Three great powers

1.) Police Power – Vested in legislature; prohibits all that is hurtful to comfort, safety and welfare of
society
2.) Power of Taxation – Vested in the congress; power to raise revenues for public purposes
3.) Power of Imminent Domain – State’s inherent power right to appropriate , in the nature of
compulsory sale to the State, private property for public use or purpose upon observance of due
process of the law

Police Power vs. Imminent Domain

- Police power the use of the property is merely prohibited, regulated or restricted, while in
Eminent domain, property interests are appropriated and applied to some public purpose which
necessitates the payment of just compensation.

Bill of Rights – Seeks to limit the exercise of these awesome powers of the State in favor of individual
liberties. Balance between governmental power and individual freedom.

Hierarchy of rights –

Life – grounded on natural law, inherent and not a creation of or dependent upon a particular law,
custom or belief given more than ample protection.

Right to Property – can be lost to prescription.

Vested Rights – one whose existence, effectivity and extend does not depend on the will of the holder
found under property rights and includes rights such as perfected mining claims or a perfected
homestead or a final judgment, right to work and earn a living.

Licenses are not property rights but considered a privilege, and may be revoked or rescinded by
executive action.

Police Power

Requisites:

1.) A lawful subject – reason for the implementation of police power.

2.) A lawful method – means employed to attain objective is reasonable and necessary and not
unduly oppressive upon individuals.
3.) No Alternative – no other method of accomplishment of the purpose less intrusive of the private
rights can work.

Note: if ordinance is tantamount to taking or confiscating private property without confiscation it is not
valid.

Police power comes with it the power to regulate but not the power to prohibit.
Due Process – constitutional right against arbitrary laws and guarantee of procedural fairness.

Arbitrary laws –if its imposition is in pursuance of the interest of a particular case or if the means used in
achieving the purpose are not reasonably necessary to its accomplishment.

Types:

1.) Substantive – protection against arbitrary laws if the means used in achieving the purpose in not
reasonable necessary.
2.) Procedural – guarantee of procedural fairness, compliance of procedures or steps, even periods,
prescribed by the statute.
A.) Administrative – gives an opportunity to be heard and explain one’s side and to seek
reconsideration. Enough that the party to be heard before the case is decided.

Due process is not violated when a person chooses not to be heard.

Relevant Rulings:

Substantive Due Process:

- Pilotage is a property right (Corona vs. UHPAP)

- There must appear that the interests of the general public require interface by the government
and that the method used by the government is the least intrusive method, the exercise of
police power is subject to judicial review when life, liberty or property is affected. (White Light
vs. Malate City)

Procedural Due Process:

- In order that a particular act may not be impugned as violative of the due process clause there
must be compliance with both substantive and procedural due process. (Sameer Placement vs.
Cabiles)
- Judicial proceedings complied by:
1.) There must be a court or tribunal clothed with judicial power
2.) Jurisdiction must be lawfully acquired over the defendant
3.) Defendant must be given the opportunity to be heard
4.) Judgment must be rendered upon lawful hearing (Banco Espanol vs. Palanca)

Administrative Due Proocess:

- Primary Requirements:
1.) The right to a hearing and to present one’s case and submit evidence to support
2.) Tribunal must consider evidence presented
3.) Decision must have something to support itself
4.) Judges must act on his independent consideration of the law and facts
5.) Parties involved must know the various issues involved and the reason for the
decision rendered (Ang Tibay vs. C.I.R)
- Requirements in school disciplinary proceedings:
1.) Student must be informed in writing of the nature and cause of accusation
2.) Have an opportunity to answer the charges
3.) Informed of the evidence against them
 4.) Have the right to produce evidence of their own
5.) Given evidence must be duly considered
- The requirements of administrative due process do not apply to the internal affairs of political
parties. The due process standards in Ang Tibay cover only administrative bodies created by the
state and through which certain governmental acts or functions are performed (Atienza vs.
Comelec)
- Due process does not always and in all situations require a trial-type proceeding. It is satisfied
when a person is notified of the charge against him and given the opportunity to defend or
explain himself. (Melendres vs. PAGC)
- For a workers dismissal to be considered valid it must comply with both procedural and
substantive due process.
o Procedural Due Process:
 Two written notices first informs him of his offense, second informs him of th
decision to dismiss him
 Before the second notice is given, he must be afforded the opportunity to be
heard.
o Substantive Due process:
 Requires that the dismissal by the employer is under a just and authorized cause
(First Phil. Industrial Corp vs. Calimbas)
- Constitutional right to due process is available in JBC proceedings notwithstanding it being sui
generis the right to be heard and to explain one’s self is availing (Jardaleza vs. CJ Sereno)
- Ang Tibay doctrine is not applicable to preliminary investigation which are creations of statutory
law giving rise to mere statutory rights. Ang Tibay requires substantial evidence for a decision
whole in preliminary investigations, only likelihood or probability of guilt is required. (J. Estrada
vs. Ombudsman)

Equal Protection – a guarantee that persons under like circumstances and falling within the same class
are treated alike, in terms of “privileges conferred and liabilities enforced.”

o Legislature has the power to make distinctions and classifications

o No violation of the equal protection clause if there are reasonable grounds for the
distinguishment between those falling within the class and those who not
o Reasonable Classification Requirements:
 Must rest on substantial distinctions
 Must be germane to the purpose of the law
 Must not be limited to existing conditions only
 Must apply equally to all members of the same class

Relevant Rulings

- Allowing accused appellant to attend congressional sessions and committee will virtually make
him a free man, Election to the position of the Congressman is not a reasonable classification
(People vs. Jalosjos)
- Equal protection clause is not absolute, it permits reasonable classification. If the classification is
characterized as by real and substantial differences, one class may be treated differently that the
other (Brillante vs. People)
 - Where the due process and equal protection clause is invoked there is a need for proof of such
persuasive character as would lead to such conclusion, absent such, presumption of validity
must prevail, as a rule, the judiciary will not interfere absent a clear showing of
unreasonableness, discrimination or arbitrariness. (ABAKADA et. Al. vs. Ermita)
- The equal protection clause des not demand absolute equality, it merely requires that all
persons shall be treated alike under circumstances and condition. (Santos vs. People)
- The unequal power relationship between women and men; the mere fact that women are more
likely than men to be victims of violence; and the widespread gender bias and prejudice against
women all make fore real differences justifying the classification under the law ( Gracia vs.
Drilon)

Void for Vagueness – an act or statute suffers from the defect of vagueness when it lacks reasonable
standard that a man of common intelligence must necessarily guess to its meaning and differ to its
application.

Repugnant to the Constitution in to respects:

1.) Violates due process, for failure to accord persons targeted by it fair notice of the conduct to
avoid.
2.) Leaves enforces unbridled discression

Overbreadth – a proper governmental purpose, constitutionally subject to state regulation may not be
achieved by means that unnecessarily sweep its subject broadly, thereby invading the area of protected
freedoms. In this doctrine, it assumes that individuals will understand what a statute prohibits and will
accordingly refrain from that behavior, even if that behavior is protected.

- As long as the law affords some comprehensible guide or rule that would inform those who are
subjected to it what conduct would render them liable to its penalties, its validity will be
sustained. (Estrada vs. Sandiganbayan)
- Only statuses of free speech, religious freedom and other fundamental rights may be facially
challenged. Under no case may ordinary penal statutes be submitted to facial challenge for the
rationale that the prosecution of crimes may be hampered. No prosecution would be possible
(South Hemisphere vs. Anti-Terrorism Council)
- In determining whether the words used in a statute are vague it must not only be taken in
accordance with their plain meaning alone, but also in relation to other parts of the statute
(Imbong vs. Ochoa)

Review Standard – in resolving the constitutionality of laws and ordinances, the Supreme Court has
adopted several standards or tests for the purpose of judicial review, to wit:
Rational Basis Examination – laws or ordinances are upheld if they are rationally further a legitimate
governmental interest.

Strict Scrutiny Test – a legislative classification that impermissibly interferes with the exercise of
fundamental rights or operates to the peculiar class disadvantage of a suspect class is presumed
unconstitutional.

Indeterminate Scrutiny Test – government interest is extensively examined and the availability of less
restrictive measures is considered,

Relevant Rulings:

- Under the rational relationship test, the ordinance must pass the following requirements:
1.) The interest of the public generally distinguished from those of a particular class,
require it exercise
2.) The means employed are reasonably necessary for the accomplishment of the
purpose and not unduly oppressive (Fernando vs. St. Escolastica College)
- In strict scrutiny standard test, the burden is on the government to prove that the classification is
necessary to achieve a compelling state interest and that it is the least restrictive means to
protect such interest (Disini vs. Secretary of Justice)
- A government regulation is sufficiently justified if it is within the constitutional power of the
government if:
o It furthers an important or substantial governmental interest
o The government interest is unrelated to the suppression of the free expression
o The incident restriction on alleged freedom of speech and expression is no greater than
is essential to the furtherance of that interest.

Section 2
Essence – the right to be free from unwarranted exploitation of one’s person or from intrusion into one’s
private activities in such a way as to cause humiliation to a person’s ordinary sensibilities. It is the right of
the individual to be free from unwarranted publicity, or to live without unwarranted interference by the
public matters in which the public is not necessarily concerned. Simply put, the right to privacy is the
right to be let alone.

- Probable Cause – A judge must consider the following in the determination of probable cause in
the issuance of the search warrant:
1.) Based on probable cause
2.) Contain a particular description of the place to be searched
3.) Must describe the items or property to be seized

Probable cause must first focus on a specific location. If the applicant or official is unable to state
with sufficient precision the place to be searched and why he reasonable believes that
contraband or evidence of criminal activity will be found therein, it is highly doubtful that he
possesses probably cause for a warrant (People vs. Del Los Reyes)

- Probably cause for purposes of filing a criminal information, has been defined as such facts that
are sufficient to engender a well- founded belief that a crime has been committed and that the
accused is probably guilty thereof. Likewise a finding of probable cause needs only to rest on
evidence showing that, more likely than not, a crime has been committed and that it was
committed by the accused. ( Tan vs. Matsura)
- Personal knowledge if the arresting officer that a crime had in fact just been committed is
required, to interpret “personal knowledge” as referring to a person’s reputation or past criminal
citations would create a dangerous precedent and unnecessarily stretch the authority and power
of police officers to effect warrantless arrest based solely on knowledge of a person’s previous
criminal infractions, rendering nugatory the rigorous requisites lad out. ( People vs. Villareal)
- Flight per se is not synonymous to guild and must not always be attributed to one’s
consciousness of guilt. It is not a reliable indicator of guilt without other circumstances. (People
vs. Villareal)
- Determination of probable cause may be either executive or judicial.
o Executive when made by a public prosecutor during a preliminary investigation where he
is given discression to determine whether probably cause exists for the purpose of filing
a criminal information.
o Judicial when made by the judge to ascertain whether a warrant of arrest should be
issued against the accused. In this respect the judge must satisfy himself that , on the
basis of the evidence submitted (De Los Santos vs. CA)
- Probable cause can be established with hearsay evidence as long as there is substantial basis for
crediting the hearsay. Hearsay evidence is admissible in determining probable cause in a
preliminary investigation because such investigation is merely preliminary and does not finally
adjudicate rights and obligation of party. ( J. Estrada vs. Ombudsman)
- Search warrant that covers several counts of a certain specific offense does not violate the one-
specific-offense rule. (Laud vs. People)

Issued by a Judge
 - Only a “Judge” and such other responsible officer as may be authorized by law” were
empowered by the Freedom Constitution to issue a warrant (Republic vs. Sandiganbayan)

Particularity of Description

- 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 the searching authorities. Otherwise it would
be virtually impossible for the applicants to a warrant as they would not know what kind of
things they are looking for. (Kho vs. Judge Makintalan)
- A search warrant may said to be particularly describe the thing to be seized when the
description therein is as specific as the circumstances will ordinarily allow; 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; or when the thing described are limited to those which bear
direct relation to the offense for which the warrant is issued. (Yao vs. People)
- A general warrant is defined as: a search or arrest warrant that is not particular as to the person
to be arrested or the property to be seized. It is one that allows the seizure of one thing under a
warrant describing another and gives the officer executing the warrant the discretion over which
items to take. (Worldwide Web Corporation vs. PLDT)

Searching Questions

- The searching questions propounded to the applicant and the witness must depend on a large
extend upon the discretion of the Judge. Although there is no hard-and-fast rule as to how a
Judge may conduct his examination, the examination must be probing and exhaustive and not
merely routinely, general, peripheral or perfunctory. (People vs De Los Reyes)
- A judge is allowed to propound leading questions of, for instance the witness is a child or is
suffering from a mental illness, or of the questions are preliminary or clarificatory, or when there
is difficulty in getting direct and intelligent as=answers from the witness who is ignorant. (People
vs. De Los Reyes)

Warrantless Searches

- The allowable warrantless searcges are:

o Warrantless searches incidental to a lawful arrest
o Seizures of evidence in plain view
o Searches of a moving vehicle
o Consented warrantless arrest
o Customs searches
o Stop and Frisk searches
o Searches under exigent and emergency circumstances
- In determining the reasonableness of warrantless arrests, it is enough that evidence of the
recent commission of the crime is patent and the police officer has probable cause to believe
that based on personal knowledge of facts or circumstances, that the person to be arrested has
committed the crime. (Pestillos vs. Generoso and People)
- An arrest is made by an actual restraint of the person to be arrested, or by his submission to the
custody of the person making the arrest. Application of actual force manual touching of the
 body, and physical restraint or a formal declaration of arrest is not required. (Pestilos vs.
Generoso)

Anticipatory Warrants, etc

- Anticipatory warrants are not categorically unconstitutional. Probable cause exist when “there is
a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place”.
Anticipatory warrants are therefore no different than ordinary warrants: They require the
magistrate to determine that it is now probable that contraband, evidence of a crime or a
fugitive will be on a described premises when the warrant is executed. The warrant must
particular describe the place to be searched and the things to be seized.(US vs. Grubbs)
- A media ride along violates the rights if homeowners for police to bring members of the mea or
other third parties into their home during the execution of the warrant when the presence of
the third parties in the home was not in aid of the warrant’s execution. (Wilson vs. Layne)
- Officers executing a search warrant may take reasonable action to secure the premises and to
ensure their own safety and the efficacy of the search. (LA County vs. Retelle)

Chain of Custody

- The chain of custody is the duly recorded authorized movements and custody of the seized drugs
or controlled chemicals or plan sources of dangerous drugs or laboratories of each stage, from
the time of seizure to receipt in the forensic laboratory to safekeeping to presentation in court
for destruction. (People vs. De La Cruz)
- The four links in the chain of custody are, first, the seizure and marking of illegal drugs by the
apprehending officer, second, the turnover of the illegal drug to the investigating officer, third,
the turnover of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist and fourth, the turnover and submission
of the marked illegal drug to the court. (People vs. Holgado)

Open Fields and Curtilage

- The protection of the fourth amendment are not extended to the “open fields” in the ground
that they are cannot be construed as persons , houses, places and things or effects (Oliver vs. US)
- The curtilage or outdoor area immediately surrounding the home is an extension of the house
and such subject to all privacy protections afforded to a person’s home. (Oliver vs. US)

Reasonable Expectation of Privacy

- The test of reasonable expectation of privacy determines whether a person has a reasonable
expectation of privacy when reasonable violation of privacy is violated. The test includes:
Whether by his conduct, the individual gas exhibited an expectation of privacy and this
expectation is one that society recognizes are reasonable. (Hing vs. Choachuy)
 - An individual’s right to privacy should not be confined to his house or residence, it may extend to
places where he has the right to exclude the public or deny them access. (Hing vs. Choachuy)
- Individuals in automobiles have reduced expectation of privacy, because vehicles generally do
not serve as residences or repositories of personal effects. Vehicles may not be randomly
stopped and searched; there must be probable cause or reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.
Items in “plain view” may be seized; areas that could potentially hide weapons may also be
searched. (Arizona vs. Gant)

Computers in Workplace

- A search by a government employer if an employee is justified at inception when there are

reasonable grounds for suspecting that it will turn up evidence that the employee is guilty of
wirk related misconduct. (Pollo vs. David)
- Evidence obtained from a person’s personal computer cannot be used against him for it violates
his constitutional right against unreasonable searches and seizures. (Pollo vs. David)
- It is within the prerogative of educational institutions to require, as a condition for admission,
compliance with reasonable school rules and regulations and policies. To be sure, the right to
enroll is not absolute; it is subject to fair, reasonable and equitable requirements. (Pimintel vs.
Comelec)
- Computer data, produced or created by their writers or authors may constitute to personal
property. Consequently, they are protected from unreasonable searches and seizures, whether
while stored in their personal computers or in the service provider’s systems (Disini vs. Sec. Jus)

Exclusionary Rule

- Evidence obtained and confiscated on the occasion of such an unreasonable search and seizure
or stained and should be excluded for being the proverbial fruit of a poisonous tree. (Abre vs.
People)

Section 3
Writ of Habeas Data – a remedy available to any person whose right to privacy in life, liberty or security
is violated or threatened by an unlawful act or omission by any person engaged in the gathering,
collecting or storing of data or information regarding the aggrieved party.

Relevant Rulings:

- Being a public figure ipso facto does not automatically destroy in to toto a person’s right to
privacy (Lagunzad vs. Vda. De Gonzales)
- The only exception to the prohibition in the Constitution is if there is a “lawful order from a court
or where public safety or order requires otherwise, as prescribed by law”. Any violation of this
provision renders the evidence obtained inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding.
(Zulueta vs. CA)
- A voice recording is authenticated by the testimony of the witness that he personally recorded
the conversation; that the tape played in the court was the one he recorded; and that the voices
on the tape are those of the persons such claimed to belong (Navarro vs. CA)
- Before an In camera inspection may be allowed, there must be a pending case before a court of
competent jurisdiction. Further, the account must be clearly identified, the inspection limited to
the subject matter of the pending case before the court of competent jurisdiction. (Marquez vs.
Desierto)
- The habeas data rule, in general is designed to protect by means of judicial complaint the image
privacy, honor, information and freedom of information of an individual. (Meralco vs. Lim)
- The writs of amparo and habeas data will not issue to protect purely property or commercial
concerns nor when the grounds invoked in support of the petitions therefore are vague or
doubtful (Meralco vs. Lim)
- Corporations do not have personal privacy, personal ordinarily refers to individuals. Personal in
that phrase conveys more than just of a person, it suggests a type of privacy evocative of human
concerns not the sort usually associated with corporations. (FCC vs. AT&T)
- Two constitutional guarantees create the zones of privacy (1) the right against unreasonable
search and seizures and (2) the right to private communication and correspondence. In assessing
the challenge that the state impermissibly intruded into these zones, a court must determine
whether a person has exhibited a reasonable expectation of privacy and if so, whether that
expectation has been violated by unreasonable government intrusion (Disini vs. Sec. Justice)
- The three strands of privacy are (1) locational or situational privacy (2) informational privacy (3)
decisional privacy. (Vivares vs. St. Theresa’s College)
- To have an expectation of privacy in Facebook, an online user must first necessarily manifest the
intention to keep certain post private through employment of measures to prevent access there
or to limit its visibility. In other words, utilization of these privacy tools is the manifestation in the
cyber world of the user’s invocation of his rights to information privacy. (Belo vs. Atty,. Guevara)

Section 4
 As-applied challenge – made to a vague statute and considers only extant facts affecting real
litigation, statutes found vague as a matter of due process typically are invalidated only as
applied to a particular defendant. In other words, it alleges that a particular application of a
statute is unconstitutional.

Facial Challenge – allowed to be made to a vague statute and to one which is overbroad because
of the possible chilling effect upon protected speech. A facial validation is an exam of the entire
law, pinpointing its flaws and defects not only on the basis of actual operation to the parties but
also on the assumption or prediction that is very existence may cause other not before the court
to refrain from constitutionally protected speech or activities.

Relevant Rulings:

Who can invoke?

- Students do not shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech and expression at the
school gate. While the authority of the educational institutions to order the conduct of students
must be recognized, it cannot go so far as to be violative of the constitutional safeguards (Non
vs. Dames)
- The court recognizes that first amendment protection extends to corporations, political speech
does not lose first amendment protection simply because its source is a corporation. The identity
of the speaker is not decisive in determining whether speech is protected (Citizens United vs.
FEC)
- The Philippines has not seen to fit to criminalize homosexual conduct. These generally accepted
public morals have not been convincingly transplanted into the realm of law. Absent any
compelling state interest, the court cannot impose its view on the populace. It follows that both
expressions concerning one’s individuals are protected as well. (Ang Ladlad vs. Comelec)
- Government workers have as much right as any person in the land to voice out their protest
against what they believe to be a violation of their rights and interests. Civil Service does not
deprive them of their freedom of expression. (GSIS vs. Villaviza)

Prior Restraint

- Prior restraint refers to official governmental restrictions on the press or other forms of
expression in advance of actual publication or dissemination.
- Any law or official that requires some form of permission to be had before publication can be
made, commits an infringement of the constitutional right and remedy can be had at the courts.
- Essentially, preventing publication of speech before it is published by an injunction.

Subsequent Punishment
 - Subsequent punishment means punishing the purveyor of illegal speech after it is published
- Can be through civil or criminal actions

Content Based

- The restriction is based on the subject matter of the utterance or speech.

- Is given the strictest scrutiny test in light of its inherent and invasive impact. Only when the
challenged act as overcome clear and present danger rule will it pass constitutional muster.
- Bears heavy presumption of invalidity, and this court has used the clear and present danger rule
as a measure.

Content Neutral

- Merely concerned with the incidents of the speech or one that merely controls the time, place
or manner, and under defined standards.
- Only substantial governmental interest is required for its validity because this type are not
designed to suppress any particular message they are not subject to the strictest for of judicial
scrutiny but an intermediate approach.
- Is constitutionally permissible even if it restricts the right to free speech, provided that the
following requisites are compiled:
 The government regulation is within the constitutional power of the
government.
 It furthers an important or substantial government interest
 The governmental interest is unrelated to the suppression of free
expression
 The incidental restriction on freedom of expression is no greater than is
essential to the furtherance of that interest.

Tests and Standards

Dangerous Tendency Test – permits limitations on speech once a rational connection has been
established between the speech restrained and the danger contemplated.

Balancing of Interest Rule – when courts need to balance the conflicting social values and individual
interests, and requires a conscious and detailed consideration of the interplay of interest observable in a
given situation of type of situation.

Clear and Present Danger - rests on the premise that speech may be restrained because there is
substantial danger that the speech will likely lead to an evil the government has a right to prevent.

Courts and Media

 - Between the constitutional guarantees of the freedom of press and the fundamental rights of
the accused, jurisprudence tells us that the right of the accused must be preferred to win.(Perez
vs. Estrada)
- The courts has always exercised utmost restraint and tolerance against criticisms bearing in mind
that official actions are subject to public opinion and as means of ensuring accountability.
However when criticism transgressed the ambit of fair criticism and depicted as a legitimate
action of this curt as a reciprocated accommodation of petitioners interest. i.e. when it seeks to
sow mistrust in the dispositions of the court. (Gov. Garcia vs. Manrique)
- Lawyers have the right to criticize the courts and judicial officers but must be balanced against
the equally primordial concern that the independence of the judiciary be protected from due
influence or interference. Courts may discipline lawyers whose statements regarding the courts
and fellow lawyers, whether judicial or extrajudicial, have exceeded the limits of fair comment
and common decency. (Re: Letter of UP Law Faculty)

Unprotected Speeches

- A thing is considered obscene if, consider as a whole, its predominant appeal is to prurient
interest like a shameful or morbid interest in nudity, sex, or excretion and if it goes substantially
beyond customary limits of candor in description or representation of such matters. (Roth vs. US)
- There is actual malice, or malice in fact when the offender make the defamatory statement with
the knowledge that it is false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not. Gross of
even extreme negligence is not sufficient to establish actual malice. (Disini vs. Secretary of
Justice)
- A Hecklers Veto is the suppression of speech by the government, because of [the possibility of a
violent reaction by hecklers. It is the government that vetoes the speech, because of the
reaction of the heckler.

Section 5
Freedom to Believe – the individual is free to believe or disbelieve as he pleases concerning the
hereafter. He may indulge his own theories about life, death and worship any God he chooses or none at
all. He may not be required to prove his beliefs.

Freedom to Act – When the individual externalizes his belief in acts or omissions that affect the public,
his freedom to do so becomes subject to the authority of The State, great as his liberty may be, religious
freedom, like all rights guaranteed the Constitution can be enjoyed with a proper regard to the rights of
others (Re: Request of Muslim Employees)

Free Exercise

Mandatory Accommodation – results when the court finds that accommodation is required by the Free
Exercise Clause, i.e. when the Court itself carves out an exemption. This accommodation occurs when all
three conditions of compelling interest test are met. If the states objective could be served as well or
almost as well by granting an exemption to those whose religious beliefs are burdened by the regulation,
the court must grant the exemption. (Estrada vs. Escritor)

Permissive Accommodation - when the court finds that the State may but is not required to,
accommodate religious interests (Estrada vs. Escritor)

Benevolent Neutrality – is a standard used by the court in deciding religion clauses, allows
accommodation of religion under certain circumstances. Accommodations are government policies that
take religion but allow individuals and groups to exercise their religion without hindrance. Their purpose
or effect is to remove a burden on, or facilitate the exercise of, a persons or institutions religion.

Strict Neutrality – is a standard used by the court in deciding religion clauses, the Establishment Clause
was meant to protect the state from the church the states hostility towards religion allows no interaction
between the two. Holds that the government should base public policy solely in secular considerations,
without regard to religious consequences of its actions. (Estrada vs. Escritor)

Section 7
The foregoing constitutional provision seeks to promote transparency in policy- making and in the
operations of the government. As well as provide the people with sufficient information to exercise
effectively other constitutional rights. They are also essential to hold public officials at all-time
accountable to the people for unless citizens have the proper information, they cannot hold public
officials accountable for anything.

Relevant Rulings:

- The three categories which are considered matters of public concern are (1) official records,
refers to any document that is part of the public records in the custody of the government
agencies or officials (2) documents and papers pertaining to official acts, transactions and
decisions, refers to documents and papers recording, evidencing and establishing, confirming,
supporting, justifying or explaining official acts, transactions or decisions of government agencies
or officials (3) government research data used in formulating policies, refers to research data
whether raw, collated or processed owned by the government used in formulating governmental
policies. (Chavez vs. Public Estates)
- The right to information does not extend to matters recognized as privileged information under
the separation of powers, the right also does it apply to information on military or diplomatic
secrets, information affecting national security, and information on investigations of crimes by
law enforcement agencies. The right may be subject to the limitations congress may impose.
(Chavez vs. Public Estates)
- The Constitutional right to information includes official information on on-going negotiations
before a final contract. (Chavez vs. Public Estates)
- Pending the enactment of an enabling law, the release of information through posting in public
bulletin boards and government websites satisfies the constitutional requirement of right to
information(IDEALS vs. PSALMS)
- The duty to disclose information is mandatory under the Constitution, the other aspect of the
people’s right to know requires a demand or request for one to gain access to the document and
paper of the particular agency the duty to disclose covers only transactions involving public
interest while duty to allow access has a broader scope of information which embraces not only
transactions involving public interest, but any matter contained in official communications and
public documents of the government agency. ( IDEALS vs. PSALMS)
- The right to information, by its very nature is not absolute. Government institutions also own
right to confidentiality, in terms of their need to protect the integrity of their mandated tasks.
- The following are considered privileged and beyond the reach of the constitutional right to
information:
 Court actions
 Court deliberations
 Court records which are predecisional and deliberative
 Confidential information secured by justices, judges
 Records of cases that are still pending

Section 8
Essence: The provision guarantees the right to form associations. It does not include the right to compel
others to form an association. Belongs to the people whether employed or unemployed in government
or in private. Includes the right to unionize. Includes the right not to associate. However neither the right
to associate nor the right to participate in political activities is absolute.

Relevant Rulings:

- The constitutional guaranteed freedom of association also includes the freedom not to
associate. The right to choose with whom one will associate oneself is the very foundation and
essence of that partnership. It should be noted that although the provision guarantees the right
to form an association, it does not include the right to compel other to form or join. (Home
Owners Association vs. Gaston)
- Bar integration does not compel the lawyer to associate with anyone He is free to attend or not
to attend the meetings of his chapter or to or refuse to vote in its election as he chooses, the
only compulsion to which he is subjected to is the payment of his annual dues. ( Letter to Atty.
Cecilio)
- Employees in the public service may not engage in strikes or in concerted and unauthorized
stoppage of work; the right to government employees to organize is limited to the formation of
unions or associations without including the right to strike. Government employees may not
engage in strikes, mass leaves, walkouts and other forms of mass action that will lead in the
temporary stoppage or disruption of public services (GSIS vs. KMG)
- Closed shop agreements are agreement whereby an employer binds himself to hire only
members of the contracting union who must continue to remain members in good standing to
keep their jobs it is a valid restriction of the freedom of right join labor organizations because it
is in favor of unionism. It is not a restriction of the right to restriction on the freedom of
association guaranteed by the constitution. Law and jurisprudence promote unionism and afford
certain protection to certified bargaining agent in a unionized company because a strong and
effective union presumably benefits all employees in bargaining unit since such a union would be
in a better position to demand improved benefits and conditions of work from the employer (BPI
vs. BPI E.)
- Local union has the right to disaffiliate from its mother union or declare its autonomy. A local
union being a separate and voluntary association, is free to serve the interests of all its members
including the freedom to disaffiliate or declare its autonomy from the federation which it
belongs when circumstances warrant, in accordance with the constitutional guarantee of
freedom (NUBE vs. PEMA)
- Administrative segregation is a reasonable exercise of military discipline and cannot be
considered in invasion of the rights to freedom of speech and of association (Birdwell vs.
Schlesinger)
- The right to organize does not equate to the states obligation to accord official status to every
single association that comes into existence. It is one thing for individuals to galvanize
themselves as a collective, but it is also another for the group that they formed to not only be
formally recognized by the state, but also bedecked with all the benefits and privileges that are
attendance to official status.(QC PTCA vs DepEd)
 Section 9
Essence: unless the requisite of genuine necessity for the expropriation of one’s property is
clearly established, it shall be the duty of the courts to protect the rights of individuals to their
property.
Eminent Domain, which is the power of the sovereign state to appropriate property within its
territorial sovereignty to promote public welfare is a fundamental state power. The genuine
necessity for the taking, which must be of a public character must also be shown to exist. The
decision to exercise the power rests in the legislature, congress can delegate the exercise thereof
to local government units, other public entities and public utility corporation. The exercise of
eminent domain necessarily derogates against private rights which must yield to demand of
public good and common welfare. Not only must the taking be for public purpose but just
compensation must also be paid.

Just compensation – the full and fair equivalent of the property taken from its owner. The fair
market value is determined but its character and its price from the time of taking.

Public Use – common referred as “use by the public”, however the concept has been expanded
to include utility, advantage or productivity to the public, synonymous to public benefit and
public convenience. (Republic vs. Heirs of Borbon)

Necessity of Taking

The very foundation of the right to exercise eminent domain is a genuine necessity and that
necessity must be public in character. Does not mean absolute but only reasonable or practical
necessity, such as would combine the greatest benefit to the public with the least inconvenience
and expense to the condemning party. (Masikip vs. City of Pasig)

Just Compensation

- The use of the phrase “just compensation” is the same phrase used in Sec. 9 Art. 3 of the
constitution and Sec. 4 art. 13. (Land Bank vs. Honeycomb)

- The clear intent of the constitutional guarantee of just compensation, whether understood
within the terms of Article 3 Section 9 or Article 13 Section 4, is to secure to any owner the “full
and fair” equivalent of the property taken. (Land Bank vs. Eusebio)

- In line with the circular of the OMB and BSP No.799, series of 2013, the prevailing rate of
interest for loans or forbearance of money is 6% per annum, in the absence of an express
contract as to such rate of interest. (Republic vs. Soriano)

- The land owner is not entitled to the award of consequential damages if the entire area of the
subject property is being expropriated and not merely a portion thereof, considering that the
subject property is expropriated entirely, there is no portion which may suffer an impairment or
decrease in value as a result. (Republic vs. Soriano)
- If the entire property has been rendered inutile for any future use, it would be unfair for the
state not to be made liable to the owner for the disturbance of their property rights from the
time of entry until the time of restoration of the property. (Republic vs. Heirs of Borbon)

- Owners loss is not only his property but also its income generating potential, thus when property
is taken, full compensation of its value must immediately be paid to achieve fair exchange for the
property and the potential income lost (DPWH vs. Tecson)

- Exemplary damages can be granted if the government fails to initiate an expropriation

proceeding to the prejudice of the land owner. (DPWH vs. Tecson)

- Fair market value is the general standard of value in determining just compensation, while
jurisprudence requires the fair market value to be the measure of recovery in expropriation
cases it is not an absolute and exclusive standard or method of valuation. There are exceptional
cases where the property has no fair market value, like churches, colleges, cemeteries and
airports (Republic vs. PIATCO)

- Replacement cost is different standard of valuation from fair market value, as previously stated,
fair market value is the price which a property may be sold by a seller who is not compelled to
sell and bought by a buyer who is not compelled to by, in contrast, replacement cost is the
amount necessary to replace the improvements, structures, based in the current prices of
materials, equipment, labor, contractors profit and overhead, all and other attendant cost
associated with the acquisition and installation to place the affected improvements. We use the
replacement cost method to determine just compensation if the expropriated property has no
market based evidence of its value. (Republic vs. Piatco)

- Depreciated replacement cost method is more appropriate method to use in appraising NAIA-IPT
III, Depreciated replacement cost approach is the method of valuation which provides the
current cost of replacing an asset with its modern equivalent asset less deductions for all
physical deterioration and all relevant forms of obsolescence and optimization. Injustice would
result if we reward PIATCO just compensation based on the new replacement cost and disregard
to fact that government expropriated a terminal that is not brad new. NAIAIPT III simply does not
have the full economic and functional utility of a brand new airport. (Republic vs. Piatco)

- PIATCO is entitled to interests and not to fruits and income. Interest award is not anchored
either on the law or contracts or damages; it is based on the owners constitutional right to just
compensation. The state by way of interest, makes up for the shortfall in the owners earning
potential and the absence of replacement property from which income can be derived. However
the interest awarded is equivalent to fruits and income and this PIATCO would profit from the
operation of NAIAIPT III whose funds are sourced from the public coffers (Republic vs. Piatco)

- RA8974 allows the government to enter the property and implement national infrastructure
projects upon issuance of the writ of possession. The transfer of the property title from the
property owner to the government is not a condition precedent to taking of property. The stay
 make take private property to the eventual transfer of title of the expropriated property to the
state. (Republic vs. Piatco)

- The nature of RA8974 as mere guidelines to this court as opposed to mandatory rules cannot be
denied. Clearly the court may consider the guidelines set, but it cannot be bound by them.
(Republic vs Piatco)

- The expropriators action may be short of acquisition of title, physical possession or occupancy
but may still amount to taking. Compensable taking includes destruction, restriction, diminution,
or interruption of the rights of ownership or of the common and necessary use and enjoyment
of the property in a lawful manner, lessening or destroying its value. It is neither necessary that
the owner be wholly deprived of the use of his property, nor material whether the property is
removed from the possession of the owner. ( NPC vs. Makabangkit)

Inferior Domain

- The essential requisites for a valid ordinance is:

o Must not contravene the constitution or any statute
o Must not be unfair or oppressive
o Must not be partial or discrimatory
o Must not prohibit but regulate trade
o Must be general and consistent with public policy
o Must not be unreasonable (Lagcao vs. Labra)

- There is no dispute that the LGU possesses the power of eminent domain, but the taking of
private property is not absolute, the power of eminent domain must be not exercised arbitrarily,
even if purposed for resolving a critical problem such as urban squatting. (Antonio vs. Geronim

Res Judicata

- The principle of res judicata cannot bar the right of the state or its agent to expropriate private
property. The very nature of eminent domain, as an inherent power of the state dictates that the
right to exercise the power to be absolute and unfettered even by prior judgment or res judicata
(Paranaque vs. VM Realty)
- While the principle of res judicata does not denigrate the right of the state to exercise eminent
domain, it does not apply to specific issues decided in a previous case. For example, a final
judgment dismissing an expropriation suit on the ground that there was no prior offer precludes
another suit raising the same issue. (Paranaque vs VM Realty)

Section 10
Essence: Any law which enlarges or abridges or in any manner changes the intention of the parties,
necessarily impairs the contract itself and when the chance in the contract is done indirection there is
impairment nonetheless. The prohibition embraces enactments of a governmental law-making body
pertaining to its legislative functions. However, it does not over the exercise by such law-making body of
quasi-judicial power. As a rule contracts should not be tampered with by subsequent laws that would
change or modify the rights and obligations of the parties. Impairment is anything that diminishes the
efficacy of the contract. There is an impairment if a subsequent law changes the terms of a contract
between parties, imposes new conditions, dispenses with those agreed upon or withdraws remedies for
the enforcement of the right of the parties.

- The non-impairment clause must yield to the loftier purpose targeted by the government,
contracts affecting public interest contain an implied reservation of the police power as a
postulate of the existing legal order. This power can be activated at any time to change the
provisions of the contract, or even abrogate it entirely, for the promotion or protection the
general public. Such an act will not militate the non-impairment clause, which is subject to and
limited by paramount police power. (Chavez vs. Comelec)

Section 11:
Essence: access to justice by all, especially by the poor is essential in a democracy and is guaranteed by
no less than the fundamental law. The right to access to justice is the most important pillar of legal
empowerment of the marginalized sectors.

Relevant Rulings:

- Only natural party litigants may be regarded as indigent litigant, a corporation invested by the
state with juridical personality separate and distinct from that of its members is a juridical
person, as a juridical person, therefore, it cannot be accorded the exemption from legal and
filing fees granted to indigent litigants. The constitution explicitly premised the free access clause
on a person’s poverty, a condition that only natural person can suffer and might lead to abuse if
not checked. (Re: Query of Mr. Prioreschi)

Section 12:
 Custodial investigations – refers to the critical pretrial stage when the investigation ceases to be a
general query into an unresolved crime but has begun to focus on a particular person as a suspect.

After a person is arrested and his custodial investigation begins a confrontation arises which at best may
be termed unequal. The detainee is brought to an army camp or police headquarters and there
questioned and cross examined not only by one by as many investigators as may be necessary to break
down his morale.

- Procedures on custodial investigation do not apply to a spontaneous statement that is not elicit
through questioning by the authorities, but is given in an ordinary matter (Bon vs. People)
- A general inquiry is not a custodial investigation (People vs Ochoa)
- When a police officer tries to elicit admissions or confessions or even plain information from a
suspect, the latter should at that juncture be assisted by a counsel, unless he waives that right in
writing and in the presence of a counsel. (People vs. Rapeza)
- The fact that a person is invited by the investigating committee does not by itself determine the
nature of the investigation as custodial. The nature of the proceeding must be adjudge on a case
to case basis. Ordinary administrative investigation is not custodial. (Luspo vs. People)
- The duty to inform the detainee of his rights is not just ceremonial, the police officer must
explain the consequences of the waiver of the right and sufficiency of explanation can depend
on the intelligence or education of the person detained. (People vs Inguito)
- The principle of regularity of performance in conducting duties should not apply when it comes
to the application of Miranda warnings. The prosecution has the burden of proof in establishing
convincingly that it has complied with the duties of informing the accused of his rights. (People
vs. Inguito)
- The right to counsel is intended to preclude the slightest coercions would lead the accused to
admit something false. The lawyer, however, should never prevent an accused from freely and
voluntarily telling the truth. (People vs. Layoso)
- Even if the admission of an accused is gospel truth, if it was made without the assistance of a
counsel, it is inadmissible in evidence regardless of the absence of coercion or even if it had
been voluntarily give. (People vs. Guillermo)
- Jurisprudential Rules on the right to counsel:
o If a confession was made without the assistance of a counsel, it is inadmissible.
o The word preferably does not convey the message that the choice of the lawyer by a
person under investigation is exclusive to preclude other equally competent and
independent attorney from handling his defense.
o The right to counsel attaches upon the start of custodial investigations. It is therefore
appropriate to extend the counsel guarantee to critical stages of prosecution even
before trial.
o The arrival of a lawyer prior to the actual signing of the uncounseled confession does not
cure the inherent defect of such confession.
o There is no requirement in the constitution that the lawyer of an accused during
custodial investigations be previously known to him
o The constitution does not distinguish between verbal and not verbal confession, as long
as they are uncounseled, they are inadmissible evidence.
o A lawyer provided by the investigators is deemed engaged by the accused where he
never raised any objection against the formers appointment during the course of the
 investigation and the accused thereafter subscribes to the veracity of his statements
before the swearing officer.
o A barangay captain is not an independent council

- A declaration deemed part of res gestae and admissible in evidence as an exception to the
hearsay rule when the following requisite concur:
o The principal act, the res gestae is a startling occurrence.
o The statements were made before the declarant had time to contrive or devise.
o The statement must concern the occurrence and in question and its immediately
attending circumstances. (People vs. Tomaquin)

- Despite the inadmissibility of appellants alleged confession to the police, the persecution has
amply proven the appellants guilt, the bare denial raised in open court pales in contrast to the
spontaneous and vivid out-of-court admissions he made to security guard Campos and two
media reporters. (People vs Tomaquin)
- The phrase “preferably of his own choice” does not convey the message that the choice of a
lawyer by a person under investigation is exclusive to preclude there equally competent and
independent attorneys from handling his defense. (People vs. Reyes)
- The lawyer’s role cannot be reduced to that of a witness to the signing of a pre-prepared
confession, even if it indicated compliance with the constitutional rights of the accused. The
accused is entitled to effective, vigilant and independent counsel. (Lumanog vs. People)
- A lawyer who is provided by the very same agency investigating the accused and acted in his
behalf is not a competent and independent counsel (People vs. Lara)
- Any violation of rights during custodial investigations is relevant and material only to cases which
an extrajudicial admission or confession extracted from the accused becomes the basis for their
conviction (People vs. Lugnasin)
- Andy defect of an accused is cured when he voluntary enters in a plea and participates in the
trial without raising the issue. (People vs. Hirang)
- Any objections, defects or irregularities attending an arrest must be made before he accused
enters his plea on arraignment. Having failed to move for the quashing of the information
against them before arraignment, appellants are not estopped from questioning the legality of
their arrest. (Poeple vs Tampis)
- Instances where at the extrajudicial admission were accorded the protective mantle of Sec. 12
Article 3 of the constitution:
o Uncounseled statement of the accused is not admissible in evidence
o The uncounseled admission of the accused made after the filing of the information in
court and after he was arrested by virtue if a warrant I arrest is still inadmissible
- Instances where at the extrajudicial admission were not accorded the protective mantle of Sec.
12 Article 3 of the constitution:
o Administrative Investigations
o Confessions made to private individual, or verbal admission made to a radio announcer
not part of the investigation or to a mayor approached as a personal confidante
o Videotaped interview showing the accused unburdening guilt willingl and publicly in the
presence of the media
 o Spontaneous statement, not elicit through questioning by the authorities but given in an
ordinary manner.
- All that is needed is an effective communication between the interrogator and the suspect to the
end that the latter is able to understand his rights. In the doctrine of interlocking confessions,
such corroboration is circumstantial evidence against the person implicated in it.
- Drug test on urine samples taken from the accused during custodial investigation, even without
assistance of a counsel is admissible evidence. The situation in this case falls within the
exemption under the freedom from testimonial compulsion since what was sought to be
examined came from the body of the accused. This was a mechanical act the accused was made
to undergo which was not meant to unearth undisclosed facts but to ascertain physical
attributes determinable by simple observation. (Gutang vs. People)
- Cases where non-testimonial compulsion has been allowed reveal however, that the pieces of
evidence obtained were all material to the principal cause of the arrest, in the instant case, we
fail to see how a urine sample could be material to the charge of extortion. A waiver or an illegal
warrantless arrest does not mean a waiver of the inadmissibility of evidence seized during an
illegal warrantless arrest. (De la Cruz vs. People)

Section 13

Essence: Bail is the security given by an accused who is in the custody of the law for his release
to guarantee his appearance before any court as may be required. The answer of the criminal
justice system to the vexing question: what is to be done with the accused, whose guilt has not
yet been proven? Upon conviction of the RTC of an offense not punishable by death, reclusion
 Perpetua or life imprisonment, the accused who has been sentenced to prison must typically
being serving time immediately unless, on application, he is admitted bail.

A matter of right – when the offense charged is not punishable by death, reclusion perpetua or
life imprisonment.

Matter of discretion – when upon conviction by the RTC of an offense not punishable by death,
reclusion perpertua or life imprisonment, bail becomes a matter of discretion.

- Instances where bail is a matter of discretion:

o In deportation proceedings, bail is a matter of discretion on the part of a commissioner
of immigration and deportation.
o Not a matter of right in extradition cases but may be granted only as an exception upon
clear and convincing showing that:
 Once granted, the applicant will not be a flight risk or danger to the community
 There exists special humanitarian and compelling circumstances including, as
matter of reciprocity those cited by the highest court in the requesting state
when it grants provisional liberty in extrajudicial cases.
o May be denied following the presence of bail negating circumstances such as:
 He is a recidivist, quasi recidivist, habitual delinquent or has committed the
crime aggravated by the circumstance of reiteration
 That he has previously escaped from legal confinement and evaded sentence or
violated the condition of his bail without valid justification.
 That he committed the offense while on probation, parole or conditional pardon
 That the circumstances of his case indicate the probability of flight if released
 That there is undue risk that he may commit another crime during the pendency
of his appeal
- A judge should nevertheless set the petition for bail for hearing and diligently ascertain from the
prosecution whether the latter was not really consenting the bail application (In Re Judge Elma)
- While the court may afford bail at its discretion, that discretion particularly with respect to
extending the bail should be expressed not with laxity but with caution and only for string
reason with the end in view of upholding the majesty of the law and the administration of justice
(Obosa vs CA)

Section 18

Essence: Political prisoners are those arrested and detained solely by reason of their political beliefs, in
flagrant violation of the 1987 Constitution.

Slavery and involuntary servitude, together with their corollary peonage, all denote “a condition of
enforced compulsory service of one to another”.
Human dignity is not a merchandise appropriate for commercial barters or business bargains.

Relevant Rulings:

- Instancces where the right against involuntary servitude cannot be invoked:

1.) Service of sentence as punishment for a crime by a convicted felon.

2.) Personal military or civil service in the interest of national defense
3.) Obligation of the individual to assist in the protection of the peace and good order of his
community
4.) Return-to-work order in labor cases
5.) Mandatory legal aid service by lawyers
6.) Compulsory pro bono reproductive health services by medical practitioners

- Proactive of medicine is undeniably imbued with public interest that is both a power and a duty
of the state to control and regulate in order to protect and promote the public welfare.
- The practice of medicine is not a right but a privilege, therefore can be regulated or controlled by
the government. (Imbong vs. Ochoa)
- Reproductive Health Law merely encourages private and non-governmental reproductive
healthcare service providers to render pro bono services, there is no involuntary servitude, while
it has been made a prerequisite for accreditation, and the court does not consider the same to
be an unreasonable burden. (Imbong vs. Ochoa)
- Conscientious objectors are except from this provision as long as their religious beliefs and
convictions do not allow them to render reproductive health service, pro bono or otherwise
(Imbong vs. Ochoa)

Section 19:

Essence: It takes more than merely being harsh, excessive, out of proportion, or severe for a penalty to
be obnoxious to the Constitution.

The fact that the punishment authorized by the statute is severe does not make it cruel or unusual.
To 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 conscience of the community”

The proscription extends only to situations of extreme corporeal or psychological punishment that strips
the individual of his humanity.

Is aimed at the form or character of the punishment not the severity.

Relevant Rulings:

- Penal actions are indispensable of the law is to be obeyed, without them the law would be
toothless, the penalty for suspension or cancellation of the physicians license is neither cruel,
inhuman, nor degrading. (Del Rosario vs. Bengzon)
- The penalty of reclusion perpetua cruel and inhuman, to make that claim is to assail the
constitutionality if the RPC which has survived four Constitutions, if fact it is expressly recognized
in the Constitution itself.
- The core judicial inquiry was not whether a certain quantum of injury was sustained, but rather:
whether force was applied in good faith effort to maintain or restore discipline or maliciously
and sadistically to cause harm. ( Wilkins vs. Gaddy)

Section 20:

Essensce: the purpose was to remove the evil incident to the system of taking the debtors person upon
capias ad satisfaciendum that this organic inhibition came primarily to be ordained.

Either as substitute for satisfaction of a debt or as a means of compelling satisfaction, no person may be
imprisoned for debt in virtue of an order in a civil proceeding.
They may however be imprisoned as a penalty for a crime arising from a contractual debt and imposed
in a criminal proceeding.

A poll tax or a cedula tax is a capitation tax imposed on all persons of a certain age, it is the tax one pays
for his or her residence certificate which generally serves as a personal identification instrument.

Relevant Rulings:

- In determining the penalty to be imposed in BP22 the philosophy underlying the indeterminate
sentence law applies, the philosophy is to redeem valuable human material and to prevent
unnecessary deprivation of personal liberty and economic usefulness with due regard to the
protection of the social order. (Lim vs. People)
- The non-imposition of the penalty of imprisonment in BP22 cases should be based on the
peculiar circumstances set force the case of Vaca, namely, they are first time offenders and they
brought the appeal believing in good faith that they had not committed a violation of BP22.
- Where the circumstances of both the offense and the offender clearly indicate good faith or a
clear mistake of fact without taint of negligence, the imposition of fine alone should be
considered as the more appropriate penalty, (Abarquez vs. CA)

Section 21:

Essence: The state with all its resources and power should not be allowed to make repeated attempts to
convict an individual for an alleged offense, thereby subjecting him to embarrassment, expense and
ordeal and compelling him to live in a continuing state of anxiety and insecurity, as well as enhancing the
possibility that even though innocent, he may be found guilty.
The fundamental tenet in animating the Double Jeopardy Clause is that the state should not be able to
oppress individuals through the abuse of the criminal process.

Because the innocence of the accused has been confirmed by final judgment, the constitution
conclusively presumes that a second trial would be unfair.

Relevant Rulings:

- Some jurisprudential principle on double jeopardy:

o Requisites:
 First jeopardy must have attached prior to the second
 First jeopardy must have been validly terminated
 Second jeopardy must be of the same offense as that in the first
o Legal Jeopardy attaches only
 Upon a valid indictment
 Before a competent court
 After arraignment
 A valid plea having been entered
 The case was dismissed or otherwise terminated without the express consent of
the accused
o The plea of jeopardy cannot be accorded merit where the two indictments are perfectly
distinct in point of law however closely they may appear to be connected in fact.
o Same criminal act may give rise to two or more separate and distinct offenses and no
double jeopardy may arise as long as there is variance between the elements of the two
elements charged.
o For double jeopardy to exist the first judgment must be final.
 The order terminating the hearing is not final
 Decision of a military tribunal is recommendatory and is subject to review.
o Reinstatement of a criminal case does not violate the right against double jeopardy
where the dismissal of the information by the trial court had been at the instance of the
accused.
o Double jeopardy would attach if the dismissal of a case on demurrer to evidence or
insufficiency of evidence is a dismissal on the merits amounting to acquittal.
o Situation is different when one act violates two different statues or two different
provisions of a statute.
 The rule in this case is that if one of the act results in two distinct offenses,
prosecution under one is not a bar to prosecution under the other.
 The test is whether the defendant has already been put in jeopardy for the same
offense
o May not be invoked of the contempt is civil in nature as it involves failure to do
something ordered by the court to be done for the benefit of a party.
o When after 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, the accused cannot invoke
double jeopardy if indicted for the new offense.
o The conviction for an offense which forms part of a complex crime bards prosecution for
other offenses of the complex crime of the entire complex crime.
 o Promulgation of only one part of the decision, i.e. the liability for civil liability is not a bar
to the subsequent promulgation of the criminal accountability.
o When the accused appealed from the sentence of the trial court, they waived the
constitutional safeguard against double jeopardy and threw the whole case open to
review if the appellate court.
o Prosecution’s petition to annul the judgment on the grounds that the trial court decided
the case beyond the issues raised in the information will constitute double jeopardy.
o Although dismissal order of acquittal decision is not subject to appeal it is still
reviewable under the pretense of grave abuse of discretion such as prosecution was
denied the opportunity to present its case or where the trial is a sham.

- When an accused has been convicted or acquitted

- the case against him dismissed
- otherwise terminated without his express consent by a court of
competent jurisdiction, upon a valid complaint or information or other
formal charge sufficient in form and substance to sustain a conviction
and after the accused had pleaded to the charge

Section 22:

Essence:
And ex-post facto law has been defined as:
- Which makes an action done befor the passing of the law and which was innocent when done
criminal and punishes such action.
- Which aggravates a crime or makes it greater that when it was committed
- Changes the punishment that the law annexed to the crime when it was committed
- Which alters the legal rules of evidence and receives less or different testimony that the law
required at the time of commission of the offense in order to convict the defendant
- Assumes to regulate the civil rights and remedies only but in effect imposes a penalty or
deprivation of a right which when done was lawful.
- Deprives the person accused of a crime some lawful protection which he is entitled to.

A bill of attainder is:

- Essentially a usurpation of judicial power by legislative body

- It envisages and effects the imposition of a penalty not by ordinary process of judicial trial but by
legislative fiat.
- Is in intent and effect a penal judgment visited upon an identified person or group of persons
(and not upon a general community) without prior charge or demand, without notice or hearing,
without an opportunity to defend, without any of the civilized forms and safeguards of the
judicial process.

Relevant rulings:

- An ex post facto law is limited to its scope only to matters criminal in nature. (Republic vs.
Rosemoor Mining)
- The science of DNA typing involves the admissibility, relevance and reliability of the evidence
obtained under the Rules of Court, whereas an ex post facto law refers primarily to a question of
law, DNA profiling requires a factual determination of the probative weight of the evidence
presented. (People vs. Yatar)
- A law can never be an ex post facto law as long as it operates prospectively since its structures
would cover only offenses committed after and not before its enactment. ( Villar vs. People)
- A bill of attained is a legislative act which inflicts punishment on individuals or members of a
particular group without a judicial trial. Essential to a bill of attainder are a specification of
certain individuals or groups of individuals, the imposition of a punishment, penal or otherwise
and the lack of judicial trial. (BOCEA vs. Teves)