus, the COMELEC’s opinion in this case was a content-based regulation
- Property rights were also violated in this case
Soriano v. Laguardia
- SC applied the balancing-of-interest test
- Parens patriae – the State is the protector of its citizens
- In this case, the minors were the ones being protected by the State
1. Medium used – television which is more accessible to children
2. Time slot – primetime while the children are still awake
3. Rating – it was rated as for general viewership
- The statements of Brother Eli may be classified as an indecent language to
the average child
INC v. CA
- INC was attacking the Catholic Church which merited their episodes x-
ratings
- Opinion here refers to religious speech
- SC: the remedy for a doctrine which is attacked is a better doctrine. The best
argument against a doctrine attacking another doctrine is a better doctrine
Newsounds v. Dy
- Atty. Sarangaya: similar to the Rappler drama; is Malacañang’s barring of
Rappler a violation of free speech? #UpholdPressFreedom
- SC: Based on the circumstances, it appeared that the regulation was content-
neutral. But delving deeper into it, it is actually content-based. The SC
looked at the factual milieu and the surrounding circumstances of the case
- In 2001, Bombo Radyo (which is owned by petitioners in this case) had been
aggressive in exposing election irregularities in Isabela which effectively
favoured respondent Dy and other members of the Dy political dynasty in
this case. Prior to 2002, petitioners never encountered any problems securing
permits for the continued operation of their radio stations. It was only in
2002, when herein respondent Mayor Cesar Dy was elected into office that
the local government started to impose these additional requirements to
substantiate the conversion of petitioners’ property to commercial use.
SWS v. COMELEC
- COMELEC argued that surveys were detrimental to the electoral process
- Justice Kapunan’s dissent: the restriction has a noble purpose – to not
pressure the voters
- SC: insisted on employing the clear and present danger test using the
O’brien test: a government regulation is sufficiently justified when: [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 freedom of expression; and [4] if
the incidental restriction is no greater than is essential to the furtherance of
interest.
- In this case, the provision failed to meet item [3] as there is a causal
connection between the expression and the asserted governmental interest
which makes such governmental interest related to the suppression of the
freedom of expression.
Reno v. ACLU
- US Supreme Court struck down the “indecent transmission” and “patently
offensive” provision of the Communications Decency Act for overbreadth
Near v. Minnesota
- While liberty of the press is not absolute, the regulation in this case is
actually a prior restraint on publication
- If the newspaper is consistent in its attack of public officers, the remedy is
libel, not the prohibition of publication conveying potentially libelous
statements
Grosjean v. American Press Co.
- The State license tax is a restraint on publication
- As opposed to Tolentino v. Secretary of Finance – the Php 1,000.00 registration
fee is merely administrative and is not directed to the privilege of
publication; that in Grosjean attacks the privilege to publish
Adiong v. COMELEC
- Overbreadth was applied – governmental interest must not be achieved by
means that unnecessarily sweep and infringe on constitutional rights
- The COMELEC regulation infringes on the right to property – how to use
property (cars) owned by individuals
- The way one conveys information is likewise vital
- Equalization of opportunities for candidates is not as important as the rights
of property owners to express their own views and preferences with their
consent
- It depends on the property owner’s consent, not the wealth of the candidate
- The constitutional objective of providing equal opportunity for rich and poor
candidates to inform the electorate could not prevail over a constitutionally
protected freedom – compared to the paramount interest of the State in
guaranteeing freedom of expression, the constitutional objective is of
marginal significance.
Primicias v. Fugoso
- BP 880
- The SC juxtaposed the case with Reyes v. Bagatsing
- For a permit to be refused to those applying for it, there must be a clear and
present danger that the assembly for which the permit is being applied for
is illegal. The danger is imminent in character that must be prevented and
suppressed.
- The licensing authority must use the clear and present danger test
- Proximity between the assembly and the substantive evil sought to be
prevented
- The pertinent provisions of the subject ordinance which grants the Mayor
the power to issue permits for the use of public spaces, should mean that the
Mayor had no authority to refuse the issuance of such permit, but rather
only to determine or specify the streets or public places where the parade or
procession would be conducted.
- Men feared witches and burned women. It is the function of speech to free
men from the bondage of irrational fears.
Libel
Is the right of private citizens to assail the actions of public officials absolute?
- No.
Are news outfits or publishers always required to be correct in the statements
contained in their articles?
- No. (New York Times v. Sullivan)
- Certain margin of error: How do you quantify this?
o The doctrine of actual malice does not require 100% exactitude
with respect to the information contained in the article. What is
important is that even if there are inaccuracies in the opinion,
there is no knowledge that the facts upon which the opinion is
based are false or based on a false supposition
Tulfo v. People
- Tulfo did not make any effort to validate or verify the reports given to
him by his sources in the BOC
- The SC also used the Journalist’s Code of Ethics
- Is the defense that this is a fair commentary on matters of public concern
tenable?
o In this case, no.
 - Assuming, arguendo, that it is a fair commentary, what should be
proved?
o Actual malice: actual knowledge of falsity, reckless disregard of
whether or not it was false or not
New York Times v. Sullivan
- The US Supreme Court defined actual malice as: actual knowledge of
falsity, reckless disregard of whether or not it was false or not
Scenario: Mario Ressa wrote a negative opinion on the oust-duterte matrix
released by Sal Panelo saying that it was unverified, bogus. Could Sal Panelo
sue him?
- Qualify. If it is a fair commentary regarding a matter of public concern,
then the accuser (Panelo) must prove actual malice i.e. actual knowledge
of its falsity and reckless disregard of whether or not it was false or not.
The establishment that it is a fair comment regarding a matter of public
concern triggers this requirement.
- There is no actual malice if Mario Ressa’s opinion was based on an
actual fact – the matrix issued by Malacañang/Sal Panelo.
- There is actual malice when Mario Ressa assumed that a matrix will be
issued which, in his opinion, highlights the stupidity of Panelo. In this
case, there was no matrix or concrete fact upon which Mario Ressa could
base his opinion.
Borjal v. CA
Qualifiedly privileged communication under Art. 354 of the RPC
1. Private communications
2. Fair and true report made in good faith without comments or remarks
- There was no fair commentary on matters of public concern in Art. 354. But
the SC nevertheless ruled that Art. 354 was not exclusive. Art. 354
merely concretizes the same.
Is the RPC the source of privileged communications?
- No. The Constitution is.
Is there an absolute privileged communication?
Absolute privileged Qualified privileged
communication communication
Privileged speech in Congress Art. 354, Doctrine of Fair
Commentaries on Matters of
Public Concern
Regardless of malice, the Malice is considered
person making the statement
is immune
There is presumption of malice in every defamatory imputation. However, if it
is published as a fair commentary on matters of public concern, there is then
the need to prove actual malice. In other words, the presumption does not apply
to privileged communications (absolute privileged, qualified privileged, and
fair commentaries on matters of public concern) because in the latter, there is
need to prove actual malice.
Ø Actual malice is relevant only when we’re talking about qualified
privileged communication
• Political speech occupies a higher rank in the levels of speech. Political
speech shapes our views
• Political sovereignty influences the framework of the legal sovereign –
the State. We could exercise it by the freedom of speech and expression
because said exercise shapes public opinion
• Free speech, press, builds the very fiber of our democracy
But it does not mean that everything that we say must be left unpunished.
UP Faculty case
- Group of faculty members criticized the Supreme Court
- The exercise erodes the faith of the people in the courts
- The statement of the faculty members really accused the SC of injustices
Marantan v. Diokno
- A public utterance or publication is not to be denied the constitutional
protection of freedom of speech and press merely because it concerns a
judicial proceeding still pending in the courts, upon the theory that in
 such a case, it must necessarily tend to obstruct the orderly and fair
administration of justice
- Test in subjudice: clear and present danger test -- that the administration
of justice is obstructed; the independence of the courts is prejudiced; or
the people’s faith in the courts is eroded
Cabansag v. Fernandez
- The letter to the PCAC did not impair the integrity of the Court
- It did not attribute anything negative against the Court
- Although the remedy resorted to was unprocedural, the SC could not
fault a non-lawyer for resorting to such remedy for he was unfamiliar
with the procedure
Nestle v. Sanchez
- The lawyer is responsible for telling his clients the proper conduct
before the Court (but I think this was the ruling in Cabansag)
- The liberal stance of the SC was caused by the acknowledgement of the
euphoria apparently resulting from the re-discovery of a long-repressed
freedom. However, the SC noted that in future cases, it will not hesitate
to apply the full force of the law on contempt, and punish anyone who
attempts to pressure the court to act in one way and not the other.
Grievances must be ventilated through the proper channels. The SC
compassionately recognized that the respondents in this case were non-
lawyers, unaware that their liberties are subject to certain limitations
and acts which tend to influence justices or judges of courts amount to
an abuse thereof
Gonzales v. Kalaw Katigbak
- Movies are covered by the free speech clause but is accorded lesser
protection due to the manner and reach of these exhibitions
- That’s why we have an MTRCB classifying movies
Ayer v. Capulong
- A right (right to privacy) is being invoked against another right
(freedom of expression)
- The SC sided with the freedom of expression
- The focus of the movie was not Enrile, but the EDSA revolution
- For all purposes, Enrile is a public figure, having participated in the
EDSA revolution which had become part of our history. He even sits in
a very public position – the Senate of the Philippines. He cannot shield
himself with the right to privacy as public figures and officials are
subjected to a more narrow scope of privacy than private individuals.
Non v. Dames
- Do you shed your constitutional rights once you enter the school gates?
- True, students are subject to disciplinary rules of the school. But the fact
that a student enters the school does not mean that he is no longer a
citizen. He does not shed his constitutional rights just because he
entered the school gates.
- An interpretation of the Manual for Private Schools was to the effect that
the contract between the students and the schools is only good for a
semester. The SC struck down such interpretation. The student is
expected to return for the succeeding semesters until the program is
finished.
- The school could not invoke academic freedom to suppress free speech
but such right is subject to valid limitations. Academic freedom is also
not a valid justification to override the fundamental rights guaranteed
to the students. The SC even cited Malabanan v. Ramento
Obscenity
Miller v. California
Tests to help state legislatures in enacting statutes re: obscenity
1. Whether the average person, applying contemporary community
standards, would find that the work appeals to the prurient interests;
- Contemporary community standards: contextual, based on the
generation
2. Whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way,
sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law; and
3. Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic,
political, or scientific value
Art. 201 of the RPC
- Mere possession of obscene materials is not punishable
- There must be proof that the possessor has the intent to distribute
Heckler’s Veto
- A restriction imposed by the government upon a person’s exercise of his
freedom of speech for purposes of maintaining the peace or preventing
unlawful or violent reactions to the same.
- This was given in the 2014 Bar Examinations (question #15)
- The government, in order to preserve public order, opts to suppress a
particular form of expression, speech, or publication because of the
behavior of the reactors
- Of American origin
RELIGIOUS FREEDOM
1. Non-establishment clause;
2. Free exercise
Aglipay v. Ruiz
- Postage stamp containing a religious occasion
- Not everything that dictates a religious activity would be violative of
the non-establishment clause
- The objective here is secular but the religious benefit or propaganda to
which the Roman Catholic Church benefitted therefrom is merely
incidental
Valmores v. Achacoso
- Sabadista – first day is Sunday
- CHED Memo: school activities shall not violate a student’s religious
freedom and if a school activity falls on a day where a student should
attend a religious activity, the student should be excused
- Religion is rooted in every culture
- Even our Constitution recognizes a Supreme Being
- Our preamble implores an Almighty God
- 2 aspects:
o Freedom to believe: absolute; the State does not interfere with the
thoughts of a believer (Mr. Canolo is a Satanist)
o Freedom to act on one’s beliefs: not absolute; the State has the
right to intervene in one’s actions (Mr. Canolo, to please Satan,
kills Mr. Mosones)
- Long as the belief stays in the mind, you may think of whatever no
matter how obnoxious it is. But once that belief is externalized, it
becomes subject to government regulation
- CHED Memo: long as there is a certification presented by the student,
institutions of higher learning are enjoined to excuse such student
- Valmores compelled respondent to allow him to participate in the
religious activity
- Observance of a belief is not subject to compromise – in matters of
religion, observance is the rule, compliance is the exemption
Masterpiece Bakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission
- Owner of Masterpiece is a devout Christian – does not believe in same-
sex marriage: “I’ll bake any cake except one that celebrates same-sex
unions”, basically.
- Colorado Statute: a discriminatory act based on gender, among others,
will subject a person to liability
- In showing selective hostility to a person’s sincerely held beliefs as basis
for his objection to creating a cake for same-sex couples, the Colorado
Commission violated the baker’s right to exercise his religion
- Couple’s rights in this case must be balanced with a person’s sincerely
held beliefs
- Colorado Commission showed hostility towards the baker
- To Phillips (owner of Masterpiece), his claim that using his artistic skills
to make an expressive statement, a wedding endorsement in his own
voice and of his own creation, has a significant First Amendment speech
component and implicates his deep and sincere religious beliefs
Are we supposed to adopt in toto every American case involving Freedom of
Religion?
Estrada v. Escritor
- No.
- Supreme Court declared that the PH adheres to the doctrine of
benevolent neutrality/accommodation
- The benevolent neutrality is the spirit, intent, and framework
underlying the religion clauses in our Constitution
- In deciding Escritor’s plea for exemption based on the free exercise
clause, it is the compelling state interest test – the strictest test – that
must be applied
- Establishment and free exercise clauses were not designed to contradict
– they have the same goal which is to promote religious beliefs and
practices
- Free exercise clause prohibits government from inhibiting religious
beliefs by penalties
- Establishment clause prohibits government from inhibiting religious
beliefs by rewarding certain practices
Standards of separation:
o Strict separation – establishment clause was meant to protect the
State from the Church and the State’s hostility towards religion
tolerates no intrusion from the Church. Bawal makialam ang
simbahan sa estado.
§ A Jeffersonian view – an absolute barrier between the
Church and State needs to be erected
o Strict neutrality/governmental neutrality theory – Everson v.
Board of Education: wall of separation does not require the State to
be religion’s adversary. Rather, the State must be neutral in its
relations with groups of believers and non-believers. State power
must not handicap nor favor religions. Only secular criteria may
be the basis of government action.
o Benevolent neutrality/accommodation – wall is meant to protect
the Church from the State. Complete opposite of separationist
view. Religion plays an important role in the public life of the
State as shown by several government practices which to strict
neutrality would pose establishment clause questions. This does
not prevent government interaction with religion. What the wall
suggests is that the protection should be given to the Church from
State interference
- Way to gauge whether a governmental act violates the religion clause is
the strict scrutiny test applying the compelling state interest test
o Has the statute/government action created a burden on the free
exercise of religion?
o Is there a compelling state interest to justify the infringement of
religious liberty?
o Has the State, in achieving its legitimate purposes, used the least
intrusive means possible so that the exercise does not infringe the
rights any more than is reasonably necessary to further the State’s
legitimate objectives?
In Re: Valenciano
- Bakit may Chapel sa basement ng QC Hall of Justice?
- Supreme Court recognized inherent right of the people to have some
form of belief or system
- While religious freedom is not absolute, what should be used in
determining the validity of an act is the compelling state interest test
- It must be demonstrated that the masses in the QC Hall of Justice unduly
disrupted the performance of official functions
- Is this establishment of religion?
o No. it’s an accommodation, not establishment. As long as it can
be shown that the exercise of the right does not impair the public
welfare, the attempt of the State to inhibit such right is an
unconstitutional encroachment
o Only public welfare may overturn the invocation of the
constitutional right
Ebralinag v. Division Superintendent
- Contrary to Gerona
- In Gerona, the SC said that teaching students to salute flags is more
important than religious freedom. In this case, the SC accommodated
members of Jehovah’s witnesses and granted them exemptions out of
respect for their religious beliefs In Gerona, the Supreme Court did not
accommodate
- The Supreme Court re-examined and abandoned its earlier ruling in
Gerona v. Secretary of Education. Religious freedom is a fundamental
right which is entitled to the highest priority and the amplest protection
among human rights, as it involves the relationship of man to his
Creator. The SC came to its senses, and realized that it was not
persuaded by the reasoning that the religious practice observed by a
relatively small portion of the school population would result to the
 irreverence to the flag and the lack of nationalism feared in Gerona.
Forcing a small religious group to participate in a ceremony that violates
their religious beliefs would hardly be conducive to the supposed love
for the country and its authorities that was sought to be inculcated by
the Court in Gerona.
- NOTE: Our jurisprudential approach ALWAYS accommodates
religious practices long as those practices does not adversely affect
public welfare
Victoriano v. Elizalde Rope Workers’ Union
- Union shop clause: employee cannot be hired if he/she is not a member
of a union in good standing
- An exemption may be granted to a member of the INC
Engel v. Vitale
- School prayer
- Jeffersonian view was applied
Ang Ladlad v. COMELEC
- SC reiterated the Escritor case as far as benevolent neutrality is
concerned
Austria v. NLRC
- Ecclesiastical affairs v. secular affairs
- The grounds cited as just cause is found in the Labor Code
- The case does not concern a purely ecclesiastical or religious affair
- Purely ecclesiastical or religious affair: one concerning doctrine, or form
of worship of the church, or the adoption of laws and regulations for the
government of membership
- Reason for Austria’s dismissal was due to an employer-employee
relationship, and was not religious in nature
UCCP v. Bradford
- Hiwalayan ng dalawang churches
- UCCP assailed the incorporation of Bradford which was not sustained
by the SEC
- Is this issue an ecclesiastical affair or can courts intervene? Courts may
intervene.
- SC recognized Bradford’s right to disaffiliate with another organization
via legal means – a secular affair
- The disaffiliation was effected through the means laid down by the
Corporation Code
- Purely ecclesiastical affair, example: excommunication. So, if you’re a
lawyer for a Church, cite your religious doctrines in order to prove that
it is an ecclesiastical affair outside the jurisdiction of ordinary courts
Tolentino v. Secretary of Finance
- VAT law does not violate free speech as it was an administrative fee, as
opposed to Grosjean which had a license/excise tax on free speech
- Tax here did not create a burden nor did it impose a tax on the free
exercise of religion
American Bible Society v. City of Manila
- SC invalidated the ordinance taxing petitioner as it was in the form of
censorship violating free exercise clause
- As far as the requirement on licenses, it does not impose a burden on the
enjoyment of the right to religious freedom
- City of Manila was powerless to license or tax petitioner as it would
impair the free exercise of religion but insofar as its business is
concerned, the LGU may regulate and exercise its licensing powers
- So, distinguish between license tax on the exercise of the freedom of
religion and the licensing powers of the LGU as far as businesses are
concerned
- Test: if the tax or fee creates a burden on the exercise of the freedom of
religion
Wisconsin v. Yoder
- Amish
- There was a rule/law requiring a child to attend school until he reaches
the age of 16
 - Which one is more important – the interest of the State to educate the
children or the exercise of the Amish people to exercise their religion?
Here, the US Supreme Court sided with religious freedom
- The Amish people sincerely demonstrated their religious belief
LIBERTY OF ABODE, RIGHT TO TRAVEL
The liberty of abode and of changing the same within the limits prescribed
by law shall not be impaired except upon lawful order of the court. Neither
shall the right to travel be impaired except in the interest of national security,
public safety, or public health, as may be provided by law.
(Sec. 6, Art. III, 1987 Const.)
Right to Travel
Ø 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.
Ø Limitations: National security, public safety, or public health as may be
provided by law
Genuino v. De Lima
- Whether or not Department Circular No. 41 which pertained to the
issuance of watchlist orders, Hold Departure Orders (HDO), etc. is
unconstitutional
- SC: D.C. No. 41 has no legal basis. The DOJ Circular is not a law. The
Constitution provides that the right to travel may be impaired as may be
provided by law
- De Lima argues that the DOJ is exercising its delegated powers pursuant
to the Administrative Code
- The Administrative Code does not vest the DOJ the power to issue D.C.
No. 41. The provisions invoked by the DOJ are mere general provisions
which do not grant the DOJ the power to curtail a fundamental right
such as the right to travel
- There must be a law authorizing an administrative agency to issue
watchlist orders, HDOs, etc.
Let’s say you’re a court employee. Can you successfully invoke your right to
travel to defeat the requirement by the Immigration Officer for you to procure
a travel authority?
- NO.
Leave Division v. Heusdens
- OCA Circular requires court personnel to secure travel notification and
authority
- Supreme Court has administrative supervision over all courts and court
personnel (Sec. 6, Art. VIII, 1987 Const.)
- Supreme Court empowers the courts to regulate all its personnel ergo,
the subject OCA Circular
- SC cited laws that serve as statutory limitations on the right to travel,
such as:
1. Human Security Act of 2010: restricts right to travel of person
charged with terrorism
2. Philippine Passport Act of 1986: Secretary of Foreign Affairs may
refuse issuance of or withdraw passport of a Filipino Citizen
3. Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2003: empowers the BI, to manage
migration and curb trafficking in persons, to allow its travel control
and enforcement unit to offload passengers with fraudulent travel
documents, doubtful purpose of travel, including possible victims of
human trafficking
4. R.A. 8042 as amended by R.A. 10022 or Migrant Workers Act of 1995:
POEA may refuse to issue deployment permit to our migrant
workers
5. Anti-Violence Against Women and Children: restricts movement of
individual against whom a protection order is intended
6. Inter-Country Adoption Act of 1995: Inter-Country Adoption Board
may issue rules restrictive of an adoptee’s right to travel to protect
the Filipino child from abuse, exploitation, trafficking and/or sale or
any other practice in connection with adoption which is harmful or
detrimental to the child
- The OCA Circular is based on a constitutional provision
Samahan ng mga Progresibong Kabataan v. Quezon City
- SC sustained constitutionality of curfew
- As compared to adults, the right to travel of minors is much more
limited. In fact, there is a law that effectively limits and gives LGUs
authority to set curfew hours – P.D. 603 (Child and Youth Welfare Code)
Liberty of Abode
Ø 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.
Limitations: lawful order of the court. Not just a court order but a lawful order
Villavicencio v. Lukban
- Manila mayor had the women of ill-repute rounded up, put on a ship,
and transported to Davao City to serve as workers.
- The Supreme Court said that the women were not chattels but Filipino
citizens who had the fundamental right not to be forced to change their
place of residence. This case justifies one of the basic rights of citizen --
the right of domain.
- Liberty of Abode is a principle so deeply embedded in our
jurisprudence and considered so elementary in nature so as not even to
require a constitutional sanction. Kahit wala sa Constitution, this is very
basic.
- The validity of the rule in this case was tested through the strict scrutiny
test thru the compelling state interest test
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION
The right of the people to information on matters of public concern shall be
recognized. Access to official records, and to documents and papers
pertaining to official acts, transactions, or decisions, as well as to government
research data used as basis for policy development, shall be afforded the
citizen, subject to such limitations as may be provided by law. (Sec. 7, Art. III,
1987 Const.)
- Another aspect of Freedom of Expression because how could the
citizens comment on matters of public concern if they do not have
information? (Chavez v. Gonzales)
- If they do not have information/access to information, they would have
no intelligible basis to exercise their freedom of expression
- Constitutional provision talks about access
- Art. II, Sec. 28 talks about the policy of full public disclosure
Subject to reasonable conditions prescribed by law, the State
adopts and implements a policy of full public disclosure of all
its transactions involving public interest.
Sereno v. Committee on Trade and Related Matters
- Freedom of Information is not absolute
- Petitioner wants information on trade and other related matters in
relation to petrol-related products
- The case involves a close-door meeting
- Exceptions to Freedom of Information: (NITBaC)
o National security matters;
o Intelligence information;
o Trade secrets – how a company produces a certain product;
o Banking transactions; and
o Criminal matters – information given by informants
- The government is invoking privileged information pursuant to the
separation of powers which includes close-door cabinet meetings
(Chavez v. Public Estates Authority), military secrets, diplomatic matters
- The fact that some of the Committee members are not cabinet members
is of no moment. What determines whether the information is privileged
is its nature – whether the information was within the ambit of the
exception from the people’s right to access to information
Chavez v. Public Estates Authority
- Although exchanges between cabinet members are
confidential/privileged, once a body or a committee comes up with an
official recommendation, then it becomes a definite proposition and the
right to access to information already attaches
 - All information during the exploratory stage is not subject to disclosure.
But once the committee comes up with an official recommendation,
there arises a definite proposition on the part of the government which
can be accessed by the citizen pursuant to his right to access information
3 Categories of Information Covered by Art. III, Sec. 7:
1. Official records;
2. Documents and papers pertaining to official acts, transactions, and
decisions; and
3. Government research data
Why are presidential conversations privileged/excluded from the right to
access information?
- A frank exchange of exploratory ideas and assessments free from the
glare of publicity and pressure by interested parties is essential to
protect the independence of decision-making of those tasked to exercise
presidential and judicial matter
- Deliberative and pre-decisional matters – privileged
- Executive sessions in the Senate are also privileged (tho not really
obvious as Senators bask in publicity and attention)
Is there an obligation on the part of public officers to produce summaries,
tables, charts, explaining the information
- No. Not covered by the right to access information
- The officer cannot be compelled to summarize the records. The public
has to take the information as it is (e.g. does not matter whether the
document is voluminous)
Legaspi v. Civil Service Commission
- Civil service eligibility of the employees
- Public concern, public interest is broad and eludes exact definition
- It is up to the courts to determine what is a matter of public
concern/interest on a case-to-case basis
DFA v. BCA International Corporation
- Certain information are being requested from the RTC under the
Alternative Dispute Resolution Act
- While in Chavez, it was said that an official recommendation becomes a
definite proposition, here, the SC used the doctrine of deliberative and
pre-decisional communications. Citing Akbayan v. Aquino, the SC said
the privileged character of the information does not end when an agency
has adopted a definite information/when a contract has been
formalized otherwise, the concept of the privilege will be defeated
- The limitation on the freedom to access information was to prevent the
chilling effect on deliberative communications
- If the purpose to be served is to protect the frank exchanges of
ideas/information between cabinet members, the deliberative process
privilege applies
- However, the SC only partially granted the petition because the one
claiming deliberative process privilege must specify the nature of the
information. So, it is incumbent upon the parties to assert the nature of
the information
Neri v. Senate Committee
- Presidential communications privilege may be claimed by the President
only, not his/her cabinet members
- But the executive secretary may invoke executive privilege long as he
does it by authority of the president
- Presidential communications are presumptively privileged
FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION
The right of the people, including those employed in the public and private
sectors, to form unions, associations, or societies for purposes not contrary
to law shall not be abridged. (Art. III, Sec. 8, 1987 Const.)
- Art. XIII, Sec. 3 (State shall afford full protection to labor #AttyDJMagic)
- Art. IX-C, Sec. 2, Sub-sec. 5 (The right to self-organization shall not be
denied to government employees)
- “For purposes contrary to law” – no longer necessary as all rights are
subject to this limitation
- The right to join an organization necessarily includes the right not to
join, as a general rule
People v. Ferrera
- Involves certain individuals charged with the Anti-Subversion Act
- The Anti-Subversion Act outlaws the existence of the Communist Party
of the Philippines
- Is the Anti-Subversion Act violative of the freedom of association?
o No. the Supreme Court made a balancing act between the
freedom of association and the State’s right to self-preservation.
There must be a balance (balancing of interests test) between the
freedom of association and the State’s right to self-preservation
but the Supreme Court in this case sided with the State’s right to
self-preservation
- Self-preservation is the ultimate value of society. It surpasses and
transcends every other value. For if a society cannot protect its own
internal structure from an armed internal attack, no subordinate value
could be protected
Gonzales v. COMELEC
- SC ultimately said that R.A. 4880 is broad and sweeping. It suffers from
overbreadth. But the Constitution then required a 2/3 vote from the
Justices in order to render a statute is null and void. Failing to obtain
such 2/3 vote from the Justices in this case, R.A. 4880 was not annulled
- Penera v. COMELEC: There is no law penalizing premature
campaigning. The interpretation by Justice Carpio was that a candidate
only becomes a candidate at the start of the campaigning period, not at
the filing of the certificate of candidacy (COC)
- Nevertheless, the “majority” opinion, which ironically did not win, was
to the effect that the provisions of the law were constitutionally infirm
and formidable
- In short, freedom of association, as an aspect of freedom of expression,
is also subject to the usual standards employed in a free speech case (i.e.
overbreadth, as in this case)
BPI v. BPI Employees Union
- Merger: 2 corporations would merge with one surviving corporation.
The surviving corporation would acquire the assets of the
absorbed/merged corporation
- FEBTC had employees and employment contracts which BPI was bound
to assume
- BPI’s union security clause – a close-shop clause in its CBA
- Are these “new” employees from FEBTC covered by this clause?
o Justice de Castro said there is no need to differentiate between
absorbed employees and incoming employees because both
became employees of BPI, the surviving corp., after the effectivity
of the CBA
- The remedy is to absorb these employees but subject to existing union
security clauses.
- The basis of sustaining a union security clause is the State’s interest to
protect unionism which prevails over an individual’s preference. The
State likewise protects the CBA from impairment (Non-Impairment
Clause)
Victoriano v. Elizalde Rope Workers’ Union
- Members of the INC cannot participate in labor unions
- There’s a closed-shop clause in the CBA, meaning only members of the
union may maintain their employment
- Balancing of interest: Freedom of Association, Freedom of Religion viz.
Unionism, Non-Impairment
- SC: In the Industrial Peace Act, an exception was made to the effect that
religious organizations which prohibit their members from joining the
unions are not covered by these union security clauses
- Despite the Industrial Peace Act being repealed, the principles in this
case still apply. Freedom of Religion prevails over Non-Impairment of
Contracts
Does the exemption impose religious tests for the exercise of a civil or
political right?
- No. Membership in the religion that prohibits the joining in a religion is
not a requirement in the inclusion in the union nor the exclusion from
the union nor is there an affirmative act performed by the union or
employee
- There is no violation of the constitutional right and no religious test shall
be employed in the exercise of civil and political rights
Do government employees have a right to organize themselves for mutual
aid or protection?
- Yes.
SSS v. Court of Appeals
- Government employees do not have the right to strike
- But according to Fr. Bernas, because the prohibition is statutory, the said
prohibition may be lifted by law
Samahan ng mga Manggagawa sa Hanjin Shipyard v. Bureau of Labor Relations
- There is a difference between a union and a worker’s association. The
latter is organized for mutual aid and protection, whereas the former is
organized to collectively bargain with the management. But this is
entirely the prerogative of the employees, regardless of the composition
In Re: Edillon
- Is the termination of membership in the IBP on ground of non-payment
of IBP dues a violation of the freedom to associate?
o No. To compel a lawyer to be a member of the IBP is not violative
of his constitutional right to associate. Integration does not make
a lawyer a member of any group of which he is not yet a member
o Integration only provides an official national organization for a
well-defined and incohesive group of which every lawyer is
already a member
o By virtue of being a lawyer, you are already a member of the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines
o Art. VIII of the Constitution even provides that the Supreme
Court shall integrate the Philippine Bar
o The payment of IBP dues is pursuant to the State interest to
elevate the quality of professional legal services
o Such compulsion, if there is any, is justified under the exercise of
police power of the State
Request for Documents in Corona Impeachment
- Results of the raffle may be made available to the litigants except:
disbarment cases, administrative cases, criminal cases penalized by life
imprisonment which are privileged in character
NON-IMPAIRMENT OF OBLIGATIONS OF CONTRACTS
No law impairing the obligation of contracts shall be passed. (Sec. 10, Art. III)
- Contract: Any lawful arrangement on property or property rights
whether express or implied
- But contract does not include licenses (Chavez v. Romulo). In Chavez, it
was held that gun licenses are not contracts within the purview of the
due process clause.
- Public office is not subject to a contract because it is not a property right.
(Cornejo v. Gabriel) In fact, the salaries of public officers may be reduced
by law. Except those salaries which they have already earned because
then, the public officers have already been vested with a property right
that may be reduced by legislation
- Lands of the public domain are also not subject of contractual relations
- Law: includes executive orders, administrative regulations, and
ordinances. But it does not include judicial and quasi-judicial decisions
and rules
- Impair: (RECSRR)
1. Retroactive application of the law;
2. Diminishes the efficacy of the contract;
3. If the law already changes the terms and conditions and alters the
intents of the parties;
4. If the period of performance is shortened;
5. Deprives parties of remedies; and
6. Removal or addition of a remedy for the enforcement of a contract.
- The proper way to say it is “impair the obligations of contracts”.
- Example: Mr. Pacumio and Mr. Canolo entered into a contract
with a penalty clause which entitles an aggrieved party to recover
5% of the contract price. There’s a law that limits the amount of
liquidated damages recoverable is 2% which applies
retroactively. There is an impairment of the obligations of
contracts between the parties
- Obligation: the vinculum juris, the law between the parties that binds
them to perform their obligations according to their terms and
conditions
- But this constitutional right cannot prevail over:
 - Proper exercise of police power;
- Freedom of religion (Victoriano v. Elizalde Rope Workers’ Union)
Lozano v. Martinez
- Does BP 22 (Bouncing Checks Law) impair the freedom of contract?
- No. Non-impairment clause only protects lawful contracts. Contracts
that contravene public policy are not lawful. Checks as a medium in
commercial transactions, and as usual substitutes for money form part
of the banking system and, therefore, not entirely free from the
regulatory power of the State
BAIL
- Sec. 1, Rule 114, Rules of Court: Security given for the release of a
person in custody of law guaranteeing his appearance in court given
in the form of: corporate surety, property bond, or recognizance
- Recognizance: obligation of record entered into before the court
guaranteeing the appearance of the accused for trial. A contract between
the surety and the State
Rationale behind the grant of the right to bail:
1. Presumption of innocence of the accused – essential in observance of
criminal due process; and
2. To prepare for his defense without being the subject of punishment
even before trial
Is the right to bail applicable to soldiers or military personnel?
Comendador v. de Villa
- No. The right to bail is not applicable to a soldier under court martial
because of the disciplinary nature of the military and because by
tradition, it is not granted to them for they have the fiduciary capacity
to bear arms and thus, the possibility of wreaking havoc
Hong Kong v. Olalia
- As far as extradition is concerned, the right to bail is applicable although
the burden of proof/standards are different. Under 21st Century
3 Not finally disposes of a case
international law, primacy is given in favor of the rights of the
individual
- Burden of proof in extradition cases for purposes of bail: lies with the
potential extraditee to show that he/she is not a flight risk
Evidence of guilt is strong, meaning
People v. Cabral
- Defined evident proof as clear, strong evidence which leads a well-
guarded, dispassionate judgement 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 is administered
- Presumption great: inference of guilt naturally to be drawn therefrom
is strong, clear, and convincing to an unbiased judgement, and excludes
the probability of any other conclusion
- Bail is merely interlocutory3
- Test: Evidence must show evident presumption of guilt or a great
presumption of guilt which is strong, clear, and convincing to an
unbiased judgement which excludes any other contrary conclusion
- Not yet proof beyond reasonable doubt for the latter pertains to the
proof required in judgements
When is bail a matter of right?
- All persons in custody before or after conviction of first-level courts
(MTCs), or before conviction of second-level courts (RTCs) of an offense
not punishable by death, reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment (Rule
114, Sec. 4, Rules of Court)
1. Persons in custody before or after conviction in MTCs; and
2. Persons in custody before conviction by RTCs of an offense not
punishable by death, reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment
When is bail discretionary?
- Upon conviction by the RTC of an offense not punishable by death,
reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment, admission to bail is
discretionary (Rule 114, Sec. 5, Rules of Court)
When may bail be denied?
Ø When the penalty imposed by the trial court exceeds 6 years and a
showing of the following by the prosecution: (RECPA)
a. The accused is a recidivist, a quasi-recidivist, or committed a crime
which is aggravated by reiteracion;
b. Accused has previously escaped from legal confinement, evaded
sentence, or violated the conditions of bail without valid
justifications;
c. Accused committed the offense while under probation, parole, or
conditional pardon;s
d. Circumstances of the accused’s case indicate the probability of
flight if released on bail;
e. There’s a risk that the accused will commit another crime during the
pendency of the appeal (Id.)
Leviste v. Court of Appeals
- After conviction by the trial court, Leviste asked the Court of Appeals
to grant his bail arguing that it was discretionary
- SC, citing Regalado and Herrera, ruled: Two applicable rules are
followed:
1. After conviction by the RTC imposing imprisonment of 6 years and
1 day not exceeding 20 years, and none of the circumstances stated in
Sec. 5 or any other similar circumstance is present, bail is a matter of
discretion;
2. After conviction by the RTC imposing imprisonment of 6 years and
1 day not exceeding 20 years, and any of the circumstances stated in
Sec. 5 or any other similar circumstance is present, no bail shall be
granted. (Regalado)
- Even if the circumstances under Sec. 5 are not present, the fact that the
bail is a matter of discretion does not automatically mean that bail
should be granted because it is still a matter of discretion. Grave abuse of
discretion exists in the second instance whereby circumstances in Sec. 5
are present and the courts grant bail
- The present inclination of procedural rules on bail is to frown on
granting of bail pending appeal which is in consonance with the position
of the US
- Bail pending appeal calls for more rigid standards because there is
already finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt
Exception: if the trial court decision changes the nature of the offense from non-
bailable to bailable, the appellate courts resolve bail
Enrile v. Sandiganbayan
- SC gave credence to Enrile’s justification as to his poor health so that he
would be entitled to bail which is reflected in Rule 114, Sec. 9
(Circumstances in fixing the bail)
- According to the SC, the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of
discretion in not considering the health of Enrile which is one of the
circumstances laid down in Rule 114, Sec. 9
- The SC took note of the Philippine's responsibility to the international
community arising from its commitment to the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights. We therefore have the responsibility of protecting and
promoting the right of every person to liberty and due process and for
detainees to avail of such remedies which safeguard their fundamental
right to liberty.
- Right to bail is afforded in Sec. 13, Art III of the 1987 Constitution and
repeated in Sec. 7, Rule 114 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure to wit:
Capital offense of an offense punishable by reclusion perpetua or life
imprisonment, not bailable. — No person charged with a capital
offense, or an offense punishable by reclusion perpetua or life
imprisonment, shall be admitted to bail when evidence of guilt is
strong, regardless of the stage of the criminal prosecution.
- Justice Leonen’s dissent, however, is worth considering. He said, “Bail
for humanitarian considerations is neither presently provided in our
Rules of Court nor found in any statute or provision of the
Constitution.” Leonen theorized that the Supreme Court only granted
bail as a special accommodation for the petitioner and he goes on to
criticize the decision to wit:
“[This decision] will usher in an era of truly selective justice not based on their
legal provisions, but one that is unpredictable, partial and solely grounded on
the presence or absence of human compassion.”
People v. Escobar
- The issue arose as to whether the previous grant of bail was barred by
res judicata which is not only unrecognized in criminal cases, but also
inapplicable since judgements on bail/orders regarding bail are mere
interlocutory orders thus, not covered by res judicata because
judgements/orders covered by res judicata must be on the merits
- The elements of res judicata are as follows:
(1) the former judgment or order must be final;
(2) the judgment or order must be on the merits;
(3) it must have been rendered by a court having jurisdiction over the
subject matter and the parties; and
(4) there must be, between the first and the second action, identity of
parties, of subject matter and cause of action.
People v. Yap
- Prosecution asks the amount of bail to be pegged at 5.5 million pesos
(the amount of civil liability) which the SC dismissed as excessive and
unreasonable
- The amount of bail should not be pegged as high as the amount of civil
liability
- The amount should be high enough to assure the presence of the
accused when required
MIRANDA RIGHTS
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.
4 Even gestures or actions, even written testimonies, and reenactments
(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. (Sec. 12, Art. III, 1987
Const.)
- Criminal liability attaches in violation of rights of persons under
custodial investigations
Rights covered:
1. Right to remain silent;
2. Right to competent and independent counsel of own choice;
3. Right to be informed of these rights;
- Covers both admissions and confessions. Admissions are acts or
omissions of a party as to relevant facts. Confessions pertain to a
declaration of an accused acknowledging his guilt of the offense charged
or any offense included therein. Even includes any evidence
communicative4 in nature
- The rationale is to prohibit the eliciting of a coerced confession. Because
an environment dominated by the police, creates an atmosphere of fear
and intimidation which compels a person to confess/admit
involuntarily
- Custodial investigation: if there’s an inquiry directed at a particular
suspect; if it ceases to be a general inquiry into an unsolved crime; the
investigators have custody over the person of the suspect
- R.A. 7438 – Covers invitations
Miranda v. Arizona
- Miranda was charged with kidnapping, rape and was subjected to
lengthy interrogations but was not apprised of his right to have a lawyer

People v. Mojello
- Our standards are stricter than Miranda because our law requires the
lawyer/counsel to be competent, and independent and the waiver must
be in writing and in the presence of counsel
Magtoto v. Manguera
- Rights under Sec. 12, Art. III took effect only upon the effectivity of the
1987 Constitution and is not retroactive
- Presenting extrajudicial confessions gives the burden on the prosecution
to prove that the person has been apprised of his rights
- Without compliance with these safeguards, no evidence may be used by
the police against the accused obtained in violation of these
Navallo v. Sandiganbayan
- In mere audit investigations, the rights of persons under custodial
investigations are not applicable
Remolona v. Civil Service Commission
- Administrative inquiries are not custodial investigations that require
the presence of counsel
Tanenggee v. People
- These rights do not apply to administrative proceedings in the
employer’s level especially if there’s no proof that the employee was
coerced
- Investigations in employer’s level are not custodial investigations
- A “written statement” made in the course of an administrative
investigation, and “given voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently,”
would be admissible in evidence
People v. Endino
- Admission before members of the media are not covered by the rights
of persons under custodial investigation and is deemed to be voluntary
in nature
- But the SC reminded RTCs to exercise extreme caution in admitting
similar confessions especially if there’s a possibility of police
investigators conniving with unscrupulous media practitioners to elicit
such confessions
- Admissions must be admitted on a case-to-case basis
Ladiana v. People
- A preliminary investigation before a prosecutor’s office is not a
custodial investigation
- So, preparing a counter-affidavit without the assistance of counsel is not
violative of a respondent’s rights under Art. III, Sec. 12
People v. Andan
- Confession before a Mayor. Should there be a counsel?
- Yes because a municipal mayor has jurisdiction over the police
which may arguably be deemed as a law enforcement officer
- But in this case, the SC considered as admissible the uncounseled
confessions made by the accused to the mayor, whom the accused
treated as his confidante and who did not even question him, and
voluntary statements made to news reporters during televised
interviews, but not his confessions made during his custodial
investigation leading to the subsequent discovery and seizure from his
house of the evidence eventually used against him (Cruz, 2015)
Ø What if a suspect voluntarily submits himself and admits the crime? The
rule on custodial investigations do not apply because the rationale was
to prevent coerced confessions or admissions
Ø An extrajudicial confession, to be admissible, must be:
(1) Voluntary;
(2) With the assistance of counsel;
(3) In writing; and
(4) Express (Cruz, 2015)
People v. Tawat
- Admissions before persons who are not law enforcement officers are
admissible in court against the person
Are the rights under Art. III, Sec. 12 applicable in a police lineup?
 - Qualify. If no question is asked, then no (General Rule). But if there is a
move on the part of police officers to elicit confessions or information,
then the rights in Art. III, Sec. 12 already apply.
- General rule: Police lineups are not part of custodial investigations
(People v. Lamsing). The process has not yet shifted from investigatory to
accusatory
People v. Hassan
- It was made to appear that the accused was being subjected to a police
lineup but he was merely alone and was presented to the witness alone
- SC said it was already a confrontation. It was pointedly suggestive,
generated confidence where there was none, activated visual
imagination, and subverted reliability as eye-witness
o Accusatory questions asked in transit is already covered by the rules on
custodial investigation (People v. Compil)
Independent and Competent Counsel Preferably of his own choice
People v. Mujello
- “Preferably of his own choice” is not exclusive as to preclude any other
competent attorneys to attend to or handle the case/custodial
investigation
o What is important is the accused is apprised of his right to remain silent
and his right to independent and competent counsel.
- As long as the counsel is vigilant, he is already deemed competent
People v. Sayaboc
- Burden of the lawyer is to show that he was able to satisfy himself
during the conduct of the custodial investigation that the suspect
understands his rights and the questions propounded
- The lawyer must satisfy himself that the accused understands not just
the import but the consequences of answering the questions
propounded
- The lawyer must be vigilant. He must be able to make the accused
realize the consequences of the words he is about to utter
People v. Velarde
- Whether the person to whom the accused is confessing has an interest
adverse to the accused (i.e. prosecutor) is the test on whether the lawyer
is independent
- Thus, an accused confessing to a prosecutor fails to satisfy this
requirement because a prosecutor has an adverse interest in the outcome
of the case and thus, not independent
- In People v. Cachuela, the SC held that the assistance of a lawyer provided
by the same agency investigating the accused was not the kind of
assistance required of lawyers in a custodial investigation
People v. Ramos
- The law enforcer must have the patience to explain the rights to the
accused
People v. Broqueza
- Even vague answers are not enough. There must be a showing that the
accused knew and understood the significance of his rights
No presumption of regularity in Custodial Investigations
RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED
(1) No person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense without due
process of law.
(2) In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed innocent until
the contrary is proved, and shall enjoy the right to be heard by himself and
counsel, to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against
him, to have a speedy, impartial, and public trial, to meet the witnesses face
to face, and to have compulsory process to secure the attendance of witnesses
and the production of evidence in his behalf. However, after arraignment,
trial may proceed notwithstanding the absence of the accused: Provided, that
he has been duly notified and his failure to appear is unjustifiable. (Sec. 14
(1), and (2), 1987 Const.)
 - Equipoise rule: where the evidence in criminal cases is equally balanced,
Art. III, Sec. 1 Art. III, Sec. 14 the courts must tilt the scales in favor of the accused pursuant to the
applies to due process in general - limited to criminal cases constitutional right to presumption of innocence
and covers both substantive and and covers only procedural
procedural matters matters. People v. Maraorao
- Mere suspicion, no matter how strong, must not sway judgement.
- Denial of this right constitutes a violation of criminal due process Where there is reasonable doubt, accused must be acquitted.
- The procedure differs in cases before the Office of the Ombudsman
because the latter has the power to dismiss outright a case for being Proof beyond reasonable doubt: Not absolute certainty. Moral certainty
utterly devoid of merit suffices. Degree of proof that produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind.5
- Criminal due process: basic ingredient of trial in accordance with the
rudiments of fair play o Determination of accused’s guilt is a question of fact.
- Mistrial: when the proceedings were held under such circumstances
when the accused could not freely present his defense or the judge could Makayan, Jr. v. People
not freely make his decision - G.R.: The Supreme Court is not a trier of facts
- An exception to the rule on double jeopardy - Exceptions:
1. When the findings are grounded on surmises, conjectures;
Tañada v. Tuvera 2. When the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd, or
- Conviction under a law that was not published is a violation of criminal impossible;
due process 3. When there is grave abuse of discretion;
4. When the judgement is based on a misapprehension of facts;
David v. Marquez 5. When the findings of fact are conflicting;
- A private complainant may appeal the judgement of acquittal and has 6. When the CA went beyond the issues of the case and is contrary to
right to file special civil action for certiorari if the ground was grave the admissions of the appellant and appellee;
abuse of discretion on lack of due process 7. When the findings are contrary to those of the trial court;
- G.R.: Petition for Certiorari may be filed in behalf of the State 8. When the findings of fact are conclusions without citation of specific
- XPN: If the ground was grave abuse of discretion grounded on lack of evidence on which they are based;
due process 9. When the facts set forth in the petition as well as in petitioner’s main
and reply briefs are not disputed by respondents; and
Presumption of Innocence 10. When the findings of fact by the CA are premised on the supposed
- What overthrows the presumption is not the weakness of the defense absence of evidence and contradicted by the evidence on record.
but the strength of the prosecution’s evidence
- What if the probative value of the evidence presented by the prosecution Should the evidence pointing to the accused’s conviction be always direct?
and the defense the same? The court must side in favor of the accused. - No. Circumstantial evidence may suffice, provided the following
This is the equipoise rule. requisites concur:

5 Rule 133, Rules of Court

 1. More than 1 circumstance to convict;
2. Facts on which the inference of guilt is based must be proved; and
3. Combination of all circumstances is such as to produce a conviction
beyond reasonable doubt6
People v. Claro
- Requirement re: proof beyond reasonable doubt even predates our
constitution
- This is culled from American jurisprudence
Motive
People v. Comesario
- Mere motive, no matter how strong, is not sufficient to support a
conviction most especially if there is no other reliable evidence by which
it could be deduced that the accused was the malefactor
People v. Galvez
- Mere motive is immaterial as it is not an element of the crime
- In our jurisdiction, only the elements of the crime are considered in
determining whether an accused is guilty of a crime
- He was convicted of possession though he was charged with sale. The
SC said the possession is necessarily included in the sale of drugs
therefore, no violation of the right to be informed
- An accused may be convicted of a crime which is necessarily included
in another crime even though the crime charged is different
Canceran v. People
- Valenzuela v. Court of Appeals: there is no crime of frustrated theft
- Charge was frustrated theft. The SC said it can never be read as
consummated theft. Canceran may only be convicted of the crime of
attempted theft
- Rule is accused cannot be convicted of a higher offense than that
charged in the information. But courts may convict based on a lesser
offense or offenses necessarily included in the offense charged
- What was proved in this case was consummated theft despite the charge
indicating it was only frustrated theft which was a non-existent crime.
Thus, the crime must be attempted theft. Otherwise, there is a violation
of the right to be informed of the nature of the cause and allegation
against him
- In dubio pro reo: also a Constitutional precept

Exception: Cesa v. Office of the Ombudsman

- When the evidence/proof as to the commission of the rime is - Respondent actively participated in the proceedings before the
circumstantial or inconclusive Ombudsman despite the fact that the charges against him kept on
changing therefore, no violation of due process, and no violation of the
Right to be informed of the nature and cause of accusation against the accused right to be informed of the nature and cause of the allegations against
Two ways: him
1. Information filed in court;
2. Arraignment and plea Matrido v. People
- Without arraignment, the first jeopardy does not attach - Citing US v. Carelsen, the SC ruled that the objectives/purposes of this
constitutional right are:
People v. Manansala 1. Furnish the accused information that properly describes the
- Accused was properly apprised allegations against him so as to enable him to make his defense;
2. To avail himself of his conviction or acquittal for protection
against a further prosecution for the same cause; and

6 Id.
 3. To inform the court of the facts alleged so that it may decide
whether they are sufficient in law to support a conclusion
o Right to be informed may not be waived. The accused may only refuse
to enter a plea. In other words, the right to an arraignment may not be
waived
What would prevail? The technical name or the allegations in the body?
- It is the allegations of facts that prevails.
- The contents of the information must contain the qualifying,
aggravating circumstances, if any. It need not be in legalese or in the
language of the law
o If the information is insufficient (i.e. does not allege an offense), the
remedy is to file a motion to quash. But before that can be done, the
prosecution must be given an opportunity to correct the defect by
amendment. The motion to quash may only be granted if the
prosecution fails to make the amendment or even if amended, still
suffers from the same defects
o What if the allegations are vague? The remedy is to file a Motion for Bill
of Particulars (Enrile v. People)
Enrile v. People
- Only ultimate facts need to be alleged in the information. The ultimate
facts are the ones which have to be proven in trial
- As opposed to evidentiary facts, the latter pertains to those used to
prove the ultimate facts
People v. Quitlong
- Conspiracy must also be alleged in the information
- But in alleging conspiracy, there is no need to aver all details of
conspiracy. Neither is it necessary to describe conspiracy with the same
degree of particularity required in proving substantive offenses
- Sufficient allegation of conspiracy: ordinary and concise language. Just
enough to be able to apprise the accused that he is charged in conspiracy
with the other accused
People v. Dy
- Accused refuses to be arraigned because he still wanted to appeal the
ruling of the prosecutor before the Secretary of Justice. But this is not
one of the grounds to suspend arraignment under the Rules of Court
o What may be waived is the right to enter a plea and enter a plea of not
guilty but the arraignment is not waivable
Political Offense Doctrine: Common crimes perpetrated in furtherance of
political offenses cannot be punished separately from the criminal offense and
are absorbed in the political offense and assume the political complexion of the
political offense
Ocampo v. Abando
- Rebellion. Homicide, murder perpetrated in furtherance of rebellion,
the killings assume the political complexion of rebellion
- What is the remedy if there are separate charges?
- Amendment or substitution of the information
- It would not place the accused in double jeopardy
Right to be heard by himself and counsel
- When it comes to criminal proceedings, there must always be a counsel.
Because even lawyers get confused by the technical rules of procedure.
How much more a lay person
People v. Liwanag
- Does not mean intelligent counsel. It only means an effective and
vigilant counsel
- Just to prevent force and fraud to the accused
Hilario v. People
- Certiorari filed by accused only, without the counsel signing the petition
- SC: there was violation of the right to counsel under the Constitution
- If this is the case, there would be a denial of criminal due process as the
accused was not properly assisted by counsel

Ibañez v. People
- Even if an accused is merely represented by a counsel de officio, the same
satisfies the constitutional requirement
- It is not the right to confrontation that is guaranteed but the right to have
the opportunity to cross-examine which may be waived7
Is there a right to counsel in a contempt charge?
Flores v. Ruiz
- Yes. It is akin to a criminal proceeding despite not being a criminal
charge
What if the lawyer makes a mistake? Is this a violation of the right to
counsel?
- Mistakes by the lawyer binds the client. Negligence by the lawyer also
binds the client.
- What is violative of the right to counsel is gross negligence or
incompetence. A client is bound by the mistakes of his lawyer
Andrada v. People
- SC cited examples:
1. Client abandoned by the lawyer;
2. Failure to file appellant’s brief on time due to sheer irresponsibility
of counsel
- Such circumstances must be taken on a case-to-case basis
Right to speedy, impartial, and public trial
When is this violated?
- Attended by vexatious, capricious delays
- This is a ground for dismissal on the merits
- Constitutes double jeopardy
- Is the period of time of delay the only factor? No, the following are the
factors: (LRAP)
1. Length of delay;
2. Reason for the delay;
3. Assertion or non-assertion of his right; and
7 In relation to right to confrontation
4. Prejudice to the defendant caused by the delay.
Remulla v. Sandiganbayan
- The burden of expediting the prosecution rests on the prosecution itself.
There is no duty on the part of the accused to make a follow-up of the
case
- The delay must be justified by the prosecution
- The determination as to the violation of this right is taken on an ad hoc
or case-to-case basis
Request for Radio-TV Coverage of the Trial in the Sandiganbayan of Plunder Cases of
Joseph Estrada
- SC did not allow Estrada’s objection to the broadcast because of the
significance and the historical value of the proceedings before the
Sandiganbayan
- No violation of right to privacy (Ayer v. Capulong)
Right to meet the witnesses face-to-face
- The right is the opportunity to cross-examine, not the actual
confrontation
- May be waived by accused or by counsel
- “The best cross is no cross”
- Two-fold purpose:
1. Afford the accused an opportunity to test the testimony of witnesses by
cross-examination;
2. To allow the judge to observe the deportment of witnesses (Cruz, 2015)
People v. Rivera
- Remedy if the witness was not properly cross-examined:
- Rule 132, Sec. 9, Rules of Court: recalling of witness
People v. Seneris
- Witness failed to be cross-examined
- Remedy is to strike his testimonies off the records
 - The trial court must assess as to what extent the direct testimony has
been examined May resource persons in a legislative inquiry refuse to take the witness stand
or participate in a legislative inquiry?
o Exceptions to the right of cross-examination - No. They may, however, refuse to answer a question which tend to
1. Dying declarations – made under consciousness of impending death; incriminate them when the question is asked but not to refuse
2. Trial in absentia attendance (Standard Chartered Bank case)

Right to compulsory process May witnesses refuse to take the witness stand?
- To secure the attendance of witnesses and produce evidence in their - In civil cases, no. but in criminal cases, they may refuse to take the
behalf witness stand
- Subpoena duces tecum and ad testificandum
- The judge must take steps to secure the attendance of witnesses and Incriminatory questions: if it tends to subject the witness to criminal liability
production of evidence only
- Must be invoked during trial otherwise, it is deemed waived - Applies only to testimonial9 compulsion only
Motion for Production of Subpoena - If the accused is required to produce a hair sample, for instance, the right
Documents does not apply
Against the adverse party in the Against a third person
case Boyd v. United States
- Defendant was required to produce private books, invoice, and papers
Trial in Absentia alleging violation of customs laws.
Requisites: (ANU) - The US Supreme Court said that this was a violation of the right against
1. Accused has already been arraigned; self-incrimination
2. Accused has been duly notified of trial; and
3. Failure to appear is unjustified Scope of Right Against Self-Incrimination: Natural persons only
- Juridical persons are subject to visitorial powers pursuant to the valid
What if the accused is tried without arraignment? exercise of police power
- The adjudgment may be set aside for violating criminal due process
o Accused may refuse to take the witness stand altogether but a witness
NOTE: Right to Travel may not but he may refuse to answer questions at the time the
- Grant of bail is a valid limitation on the right to travel question is propounded.

Right against self-incrimination

- No person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself
- Applies to legislative proceedings/inquiries8 as well

8The rights of the resource persons must still be respected and upheld in legislative inquiries 9There must be an application of intelligence, attention, and is communicative (i.e. signatures,
(Art. VI, Sec. 26) reenactment of a crime)
DOUBLE JEOPARDY
- Right against double jeopardy prohibits the prosecution again of any
person for a crime of which he has been previously acquitted or
convicted (Cruz, 2015)
- Bars the prosecution from pursuing further appeal except:
- Mistrial
- Grave abuse of discretion
- Does not apply to administrative proceedings. However, contempt
proceedings which partake the nature of criminal proceedings are
covered
Requisites of Double Jeopardy:
1. Valid Complaint;
- In private crimes, certain persons must initiate the prosecution of the
crimes and cannot be prosecuted de officio (i.e. adultery, concubinage,
seduction, etc.)
2. Filed before a court of competent jurisdiciton10;
- A, who was on the boundary of Makati killed B, who was on the
boundary of Taguig. Where should the criminal complaint be filed?
3. Valid plea;
- If the accused pleads guilty but raises mitigating circumstances later,
there is no standing plea (People v. Balisacan)
4. Case was dismissed or terminated without the accused’s express
consent.
- Excludes mere silence on the part of the accused
- Exceptions to the rule that dismissal must be without the accused’s
express consent:
1. Accused files demurrer to evidence;
2. Violation of the accused’s right to speedy trial
Crimes covered: original offense, attempted and frustrated stages, crimes
which necessarily include or is necessarily included
Jurisdiction over the subject matter, and territorial jurisdiction, Sec. 10, Rule 110, Rules of
10
Court
Doctrine of Supervening Event11
- When, after filing of a complaint, a graver offense developed (common
in physical injuries cases)
- Sec. 7, Rule 117 of the Rules of Court: Conviction of the accused shall
not be a bar to another prosecution for an offense which necessarily
includes the offense charged in the former complaint/information
under any of the following instances:
1. Graver offense developed due to supervening facts arising from the
same act or omission constituting the former charge;
2. Facts constituting the graver charge became known or were discovered
only after the filing of the former complaint or information;
3. Plea of guilty to the lesser offense was made without the consent of the
prosecutor and the offended party
Inseparable Offenses
- Cannot be subject of separate prosecutions
- Reckless imprudence is a single offense and is not a means to commit a
crime (Ivler v. San Diego)
o Conviction/acquittal under ordinances shall bar further prosecutions
for crimes relative to the same subject matter (e.g. jueteng)
PROHIBITED PUNISHMENTS
- Cruel, degrading, inhuman punishment: not just excessive, the
punishment must be flagrantly and plainly offensive – disproportionate
to the nature of the offense regardless if it just entails imprisonment
- R.A. 9346: Suspends the efficacy of death penalty which does not bar the
possible reenactment of the death penalty
- Art. 7 of the RPC on death penalty:
1. When the guilty person is already 70 years of age;
2. When on appeal, all members of the SC are not unanimous;
11 Rule 117, Sec. 7, Rules of Court
People v. Mercado
- Death by lethal injection is not cruel or unusual
- Under the ICCP, the right to life is recognized but capital punishment is
also recognized as a valid limitation to the right to life provided it be or
the most serious crime
- State parties in the ICCP are not obliged to prohibit death penalty, but
merely limit its use
Republic v. N. Dela Merced & Sons, Inc.
- The fine was not excessive as it was for the protection of our waters
Lacson v. Executive Secretary
NO IMPRISONMENT FOR NON-PAYMENT OF DEBT OR POLL TAX
Lozano v. Martinez
- Is BP 22 punishing the act of incurring the debt?
- It punishes the act of issuing a worthless check
4. Alters legal rules of evidence and receives less or different testimony
than the law required at the time of the commission of the offense in
order to convict the offender;
5. Assumes to regulate civil rights and remedies only, in effect imposes a
penalty or the deprivation of a right for something which when done
was lawful;
6. Deprives persons accused of crime of some lawful protection to which
they have become entitled, such as the protection of a former conviction,
or acquittal, or of a proclamation of amnesty.
- R.A. 8249
- Law involved here is merely a substantive law on jurisdiction, not a
penal law
- What constitutes an ex post facto law is a penal law

Poll tax: Cedula tax on the basis of his class Bill of Attainder
- Imposes a penalty without judicial trial
INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE
- Every enforced or compulsory service of one to another no matter under People v. Ferrer
what for such servitude may be disguised - Anti-Subversion Act is not a bill of attainder as members of the CPP
- Exceptions: would only be convicted after the trial
1. When a crime is involved (convict was required to render services to
the community);
2. Return to Work Order (Kaisahan ng mga Manggagawa ng Kahoy sa
Pilipinas)

EX POST FACTO LAW/BILL OF ATTAINDER

- Law that criminalizes an act which when done was not criminal
- Must be applied retroactively
- Kinds: (MACARD)
1. Makes criminal an act which when done was not criminal;
2. Aggravates a crime and makes it different from when it was committed;
3. Changes punishment and inflicts greater punishment than the law
annexed to the crime when committed;