I I. POLITICAL LAW II REVIEW Luis A. Vera Cruz, Jr. THE BILL OF RIGHTS ARTICLE Ill, 1987 CONSTITUTION INTERPLAY OF INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS, POLICE POWER AND DUE PROCESS/EQUALITY A. Review of Police Power 1) Definition and Scope a) LegalSubject, b)_—-Legal Method PHIL. ASSOCIATION OF SERVICE EXPORTERS vs. DRILON, 163 SCRA 386 US vs. POMPEYA, 31 Phil. 245 LIFE, LIBERTY AND PROPERTY AND DUE PROCESS/EQUAL. PROTECTION OF THE LAW Section 1. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of lazo, nor shall any person be denied equal protection of the Imo. 1. Liberty; Civil Liberty RUBI et al. vs. PROVINCIAL BOARD OF MINDORO, 39 Phil. 660 2. Due Process; Requisite RUBI et al. vs. PROVINCIAL BOARD OF MINDORO, supra. a. Substantive Due Process ERMITA MALATE HOTEL ASSOCIATION vs. CITY MAYOR OF MANILA, July 31, 1967 CORONA vs. UNITED HARBOR PILOTS ASSOCIATION OF THE PHILS., 283 SCRA 31 BELTRAN vs. SEC. OF HEALTH, 476 SCRA 168LUPANGCO vs. CA, 160 SCRA 848 Procedural Due Process BANCO ESPANOL B. PALANCA, 37 Phil. 921 MAYOR BAYANI ALONTE vs. JUDGE SAVELLANO, 287 SCRA 245 Requisites: 1) 2) 3) 4) Impartial court/tribunal clothed with judicial power to hear or determine the matter before it JAVIER vs. COMELEC, 144 SCRA 194 TABUENA vs. SANDIGANBYAN, 268 SCRA 332 RIVERA vs. CSC, 240 SCRA 43 Jurisdiction must be lawfully acquired over the person of the defendant and over the property which is the subject matter of the proceeding. SAMARTINO vs. RAON, G.R. No. 131482, July 3, 2002 The defendant must be given the opportunity to be heard YNOT vs. IAC, G.R. No. 74457, March 20, 1987 UNICRAFT vs. CA, G.R. No. 134309, March 26, 2001 MARIVELES SHIPYARD vs. CA, G.R. No. 144134, November 11, 2003 ZALDIVAR vs. SANDIGANBAYAN, 166 SCRA 316 CHUA vs. CA, 287 SCRA 33 Judgment must be rendered upon lawful hearing “Administrative Due Process” ANG TIBAY vs. CIR, 69 Phil. 635 MERALCO vs. NLRC, 263 SCRA 531Due Process In Disciplinary Actions Against Students GUZMAN vs. NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, GR. No. L-68288, July 11, 1986 ‘The Res Ipsa Loquitor Doctrine IN RE: ATTY. LAURETA, 148 SCRA 45 IN RE: ATTY. ASOY, 152 SCRA 45 Due Process in Rule Making by Admin. Agencies PHIIL. CONSUMERS vs. SEC. OF EDUCATION, 153 SCRA. 622 Due Process In the Dismissal of Employees MGG MARINE SERVICES vs. NLRC, 259 SCRA 664 SAMILLANO vs. NLRC, 265 SCRA 788 STOLT-NIELSEN vs. NLRC, 264 SCRA 307 Effect of a Motion for Reconsideration To A Claim for Violation of Right To Due Process CASUELA vs. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, 276 SCRA 635 Preliminary Investigation and Due Process GO vs. CA, 206 SCRA 138 YUSOP vs. SANDIGANBAYAN, G.R. No. 138859-60, February 22, 2001 TATAD vs. SANDIGANBAYAN, 159 SCRA 70 The equal protection clause PEOPLE vs. CAYAT, 68 Phil. 12 PEOPLE vs. VERA, 65 Phil. 56 IMELDA MARCOS vs. CA, 278 SCRA 843mM. LACSON vs. SANDIGANBAYAN, January, 20, 1999 NUNEZ vs. SANDIGANBAYAN, 111 SCRA 433 FLORES vs. COMELEC, 184 SCRA 484 PHIL. ASSO. OF SERVICE EXPORTERS vs. DRILON, 163 SCRA 386 ORMOC SUGAR CO. vs. TREASURER OF ORMOC CITY, 22 SCRA 603 THE SEARCH AND SEIZURE PROVISION; SECTION 2, ARTICLE IIT Section 2. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause 0 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. Articles 129-130, Revised Penal Code Section 2201-2212, 2301-2304, Tariff and Custom Code Sec. 9, Republic Act No. 6235 (1971) 1. Rationale and Essentials of A Valid Warrant Substantive and Procedural Requirements PAPER INDUSTRIES CORP. OF THE PHIL. ET AL. vs. JUDGEMAXIMIANO ASUNCION, ET AL., 307 SCRA 253 20TH CENTURY FOX FILM CORPORATED vs. CA ET AL, 164 SCRA 655 UY vs. BIR, 344 SCRA 36 PEOPLE vs. GESMUNDO, 219 SCRA 743 MALALOAN vs. CA, 232 SCRA 249 PENDON vs. CA, 191 SCRA 429 (1990) SILVA vs. HON. PRESIDING JUDGE OF RTC NEGROS ORIENTAL, 203 SCRA 140 (1991) KHO vs. MACALINTAL, 307 SCRA 70 (1999) COLUMBIA PICTURES, INC. vs. CA, 261 SCRA 144 (1996) SONY MUSIC ENTERTAINMENT (PHILS,), INC. vs. ESPANOL, 453 SCRA 360 (2005) PEOPLE vs. CA, 291 SCRA 400Probable Cause; 20 CENTURY FOX vs. CA, 164 SCRA 655 SILVA vs. RTC, 203 SCRA 140 PENDON vs. CA, 191 SCRA 429 BURGOS vs. CHIEF OF STAFF, 133 SCRA 800 ROBERTS vs. CA, 254 SCRA 307 DE LOS SANTOS vs. MONTESA, 247 SCRA 85 VICENTE LIM ET AL. vs. HON. FELIX, G.R. No. 99054-57 SOLIVEN vs. MAKASIAR, 167 SCRA 393 General or Roving Warrants STONEHILL vs. DIOKNO, 20 SCRA 383 (1967) KHO vs. MAKALINTAL, 306 SCRA 70 Scatter Shot Warrant TAMBASEN vs. PEOPLE, July 14, 1995 PEOPLE vs. SALANGUIT, G.R. No. 133254-55, April 19, 2001 Warrantless Search i. Motor Vehicle CARROLL vs. US., 267 US. 132 (1925) PEOPLE vs. QUE, 265 SCRA 721 (1996) CABALLES vs. CA, 373 SCRA 221 (2002) PEOPLE vs. Escafio (2002) US. vs. CHADWICK, 433 USS. 1, 97 S.Ct. 2476, 53 L.Ed. 2d 538977) ii, Plain view USS. vs. GRAY, 484 F.2d 352 (6" Cir, 1978) ARIZONA vs. HICKS, 480 U.S. 321 (1987) HORTON vs. CALIFORNIA, 496 U.S. 128 (1990) PEOPLE vs. MUSA, 217 SCRA 597 (1993) PEOPLE vs. DORIA, 301 SCRA 668 (1999) PEOPLE vs. VALDEZ, 341 SCRA 25CABALLES vs. CA, G.R. No. 136292, January 15, 2002 PEOPLE vs. COMPACION, G.R. No. 124442, July 20, 2001 UNITED LABORATORIES vs. ISIP, G.R. No. 163858, June 28, 2005 Waiver or consented searches SCHNECKLOTH vs. BUSTAMANTE, 412 U.S. 218 (1973) US. vs. MATLOCK, 415 U.S. 164 (1996) OHIO vs. ROBINETTE, 519 US. 33 (1996) PEOPLE vs. BAULA, 344 SCRA 663 PEOPLE vs. DAMASO, 212 SCRA 547 VEROY vs. LAYAGUE, 210 SCRA97 Stop and frisk TERRY vs. OHIO, 392 USS. 1 (1968) ADAMS vs. WILLIAMS, 407 U.S. 143 (1974) MINNEOSTA vs. DICKERSON, 508 U.S. 366 (1993) PEOPLE vs. SOLAYAO, 262 SCRA 255 (1996) PEOPLE vs. EXALA, 221 SCRA 494 (1993) Search incidental to a lawful arrest CHIMEL vs. CALIFORNIA, 395 USS. 752 (1969) NEW YORK vs. BELTON, 453 U.S. 454 (1981) PEOPLE vs. CHUA HO SAN, 308 SCRA 432 (1999) PEOPLE vs. MUSA, 217 SCRA 597 CADUA vs. CA, 312 SCRA 703 (1999) JOHNSON v. USS..333 US. 10 68 S.Ct. 367, 92 L.Ed. 436 (1948) Exigent and emergency circumstances PEOPLE vs. DE GRACIA, 233 SCRA 716 (1994) Hot pursuit PADILLA vs. CA, 269 SCRA 402 (1997) PEOPLE vs. DE LARA, 236 SCRA 291 (1994)10. 11. viii. Customs searches/ Seizure of Concealed Goods to avoid duties and taxes BOAG, ET AL. vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, 570 SCRA 533 (2008) BUREAU OF CUSTOMS, ET AL. vs. OGARIO, ET AL,, 329 SCRA 289 (2000) ix. Airport searches PEOPLE vs. JOHNSON, 348 SCRA 526 (2000) PEOPLE vs. CANTON, 394 SCRA 478 (2002) US. vs. DAVIS, 482 F.2d 893 (9 Cir. 1973) Warantless Search and Seizure On Informer’s “Tip” PEOPLE vs. ARUTA, 288 SCRA 626 Is Operation “kapkap”/"Saturation Drives” Valid PEOPLE vs. MANGOTE, 210 SCRA 174 Warantless Search and Seizure by a Private Person PEOPLE vs. MARTI, G.R. No. 81561, January 18, 1991 Validity of Checkpoints VALMONTE vs. GEN. DE VILLA, G.R. No. 83988, September 29, 1989 Buy-bust Operation PEOPLE vs. JUATAN, 260 SCRA 532 Warrantless Arrest PADILLA vs. CA, 269 SCRA 402 legally Seized Evidence; Exclusionary Rule 7STONEHILL vs. DIOKNO, supra PICOP vs. ASUNCION, 307 SCRA 253 12. Documents obtained through Subpoena 13. Waiver PEOPLE vs. MAMARIL, 420 SCRA 662 14. Not Limited To Dwelling US. vs. CHADWICK ET AL,, 433 USS. 1; 978.Ct. 2476, 53 L-Ed. 538, supra 15. Search warrant Valid In Part PEOPLE vs. SALANGUIT, 356 SCRA 683, supra 16. Ownership of House Searched PEOPLE vs. DICHOSO, 223 SCRA 174 PRIVACY OF COMMUNICATION AND CORRESPONDENCE Section 3 (1). The privacy of communication and correspondence shall be inviolable except upon lawful order of the court, or when public safety or order requires otherwise as prescribed by law. R.A. 4200 (Anti-Wire Tapping Act) RA 7438 ZULUETA vs. CA, February 10, 1996 RAMIREZ vs. CA, 248 SCRA 590 GAANAN vs. IAC, 145 SCRA 112 WATEROUS DRUG CORP. vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 113271, October 16, 1997 PEOPLE vs. ALBOFERA, 152 SCRA 123 ALEJANO vs. CABUAY, 468 SCRA 188 BRATNICKI vs. VOPPER, 532 US 514THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH, EXPRESSION AND OF THE PRESS AND THE RIGHT TO PEACEABLY ASSEMBLE Section 4. No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances 1, Freedom of Expression and Of The Press PHIL. BLOOMING MILLS EMPLOYEES ORG. vs. PHILIPPINE BLOOMING MILLS, 51 SCRA 189 SALONGA vs. CRUZ PANO, 134 SCRA 438 a, Freedom from censorship or restraint i) Publication, ete. GROSJEAN vs. AMERICAN PRESS CO,, 297 U.S. 233 BURGOS vs. CHIEF OF STAFF, 133 SCRA 800 MUTUC vs. COMELEC, 36 SCRA ADIONG vs. COMELEC, 207 SCRA 712 US vs. O'BRIEN, 391 US 365 (O'BRIEN TEST) MIRIAM COLLEGE FOUNDATION vs. CA, G.R. No. 127930, December 15, 2000 b. movie censorship GONZALES vs. KATIGBAK, 137 SCRA 717 LAGUNSAD vs. SOTTO VDA DE GONZALEZ, 92 SCRA 476 AYER PRODUCTION vs. JUDGE CAPULONG, 160 SCRA 861 b. Freedom from Subsequent Punishment i) Libel NEW YORK TIMES vs. SULLIVAN, 376 US 254 ALONZO vs. CA, G.R. No. 110088, February 1, 1995 POLICARPIO vs. MANILA TIMES, 5 SCRA 148BAGUIO MIDLAND COURIER vs. CA, G1 107566, November 25, 2004 LOPEZ vs. CA, 34SCRA 116 Obscenity PEOPLE vs. KOTTINGER, 45 Phil. 352 MILLER vs. CALIFORNIA, 37 L Ed. 2D 419 GENSBERG vs. NY, 390 US 629 PITA vs. CA, 178 SCRA 362 Criticism of Official Conduct US vs. BUSTOS, 37 Phil. 731 PEOPLE vs. ALARCON, 69 Phil. 265 ESPUELAS vs. PEOPLE, 90 Phil. 524 Tests and Valid Government Interference i iii) Clear and Present Danger Rule SCHENCK vs. US, 249 US 97 GONZALES vs. COMELEC, 27 SCRA 835, ZALDIVAR vs. SANDIGANBAYAN, 170 SCRA 1 IGLESIA NI CRISTO vs. CA, 259 SCRA 529 VIVA PRODUCTIONS vs. CA, HUBERT WEBB, GR. No. 123881, March 13, 1997 Dangerous Tendency Rule CABANSANG vs. FERNANDEZ, 102 Phil. 152 PEOPLE vs. PEREZ, 45 Phil. 599 Balancing of Interest Tests AMERICAN COMMUNICATIONS ASSO. vs. DOUDS, 339 US 282 ZALDIVAR vs. SANDIGANBAYAN, supra 10Freedom of Assembly BP 880 (Public Assembly Act) REYES vs. BAGATSING, 125 SCRA 553 DE LA CRUZ vs. CA, G.R. Nos. 126183 AND 129221, March 25, 1999 NON vs, DAMES, 185 SCRA 523 MALABANAN vs. RAMENTO, 129 SCRA 359 EVANGELISTA vs. EARNSHAW, 57 Phil. 255, PRIMICIAS vs. FUGOSO, 80 Phil. 71 i) Clear and Present Danger/Dangerous Tendency Rule REYES vs. BAGATSING, supra RUIZ vs. GORDON, supra ZALDIVAR vs. SANDIGANBAYAN, G.R. No. 80578, February 1, 1989 CABANSAG vs. FERNANDEZ, 102 Phil. 152 ii) Balancing of Interest Test AYER PRODUCTION vs. JUDGE CAPULONG ET AL,, 160 SCRA 861 LAGUNSAD vs. GONZALES, 92 SCRA 476 GITLOW vs. NY, 268 US 652 VI. FREEDOM OF RELIGION/NON-ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION CLAUSE Section 5. No law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or preference, shall forever be allowed. No religious test shall be required for the exercise of civil or political rights. Also: Section 6, Art. Il, Section 2(5), Art. IX-C, Section 5(2), Art. VI Section 29 (2), Section 28(3), Art. VI, Section 4(2), Art. XIV, Section 3(3), Art. XIV, Section 29(2), Art. VI. 1. Non-Establishment Clause uEVERSON vs. BD OF EDUCATION, 330 US 1 LEMON vs. KURTZMAN, 403 US 602 ENGEL vs. VITALE, 370 US 421 SCHOOL DISTRICT OF ABINGTON vs. SCHEMP, 374 US 203 ADONG vs. CHEONG SENG GEE, 43 Phil. 43 2. Right To Religious Profession and Worship PEOPLE vs. LAGMAN, 38 O.G. 1676 IN RE: SUMMERS, 325 US 561 EBRALINAG ET AL. vs. THE DIVISION SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS OF CEBU, March 1, 1993 3. Compelling State Interest Test ESTRADA vs. ESCRITOR, A.M. No. P-02-1651, August 4, 2003 VI. LIBERTY OF ABODE AND THE RIGHT TO TRAVEL Section 6. The liberty of abode and of changing the same within the limits prescribed by law shall no 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 lato. MARCOS ET AL. vs. MANGLAPUS, G.R. No. 88211, September 15, 1989 and the Resolution on the Motion for Reconsideration dated October 27, 1989 MANOTOC vs. CA, 142 SCRA 149 VILLAVICENCIO vs. LUKBAN, 39 Phil. 778 SALONGA vs. HERMOSO, 97 SCRA 121 Section 7. The right of the people to information on matters of public concern shall be recognized. Access to official records, and to documents, and papers pertaining to official acts, transactions, or decisions, as well as to government research data used as basis for policy development, shall be afforded the citizen, subject to such limitation as may be provided by law. VIII. RIGHT TO INFORMATION VALMONTE vs. BELMONTE, G.R. No. 74930, February 13, 1989 12LEGASPI vs. CSC, 150 SCRA 530 BALDOZA vs. DIMAANO, 71 SCRA 14 LANTACO vs. LLAMAS, 108 SCRA 502 GARCIA vs. BOARD OF INVESTMENTS, 177 SCRA 374 CHAVEZ vs. PEA and AMARI G.R. No. 133250, July 9, 2002 IX. RIGHT TO FORM AND JOIN ASSOCIATION Section 8. The right of the people, including those employed in the public and private sectors, to form unions, associations, or societies for purposes not contrary to law shall not be abridged. TERNATE vs. NORIEL, 100 SCRA 93 SAMAHAN NG MANGAGAGAWA vs. NORIEL, 108 SCRA 381 PEOPLE vs. FERRER, 48 SCRA 382 PEOPLE vs. FERRER, 56 SCRA 793 Right To Strike ALLIANCE OF GOVT. WORKERS vs. MINISTRY OF LABOR, 124 SCRA1 88S EMPLOYEES ASSO. vs. CA, 175 SCRA 686 X. PRIVATE PROPERTY AND EMINENT DOMAIN Section 9. Private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation. Sec. 2, Rule 67, Rules of Court; Requisite for immediate entry by ‘government on expropriated property 1. Just Compensation BERKENKOTTER INC. vs. CA, December 14, 1992 NPC vs. CA, 129 SCRA 665 MUN. OF TALISAY vs. RAMIREZ, 183 SCRA 528 REP. vs. CA, 154 SCRA 428 COSCULLUELA vs. CA, 164 SCRA 393 IGNACIO vs. GUERRERO, 150 SCRA 369 13x1. XI. Xi. 2. “Public Use” SUMULONG vs. GUERRERO, 154 SCRA 461 3. “Taking” REP. vs. CASTELLYI, 58 SCRA 336 GARCIA vs. CA, 102 SCRA 597 US vs. CAUSBY, 328 US 256 4. Limitations To the Power of Eminent Domain CITY OF MANILA vs. CHINESE COMMUNITY, 40 Phil. 349 RP vs. CRISTINA DE KECHT and CA, G.R. No. 87335, February 12, 1989 NON- IMPAIRMENT CLAUSE Section 10. No law impairing the obligation of contracts shall be passed. KABILING vs. NHA, December 18, 1987 CO vs. PNB, 114 SCRA 842 TLUSORIO vs. CAR, 17 SCRA 25 ORTIGAS vs. FEATI BANK, 94 SCRA 533 GANZON vs. INSERTO, 123 SCRA 713 FREE ACCESS TO COURTS AND QUASIJUDICIAL BODIES Section 11. Free access to the courts and quasi-judicial bodies and adequate legal assistance shall not be denied to any person by reason of poverty. RIGHTS DURING CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATIONS, 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 comipetent 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. 14(2) (3) (4) 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. ‘Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this or Section 17 hereof shall be inadmissible in evidence against him. The law shall provide for penal and civil sanctions for violations of this section as well as compensation to and rehabilitation of victims of torture or similar practices, and their families “Custodial Investigation” PEOPLE vs. JUDGE AYSON, 175 SCRA 216 PEOPLE vs. DE LA CRUZ, G.R. No. 118866-68, September 17, 1997 DE LA TORRE vs. CA, G.R. No. 102786, August 14, 1998 PEOPLE vs. BALOLOY, G.R. No. 140740, April 12, 2002 PEOPLE vs. DEL ROSARIO, 305 SCRA 740 i) Police line-up PEOPLE vs. BRAVO, G.R. No. 135562, November 22, 1999 PEOPLE vs. DAGPIN, G.R. No. 149560, June 10, 2004 PEOPLE vs. ESCORDIAL, GR. No. 138934-35, January 16, 2002 Guidelines and Procedures; RA 7438 PEOPLE vs. MAHINAY, G.R. No. 122485, February 1, 1999 MIRANDA vs. ARIZONA, 384 US 436 ESCOBEDO vs. ILLINOIS, 378 US 436 PEOPLE vs. DUERO, 104 SCRA 379 Duties of Police and Arresting Officer PEOPLE vs. MATOC-VIDUYA, Sept. 11, 1990 PEOPLE vs. NICANDRO, 141 SCRA 289 PEOPLE vs. DUHAN, 142 SCRA 100 PEOPLE vs. RAMOS, 122 SCRA 312 15 | eee veer eee ates