Consti 2 Notes

ARTICLE III: BILL OF RIGHTS
Formal declaration or enumeration of the fundamental rights secured

and guaranteed by the Constitution to individuals to protect them from
arbitrary and despotic exercise of governmental powers
Restrictions are directed against the state and do not govern relations
between private persons.
SECTION 1: NO PERSON SHALL BE DEPRIVED OF LIFE,

LIBERTY OR PROPERTY WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW, NOR SHALL
ANY PERSON BE DENIED EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAW.
A. Three Great Powers of the Government:

Police Power
o
Most essential, insistent and the least limitable of powers,
extending to all the great public needs
o
Inherent and plenary power in the State, which enables it to
prohibit all hurtful to the comfort, safety, and welfare of society.
o
Rest upon public necessity and the right of state and public
to self-protection.
o
Lodge in the legislature and may be delegated to the
executive
o
Requisites of valid exercise: lawful subject and lawful means
Eminent Domain
o
Right of the state to acquire private property for public use upon
payment of just compensation
Taxation
o
Power of the state to raise revenues. Such must be for public
purpose, equitable and uniform
Should be mere regulation not prohibition of a profession or calling

that is legitimate.
Presumption of constitutionality
Principal Yardstick against exercise of power
Due process clause
Equal protection clause

Life not just the protection of the right to be alive or security of
ones limb against physical harm. It is right to a good life emphasizing on
the quality of living
Liberty measure of freedom which may be enjoyed in a
civilized community. It is the right of the citizen to be free to use his
faculties in all lawful ways.
Property include vested rights, does not include public office,
1 Sandy Crab and the plagiarist
license or mere privilege unless such has evolved into some form of
property protected by the constitution. This is everything over which man
may have exclusive dominion or ownership.
B. Hierarchy of Rights: Primacy of Human Rights over Property Rights
(Philippine Blooming Mills Employees Org. v. PBM Co.)
C. Procedural Due Process
Need for notice and opportunity to be heard (not actual hearing)
Guarantee of procedural fairness
Purpose of procedural due process: (a.) contribute to the accuracy and
thus minimize error in deprivation (b.) gives a sense of rational
participation in a decision than can affect his destiny and thus enhances
his dignity as a thinking person.
Violations may be cured by motion for reconsideration
a. Requirements of due process in a Judicial Proceedings (Banco Fil v.
Palanca)C-J-O-J
1. Court or tribunal with judicial power to hear and determine
cases.
2. Jurisdiction must be lawfully acquired over the person or
property
3. Opportunity to be heard
4. Judgment rendered upon a lawful hearing
Quasi in rem- Property alone is responsible for claim in proceedings, but the
individual is still named as defendant (unlike in rem)
- Notice to the defendant in this case is NOT absolutely essential.
- Presumption of regularity. That upon notice to the property, there is notice to
the individual.
- Publication is already deemed sufficient for procedural due process.
Publicity and TV Coverage
- Mere exposure to publicity does not affect impartiality in this case.
- Person alleging must have direct proof of influence, not just mere possibility.
- The public cannot be excluded, especially when the issue is of public interest.
b. Requirements of due process in an Administrative Proceedings or
Quasi-Judicial Proceedings (Ang Tibay v. CIR)H-C-S-S-B-I-R
1. Right to hearing including right to present case and submit
evidence
2. Tribunal must consider evidence presented
3. Decision must have something to support itself
4. Evidence must be substantial
1A 2010
5.
6.
7.
Decision must be based on evidence presented or at least

contained in the record
Tribunal or body must act on its own independent consideration
Board or body must render its decision in a manner where
parties can know the various issues and the reason for decision.
c. Extradition Proceedings
1. Entitled to notice and hearing before issuance of warrant NO
- Notice would defeat the purpose of the arrest.
- Guilt is not adjudged during these proceedings.
2. Entitled to notice and hearing during the proceedings.
3. Bail/provisional liberty- not generally given, but bail may be
given under special circumstances:
a. When extraditee is NOT a flight risk
b. Special Humanitarian considerations
c. Extraditee does NOT pose a danger to the community.
- Once bail has been granted, it cannot be revoked.
Extra-Judicial Proceedings- considered in the nature of criminal cases
because there is arrest detention and forced transfer to another
state. Thus due process must be observed by providing bail.
e. Academic Cases
procedural requirements for academic cases: (ADMU v. Capulong)
I-A-I-A-C
1. Informed in writing of the nature of the accusation
2. Right to answer charges, optionally with counsel
3. Right of accused to be informedof evidence against them
4. Right to adduce own evidence
5. Evidence must be considered.
5.
Final declaration of deportation with basis
g. Fixing of Rates and Regulation of Professions

standards for regulation of rates:
1. Notice and Hearing (important for quasi judicial bodies because
without it the courts would lack jurisdiction)
2. Rate must be reasonable and just (may be implied)
3. Rate must not be confiscatory and oppressive.
- Government bodies have 2 powers:
1. Quasi- Legislative- general rules, which will affect everybody in a
certain class. No form of notice, hearing or cross-examination
required.
2. Quasi-judicial- applies exclusively to a specific entity or person. Any
change must be made after due notice and hearing.
Price Fixing- is considered as an exercise of a quasi-legislative function
(Maceda v. ERB)
Regulation of Profession- a professional license becomes a property right
after its issuance. (Corona v. UHPAP)
- cannot be taken away without due process, notice or hearing.
Preventive suspension can be decreed on an official under investigation
after charges are brought (even before the charges are brought and heard)
since the same is not in the nature of penalty, but merely a preliminary step in
an administrative investigation. Suspension is not a punishment or penalty for
acts of dishonesty and misconduct in office, but is only a preventive measure.
Therefore it is not a denial of procedural due process (Castillo-Co v. Barbers)
Educational Institutions enjoy academic freedom:

1. Who may teach
2. What may be taught
3. How it is taught
4. Who is admitted to study- according to this, they may expel
students who violate school rules and regulations.
Dismissal in Private Sector V-H-C

1. Must be for a valid reason
2. Must be given the opportunity to be heard, due process
3. Any evidence derived from confession w/o counsel is inadmissible.
- Right to counsel is a right even in civil and administrative
proceedings. The Labor Code expressly grants the right to counsel.
(Salaw v. NLRC)
f. Deportation Proceedings effect is Penal in character, so there must be due

process .I-W-S-H-D
1. Preliminary Investigation- to determine if they are aliens
2. Warrant of Arrest issued after finding of just cause
3. Charge must specifyact or omission
4. Right to be heardand present evidence upon lawful hearing
(No prosecutor because it is a summary judicial proceeding)
Statutes
- When a statute lacks a comprehensible standard, it violates due process for
failure to accord persons, especially persons targeted by it, fair notice of
conduct to avoid, and it leaves law enforcers with unbridled discretion I
carrying out provisions.
- The lack of comprehensible standards means the statute is vague and
amounts to a lack of due process because of lack of FAIR NOTICE and there is
1A 2010
UNDUE DELEGATION.
Overbreadth: Government purpose must not be achieved with means which
are unnecessarily broad and invasive of protected freedoms.
Suretyship - ins surety bonds, signee (guarantor) agrees to answer for
whatever decision might be rendered against the principal, whether or not the
surety was impleaded in the complaint. Notice to the principal is notice to the
surety, thus they have been given an opportunity to participate in litigation. If
they choose not to intervene, it is deemed that they have waived their right to
be heard.
- Notice to the principal is also notice to the surety (Stronghold v. CA)
Tariff and Customs Code
Forfeiture proceedings are not penal in nature therefore would only need
substantial evidence. There is also no need for assistance of counsel
(Feeder v. CA)
- The right to be presumed innocent is given only to an individual in
criminal cases; and not to corporate entities.
Closure proceedings are a valid exercise of police power of the State to
protect the public from the dissipation of funds and bank runs. It does not
need notice and hearing as long as there is subsequent judicial review. (CB v.
CA)
Procedure: E-R-E
1. Examination by Central Bank
2. Report by Monetary Board on the bank concerned
3. Prima Facie evidence about the banks bad financial condition
Cancellation of Property Rights if deemed to be a custom violates due
process (American Inter-fashion v. OP)
Export Quotas- initially was only a privilege but eventually evolved into a
form of property right which should not be removed arbitrarily and without
due process.
Input taxes- NOT properties nor property rights but mere statutory privilege.
D. Substantive Due Process
Interest of public requires such interference and the means are
reasonably necessary for the accomplishment of the purpose and not
unduly oppressive
Liberty of the citizen may be restrained in the interest of public health,
public order and safety, or anything else within the scope of police power.
It is the duty of the legislature to: I-R
1. determine what the interests of the public require
2.
Determine what measures are necessary for the protection of such

interests.
- The determination, of the legislature on what is a proper exercise of
police power is subject to the supervision of the courts (US v. Toribio)
Standards of Police Power

1. Lawful Purpose- for the general welfare of the community.
2. Lawful Method- reasonable, non-oppressive and non-arbitrary
means and methods employed in connection to the
accomplishment of the purpose.
- Police power cannot interfere with private property for purely aesthetic
purposes. But where the act is reasonably within a proper consideration of
and care for the public health, safety or comfort, it should not be
disturbed by the courts. (Churchill v. Rafferty)
- The State may not under the guise of Police Power, permanently divest
owners of the beneficial use of their property and practically confiscate
them solely to preserve or assure the aesthetic appearance of the
community. (People v. Fajardo)
An ordinance may be considered invalid if: L-NP-LS
1. It fails to state any policy to guide or limit the mayors discretion
2. It expresses no purpose to be attained by requiring a permit
3. enumerates no condition for its grant or refusal
4. Lacks standards, conferring upon the mayor arbitrary and
unrestricted power.
Municipal license fees could be classified into: RO-NO-R
(1) Those imposed for regulating occupations or regular enterprises,
(2) The regulation or restriction of non-useful occupations or enterprises,
(3) For revenue purposes only.
Ordinance is a valid exercise of police power to minimize certain practices
hurtful to public morals. The alarming increase in the rate of prostitution,
adultery and fornication in Manila traceable in great part to the existence of
motels. Taxation may be made to implement a police power and the amount,
object, and instance of taxation is dependent upon the local legislative body.
Lutz v. Araneta
Power to tax- police power to regulate behavior. Congress can legislate
morality through sin taxes. (Ermita-Malate v. City Mayor of Manila)
- The extinction of Mortgage and other liens owned by legitimate creditors of
AGRIX constitutes a taking without due process. The mortgages and loans are
purely private and have not shown to be affected with private interest;
1A 2010
therefore, there was no cause to deprive the private individuals of vested

property rights. Outright confiscation of Property without NOTICE and
HEARING is invalid. If there is a taking, there must be Just Compensation.
(NDC v. Phil Veterans Bank)
- Legislature, may not, under the guise of protecting public interest, arbitrarily
interfere with private businesses, which is a property right of the owner.
Theaters, cinemas and other exhibitions cannot be considered Public Utilities
(Balacuit v. CFI)
Vagueness a statute or act is vague when it lacks comprehensible
standards that men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its
meaning and differ as to its application. It violates due process for failure to
accord to person fair notice of the conduct to avoid and it leaves law enforcers
unbridled discretion in carrying out its provisions and becomes an arbitrary
flexing of government muscles.
Void-for-vagueness doctrine a statute which either forbids or requires
the doing of an act in terms so vague that men of common intelligence must
necessarily guess its meaning and differ as to its application
Overbreadth doctrine a governmental purpose may not be achieved by
means which sweep unnecessarily broadly and thereby invade the area of
protected freedom
Test of a valid ordinance: C-U-P-T-G-U
(a) does not contravene the constitution or statute
(b) must not be unfair or oppressive
(c) must not be partial and discriminatory
(d) must not prohibit but may regulate trade
(e) must be general and consistent with public policy
(f) must not be unreasonable
- An ordinance must not contravene the Constitution or any Statute (Magtajas
v. Pryce)
- Due process does not always entail judicial proceedings, especially when it
comes to taxation.
- In Illegal use of Property, the action of the possessor and not the owner is
binding. It serves to prevent further illegal use of the property.
- The state is not required to compensate the owner for property it has
already lawfully acquired under the exercise of governmental authority other
than the power of eminent domain. (Bennis v. Michigan)
Profession- is a legitimate subject of Police Power. So long as professionals

and other workers meet reasonably regulatory standards, no such deprivation
of property exists. (JMM Promotion and Management v. CA)
- No violation of property rights, the state can regulate entry into business as
long as it is reasonable.
Test of Reasonableness of a Persons Expectation of Privacy (Ople v.
Torres)
1. Whether by his conduct, the individual has exhibited an expectation
of privacy.
2. Whether society deems this expectation reasonable.
- A statute must satisfactorily show the presence of compelling state interest
and that the law, rule, regulation is narrowly drawn to preclude abuses.
Requirement of Publication- The absence of publication is fatal as held in
Tanada v. Tuvera. Even if a Manual of Operation is internal in nature, if its
effects reach out to people other than its employees, then it must be
published. (Pilipinas Kao v. CA)
- All statutes, including those of local application, and private laws must be
published as a condition for their effectivity. Also covered are PDs, EOs and
administrative rules and regulations in so far as they implement existing law
pursuant to a valid delegation. Whether or not the circular addresses a small
group or not, the fact that it is an administrative circular which enforces laws,
makes publication imperative. (PHILSA v. Secretary of Labor)
Public Office is not a property right but a statutory right. Congress may
provide for requirements and limits to public office.
- Royalties: taking of property without just compensation.
Gun License- The possession of firearms, as well as a gun license permitting
the carrying of firearms, is only a privilege and NOT a right. The regulation of
firearms fall within the police power of the State, as it regulates its use and
protection for the public safety and welfare of the general society. (Chavez v.
Romulo)
Pensions- are not considered a gratuity. They are delayed compensation
which vests the recipient with a legitimate property interest. (GSIS v.
Montesclaros)
Retirement Benefits- Retirement benefits of military personnel are
gratuitous in character, as such they only gave future benefits. It is only when
the employee retires and becomes eligible, that he acquires a vested right to
said benefits. (Parreno v. COA)
1A 2010
- Police Power, in the interest of General Welfare and Public Health, MAY impair
contracts. (Beltran v. Sec. of Health)
Easements- are like other contracts, subject to the overriding demands,
needs and interests of the greater number as the State may determine in the
exercise of its police power. (UBFHAI v. City Mayor of Paranaque)
- Police power, need not prove exact scientific conclusiveness or research, as
long as the exercise of which remains reasonable and not unduly oppressive.
(Mirasol v. DPWH)
Security of Tenure- While the right of workers to security of tenure is
guaranteed by the Constitution, its exercise may be reasonably regulated
pursuant to the police power of the State to safeguard health, morals, peace,
education, order, safety, and the general welfare of the people.
E. Equal Protection of the Law
Guarantees legal equality of all before the law
Equal protection clause can also be violated not by denial of equality but
by creating a system that can foster inequality (People v. Vera)
The guaranty of Equal Protection is not violated by a legislation based on
reasonable classification.
For classifications to be reasonable: (People v. Cayat)S-G-L-E
1. It must rest on substantial distinctions
2. It must be germane to the purpose of the law
3. It must not be limited to existing conditions only
4. It must apply equally to all members of the same class
- it does not demand absolute equality among residents, it merely requires
that all persons similarly situated shall be treated alike, under like
circumstances; both as to privileges conferred and liabilities enforced. (Tiu v.
CA)
Aliens
The difference in status between citizens and aliens constitute a basis for
reasonable classification in the exercise of police power. SC held that the
disputed law was enacted to remedy an actual threat and danger to natl
economy posed by alien dominance and control of the retail trade, and would
free citizens from such dominance and control. (Ichong v. Hernandez)
- The P50.00 fee is unreasonable because it fails to consider valid substantial
differences in situation among individual aliens who are required to pay it.
The same amount is collected from every alien, whether he is a casual or
permanent employee, part-time or full-time, an employee or an executive.
(Villegas v. Hui Chiong Pao Ho)

The term non-resident alien and its obverse resident alien, must be given
their technical connotation under our law on immigration. There lies
substantial differences between the two. (General Milling Corp. v. Torres)
-
The purpose of the law is to allow the emergence of younger blood in local
governments, so the law was declared valid. (Dumlao v. COMELEC)
Gender- is a valid classification, the physical and psychological differences
make the distinction reasonably related to the valid purpose. The prohibition
of women bartenders was attributed to the danger present in their workplace,
with the object of protecting the morals of women. (Goesart v. Cleary)
Taxing Ordinance- Tax should not be passed for specific companies/entities
only, for it will not be applicable to future conditions, and will serve to exclude
any subsequently established sugar central, of the same class as plaintiff, from
the coverage of the tax. (Ormoc Sugar Co. v. Treasurer of Ormoc)
- It is inherent in the power to tax that a state be free to select the subjects of
taxation, and it has been repeatedly held that 'inequalities which result from a
singling out of one particular class for taxation, or exemption infringe no
constitutional limitation. (Sison Jr. v. Ancheta)
- Special grant of tax exemption in favor of the Marcoz heirs will constitute
class legislation. (Chavez v. PCGG)
Gambling- Just how PD 1869 in legalizing gambling conducted by PAGCOR is
violative of equal protection is not clearly explained. The mere fact that some
gambling activities like cockfighting (PD 449) horse-racing (RA 306, amended
by RA 983), sweepstakes, lottery and races (RA 1169 amended by BP 42) are
legalized under certain conditions, while others are prohibited, does not render
these laws, specifically PD 1869, unconstitutional.
- The EPC does not mean that all things called by the same name should be
treated the same way. (Basco v. PAGCOR)
Stare Decisis- Dismissal of a case against one defendant must apply to
others if no reasonable distinctions exist. (Republic v. Sandiganbayan)
Homeless Poor- Inequalities which result from the singling out of one
particular class for tax exemption infringe no constitutional limitation. There is
a substantial distinction between the homeless poor and the homeless- less
poor because the 2nd group can afford to rent houses in the meantime.
(Tolentino v. Sec. of Finance)
1A 2010
- Police power involves the duty to provide for the real needs of the people.
The Burial Assistance Program is a relief of pauperism. Paupers may be
reasonably classified. Different groups may receive varying treatment.
Statutes have been passed giving rights and benefits to the disabled and the
less fortunate. (Binay v. Domingo)
Suspension of Police Officers- PNP Officers are treated differently from
other persons charged criminally or administratively insofar as preventive
suspension is concerned. Policemen carry weapons and the badge of law which
can be used to harass or intimidate witnesses against them, and therefore
needs to be suspended in order to protect witnesses against him. (Himagan v.
People)
Franchises- a franchise is not in the strict sense a simple contract but rather
it is more importantly, a mere privilege especially in matters which are within
the government's power to regulate and even prohibit through the exercise of
the police power. Thus, a gambling franchise is always subject to the exercise
of police power for the public welfare. (Lim v. Pacquing)
- There is substantial distinction between land-based and sea-based Filipino
overseas workers in terms of, among other things, work environment, safety,
dangers and risks to life and limb, and accessibility to social, civic, and
spiritual activities. (Conference of Maritime Manning Agencies v. POEA)
- It is grossly unfair to exempt one similarly situated litigant from prosecution
without allowing the same exemption to the others. The equal protection
guarantee operates against uneven application of legal norms so that all
persons under similar circumstances would be accorded the same treatment.
(Regala v. Sandiganbayan)
- The performance of legitimate and even essential duties by public officers
has never been an excuse to free a person validly in prison. Functions and
duties of the office are not substantial distinctions which lift the accused from
the class of prisoners interrupted in their freedom and restricted in liberty of
movement. (People v. Jalosjos)
- There are substantial differences between big investors who are lured to
establish their industries in the secured areas compared to business
operators outside the area. The first can give economic impact that is national
in scope, the other, merely local (Tiu v. CA)
Telecommunications- TV and radio are more pervasive and persuasive;
print media does not really reach the hard-to-reach places in the Philippines
while access to TV and radio content is practically simultaneous (TELEBAP v.

COMELEC)
- The payment of the civil liability is not made a condition precedent to
probation. Petitioners application for probation had already been granted.
Satisfaction of his civil liability was not made a requirement before he could
avail of probation, but was a condition for his continued enjoyment of the
same. Probation is not an absolute right. It is a mere privilege whose grant
rests upon the discretion of the trial court. (Soriano v. CA)
Elections- incumbents running for the same position are not considered
resigned because the intention of the law is to allow them to continue serving
their constituents and avoid a disruption in the delivery of essential services.
Those running for different positions are considered resigned because they are
considered to have abandoned their present position by their act of running
for other posts. (Aguinaldo v. COMELEC)
- The purpose of the singling out is to ensure the impartiality of the election
officers by preventing them from developing familiarity with the people in the
place assigned to them. The purpose of the law is to break an important link in
the chain of corruption. Without the complicity of such officials, large-scale
voter registration anomalies can hardly be carried out. (De Guzman v.
COMELEC)
There are substantial distinctions between Elective and Appointive Officials:
1: elective officials occupy office by the majoritys mandate they can only be
removed under stringent circumstances; appointive officials hold office by
virtue of designation by an appointing authority
2: Appointive officials are not allowed to engage in partisan political activity,
while elective officials obviously may (Farinas v. Executive Secretary)
Equal Pay for Equal Work- persons who work for equal qualifications, skill,
effort and responsibility, under similar conditions, should be paid equally.
Salaries should not be used as an enticement for foreign-hires, to the
prejudice of local-hires. (IS v. Quisumbing)
Death Penalty- The death penalty law applies to all persons and all classes of
persons. No particular group or classes of persons are identified by the law
against whom the death penalty shall be exclusively imposed. (People v.
Mercado)
SECTION 2: THE RIGHT OF PEOPLE TO BE SECURED IN THEIR
PERSONS, HOUSES, PAPERS, AND EFFECT AGAINST UNREASONABLE
SEARCHES AND SEIZURE OR WHATEVER NATURE AND FOR ANY
PURPOSE SHALL BE INVIOLABLE, AND NO SEARCH WARRANT OR
1A 2010
WARRANT OF ARREST SHALL BE ISSUED EXCEPT UPON PROBABLE

CAUSE TO BE DETERMINED PERSONALLY BY THE JUDGE AFTER
EXAMINATION UNDER OATH OR AFFIRMATION OF THE COMPLAINT
AND THE WITNESSES HE MAY PRODUCE, AND PARTICULARLY
DESCRIBING THE PLACE TO BE SEARCHED AND THE PERSONS OR
THINGS TO BE SEIZED.
FREEDOM FROM SEARCH
Exception: If search is reasonable
I
I
I
I
With a valid
warrant
Without a valid
warrant
Requirements:
1) Issued upon
probable cause
2) Personally
examined by the
judge
3) Examined
under oath and
affirmation
4) Particularly
describing the
place to be
searched and the
persons or things
to be seized
(Sec. 2 Art. III,
Uy v. BIR)
5) warrant must
not be for more
than one offense
(Revised ROC)
1) Incidental to
lawful arrest
(Sec 12, Rule
126 of Rules of
Court)
2) Plain view
3) Moving vehicle
4) Consented
warrantless
search
5) Customs
searches
6) Stop and Frisk
7) Exigent and
Emergency
circumstances
8) suspicionless
drug tests
Without
Warrant (by a
Private
Individual)
1) SOP (People
vs. Marti)
2) Security
Check (People vs
Bongcarawan)
I
Other nature or
purpose
1) Subpoena
duces tecum
2) Administrative
Inspection
A. Freedom from Search and Arrest
Purpose:
(a) To protect the privacy and sanctity of his person, property and house
(b) To guarantee against unlawful arrest and other forms of restraint.
Section 2 is protection against unlawful searches by the government and its
agencies and does not protect citizens from unlawful searches and seizures by
private individuals. (People v. Marti)
**remedy may be found in the Civil Code and in the RPC.
Search an examination of a mans house or other buildings or premises, or
of his person or his vehicle with a view to the discovery of contraband, illicit
and stolen property or some evidence of guilt to be used in prosecution of a
criminal action for some crime or offense charged.
When is a search a search?
A Routine Checkpoint does not intrude on a motorists right to free passage
without interruption, but it involves only a brief detention of travelers during
which the vehicles occupants are required to answer a brief question or two.
As long as the vehicle is neither searched, nor its occupants subjected to a
body search, and the inspection of the vehicle is limited to a visual search,
routine checks cannot be regarded as violative of an individuals right against
unreasonable search. (Valmonte v. Gen. De Villa)
Random Drug Testing- The operative concepts in the mandatory drug
testing are "randomness" and "suspicionless." In the case of persons charged
with a crime before the prosecutor's office, a mandatory drug testing can
never be random or suspicionless.
When persons suspected of committing a crime are charged, they are singled
out and are impleaded against their will. The persons thus charged, by the
bare fact of being haled before the prosecutor's office and peaceably
submitting themselves to drug testing, if that be the case, do not necessarily
consent to the procedure, let alone waive their right to privacy.
To impose mandatory drug testing on the accused is a blatant attempt to
harness a medical test as a tool for criminal prosecution, contrary to the
stated objectives of RA 9165. Drug testing in this case would violate a
persons' right to privacy guaranteed under Sec. 2, Art. III of the Constitution.
Worse still, the accused persons are veritably forced to incriminate
themselves. (SJS v. DDB)
Seizure as long as the property is in control of the person arrested, even if
he does not possess ownership, such may be seized (Burgos v. Chief of Staff)
- Stopping a person, even though an arrest is not commenced, is a seizure
1A 2010
(Terry v. Ohio)
Arrest to deprive a person of his liberty by legal authority. It is he taking of
a person into custody in order that he may be bound to answer for the
commission of an offense.
In arrest cases there must be:
1. probable cause that a crime has been committed
2. and that the person to be arrested committed it,
*Which of course can exist without any showing that evidence of the
crime will be found at premises under that person's control. (Webb v.
De Leon)
Search Warrant an order in writing issued in the name of the Republic
signed by a judged and directed to a peace officer commanding him to search
for personal property described therein and bring it before the court.
In search cases, two conclusions must be supported by substantial evidence:
1. that the items sought are in fact seizable by virtue of being
connected with criminal activity, and
2. that the items will be found in the place to be searched. It is not also
necessary that a particular person be implicated. (Webb v. De Leon)
A search warrant may be issued for the search and seizure of:
1. property subject of the offense
2. property stolen or embezzled and proceeds/fruits of the offense
3. property used or intended to be used as the mans of committing an
offense
Section 2, Rule 126 of the Rules of Court, does not require that the property
to be seized should be owned by the person against whom the search warrant
is directed. It may or may not be owned by him. In fact, under subsection [b]
of the above-quoted Section 2, one of the properties that may be seized is
stolen property. Necessarily, stolen property must be owned by one other than
the person in whose possession it may be at the time of the search and
seizure. Ownership, therefore, is of no consequence, and it is sufficient that
the person against whom the warrant is directed has control or possession of
the property sought to be seized. (Burgos Sr. v. Chief of Staff)
Partially Invalid Warrant
No provision of law exists which requires that a warrant, partially defective in
specifying some items sought to be seized yet particular with respect to the
other items, should be nullified as a whole. (Microsoft v. Maxicorp)
- In cases where a different name is inserted as the owner of a property to be
searched, it is only a harmless defect, as long as it is only a search of the
premises and not of persons.

- When a judge issues almost exactly the same warrant as the old one,
wherein only the municipality or number of the address is changed, the old
warrant is deemed revoked by the new warrant, and it is presumed that the
new warrant is issued in order to correct some defect in the old warrant.
As to Assailing the Illegality of a Seizure:
It is well settled that the legality of a seizure can be contested only by the
party whose rights have been impaired thereby, and that the objection to an
unlawful search and seizure is purely personal and cannot be availed of by
third parties. (Stonehill v. Diokno)
The right to object to the admission of said papers in evidence belongs
exclusively to the corporations, to whom the seized effects belong, and may
not be invoked by the corporate officers in proceedings against them in their
individual capacity. (Stonehill v. Diokno)
As to Illegally Obtained Evidence:
As to VALID legal items that have been illegally seized, it should be returned
to the owners. But when illegal items such as unlicensed firearms or drugs are
illegally obtained, it is kept in custodia legis or in custody of law. They are
inadmissible as evidence in court, but since they are prohibited items under
law, the person who was in custody of such was not the legal owner, and the
items must be confiscated by law.
Warrant of Arrest a written order made on behalf of the state and is based
upon a complaint issued pursuant to a statute or rule and which command law
enforcement to arrest a person and bring him before a court.
SEARCH WARRANT
The applicant must show:
1.) That the items sought are in
fact seizable by virtue of
being
connected
with
criminal activity; and
2.) That the items will be found
in the place to be searched.
The judge must conduct a personal, searching
examination of the applicant and his witnesses.
Prescription: 10 days
1A 2010
WARRANT OF ARREST
The applicant must show
1.) Probable cause that an offense has
been committed.
2.) That the person to be arrested
committed it.
The judge need not conduct a personal

examination of the applicant and witnesses. He
may rely on the affidavits of the witnesses and
the recommendation of the prosecutor.
Prescription: until served.
- If for some reason, a search was not completed on the first day it was
undertaken, such as the voluptuousness of the material to be seized, the
search on the 2nd day is deemed a continuation of the original search. The
search may be performed any day within the 10-day prescriptive period.
(Mustang Lumber)
It is only the Judge who may issue warrants of search and arrest. Mayors may
not exercise this power, nor may it be done by a mere prosecuting body. The
one exception to this rule is the deportation of illegal and undesirable aliens,
which arrest may be issued or ordered by the President or the Commission of
Immigration. (Salazar v. Achacoso)
Commissioner of Immigration cannot issue warrants of arrest in aid merely of
his investigatory power. However, he may order the arrest of an alien in order
to carry out a deportation order that has already become final. (Board of
Commissioners v. Dela Rosa)
An issuing magistrate must meet 2 requirements: he must be neutral and
detached and must be capable of determining whether probable cause exists.
Probable cause for a search facts and circumstances which would

lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an
offense has been committed and that the objects sought in
connection with the offense are in the place sought to be searched.
-It also demands that no less than personal knowledge by the
complainant or his witnesses of the facts upon the issuance of a
search warrant may be justified. (20 th Century Fox film Corp. v. CA,
Burgos Sr. v. Chief of Staff, Corro v. Lising; originally from Henry v.
US 1959)
- Probable Cause need not be based on clear and convincing evidence of guilt,
neither on evidence establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and definitely
not on evidence establishing absolute certainty of guilt.
Before issuing
warrants of arrest, judges merely determine personally the probability, not
the certainty of guilt of an accused. In doing so, judges do not conduct a de
novo hearing to determine the existence of probable cause. They just
personally review the initial determination of the prosecutor finding a probable
cause to see if it is supported by substantial evidence. [NOTE: need not point
to a specific offense] (Webb v. De Leon)
Requisites of a Valid Warrant

A search warrant must conform strictly to the requirements of the foregoing
constitutional and statutory provisions. These requirements are:
(1) the warrant must be issued upon probable cause;
(2) the probable cause must be determined by the judge himself and not by
the applicant or any other person;
(3) in the determination of probable cause, the judge must examine, under
oath or affirmation, the complainant and such witnesses as the latter may
produce; and
(4) the warrant issued must particularly describe the place to be searched and
persons or things to be seized. (Uy v. BIR)
The testimonies of the two witnesses, coupled with the object and
documentary evidence they presented, are sufficient to establish the existence
of probable cause. The determination of probable cause does not call for the
application of rules and standards of proof that a judgment of conviction
requires after trial on the merits. (Microsoft v. Maxicorp)
1)Probable Cause such reasons, supported by facts and circumstances, as

will warrant a cautious man in the belief that his action and the means taken
in prosecuting it, are legally just and proper. DETERMINED BY THE FACTS OF
EACH CASE.
- It must be probable cause of something specific (Stonehill vs. Dlokno)
- It must be defined In relation to the action which It justifies
- Mere conclusions of law do not establish probable cause (Corro vs. Lising)
(Burgos vs. Chief of Staff)
Probable cause for an arrest facts and circumstances which would

lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an
offense has been committed by the person sought to be arrested.
For purposes of issuing a warrant, only a judge can determine probable cause.
For purposes of filing an information, the prosecution determines probable
cause. Determination of probable cause during a preliminary investigation is
an executive function. (People v. CA)
Probable cause is concerned with probability, not absolute or even moral

certainty. The prosecution need not present at this stage proof beyond
reasonable doubt. The standards of judgment are that of reasonably prudent
man, not the exacting calibrations of a judge after a full-blown trial. (Microsoft
v. Maxicorp)
Sufficiency of Affidavit
When the Affidavit of the applicant of the complaint contains sufficient facts
within his personal and direct knowledge, it is sufficient if the judge is satisfied
that there exist probable cause; when the applicant's knowledge of the facts is
mere hearsay, the affidavit of one or more witnesses having a personal
knowledge of the fact is necessary. (Alvarez v. CFI)
1A 2010
Prosecutors Certification
The judge may rely upon the fiscal's certification of the existence of probable
cause and, on the basis thereof, issue a warrant of arrest. But such
certification does not bind the judge. The issuance of a warrant is not a mere
ministerial function; it calls for the exercise of judicial discretion on the part of
the issuing magistrate. Section 6, Rule 112 of the Rules of Court provide that:
If on the face of the information the judge finds no probable cause, he may
disregard the fiscals certification and require the submission of the affidavits
of witnesses to aid him in arriving at a conclusion as to the existence of a
probable cause. (Placer v. Villanueva)
By itself the prosecutors certification of probable cause is ineffectual. It is the
reports, affidavits and other supporting documents behind the prosecutors
certification which are material to assisting the judge in making his
determination. The extent of the Judge's personal examination of the report
and its annexes depends on the circumstances of each case. The personal
determination is vested in the Judge by the Constitution. It can be as brief or
as detailed as the circumstances of each case require. (Lim Sr. v. Felix)
- Judges must NOT rely solely on the report of the prosecutor- they must
evaluate the report and the supporting documents which may consist of
affidavits, transcripts, and all other supporting documents behind the
prosecutors certification (Roberts v. CA)
2) Personal Examination of the Judge
Under existing laws, warrants of arrest may be issued:
(1) by the Metropolitan Trial Courts (MeTCs) except those in the National
Capital Region, Municipal Trial Courts (MTCs), and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts
(MCTCs) in cases falling within their exclusive original jurisdiction;
- in cases covered by the rule on summary procedure where the accused fails
to appear when required;
- and in cases filed with them which are cognizable by the Regional Trial
Courts (RTCs);
warrant can issue: only if the judge is satisfied after an examination in
writing and under oath of the complainant and the witnesses, in the form of
searching questions and answers, that a probable cause exists and that there
is a necessity of placing the respondent under immediate custody in order not
to frustrate the ends of justice.
- Probable cause is PERSONALLY DETERMINED by the judge after examination
under oath or affirmation of the complainant/applicant and all witnesses who
have personal knowledge of the offense under oath and in writing. (Allado v.
Diokno)
(2) by the Metropolitan Trial Courts in the National Capital Region (MeTCsNCR) and the RTCs in cases filed with them after appropriate preliminary
investigations conducted by officers authorized to do so other than judges of
MeTCs, MTCs and MCTCs.
Under these courts, it has been held that: The judge is not required to
Spersonally examine the complainant and his witnesses. Following
Seaestablished doctrine and procedure, he shall
1. Personally evaluate the report and the supporting documents
submitted by the fiscal regarding the existence of probable cause
and, on the basis thereof, issue a warrant of arrest; or
2. If on the basis thereof he finds no probable cause, he may
a. disregard the fiscal's report and require the submission of
supporting affidavits of witnesses to aid him in arriving at a
conclusion as to the existence of probable cause, OR
b. personally examine the applicant and witnesses to
determine probable cause. (Soliven v. Makasiar, Roberts v.
CA)
The judge is not required to personally examine the complainant and his
witnesses and on the basis thereof issue a warrant of arrest. He may also rely
on the fiscals report or if on the basis thereof he finds no probable cause he
may disregard the fiscals report and require the submission of supporting
affidavits of witnesses to aid him in arriving at a conclusion as to the existence
of probable cause. (Soliven v. Makasiar) But it may not be delegated to a clerk
(Bache v. Ruiz)
What is required is personal determination and not personal examination.
(Soliven v. Judge Makasiar)
**Bernas recommends comparing the doctrine from Soliven with the doctrine
from Bache and Co. v. Ruiz
What the Constitution underscores is the exclusive and personal responsibility
of the issuing judge to satisfy himself of the existence of probable cause.
(Soliven v. Judge Makasiar)
The judge must examine the complainant and his witnesses under oath or
affirmation. This has been interpreted as requiring a personal and not merely
delegated examination by the judge or by the proper officer, because the
purpose of the examination is to convince the judge or officer himself and not
any other individual. (Bache and Co. v. Ruiz; Alvarez v. Court)
1A 2010
A judge cannot rely solely on the certification or recommendation of a

prosecutor that probable cause exists for the purpose of issuing a warrant. By
itself, the Prosecutors certification of probable cause is ineffectual. The judge
must look at the report, the affidavits, the transcripts of stenographic notes (if
any) and all other supporting documents behind the Prosecutors certification.
(Lim v. Felix)
Test of Sufficiency whether it had been drawn in such a manner that perjury
could be charged if such is untrue.
Examination of complainant must be in the form of searching questions and
answers in order to determine the existence of probable cause. (Silva v. RTC
Negros)
The reading of the stenographic notes to respondent Judge did not constitute
sufficient compliance with the constitutional mandate of personal examination
for by that manner respondent Judge did not have the opportunity to observe
the demeanor of the complainant and his witness. These were important in
arriving at a sound inference on the question of w/n there was probable cause.
(Bache & Co. Inc v. Ruiz)
Personal Examination of Evidence:
The presentation of the master tapes of the copyrighted films from which the
pirated films were allegedly copied, was necessary for the validity of search
warrants against those who have in their possession the pirated films. This
linkage of the copyrighted films to the pirated films must be established to
satisfy the requirements of probable cause. Mere allegations as to the
existence of the copyrighted films cannot serve as basis for the issuance of a
search warrant. (20th Century Fox Film v. CA)
3) Examined under Oath and Affirmation
Searching Questions:
Warrant issued will be declared VOID if the judge does not ask SEARCHING
QUESTIONS, and merely asks cursory questions that mirror the application
filed by the complainant or witness, such as:
o
Questions that are simple yes or no questions pertaining to
basic matters like identity and things to be seized, already
contained in the application for search warrant filed.
o
Questions that are routinary and very broad. (Silva v. Presiding
Judge of RTC of Negros Occidental)
Oath- an outward pledge, given by person taking it, that his attestation or
promise is made under immediate sense of responsibility to God. (Alvarez vs.
CFI)
Affirmation- a solemn and formal declaration that an affidavit is true, this
being substituted for an oath in certain cases. Here, there is no invocation of
God or a supreme being.
A search warrant must not only be based on probable cause but also must be
based on an application supported by oath of the applicant and the witnesses
he may produce. Its purpose is to convince the committing magistrate of the
existence of probable cause.
The failure of the witness to mention particular individuals does not
necessarily prove that he had no personal knowledge of specific illegal
transactions of the Organization, for the witness might be acquainted with
specific transactions, even if the names of the individuals concerned were
unknown to him. (Central Bank v. Morfe)
The examining judge has to take depositions in writing of the complainant and
the witnesses he may produce and to attach them to the record. Such written
deposition is necessary in order that the judge may be able to properly
determine the existence or non-existence of probable cause, and to hold liable
for perjury the person giving it if it will be found later that his declarations are
false. (People v. Mamaril)
4) Particularity of Description
- A search warrant may be said to particularly describe the things to be seized
when the description therein is as specific as the circumstances will ordinarily
allow and by which the warrant officer may be guided in making the search
and seizure. (Bache & Co. v. Ruiz)
- Section 1, paragraphs 3, of Article III of the Constitution, and section 97 of
General Orders, No. 58 provide that the affidavit to be presented, which shall
serve as the basis for determining whether probable cause exist and whether
the warrant should be issued, must contain a particular description of the
place to be searched and the person or thing to be seized. These provisions
are mandatory and must be strictly complied. (Alvarez v. CFI) It must NOT be
too general. (Stonehill v. Diokno)
The purpose and intent of this requirement is to limit the things to be seized
to only those particularly described in the search warrant to leave the
officers of the law with no discretion regarding what articles they should seize,
to the end that unreasonable searches and seizures, or abuses, may not be
committed. (Corro v. Lising)
1A 2010
Purpose or this requirement is to prevent abuse by the officer enforcing the

warrant by leaving him with no discretion as to who or what to search or
seize. (Bernas)
It is not required that technical precision of description be required,
particularly where, by the nature of the goods to be seized, their description
must be rather general, since the requirement of a technical description would
mean that no warrant could issue. (People v. Tee)
a. As to Objects Seized
- It must be specific as far as the circumstances will ordinarily allow.
(Microsoft v. Maxicorp) It is not required that a technical description be given
because that would mean that NO warrant could issue. (Alvarez v. CFI)
A search warrant may be said to particularly describe the things to be seized
when:
a. the description therein is as specific as the circumstances will
ordinarily allow,
b. or when the description expresses a conclusion of fact- not of law- by
which the warrant officer may be guided in making the search and
seizure.
c. or when the things described are limited to those, which bear direct
relation to the offense for which the warrant is being issued. (Bache &
Co. Inc. v. Ruiz)
- As to what is to be taken, nothing is left to the discretion of the officer
executing the warrant. Thus, the specific property to be searched for should
be so particularly described as to preclude any possibility of seizing any other
property. BUT, the law does not require that the things to be seized must be
described in precise and minute detail as to leave no room for doubt on the
part of searching authorities.(Vallejo v. CA)
- The articles subject of the search and seizure need not be so invariant as to
require absolute concordance between those seized and those described in the
warrant. Substantial similarity of those articles described as a class or species
would suffice. (Yousef Al-Ghoul v. CA)
b. As to description of Premises
- It is a sufficient description if officer with the warrant can, with reasonable
effort, ascertain and identify the place intended, and distinguish it from other
places in the community.
officer's prior knowledge as to the place intended in the warrant is relevant.

The executing officer may look to the affidavit in the official court file to
resolve an ambiguity in the warrant as to the place to be searched." (Burgos
Sr. v. Chief of Staff)
- The particularity of the place is essential to the issuance of search warrants
to avoid the exercise of the enforcing officers of discretion. The place to be
searched as set out in the warrant, cannot be amplified or modified by the
officers own personal knowledge of the premises, or the evidence they
adduced in support of their application for the warrant. The controlling subject
of search warrants is the place indicated in the warrant itself, and not the
place identified by the police. (People v. Francisco)
Typographical Error- in warrant is allowed if the description of the place to be
searched can be distinguished from other places, but will not be allowed if it is
based on the whims or discretion of the peace officer.
Search of a House- 2 witnesses are required to be present in the search of the
house, unless its lawful occupants are in the premises searched.
-If in a warrant for a search of the place there is a mistake in the identification
of the owner, the warrant is not invalidated if it is properly described. (Frank
Uy v. BIR)
c. As to People
John Doe warrants
As a general rule, warrants must have a name and description of the
accused. The police should particularly describe the place to be searched and
the person or things to be seized whenever and wherever it is feasible.
Warrants for apprehension of unidentified persons are void, unless it contains
the best decriptio personae possible that will enable the officer to identify the
accused.
However, John Doe Warrants should be the exception and not the rule. The
descriptio personae must be sufficient to indicate clearly the proper person
upon whom the warrant is to be served.
It should state: personal appearance, peculiarities, occupation, place of
residence and other circumstances by which he may be identified. Having the
address and the knowing that the one responsible occupies and controls the
building is sufficient information to acquire a search warrant. (People v.
Veloso)
- In the determination of whether a search warrant describes the premises to

be searched with sufficient particularity, it has been held "that the executing
1A 2010
A warrant of arrest against 50 John Does is of the nature of a general warrant

clearly violative at least of the requirement of particularity of description.
(Pangandaman v. Casar)
5) Warrant must not be for more than ONE offense
- A search warrant shall not be issued but upon probable cause in connection
with one specific offense. (Stonehill v. Diokno)
D. Three Types of Searches
1. Criminal Search requires probable cause.
2. Constructive Search-(such as Subpoena duces tecum) order for
the production of books and papers. Upon motion of any party
showing good cause and upon notice to all other parties, the court
may order to produce and permit inspection and copying or
photographing of documents not privilege which contain evidence
material to any matter involved in the action (Material Distributors v.
Natividad)
3. Administrative search conducted to impose a regulation or law.
Probable cause is determined according to the law being
implemented. If there is no consent, one should get a warrant
(Camara v. Municipal Court)
BUT, IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT:
The RULES OF PROCEDURE are mere tools designed to facilitate the
attainment of justice and that strict and rigid application of rules which would
result in technicalities that tend to frustrate rather than promote substantial
justice must always be avoided. (Vallejo v. CA)
HENCE
B. Valid Warrantless Searches and Seizure
Thus, in the extraordinary events where warrant is not necessary to
effect a valid search or seizure, or when the latter cannot be performed except
without warrant, what constitutes a reasonable or unreasonable search or
seizure becomes purely a judicial question, determinable from the uniqueness
of the circumstances involved, including the purpose of the search or seizure,
the presence or absence of probable cause, the manner in which the search
and seizure was made, the place or thing searched and the character of the
articles procured. (People v. CFI of Rizal)
A search warrant issued by a judge based on a mere affidavit of a
Philippine Constabulary officer who did not have personal knowledge but relied
on the statements off witnesses is invalid. A search warrant must not be

issued based on mere hearsay. The judge must not just rehash the statements
but must examine them closely and ascertain the existence of a probable
cause. (Roan v. Gonzales)
The exclusionary rule
The Bill of Rights orders the absolute exclusion of illegally obtained
evidence. Section 3 explicitly states that illegally obtained evidence shall be
inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding. Articles seized based on an
invalid warrant may not be introduced as evidence in court. (Nolasco v. Pao)
**Take note that this defense is purely personal.
1) Search incidental to a lawful arrest
Requirements:
1. Search was conducted because of a valid arrest (if arrest warrant is
declared illegal or invalid, the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine
excludes them from being admitted into evidence)
2. Item to be searched was within the arrestees custody or area of
immediate control (the area within which the person arrested could
reach for a weapon or evidence to destroy it).
3. Search was contemporaneous with arrest.
- Arrest must precede that search; the process cannot be reversed (Malacat
vs. CA)
Exception: A search substantially contemporaneous with an arrest can precede
the arrest if the police have probable cause to make the arrest at the outset of
the search (People vs. Tudtud citing 68 Am.Jur 2d)
Accused was searched and arrested while transporting hashish. A crime was
actually being committed and he was caught in flagrante delicto. Thus, a
search made upon his personal effects was incidental to a lawful warrantless
arrest. (People v. Malmstedt)
** Note: Posadas v. CA said that such an instance might not fall under search
incidental to lawful warrantless arrest.
** At the time the peace officers identified themselves and apprehended the
petitioner as he tried to flee, they did not know that he had committed, or was
actually committing the offense of illegal possession of firearms and
ammunitions. They just suspected that he was hiding something in the buri
bag. They did not know what its contents were. The said circumstances did
not justify an arrest without a warrant. (People v. Posadas, SC only disagreed
with the SolGens reasoning why the search was valid, but nevertheless ruled
that it was indeed a valid warrantless search for different reasons. See Stop-
1A 2010
and-Frisk)
Comelec)
Warrantless search of the accused personal effects is valid because of the

existence of probable cause: the smell of marijuana that emanated from his
plastic bag, intelligence reports of a Caucasian travelling on a bus smuggling
marijuana from Sagada, and when he was acting suspiciously and attempted
to flee when asked to present his identification papers during a routine check
conducted by NARCOM officers on the bus he was riding. (People v.
Malmstedt)
3) Search of a moving vehicle

-The important thing is that there was probable cause to conduct the
warrantless search. (Caballes vs. CA)
- Or search is conducted in exceptional circumstances (i.e. checkpoints)
(Valmonte vs. de Villa)
Searches and seizures without warrant are valid if made upon probable cause,
that is, upon a belief reasonably arising out of circumstances known to the
seizing officer, that an automobile or other vehicle contains that which by law
is subject to seizure and destruction. (Carroll v. United States)
A warrantless search on a petitioner operating and selling timber when his

business permit was suspended by the DENR is valid because he had no right
to possess, sell or dispose of lumber pursuant to PD 705. The DENR is
authorized to seize his lumber. (Mustang Lumber v. CA)
2) Seizure of evidence in plain view
Requirements:
1) Prior valid intrusion based on the valid warrantless arrest in which the
police are legally present in the pursuit of their official duty.
2) The evidence was inadvertently discovered by the police who have the right
to be there.
3) The evidence must be immediately apparent
4) Plain view justified mere seizure of evidence without further search (People
vs. Valdez) (See Roan vs. Gonzales)
Aside from a search incident to a lawful arrest, a warrantless search had been
upheld in cases of moving vehicles and the seizure of evidence in plain view,
as well as the search conducted at police or military checkpoints which we
declared are not illegal per se, and stressed that the warrantless search is not
violative of the Constitution for as long as the vehicle is neither searched nor
its occupants subjected to a body search, and the inspection of the vehicle is
merely limited to a visual search. (Aniag v. Comelec)
An extensive search without warrant could only be resorted to if the
officers conducting the search had reasonable or probable cause to believe
before the search that either the motorist was a law offender or that they
would find the instrumentality or evidence pertaining to the commission of a
crime in the vehicle to be searched. The existence of probable cause justifying
the warrantless search is determined by the facts of each case. Absent such
justifying circumstances specifically pointing to the culpability of petitioner the
search could not be valid. The action then of the policemen unreasonably
intruded into petitioner's privacy and the security of his property. (Aniag v.
When it is not practicable to secure a warrant because the vehicle can quickly
move out of the locality or jurisdiction in which the warrant must be sought,
then a search warrant is not necessary so long as the seizing officer authority
truly believed that there is probable cause. (People v. CFI of Rizal, People v. Lo
Ho Wing)
The rules governing search and seizure of a moving vehicle have steadily
liberalized on the basis of practicality. This is so considering that before a
warrant could be obtained, the place, things and persons to be searched must
be described to the satisfaction of the issuing judgea requirement which
borders on the impossible in the case of smuggling effected by the use of a
moving vehicle that can transport contraband from one place to another with
impunity. (People v. Lo Ho Wing)
It is quite true the RASAC received one such information several days or a
week before the encounter; but the fact that its agents failed to obtain a
warrant in spite of the time allowance is not a sign that they have been remiss
in their duty. Because they lacked the necessary information (such as the
exact time/place where the search should be made), RASAC could not have
possibly secured a valid warrant even if they had foreseen its compelling
necessity. (People v. CFI of Rizal)
The prevalent circumstances of the case undoubtedly bear out the fact that
the search in question was made as regards a moving vehicle petitioner's
vehicle was "flagged down" by the apprehending officers upon identification.
Therefore, the police authorities were justified in searching the petitioner's
automobile without a warrant since the situation demanded immediate action.
(Asuncion v. CA)
First of all, even though the police authorities already identified the petitioner
as an alleged shabu dealer and confirmed the area where he allegedly was
plying his illegal trade, they were uncertain as to the time he would show up
1A 2010
in the vicinity. Secondly, they were uncertain as to the type of vehicle

petitioner would be in, taking into account reports that petitioner used
different cars in going to and from the area. Finally, there was probable cause
as the same police officers had a previous encounter with the petitioner, who
was then able to evade arrest.
When the vehicle was pointed to them by their confidential informant, with the
information that the occupant thereof was carrying shabu, the operatives had
to act quickly. Otherwise, they would again lose their subject whom they
reasonably believed to be committing a crime at that instance. There would be
no more time for them to secure a search
warrant (People v. Asuncion, moreover in this case, accused gave his
permission for his car to be searched)
Requirements for Checkpoints:
(1) Existence of exceptional circumstances
(2) conducted on a fixed area
(3) inspection limited to visual search
(4) occupants not subjected to physical or body search (caballes vs. CA)
Checkpoints need not be announced because it would be impractical, and it
would forewarn those who intend to violate the ban. Even so, badges of
legitimacy of checkpoints may still be inferred from their fixed location and the
regularized manner in which they are operated. (People v. Escao)
4) Upon waiver of right there must be a right which the person has
knowledge of and such had intentionally relinquished
Requirements for effective waiver of rights:
(1) It must appear that the right exists
(2) The person involved had knowledge, actual or constructive of the
existence of such right.
(3) Said person had an actual intention to relinquish the right.
(4) It must be understood to cover only what is included within the terms of
the language (Veroy vs. Layague)
The right against warrantless searches and seizures is a purely personal right,
as such, nobody else should be able to waive the right for the accused.
**However in Lopez v. Commissioner of Customs where a woman identified
herself as the wife of the occupant and gave consent to the search and
voluntarily surrendered papers of the absent occupant but turned out to be a
mere manicurist, the SC held that The officers of the law cannot be blamed
if they act on appearances. There was a person inside who from indications
was ready to accede to their request. Even ordinary courtesy would preclude
them from inquiring too closely as to why she was there.
5) Customs Searches- Made by a customs officer or one deputized by
customs. The mere fact that a person in possession of an item, which duties
assigned to it have NOT been paid, justifies the warrantless search; the item is
considered Government Property because import duties have not been paid
with prejudice to the Government.
- Imported goods remain under the jurisdiction of Bureau of Customs as
Importation Is not terminated. (Tariff and Customs Code). BOC acquires
exclusive jurisdiction over imported goods, for the purposes of enforcement of
customs laws, from the moment the goods are actually in its possession or
control. (Papa vs. Mago)
The right against warrantless searches is automatically waived in accordance
with customs rules and regulations, which is strictly observed in international
practice. The search in an airport is made pursuant to routine airport security
procedure, allowed under Sec. 9 of RA 6235 states: any holder of an airline
ticket and his baggage are subject to search for, and seizure of, prohibited
materials or substances. Passengers refusing the search shall not be allowed
to board. Once searched, and found to have illegal materials on them, a
person is caught in flagrante delicto, which means he or she can be lawfully
arrested without a warrant. (People v. Canton)
6) Stop and Frisk rule
- When a person gives his consent to be searched, he waives his right against
warrantless searches and seizures. (People v. Lacerna)
The apprehending officers even sought the permission of petitioner to search
the car, to which the latter agreed. As such, since the shabu was discovered
by virtue of a valid warrantless search and the petitioner himself freely gave
his consent to said search, the prohibited drugs found as a result were
admissible in evidence. (Asuncion v. CA)
The purpose of the rule:

(a) the general interest of effective crime prevention and detection
and
(b) the pressing interest of safety and self-preservation which permit
the officer to take steps to assure himself that the person is not armed that
may be used against him. (Malacat v. CA)
1A 2010
Terry Stop- The prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures is not

violated when a police officer stops a suspect on the street and searches him
without probable cause to arrest, if the police officer has a reasonable
suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit
a crime.
For their own protection, the police may perform a quick surface search of the
persons outer clothing for weapons if they have reasonable suspicion that the
person stopped is armed. Reasonable suspicion must be based on specific
and articulable facts.
While probable cause is not required to conduct a "stop and frisk," it
nevertheless holds that mere suspicion or a hunch will not validate a "stop and
frisk." A genuine reason must exist, in light of the police officer's
experience and surrounding conditions, to warrant the belief that the person
detained has weapons concealed about him. (Terry v. Ohio, cited in Malacat v.
CA)
Rule for Stop and Frisk:
1. Police officer observes unusual conduct
2. Reasonable suspicion that the person is engaged in some type of
criminal activity.
3. Identifies himself as a policeman upon approach.
4. Makes reasonable inquiries
5. Reasonable fear for his own or others safety
**The petitioner was acting suspiciously, and when the INP officers
approached him and identified themselves, the accused tried to flee with his
buri bag, there was probable cause that he was concealing something illegal
in the bag and it was the right and duty of the police officers to inspect the
same. (Posadas v. CA)
7) Exigent and Emergency circumstances urgency and exigency of the
moment dispenses the need for warrants
8) *new* suspicionless drug test
Sec. 36 of RA 9165 and its implementing rules and regulations (IRR), as
couched, contain provisions specifically directed towards preventing a situation
that would unduly embarrass the employees or place them under a humiliating
experience. While every officer and employee in a private establishment is
under the law deemed forewarned that he or she may be a possible subject of
a drug test, nobody is really singled out in advance for drug testing. The
random drug testing shall be undertaken under conditions calculated to
protect as much as possible the employee's privacy and dignity. The intrusion
into the employees' privacy, under RA 9165, is accompanied by proper

safeguards, particularly against embarrassing leakages of test results, and is
relatively minimal.
**The probable-cause standard is peculiarly related to criminal investigations
and may be unsuited to determining the reasonableness of administrative
searches where the Government seeks to prevent the development of
hazardous conditions. The American Court has held that a warrant and finding
of probable cause are unnecessary in the public school context because such
requirements would unduly interfere with the maintenance of the swift and
informal disciplinary procedures needed. (Veronia Sch Dist. V. Acton; Board of
Education v. Earls: in justifying the reasonableness of warrantless drug tests in
public schools)
Remedy for a wrongful seizure
Art 3, sec 2 protects not only those who appear to be innocent but
also those who appear to be guilty but are nevertheless presumed innocent
until the contrary is proved. (MHP Garments v. CA)
In the case at bar, the seizure was made without any warrant. The
evidence did not justify the warrantless search and seizure of the respondents
goods. The petitioners and the raiding party had enough time to apply for a
judicial warrant but they did not do so, and thus took thus took the risk of a
suit for damages. There was no probable cause for the seizure. The
wantonness of the wrongful seizure justifies the award of exemplary damages.
(MHP Garments v. CA)
Searches and Seizures of whatever nature and for whatever purpose
When an order is issued in virtue of the provisions of Rule 21, it pertains to a
civil procedure which cannot be identified or confused with the unreasonable
searches prohibited by the Constitution.
But in the erroneous hypothesis that the production and inspection of books
and documents of a company ordered by the Court is tantamount to a search
warrant, the procedure outlined by Rule 21 and followed by a judge place
them outside the realm of the prohibited unreasonable searches.
If a party in a case has interest in the books and documents in question, then
it means that they are material and important to the issues of the case, and
that justice will be better served if all the facts pertinent to the controversy
are placed before the trial court. (Material Distributors v. Natividad)
Subpoena Duces Tecum
1A 2010
The right against unreasonable searches and seizure guards against abuse
only by way of too much indefiniteness or breadth in the things required to be
particularly described; if the inquiry is one the demanding agency
(Congress/Admin. Body) is authorized by law to make and the materials
specified are relevant, the gist of the protection being the requirement that
the disclosure sought shall not be unreasonable.
The requirement of probable cause supported by oath or affirmation, literally
applicable in case of a warrant, is satisfied in case of an Order for Production
(Subpoena Duces Tecum) by the Courts determination that the investigation
is authorized by Congress for a purpose it can order, and that the documents
sought are relevant to the inquiry. (Oklahoma Press v. Walling)
Administrative Inspection
Probable cause upon the basis of which warrants are to be issued for area
code enforcement inspections is not dependent on the inspectors belief that a
particular dwelling violates the elements of the code, but on the
reasonableness of the enforcement agencys appraisal of conditions in the area
as a whole. In nonemergency situations, a person has the right to insist that
the inspectors obtain a search warrant. (Camara v. Municipal Court)
FREEDOM FROM ARREST

I
Exception: If arrest is reasonable
I
With Warrant
I
Without Warrant
Requirements:
(1) Issued upon probable cause
(2) Personally examined by the judge
(3) Examined under oath and
affirmation
(4) Particularly describing the place
to be searched and the persons or
things to be seized. (Section 2,
ArticleIII)
(5) warrant must not be for more
than one offense (Revised Rules of
Court)
Rule 113, Sec 5 Rules of Court:

(a) When in his presence, the person
to bearrested has committed, Is
actually committing, or attemptingto
commit an offense (in flagrante
delicto);
No Fiscal (judge personally
(c) When the person to be arrested is
(b) When an offense has in fact been

committed and he haspersonal
knowledge of facts Indicating that the
person to bearrested has committed
it;
investigates)
- Municipal trial court
- Municipal circuit trial court
-Metropolitan circuit court (non-NRC)
With Fiscal, (judge looks into
certification and examines the
records)
Process:
- Fiscal makes a determination of
probable cause (called "certification")
- Judge looks Into the certification
(must include affidavits)
- Judge personally examines the
records
-Judge is not bound bythe Fiscal's
determination.
a prisoner who hasescaped from a

penal establishment or place where
he is:
- Serving final judgment
or
- Temporarily confined while case
ispending, or
- Escaped while being transferred
from oneconfinement to another.
C. Valid Warrantless Arrest

In Flagrante Delicto
- An offense is committed in the presence or within the view of an officer,
when the officer SEES the offense, although at a distance, or HEARS the
disturbances created thereby and PROCEEDED AT ONCE to the scene thereof
(US vs. Samonte)
Buy-bust operation/ Entrapment operations flagrante delicto rule
Continuing crime flagrante delicto rule
Validity of arrest may be challenged before he enters his plea. The
accused may move to quash the information before arraignment.
Continuing Offenses- Subversion being a continuing offense, the arrest of
the accused without a warrant is justified as it can be said that he was
committing an offense when arrested. The crimes of rebellion, subversion,
conspiracy or proposal to commit such crimes in furtherance thereof or in
connection therewith constitute direct assaults against the state and are in the
nature of continuing crimes. AS such, there is no need for a warrant in order
to make an arrest for those committing such crimes. (Umil v. Ramos)
- The Court does not believe that the warrantless arrest of Go falls within the
terms of lawful warrantless arrest of Sec. 5(a): When IN HIS PRESENCE, the
person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting
to commit an offense. His arrest took place 6 days after the shooting. Neither
1A 2010
could the arrest be reasonably regarded as effected When in fact just been
committed. Moreover Umil v. Ramos does NOT apply because Murder is NOT
a continuing crime. (Go v. CA)
- Par. (a) requires that the person be arrested: (1) after he has committed or
while he is actually committing or at least attempting to commit an offense,
(2) in the presence of the arresting officer.
These requirements have not been established in the case at bar. At the time
of the arrest, accused-appellant was merely looking from side to side and
holding his abdomen, according to the arresting officers themselves. There
was apparently no offense that had just been committed, or was being
actually committed or at least being attempted in their presence. Without the
evidence of the firearm taken from accused at the time of his illegal arrest the
prosecution lost its most important exhibit and must therefore fail. (People v.
Mengote)
Personal Knowledge
- One of the Constitutional requirements for a valid search warrant or warrant
of arrest is that it must be based on probable cause. The existence of probable
cause justifies the arrest and seizure without warrant. This constitutes
personal knowledge under Rule 113 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure.
That petitioners were not caught in the act does not make the arrest illegal.
Petitioners were found with young boys in their respective rooms, in some
cases naked. Under the circumstances, the CID agents had reasonable
grounds to believe that petitioners had committed pedophilia. (Harvey v.
Defensor-Santiago)
- In the case at bar, police observed during their surveillance that the
petitioner, having red eyes and wobbling, as he walked near the Kalookan City
Cemetery, which according to their information was a hangout of drug addicts.
According to their experience, this suspicious behavior was characteristic of
drug addicts on a high. The police therefore had reason to investigate him.
They approached the petitioner, identified themselves as police, and asked
what he was holding. When he resisted they asked him again. It was only then
when he allowed the examination of his wallet where the alleged marijuana
was found.
NOTE: Illegality of arrest may be cured when accused voluntarily submitted to
the jurisdiction of the court by pleading not guilty without questioning the
illegality of his arrest. (People vs. Escordial)
- Petitioner effectively waived the inadmissibility of evidence illegally obtained
when he failed to raise the issue during trial. Issues not raised during trial
cannot be pleaded for the first time on appeal. (Manalili v. CA)
Effect of bail- If one posts bail, one is estopped from questioning defects of
ones arrest (Velasco v. CA)
- The filing of the petitioners of a petition to be released on bail should be
considered as a waiver of any irregularity attending their arrest and estoppes
them from questioning its validity. (Harvey v. Defensor-Santiago)
- The rule is that the right to preliminary investigation is waived ONLY when
the accused fails to invoke it before or at the time of entering a plea at the
arraignment. Go was persistent on his right to preliminary investigation
BEFORE his arraignment (Go v. CA)
G. Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine and Free to Go Rule
- The arrest was done while accused was simply descending the gangplank of
a ship, with no outward indication that called for his arrest. He is NOT
committing a crime, nor about to do so, nor just committed one. Therefore
this doesnt fall under the exceptions stated in Rule 113 of the Rules of Court.
The evidence is inadmissible because the search was NOT an incident of a
lawful arrest because there was NO warrant of arrest and the warrantless
arrest didnt fall under the exceptions under Rule 113 of the Rules of Court. If
a peace officer has at least 2 days to procure a Search/Arrest warrant with the
name, description of the person to be arrested or the place to be searched, he
cannot just make a warrantless arrest or search. (People v. Amminudin)
- The accused was arrested on the sole basis of information from a verbal
report, which does not fall under the exceptions stated in Rules 113. There is
NO such personal knowledge in this case. The verbal report led the authorities
to suspect that the accused had committed a crime. They were still fishing for
evidence of a crime not yet ascertained. The subsequent recovery of the
subject firearm on the basis of information from the lips of a frightened wife
cannot make the arrest lawful.
If an arrest without a warrant is unlawful at the time it was made, generally
nothing that happened or was discovered afterwards can make it lawful. The
fruit of a poisonous tree is necessarily also tainted. The Constitution itself
mandates that any evidence obtained in violation of the right is inadmissible in
evidence. Consequently, testimonies of the arresting officers as to the
admissions made by the appellant cannot be used against him. (People v.
Burgos)
1A 2010
SECTION 3:
(1) PRIVACY OF COMMUNICATION AND CORRESPONDENCE SHALL BE
INVIOLABLE EXCEPT UPON LAWFUL ORDER OF THE COURT, OR WHEN
PUBLIC SAFETY OR ORDER REQUIRES OTHERWISE AS PRESCRIBED BY
LAW
(2) ANY EVIDENCE OBTAINED IN VIOLATION OF THIS OR THE
PRECEDING SECTION SHALL BE INADMISSIBLE FOR ANY PURPOSE IN
ANY PROCEEDING
Exceptions:
1. Lawful order of the Court
2. When Public Safety or Order requires it as prescribed by law.
A. Exclusionary Rule
Bars admission of illegally obtained evidence.
Restraint against unlawful searches and seizures applies only against the
government but not on private individuals. If the evidence sought to be
excluded was primarily discovered and obtained by a private person, acting in
a private capacity and without participation/intervention of State authorities,
then the liberties guaranteed by the Constitution cannot be invoked against
the State.
Test:
1. Evidence primarily discovered and obtained by private person
(subsequent verification of evidence by State authorities upon
request of private individual is allowed).
2. Private person acted in private capacity.
3. No intervention and participation by the State authorities in primary
discovery.(People v. Marti)
BUT
The Intimacies between husband and wife do not justify anyone of them
breaking the drawers and cabinets of the other and in ransacking them for
telltale evidence of marital infidelity. A person, by contracting marriage does
not shed his/her right to privacy as an Individual. The evidence seized by the
wife should be returned to the husband, as it was taken without his knowledge
and consent. (Zulueta v. CA)
B. Anti-wiretapping Law
RA 4200 requires previously written judicial authorization to be issued
upon fulfillment of requirements for the issuance of a warrant effective for
only 60 days.
Privacy of Communication with regard to Telephone Conversations

Unauthorized tape recordings of telephone conversations are not admissible as
evidence. Absent a clear showing that both parties to the telephone
conversation allowed the recordings of the same, the inadmissibility of the
subject tapes is mandatory under RA 4200 (Anti-Wiretapping Law). Tape
recordings can only be made upon lawful order of the Court.
C. Prohibition
Not absolute. The state may infringe such by applying for a previous
judicial authorization in cases of national security or non-judicially when
required by public safety, public order or otherwise prescribed by law.
Purpose: Protection against the State. The Bill of Rights governs the
relationship between the individual and the State. Its concern is not the
relation between individuals, between a private individual and other private
individuals. What the Bill of Rights does is declare some forbidden zones in the
private sphere inaccessible to any power holder. Fr. Bernas during the
Constitutional Commission.
NOTE: If the search is made upon the request of law enforcers, a warrant
must first generally be secured if it is to pass the test of constitutionality.
However, if the search is made at the behest or the initiative of the proprietor
of a private establishment for its own private purposes, without the
intervention of police authorities, the right against unreasonable search and
seizure cannot be invoked, for only the act of the private individual and not
the law enforcers are involved.
Right to Privacy in terms of a Statute infringing on the Individual
The right to privacy does not bar all incursions into individual privacy. The
right merely requires that the law be narrowly focused and a compelling
interest justifies such intrusions. Intrusions into the right must be
accompanied by proper safeguards and well-defined standards to prevent
unconstitutional invasions. Any law or order that invades individual privacy will
be subjected by the Judiciary to strict certainty.
Requisites for a Law to intrude upon privacy of an Individual:
1. Law is narrowly focused
2. A compelling interest justifies intrusion
3. Proper safeguards
4. Well-defined standards
(Ople v. Torres and KMU v. NEDA)
WAIVER OF RIGHTS under Sec. 2 and 3
1A 2010
Illegal Possession of Firearms- The Constitutional Immunity from

unreasonable searches and seizures, being a personal one, cannot be waived
by anyone except the person whose rights are invaded or one who is expressly
authorized to do so in his or her behalf.
Records show that the appellant was not at the house at the time his alleged
helper, allowed the authorities to enter it. We find no evidence that would
establish the fact that Luz Morados was indeed the appellants helper, or if she
was the helper, that the appellant had given her authority to open his house in
his absence. (People v. Damaso)
The case does not fall within the exceptions to warrantless search.
The reason for searching the house of herein petitioners is that it was
reportedly being used as a hideout and recruitment center for rebel soldiers.
Permission was indeed granted by Ma. Luisa Veroy to enter the house but only
to ascertain the presence of rebel soldiers.
Under the circumstances it is undeniable that the police officers had ample
time to procure a search warrant but did not. The articles seized, having been
confiscated illegally, are protected by the exclusionary principle and cannot be
used as evidence against the petitioners in the criminal action against them
for illegal possession of firearms. (Sps. Veroy v. Layague)
SECTION 4: NO LAW SHALL BE PASSED ABRIDGING THE FREEDOM OF
SPEECH, OF EXPRESSION, OR OF THE PRESS, OR THE RIGHT OF THE
PEOPLE TO PEACEABLY ASSEMBLE AND PETITION THE GOVERNMENT
FOR REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES.
A. Prior Restraint
Official governmental restrictions on the press or other forms of
expression in advance of actual publication or dissemination like licensing
or censorship.
- Censorship or prior restraint is done by suppressing publication and
punishing as contempt further publication. In determining the extent of
constitutional protection, it has been generally, If not universally considered
that it is the chief purpose of the guaranty of freedom of press is to prevent
previous restraints of publication. (Near v. Minnesota)
Examples are:
1. system of licensing administered by an executive officer
2. movie censorship- Movies are vehicle not just for entertainment
but also for communication
3. judicial prior restraint in the form of an injunction order
The prior restraint principle is not an unbending rule but admitted exceptions
such as: W-O-I
1. when a nation is at war, publication which may obstruct government
recruitment
2. publication of obscene materials
3. materials inciting to acts of violence to overthrow the government
Also: seditious speech, censorship, electoral process
Presumption of Invalidity- Any system of prior restraints of expression
bears a heavy presumption against its constitutional validity. The Government
thus carries the burden of showing justification for the enforcement of such
restraint. (NY Times v. US)
Movie Censorship Process- Non-criminal process, which requires the prior
submission of a film to a censor, avoids constitutional infirmity only if it takes
place under procedural safeguards designed to obviate the dangers of a
censorship system.
STANDARD FOR CENSORSHIP TO BE VALID: B-F-P
1. The burden of proving that the film is unprotected expression must
rest on the censor.
2. While the State may require advance submission of all films, in order
to proceed effectively to bar all showings of unprotected films, the
requirement cannot be administered in a manner which would lend
an effect of finality to the censor's determination whether a film
constitutes a protected expression because only a judicial
determination in an adversary proceeding ensures the necessary
sensitivity to freedom of expression-only a procedure requiring a
judicial determination suffices to impose a valid final restraint.
3. The procedure must also assure a prompt final judicial decision to
minimize the deterrent effect of an interim and possibly erroneous
denial of a license.
- The Boards of Review for Moving Pictures and Television has the power to
screen review and examine all television programs. The exercise of religious
freedom can be regulated by the state when it will bring about the clear and
present danger of some substantial evil, which the state is duty bound to
prevent. However, there is no showing of the type of harm the tapes will bring.
Prior restraint on speech cannot be justified by hypothetical fears but only by
the showing of a SUBSTANTIVE and IMMINENT EVIL. (INC v. CA)
Freedom of the Press- The press is not exempt from the taxing powers of
the state, the law granted the press a privilege, they could take back such a
1A 2010
privilege any time. In withdrawing the privilege, the law merely subjects the
press to the same tax burden to which other businesses have ling ago been
subjected, The VAT is not a license tax and therefore, not a form of prior
restraint. It is not a tax on the exercise if the privilege, much less a
constitutional right. (Tolentino v. Sec. Of Finance)
TV coverage of Criminal Trial
Freedom of press and right to public information versus rights of the accused
versus power of court to control proceedings -the rights of the accused must
prevail, therefore, it may be prohibited
B. Subsequent Punishment
There are limits to the power of the government to impose rules or
regulations penalizing the exercise of the right of freedom of expression
3 Tests for Subsequent Punishment
Dangerous Tendency Rule when it creates a dangerous tendency, which
the state has the right to prevent. There must be a rational connection
between the speech and evil apprehended ex. People v. Perez (inciting to
sedition)
o
Fear must be for serious evil that is serious, imminent and high
probability of serious injury to the state
- The attack on Governor-General Wood exceeds the bounds of free speech
and common decency. There was a seditious tendency, which could easily
produce disaffection among the people. This case is an example of the
application of the dangerous tendency rule where all it requires, for speech to
be punishable is that there is a rational connection between speech and evil
apprehended. (People v. Perez)
Clear and Present Danger Rule In determining whether a circumstance
would constitute clear and present danger, the court must inquire whether in
each case the gravity of the evil, discounted by its improbability, justifies an
invasion of free speech to avoid the danger.
- The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such
circumstances and are of such nature as to create a clear and present danger
that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to
prevent. It is a question of proximity and degree.
- Clear and present danger is not dependent on the probability of success of
attempted overthrow (Dennis v. US)
- All forms of communication are entitled to the broad protection of the
freedom of expression clause. Necessarily, however, the freedom of television
and radio broadcasting is somewhat lesser in scope than the freedom

accorded to newspaper and print media due to its overwhelming reach and
influence. The clear and present danger test, therefore, must take the
particular circumstances of broadcast media into account. The government has
a right to be protected against broadcasts, which incite the listeners to
violently overthrow it. (Eastern Broadcasting v. Dans)
Balancing of Interest it is the courts function to balance public interest
and the freedoms affected by it, and to arrive at a judgment where the
greater weight shall be placed. i.e. RA4880 limiting period of partisan politics
- Proves that constitutional freedoms are not absolute when there is a
substantial interest
- Usually used not to prevent evil or danger
Exceptions: contempt libel, obscenity and seditious speech
Right to privacy - seeks to protect people from unwarranted intrusions and
wrongful publication of the private affairs and activities of individuals which
are outside the sphere of legitimate public concern.
C. Speech and the Electoral Process
COMELEC
The COMELEC has NOT been granted the right to supervise and regulate the
exercise by media practitioners themselves of their right to expression during
plebiscite periods. There are no candidates involved in a plebiscite, therefore
the evil sought to be prevented in an election is not present in a plebiscite.
(Sanidad v. COMELEC)
- CAN regulate time in broadcast media and space in papers, it does not
violate freedom of expression. The general welfare is affected here, public
interest demands that they know their candidates. Also it would operate for
a limited period only.
- Equality of opportunity to proffer oneself for public office is also clearly an
important value. Therefore, no presumption of invalidity arises with respect to
exercises of supervisory or regulatory authority on the part of the COMELEC
for purposes of securing equal opportunity among candidates for political
office, although such may result in some limitation of the rights of free speech
and free press. (National Press Club v. COMELEC)
Campaign Stickers- The posting of decals and stickers in mobile places like
cars and other moving vehicles does not endanger any substantial government
interest. There is no clear public interest threatened by such activity so as to
justify the curtailment of the citizen's right of free speech and expression.
Moreover, the freedom of expression curtailed by the questioned prohibition is
not so much that of the candidate or the political party. The provision Is so
1A 2010
broad that it encompasses even the private Citizen's private property and the
freedom to convince others to agree with him. (Adiong v. COMELEC)
- What is involved here is simply a regulation of time, place and manner. Any
restriction of speech is only incidental and it is no more than necessary to
achieve the purpose of promoting equality of opportunity. What makes this
regulation reasonable is that it applies only to the election period. For contentneutral restrictions such as the case at bar, the O'Brien test must be used.
The O'Brien test provides that a Government regulation of time, space and
manner (content-neutral regulation) is sufficiently justified if: W-F-U-R
a. If it is within the constitutional power of the Government,
b. If it furthers an important or substantial governmental
interest
c. If the governmental interest is unrelated to the suppression
of free expression
d. And if the incident restriction on alleged First Amendment
freedoms is no greater than is essential to the furtherance of
that interest.
- Restrictions that are content-neutral are not censorial. The restriction is not
concerned with the content of the speech thus, it needs only a substantial
governmental interest to support them. (Osmena v. COMELEC)
EXIT POLLS - random polling of voters as they come out of the booths, and
the dissemination of their results through mass media cannot be banned by
COMELEC, they argue that it might confuse the voters. But it does not fall
under clear and present danger. The evil to be prevented is merely
speculative. (ABS CBN v. COMELEC)
ELECTION SURVEYS a ban on surveys published 15days before elections
for national candidates and 7days before elections for local candidates is a
direct and total suppression of freedom of expression amounting to prior
restraint. The governmental interest sought to be promoted can be achieved
by other means. (SWS v. COMELEC)
D. Commercial Speech
- Communication whose sole purpose is to propose a commercial transaction.
Ex: Ads of goods or services
- It must not be false, misleading or illegal. (Friedman v. Rogers), or propose
any illegal activity (Pittsburgh Press v. Human Relations Commission)
- Does not enjoy the same protection as core speech (communicates political,
religious and social ideas)
Even truthful and lawful commercial speech may be regulated if they fulfill the
ff. requirements of the Hudson Test: S-D-O
1. The governmental interest sought to be served by the regulation
must be substantial
2. The regulation must be directly advance the government's interest
3. The regulation must not be overboard (Rubin v. Coors Brewing)
- The city's news rack policy is neither content neutral nor, "narrowly tailored."
Thus, regardless of whether or not it leaves open ample alternative channels
of communication, it cannot be justified as a legitimate time, place, or manner
restriction on protected speech. (Cincinnati v. Discovery Network)
- The ordinance prohibiting the placing of signs violates the residents' right to
free speech. While said signs are subject to the municipality's police power,
any regulation may be challenged on the ground that it restricts too little
speech because its exemptions discriminate on the basis of Sign's message or
on the ground that it prohibits too much protected speech.
- The ordinance cannot be justified as time, place manner restriction since
handbills and newspaper advertisements are inadequate substitutes for
important medium such as the posters that were prohibited by Ladue's
ordinance. (City of Ladue v. Gilleo)
E. Unprotected Speech
LIBEL a pubic and malicious imputation of a crime, vice or defect, real
or imaginary or any act, omission, condition status or circumstance tending to
cause the dishonor, discredit or contempt of a person or to blacken the
memory of one who is dead.
Elements: A-P-I-M
a. The allegation of a discreditable act or condition concerning another
b. Publication of the charge- making the defamatory matter, after it has
been written, known to someone other than the person to whom it has
been written.
c. Identity of the person defamed
d. Existence of malice - when the author of the imputation is prompted
by ill-will or spite and speaks not in response to duty but merely to injure
reputation.
Privileged Communications- every defamatory act is presumed malicious
except in the following cases:
1. Private Communication made by any person to another in the
performance of a legal, social or moral duty.
2. Fair and true report, made in good faith, without comments, remarks
of any juridical, legislative, or other official proceeding which are not
confidential or of any statement, report or speech delivered in said
1A 2010
proceedings. Or any other act performed by public officers in the

exercise of their functions.
Requisites: P-A-G
1. The person who made the communication has a legal, moral or
social duty to make the communication, or had an interest to protect.
2. The communication is addressed to an officer or a board, or superior
having an interest in the matter, who has the power to furnish the
protections sought.
3. Statements are made in good faith and communicated w/o malice.
Nature of Libel- The law against libel is protective of reputation according to
community standards and not according to family or personal standards
(Bulletin Publishing Corp. v. Noel)
- For liability to arise without offending the press freedom, the test to meet is
WON the statements were made with 'actual malice'- ie. knowledge that it
was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not (NY times v.
Sullivan).
Burden of Proving Malice- lies on the plaintiff (Borjal v. CA)
- Newspaper may publish news items relative to Judicial, legislative or other
official proceedings, which are not of confidential nature, because the public is
entitled to know the truth with respect to such proceedings, which, being
official and non confidential, are open to public consumption. But, to enjoy
immunity, a publication containing derogatory information must be not only
true, but, also, fair, and. It must be made in good faith and without any
comments or remarks. Omissions in the newspaper report, is libel by
negligence.
- If the publisher is unaware, when under the facts the truth could have been
verified, the publisher is guilty of negligence and was liable for libel.
(Policarpio v. Manila Times)
Libel of Public Officials and Public Figure
- The constitutional guarantee prohibits a public official from recovering
damages for a defamatory falsehood relating to his official conduct unless he
proves that the statement was made with actual malice. (STANDARD: Bars
media liability for defamation of a public official absent proof that the
defamatory statements were published with knowledge of their falsity or in
reckless disregard of the truth) (NY Times v. Sullivan)
- The protection given to all debate and communication involving matters of
public or general concern is extended without regard to whether the persons
involved are famous or anonymous, but the commitment to robust debate on
public issues cannot be displaced. (Rosenbloom v. Metromedia)
- The State's interest in protecting public figures from emotional distress is not
sufficient to deny Constitutional protection to speech that could not reasonably
have been interpreted as stating actual facts about the public figure involved.
The rule in TIMES case is extended to PRIVATESECTOR PUBLIC FIGURES (e.g.
newscaster, political analyst etc). (Hustler Magazine v. Falwell)
Exception to the general rule that public Officials are prohibited from
recovering Damages unless it be proven that there is actual malice
- Freedom of speech and of expression is not absolute and that freedom needs
on occasion to be adjusted to and accommodated with the requirements of
equally important pubic interest. One of the fundamental pubic interests is the
maintenance of the integrity and orderly functioning of the administration of
justice. Freedom of expression itself can be secured only within the context of
a functioning and orderly system of dispensing justice. (In re JuradoCorruption in the Judiciary)
- A publication relating to judicial action in a pending case which tends to
impede embarrass or obstruct the court and constitutes a clear and present
danger to the administration of justice is not protected by the guarantee of
press freedom and is punishable as contempt.
To constitute contempt, the publication must have been made under the
circumstance as would be calculated to imperil the fair and orderly functioning
of the judicial process, not remotely or probably, but immediately, and it must
constitute a clear and resent danger to the administration of justice which
danger must be 'serious and substantial. (in re Jurado- Enrile v. Salazar)
Libel of Private Individuals - A publisher of defamatory falsehoods about an
individual who is neither a public official nor a public figure may not claim the
New York Times protection against liability for defamation. Media defamation
of private persons whenever an issue of general or public interest is involved
would be unfair because private individuals characteristically have less
effective opportunities for rebuttal than public officials and public figures. New
York Times standard is inapplicable to private individuals. (Gertz v. Welch)
Times Doctrine applied in Philippine Jurisprudence
- An allegation is considered defamatory If it ascribes to a person the
commission of a crime which tends to dishonor or discredit or put him in
contempt, or which tends to blacken the memory of one who is dead.
The requisites for libel are:
a. the allegation of a discreditable act or condition concerning
another;
b. publication of the charge
c. identity of the person defamed; and
1A 2010
d. existence of malice.
- The RPC provides that if the defamatory statement is made against a public
official with respect to the discharge of his official duties and functions and the
truth of the allegation is shown, the accused will be entitled to an acquittal.
(Vasquez v. CA)
- It is essential in a libel suit that the victim be identifiable although it is not
necessary that he be named. It is also not sufficient that the offended party
recognized himself as the person attacked but it must be shown that at least a
third person could identify him as the object of the libelous publication. (Borjal
v. CA)
- The petitioner's act of distributing copies of an article from The Inquirer
stating that graft charges were filed against Judge Sidro cannot be considered
as malicious. (Vicario v. CA)
- The court held that the statements embodied in the advertisement and the
open-letter are protected by the constitutional right of freedom of speech. The
advertisement stating that a PCGG Commissioner committed illegal and
unauthorized acts which constitute graft and corruption was held by the court
to be a vehicle informing the public and the stockholders of the goings-on in
the business world. (Jalandoni v. Drilon)
OBSCENITY
Obscenity and Indecency something offensive to chastity, decency or
delicacy.
In Testing for obscenity, the basic guidelines for the tier of facts must be:
PI-SD-LV
(1) Whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards
would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest,
community standards- standards of a specific community, which do
not really vary from other communities.
(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. (Miller v. California)
- Obscene material is that which deals with sex in a manner appealing to
prurient interest. What is seen or perceived by an artist is entitled to respect,
unless there is a showing that the product of his talent rightfully may be
considered obscene. This ruling however, is limited to motion pictures. A less
liberal approach is given for television since everyone; including children have
easier access to television. (Gonzalez v. Kalaw-Katigbak)
- To bar the exercise of the right, there must be a clear and present danger
that would warrant State interference that a danger must not only be (1)
clear, but also (2) present, to justify state action. There must be objective and
convincing, not subjective or conjectural, proof of the existence of such clear
and present danger, not relying solely on authority's own appraisal of what
the public welfare, peace or safety may require. And the burden to show the
existence of grace and imminent danger, and obscenity that would justify
adverse action lies on the authorities.
- What mayor or authorities must do is to secure a warrant and convince the
court or judge with jurisdiction that the materials sought to be seized are
"obscene," and pose a clear and present danger of an evil substantive enough
to warrant State interference and action. (Pita v. CA)
The Court found that Indiana's public indecency statute is justified despite its
incidental limitations on some expressive activity.
Applying O'Brien:
1. The traditional police power of the State is defined as the authority to
provide for the public health, safety and morals. The statute reflected
moral disapproval of people appearing in the nude among strangers
in public places.
2. The public indecency statute furthers a substantial government
interest in protecting order and morality
3. What Indiana prohibited was not dancing as a communicative
element but simply its being done in the nude.
4. Indiana's requirement that the dancers wear at least pasties and a gstring is modest and the bare minimum necessary to achieve the
State's purpose. (Barnes v. Glenn Theatre)
Obscenity on Radio- Stricter rules on obscenity must be followed especially
because of its pervasive quality and the interest in the protection of children.
The prohibition against censorship denies the Commission power to edit
proposed programs in advance and to excise material considered
inappropriate. HOWEVER, the prohibition has never been construed to deny
the commission the power to review the content of COMPLETED broadcasts in
the performance of its regulatory powers. The commission has the right to
take not of past program content when considering a licensee's renewal
application. (FCC v. Pacifica Foundation)
Zoning legislation- dealing with adult entertainment that does not ban adult
theaters altogether is not invalid being properly analyzed as a form of time,
place and manner of regulation. "Content-neutral time, place and manner
regulations are acceptable so long as they are designed to serve a substantial
1A 2010
government interest an do not unreasonably limit alternative avenues of

communication. (Renton v. Playtime Theatre)
Obscenity in School- The first amendment does not prevent the school
district from disciplining students in giving offensively lewd and indecent
speech at a school assembly. The use of an offensive form of expression may
not be prohibited to adults making a political point but it does not follow that
the same latitude must be permitted to children in public school. (Bethel
School District v. Fraser)
- Schools have the authority to censor if it could affect the education of
others. This case led that the censorship in the schools was only acceptable if
it were for "valid educational purpose." Stricter rules should be followed for
speech in school because of the nature of the community that is involved and
the relationship between school and parents. (Hazelwood School District v.
Kuhlmeier)
F. Assembly and Petition
Content Neutral Regulation- The government has a right to regulate the
time, manner and place of assemblies to ensure the maintenance of order and
public safety.
- The mayor possessed reasonable discretion to determine or specify the
streets of public places to be used for the assembly in order to secure
convenient use thereof by other and provide adequate and proper policing to
minimize the risk of disorder and maintain public safety and order. (Navarro v.
Villegas)
- The primacy if human rights, freedom of expression, of peaceful assembly
and petition for redress of grievances-over property rights should be
sustained. To regard the demonstration against the police officers, not against
the employer, as evidence of bad faith, a violation of the CBA and a cause for
the dismissal from employment of the demonstrating employees, stretches
unduly the compass of the CBA, and is a potent means of inhibiting speech
and therefore inflicts a moral as well as mortal wound on the constitutional
guarantees of free-expression of peaceful assembly and petition. (Philippine
Blooming Mills v. PBM)
Clear and Present Danger Test applied- In the absence of a clear and
present danger of a substantive evil to a legitimate public interest, there was
no justification then to deny the exercise of the constitutional rights of free
speech and peaceable assembly. It is settled law that as to public places,
especially so as to parks and streets, there is freedom of access, Nor is their
use dependent on who is the applicant for the permit, whether an individual or
a group. (Reyes v. Bagatsing)

Rules on Assembly and Petition: I-A-H-D
1. Inform the licensing authority of the date, the public place where
and the time when it will take place (private place-only consent of
owner required)
2. Application- filed ahead of time to enable public official concerned to
appraise whether there may be valid objections
3. (Indispensable condition to refusal or modification that the CPD test
be the standard for the decision reached)
4. If public authority believes that there is an imminent and grave
danger of substantial evil, applicants must be heard on the matter.
5. Decision must be transmitted at the earliest opportunity.
- It bears stressing that suspension of public services, however temporary, will

inevitably derail services to the public, which is one of the reasons why the
right to strike is denied government employees. (Acosta v. CA)
Definition of Public Assembly- The law refers to "rally, demonstration,

march, parade, procession or any other form of mass or concerted action held
in a public place." So it does not cover any and all kinds of gatherings. It
regulates the exercise of the right to peaceful assembly and petition only to
the extent needed to avoid a clear and present danger of the substantive evils
Congress has the right to prevent. There is, likewise, no prior restraint, since
the content of the speech is not relevant to the regulation.
Maximum Tolerance- The highest degree of restraint that the military, police
and other peacekeeping authorities shall observe during a public assembly or
in the dispersal of the same.
- Application for a permit can only be denied on the ground of clear and
present danger to public order, public safety, public morals or public health.
(Bayan v. Ermita)
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
1A 2010
PREFERENCE, SHALL FOREVER BE ALLOWED. NO RELIGIOUS TEST

SHALL BE REQUIRED FOR THE EXERCISE OF CIVIL OR POLITICAL
RIGHTS.
A. Non-establishment Clause
- Neither a state nor a federal government can set up a church, pass laws
which aid one religion or prefer one religion over another, nor can it openly or
secretly participate in the affairs of any religious organizations. Creates a wall
of separation between church and state
- When is government aid allowable?

Lemon Test: aid must have: S-E-E
(a) secular legislative purpose,
(b) must have a primary effect that neither advances nor inhibits
religion,
(c) must not require excessive entanglement with recipient institution
(Lemon v. Kurtzman)
State sponsored bible readings and prayers in public schools violates fist and
second requisites (School District v. Schempp)
Parochial Schools - Parochial schools, in addition to their sectarian function,
perform the task of secular education. The Court cannot agree that all
teaching in a sectarian school is religious, or that the intertwining of secular
and religious training is such that secular textbooks furnished to students are,
in fact, instrumental in teaching religion.
The law merely makes available to all children the benefits of a general
program to lend schoolbooks free of charge, and the financial benefit is to
parents and children, not to schools. (Board of Education v. Allen)
- The entanglement in the Pennsylvania also arises from the restrictions and
surveillance necessary to ensure that teachers play a strictly non-ideological
role and the state supervision of nonpublic school accounting procedures
required to establish the cost of secular as distinguished from religious
education. In addition, the Pennsylvania statute has the further defect of
providing continuing financial aid directly to the church-related schools.
Unconstitutional due to excessive entanglement between govt &
religion.(Lemon v. Kurtzman)
- The part of the provision of the Higher Education Facilities Act of 1963
providing for unlimited use of the buildings (for whatever purpose) after 20
years was invalidated as amounting to a contribution to a religious body.

(Tilton v. Richardson)
Use of Public Funds/ Facilities- The issuance and sale of the stamps
commemorating the International Eucharistic Congress is Valid.
The
government should not be precluded from pursuing valid objectives secular in
character even if the incidental result would be favorable to a religion or sect.
(Aglipay v. Ruiz)
- The wooden image was purchased in connection with the celebration of the
barrio fiesta honoring the patron saint, San Vicente Ferrer, and not for the
purpose of favoring any religion nor interfering with religious matters or the
religious beliefs of the barrio residents. The fiesta is a socio-religious affair.
- Not every governmental activity which involves the expenditure of public
funds and which has some religious tint is violative of the constitutional
provisions regarding separation of church and state, freedom of worship and
banning the use of public money or property. (Garcez v. Estenzo)
- The crche, which sat on the main and most beautiful part of the country
courthouse, a seat of government, sends an unmistakable message that the
country supported and promoted the religious message.
- The menorah display did not have the prohibited effect of endorsing
religion, given its "particular physical setting". Its combined display with a
Christmas tree and a sign saluting liberty did not impermissibly endorse both
the Christian and Jewish faiths, but simply recognized that both Christmas and
Hanukkah are part of the same winter-holiday season, which has attained a
secular status in U.S. society. (County of Allegheny v. ACLU)
By according parents freedom to select a school of their choice, the statute
ensures that a government-paid interpreter will be present in a sectarian
school only as a result of the private decision of individual parents. The signlanguage interpreter will neither add to nor subtract from that environment,
hence the provision of such assistance is not barred by the Establishment
Clause. (Zobrest v. Catalina)
Religious expression cannot violate the Establishment Clause where it
(1) is purely private and
(2) occurs in a traditional or designated public forum, publicly announced
and open to all on equal terms.
1A 2010
- Those conditions are satisfied here, and therefore the State may not bar
respondents' cross from Capitol Square. (Capitol Square Review Board v.
Pinette)
- What should be significant is the principal objective of, not the casual
consequence that might follow from the exercise of the power. The purpose in
setting up the marker is essentially to recognize the distinctive contribution, of
the late Felix Manalo to the culture of the Philippines, rather than to
commemorate his founding of Iglesia ni Cristo. (Manosca v. CA)
There is no compelling justification for the government to deprive Muslim
organizations, of their religious right to classify a product as halal, even on the
premise that the health of Muslim Filipinos can be effectively protected by
assigning to OMA the exclusive power to issue halal certifications. (Islamic
Dawah v. Executive Secretary)
- The amendments of the constitution, restatement of articles of religion and

abandonment of faith or abjuration alleged by appellant, having to do with
faith, practice, doctrine, form of worship, ecclesiastical law, custom and rule of
a church and having reference to the power of excluding from the church
those allegedly unworthy of membership, are unquestionably ecclesiastical
matters which are outside the province of the civil courts. Excommunication
of members by a religious Institution is conclusive upon the courts. (Taruc v.
Dela Cruz)
Ecclesiastical affair - one that concerns doctrine creed or form or worship of

the church, or the adoption and enforcement within a religious association of
needful laws and regulations for the government of the membership, and the
power of excluding from such associations those deemed unworthy of
membership.
Does the dimissal of a 7 Day Adventist Minister fall within the purview of the
NLRC? What is involved here is the relationship of the Church as an employer
and the minister as an employee. It is purely secular, and has no relation
whatsoever with the practice of faith, worship, or the doctrines of the church.
(Austria v. NLRC)
th
B. Free Exercise Clause

Embraces two concepts freedom to believe and freedom to act.
a. Freedom to believe - compulsion by law of the acceptance of any creed or
the practice of any form of worship
ABSOLUTE FREEDOM- The government cannot inquire into a person's religious
pretentions. Men may believe what they cannot prove, they may not be put to
prove their religious doctrines or beliefs.
- The absoluteness of the freedom to believe carries with it the corollary that
the government, while it may look into the good faith of a person, cannot
inquire into a person's religious pretensions. (US v. Ballard)
b. Freedom to act on such belief- free exercise of the chosen religion
NOT ABSOLUTE- The moment belief flows over into action, it becomes subject
to government regulation
- Act must pass the clear and present danger test or the balancing of interest
test benevolent neutrality
Involves compulsion or coercion on the part of the state.
- The free exercise of religious belief is superior to contract rights, in case of
conflict, the latter must yield to the former. Religious freedom, although not
unlimited, is a fundamental personal right and liberty, and has a preferred
position in the hierarchy of values. Contractual rights must yield to religious
freedom. (Victoriano v. Elizalde Rope Workers Union)
- A certification exclusively for religious solicitation is in the form of prior
restraint or censorship of religion since the determination of whether or not a
certification will be released depends upon the secretary of public welfare.
Even if interests be weighed, there must be a showing of a clear and present
danger in order for the state to limit the freedom of exercise of religion.
(Cantwell v. State of Connecticut)
- The constitutional guaranty of the free exercise and enjoyment of religious
profession and worship carries with it the right to disseminate religious
information. Any restraint can only be justified on the grounds that there is
clear and present danger of any substantive evil, which the state has the right
to prevent.
- The state may not require a license for the dissemination of religious
1A 2010
literature unless the dissemination is done for a business operation (American

Bible Society v. Manila)
(2) ofgeneral applicability. (Church of Lukumi Babalu Ayeh v. City of

Heilaeah)
- Exemption may be accorded to the Jehovah's Witnesses with regard to the

observance of the flag ceremony out of respect for their religious beliefs,
however "bizarre" those beliefs may seem to others. (Ebranilag v. Div.
Superintendent of Schools in Cebu)
- Since the film series would not have been shown during school hours, nor
was it sponsored by the school, and would have been open to the public, there
would be no realistic danger that the community would think that the District
was endorsing religion or any creed. (Lambs Chapel v. School District)
The Air Force has drawn the line essentially between religious apparel that is
visible and that which is not. The AFRs reasonably and evenhandedly regulate
dress in the interest of the militarys perceived need for uniformity. (Goldman
v. Weinberger)
Prayer in School Commencement Ceremonies- It is beyond dispute that,

at a minimum, the Constitution guarantees that government may not coerce
anyone to support or participate in religion or its exercise, or otherwise act in
a way which "establishes a [state] religion or religious faith, or tends to do
so." (Lee v. Weisman)
Amish - Respondents have amply supported their claim that enforcement of

the compulsory formal education requirement after the eighth grade would
gravely endanger if not destroy the free exercise of their religious beliefs. Only
the interest of the highest order and those not otherwise served can
overbalance legitimate claims to the free exercise of religion. (Wisconsin v.
Yoder)
- Respondents assured petitioners that they have never and will never restrict
any person or persons from entering and worshipping at said chapel. They
maintain, however, that the intention was not really to perform an act of
religious worship but to conduct an anti-government demonstration at a place
close to the very residence and offices of the President. The reasonableness of
the restriction of entry is is designed to protect the lives of the President and
his family, as well as government officials transacting business in Malacanang.
(German v. Baranganan)
Free exercise of religion does not prohibit imposing a generally applicable
sales and use tax on sales of religious materials by a religious organization.
(Tolentino v. Sec. of Finance)
Solicitation of the Samahan ng Katandaan ng Tikay for Church Renovation
Solicitation or contribution in general, which may include contribution for
religious purposes, may be regulated by general law for the protection of the
public and its citizens from injury and suppress fraudulent solicitations.
(Centeno v. Villalon Pomillos)
The Smith Standard- A law that is neutral and of general applicability need
not be justified by a compelling gov interest even if it has the incidental effect
of burdening a particular religious practice.
Laws that burden religious practice do not have to be justified by a compelling
governmental Interest if they are:
(1) neutral and
- As where any member of a religious corporation is expelled from the

membership for espousing doctrines and teachings contrary to that of his
church, such an action is conclusive upon civil courts. (Loong v. Basa)
-case: fired for use of religious peyote, could not get unemployed
compensation. Valid because the religious clause does not relieve an individual
of the obligation to comply with a law that incidentally forbids (or requires) the
performance of an act that his religious belief requires or forbids if the law is
not specifically directed to religious practice
C. No religious Test
No law shall be passed which would require a person to profess a religion
to qualify in the exercise of his civil and political rights.
Purpose: to discredit the policy of probing into ones religious beliefs by
test oaths or limiting public offices to persons who profess to a particular
religion
Clergy in Public Office- The religious freedom enshrined in the Bill of Rights
simply means that no public office may be denied to any person, by reason of
his religious belief, including his non-belief. When he becomes an ecclesiastic,
he becomes the official minister of his church with distinct duties and
responsibilities which may not be always compatible with the posture of
absolute indifference and impartiality to all religious beliefs. UPHELD (Pamil v.
Teleron)
- The right to the free exercise of religion unquestionably encompasses the
right to preach, proselyte, and perform other similar religious functions, or, in
other words, to be a minister of the type McDaniel was found to be. Under the
clergy-disqualification provision, McDaniel cannot exercise both rights
1A 2010
simultaneously because the State has conditioned the exercise of one on the
surrender of the other. UNCONSTITUTIONAL (McDaniel v. Paty)
NATIONAL SECURITY, PUBLIC SAFETY, OR PUBLIC HEALTH, AS MAY

BE PROVIDED BY LAW
- The freedom to act to one's belief is subject to regulation where the belief is
translated into external acts that affect the public welfare. Therefore, the
religious program is not beyond review by the Board (INC v. CA)
A. Liberty granted by the provision

1. Freedom to choose and change one's place of abode -may be
impaired upon lawful order of the court and within the limits
prescribed by law.
A creed must meet 4 criteria to qualify as religion under the First

Amendment: BG-MC-DS-AT
1. There must be belief in God or some parallel belief that occupies a
central place in the believers life.
2. The religion must involve a moral code transcending individual
belief, i.e., it cannot be purely subjective.
3. A demonstrable sincerity in belief is necessary, but the court must
not inquire into the truth or reasonableness of the belief.
4. There must be some associational ties, although there is also a
view that religious beliefs held by a single person rather than being
part of the teachings of any kind of groups or sect are entitled to the
protection of the Free Exercise Clause.
The religious freedom doctrines one can derive from Gerona are:
1) It is incumbent upon the Court to determine whether a certain ritual is
religious or not;
2) Religious freedom will not be upheld if it clashes with the established
institutions of society and with the law such that when a law of general
applicability incidentally burdens the exercise of ones religion, ones right to
religious freedom cannot justify exemption from compliance with the law.
Benevolent neutrality recognizes the religious nature of the Filipino people
and the elevating influence of religion in society; at the same time, it
acknowledges that the government must pursue its secular goals. In pursuing
these goals, however, the government might adopt laws or actions of general
applicability, which inadvertently burden religious exercise. It allows these
breaches in the wall of separation to uphold religious liberty, which after all is
the integral purpose of the religion clauses. (Estrada v. Escritor)
The performance of religious practices should not prejudice the courts and the
public. Religious freedom does not exempt anyone from compliance with
reasonable requirements of the law, including the civil service laws. (In re.
request of Muslim Employees)
SECTION 6: THE LIBERTY OF ABODE AND OF CHANGING THE SAME
WITHIN THE LIMITS PRESCRIBED BY LAW SHALL NOT BE IMPAIRED
EXCEPT UPON LAWFUL ORDER OF THE COURT. NEITHER SHALL THE
RIGHT TO TRAVEL BE IMPAIRED EXCEPT IN THE INTEREST OF
Liberty of Abode- One can search in vain for any law, order, or regulation,
which even hints at the right of the Mayor of the city of Manila or the chief of
police of that city, to force citizens of the Philippine Islands these women
despite their being in a sense lepers of society are nevertheless not chattels
but Philippine citizens protected by the same constitutional guaranties as any
other citizens to change their domicile from Manila to another locality.
(Villavicencio v. Lukban)
- The right to change abode and travel within the Philippines, being invoked by
petitioner, are not absolute rights. It can be regulated by a lawful order such
as releasing a petitioner on bail. (Yap v. CA)
2.
Freedom to travel both within the country and outside- may be

impaired by administrative authorities, such as passport officers, in
the interest of national security or public health -also impaired by bail
Right to travel- The right involved in this case at bar is the right to return to
one's country, a distinct right under international law, independent from,
although related to the right to travel. Thus, the UNDHR and the IC-CPR treat
the right to freedom of movement and abode within the territory of a state,
the right to leave the country, and the right to enter one's country as separate
and distinct rights.
- The right to return to one's country is not covered by the specific right to
travel and liberty of abode provided for in the 1987 Constitution. Therefore,
the requirements prescribed in the constitution relative to the right to travel
do not apply. (Marcos v. Mangalapus)
The right to Travel may be curtailed by Administrative officers in the interest of
national security, public safety or public heath, as may be provided by law.
Bail- is the security given for the release of a person in custody of the law,
furnished by him or a bondsman, conditioned upon his appearance before any
court when so required by the Court or the Rules of Court.
1A 2010
- An accused released on bail may be re-arrested without the necessity of a

warrant if he attempts to depart from the Philippines without prior permission
of the Court where the case is pending. (Silverio v. CA)
Petitioner has posted bail, which the Court has declared legally valid and
complete despite her absence at the time of filing. By virtue of which, she
holds herself amenable at all times to the orders and processes of the court,
thus she may legally be prohibited from leaving the country during the
pendency of the case. (Santiago v. Vasquez)
- Petitioner did not have an absolute right to leave the country and the
burden was on her to prove that because of danger to health if not to her
life there was necessity to seek medical treatment in foreign countries.
(Marcos v. Sandiganbayan)
Tollways/ Highways- Prohibition on the use of motorcycles in tollways is not
an undue deprivation of petitioners right to travel. Toll way is not merely an
ordinary road and for public safety and interest, certain restrictions must be
imposed. Petitioners right to travel is not taken away since with the use of
other forms of transportation, they may still travel through toll ways or use
alternate routes if they are to use their motorcycles. (Mirasol v. DPWH)
SECTION 7: THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE 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 SHAL BE
AFFORDED TO CITIZENS SUBJECT TO SUCH LIMITATIONS AS MAY BE
PROVIDED BY LAW
A. Rights granted by the provision
The right to information and right to access of records and documents is a
form of political right
- The incorporation in the Constitution of a guarantee of access to information
of public concern is recognition of the essentiality of the free flow of ideas and
information in a democracy. In the instant case, while refusing to confirm or
deny the claims of eligibility, the respondent has failed to cite any provision in
the Civil Service Law which would limit the petitioner's right to know who are,
and who are not, civil service eligibles. (Legaspi v. CSC)
Petitioner requested for information on the eligibility of Sanitary standard
inspectors: (Legazpi v. CSC)P-S-R
1. Is such information a matter of public concern?
(Public Concern- embrace a broad spectrum of subjects which the public

may have a right to know, either because they directly affect their lives or
simply because they arouse the interest of an ordinary citizen)
2. Does petitioner have standing?
3. If denied, what remedy does he have? Mandamus
The right to information goes hand-in-hand with the constitutional policies of
full public disclosure and honesty in the public service. It is meant to enhance
the widening role of the citizenry in the governmental decision-making as well
as in checking abuse in the government. Albeit, the right to information is not
absolute, it is limited to matters of public concern and interest, and is further
subject to limitations as may be imposed by law.
- As to furnishing lists however, or abstracts of loans, there is NO clear
obligation which may be compelled by mandamus. The Constitution does not
accord them the right to compel custodians of official records to prepare lists,
abstracts, summaries and the like in their desire to acquire information on
matters of public concern. (Valmonte v. Belmonte)
Right may be regulated through standards that have been developed for
the regulation of speech and press and of assembly and petition and of
association are applicable to the right of access to information:
1. Substantive regulations to know what is sought is of public concern
2. Statutory regulations law may exempt documents affecting public
interest
3. Procedural regulations officers may regulate the manner by which
the person may look through the information
a. Government Contracts- right attaches once the committee
makes its official recommendation, which is a definite
proposition on the part of the government.
b. Treaties w/ other countries- Info on inter-government
exchanges prior to the conclusion of treaties and executive
agreements with regard to diplomatic negotiations may be
subject to reasonable safeguards for the sake of national
interest. Right attaches ONLY upon final approval of the
President.
RA 6713 the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and
Employees provides that, in the performance of their duties, all public officials
and employees are obliged to respond to letters sent by the public within
fifteen (15) working days from receipt thereof and to ensure the accessibility
of all public documents for inspection by the public within reasonable working
hours, subject to the reasonable claims of confidentiality. (Gonzalez v.
Narvasa)
1A 2010
While access to official records may not be prohibited, it certainly may be

regulated. The regulation may come either from statutory law and from the
inherent power of an officer to control his office and the records under his
custody and to exercise some discretion as to the manner in which persons
desiring to inspect, examine, or copy the record may exercise their rights. The
requirement of payment for the reproduction is reasonable under the
circumstances considering that the ordinance is quite voluminous consisting of
more than a hundred pages. (Berdin v. Mascarinas)
GSIS- The government, whether carrying out its sovereign attributes or
running some business, discharges the same functions of service to the
people. It is the clear intent of the constitutional Commission to include
government-owned and controlled corporations in the scope of the right to
information. (Valmonte v. Belmonte)
PCGG- It is incumbent upon the PCGG and its officers, as well as other
government representatives, to disclose sufficient public information on any
proposed settlement they have decided to take up with the ostensible owners
and holders of ill-gotten wealth. Such information, though, must pertain to
definite propositions of the government. (Chavez v. PCGG)
MTRCB- There is no doubt that the MTRCB is public is character; it is an office
created to serve public interest. It being the case, respondents can lay no
valid claim to privacy. The right to privacy belongs to the individual acting in
his private capacity and not to a governmental agency or officers tasked with,
and acting in, the discharge of public duties. Decisions (in this case, the
MTRCB) made in an official capacity are public and not private matters.
(Aquino-Sarmiento v. Morato)
COMELEC- Applying the O Brien test, the Court finds that said law is a valid
exercise of the power of the State to regulate media of communication or
information for the purpose of ensuring equal opportunity of time and space
for political campaigns. (Osmena v. COMELEC)
- The COMELEC violated the right to information and free access to documents
clause when it refused to disclose the nominees of the party-list groups.
While the vote cast in a party-list election is a vote for a party, such a vote, in
the end, would be a vote for its nominees. People have the right to elect their
representatives on the basis of an informed judgment.
- There is nothing that prohibits the Comelec from disclosing or even
publishing the names of the party-list nominees through mediums other than
the certified list (Bantay v. COMELEC)
Internal Manuals- The requirement of confidentiality of the contents of the

manual containing the details and procedure of administering lethal injection
with respect to the convict is unduly suppressive for the contents of the same
is a matter of public concern. (Echagaray v. Sec. of Justice)
Government Contracts- - Government agencies, without need of demand
from anyone, must bring into public view all the steps and negotiations
leading to the consummation of the transaction and the contents of the
perfected contract. The government agency, however, need not disclose intraagency or inter-agency recommendations or communications during the
exploratory stage. (Chavez v. NHA) similar to Chavez v. PCGG
- Once the committee makes its official recommendation, there arises a
definite proposition on the part of the government. From this moment, the
publics right to information attaches, and any citizen can access all the nonproprietary information leading to such definite proposition.
- A consummated contract is not a requirement for the exercise of the right to
information. Otherwise, the people can never exercise the right if no contract
is consummated, and if one is consummated, it may be too late for the public
to expose its defects. Requiring a consummated contract will keep the public
in the dark until the contract becomes a fait accompli.
- The constitutional right to information includes official information on ongoing negotiations before a final contract. The information, however, must
constitute definite propositions by the government and should not cover
recognized exceptions like privileged information, military, and diplomatic
secrets and similar matters affecting national security and public order.
(Chavez v. PEA)
- Zamora, in his official capacity as Executive Secretary, has a constitutional
and statutory duty to answer petitioners letter dealing with matters which are
unquestionably of public concern that is, appointments made to public
offices and the utilization of public property. With regard to petitioners
request for copies of the appointment papers of certain officials, respondent
Zamora is obliged to allow the inspection and copying of the same subject to
the reasonable limitations required for the orderly conduct of official business.
(Gonzalez v. Narvasa)
Recognized limitations on right to information:NS-TS-CD

(a) National Security matters including state secrets on military,
diplomatic and other national security and information on intergovernment exchanges prior to conclusion of executive agreements or
treaties,
1A 2010
(b) Trade secrets and banking transactions,

(c) Criminal matters or classified law enforcement matters,
(d) other confidential matters (diplomatic affairs)
Requirements of the Presidential Communications Privilege: Q-OP-C
1. The communication must relate to a 'quintessential and nondelegable power of the President -- the power to enter into an
executive agreement with other countries.
2. The communications are "received" by a close advisor of the
President under the operational proximity test
3. There is no adequate showing of a compelling need that would
justify the limitation of the privilege and the unavailability of the
information elsewhere by an appropriate investigating authority.
- The right of Congress to obtain information in aid of legislation cannot be
equated with the people's right to public information. The former cannot claim
that every legislative inquiry is an exercise of the peoples right to information.
Right to Inquiry- Congress right to pass laws necessarily implies the right to
obtain information upon any matter which may become the subject of a law.
Under the present circumstances, the alleged anomalies in the Philcomsat,
PHC and POT ranging in millions of pesos, and the conspiratorial participation
of PCGG and its officials are compelling reasons for the Senate to exact vital
information from the directors and officers of Philcomsat Holdings Corporation,
as well as from Chairman Sabio and his Commissioners to aid it in crafting the
necessary legislation to prevent corruption and formulate remedial measures
and policy determination regarding PCGGs efficacy. (Sabio v. Gordon)
- It would be too presumptuous on the part of the Court to summarily
compel public respondents to comply with pertinent provisions of law
regarding procurement of government infrastructure projects without any
factual basis or prior determination of very particular violations committed
by specific government officials of the executive branch. (Suplico v. NEDA)
- Decisions and opinions of a court are of course matters of public concern or
interest. Justice thus requires that all should have free access to the opinion of
judges and justices. But unlike court orders and decisions, however,
pleadings and other documents filed by parties to a case need not be
matters of public concern or interest. In determining which part of a case
may be accessed, the purpose for which the parties filed them is considered.
Granting unrestricted public access and publicity to personal information may
constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy. (Hilado v. Reyes)
Diplomatic Negotiations - The Nature of diplomacy requires the

centralization of authority and expedition of decision, which are inherent in
executive action. Delegates from other countries tell you their concerns in
confidence, and while the final text of the JPEPA may not be perpetually
confidential, the offers exchanged by the parties during the negotiations
continue to be privileged even after the JPEPA is published. It is reasonable to
assume that the Japanese delegates expect that historic confidentiality
would govern the same. (Akbayan v. Aquino)
THE PROVINCE OF NORTH COTABATO VS. THE GOVERNMENT OF THE
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES PEACE PANEL ON ANCESTRAL
DOMAIN (GRP)
The people's right to information on matters of public concern under Sec. 7,
Article III of the Constitution is in splendid symmetry with the state policy of
full public disclosure of all its transactions involving public interest under Sec.
28, Article II of the Constitution. The right to information guarantees the right
of the people to demand information, while Section 28 recognizes the duty of
officialdom to give information even if nobody demands. The complete and
effective exercise of the right to information necessitates that its
complementary provision on public disclosure derive the same self-executory
nature, subject only to reasonable safeguards or limitations as may be
provided by law.
The contents of the MOA-AD is a matter of paramount public concern involving
public interest in the highest order. In declaring that the right to information
contemplates steps and negotiations leading to the consummation of the
contract, jurisprudence finds no distinction as to the executory nature or
commercial character of the agreement.
An essential element of these twin freedoms is to keep a continuing dialogue
or process of communication between the government and the people.
Corollary to these twin rights is the design for feedback mechanisms. The right
to public consultation was envisioned to be a species of these public rights.
At least three pertinent laws animate these constitutional imperatives and
justify the exercise of the people's right to be consulted on relevant matters
relating to the peace agenda.
One, E.O. No. 3 itself is replete with mechanics for continuing consultations on
both national and local levels and for a principal forum for consensus-building.
In fact, it is the duty of the Presidential Adviser on the Peace Process to
conduct regular dialogues to seek relevant information, comments, advice,
and recommendations from peace partners and concerned sectors of society.
1A 2010
Two, Republic Act No. 7160 or the Local Government Code of 1991 requires all
national offices to conduct consultations before any project or program critical
to the environment and human ecology including those that may call for the
eviction of a particular group of people residing in such locality, is
implemented therein. The MOA-AD is one peculiar program that unequivocally
and unilaterally vests ownership of a vast territory to the Bangsamoro people,
which could pervasively and drastically result to the diaspora or displacement
of a great number of inhabitants from their total environment.
Three, Republic Act No. 8371 or the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act of 1997
provides for clear-cut procedure for the recognition and delineation of
ancestral domain, which entails, among other things, the observance of the
free and prior informed consent of the Indigenous Cultural
Communities/Indigenous Peoples. Notably, the statute does not grant the
Executive Department or any government agency the power to delineate and
recognize an ancestral domain claim by mere agreement or compromise.
The invocation of the doctrine of executive privilege as a defense to the
general right to information or the specific right to consultation is untenable.
The various explicit legal provisions fly in the face of executive secrecy. In any
event, respondents effectively waived such defense after it unconditionally
disclosed the official copies of the final draft of the MOA-AD, for judicial
compliance and public scrutiny.
SECTION 8: THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE, INCLUDING THOSE
EMPLOYED IN THE PUBLIC AND PRIVATE SECTORS, TO FORM UNIONS,
ASSOCIATIONS, OR SOCIETIES FOR THE PURPOSES NOT CONTRARY
TO LAW SHALL NOT BE ABRIDGED
Government employees have the right to form unions but this does not
include the right to strike.
- Government employees are denied the same weapons/modes of petitioning

and negotiation that their private sector counterparts have for the betterment
of the terms and conditions of their employment. (SSS Employees v. CA)
o this Court had already definitively ruled that employees in the public
(civil) service, unlike those in the private sector, do not have the right
to strike, although guaranteed the right to self-organization, to petition
Congress for the betterment of employment terms and conditions and
to negotiate with appropriate government agencies for the
improvement of such working conditions as are not fixed by law
(Manila Public School Teachers Assoc. v. Laguio Jr.)
- Managerial employees are not allowed to join, assist, or form unions.

- The Labor Code may prohibit managerial employees from
joining/assisting/forming any labor organizations:
o Sec. 8 says The right of the peopleto form unions, associations, or
societies for purposes not contrary to law shall not be abridged
o Labor code is law, union participation of managerial employees is
contrary to Law
if these managerial employees would belong to or be affiliated with a Union,
the latter might not be assured of their loyalty to the Union in view of evident
conflict of interest. The Union can also become company-dominated with the
presence of managerial employees in the Union membership. (UPSCU v.
Laguesma)
- Although the Industrial Peace Act of 1953 affirmed the right of supervisors,
or Front-line Managers to form their own organizations.
- The right to join associations includes the right NOT to join
- No one can be compelled to join an association without his consent.
- The by-laws or charters of corporation cannot bind or compel a person, not
party to the creation of the charter/by-laws, to become a member of the
corporation/association because he has not given his consent.
(Sta. Clara Homeowners Association v. Gaston)
-But a deed of sale, which provides that the buyer must automatically join an
association, is binding because his participation in the contract implies his
consent. He could have chosen to not purchase the property.
- Under the Torrens system of registration, claims and liens of whatever
character except those mentioned by law existing against the land binds the
holder of the title and the whole world.
PADCOM could have avoided
membership by not buying the land. (PADCOM vs. Ortigas Center Association)
SECTION 9: PRIVATE PROPERTY SHALL NOT BE TAKEN FOR PUBLIC
USE WITHOUT JUST COMPENSATION
a) Expropriation in General
Eminent Domain
Ultimate right of sovereign power to appropriate, not only public, but also
private property within the territorial sovereignty, for public purposes.
Inherently possessed by the State through the National government
(legislature) and may be delegated to:
a) local government units, pursuant to an ordinance
enacted by respective legislative bodies.
b) Public utilities, as may be delegated by law.
1A 2010
Requisites for the valid exercise of the power of eminent domain:

a. The property taken must be private property;
b. There must be genuine necessity to take the private
property;
c. The taking must be for public use;
d. There must be payment of just compensation; and
e. The taking must comply with due process of law.
Requisites for the LGU to exercise eminent domain
1. Valid and definite offer previously made to the owner but was not
accepted
2. Ordinance enacted authorizing such exercise
3. Power enacted for public use, welfare, purpose or for the benefit
of the poor and landless
4. Payment of just compensation
As understood from the common and usual meaning of the conjunction and,
the provisions of PD 1517 apply only to areas declared to be located within
both an Area for Priority Development (APD) and an Urban Land Reform Zone
(ULRZ). (Solanda v. CA)
It is noted that the smaller the land, the bigger the payment in money,
primarily because the small landowner will be needing it more than the big
landowners, who can afford a bigger balance in bonds and other things of
value. (Santos v. Land Bank)
Despite the existence of this legislative grant in favor of local governments, it
is still the duty of the courts to determine whether the power of eminent
domain is being exercised in accordance with the delegating law.
The
requisites to be considered by the courts are:
1. An ordinance is enacted by the local legislative council
authorizing the local chief executive, in behalf of the local
government unit, to exercise the power of eminent domain or
pursue expropriation proceedings over a particular private
property. x x x
In the present case, the City of Mandaluyong seeks to exercise the power of
eminent domain over petitioners' property by means of a resolution, in
contravention of the first requisite. Section 19 of the Code requires an
ordinance, not a resolution, for the exercise of the power of eminent domain.
The Court, in Municipality of Paranaque vs V.M. Realty Corporation,
distinguished between an ordinance and a resolution. A municipal ordinance
is different from a resolution. An ordinance is a law, but a resolution is merely
a declaration of the sentiment or opinion of a lawmaking body on a specific

matter. An ordinance possesses a general and permanent character, but a
resolution is temporary in nature. Additionally, the two are enacted differently
a third reading is necessary for an ordinance, but not for a resolution,
unless decided otherwise by a majority of all the Sanggunian members.
(Heirs of Alberto Suguitan v. City of Mandaluyong)
Finality of Judgment- The judgment giving NHA the right to expropriate the
properties mentioned became final and executory. It is arbitrary and
capricious for a government agency to initiate expropriation proceedings, seize
a persons property, allow the judgment of the court to become final and
executory and then refuse to pay on the ground that there are no
appropriations for the property earlier taken and profitably used. (NHA v.
Heirs of Isidro Guivelondo)
In the case of Republic v. PLDT, the Court held that although an easement of
a right of way transmits no rights except the easement itself, and respondent
retains full ownership of the property, the acquisition of such easement is,
nevertheless, not gratis. Considering the nature and the effect of the
installation power lines, the limitations on the use of the land for an indefinite
period would deprive respondent of normal use of the property. For this
reason, the latter is entitled to payment of a just compensation, which must
be neither more nor less than the monetary equivalent of the land.
While Section 3(a) of R.A. No.6395, as amended, and the implementing rule
of R.A. No. 8974 indeed state that only 10% of the market value of the
property is due to the owner of the property subject to an easement of rightof-way, said rule is not binding on the Court. Well-settled is the rule that the
determination of "just compensation" in eminent domain cases is a judicial
function. Any valuation for just compensation laid down in the statutes may
serve only as guiding principle or one of the factors in determining just
compensation but it may not substitute the court's own judgment as to what
amount should be awarded and how to arrive at such amount. (NPC v.
Purefoods)
Expropriation is not limited to the acquisition of real property with a
corresponding transfer of title or possession. The right-of-way easement
resulting in a restriction or limitation on property rights over the land
traversed by transmission lines also falls within the ambit of the term
"expropriation."
Just compensation is defined as the full and fair equivalent of the
property taken from its owner by the expropriator. The measure is
not the taker's gain, but the owner's loss. The word "just" is used to
1A 2010
intensify the meaning of the word "compensation" and to convey thereby the
idea that the equivalent to be rendered for the property to be taken shall be
real, substantial, full and ample. The valuation of a property in the tax
declaration cannot be an absolute substitute to just compensation. (NPC v.
Capin)
b) Power to Undertake Expropriation Case
Substitution - The real party in interest in expropriation cases is the Republic
of the Philippines. Expropriation suits are brought in behalf of and for the
benefit of the Republic of the Philippines. it follows that the Republic of the
Philippines is entitled to be substituted in the expropriation proceedings as
party-plaintiff in lieu of ISA, the statutory term of ISA having expired. Put a
little differently, the expiration of ISA's statutory term did not by itself require
or justify the dismissal of the eminent domain proceedings. (Iron and Steel
Authority v. CA)
-Threshold requisites for lawful taking of private property for public use need
to be examined here: one is the necessity for the taking; another is the legal
authority to effect the taking.A reasonable relationship between that power
and the enforcement and administration of election laws by Comelec must be
shown; it is not casually to be assumed. (Philippine Press Institute v.
COMELEC)
Regulation of a Privilege is not Taking - In truth, radio and television
broadcasting companies, which are given franchises, do not own the airwaves
and frequencies through which they transmit broadcast signals and images.
They are merely given the temporary privilege of using them. Since a
franchise is a mere privilege, the exercise of the privilege may reasonably be
burdened with the performance by the grantee of some form of public service.
(Telebap v. COMELEC)
Compliance with procedural due process is mandatory. Condemnation
must be a last resort - In the same vein, expropriation proceedings are to
be resorted to only after the other modes of acquisition have been exhausted.
Compliance with these conditions is mandatory because these are the only
safeguards of often-times helpless owners of private property against violation
of due process when their property is forcibly taken from them for public use.
(Estate of Heirs of the Late Ex-Justice JBL v. City of Manila)
- Private lands rank last in the order of priority for purposes of socialized
housing. In the same vein, expropriation proceedings may be resorted to only
after the other modes of acquisition are exhausted. Compliance with these
conditions is mandatory because these are the only safeguards of oftentimes
helpless owners of private property against what may be a tyrannical violation
of due process when their property is forcibly taken from them allegedly for
public use. (Lagcao v. Labra)
c)
Rights of Owner before Expropriation
- A close scrutiny of the records reveals that the Sangguniang Bayan did not
establish or maintain any public market on the subject lot. The resolution
merely mentioned the plan to acquire the lot for expansion of the public
market adjacent thereto. Until expropriation proceedings are instituted
in court, the landowner cannot be deprived of its right over the land.
(Greater Balanga v. Municipality of Balanga)
- It must be stressed that the agreement to transfer the property was made in
1974. More than twenty years later, no actual transfer had yet been made.
Unless and until the transfer is consummated, or expropriation proceedings
instituted by the government, private respondent continues to retain
ownership of the land subject of this case. (Velarma v. CA)
d) Elements of Taking:
Requisites for Taking:
1. The expropriator must enter upon the private property
2. The entrance must not be for a momentary periods, that is, the
entrance must be permanent
3. The entry must be under the warrant or color of legal authority
4. The property must be devoted for public use
5. Utilization of the property must be in such a way as to oust the owner
and deprive him of all beneficial enjoyment of the property.
(Republic v. Vda. De Castelvi)
- Where there is no taking of property for purposes of eminent domain, nor
condemnation proceedings instituted, the basis for determination of just
compensation is the time when the trial court made its order of expropriation.
(Garcia v. CA)
Burial Plots for Paupers- Police Power does not include the power to take
property with the exception of a few cases where there is a necessity to
confiscate private property in order to destroy it for the purpose of protecting
peace and order and to promote the general welfare. By confiscating a part of
a private cemetery to be given to paupers, the city is not exercising police
power but rather, the taking of private property, which should be
compensated. (Garcia v. CA)
- The air is a public highway, as Congress has declared. But this general
principle does not apply here. If the landowner is to have full enjoyment of the
1A 2010
land, he must have exclusive control of the immediate reaches of the

enveloping atmosphere. Though only an easement of flight is involved, that
easement, if permanent and not merely temporary, would be a definite
exercise of complete dominion and control over the surface of the land. The
fact that the planes never touched the surface would be irrelevant. The
owner's right to possess and exploit the land -- that is to say, his beneficial
ownership of it -- would be destroyed. It is the Owners Loss, NOT the takers
gain, which is important.
- Compensable taking does not need to involve all the property Interests,
which form part of the right to ownership. When one or more of the property
rights are appropriated and applied to a public purpose, there is taking even if
the bare title to the property still remains with the private owner. (US v.
Causby)
- There is a DIFFERENCE between REASONABLE use of property and MOST

BENEFICIAL use of property = No taking occurs if owner can still reasonably
use the property, even if he may bear some losses due to States
restriction/laws.
HOWEVER, a restriction on real property may constitute a "taking" if:
a. No public purpose
b. Has an unduly harsh impact upon the owner's use of the
property
c. Has same effect as the complete destruction of rights of land
owners(Penn Central Transport v. NYC)
- Property rights essentially include the full use of the property. An ordinance
which permanently restricts the use of property, that it cannot be used for any
reasonable purpose, is recognized as a taking of property. If the municipality
wants to assure that no structure would obstruct the view of the plaza, they
should have given just compensation for the land. (People v. Fajardo)
Trade Secrets- Despite their intangible nature, trade secrets have many of
the characteristics of more traditional forms of property. Moreover, this Court
has found other kinds of intangible interests to be property for purposes of the
Clause. The court also held that so long as the taking has a conceivable public
character, the means by which it will be attained is for congress to determine.
Public Utilities- While the Republic may not compel PLDT to enter into a
contract, the Republic may, in the exercise of eminent domain, require PLDT to
permit interconnection of the government phone system w/ PLDT, subject to
just compensation to be determined by the court.
In deciding whether a particular governmental action (short of

acquisition) has effected a taking, this Court focuses on:
1) The character of the governmental action
2) The economic impact
3) Whether the action interferes with reasonable investment-backed
expectations
(Ruckelshaus v. Monsanto)
- There is no reason why the State may not require a public utility to render
services in the general interest, provided just compensation is paid therefor.
Ultimately, the beneficiary of the interconnecting service would be the users of
both telephone systems, so that the condemnation would be for public use.
(Rep. v. PLDT)
- Upon the filing of the complaint in Eminent Domain proceedings, or at any
time thereafter, after due notice to defendant, the petitioner has the right to
take or enter upon the possession of the real property involved if he deposits
an amount equivalent to the assessed value of the property with the PNB for
purposes of taxation. (NPC v. Jocson)
- There is no taking since the landmark law had not transferred control over
the property to the city, but only restricted the appellant's exploitation of it. A
state statute that substantially furthers important public policies and enhances
the quality of life by preserving the character and desirable aesthetic features
of a city may so frustrate distinct INVESTMENT-BACKED INTERESTS.
- An easement of a right of way transmits no rights except the easement

itself; respondent retains full ownership of the property. The acquisition of
such easement is, nevertheless, not gratis. Considering the nature and the
effect of the installation power lines, the limitations on the use of the land for
an indefinite period would deprive respondent of normal use of the property.
The latter is entitled to just compensation, which must be neither more nor
less than the lands monetary equivalent.
- Just compensation is defined as the full and fair equivalent of the property
taken from its owner by the expropriator. In eminent domain or expropriation
proceedings, the just compensation is generally the market value.
- The nature and character of the land at the time of its taking is the principal
criterion for determining how much just compensation should be given to the
1A 2010
landowner. (NPC v. Manubay)

just compensation is considered to be the sum equivalent to the market
value of the property, broadly described to be the propertys fair market
value, or:
The price fixed by the seller in open market in the usual and ordinary course
of legal action and competition OR the fair value of the property as between
one who receives, and one who desires to sell it, fixed at the time the of its
actual taking by the government.
In NPC v Gutierrez right of way easement resulting in restriction or
limitation on property rights also falls within the ambit of expropriation as
there was loud buzzing and exploding sounds caused by the transmission
lines, it affects the rights of the owner to use or sell such land. (NPC v. San
Pedro)
- In the determination of [fair market] value, the court is not limited to the
assessed value of the property or to the schedule of market values determined
by the provincial or city appraisal committee; these values consist but one
factor in the judicial valuation of the property. The nature and character of the
land at the time of its taking is the principal criterion for determining how
much just compensation should be given to the landowner. All the facts as to
the condition of the property and its surroundings, as well as its
improvements and capabilities, should be considered.
- If the easement is intended to perpetually or indefinitely deprive the owner
of his proprietary rights by imposing conditions that affect the ordinary use,
free enjoyment and disposal of the property or through restrictions and
limitations that are inconsistent with the exercise of the attributes of
ownership, or when the introduction of structures or objects which, by their
nature, create or increase the probability of injury, death upon or destruction
of life and property found on the land is necessary, then the owner should be
compensated for the monetary equivalent of the land. (NPC v. Tiangco)
- The taking of private lands under the agrarian reform program partakes
of the nature of an expropriation proceeding.
- Since just compensation embraces not only the correct determination of the
amount to be paid to the owners of the land, but also its payment within a
reasonable time from the taking of the land, we think that the appellate court
correctly imposed an interest in the nature of damages for the delay. (LBP v.
Imperial)
- Considering the nature and the effect of the installation power lines, the
limitations on the use of the land for an indefinite period would deprive
respondent of normal use of the property. The Court has consistently held that
the determination of just compensation is a judicial function. No statute,
decree, or executive order can mandate that its own determination shall
prevail over the courts findings. (NPC v. Bongbong)
- PEAs entry into the property with the permission of SADC, its previous
owner, was not for the purpose of expropriating the property. SADC allowed
PEA to enter the land on condition that it should pay a monthly rental of P10K.
Also, it must be noted that after its entry, PEA requested SADC to donate or
sell the land to the government. Indeed, there was no intention on the part of
PEA to expropriate subject property. Why did it ask permission? It could have
simply exercised its power of eminent domain. (Tan v. Republic)
- The underground tunnels impose limitations on respondents use of the
property for an indefinite period and deprive them of its ordinary use. Based
upon the foregoing, respondents are clearly entitled to the payment of just
compensation. Notwithstanding the fact that petitioner only occupies the subterrain portion, it is liable to pay not merely an easement fee but rather the
full compensation for land. The nature of the easement practically deprives the
owners of its normal beneficial use. (NPC v. Ibrahim)
The RTC misapplied the ruling in Coscolluela v. CA by substituting such
inflation factor and or adjustment factor for the legally mandated interest
in the price to be paid as just compensation in expropriation cases. Nowhere
in the said decision may it be inferred that damages for such delay in the
payment of just compensation, other than the legal interest provided by law,
may be granted in addition or considered in computing the amount of just
compensation such as the inflation factor applied by the trial court. (PNOC v.
Maglasang)
e)
Public Use any use that is of utility, advantage or productivity for the
benefit of the public.
- Public Use requirement is a flexible, comprehensive and evolving concept.

Whatever may be beneficially employed for the general welfare satisfies this
requirement. The construction of low-cost housing is recognized as a public
purpose. It is made pursuant to the Sates mandate to promote social justice
in all phases of national development.
Socialized housing- falls within the confine of public use. As long as the
purpose of the taking is public, meaning, any act that may be beneficially
employed for the general welfare, then the power of eminent domain comes
into play.(Sumulong v. Guerrero)
1A 2010
- The City of Manila, through its legislative branch, has the express power to
acquire private lands and subdivide these lands into home lots for sale to bona
fide tenants or occupants, and to laborers and low-salaried employees of the
city. That only a few could actually benefit from the expropriation of the
property does not diminish its public use character. It is simply not possible to
provide all at once land and shelter for all who need them (Sumulong v.
Guerrero). Public use now includes the broader notion of indirect public benefit
or advantage, including in particular, urban land reform and housing.(Phil.
Columbian Assoc. v. Hon. Panis)
- The idea that "public use" is strictly limited to clear cases of "use by the
public" has long been discarded. That only a few would actually benefit from
the expropriation of property does not necessarily diminish the essence and
character of public use. As long as the public has right of use, whether
exercised by one or many members, a "public advantage" or "public benefit"
accrues, sufficient to constitute a public use. It may be limited to the
inhabitants of a small or restricted locality, but must be in common, and not
for a particular individual(s) alone. (Manosca v. CA)
- The establishment of a pilot development center would inure to the direct
benefit and advantage of the people of the Province of Camarines Sur. Once
operational, the center would make available to the community invaluable
information and technology on agriculture, fishery and the cottage industry.
The housing project also satisfies the public purpose requirement of the
Constitution. (Province of Cam Sur v. CA)
- It is well settled that expropriation of private land for urban development
and slum clearance is for a public purpose even if the developed area is
afterwards sold to private homeowners, commercial firms, entertainment, and
service companies. (Reyes v. NHA)
- After scrutinizing the records, the Court found that the basis of the ordinance
was to benefit the Melendres Compound Homeowners Association, a private,
non-profit organization, not the residents of Caniogan in general. It can be
seen that the association wanted a private playground and recreational facility
and Masikips property was the closest lot available. Thus, the taking was not
of a public character. Moreover, there was already an alternative facility for
sports and recreation in the area, the Rainforest Park. (Masikip v. Pasig)
Mining- does not entail a simple right-of-way, which is ordinarily allowed by
the Civil Code. Mining operations consist of a considerable of construction and
deployment that will definitely oust owners or occupants of beneficial
ownership of their lands. Once mining operations commence, there is already
compensable taking. Moreover, mining is for a public benefit. All requisites of

taking are therefore present. (Dipidio v. Earth Savers v. Gozun)
- The limited meaning attached to "public use" is "use by the public" or "public
employment," that "a duty must devolve on the person or corporation holding
property appropriated by right of eminent domain to furnish the public with
the use intended, and that there must be a right on the part of the public, or
some portion of it, or some public or quasi-public agency on behalf of the
public, to use the property after it is condemned."
- The more generally accepted view sees "public use" as "public advantage,
convenience, or benefit, and that anything which tends to enlarge the
resources, increase the industrial energies, and promote the productive power
of any considerable number of the inhabitants of a section of the state, or
which leads to the growth of towns and the creation of new resources for the
employment of capital and labor, [which] contributes to the general welfare
and the prosperity of the whole community." In this jurisdiction, "public use" is
defined as "whatever is beneficially employed for the community." (Barangay
v. CA)
- The power of eminent domain is an inherent and indispensable power of the
State. Also called the power of expropriation, it is described as the highest
and most exact idea of property remaining in the government that may be
acquired for some public purpose through a method in the nature of a
compulsory sale to the State. By virtue of its sovereign character, the exercise
of the power prevails over the non-impairment clause, and is clearly superior
to the final and executory judgment rendered by a court in an ejectment case.
(Manapat v. CA)
- Meaningful statements in the body of the Decision warrant the conclusion
that the expropriated properties would remain to be so until it was confirmed
that Lahug Airport was no longer "in operation". This inference further implies
that after the Lahug Airport ceased its undertaking as such and the
expropriated lots were not being used for any airport expansion project, the
rights vis--vis the expropriated Lots Nos. 916 and 920 as between the State
and their former owners, petitioners herein, must be equitably adjusted.
In executory contracts there is a wide field for fraud because unless they be in
writing there is no palpable evidence of the intention of the contracting
parties. The statute has precisely been enacted to prevent fraud. However, if a
contract has been totally or partially performed, the exclusion of parol
evidence would promote fraud or bad faith, for it would enable the defendant
to keep the benefits already delivered by him from the transaction in litigation,
and, at the same time, evade the obligations, responsibilities or liabilities
assumed or contracted by him thereby. (Mactan v. Tudtud)
1A 2010
f)
Just compensation just and complete equivalent of the loss, which the
owner has to suffer by reason of the expropriation. Sum equivalent to
market value. Must be direct payments and not just deposits.
Just Compensation= Fair Market Value (+) consequential Damages (-)

consequential Benefits
Fair Market Value- The market value of a piece of land is attained by a
consideration of all those facts, which make it commercially valuable. The rule
that should be followed is that: the market value of a property Is the price
which It will bring when It is offered for sale by one who desires, but is not
obliged to sell it, and is bought by one who us under no necessity of having it.
The view of the commissioners who are disinterested landowners Is given
greater weight than that of an ordinary tier of facts. (City of Manila v. Estrada)
General Rule: value must be as of the time of the filing, which is also the
time of the taking.
o
Filing comes later than the taking value at the taking
o
Value increased independently value is at the filing
o
Must be determined on trial by commissioners (MERALCO v.
Pineda) but the report is not final or conclusive but
recommendatory
o
May be in the form of money or government bonds, as long as it
is certain
o
Factors to be considered: nature of the property, future
convertibility, change in value of peso, value of standing crops,
time of taking
- To allow the court to change the amount of the deposit as it sees fit, at any
time during the proceeding, the right of possession granted to the railroad
company might well become illusory and therefore makes the court's action
unconstitutional. (Manila Railroad v. Paredes)
- When the plaintiff takes possession before the institution of the
condemnation proceedings, the value should be fixed as of the time of the
taking of the said possession, not the filing of the complaint, and the latter
should be the basis for the determination of the value. When the taking of the
property involved coincides with or is subsequent to, the commencement
of the proceedings, it will be the basis of the value of the land. (Municipality
of Daet v. CA)
- To determine just compensation for lands appropriated by the government,
the basis should be the value of the land or price at the time it was taken from
the owner and appropriated by the government not its future potential. (NPC
v. CA)
- In an expropriation proceeding, the court technically has the power to
determine the just compensation for the property. Provisions which encroach
upon judicial prerogatives and renders the court inutile in a matter which is
reserved to it for final determination is void. (EPZA v. Dulay)
- The nature of land bank bond fortifies the view that respondent may be
compelled to accept those bonds at their face value. Agrarian reform cannot
be fully realized without the intervention of the government particularly in the
payment of just compensation it is only with the support of the government
that payment of just compensation to landowner may be realized. (Maddumba
v. GSIS)
- Among the factor to be considered in arriving at a fair market value of the
property are the cost of acquisition, the current value of the properties, its
actual or potential uses and tax declarations. Commissioner's report although
only advisory and persuasive and by no means final, therefore, may be used
as basis for determination of just compensation. (Berkentotter v. CA)
- A trial before the Commissioners is indispensable to allow the parties to
present evidence on the issue of just compensation therefore, the
appointment of commissioners is mandatory requirement In expropriation
cases for it is a substantial right that may not be done away without any
reason (Meralco v. Pineda/NPC v. CA)
- Just compensation means not only the correct determination of the amount
to be paid to the owner of the land but also the payment of the land within
reasonable time from its taking. (Land Bank v. CA)
- In light of the declared unconstitutionality of P.D. No. 76, P.D. No.1533 and
P.D. No. 42 insofar as they sanction executive determination of just
compensation in expropriation cases, it is imperative that any right to the
immediate possession of the subject property, accruing to respondent
VISCA, must be firmly grounded on a valid compliance with Section 2
of Rule 67, i.e., there must be a deposit with the National or Provincial
Treasurer of the value of the subject property as provisionally and promptly
ascertained and fixed by the court having jurisdiction of the proceedings.
(Panes v. VISCA)
Original Jurisdiction of Special Agrarian Courts -Special Agrarian Courts,
which are Regional Trial Courts, are given original and exclusive jurisdiction
over two categories of cases, to wit: (1) "all petitions for the determination of
just compensation to landowners" and (2) "the prosecution of all criminal
offenses under [R.A. No. 6657].
1A 2010
The valuation of property in eminent domain is essentially a judicial

function which cannot be vested in administrative agencies. (Republic v. CA)
Determination of fair market value - The nature and character of the land
at the time of its taking is the principal criterion to determine just
compensation to the landowner.
The fair market valuation of land to be taken should not be based on the value
of adjacent lots if the nature of the adjacent lots is different from the land
sought to be expropriated. (NPC v. Henson)
Administrative guidelines for determination of just compensation are
not Unconstitutional unless it is conclusive upon the Judiciary,
depriving them of their prerogative - The objection that P.D. 27 is
unconstitutional as it sets limitations on the judicial prerogative of determining
just compensation is bereft of merit. The determination of just compensation
under P.D. No. 27, like in Section 16 (d) of R.A. 6657 or the CARP Law, is not
final or conclusive. Unless both the landowner and the tenant-farmer accept
the valuation of the property by the Barrio Committee on Land Production and
the DAR, the parties may bring the dispute to court in order to determine the
appropriate amount of compensation, a task unmistakably within the
prerogative of the court. (Sigre v. CA)
An alleged unjust compensation is not enough to discontinue
expropriation that has already become final and executor - Petitioner
alleges that the intended public use was rendered nugatory by the
unreasonable just compensation fixed by the court, which is beyond the
means of the intended beneficiaries of the socialized housing project. The
public purpose of the socialized housing project is not in any way
diminished by the amount of just compensation that the court has
fixed. Petitioner cannot be permitted to institute condemnation proceedings
against respondents only to abandon it later when it finds the amount of just
compensation unacceptable. (NHA v. Heirs of Isidro Guivelondo)
Tax Credits - The tax credit that is contemplated under the Senior Citizens
Act is a form of just compensation for private property taken by the State for
public use, not a remedy for taxes that were erroneously or illegally
assessed/collected. (CIR v. Central Luzon)
Tax credit is not Tax deduction. The tax credit is the amount representing the
20 percent discount granted to a qualified senior citizen by all establishments
relative to their utilization of transportation services, hotels and similar lodging
establishments, restaurants, drugstores, recreation centers, theaters, cinema
houses, concert halls, circuses, carnivals and other similar places of culture,
leisure and amusement, which discount shall be deducted by the said
establishments from their gross income for income tax purposes and from
their gross sales for value-added tax or other percentage tax purposes. Tax
credit accrued during a fiscal year when no taxes were paid may be applied to
succeeding fiscal years. (CIR v. Bicolandia)
In the event when the government is obliged to return the land expropriated
and the private party is obliged to return the purchase price but the
government fails to comply, such failure amounts to expropriation without just
compensation. The private party is entitled to compensation in the form of
rentals and interest. (Mactan v. Urgello)
Expropriation proceedings initiated 56 years ago by the government but not
acted upon (no payment of compensation, no legislative approval, and no
actual entry) is not a valid expropriation. It transfers no rights to the
expropriating party and does not deprive the owner of its authority over the
land. The non-payment of just compensation and the amount of time that has
passed may also be a bar to the government because of laches. (San Roque v.
Republic)
g)
Judicial Review- of the exercise of eminent domain is limited the

following areas of concern:
1. adequacy of compensation,
2. necessity of the taking, and
3. public use character of the purpose of the taking
Exception: when land is for subdivision and resale for social justice by
legislature.
- Government may not capriciously or arbitrarily choose what private property
should be taken. Due process must be served. With due recognition of the
power of Congress to designate the particular property to bet taken and how
much thereof may be condemned in the exercise of the power of
expropriation, it is still a judicial question whether in the exercise of such
competence, the party adversely affected is a victim of partiality and
prejudice. (De Knecht v. Bautista)
- BP 340 effectively superseded the decision of the court and the trial court did
not commit any grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the case pending
before it on the ground of the enactment of BP 340. Said decision is no
obstacle to the legislative arm of the government. (Republic v. De Knecht)
- Fixing just compensation is a judicial function. Market value alone cannot
substitute the court's judgment In expropriation proceeding. (Manotoc v. NHA)
1A 2010
- There is no extreme necessity to involve judicial action if petitioner has not

exhausted his administrative remedies (Militante v. CA)
SECTION 10: NO LAW IMPAIRING THE OBLIGATION OF CONTRACTS
SHALL BE PASSED
When does law impair obligations of contracts:
i. If it changes the terms and conditions of a legal contract wither as
to the time or mode of performance
ii. If it imposes new conditions or dispenses with those expressed
iii. If it authorizes for its satisfaction something different from that
provided in its terms.
A mere change in procedural remedies which does not change the substance
of the contract and which still leaves a remedy for enforcement does not
impair obligations of contracts. (Home Building and Loan Assn. v. Blaisdell;
Rutter v. Esteban)
Police Power- All contracts are made subject to an implied reservation of the
protective power of the state and that therefore statutes, which validly
exercise this, reserved power does not impair contracts (Del Rosario v. Delos
Santos)
In all cases:
Impairment should only refer to the remedy and not to substantive
right,
State must postpone the enforcement of obligation but cannot
destroy it by making the remedy futile and
The alteration or change that the new legislation desires to write
must not be burdened with restrictions and conditions that would
make the remedy hard to pursue.
-Legislation appropriate to safeguard said interest may modify or abrogate

contracts already in effect. For not only are existing laws read into contracts in
order to fix the obligations as between the parties but the reservation of
essential attributes of sovereign power is also read into contracts as a
postulate of the legal order.
To come under the constitutional prohibition, the law must effect a change in
the rights of the parties with reference to each other and not with reference to
non-parties. (Abella v. NLRC)
Municipal Resolution- although not strictly an ordinance is a zoning

regulation which is a police power measure which the municipality has the
power to pass. (Presley v. Bel-Air Village Assn. also held in Ortigas v. FEATI
Bank)
The requirement of notice of the rescission under the Maceda law doesnt
change the time or mode of performance or impose new conditions or
dispense with the stipulations regarding the binding effect of the contract.
Neither does it withdraw the remedy for its enforcement. At most, it merely
provides for a procedure in aid of the remedy of rescission. Therefore, it
doesnt impair the obligations of a contract. (SISKA Development v. Office of
the President)
Includes franchises but not licenses or permits since these are special
privileges, marriage contracts, public office
A provision of law prohibiting the use of the allotted modernization funds for
payment of a contract already entered into by the government is violative of
the Constitutional Prohibition on the passage of laws that impair the obligation
of contracts. (Philconsa v. Enriquez)
Therefore, police power may only be invoked and justified by: 1) an

emergency, 2) temporary in nature, 3) can only be exercised upon reasonable
conditions.
the State, in the exercise of police power, may not be precluded by the
restriction on non-impairment of contract from altering, modifying and
amending the mining leases or agreements. (Miners Assoc. v. Factoran)
The contract may be altered validly if it involves the public interest, to which
private interests must yield lies a postulate of the existing social order. In
Norman vs. Baltimore, the court stressed that every contract involving the
public interest suffers infirmity and may be changed if required by public
interest. (Philippine Veterans Bank Employees v. Philippine Veterans Bank)
The unilateral cancellation of the franchise, which has the status of a contract,
without notice, hearing and justifiable cause is intolerable in any system
where the Rule of Law prevails. (Lim v Pacquing)
1A 2010
A law providing new grounds for the ejectment of tenants cannot be applied
retroactively to existing contracts but is deemed to be read into the contracts
when the lease is renewed. (Juarez v CA)
A tax exemption contained in the Certificates of Registration is far from being

contractual in nature in the sense that the non-impairment clause of the
Constitution can rightly be invoked. (Republic v. Caguioa)
Conservators of a bank may overrule administrative acts of the management,

but it may not interfere or impair the performance of a validly perfected
contract. (FPIB v. CA)
The Central bank may prevent the shareholders of a bank under

conservatorship from collecting dividends if public interest so requires. Public
welfare is superior to private rights. (Republic Planters Bank v. Hon. Agana)
Contracts of labor are impressed with public interest and may be subject to
state regulation and must yield to the common good. Matters involving the
public interest and welfare cannot be placed by contract beyond the power of
the State to regulate and control. (CMMA v POEA)
The power of a banks conservator cannot extend to the revocation of existing

valid contracts. If the legislature itself cannot revoke a valid existing contract,
how can it delegate such a non-existing power to a mere conservator?
(Producers Bank of the Phil v. NLRC)
Statutes that are curative and remedial in nature, whose purpose is to

safeguard the interest of the public (such as real estate buyers) from
unscrupulous schemers must be given retroactive effect and should affect
contracts that are already in existence. The Court cannot allow the injustice
that will be wrought by a strictly prospective application of the law. If P.D. 957
were to exclude from its coverage the mortgage contract herein, the purpose
of PD. 957 will be translated into a feeble exercise of police power. (PNB v.
Office of the President; Eugenio v. Drilon)
Incentive pay or benefit is in the nature of a bonus which is not a demandable

or enforceable obligation. The forced refund, pursuant to a law or an executive
order, of an incentive pay which was wrongly released, does not constitute an
impairment of contracts. (Blaquera v. Alcala)
The non-impairment clause of the Constitution must yield to the loftier

purposes targeted by the government. (JMM v. CA citing Eugenio v. Drilon in
justifying the regulatory measures taken by the POEA involving Overseas
performing artists)
Timber licenses, permits and license agreements are mere
privileges granted by the State to qualified entities, and do not vest in the
latter a permanent or irrevocable right. They may be validly amended,
modified, replaced or rescinded by the Chief Executive when national interests
so require.
They are not deemed contracts within the purview of the due process of
law clause, merely instruments by which the State regulates the utilization
and disposition of forest resources to the end that public welfare is promoted.
(C&M Timber v Alcala)
Presidential Warranty is not a contract but a mere license or privilege. It has
been consistently held that licenses, especially concerning timber harvest, are
neither property nor property rights and do not create a vested right. All
licenses may be revoked or rescinded by executive action. (Alvarez v. PICOP
Resources)
Contractual tax exemptions versus franchise tax exemptions

Contractual tax exemptions must not be confused with tax exemptions
granted under franchises. A franchise partakes the nature of a grant which is
beyond the purview of the non-impairment clause of the Constitution. Under
the Constitution, a franchise is always under the condition that it shall be
subject to amendment, alteration or repeal by Congress when the common
good so requires. Contractual tax exemptions, however, may invoke the nonimpairment clause. (MERALCO v. Province of Laguna)
A license violating provision of law is void any revocation thereof or
declaration of nullity does not violate non-impairment clause. (Republic v
Rosemoor)
Endorsement billboards of an electoral candidate may be regulated/removed
by COMELEC without violating the non-impairment clause as a valid exercise
of police power because the billboards assumed partisan political character
when he filed for candidacy. (Chavez v COMELEC)
A mortgage involving inalienable land is void ab initio and cannot be the
source of rights. The non-impairment clause may not be invoked, because the
states restraint on private individuals from holding ownership or vested rights
on the said land (Forest) is a valid exercise of police power. (Land Bank of the
Philippines v. Republic of the Philippines, represented by the Director of Lands)
SECTION 11: FREE ACCESS TO THE COURTS AND QUASI-JUDICIAL
1A 2010
BODIES AND ADEQUATE LEGAL ASSISTANCE SHALL NOT BE DENIED

TO ANY PERSON BY REASON OF POVERTY
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 A COMPETENT AND INDEPENDENT
COUNSEL PREFERABLY OF HIS OWN CHOICE. IF THE PERSON CANNOT
AFFORD THE SERVICE OF COUNSEL, HE MUST BE PROVIDED WITH
ONE. THESE RIGHTS CANNOT BE WAIVED EXCEPT IN WRITING AND IN
THE PRESENCE OF COUNSEL.
(2) NO TORTURE, FORCE, VIOLENCE, THREAT, INTIMIDATION OR ANY
OTHER MEANS WHICH VITIATES 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 SHALL BE INADMISSIBLE IN EVIDENCE AGAINST
HIM.
(4) THE LAW SHALL PROVIDE FOR PENAL AND CIVIL SANCTIONS FOR
VIOLATIONS OF THIS SECTION AS WELL AS COMPENSATION TO AND
REHABILITATION OF VICTIMS OF TORTURE OR SIMILAR PRACTICES,
AND THEIR FAMILIES.
A. Custodial Investigation
Questioning initiated by law enforcement officer after one is taken into
custody or deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way
Rights: (1) to remain silent (2) to counsel and (3) to be informed of rights
**Right to counsel is intended to preclude the slightest coercion as would lead
the accused to admit something false. The lawyer should never prevent the
accused from freely and voluntarily speaking the truth (People v. Layuso)
The rules on custodial investigations do not apply when the confession is made
to a private individual because that situation would not be one of a custodial
investigation. (People v. Tawat)
A. Must be recited:
- You have a right to remain silent
- Anything you say or do will be used against you in court
- You have a right to consult with a lawyer and to have him during the
interrogation.
-If you are an indigent, a lawyer will be appointed to represent you.
B. Even if the person consents to answer questions without the assistance of
counsel, the moment he asks for a lawyer at any point in the investigation, the
interrogation must cease until an attorney is present.
C. If the foregoing protections and warnings are not demonstrated during the
trial to have been observed by the prosecution, no evidence obtained as a
result of the interrogation can be used against him. (Miranda v. Arizona)
-These rights become available when the investigation is no longer a general
inquiry into an unsolved crime but has begun to focus on a particular suspect,
the suspect has been taken into police custody, the police carryout a process
of interrogation that lends itself to eliciting incriminating statements; usually
after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his
freedom of action in any significant way.
WHEN ARE THE RIGHTS AVAILABLE (P. v. Tan)
1. After a person has been taken into custody
2. When a person is otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any
significant way (P. v. Caguioa)
3. When the investigation is being undertaken by the government with respect
to a criminal offense. (In P. v. Morado, a baranggay captains conversation with
the accused is part of an ongoing investigation. But in P. v. Zuela,when the
accused talked with a mayor AS CONFIDANT and not as a law enforcement
officer, his admission is admissible)
4. Signing of arrest report and booking sheets (P. v. Simon)
-not until there is a police investigation.
Ex: a person going through an audit does not have these rights, a person
presenting himself for his admission (voluntary surrender), Police line up
(unless there is a move to elicit admission), admission to someone not a
public officer (verbal confessions to a radio announcer)
The presumption of regularity of official acts does not apply t in-custody

confessions. In order for it to be admissible, the prosecution must show that
the constitutional safeguards were observed in obtaining the confession.
(People v. Tolentino)
**RA 7438 has extended the Constitutional guarantee to situations in which

an individual has not been formally arrested but has merely been invited for
questioning. (People v. Domantay; People v. Tan)
Miranda Rights:
WHEN DO THE RIGHTS END?
1A 2010
- The criminal process includes the investigation prior to the filing of charges,
the preliminary investigation and investigation after charges are filed, and the
period for trial. The rights under Section 12(1) were conceived for the first
phase, when the enquiry is under the control of the police officers.
Sec. 12(1) DOES NOT apply to persons under preliminary investigation or
already charged in court with a crime (people v. Ayson)
However, even after the charges are filed, if the police still attempt to extract
confessions or admissions outside of judicial supervision, section 12(1) should
still apply.
Police Line-Up
When petitioner was identified by the complainant at the police line-up, he had
not been held yet to answer for a criminal offense. The police line-up is not a
part of the custodial inquest; hence, he was not yet entitled to counsel. Thus,
it was held that when the process had not yet shifted from the investigatory to
the accusatory as when police investigation does not elicit a confession the
accused may not yet avail of the services of his lawyer.
Since petitioner in the course of his Identification in the police line-up had not
yet been held to answer for a criminal offense, he was, therefore, not deprived
of his right to be assisted by counsel because the accusatory process had not
yet set in.
While the Court finds no real need to afford a suspect the services of counsel
during a police line-up, the moment there is a move or even an urge of said
investigators to elicit admissions or confessions or even plain information
which may appear innocent or innocuous at the time, from said suspect, he
should then and there be assisted by counsel, unless he waives the right, but
the waiver shall be made in writing and in the presence of counsel. (Gamboa
v. Judge Cruz)
the inadmissibility of these out-of-court identifications does not render the incourt identification of accused-appellant inadmissible for being fruits of the
poisonous tree. (People v. Escordial)
Exceptions:
The accused was convicted on the strength of the testimonies of 3
eyewitnesses who positively identified him as the gunman. However, he
vigorously assails his out-of-court identification by these eyewitnesses.
Using the totality of circumstances test, the alleged irregularities cited by the
accused did not result in his misidentification nor was he denied due process.
There is nothing wrong in Leinos identification of the accused in an
unoccupied house in Forbes Park. The records reveal that this mode was
resorted to by the authorities for security reasons. The Leinos refused to have
the identification at the NBI office as it was cramped with people and with high
security risk. Leinos fear for his safety was not irrational. He and his
companions had been shot in cold blood in one of the exclusive, supposedly
safe subdivisions in the metropolis.
There is no hard and fast rule as to the place where suspects are identified by
witnesses. Identification may be done in open field. It is often done in
hospitals while the crime and the criminal are still fresh in the mind of the
victim (People v. Teehankee)
Other Exceptions: (1) investigation by an administrative body, (2)
spontaneous statements, (3) audit examination, (4) not in police custody, (5)
marked money, (6) booking sheets, (7) taking of pictures, (8) incidental to a
lawful arrest, (9) body examination, (10) preliminary investigation
- The constitutional right extends only to testimonial compulsion and not when
the body of the accused is proposed to be examined.
Ex: paraffin test
A person already under custodial investigation who is placed in a police line-up

is entitled to Section 12 rights. (People v. Macam)
Mahinay Case: has right to communicate with lawyer and family, has right to
waive any rights provided it is voluntary, knowingly and intelligently
As a rule, an accused is not entitled to the assistance of counsel in a police

line-up considering that such is usually not a part of the custodial inquest.
However, the case at bar is different inasmuch as accused-appellant was
already under custodial investigation when these out-of-court
identifications were conducted by the police.
We have thus ruled that any identification of an uncounseled accused made in
a police line-up, or in a show-up for that matter, after the start of the
custodial investigation is inadmissible as evidence against him. However
The 1987 Constitution covers both confessions and admissions
Admission acts, declarations or omissions of the party as to a relevant fact.

Confession declaration of the accused acknowledging his guilt to the
offense charged, or any offense necessarily included therein.
To be admissible:
1. Confession must be voluntary,
1A 2010
2.
3.
4.
5.
Made with the assistance of competent and independent counsel,

The confession must be express,
It must be in writing,
Signed or thumb marked.
- Advice of Police-provided counsel, telling the accused that tit would be better
for him to speak or tell the truth does not furnish any inducement, to render a
confession thereby obtained unless threats or promises are applied.
General Rule: Extra-judicial statements, as a rule, are admissible against their
respective declarants pursuant to the rule that the act, declaration or omission
of a party as to a relevant fact may be given in evidence against him.
However, the rule that an extra-judicial statement is evidence only against the
person making it, recognizes several exceptions:
Interlocking Confessions- When several people are charged with an
offense, and there could have been NO collusion between them regarding their
confessions, the fact that statements are in all material respects identical, is
confirmatory of the confession of the co-defendants, and is admissible
against other people implicated therein. They are also admissible as
circumstantial evidence against the persons implicated therein to show the
probability of the latters actual participation in the commission of the crime.
Illegal Confessions/Admissions are inadmissible against the source of the
confession BUT they are admissible against the person violating the
constitutional prohibition.
It is but natural for one who surrenders to the police to give reason or
explanation for his act of surrendering. If he voluntarily admits the killing and
surrendered precisely because he wanted to admit to the killing, the
constitutional rights to be informed of his right to silence and to counsel may
not be invoked. (People v. Taylaran)
Right to be informed of his rights
The right to be informed must be presumed to contemplate the transmission
of a meaningful information rather than just the ceremonial and perfunctory
recitation of an abstract constitutional principle. The officer is not only duty
bound to tell the person the right the latter is entitled, but also to explain their
effects in practical terms. (People v. Ramos, People v. Caguioa)
The right of a person to be informed implies a correlative obligation on the
part of the police investigator to explain, and contemplates an effective
communication that results in understanding what is conveyed. (People v.
Nicandro; People v. Pinlac)
Right to Competent and Independent Counsel

-A lawyer is deemed engaged by the accused when he(accused) never raised
any objection against the lawyers appointment.
-The accused may reject the counsel chosen for him and ask for another one
When the accused never raised any objection against the lawyers
appointment during the course of the investigation and the accused thereafter
subscribes to the veracity of his statement before the swearing officer, the
accused may now be deemed to have engaged the lawyer provided by the
investigators. (People v. Jerez; People v. Suarez)
The court, during trial, is not duty bound to appraise the accused that he has
the right to remain silent. It is counsel that should claim the right for him. If
counsel does not claim the right and calls the accused to the witness stand,
then he waives the right to be silent. (People v. Tampus)
Who are not independent counsel:
a. Special counsel, public or private prosecutor, counsel of the
police, or a municipal attorney whose interest is adverse to that
of the accused. (People v. Fabro)
b. A Mayor (People v. Talman)
c. A baranggay captain (People v. Tomaquin)
d. Any other whose interest may be adverse to that of the accused
Effective and Vigilant counsel defined
The right to counsel was denied Sunga during his execution of Exhibit Aadmission before the police on the ground that the counsel who assisted him,
Att. Agustin Rocamora, was the City Legal Officer of Puerto Pincesa.
The right to counsel involves more than just the presence of a lawyer in the
courtroom or the mere propounding of standard questions and objections;
rather it means an efficient and decisive legal assistance and not a simple
perfunctory representation.(People v. Sunga)
Waiver of Rights
- Must be done in writing and in the presence of counsel.
- The state must bring the person to a place where there is a lawyer
When the accused stated that that he needed no counsel, that he was going to
tell the truth, and did not ask for a lawyer, his confession is inadmissible. The
authorities failed to apprise him of his right to counsel when he wrote the
confession. An accuseds waiver of his rights and signification of willingness to
make a confession are ceremonies that require the presence of counsel.
1A 2010
(Morales v. Moncupa; People v. Galit; Demaisip v. CA)

Admissible and Inadmissible Evidence
- Only refers to extrajudicial confession or admission made during custodial
investigation, evidence gathered without counsel is admissible.
Ex: accused pointed out where the murder weapon is without counseladmissible. But if evidence is found through an extrajudicial confession
without Counsel- inadmissible
For in custody confessions to be admissible, the prosecution must show that
the constitutional safeguards were observed in obtaining the confession.
(Magtoto v. Manguera)
Infractions of the Miranda Rights render inadmissible only the extrajudicial
confession or admission made during the custodial investigation. The
admissibility of other evidence, provided they are relevant to the issue and is
not otherwise excluded by law or rules, is not affected even if obtained or
taken in the course of custodial investigation. (People v. Malimit)
Where a bloodstained knife is found as a consequence of uncounseled
extrajudicial confession, the knife is inadmissible as evidence because it is the
fruit of a constitutionally infirm interrogation. (Abale v. People)
What the Constitution prohibits is the use of physical or moral compulsion to
extort communication from the accused, but not an inclusion of his body in
evidence when it may be material. (Gutang v. People: on the admissibility of
urine samples as evidence)
May a receipt for property seized signed by the accused without being assisted
by counsel be admissible in evidence against him? No, this is tantamount to
an extra-judicial confession.
Signature in a booking sheet and arrest report- NOT an admission of guilt;
only proves the fact of the arrest.
Immunity against Self-Incrimination
The right not to be compelled to be a witness against himself may be invoked
not only in criminal proceedings but also in all other types of suits, including
forfeiture cases. What is controlling is not the character of the suit but the
nature of the proceedings. Should a person be compelled to be a witness
against himself, that person should be provided with immunity- immunity from
using the witness compelled testimony and its fruits in any manner in
connection with the criminal prosecution of the witness and immunity to the
witness from prosecution for an offense to which his compelled testimony
relates. If a person who testified is not offered immunity before they were
questioned, although that person did not invoke his right against selfincrimination in such proceeding, his testimony would be inadmissible as
evidence. (Galman v. Pamaran)
Section 12(2) No torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation
Prohibited because they vitiate truth and assault the dignity of the person.
SECTION 13: ALL PERSON, EXCEPT THOSE CHARGED WITH OFFENSES
PUNISHABLE BY RECLUSION PERPETUA, WHEN EVIDENCE OF GUILT
IS STRONG, SHALL, BEFORE CONVICTION, BE BAILABLE BY
SUFFICIENT SURETIES OR BE RELEASED ON RECOGNIZANCE AS MAY
BE PROVIDED BY LAW. THE RIGHT TO BAIL SHALL NOT BE IMPAIRED
EVEN WHEN THE PRIVILEGE OF THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS IS
SUSPENDED. EXCESSIVE BAIL SHALL NOT BE REQUIRED.
Bail mode short of confinement which would, with reasonable certainty,
insure the attendance of the accused at his trial; takes the form of a deposit of
money or its equivalent as a guarantee of attendance. Failure to appear would
forfeit the deposit.
Purpose
1. To honor the presumption of innocence until his guilt is prove beyond
reasonable doubt
2. To enable him to prepare hi defenses without being subject to punishment
prior to conviction. (Cortes v. Catral)
Bail has neither punitive nor revenue raising purpose. (Almeda v. Villaluz)
- Available to all persons detained, unless offense is punishable by Reclusion
Perpetua or Death when the evidence against the accused is strong (Bail is a
matter of discretion of the courts, so even persons who are not entitled CAN
be granted bail)
As a necessary consequence of the nature of a bail bond, a person admitted to
bail may be prevented by the court from leaving the country. A bail bond is
intended to make a person available anytime he is needed by the court.
(Manotoc, Jr. v. CA)
Imposing bail in excessive amount could render meaningless the right to bail.
Setting the ball in the amount of the civil liability is excessive. (Yap v. CA)
Limitations on right to bail:
1A 2010
(1) person claiming the right must be under actual detention;

(2) Generally, the right is available only to criminal cases
*** Bail does not grant the right to leave the country.
There is no constitutional right to bail when the following conditions concur:
1. Accused is charge with an offense punishable by reclusion perpetua
2. Evidence against him is strong. (Magno v Abbas)
** After conviction, bail is discretionary while the case is on appeal
** Even though there is no constitutional right, bail may still be granted
because the matter is discretionary with the court for good and valid reasons,
unless there is a statutory prohibition against it.
Since the loss of right (to bail) depends upon the quantum of evidence against
him, the loss of the right can be determined only after a hearing. (Marcos v.
Cruz)
Extradition CasesOn December 10, 1948, the UN General Assembly adopted the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights in which the right to life, liberty and all the other
fundamental rights of every person were proclaimed. Thus, in Mejoff v.
Director of Prisons, the SC, in granting bail to a prospective deportee,
held that under the Constitution, the principles set forth in that
Declaration are part of the law of the land.
If bail can be granted in deportation cases, we see no justification why it
should not also be allowed in extradition cases. Likewise, considering that the
UDHR applies to deportation cases, there is no reason why it cannot
be invoked in extradition cases. After all, both are administrative
proceedings where the innocence or guilt of the person detained is not in
issue.
Obviously, an extradition proceeding, while ostensibly administrative, bears all
earmarks of a criminal process. A potential extradite may be subjected to
arrest, to a prolonged restraint of liberty, and forced to transfer to the
demanding state following the proceedings. Temporary detention may
be a necessary step in the process of extradition, but the length of time of the
detention should be reasonable. Records show that Munoz had been
detained forover two (2) years without having been convicted of
anycrime.
The time-honored principle of pacta sunt servanda demands that the
Philippines honor its obligations under the Extradition Treaty it entered into
with the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. However, it does not
necessarily mean that in keeping with its treaty obligations, the Philippines
should diminish a potential extraditees rights to life, liberty, and due process.
More so, where these rights are guaranteed also by international conventions,
to which the Philippines is a party. We should not deprive an extraditee of his
right to apply for bail, provided that a certain standard for the grant is
satisfactorily met. (Government of HK v. Olalia)
**Extradition is not a criminal proceeding. Hence, since bail is available only in
criminal proceedings, a respondent in an extradition proceeding is not entitled
to bail. He should apply for bail in the court where he will be tried. (United
States v. Judge Puruganan, 2002)
Factors
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
determining bail:
Ability to post bail
Nature of the offense
imposable penalty,
character and reputation of the accused,
health of the accused,
strength of the evidence,
probability of appearing for the trial,
forfeiture of bonds,
whether accused was a fugitive when arrested,
If under bond in another case. (Sunga v. Judge Salud)
Military under Court Marshall-A soldier under court martial does not enjoy
the right to bail because of the disciplinary structure of the military and
because soldiers are allowed the fiduciary right to bear arms and can cause
great havoc. Furthermore, tradition has recognized the non-existence of the
right to bail. Equal protection cannot be invoked because it only applies to
those who are equally situated. (Commendador v. de Villa)
Excessive Bail- Where the right to bail exists, it should not be rendered
nugatory by requiring a sum that is excessive. If the Constitution did not
prohibit his, the right to bail becomes meaningless. The sole permissible
function of money bail is to assure the accused's presence at trial, and
declared that bail set at a higher figure than an amount reasonably calculated
to fulfill thus purpose is "excessive"(De La Camara v. Enage)
A judge cannot require a strictly cash bond and disallow an attempt to post a
surety bond for provisional liberty. The burden imposed by requiring a strictly
cash bond can make the bail constitutionally excessive. (Almeda v. Villaluz)
The accused must invoke such right then bail hearing will commence
following due process
1A 2010
Duties of the Trial Judge in an Application for Bail

1) Notify the prosecutor of the hearing for bail
2) Conduct a hearing for such application, even if prosecution does not
present evidence
3) Decide if the evidence of guilt is strong
4) If the evidence is not strong, grant bail (Basco v. Rapatalo)
(Evidence is strong when there is evident guilt or a great presumption of guilt)
Proof evident/ presumption great
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
Strong, clear, and convincing to an unbiased judgment and excludes all
reasonable probability of any other conclusion.
Test is not whether the evidence establishes guilt beyond reasonable
doubt but rather whether it shows evident guilt or a great presumption of
guilt. (People v. Judge Cabral)
When Prosecution does not present evidence
Even when the prosecutor refuses to adduce evidence in opposition to the
application to grant and fix bail, the court may ask the prosecution such
questions as would ascertain the strength of the states evidence or judge the
adequacy of the amount of bail. (Tolentino v. Judge Camanao, Jr.)
Recognizance A means, aside from bail, where an accused may obtain
provisional liberty.
It is an obligation of record entered into before a court guaranteeing the
appearance o the accused for trial. It is in the nature of a contract between
the surety and the State. (People v. Abner)
SECTION 14: (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 PROVEN, 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
A. Rights of the Accused
Due Process
A judge may replace another judge in rendering decision even if he only
partially heard the testimony of the witnesses
The replacement judge may base his judgment completely on cold record
before him, in the same manner appellate courts do. (People v. Narajos)
Since administrative agencies are not bound to follow the rules of criminal
procedure, they may not impose criminal penalties. (Scotys Department
Store v. Micaller)
due process = that procedure established by law to fully protect life,
liberty, and property of the citizens of the State. (Nuez v.
Sandiganbayan)
Pre-arraignment duties of Judge
1. Inform right to counsel before arraignment
2. Ask if he desires aid of counsel
3. Grant reasonable time to do so
4. If none, court assigns a de officio
Military Tribunal
- SC, generally, has no supervisory authority over military courts. (Kuroda v.
Jalandoni)
-But by virtue of The National Security Code (PD 1498), the SC does not
review decisions of military commissions but of the Court of Military Appeals in
cases appealed to the later by military commissions. (Buscayno & Sison v.
Military Commissions)
- Military Tribunals cannot try civilians, even if civil courts are closed during
Martial Law. Civilians are entitled to Judicial process. Military Tribunals belong
to the Executive department. (Olaguer v. Military Commission)
- Once jurisdiction is acquired, a person who is dropped from the military can
still be tried by military tribunals. Jurisdiction, once acquired, is not lost upon
the instance of the parties but continue until termination of the case. (Abadilla
v. Ramos)
-a military commission or tribunal cannot try and exercise jurisdiction, even
during the period of martial law, over civilians for offenses allegedly
committed by them as long as the civil courts are open and functioning, and
1A 2010
that any judgment rendered by such body relating to a civilian is null and void
for lack of jurisdiction on the part of the military tribunal concerned. (Olaguer
v. Military Commission)
prima facie evidence of guilt of the accused and shift the burden of proof
provided there be a rational connection between the facts provided and the
ultimate fact presumed. (People v. Mingoa; Banares v. CA)
Due process of law demands that in all criminal prosecutions (where the
accused stands to lose either his life or his liberty), the accused shall be
entitled to, among others, a trial. The trial contemplated by the due process
clause of the Constitution, in relation to the Charter as a whole, is a trial by
Judicial Process, not by executive or military process. Military Commissions or
Tribunals, by whatever name they are called, are not courts within the
Philippine judicial system. (Olaguer v. Military)
Right to be Heard
Elements of right to be heard
1. To be present at the trial
2. Right to counsel
3. Right to an impartial judge
4. Right to confrontation
5. Right to compulsory process to secure attendance of witness
Presumption of Innocence
- Without conviction, a person is entitled to reinstatement.
Right to be present- Trial in Absentia

Scope of right to be present at the trial between arraignment and
promulgation of sentence
Condition for waiver after arraignment, he may be compelled to appear for
identification
-BP 52: The filing of charges for the commission of such crimes before a civil
court of military tribunal after preliminary investigation shall be prima facie
evidence of such fact (disqualification) is invalid because the prima facie
evidence makes the accused suffer as if already guilty even before trial.
(Dumlao v. Comelec)
Preventive suspension is not a penalty therefore no violation of right to be
presumed innocent
- There are some cases in which prima facie evidence establishes a rational
connection to guilt.
i.e. In Malversation, inability to produce the money entrusted to public official,
although prima facie evidence of guilt, may still be disproved by contradictory
evidence (shifts the burden of proof to the accused)
The State, having the right to declare which acts are criminal, within certain
well-defined limitations, has the right to specify what act(s) shall constitute a
crime, as well as what proof shall constitute prima facie evidence of guilt, and
then to put upon the defendant the burden of showing that such act(s) are
innocent and are not committed with any criminal intent or intention. (US v.
Luling)
The provision of the Election Code that the filing of charges for the
commission of crimes before a civil or military court shall be prima facie
evidence of the commission of an act of disloyalty to the state is void, as it
condemns a person before he is finally heard. (Dumlao v. Comelec)
The presumption of innocence may be overcome by a contrary presumption
founded upon the experience of human conduct. Legislature may provide foe
Requisites of Trial in Absentia:

1. Accused already arraigned
2. Duly notified of the trial
3. Failure to appear is unjustifiable
(Parada v. Veneracion)
Constitution now unqualifiedly permits trial in absentia even of capital
offenses, provided that (1)after arraignment he may be compelled to appear
for the purpose of Identification by the witnesses of the prosecution, or
provided (2) he unqualifiedly admits in open court after his arraignment that
he is the person named as the defendant in the case on trial.
Reason for requiring the presence of the accused, despite his waiver, is, if
allowed to be absent in all the stages of the proceedings without giving the
People's witnesses the opportunity to Identify him in court, he may in his
defense say that he was never Identified as the person charged in the
information and, therefore, is entitled to an acquittal. (People v. Presiding
Judge)
Trial in Absentia of the accused in case of his non-appearance after
arraignment despite due notice simply means that he thereby waives his right
to meet the witnesses face to face, among others. An express waiver of
appearance after arraignment is of the same effect. However, such waiver of
appearance and trial in absentia does not mean that the prosecution is
thereby deprived of its right to require the presence of the accused for
purposes of identification by its witnesses, which is vital for the conviction of
the accused. (Carredo v. People)
1A 2010
would be discretionary with the trial court, which discretion will not be
interfered with in the absence of grave abuse. (Libuit v. People)
Right to Counsel
Counsel de Officio- may be given by the courts during arraignment.
Stenographic notes showing that the courts failed to offer counsel to the
accused is not enough to overturn a conviction. The presumption is that the
courts followed proper procedure.
The right to counsel is necessary and indispensable:
- During Custodial Investigation to prevent the use of duress and other undue
influence in extracting confessions.
- Even after the conviction of the accused; even when the case is on appeal.
- When accused gives a qualified plea.
- When a sworn statement was extracted from the accused.
(People v. Holgado)
Duties imposed on the judge by this right:
If the defendant appears without counsel he must be informed by the court
that he has a right to have counsel before being arraigned, and must be asked
if he desires the aid of counsel. If he desires and is unable to employ counsel
the court must assign counsel to defend him. This is a right which the
defendant should not be deprived of, and the failure of the court to assign
counsel or, after counsel has been assigned, to require him to perform this
duty by appearing and defending the accused would be sufficient cause for the
reversal of the case. (People v. Gimeno)
Right to counsel is right to qualified counsel. (Meaning member of the Bar)
Pre-arraignment duties of the Judge
1. to inform the accused that he has the right to have his own counsel
before being arraigned;
2. after giving such information, to ask accused whether he desires the aid
of counsel;
3. if he so desires to procure the services of counsel, the court must grant
him reasonable time to do so; and
4. if he so desires to have counsel but is unable to employ one, the court
must assign counsel de oficio to defend him. (People v. Agbayani)
The duty to appoint a counsel de oficio is mandatory only t the time of
arraignment. No such duty exists where the accused has proceeded to
arraignment and then trial with a counsel of his own choice. (Libuit v. People)
At most, the appointment of a counsel de oficio in a situation like the present
case [counsel ex parte consistently failed to appear for cross examination]
There is no denial of the right to counsel when a counsel de oficio was

appointed during the absence of the accuseds counsel ex parte. (People v.
Larraaga)
An accused who sought to withdraw his appeal to the SC should not be
allowed on the ground that he cannot afford counsel. He should be given
counsel de oficio instead. (People v. Rio)
Right to be Informed
The object of a written accusation
1. Furnish the accused with such a description of the charge against him
as will enable him to make a defense.
2. Avail himself of his conviction or acquittal for protection against
further prosecution for the same cause.
3. To inform the court of the facts alleged, so that it may decide
whether they are sufficient in law to support a conviction, if one
should be had. (U.S. v. Karelsen)
In order that this requirement be satisfied, facts must be stated, not
conclusions of law. The Complaint must contain a specific allegation of
every fact and circumstance necessary to constitute the crime charged
(US v. Karelsen)
Criminal
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
information must contain:

name of the accused,
designation given to the offense by the statute,
acts or omission done constituting the offense,
Name of the offended party,
Approximate time and date of the commission of the offense
The place of the commission of the offense. (People v. Quitlong)
Offense not Alleged in the Information

- A person cannot be charged more than that contained in the information.
Qualifying circumstances must be alleged in the information as well.
i.e. only 2 counts of rape were alleged in the charges. Although 6 counts of
rape were proven during trial, the accused can only be convicted on the 2
counts alleged in the information.
The appellant cannot be convicted of the complex crime of homicide with
assault upon an agent of a person in authority because the information filed
against the appellant did not allege the essential elements of assault that the
accused then knew that, before or at the time of the commission of the
1A 2010
assault, the victim was an agent of the person in authority. (People v. Regala)
Disregarding the objectionable phrasing that would complex rebellion with
murder and multiple frustrated murder, that indictment is to be read as
charging simple rebellion. The complaint of petitioners counsel that he is
charged with a crime that does not exist in the statute books, while technically
correct so far as the court has ruled that rebellion may not be complexed with
other offenses committed on the occasion thereof, must therefore be
dismissed as a mere flight of rhetoric. The information does indeed charge the
petitioner with a crime defined and punished by the Revised Penal Code:
simple rebellion. (Enrile v. Salazar)
An accused charged under Arts. 293, 294, 296 of the RPC may be convicted
under Art 335 provided that the information alleges facts under Art. 335. the
real question or issue is whether or not he performed the acts alleged in the
information in the manner therein set forth. If he did, it is of no consequence
to him, either as a matter of procedure or of substantive right, how the law
denominates the crime which those acts constitute. (People v. Labado)
An accused charged with only one offense of rape may not be convicted of six
counts of rape. He cannot be held liable for more than what he was charged
with. (People v. Ranido)
Date and time of the Offense: A person need not specify the exact time of the
commission of the offense unless time is an essential element of that offense.
-approximation sufficiently meets the requirement of law.
Right to Speedy Trial
Elements to be considered:
1. Length of delay
2. Reason for delay
3. The effort of the defendant to assert his right
4. Prejudice caused to the defendant
Speedy Disposition: Is usually relative to the circumstances of the particular
case. Counting of delay after filing of the information
NOTE: Dismissal on the grounds of speedy trial is the same as an acquittal
and is a bar to another prosecution for the same offense (Double Jeopardy
attaches)
Speedy trial means one that can be had as soon after indictment is filed as the
prosecution can with reasonable diligence prepare for trial.
Length of delay is certainly a factor to consider; but other factors must
also be considered such as the reason for the delay, effort of the
defendant to assert his right, and the prejudice caused the defendant.
The right of an accused to speedy trial should not be utilized to deprive the
State of a reasonable opportunity of fairly indicting criminals. (People v. Gines)
Relief in Postponements without good cause-Where a prosecuting officer,
without good cause, secures postponements of the trial of a defendant against
his protest beyond a reasonable period of time, the accused is entitled to relief
by a proceeding in Mandamus to compel a dismissal of the information, or if
he be restrained of his liberty, by habeas corpus to obtain his freedom. (Conde
v. Rivera)
Right to Impartial Trial
Trial by Publicity- To have prejudice to due process, there must be allegation
and proof that judges have been duly influenced by the publicity.
To warrant a finding of prejudicial publicity, there must be allegation and proof
that the judges have been unduly influenced, not simply that they might be,
by the barrage of publicity. Petitioners cannot rely on the subliminal effects of
publicity. (Webb v. de Leon; People v. Teehankee)
Outside of pecuniary interest, relationship, or previous participation in the
matter that calls for adjudication, there may be other causes that could
conceivably erode the trait of objectivity, thus calling for inhibition. If any such
should make its appearance and prove difficult to resist, the better course for
a judge is to disqualify himself. (Mateo Jr. v. Villaluz)
It is oft-times expedient or necessary in the due and faithful administration of
justice for the presiding judge to re-examine a witness in order that his
judgment when rendered may rest upon a full and clear understanding of the
facts. (People v. Manalo: when a judge intervened in the cross-examination)
Right to a Public Trial
Trial is public when attendance is open to all irrespective of relationship to
defendant.
However, when the evidence presented may be characterized as offensive to
decency or public morals, the proceeding may be limited to friends, relatives
and counsel. (Garcia v. Domingo)
This right serves as a safeguard against any attempt to employ our court as
instruments of persecution. The knowledge that every criminal trial is subject
to contemporaneous review in the forum of public opinion is an effective
1A 2010
restraint on possible abuse of judicial power. (Garcia v. Domingo)

Right to Cross-Examine; meet witness face-to-face
Purpose of right to confrontation:
1. Afford the accused an opportunity to test the testimony of the witness by
cross-examination
2. for the judge to observe the deportation of the witness.
Exception to right of confrontation: (1) dying declaration (2) trial in absentia
NOTE: Right to Confrontation is not available in preliminary investigation.
Accused is not entitled as a matter of right to be present during the
preliminary examination nor to cross-examine the witnesses presented
against him before his arrest
This right is available during trial which only begins upon arraignment
there is no right to confrontation against informants who aided in the
arrest or informants who are not witnesses
Section 7 of the Special Rules of Procedure prescribed for Sharias courts
provide that if the plaintiff has no evidence to prove his claim, the defendant
shall take an oath and judgment shall be rendered in his favor by the Court.
Should defendant refuse to take an oath, plaintiff can affirm his claim under
oath, in which case judgment shall be rendered in his favor. Said provision
effectively deprives a litigant of his right to due process. It denies ap arty his
right to confront the witness against him and to cross-examine them. It
should have no place even in the Special Rules of Procedure in the Shariah
courts of the country. (Tampar v. Usman)
Requisites for Suspension of Privilege:

1. Existence of Actual invasion or Rebellion
2. Public Safety requires the suspension
(does not come with suspension of Bail)
The President has the power to suspend the privilege, subject to the limits
in Article VII, sec. 18
A respondent in a petition for habeas corpus have the burden to prove that
they had indeed released the detainees if their invoking it as their defense. If
the respondents have not satisfied the burden, the case must be referred to
the CHR. (Dizon v. Eduardo)
SECTION 16: ALL PERSONS SHALL HAVE THE RIGHT TO A SPEEDY
DISPOSITION OF THEIR CASES BEFORE ALL JUDICIAL, QUASIJUDICIAL OR ADMINISTRATIVE BODIES
Compulsory Process
Compulsory process is not only to secure the attendance of witnesses in
his behalf but also to secure the production of evidence in his behalf.
Waiver of Rights
Presumption is always against the waiver
Prosecution must prove with strongly convincing evidence that the
accused willingly and voluntarily submitted his confession and knowingly
and deliberately manifested that he was not interested in having a lawyer
assist him during the taking of that confession. (People v. Jara)
SECTION 15: THE PRIVILEGE OF THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS SHALL
NOT BE SUSPENDED EXCEPT IN CASES OF INVASION OR REBELLION
WHEN PUBLIC SAFETY REQUIRES IT
commanding him to produce the body of the prisoner at a designated

time and place, with the day and cause of his caption and detention, to
do, submit to, and receive whatever the court or judge awarding the writ
shall consider in that behalf
- There must be a deprivation of personal liberty to begin with.
Privilege of the writ of habeas corpus right to have an immediate
determination of the legality of the deprivation of physical liberty.
The writ is never suspended, it is the privilege f the writ that may be
suspended.
NOTE: Speedy trial in Section 14 covers only the trial phase of criminal
cases whereas Section 16 covers all phases of any judicial, quasijudicial or administrative proceeding.
Remedy if there has been unreasonable delay in the resolution of a case:
Dismissal through mandamus (Roque v. Ombudsman)
In the application of the constitutional guaranty of the right to speedy

disposition of cases, particular regard must be taken of the facts and
circumstances peculiar to each case. Well-settled is the rule that the right to a
speedy disposition of cases, like the right to a speedy trial, is deemed violated
only when the proceeding is attended by vexatious, capricious, and oppressive
delay. In the determination of whether or not that right has been violated, the
factors that may be considered and balanced are: the length of delay, the
reasons for such delay, the assertion or failure to assert such right by the
accused, and the prejudice caused by the delay.
Writ of Habeas Corpus writ directed to the person detaining another
1A 2010
The concept of speedy disposition of cases is flexible and is consistent with

reasonable delay. (Caballero v. Alfonso, Jr.)
Only natural persons are protected by this right; juridical entities, like
corporations, are not.
The right to a speedy trial as well as other rights conferred by the Constitution
or statute, except when otherwise expressly so provided by law, may be
waived. It must therefore be asserted. Thus, if there was a delay in the trial
of the case, petitioners are not entirely without blame.
Stage when right against self incrimination may be asserted: from the
moment he is asked to testify.
State Witness/ Accused
Ordinary Witness
Furthermore, the right of an accused to a speedy trial is guaranteed to him by

the Constitution but the same shall not be utilized to deprive the State of a
reasonable opportunity of fairly indicting criminals. A party's individual rights
should not work against and preclude the people's equally important right to
public justice. (Guiani v. Sandiganbayan)
SECTION 17: NO PERSON SHALL BE COMPELLED TO BE A WITNESS
AGAINST HIMSELF
Purpose: To prevent perjury and confession under duress.
A. Guarantee against Self-Incrimination
When is a question incriminating?
o
A crime may contain two or more elements, a question would be
incriminating if it tends to establish even one of the elements
o
Testifying to a fact which would be a necessary link in a chain of
evidence to prove the commission of the crime
Right applies only to testimonial compulsion, not object evidence (Villaflor

v. Summers)
One may not be compelled to produce a sample of his writing as evidence

since it is something more than a moving body but also requires
application of intelligence and attention (Beltran v. Samson)
Documentary Evidence:
- Compulsory production of private books and documents of the owner is
compelling him to be a witness against himself.
- The privilege which exists as to private papers, cannot be maintained in
relation to records required by law to be kept in order that there may be
suitable information of transactions which are the appropriate subjects of
governmental regulation and the enforcement of restrictions validly
established.
Criminal Case
Civil Case
Administrative
Case
He may refuse to take the

witness stand during the trial or
custodial investigation.
If on trial, one may refuse to
answer
He may not refuse to take the
witness stand.
He may refuse to answer
incriminating question.
He may refuse to take the
witness stand if it is criminal in
nature
like
forfeiture
or
deportation
He may not refuse

to take the witness
stand.
He may refuse to
answer an
incriminating
question
A penal law that provides for a higher penalty against the accused who refuses
to testify or make statements that would be tantamount to an admission of
guilt violates the right against self-incrimination. The accused has a right to
rely on the presumption of innocence until prosecution proves the elements of
the crime charged against him. Silence cannot be taken as proof against him.
(US v. Navarro)
What is prohibited by the constitutional guarantee is the use of physical or
moral compulsion to extort communication from the witness, not an inclusion
of his body in evide when it is material. Thus, substance emitting from the
body of the defendant can be received as evidence. (US v. Tan Teng; US. vs.
Ong; Villaflor v. Summers; US v. Ong SiuHong)
A drug test, urine test, pregnancy test, blood test, disease test does not fall
under the prohibition against self incrimination.
Writing is not a purely mechanical act, because it requires the application of
intelligence and attention, therefore, it constitutes an evidence against the
accused. Evidence that requires a positive intelligent act from the accused falls
under the right against self incrimination. (Beltran v. Samson; Bermudez v.
Castillo)
Compelling a witness-accused to take the stand is a violation of his right
1A 2010
against self incrimination. His testimony may not be admissible against him.
(Chavez v. CA, the Ford Thunderbird case)
THE USE OR SUBSTANDARD OR INADEQUATE PENAL FACILITIES

UNDER SUBHUMAN CONDITIONS SHALL BE DEALT WITH BY LAW
Compelling the accused in an Anti-graft proceeding to take the stand for the
prosecution against him against his will is a violation of his right against selfincrimination. (Cabal v. Kapunan, Jr.)
A. Excessive fines
A fine is excessive when it is disproportionate to the circumstance of the
offense
The right against self incrimination extends even to administrative proceedings

which possess a criminal or penal aspect. (Pascual Jr. v. Board of Medical
Examiners)
B. Cruel, Degrading or Inhuman Punishment

Mere severity of the punishment does not make it cruel or unusual. It
must be flagrantly and plainly oppressive, wholly disproportionate to the
nature of the offense as to shock the moral sense of the community
(People v. Estoista)
Right against self-incrimination can only be invoked in penal/criminal

proceedings. It cannot be invoked in a Legislative Inquiry. (Standard
Chartered v. Senate)
SECTION 18:
(1) NO PERSON SHALL BE DETAINED SOLELY BY REASON OF HIS
POLITICAL BELIEFS AND ASPIRATIONS
(2) NO INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE IN ANY FORM SHALL EXIST EXCEPT
AS A PUNISHMENT FOR A CRIME THE PARTY SHALL HAVE BEEN DULY
CONVICTED
Involuntary Servitude every condition of enforced or compulsory service
of one to another no matter under what form such servitude may be
disguised.
Exceptions: (1) if such is punishment where the party is convicted, (2) in
the interest of national defense, citizens may be compelled to render
personal military or civil service, (3) a return to work order, (4) merchants
and marines compelled to remain until the end of voyage, (5) a posse
comitatus a male at a certain age may be validly pressed into service
for the apprehension of criminals through legitimate exercise of police
power, (6) parental authority
SECTION 19: (1) EXCESSIVE FINES SHALL NOT BE IMPOSED, NOR
CRUEL, DEGRADING OR INHUMAN PUNISHMENT INFLICTED. NEITHER
SHALL DEATH PENALTY BE IMPOSED, UNLESS, FOR COMPELLING
REASONS INVOLVING HEINOUS CRIMES, THE CONGRESS PROVIDES
FOR IT. ANY DEATH PENALTY ALREADY IMPOSED SHALL BE REDUCED
TO RECLUSION PERPETUA
(2) THE
EMPLOYMENT
OF PHYSICAL, PSYCHOLOGICAL,
OR
DEGRADING PUNISHMENT AGAINST ANY PRISONER OR DETAINEE, OR
Guides to determine if it is cruel and unusual

1. Punishment must not be so severe as to be degrading to human
dignity
2. It must not be arbitrary
3. It must not be unacceptable to contemporary society
4. It must not be excessive
Heinous Crime heinous for being grievous, odious, and hateful offenses and
which by reason of their inherent or manifest wickedness, viciousness, atrocity
and perversity are repugnant and outrageous to the common standards and
norms of decency and morality in a just, civilized and ordered society
The power of the State to impose the death penalty is implied in section 1 of
Article 3. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due
process of law. Section 19 merely provides the limit to that plenary power of
the State.
The congress has the power to restore the death penalty which merely
requires that:
(1) the congress define or describe what is meant by heinous crimes;
(2) that congress specify and penalize by death only crimes that
qualify as heinous in accordance with the definition or description set
in the death penalty bill
(3) the congress should be singularly motivated by compelling reason
involving heinous crimes. (People v. Echegaray)
The punishment of death by itself is neither cruel nor unusual. It is only cruel
when it involves lingering death. (People v. Echegaray)
1A 2010
SECTION 20: NO PERSON SHALL BE IMPRISONED FOR DEBT OR

NONPAYMENT OF A POLL TAX
4.
SECOND JEOPARDY ATTACHED
Poll Tax cedula tax or residence tax

BP 22
The gravamen of the offense punished by BP 22 is the act of issuing a
worthless check or a check that is dishonored. It is not the nonpayment of an
obligation that is penalized. The thrust of the law is to prohibit, under pain of
penal sanctions, the making of worthless checks. (People v. Lozano)
SECTION 21: NO PERSON SHALL BE TWICE PUT IN JEOPARDY OF
PUNISHMENT FOR THE SAME OFFENSE. IF AN ACT IS PUNISHED BY A
LAW AND AN ORDINANCE, CONVICTION OR ACQUITTAL UNDER
EITHER SHALL CONSTITUTE A BAR TO ANOTHER PROSECUTON FOR
THE SAME ACT
Under the first sentence, one can be charged for the same
act if it constitutes at least two different offenses under two statutes or
two ordinances. But this does no apply to continuing crimes
Verbal dismissal is
not final until written and signed by
a judge
Same Evidence Test- whether the
evidence needed for one case will
support a conviction in the other.
Debt liability to pay money growing our of contract, express or implied

A person may only be imprisoned for fraudulent debt if:
(1) The fraudulent debt constitutes a crime (estafa)
(2) The debtor has been duly convicted
consent of the accused

Dismissal on the merits
2.
3.
4.
5.
Identical
In the attempted or frustrated
form of another
Necessarily includes
Necessarily included
A. Attachment of Jeopardy
The rule against double jeopardy protects the accused not against the peril of
second punishment, but against being again tried for the same offense.
(People v. Ylagan)
Requisites for Valid Defense of Double Jeopardy:
1) First Jeopardy must have attached prior to the 2nd
- Evidence of self-defense amounts to withdrawal of his original plea.
- A defective complaint does NOT attach jeopardy upon a grant of a
motion to quash.
- If the Court has NO jurisdiction, jeopardy shall not attach.
2) First Jeopardy must have TERMINATED
FIRST JEOPARDY ATTACHED
1.
2.
3.
4.
FIRST JEOPARDY TERMINATED
Good Indictment
Before a competent Court
After arraignment
After a valid plea
Defective
complaint
did not pace the accused in first
jeopardy
1. By Acquittal
2. Final Conviction
3. Dismissal
without
express
B. Termination of Jeopardy
Double Jeopardy cannot be invoked as a defense when the other case used as
the basis of the first Jeopardy has not been terminated. (Bulaong v. People)
Termination shall bar:
a. Another prosecution for the offense charged.
b. Any attempt to commit the same,
c. Or frustration thereof,
d. Or for any offense which necessarily includes or is
necessarily included in the complaint/information.
However, an appeal by the prosecution from the Order of Dismissal by the
trial court shall not constitute Double Jeopardy if:
1. Dismissal is made upon motion, or with the express consent of the
1A 2010
defendant.
The dismissal is not an acquittal based upon consideration of the
evidence or the merits of the case.
3. The question to be passed upon by the appellate court is purely legal
so that should the dismissal be found incorrect, the case would have
to be remanded to the court of origin for further proceedings, in order
to determine guilt/innocence of the defendant.
Note: a verbal dismissal is not final until written down and signed by the
Judge.
2.
3) The 2nd Jeopardy must be for the same offense as that in the first
Appeals:
Judgment of Acquittal immediately final. (decided on merits)
Judgment of Conviction final when the period for appeal has lapsed or
sentence is served or right to appeal is waived or applied for probation
Waiver or Estoppel
-If an accused files to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction, it is made via
his own waiver, therefore 1st jeopardy does NOT attach.
- If there is consent to a provisional dismissal by the accused, jeopardy does
not attach.
No jeopardy in: ordinary appeal, fact-finding, certiorari, impeachment,
legislation in aid of legislation
C. Rule on Supervening Facts
Supervening Event When the 2nd offense was not in existence at the time of
the first prosecution, for the simple reason that in such a case there is no
possibility for the accused to be convicted for an offense that was then
inexistent.
Supervening FactWhere after the first prosecution, a new fact supervenes for
which the defendant is responsible, which changes the character of the
offense, and, together with the facts existing at the time, constitutes a new
and distinct offense, there is no double jeopardy. To determine double
jeopardy, it is essential to prove the existence of both offenses during the
pendency of the first prosecution. The second charge was inexistent in this
case at that time because the victim was still alive. There was a supervening
fact in this case calling for the amendment of the information. (People v. Melo)
But if reason for the amendment of the charge was already existing during the
first examination but was not considered in the charge because of the
negligence of the examiner, then double jeopardy may attach because there is
no Supervening event. (People v. Buling)
D. Same Offenses
- Offenses need not be the same, but they should come from the same act.
BUT, when one act violates two different statutes or two different provisions
of a statute. If one act results in 2 different offenses, prosecution under one is
not a bar to prosecution under the other.
A special law prohibiting the illegal possession of firearms, even if it provides
for a higher penalty if the weapon was used in a homicide/murder, does not
create a first jeopardy to the prosecution for the homicide/murder. Double
Jeopardy may only be invoked for the same offense or identical offenses.
A simple act may be an offense against two different provisions of law. If one
provision requires proof of an additional fact that is not included in the other,
an acquittal or conviction under one does not bar prosecution for the other.
The accused cannot plead one as a bar to another. ( People v Tiozon)
E. Ordinance and Statute
If an act is punished by law and an ordinance, conviction or acquittal under
either shall constitute a bar of to another prosecution for the same act.
(People v. Relova)
When the dismissal or termination of the case is brought about at the instance
of the accused, there is no double jeopardy.
F. Applied to impeachment cases:
Estrada cannot claim that the impeachment proceeding was terminated on its
merits and that there was a failure to prosecute him. By resigning, he
consented to the termination of the impeachment case against him. (Estrada v
Desierto)
SECTION 22: NO EX POST FACTO LAW OR BILL OF ATTAINDER SHALL

BE ENACTED
Ex Post Facto Law
(a) one which makes an action done before the passing of the law and
which was innocent when done criminal and punishes such action,
(b) which aggravates a crime or makes it greater than when it was
committed,
(c) which changes the punishment and inflicts a greater punishment,
1A 2010
(d) which alters the legal rules of evidence and receive less or different
testimony than the law required at the time of the commission of the
offense,
(e) assumes to regulate civil rights and remedies only but in effect
imposes a penalty or deprivation of a right which when done was lawful,
(f) deprives a person accused of a crime of some lawful protection to
which he has become entitled.
NOTE: It only prohibits retrospective penal laws (laws which impose a
penalty or prescribes a burden equivalent to a penalty)
- DOES NOT apply to substantive laws like the expansion of jurisdiction of
a certain court.
Bill of Attainder - a legislative act which inflicts punishment without judicial
trial
Elements:
a. There must be a law,
b. Which imposes a penal burden on a named individual or
easily ascertainable members of a group,
c. imposed directly by the law without judicial trial.
A Law punishing any person who knowingly, willfully and by overt acts
affiliates himself with, becomes or remains a member of the Communist Party
or of any other similar subversive organization is not a Bill of Attainder
because it does not dispense with Judicial determination of the guilt of the
accused. Intent still needs to be proven in court. (People v. Ferrer)
A bill of attainder is a legislative act which inflicts punishment without judicial
trial. Its essence is the substitution of a legislative for a judicial determination
of guilt.
The EO is not a Bill of Attainder because it makes it perfectly clear that any
judgment of guilt in the amassing acquisition of 'ill-gotten wealth' is to be
handed down by a judicial tribunal, in this case the Sandiganbayan. (Virata v.
Sandiganbayan)
The retroactive application of RA 8249, which expands the jurisdiction of the
Sandiganbayan, cannot be considered as an ex post facto law. It is not a penal
law but a substantive law on jurisdiction. Only the retroactive application of a
penal law can be considered as an ex post facto law. (Lacson v. Executive
Secretary)
ARTICLE IV: CITIZENSHIP
SECTION 1: THE FOLLOWING ARE CITIZENS OF THE PHILIPPINES

(1) THOSE WHO ARE CITIZENS OF THE PHILIPPINES AT THE TIME
OF THE ADOPTION OF THIS CONSTITUTION
(2) THOSE WHOSE FATHERS OR MOTHERS ARE CITIZEN OF THE
PHILIPPINES
(3) THOSE BORN BEFORE JANUARY 17, 1973 OR FILIPINO
MOTHER, WHO ELECT PHILIPPINE CITIZENSHIP UPON
REACHING THE AGE OF MAJORITY; AND
(4) THOSE WHO ARE NATURALIZED IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW
Citizenship personal and more or less permanent membership in a
political community.
Modes of Acquiring Citizenship: 1. Jus sanguinis on the basis of

blood; 2. Jus soli basis of place of birth; 3. Naturalization legal act of
adopting an alien and clothing him with the privilege of a native born. We
follow Jus sanguinis and naturalization.
Citizenship makes no distinction between legitimate or illegitimate

children if lineage is clear (Tecson v. COMELEC)
Child born under the 1973 or 1987 Constitution of Filipina mother and
an alien father (a) if the mother is still a citizenship at the time of birth,
he is a natural born (b) if the mother has changed citizenship, need to
naturalize
Kinds of Naturalization law: General, Special, Mass, General law

applied through combination of administrative process and presidential
legislative process, administrative
o
Procedural requirements: declaration of intention, filing of
petition, hearing and initial judgment, period of probation,
rehearing and final judgment
o
Substantive requirements: born or residing in the country
since birth, 18 years above, GMC and believes in the
principles of the constitution, must received primary and
secondary education to a school recognized by DECS, must
have known trade, business, profession or occupation, able
to read, write, speak Filipino, must have mingled with
citizens and evinced desire to learn
A natural born citizen of the Philippines who owns dual citizenship, but not
dual allegiance, (for instance, a natural born citizen, who by jus soli, also
acquires alien citizenship) is deemed to have renounced his alien citizenship
upon the filing of an application for a Certificate of Candidacy. (Valles v.
Comelec, Mercado v. Manzano)
The mere fact that a person is born in a territory that follows the rule of Jus
soli does not mean that he is no longer a Filipino citizen. At the most, it grants
1A 2010
him dual citizenship as long as one of his parents is a Filipino. (Valles v.

Comelec)
Naturalization
Naturalization may be by a Legislative Act (Law bestowing citizenship to

an alien), Administrative Act (RA 9139), or by a Judicial Act
(Commonwealth Act 473)
An Applicant for naturalization Under CA 473 must the strict requirements
of CA 473. He cannot be granted citizenship even if he would have been
qualified under RA 9139 (So v. Republic)
-Naturalization laws should be rigidly enforced and construed strictly in favor

of the government and against the applicant.
-Naturalization requires both substantial and procedural compliance (Ong Chia
v Republic)
In naturalization proceedings, it is the burden of the applicant to prove not
only his own good moral character but also the good moral character of
his/her witnesses, who must be credible persons. (So v. Republic)
A naturalization proceeding is not a judicial adversary proceeding, and the
decision rendered therein does not constitute res judicata. A certificate of
naturalization may be cancelled if it is subsequently discovered that the
applicant obtained it by misleading the court upon any material fact. (So v.
Republic)
SECTION 2: NATURAL BORN CITIZENS ARE THOSE WHO ARE CITIZENS

OF THE PHILIPPINES FROM BIRTH WITHOUT HAVING TO PERFORM
ANY ACT TO ACQUIRE OR PERFECT THEIR PHILIPPINE CITIZENSHIP.
THOSE WHO ELECT PHILIPPINE CITIZENSHIP IN ACCORDANCE WITH
PARAGRAPH (3) , SECTION 1 SHALL BE DEEMED NATURAL BORN
-A Child born before Jan 17, 1973 to an alien father and a Filipino mother does
not have to elect Philippine Citizenship if his father has become a naturalized
Filipino citizen before he could reach the age of majority. He cannot elect
another citizenship because his father was already a Filipino citizen.
-He is deemed to be a natural born citizen by virtue of the curative nature
Section 2 because his mother is a Filipina, and he does not have to perform
any acts to perfect his Filipino citizenship.
(Co v HRET)
In repatriation, which is the relevant mode in this case, the recovery and
restoration of the original nationality occurs. A natural born citizen who loses
his citizenship, then applies for repatriation is deemed to be a natural born
citizen. This is in spite of the provision of Section 2. (Bengson v HRET)
SECTION 3: PHILIPPINE CITIZENSHIP MAY BE LOST OR REACQUIRED
IN THE MANNER PROVIDED BY LAW
The doctrine of res judicata does not apply to citizenship. (Labo v Comelec)
In order for res judicata to apply, there must be:

1. a person's citizenship must be raised as a material issue in a
controversy where said person is a party;
2. the Solicitor General or his authorized representative took active
part in the resolution thereof, and;
3. the finding or citizenship is affirmed by this Court.
(Gatchalian v. Board of Commissioners)
Filiation
-The illegitimate child of a Filipino father and an alien mother is a Filipino as
long as paternity is clear because of jus sanguinis. There is no distinction
between legitimate and illegitimate children. (Tecson v COMELEC)
Naturalization laws allow cancellation of certificate if it is found to

have obtained fraudulently or illegally or that he violated conditions
posed on him. This must be proven in a clear, unequivocal and convincing
evidence
How may citizenship be reacquired: Naturalization, Direct act of
Congress and Repatriation
Loss of Citizenship
o
Naturalization
o
Express renunciation
o
Subscribing oath of allegiance to a foreign country
o
Serving in the armed forces of an enemy country
o
Being a deserter of the AFP
Repatriation recovery of original citizenship.
o
Desertion of the armed forces
o
Service in the armed forced of the allied forces during the
World War II
o
Service in the armed forces of the US at any other time
o
Marriage of a Filipino woman to an alien
1A 2010
Political and economic necessity
A naturalized Filipino who continues to declare Portugese citizenship in

commercial documents and subsequently obtains a Portugese passport is
deemed to have expressly renounced his Philippine citizenship by continuing to
represent himself as an alien. His acts are grossly inconsistent with
naturalization. (Yu v. Defensor-Santiago)
A Filipino who naturalizes as an Australian, renouncing his Filipino citizenship
in the process, cannot validly claim that he is still a Filipino citizen because his
acquisition of Australian citizenship was improper. He has already validly
renounced his Filipino citizenship, and the validity of his naturalization is
between him and Australia. Until he takes the steps necessary to validly
reacquire Philippine citizenship, he is disqualified from running for office. (Labo
Jr. v Comelec, 1989)
Citizenship is an indispensible requirement for holding elective office. (Labo Jr
v Comelec, 1996)
A Filipino who claims that he was naturalized as an American citizen in order
to protect himself from the Marcos regime is disqualified from running for
office. Many Filipinos are similarly situated in the States but did not find it
necessary to abandon Filipino citizenship. He may validly reacquire his
citizenship through repatriation to qualify himself for office. (Frivaldo v.
Comelec, 1989)
For elective officials, citizenship is required at the time he is proclaimed to
office and at the start of his term. Repatriation retroactively applies to the
date of application. (Frivaldo v Comelec, 1996)
SECTION 4: CITIZENS OF THE PHILIPPINES WHO MARRY ALIENS
SHALL RETAIN THEIR CITIZENSHIP, UNLESS BY THEIR ACT OR
OMISION THEY ARE DEEMED, UNDER THE LAW, TO HAVE RENOUNCED
IT
A Natural born Filipino who acquires alien citizenship by naturalization, then

subsequently applies for repatriation in order to retain/reacquire his Filipino
citizenship is considered to fall under the term dual allegiance. (Jacot v. Dal)
The rule in Mercado v. Manzano and Valles v. Comelec is inapplicable where a
Filipino citizen acquires foreign citizenship through naturalization, then
subsequently repatriates under RA 9225. He is not considered to have
renounced his allegiance to the foreign country upon his filing of a COC. He
must first take an oath expressly renouncing his foreign allegiance before he
may be qualified to file for candidacy. (Jacot v. Dal)
Dual allegiance is different from dual citizenship. Dual Citizenship arises when,
as a result of the concurrent application of the different laws of two or more
states, a person is simultaneously considered a national by the said states
(e.g. jus soli, jus sanguinis) Dual allegiance refers to the situation in which a
person simultaneously owes, by some positive act, loyalty to two or more
states. It is the result of an individuals volition. (Mercado v. Manzano)
A Dual Citizen who repatriates under RA 9225 is deemed to implicitly renounce
his allegiance to the foreign country. (AASJS-Calilung v Datumanong)
ARTICLE V: SUFFRAGE
SECTION 1: SUFFRAGE MAY BE EXERCISED BY ALL CITIZENS OF THE
PHILIPPINES NOT OTHERWISE DISQUALIFIED BY LAW, WHO ARE AT
LEAST EIGTHEEN YEARS OF AGE, AND WHO SHALL HAVE RESIDED IN
THE PHILIPPINES FOR AT LEAST ONE YEAR AND IN THE PLACE
WHEREIN THEY PROPOSETO VOTE FOR AT LEAST SIX MONTHS
IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING THE ELECTION. NO LITERACY, PROPERTY,
OR OTHER SUBSTANTIVE REQUIREMENT SHALL BE IMPOSED ON THE
EXERCISE OF SUFFRAGE
SECTION 5: DUAL ALLEGIANCE OF CITIZENS IS INIMICAL TO THE

NATIONAL INTEREST AND SHALL BE DEALT WITH BY LAW
Law has allowed dual citizenship

Dual citizenship is not dual allegiance
Derivative Naturalization= citizenship derived from that of another as
from a person who holds citizenship by virtue of naturalization
Suffrage right to vote in election

To acquire new domicile: (1) residence or bodily presence in the new
locality, (2) an intention to remain there, (3) intention to abandon the old
domicile
Not qualify to vote: those sentence by final judgment to suffer
imprisonment of not less than one year but shall automatically reacquire
the right upon expiration of five years after service of sentence, any
person adjudged by final conviction of violating his allegiance, insane or
feeble-minded persons.
1A 2010
To be sure, the right of suffrage is not at all absolute. Needless to say, the
exercise of the right of suffrage, as in the enjoyment of all other rights, is
subject to existing substantive and procedural requirements embodied in our
Constitution, statute books and other repositories of law. As to the procedural
limitation, the right of a citizen to vote is necessarily conditioned upon certain
procedural requirements he must undergo: among others, the process of
registration.
Proceeding from the significance of registration as a necessary requisite to the
right to vote, the State, in the exercise of its inherent police power, may then
enact laws to safeguard and regulate the act of voters registration for the
ultimate purpose of conducting honest, orderly and peaceful election, to the
incidental yet generally important end, that even pre-election activities could
be performed by the duly constituted authorities in a realistic and orderly
manner. (Akbayan v. Comelec; the Court defending Comelecs ban for
registration 120 days before the election)
A person who left the country to seek asylum abroad out of fear for his safety
because of the turbulent political climate cannot be considered to have
abandoned his domicile. His departure cannot be considered voluntary and
without evidence of his intention to abandon the old domicile, he cannot be
presumed to have adopted a new one. (Romualdez v. RTC)
Acquisition of a new domicile requires animus non revertendi and animus

manendi:
1. Residence, bodily presence in new locality
2. Intention to remain in the new locality
3. Intention to abandon the old domicile
SECTION 2: THE CONGRESS SHALL PROVIDE A SYSTEM FOR SECURING

THE SECRECY AND SANCTITY OF THE BALLOT AS WELL AS A SYSTEM
FOR ABSENTEE VOTING BY QUALIFIED FILIPINOS ABROAD.THE
CONGRESS SHALL ALSO DESIGN A PROCEDURE FOR THE DISABLED
AND THE ILLITERATES TO VOTE WITHOUT THE ASSISTANCE OF OTHER
PERSONS. UNTIL THEN, THEY SHALL BE ALLOWED TO VOTE UNDER
EXISTING LAWS AND SUCH RULES AS THE COMMISSION ON
ELECTIONS MAY PROMULGATE TO PROTECT THE SECRECY OF THE
BALLOT.
Absentee voting allowed under RA 9189
Under RA 9189, a Filipino immigrant who has been absent for 3 years is
presumed to have abandoned his residence. However, he may execute an
affidavit of his intention to return. This serves as implicit proof that he has not
abandoned his domicile, and is therefore does not violate the residency
requirement of Section 1. (Macalintal v. Comelec)
Dual Citizens under RA 9225 are allowed to vote through the Overseas
Absentee voter law, without the need for residency. Section 2 Authorizes
absentee voting and provides an exemption from the residency requirement.
(Nicolas-Lewis v. Comelec)
ARTICLE XIII: SOCIAL JUSTICE AND HUMAN RIGHTS
Section 1. The Congress shall give highest priority to the enactment of
measures that protect and enhance the right of all the people to human
dignity, reduce social, economic, and political inequalities, and remove cultural
inequities by equitably diffusing wealth and political power for the common
good. To this end, the State shall regulate the acquisition, ownership, use, and
disposition of property and its increments.
The Constitution specifically provides that labor is entitled to "humane
conditions of work. It also directs the State to promote "equality of
employment opportunities for all." Similarly, the Labor Code provides that the
State shall "ensure equal work opportunities regardless of sex, race or creed."
It would be an affront to both the spirit and letter of these provisions of the
State, if in spite of its primordial obligation to promote and ensure equal
employment opportunities, it closes its eyes to unequal and discriminatory
terms and conditions of employment. (International School Alliance of
Educators v. Quisumbing)
Two principal activities state is commanded to attend to achieve

social justice (1) creation of more economic opportunities and more
wealth (2)closer regulation of the acquisition, ownership, use and
disposition of property to achieve more equitable distribution or wealth
and power
To acquire new domicile: (1) residence or bodily presence in the new
locality, (2) an intention to remain there, (3) intention to abandon the old
domicile
1A 2010
Section 2. The promotion of social justice shall include the commitment to

create economic opportunities based on freedom of initiative and self-reliance.
LABOR
Section 3. The State shall afford full protection to labor, local and overseas,
organized and unorganized, and promote full employment and equality of
employment opportunities for all.
It shall guarantee the rights of all workers to self-organization, collective
bargaining and negotiations, and peaceful concerted activities, including the
right to strike in accordance with law. They shall be entitled to security of
tenure, humane conditions of work, and a living wage. They shall also
participate in policy and decision-making processes affecting their rights and
benefits as may be provided by law.
The State shall promote the principle of shared responsibility between workers
and employers and the preferential use of voluntary modes in settling
disputes, including conciliation, and shall enforce their mutual compliance
therewith to foster industrial peace.
The State shall regulate the relations between workers and employers,
recognizing the right of labor to its just share in the fruits of production and
the right of enterprises to reasonable returns to investments, and to
expansion and growth.
AGRARIAN AND NATURAL RESOURCES REFORM
Section 4. The State shall, by law, undertake an agrarian reform program
founded on the right of farmers and regular farm workers who are landless, to
own directly or collectively the lands they till or, in the case of other farm
workers, to receive a just share of the fruits thereof. To this end, the State
shall encourage and undertake the just distribution of all agricultural lands,
subject to such priorities and reasonable retention limits as the Congress may
prescribe, taking into account ecological, developmental, or equity
considerations, and subject to the payment of just compensation. In
determining retention limits, the State shall respect the right of small
landowners. The State shall further provide incentives for voluntary landsharing.
Police Power or Power of Eminent Domain? BOTH. To the extent that the
measures under challenge merely prescribe retention limits for landowners,
there is an exercise of the police power for the regulation of private property
in accordance with the Constitution. But where, to carry out such regulation it
becomes necessary to deprive such owners of whatever lands they may own
in excess of the maximum area allowed, there is definitely a taking under the
power of eminent domain for which payment of just compensation is
imperative.
The taking contemplated is not a mere limitation of the use of the land. What
it requires is the surrender of the title to and the physical possession of the
said excess and all beneficial rights accruing to the owner in favor of the
farmer-beneficiary.
Taking without Just Compensation? NO. PD 27 expressly ordered that no
title to the land owned was to be actually issued to the recipient farmer
unless and until he had become a full-fledged member of a duly recognized
farmers cooperative. It was understood, however, that full payment of the
just compensation also had to be made first, conformably to the constitutional
requirement.
The CARP Law, for its part, conditions the transfer of possession and
ownership of the land to the government on receipt by the landowner of the
corresponding payment or the deposit by the DAR of the compensation in cash
or LBP bonds with an accessible bank. Until then, title also remains with the
landowner.
Is the determination of Just Compensation provided for by law valid?
YES Section 16(d), which provides that in case of the rejection or disregard by
the owner of the offer of the government to buy his land... the DAR shall conduct summary administrative proceedings to determine
the compensation for the land
Although the proceedings are described as summary, the landowner and other
interested parties are nevertheless allowed an opportunity to submit evidence
on the real value of the property. But more importantly, the determination of
the just compensation by the DAR is not by any means final and conclusive,
the Courts of Justice still have a right to review the determination with finality.
Revolutionary Expropriation- The traditional medium for the payment of
just compensation is money and no other. However, we do not deal here with
the traditional excercise of the power of eminent domain. This is a
revolutionary kind of expropriation which affects all private agricultural
lands whenever found and of whatever kind as long as they are in excess of
1A 2010
the maximum retention limits allowed their owners. This kind of expropriation
is intended for the benefit not only of a particular community or of a small
segment of the population but of the entire Filipino nation.
The proportion of cash payment to the other things of value constituting the
total payment, as determined on the basis of the areas of the lands
expropriated, is not unduly oppressive upon the landowner. It is noted that the
smaller the land, the bigger the payment in money, primarily because the
small landowner will be needing it more than the big landowners, who can
afford a bigger balance in bonds and other things of value.
(Association of Small Landowners v. Secretary of Agrarian Reform)
This provision aims at efficient production, and more equitable
distribution of land, recognizing the right of those who are landless to own
the land they till and a just share of the fruits of the land.
Redistribution of land is to be achieved through voluntary sale or

expropriation and resale.
Livestock or poultry raising is not similar to crop or tree farming. Land is not
the primary resource in this undertaking. The use of land is incidental to, but
not the principal factor or consideration in productivity in this industry. The
transcripts of the deliberations of the constitutional commission of 1986 on the
meaning of the word agricultural clearly show that it was never the intention
of the framers of the constitution to include livestock and poultry industry in
the coverage of the constitutionally-mandated agrarian reform program of the
govt. (Luz Farms v. Sec. of Agrarian Reform)
Section 5. The State shall recognize the right of farmers, farmworkers, and
landowners, as well as cooperatives, and other independent farmers'
organizations to participate in the planning, organization, and management of
the program, and shall provide support to agriculture through appropriate
technology and research, and adequate financial, production, marketing, and
other support services.
Section 6. The State shall apply the principles of agrarian reform or
stewardship, whenever applicable in accordance with law, in the disposition or
utilization of other natural resources, including lands of the public domain
under lease or concession suitable to agriculture, subject to prior rights,
homestead rights of small settlers, and the rights of indigenous communities
to their ancestral lands. The State may resettle landless farmers and
farmworkers in its own agricultural estates which shall be distributed to them
in the manner provided by law.
Section 7. The State shall protect the rights of subsistence fishermen,

especially of local communities, to the preferential use of the communal
marine and fishing resources, both inland and offshore. It shall provide
support to such fishermen through appropriate technology and research,
adequate financial, production, and marketing assistance, and other services.
The State shall also protect, develop, and conserve such resources. The
protection shall extend to offshore fishing grounds of subsistence fishermen
against foreign intrusion. Fishworkers shall receive a just share from their
labor in the utilization of marine and fishing resources.
Section 8. The State shall provide incentives to landowners to invest the
proceeds of the agrarian reform program to promote industrialization,
employment creation, and privatization of public sector enterprises. Financial
instruments used as payment for their lands shall be honored as equity in
enterprises of their choice.
There
should
be
mutual
beneficial
relationship
between
industrialization and agrarian reform. Agrarian reform must unlock the
idle wealth hidden in the land and industrialization would provide for
improvement
URBAN LAND REFORM AND HOUSING
Section 9. The State shall, by law, and for the common good, undertake, in
cooperation with the private sector, a continuing program of urban land reform
and housing which will make available at affordable cost, decent housing and
basic services to under-privileged and homeless citizens in urban centers and
resettlement areas. It shall also promote adequate employment opportunities
to such citizens. In the implementation of such program the State shall
respect the rights of small property owners.
Eviction must be done in accordance with law that is with dye

process. Due processes not necessarily judicial process. It can also be
administrative
Eviction and demolition the person must be accorded due process
or an opportunity to controvert the allegation that his or her occupation or
possession involved is unlawful or against the will of the owner
Section 10. Urban or rural poor dwellers shall not be evicted nor their
dwelling demolished, except in accordance with law and in a just and humane
manner. No resettlement of urban or rural dwellers shall be undertaken
1A 2010
without adequate consultation with them and the communities where they are
to be relocated.
democratic framework, their legitimate and collective interests and aspirations

through peaceful and lawful means.
Manner of Eviction- What is meant by "in accordance with law" and "just
and humane manner" is that the person to be evicted be accorded due
process or an opportunity to controvert the allegation that his or her
occupation or possession of the property involved is unlawful or against the
will of the landowner; that should the illegal or unlawful occupation be proven,
the occupant be sufficiently notified before actual eviction or demolition is
done; and that there be no loss of lives, physical injuries or unnecessary loss
of or damage to properties. (People v. Leachon)
People's organizations are bona fide associations of citizens with demonstrated

capacity to promote the public interest and with identifiable leadership,
membership, and structure.
Section 16. The right of the people and their organizations to effective and
reasonable participation at all levels of social, political, and economic decisionmaking shall not be abridged. The State shall, by law, facilitate the
establishment of adequate consultation mechanisms.
HEALTH
Section 11. The State shall adopt an integrated and comprehensive approach
to health development which shall endeavor to make essential goods, health
and other social services available to all the people at affordable cost. There
shall be priority for the needs of the under-privileged, sick, elderly, disabled,
women, and children. The State shall endeavor to provide free medical care to
paupers.
Section 12. The State shall establish and maintain an effective food and drug
regulatory system and undertake appropriate health, manpower development,
and research, responsive to the country's health needs and problems.
Section 13. The State shall establish a special agency for disabled person for
their rehabilitation, self-development, and self-reliance, and their integration
into the mainstream of society.
HUMAN RIGHTS
Section 17.
1.
There is hereby created an independent office called the Commission

on Human Rights.
2.
The Commission shall be composed of a Chairman and four Members

who must be natural-born citizens of the Philippines and a majority of
whom shall be members of the Bar. The term of office and other
qualifications and disabilities of the Members of the Commission shall
be provided by law.
3.
Until this Commission is constituted, the existing Presidential

Committee on Human Rights shall continue to exercise its present
functions and powers.
4.
The approved annual appropriations of the Commission shall be

automatically and regularly released.
WOMEN
Section 14. The State shall protect working women by providing safe and
healthful working conditions, taking into account their maternal functions, and
such facilities and opportunities that will enhance their welfare and enable
them to realize their full potential in the service of the nation.
Section 18. The Commission on Human Rights shall have the following
powers and functions:
ROLE AND RIGHTS OF PEOPLE'S ORGANIZATIONS
1.
Section 15. The State shall respect the role of independent people's
organizations to enable the people to pursue and protect, within the
2.
Investigate, on its own or on complaint by any party, all forms of

human rights violations involving civil and political rights;
Adopt its operational guidelines and rules of procedure, and cite for
contempt for violations thereof in accordance with the Rules of Court;
1A 2010
3.
Provide appropriate legal measures for the protection of human rights

of all persons within the Philippines, as well as Filipinos residing
abroad, and provide for preventive measures and legal aid services to
the under-privileged whose human rights have been violated or need
protection;
4. Exercise visitorial powers over jails, prisons, or detention facilities;
5. Establish a continuing program of research, education, and
information to enhance respect for the primacy of human rights;
6. Recommend to Congress effective measures to promote human rights
and to provide for compensation to victims of violations of human
rights, or their families;
7. Monitor the Philippine Government's compliance with international
treaty obligations on human rights;
8. Grant immunity from prosecution to any person whose testimony or
whose possession of documents or other evidence is necessary or
convenient to determine the truth in any investigation conducted by it
or under its authority;
9. Request the assistance of any department, bureau, office, or agency
in the performance of its functions;
10. Appoint its officers and employees in accordance with law; and
11. Perform such other duties and functions as may be provided by law.
The Constitution did not intend the CHR to be another court or quasi-judicial
agency. The most that may be conceded to it is that it may investigate (i.e.,
receive evidence and make findings of fact as regards claimed human rights
violations involving civil and political rights. But fact-finding is not adjudication
and cannot be likened to the judicial function of a court of justice, or even a
quasi-judicial agency or official. The function of receiving evidence and
ascertaining therefrom facts of a controversy is not a judicial function,
properly speaking.
To be considered as such, it must be accompanied by the authority of applying
the law to those factual conclusions to the end that the controversy may be
decided or determined authoritatively, finally and definitively, subject to
appeals or modes of review as may be provided by law. This is something the
CHR does not have.(Carino v. Commission on Human Rights)
Preventive measures and legal aid services- The constitutional provision
directing the CHR to "provide for preventive measures and legal aid services
to the underprivileged whose human rights have been violated or need
protection" may not be construed to confer jurisdiction on the Commission to
issue a restraining order or writ of injunction for, if that were the intention, the
Constitution would have expressly said so. "Jurisdiction is conferred only by
the Constitution or by law.
"preventive measures and legal aid services" mentioned in the Constitution
refer to extrajudicial and judicial remedies (including a preliminary writ of
injunction) which the CHR may seek from the proper courts on behalf of the
victims of human rights violations. Not being a court of justice, the CHR itself
has no jurisdiction to issue the writ, for a writ of preliminary injunction may
only be issued "by the judge of any court in which the action is pending
[within his district], or by a Justice of the Court of Appeals, or of the Supreme
Court. (EPZA v. CHR)
Coverage of Human Rights- During the deliberations of the Constitutional
Commission, the Commissioners agreed that the term human rights in our
Constitution would cover only civil and political rights in order to make the
CHR more effective. One commissioner also emphasized six areas where the
CHR could act effectively:
a. protection of rights of political detainees
b. treatment of prisoners and the prevention of tortures
c. fair and public trials
d. cases of disappearances
e. salvagings and hamletting
f.
other crimes committed against the religious
Contempt Power of the CHR- The power to cite for contempt should be
understood to apply only to violations of its adopted operational guidelines and
rules of procedure essential to carry out its investigatorial powers. The power
to cite for contempt could be exercised against persons who refuse to
cooperate with the said body, or who unduly withhold relevant information, or
who decline to honor summons, and the like, in pursuing its investigative
work. (Simon Jr. v. CHR)
Section 19. The Congress may provide for other cases of violations of human
rights that should fall within the authority of the Commission, taking into
account its recommendations.
The power of he commission is only investigative. It does not have

prosecutorial powers. It must rely on the executive departments. It
cannot issue writs or injunction
The commission can only protect civil and political rights and not
socio-economic rights
ARTICLE XIV: EDUCATION,

CULTURE AND SPORTS
SCIENCE
EDUCATION
1A 2010
AND
TECHNOLOGY,
ARTS,
Section 1. The State shall protect and promote the right of all citizens to
quality education at all levels, and shall take appropriate steps to make such
education accessible to all.
Characteristic of Educational System (1) quality education (2)

affordable (3) relevant to the needs of the people and society
Right to quality education is not absolute but subject to fair,
reasonable and equitable admission and academic requirement
General Rule: schools may not take disciplinary actions for act
committed outside campus unless (1) if it is a school sponsored activities
or (2) the misconduct affects the students status or the good name or
reputation of the school
National Medical Admission Test- It is the right and indeed the

responsibility of the State to insure that the medical profession is not
infiltrated by incompetents to whom patients may unwarily entrust their lives
and health.
The three-flunk rule is a valid exercise of police power. Tablarin vs
Guitierrez upheld the constitutionality of the NMAT as a measure intended to
limit the admission to medical schools only to those who have initially proved
their competence and preparation for a medical education.
The right to quality education invoked by the private respondent is not
absolute. The Constitution also provides that "every citizen has the right to
choose a profession or course of study, subject to fair, reasonable and
equitable admission and academic requirements. (DECS v. San Diego)
deserving students in both public and private schools, especially to

the under-privileged;
4.
Encourage non-formal, informal, and indigenous learning systems, as

well as self-learning, independent, and out-of-school study programs
particularly those that respond to community needs; and
5.
Provide adult citizens, the disabled, and out-of-school youth with

training in civics, vocational efficiency, and other skills.
Section 3.
1.
All educational institutions shall include the study of the Constitution

as part of the curricula.
2.
They shall inculcate patriotism and nationalism, foster love of

humanity, respect for human rights, appreciation of the role of
national heroes in the historical development of the country, teach
the rights and duties of citizenship, strengthen ethical and spiritual
values, develop moral character and personal discipline, encourage
critical and creative thinking, broaden scientific and technological
knowledge, and promote vocational efficiency.
3.
At the option expressed in writing by the parents or guardians,

religion shall be allowed to be taught to their children or wards in
public elementary and high schools within the regular class hours by
instructors designated or approved by the religious authorities of the
religion to which the children or wards belong, without additional cost
to the Government.
Section 2. The State shall:

1.
Establish, maintain, and support a complete, adequate, and

integrated system of education relevant to the needs of the people
and society;
2.
Establish and maintain, a system of free public education in the

elementary and high school levels. Without limiting the natural rights
of parents to rear their children, elementary education is compulsory
for all children of school age;
3.
Establish and maintain a system of scholarship grants, student loan

programs, subsidies, and other incentives which shall be available to
Section 4.
1.
The State recognizes the complementary roles of public and private

institutions in the educational system and shall exercise reasonable
supervision and regulation of all educational institutions.
2.
Educational institutions, other than those established by religious

groups and mission boards, shall be owned solely by citizens of the
Philippines or corporations or associations at least sixty per centum of
the capital of which is owned by such citizens. The Congress may,
1A 2010
however, require increased Filipino equity participation in all

educational institutions. The control and administration of educational
institutions shall be vested in citizens of the Philippines.
No educational institution shall be established exclusively for aliens
and no group of aliens shall comprise more than one-third of the
enrollment in any school. The provisions of this sub section shall not
apply to schools established for foreign diplomatic personnel and their
dependents and, unless otherwise provided by law, for other foreign
temporary residents.
3.
All revenues and assets of non-stock, non-profit educational

institutions used actually, directly, and exclusively for educational
purposes shall be exempt from taxes and duties. Upon the dissolution
or cessation of the corporate existence of such institutions, their
assets shall be disposed of in the manner provided by law.
Proprietary educational institutions, including those cooperatively
owned, may likewise be entitled to such exemptions, subject to the
limitations provided by law, including restrictions on dividends and
provisions for reinvestment.
4.
Subject to conditions prescribed by law, all grants, endowments,

donations, or contributions used actually, directly, and exclusively for
educational purposes shall be exempt from tax.
Filipinize
(1)
ownership,
(2)
control
and
administration and (3) student population
Level of president, dean, principal, or member of
the board of trustees are Filipinized.
3.
Every citizen has a right to select a profession or course of study,

subject to fair, reasonable, and equitable admission and academic
requirements.
4.
The State shall enhance the right of teachers to professional

advancement. Non-teaching academic and non-academic personnel
shall enjoy the protection of the State.
5.
The State shall assign the highest budgetary priority to education and
ensure that teaching will attract and retain its rightful share of the
best available talents through adequate remuneration and other
means of job satisfaction and fulfillment.
The essential freedoms include:

a. Who may teach
b. What may be taught
c. How it shall be taught
d. Who may be admitted to study (includes who may be
expelled or who may not be admitted)
The right of the school to discipline is included in the third and fourth freedom.
It is not only a right of the institution, but a duty to develop discipline in its
students.
The power of the school to investigate is an adjunct of its power to suspend or
expel. It is a necessary corollary to the enforcement of rules and regulations
and the maintenance of a safe and orderly educational environment conducive
to learning. (Miriam College v. CA)
Academic freedom of institutions of higher learning is recognized by the
Constitution. The school decides for itself its aims and objectives and how best
to attain them. It is free from outside coercion or interference save possibly
when the overriding public welfare calls for some restraint. It has a wide
sphere of autonomy certainly extending to the choice of students.
Section 5.
1.
the State shall take into account regional and sectoral needs and
conditions and shall encourage local planning in the development of
educational policies and programs.
2.
Academic freedom shall be enjoyed in all institutions of higher

learning.
The internal conditions for academic freedom in a university are that the
academic staff should have de facto control of the following functions: (i) the
admission and examination of students; (ii) the curricula for courses of study;
(iii) the appointment and tenure of office of academic staff; and (iv) the
allocation of income among the different categories of expenditure. (Garcia v.
Faculty Admission)
1A 2010
Schools of teaming(sic) are given ample discretion to formulate rules and

guidelines in the granting of honors for purposes of graduation. This is part of
academic freedom. Within the parameters of these rules, it is within the
competence of universities and colleges to determine who are entitled to the
grant of honors among the graduating students. Its discretion on this
academic matter may not be disturbed much less controlled by the courts
unless there is grave abuse of discretion in its exercise. (University of San
Carlos v. CA)
LANGUAGE
Section 6. The national language of the Philippines is Filipino. As it evolves, it
shall be further developed and enriched on the basis of existing Philippine and
other languages. Subject to provisions of law and as the Congress may deem
appropriate, the Government shall take steps to initiate and sustain the use of
Filipino as a medium of official communication and as language of instruction
in the educational system.
Section 7. For purposes of communication and instruction, the official
languages of the Philippines are Filipino and, until otherwise provided by law,
English. The regional languages are the auxiliary official languages in the
regions and shall serve as auxiliary media of instruction therein. Spanish and
Arabic shall be promoted on a voluntary and optional basis.
Section 10. Science and technology are essential for national development
and progress. The State shall give priority to research and development,
invention, innovation, and their utilization; and to science and technology
education, training, and services. It shall support indigenous, appropriate, and
self-reliant scientific and technological capabilities, and their application to the
country's productive systems and national life.
Section 11. The Congress may provide for incentives, including tax
deductions, to encourage private participation in programs of basic and
applied scientific research. Scholarships, grants-in-aid, or other forms of
incentives shall be provided to deserving science students, researchers,
scientists, inventors, technologists, and specially gifted citizens.
Section 12. The State shall regulate the transfer and promote the adaptation
of technology from all sources for the national benefit. It shall encourage the
widest participation of private groups, local governments, and communitybased organizations in the generation and utilization of science and
technology.
Section 13. The State shall protect and secure the exclusive rights of
scientists, inventors, artists, and other gifted citizens to their intellectual
property and creations, particularly when beneficial to the people, for such
period as may be provided by law.
Filipino is a language consisting of a fusion of the various Philippine

languages.
Official Language: Filipino and English and Spanish
Section 8. This Constitution shall be promulgated in Filipino and English and

shall be translated into major regional languages, Arabic, and Spanish.
Section 9. The Congress shall establish a national language commission
composed of representatives of various regions and disciplines which shall
undertake, coordinate, and promote researches for the development,
propagation, and preservation of Filipino and other languages.
SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
ARTS AND CULTURE

Section 14. The State shall foster the preservation, enrichment, and dynamic
evolution of a Filipino national culture based on the principle of unity in
diversity in a climate of free artistic and intellectual expression.
Section 15. Arts and letters shall enjoy the patronage of the State. The State
shall conserve, promote, and popularize the nation's historical and cultural
heritage and resources, as well as artistic creations.
Section 16. All the country's artistic and historic wealth constitutes the
cultural treasure of the nation and shall be under the protection of the State
which may regulate its disposition.
Section 17. The State shall recognize, respect, and protect the rights of
indigenous cultural communities to preserve and develop their cultures,
1A 2010
traditions, and institutions. It shall consider these rights in the formulation of

national plans and policies.
Section 19.
1.
The State shall promote physical education and encourage sports

programs, league competitions, and amateur sports, including
training for international competitions, to foster self-discipline,
teamwork, and excellence for the development of a healthy and alert
citizenry.
2.
All educational institutions shall undertake regular sports activities

throughout the country in cooperation with athletic clubs and other
sectors.
Section 18.
1.
2.
The State shall ensure equal access to cultural opportunities through

the educational system, public or private cultural entities,
scholarships, grants and other incentives, and community cultural
centers, and other public venues.
The State shall encourage and support researches and studies on the
arts and culture.
SPORTS
1A 2010

Consti 2 Notes

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Consti 2 Notes

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

ARTICLE III: BILL OF RIGHTS

Formal declaration or enumeration of the fundamental rights secured

SECTION 1: NO PERSON SHALL BE DEPRIVED OF LIFE,

A. Three Great Powers of the Government:

Should be mere regulation not prohibition of a profession or calling

Due process clause

Equal protection clause

1 Sandy Crab and the plagiarist

Decision must be based on evidence presented or at least

Final declaration of deportation with basis

g. Fixing of Rates and Regulation of Professions

Educational Institutions enjoy academic freedom:

Dismissal in Private Sector V-H-C

f. Deportation Proceedings effect is Penal in character, so there must be due

2 Sandy Crab and the plagiarist

3 Sandy Crab and the plagiarist

Determine what measures are necessary for the protection of such

Standards of Police Power

therefore, there was no cause to deprive the private individuals of vested

4 Sandy Crab and the plagiarist

Profession- is a legitimate subject of Police Power. So long as professionals

5 Sandy Crab and the plagiarist

(Villegas v. Hui Chiong Pao Ho)

6 Sandy Crab and the plagiarist

while access to TV and radio content is practically simultaneous (TELEBAP v.

WARRANT OF ARREST SHALL BE ISSUED EXCEPT UPON PROBABLE

A. Freedom from Search and Arrest

7 Sandy Crab and the plagiarist

8 Sandy Crab and the plagiarist

premises and not of persons.

The judge need not conduct a personal

Probable cause for a search facts and circumstances which would

Requisites of a Valid Warrant

1)Probable Cause such reasons, supported by facts and circumstances, as

Probable cause for an arrest facts and circumstances which would

9 Sandy Crab and the plagiarist

Probable cause is concerned with probability, not absolute or even moral

10 Sandy Crab and the plagiarist

A judge cannot rely solely on the certification or recommendation of a

11 Sandy Crab and the plagiarist

Purpose or this requirement is to prevent abuse by the officer enforcing the

officer's prior knowledge as to the place intended in the warrant is relevant.

- In the determination of whether a search warrant describes the premises to

12 Sandy Crab and the plagiarist

A warrant of arrest against 50 John Does is of the nature of a general warrant

13 Sandy Crab and the plagiarist

on the statements off witnesses is invalid. A search warrant must not be

Warrantless search of the accused personal effects is valid because of the

3) Search of a moving vehicle

A warrantless search on a petitioner operating and selling timber when his

14 Sandy Crab and the plagiarist

in the vicinity. Secondly, they were uncertain as to the type of vehicle

15 Sandy Crab and the plagiarist

The purpose of the rule:

Terry Stop- The prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures is not

16 Sandy Crab and the plagiarist

into the employees' privacy, under RA 9165, is accompanied by proper

FREEDOM FROM ARREST

Rule 113, Sec 5 Rules of Court:

No Fiscal (judge personally

(c) When the person to be arrested is

(b) When an offense has in fact been

17 Sandy Crab and the plagiarist

a prisoner who hasescaped from a