Sie sind auf Seite 1von 41


CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS the enjoyment of their means of happiness (Example: liberty of
BILL OF RIGHTS 3. Social and economic rights – this pertains to the right to self-
determination, which is the right to freely determine their
 A set of prescriptions setting forth the fundamental civil and
political status and freely pursue their social and cultural
political rights of the individual, and imposing limitations on the
development (Example: right to just compensation)
powers of government as a means of securing the enjoyment
4. Human rights – rights that are inherent in our nature without
of those rights.
which we cannot live as human beings
 Defined as a declaration and enumeration of a person’s rights
5. Rights of the accused – they are the rights intended for the
and privileges which the Constitution is designed to protect
protection of a person accused of any crime (Example: right to
against violations by the government, or by individual or groups
presumption of innocence)
of individuals.
 It is a charter of liberties for the individual and a limitation upon
the power of the State
Section 1, Art. III. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or
CLASSIFICATION OF RIGHTS property without due process of law, nor shall any person be
denied the equal protection of the laws.
1. Natural rights – they are those rights possessed by every
citizen without being granted by the state for they are conferred · no precise definition because it might prove constricting and prevent
upon him by God as human being so that he may live a happy the judiciary from adjusting it to the circumstances of particular cases
life (Example: right to love) · responsiveness to the supremacy of reason, obedience to the
2. Constitutional rights – they are those rights which conferred dictates of justice
and protected by the Constitution. Since they are part of the · embodiment of sporting idea on fair play
fundamental law, they cannot be modified or taken by the law- · guaranty against any arbitrariness on the part of the government
making body
Protection of Person
3. Statutory rights – they are those rights which are provided by
laws promulgated by the law-making body, and consequently , Covers Natural (citizen and alien) and Artificial Persons. As to the
may be abolished by the same body (Example: Right to inherit latter, with respect only to property because its life and liberty are
property) derived from and subject to control of legislature


1. Political rights – granted by law to members of community in · connotes denial of right to life, liberty or property
relation to their direct or indirect participation in the · not unconstitutional. what is prohibited is deprivation without due
establishment or administration of government (Example: right process of law.
· When the State acts to interfere with life, liberty, or property, the
of citizenship)
presumption is that the action is valid.
2. Civil rights – rights which municipal law will enforce at the
instance of private individuals, for the purpose of securing them 1. Life
· It is not just a protection of the right to be alive or to the security of (b) Jurisdiction lawfully acquired over the person of the defendant
one's limb against physical harm. The right to life is the right to a good and/or property
life... a life of dignity and... a decent standard of living. (c) Hearing
2. Liberty · not necessarily trial-type hearing; submission of position
(1) freedom to do right and never wrong (Mabini) papers is enough
(2) right to be free from arbitrary personal restraint or servitude · right of a party to cross-examine the witness against him in a
3. Property civil case is an indispensable part of due process
· anything that can come under the right of ownership and be the · the filing of a motion for reconsideration cures the defect of
subject of contract absence of a hearing
· all things within the commerce of man · Cases in which notice and hearing may be dispensed with
· However, one cannot have a vested right to a public office as this is without violating due process:
not regarded as property. If created by statue, it may be abolished by ◦ abatement of nuisance per se
the legislature at any time. ◦ preventive suspension of a civil servant facing
· Mere privileges are not property rights and are therefore revocable at administrative charges
will ◦ cancellation of passport of a person sought for the
commission of a crime
Aspects of Due Process ◦ statutory presumptions
1. Substantive Due Process (d) Judgment rendered upon lawful hearing (Banco Espanol Filipino
2. Procedural Due Process v. Palanca)

· As a substantive requirement, it is a prohibition of arbitrary laws. 2. Administrative Due Process

· As a procedural requirement, it relates chiefly to the mode of
procedure which government agencies must follow in the enforcement Requisites:
and application of laws. It is a guarantee of procedural fairness. (a) Right to a hearing
(b) Tribunal must consider the evidence presented
Substantive due process – requires intrinsic validity of the law in (c) Decision must have something to support itself
interfering with the rights of the person to his life, liberty or property (d) Evidence must be Substantial
(e) Decision must be rendered on the evidence presented at the
Requisites: hearing, or at least contained in the record and disclosed to the parties
(a) There must be a valid law upon which it is based. affected
(b) The law must have been passed or approved to accomplish a (f) Tribunal, body, or any of its judges must act on its or his own
valid governmental objective independent consideration of the facts and law of the controversy
(c) The objective must be pursued in a lawful manner (g) Decision is rendered in such a manner that the parties to the
(d) The law and the means to achieve the objective must be valid. proceeding can know the various issues involved, and the reason for
the decision rendered
Procedural due process – method of procedure to be observed
before one’s life, liberty and property can be taken away. · In administrative proceedings, the quantum of proof required is only
substantial evidence, such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind
1. Judicial Due Process might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.

Requisites: · The law is vague when it lacks comprehensible standards that men
(a) Impartial and Competent Court “of common intelligence must necessarily guess as to its meaning and
differ as to its application. It is repugnant to the Constitution in two The state may interfere with and regulate both property and liberty
respects: rights to prevent the individual from making certain kinds of contracts
▪ it violates due process for failure to accord persons fair notice in its exercise of police power which relates to safety, health, morals
of conduct to avoid; and, and general welfare of the society. In this instance, the 14th
▪ it leaves law enforcers unbridled discretion in carrying out its amendment cannot interfere.
provisions and becomes arbitrary flexing of the Government
muscle. The trade of a baker is not an alarmingly unhealthy one that would
warrant the state’s interference with rights to labor and contract.
· In Estrada vs. Sandiganbayan, it was held that there was no
violation of due process because the nature of the charges against the Doctrine: The rule must have a more direct relation, as means to an
petitioner is not uncertain and void merely because general terms are end, and the end itself must be appropriate and legitimate, before an
used or because it employed terms that were not defined. The Anti- act can be held to be valid which interferes with the general right of an
Plunder law does not violate due process since it defines the act which individual to be free in his person and in his power to contract in
it purports to punish, giving the accused fair warning of the charges relation to his own labor.
against him, and can effectively interpose a defense against on his
behalf. · Our cases include Court of Industrial Relations (Ang Tibay vs. CIR)
as an administrative court which exercises judicial and quasi-judicial
· A Connecticut statute making it a crime to use any drug or article to functions in the determination of disputes between employers and
prevent conception violates the right of marital privacy which is within employees. National Telecommunications Company (PHILCOMSAT
the penumbra of specific guarantees of the Bill of Rights. vs. Alcuaz), National Labor Relations Commission or NLRC (DBP vs.
◦ Although the Bill of Rights does not mention ‘privacy’ the NLRC) and school tribunals (Ateneo vs. CA-Board of Discipline,
Court ruled that that the right was to be found in the Alcuaz vs. PSBA, Non vs. Judge Dames, Tinker vs. Des Moines
"penumbras" of other constitutional protections. “The First Community School District) also are clothed with quasi-judicial
Amendment has a penumbra where privacy is penumbra function. It is a question of whether the body or institution has a judicial
where privacy is protected from governmental intrusion.” or quasi-judicial function that makes it bound by the due process
clause. (Judicial function is synonymous to judicial power which is the
· In Lochner v. New York, Lochner was charged with violation of the authority to settle justiciable controversies or disputes involving rights
labor laws of New York for wrongfully and unlawfully permitting an that are legally enforceable and demandable or the redress of wrongs
employee to work more than 60 hours in one week. The statute for violations of such rights. It is a determination of what the law is and
allegedly violated mandates that no employee shall contract or agree what the legal rights of the parties are with respect to a matter in
to work more than 10 hours per day. controversy).
Issue: Whether the statute is unconstitutional.
Ruling: Yes. · In Ang Tibay vs. CIR, the Court laid down cardinal requirements in
administrative proceedings which essentially exercise a judicial or
The statute is unconstitutional. The statute interferes with the liberty of quasijudicial function. These are:
a person and the right of free contract between employer and (1) the right to a hearing, which includes the right to present one’s
employee by determining the hours of labor in the occupation of a case and submit evidence in support thereof
baker without reasonable ground for doing so. (2) The tribunal must consider the evidence presented
(3) The decision must have something to support itself
The general right to make a contract in relation to one’s business is a (4) The evidence must be substantial. Substantial evidence means
liberty protected by the 14th amendment. such a reasonable evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as
adequate to support a conclusion
(5) The decision must be based on the evidence presented at the ◦ both as to rights conferred and obligations imposed
hearting or at least contained in the record and disclosed to the parties
affected · In De Guzman v. Comelec, petitioners theorize that Sec. 44 of RA
(6) The tribunal or body of any of its judges must act on its own 8189 is violative of the equal protection clause because it singles out
independent consideration of the law and facts of the controversy and the City and Municipal Election Officers of the COMELEC as
not simply accept the views of a subordinate prohibited from holding office in the same city or municipality for more
(7) The Board or body should, in all controversial questions, render its than four years. The Court held that the law is valid. The singling out of
decision in such manner that the parties to the proceeding can know election officers in order to “ensure the impartiality of election officials
the various issues involved and the reason for the decision rendered. by preventing them from developing familiarity with the people of their
place of assignment.
Section 1, Art. III. No person shall be deprived of life, · In Ormoc Sugar Central v. Ormoc City, Ormoc City imposes a tax
liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall on Ormoc Sugar Central by name. Ormos Sugar Central is the only
any person be denied the equal protection of the laws. sugar central in Ormoc City. The Court held that such ordinance is not
valid for it would be discriminatoory against the Ormoc Sugar Central
· The Equality Protection Clause is a specific constitutional which alone comes under the ordinance.
guarantee of the Equality of the Person. The equality it guarantees is
“legal equality or, as it is usually put, the equality of all persons before C. SEARCH AND SEIZURE
the law. Section 2, Art. III. The right of the people to be secure in
· embraced in the concept of due process their persons,houses, papers, and effects against
· embodied in a separate clause to provide for a more specific unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature
guaranty against undue favoritism or hostility from the government and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no search
warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon
Due Process Clause attacks arbitrariness in general probable cause to be determined personally by the judge
after examination under oath or affirmation of the
Equal Protection Clause attacks unwarranted partiality or complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and
prejudice particularly describing the place to be searched and the
persons or things to be seized.
Substantive Equality – all persons or things similarly situated should
be treated alike, both as to rights conferred and responsibilities Section 2, Art. III – deals with tangibles; embodies the “castle”
imposed. doctrine (a man's house is his castle; a citizen enjoys the right against
official intrusion and is master of all the surveys within the domain and
Equality in enforcement of the law – law be enforced and applied privacy of his own home.)
· This provision applies as a restraint directed only against the
Requisites of Valid Classification: government and its agencies tasked with enforcement of the law. It
(a) it must be based on substantial distinctions does not protect citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures
(b) it must be germane to the purposes of the law perpetrated by private individuals.
(c) it must not be limited to existing conditions only
◦ must be enforced as long as the problem sought to be
corrected exists Section 3, Art. III. (1)The privacy of communication and
(d) it must apply equally well to all members of the class correspondence shall be inviolable except upon lawful order of
the court, or when public safety or order requires otherwise, as given any evidence of suspicious behaviour nor had the searching
prescribed by law. (2) Any evidence obtained in violation of this officers received any confidential information about the car. The Court
or the preceding section shall be inadmissible for any purpose in held that the search was not justifiable as a warrantless arrest of a
any proceeding. moving vehicle as there was no probable cause.

Section 3 (1), Art. III – deals with intangibles 3. searches of prohibited articles in plain view

Section 3 (2), Art. III – Exclusionary Rule (which embodies the Requisites:
Doctrine of the Fruit of the Poisonous Tree) 1. prior valid intrusion to a place
2. evidence was inadvertently discovered by the police who
Exclusionary Rule – evidence obtained in violation of Sec. 2, Art.III, has the right to be there
shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding (Fruit of 3. evidence is immediately apparent
Poisonous Tree Doctrine). (Stonehill v. Diokno) 4. there is no further search

· available to natural and artificial persons, but the latter's books of 4. enforcement of customs law
accounts may be required to open for examination by the State in the
exercise of police power or power of taxation The right is personal 5. consented searches
(Stonehill vs Diokno)
6. stop and frisk (limited protective search of outer clothing for
· General Rule: only a judge may issue a warrant. weapons)

Exception: orders of arrest may be issues by administrative · In Terry v. Ohio, the stop-and-frisk rule is stated thus: “(W)here a
authorities but only for the purpose of carrying out a final finding of a police officer observes unusual conduct which leads him reasonably to
violation of a law conclude in the light of his experience that criminal activity may be
afoot and that the person with whom he is dealing may be armed and
Valid Warrantless Searches presently dangerous, where in the course of investigation of this
behavior he identifies himself as a policeman and makes reasonable
[NOTE: each of these requires probable cause, except stop and frisk] inquiries, and where nothing in the initial stages of the encounter
serves to dispel his reasonable fear for his own or others' safety, he is
1. searches incidental to lawful arrest (rule 126, Rules of Court) – entitled for the protection of himself and others in the area to conduct a
for dangerous weapons or anything that may have been used or carefully limited search of the outer clothing of such persons in an
constitute in the commission of an offense attempt to discover weapons which might be used to assault him.”

Requisites: · Stop-and-frisk rule serves a two-fold interest:

1. the item to be searched was within the arrestee's custody or (1) the general interest of effective crime prevention and detection;
area of immediate control (2) the more pressing interest of safety and self-preservation.
2. the search was contemporaneous with the arrest (Malacat)

2. searches of moving vehicles 7. routine searches at borders and ports of entry

· In Aniag v. Comelec, twenty meters away from the gate of the 8. searches of businesses in the exercise of visitorial powers to
Batasan, a truck was stopped and searched. The motorists had not enforce police regulations
Valid Warrantless Arrest of witnesses released
1. in flagrante delicto Preliminary inquiry
2. hot pursuit (task of
3. the offender escaped from the penal establishment the judge) –
determination of
Requisites of a valid warrant probable cause for
Arrest Warrant Search Warrant the issuance of
warrant of arrest
1. Probable Cause Such facts and Such facts and Preliminary
must refer to one (1) circumstances which circumstances which investigation proper
specific offense would lead a would lead a (task of the
reasonably prudent reasonably prosecutor) –
man to believe that prudent man to ascertainment
an believe that an whether the offender
offense has been offense has been should be held for
committed and the committed trial or be
person sought to be and the objects
arrested had sought in the 3. After examination Not merely routinary Not merely routinary
committed it connection of the under oath or but must but must
offense are in affirmation of the be probing and be probing and
the place sought to complainant and the exhaustive exhaustive
be searched witnesses he may
2. Personal The judge personally The judge must produce
determination of determines the personally 4.Particularity of General Rule: it must General Rule: when
probable cause by existence of probable examine in the form description contain the name/s of the
the judge cause; it is not of searching the persons to be description therein is
necessary that he questions and arrested as specific
should answers... Exception: if there is as the circumstances
personally examine in writing and under some descriptio will
the complainant and oath... personae which will ordinarily allow.
his witnesses the complainants and enable the officer to Exception: when no
(Soliven vs Makasiar) his identify the accused other more
witnesses... accurate and detailed
Procedure: on facts personally description could
(1) personally known to have been
evaluate the fiscal's them... given.
report, or and attach to the
(2) if [1] is insufficient, record their · In Valmonte v. Gen. De Villa, the Court held that not all searches
disregard it and sworn statements and seizures are prohibited. Those which are reasonable are not
require the and affidavits. forbidden. A reasonable search is not to be determined by any fixed
submission of (Silva vs Presiding formula but is to be resolved according to the facts of the case.
supporting affidavits Judge) Checkpoints are not illegal per se... Routine inspection and few
questions do not constitute unreasonable searches. If the inspection report, the affidavits, the transcripts of stenographic notes (if any), and
becomes more thorough to the extent of becoming a search, this can all other supporting documents behind the Prosecutor's certification.
be done when there is deemed to be probable cause. In the latter
situation, it is justifiable as a warrantless search of a moving vehicle. · In Stonehill v. Diokno, the Court held that the following description
is insufficient for it amounts to a general warrant authorizing the officer
Probable Cause – facts and circumstances antecedent to the to pick up anything he pleases: “ Book of accounts, financial records,
issuance of a warrant that are in themselves sufficient to induce a vouchers...and other documents showing all business transactions....”
cautious man to rely upon them. The Court further held that the objection to an unlawful search or
seizure and to evidence obtained thereby is purely personal and
· In Corro v. Lising, the Affidavit of Col. Castillo stated that in several cannot be availed by third parties.
issues of the Philippine Times:”... we found that the said publication in
fact foments distrust and hatred against the government of the D. MIRANDA RIGHTS
Philippines. The Court held that the affidavit does not establish Section 12, Art. III.
probable cause, and is nothing but conclusions of law. 1. Any person under investigation for the commission of
an offense shall have the right to be informed of his right
· In Burgos v. Chief of Staff, a search warrant for the newspaper WE to remain silent and to have competent and independent
Forum is issued on the basis of a broad statement of the military that counsel preferably of his own choice. If the person cannot
Burgos, Jr. is “in possession of printing equipment and other afford the services of counsel, he must be provided with
paraphernalia... used as means of committing the offense of one. These rights cannot be waived except in writing and
subversion.” The Court held that such allegation is not sufficient to in the presence of
establish probable cause. It is a mere conclusion of law unsupported counsel.
by particulars. 2. No torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation, or any
other means which vitiate the free will shall be used
The Court also held that the search warrant description has the against him. Secret detention places, solitary,
“sweeping tenor” making the document a general warrant. The search incommunicado, or other similar forms of detention are
warrant particularly states:”all printing equipment, typewriters... of the prohibited.
WE Forum newspaper and any other documents...” It is not required 3. Any confession or admission obtained in violation of
that the property to be searched should be owned by the person this or Section 17 hereof shall be inadmissible in evidence
against whom the search warrant is directed. It is sufficient that the against him.
property is under the control or possession of the person sought to be 4. The law shall provide for penal and civil sanctions for
searched. violations of this Section as well as compensation to the
rehabilitation of victims of torture or similar practices, and
· In Soliven v. Judge Makasiar, the Court clarified the meaning of their families.
“personally” in the search and seizure clause. It stated that in arriving
at a conclusion as to the existence of existence of probable cause, · called the “Miranda Doctrine” (Miranda vs Arizona)
what is required is personal determination and not personal
examination. Miranda Doctrine – prior to any questioning during custodial
investigation, the person must be warned that he has a right to remain
· In Lim v. Felix, the Court held that the judge in issuing a warrant of silent, that any statement he gives may be used as evidence against
arrest cannot rely solely on the certification or recommendation of a him, and that he has the right to the presence of an attorney, either
prosecutor that probable cause exists. The judge must look at the retained or appointed. The defendant may waive effectuation of these
rights, provided the waiver is made voluntarily, knowingly, and
intelligently. Rights Under Custodial Investigation

Purpose of the Doctrine (a) To be informed of right to remain silent and to counsel
In Miranda v Arizona, the US Supreme Court established rules to · Carries the correlative obligation on the part of the
protect a criminal defendant's privilege against self-incrimination investigator to explain and contemplates effective
from the pressures arising during custodial investigation by the communication which results in the subject understanding what
police. Thus, to provide practical safeguards for the practical is conveyed. (People v. Agustin)
reinforcement for the right against compulsory self-incrimination, the
Court held that “the prosecution may not use statements, whether (b) To be reminded that if he waives his right to remain silent, anything
exculpatory or inculpatory, stemming from custodial interrogation of he says can and will be used against him
the defendant unless it demonstrates the use of procedural safeguards (c) To remain silent
effective to secure the privilege against self-incrimination. (d) To have competent and independent counsel preferably of own
Requisites of the Miranda Doctrine (e) To be provided with counsel if the person cannot afford the
(1) any person under custodial investigation has the right to remain services of one
silent; (f) No torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation or any other means
(2) anything he says can and will be used against him in a court of law; which vitiate the free will shall be used against him
(3) he has the right to talk to an attorney before being questioned and (g) Secret detention places, solitary, incommunicado, or other similar
to have his counsel present when being questioned; and forms of detention are prohibited
(4) if he cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided before any (h) Confessions or admissions obtained in violation of these rights are
questioning if he so desires. inadmissible as evidence (exclusionary rule)

Custodial investigation defined Rights That May Be Waived

· Any questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person [waiver must be in writing and in the presence of counsel]
has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of (a) Right to remain silent
action in any significant way. (b) Right to Counsel
· Begins as soon as the investigation is no longer a general inquiry
unto an unsolved crime, and direction is then aimed upon a particular Rights That Cannot Be Waived
suspect who has been taken into custody and to whom the police (a) Right to be informed of his right to remain silent and to counsel
would then direct interrogatory questions which tend to elicit (b) Right to counsel when making the waiver of the right to remain
incriminating statements. silent or to counsel
· Shall include the practice of issuing an invitation to a person who is · Right to counsel de parte is not unlimited. Accused cannot
investigated in connection with an offense he is suspected to have repeatedly ask for postponement. He must be provided with
committed, without prejudice to the liability of the inviting officer for any counsel de oficio.
violation of law. · RA 7309: victims of unjust imprisonment may file their claims
with the Board of Claims under DOJ
Extrajudicial confession is Admissible when:
(a) Voluntary · Res Gestae: The declaration of the accused acknowledging guilt
(b)With assistance of counsel made to the police desk officer after the crime was committed may be
(c) In writing, and given in evidence against him by the police officer to whom the
(d) Express admission was made, as part of the res gestae.
· In People v. Galit, rights under custodial investigation may be Who Are Entitled?
waived. The Constitution says; “These rights cannot be waived except (a) Persons charged with offenses punishable by Reclusion Perpetua
in writing and in the presence of counsel.” In localities where there are or Death, when evidence of guilt is strong
no lawyers, the State must bring the individual to a place where there (b) Persons convicted by the trial court. Bail is only discretionary
is one. pending appeal.
(c) Persons who are members of the AFP facing a court martial.
· Termination of rights under custodial investigation: When
Charges are filed against the accused (in such case, Sections 14 and · In Paderanga v. CA, all persons actually detained, except those
17 come into play). charged with offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua or death when
evidence of guilt is strong, shall, before conviction, be bailable but
· In Gutang v. People, the Court held that urine sample is admissible. sufficient sureties. One is under the custody of the law either when he
“What the Constitution prohibits is the use of physical or moral has been arrested or has surrendered himself to the jurisdiction of the
compulsion to extort communication from the accused, but not an court, as in the case where through counsel petitioner for bail who was
inclusion of his body in evidence, when it may be material. In fact, an confined in a hospital communicated his submission to the jurisdiction
accused may be validly compelled to be photographed or measured, of the court.
or his garments or shoes removed or replaced, or to move his body to
enablke the foregoing things to be done, without running afould of the Other Rights in Relation to Bail
proscription against testimonial compulsion. · 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.
Factors in Fixing Amount of Bail
Section 13, Art. III. All persons, except those charged with (a) Ability to post bail
offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua when evidence (b) Nature of the offense
of guilt is strong, shall, before conviction, be bailable by (c) Penalty imposed by law
sufficient sureties, or be released on recognizance as may (d) Character and reputation of the accused
be provided by law. The right to bail shall not be impaired (e) Health of the accused
even when the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is (f) Strength of the evidence
suspended. Excessive bail shall not be required. (g) Probability of appearing at the trial
(h) Forfeiture of previous bail bonds
Bail – is security given for the release of a person in custody of law, (i) Whether accused was a fugitive from justice when arrested
furnished by him or a bondsman, to guaranty his appearance before (j) If accused is under bond in other cases
any court as may be required
Implicit Limitations on the Right to Bail
Kinds of Bail
(a) Cash bond (a) The person claiming the right must be in actual detention or
(b) Security bond custody of the law.

Who May Invoke? · In People v. Donato, charged with rebellion, a bailable offense,
A person under detention even if no formal charges have yet been Salas nevertheless agreed “to remain in legal custody during the
filed (Rule 114, Rules of Court)
pendency of the trial of his criminal case.” The Court held that he does 2. Presumption of innocence;
not have the right to bail, because bu his act he has waived his right. 3. Right to be heard by himself or counsel;
4. Right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation
(b) The constitutional right is available only in criminal cases, not, e.g. against him;
in deportation and extradition proceedings. 5. Right to speedy, impartial and public trial;
6. Right to meet the witnesses face to face;
Note: 7. Right to compulsory process to secure attendance of witnesses and
(a) Right to bail is not available in the military. production of evidence; and
8. trial in absentia
· In Comendador v. De Villa, soldier under court martial does not
enjoy the right to bail. It is because of the disciplinary structure of the 1. Criminal Due Process
military and because soldiers are allowed the fiduciary right to bear
arms and can therefore cause great havoc... Nor can appeal be made Criminal process includes
to the equal protection clause ebcause equal protection applies only to
those who are equally situated. a) Investigation prior to the filing of charges
b) Preliminary examination and investigation after charges are filed
(b) Apart from bail, a person may attain provisional liberty through c) Period of trial
Requirements of Criminal Due Process
· In US v. Puruganan, the Court held that extradition is not a criminal
proceeding. Hence, since bail is available only in criminal proceedings, 1. Impartial and competent court in accordance with procedure
a respondent in an extradition proceeding is not entitled to a bail. He prescribed by law;
should apply for a bail in the court where he will be tried. 2. Proper observance of all the rights accorded the accused under the
Constitution and the applicable statutes (example of statutory right of
F. RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED the accused: right to Preliminary investigation)
Section 14, Art. III.
1. No person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense · Mistrial may be declared if shown that proceedings were held under
without due process of law. circumstances as would prevent the accused from freely making his
2. In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be defense or the judge from freely arriving at his decision.
presumed innocent until the contrary is proved, and shall
enjoy the right to be heard by himself and counsel, to be · There is violation of due process when law not published and a
informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against person is impleaded for violation of such law.
him, to have a speedy, impartial, and public trial, to meet
the witnesses face to face, and to have compulsory · There is violation of due process when appeal is permitted by law but
process to secure the attendance of witnesses and the there is denial thereof.
production of evidence in his behalf. However, after
arraignment, trial may proceed notwithstanding the 2. Presumption of Innocence
absence of the accused: Provided, that he has been duly
notified and his failure to appear is unjustifiable. · Burden of proof to establish the guilt of the accused is with the
The Rights of the Accused Include
1. Criminal due process;
· Conviction depends on the strength of prosecution, not on the · If the accused appears at arraignment without counsel, the judge
weakness of the defense must:
(a) Inform the accused that he has a right to a counsel before
· The presumption may be overcome by contrary presumption based arraignment;
on the experience of human conduct. (e.g unexplained flight may lead (b) Ask the accused if he desires the aid of counsel;
to an inference of guilt, as “the wicked flee when no man pursueth, but (c) If the accused desires counsel, but cannot afford one, a
the righteous are as bold as a lion.”) counsel de oficio must be appointed;
(d) If the accused desires to obtain his own counsel, the court
· The constitutional presumption will not apply as long as there is some must give him a reasonable time to get one.
rational connection between the fact proved and the ultimate fact
presumed, and the inference of one fact from proof of another shall not 4. Nature and Cause of Accusation
be so unreasonable as to be a purely arbitrary mandate. – Cooley
Purpose for the Right to be informed of the Nature and Cause of
· No inference of guilt may be drawn against an accused for his failure Accusation
to make a statement of any sort.
(1) To furnish the accused with a description of the charge against him
· In Dumlao v. Comelec, for the purposes of disqualification in an as will enable him to make his defenses;
election, section 4 of BP Blg. 52 says that” the filing of charges for the (2) To avail himself of his conviction or acquittal against a further
commission of such crimes before civil court or military tribunal after prosecution for the same cause;
preliminary investigation shall be prima facie evidence of such fact (3) To inform the court of the facts alleged.
(disqualification).” The Court held that this provision violates the
guarantee of presumption of innocence. Although filing of charges is · The description and not the designation of the offense is controlling
only prima facie evidence and may be rebutted, the proximity of (The real nature of the crime charged is determined from the recital of
elections and consequent risk of not having time to rebut the prima facts in the information. It is not determined based on the caption or
facie evidence already in effect make him suffer as though guilty even preamble thereof nor from the specification of the provision of law
before trial. allegedly violated.)

Equipoise Rule – evidence of both sides are equally balanced, in · If the information fails to allege the material elements of the offense,
which case the constitutional presumption of innocence should tilt the the accused cannot be convicted thereof even if the prosecution is
scales in favor of theaccused. able to present evidence during the trial with respect to such elements.
3. Right to be Heard by Himself and Counsel
Void for Vagueness Rule – accused is denied the right to be
· Indispensable in any criminal prosecution where the stakes are the informed of the charge against him and to due process as well, where
liberty or even the life of the accused the statute itself is couched in such indefinite language that it is not
possible for men of ordinary intelligence to determine therefrom what
· Assistance of counsel begins from the time a person is taken into acts or omissions are punished and
custody and placed under investigation for the commission of a crime. hence, shall be avoided.
▪ This is not subject to waiver.
· In Estrada vs Sandiganbayan, the Court held that the Void for
· Right to counsel means the right to effective representation. Vagueness Doctrine merely requires a reasonable degree of
certainty and not absolute precision or mathematical exactitude.
5. The Trial · General Rule: the accused may waive the right to be present at the
trial by not showing up. However, the court can still compel the
Factors in Determining Whether There Is Violation attendance of the accused if necessary for identification purposes.
(a) Time expired from the filing of the information
(b) Length of delay involved ▪ Exception: If the accused, after arraignment, has stipulated
(c) Reasons for the delay that he is indeed the person charged with the offense and
(d) Assertion or non-assertion of the right by the accused named in the information, and that any time a witness refers to
(e) Prejudice caused to the defendant. a name by which he is known, the witness is to be understood
as referring to him.
· Effect of dismissal based on violation of this right: it amounts to
an acquittal and can be used as basis to claim double jeopardy. This · Trial in Absentia is mandatory upon the court whenever the accused
would be the effect even if the dismissal was made with the consent of has been arraigned.
the accused
· There is also Promulgation in Absentia
Remedy if the Right is Violated
· While the accused is entitled to be present during promulgation of
(1) He can move for the dismissal of the case; judgment, the absence of his counsel during such promulgation does
(2) If he is detained, he can file a petition for the issuance of writ of not affect its validity
habeas corpus.
· The trial in absentia does not abrogate the provisions of the Rules of
Speedy trial - Court regarding forfeiture of bail bond if the accused fails to appear at
1. Free from vexatious, capricious and oppressive delays his trial.
2. To relieve the accused from needless anxieties before sentence is
pronounced upon him · A court has the power to prohibit a person admitted to bail from
leaving the Philippines as this is a necessary consequence of the
Impartial trial – the accused is entitled to the “cold neutrality of an nature and function of a bail bond
impartial judge”. It is an element of due process.
6. The Right to Meet the Witnesses Face to Face
· Public trial: The attendance at the trial is open to all irrespective of
their relationship to the accused. However, if the evidence to be Purposes of the Right to Meet the Witnesses Face to Face
adduced is “offensive to decency or public morals”, the public may be
excluded. (1) To afford the accused an opportunity to cross-examine the witness
(2) To allow the judge the opportunity to observe the deportment of the
· The right of the accused to a public trial is not violated if the hearings witness
are conducted on Saturdays, either with the consent of the accused or
if failed to object thereto. Principal Exceptions to this Right
(1) The admissibility of “dying declarations”
· The right to be present covers the period from arraignment to (2) Trial in absentia under Section 14(2)
promulgation of sentence. · With respect to child testimony

· Testimony of witness who was not cross-examined is not admissible

as evidence for being hearsay.
Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus – the right to have an
· If a prosecution witness dies before his cross-examination can be immediate determination of the legality of the deprivation of physical
completed, his direct testimony cannot be stricken off the record, liberty.
provided the material points of his direct testimony had been covered
on cross. The President may suspend the privilege:

· The right to confrontation may be waived. (1) in cases of invasion or rebellion

(2) when public safety requires it.
7. Compulsory Process
· Habeas corpus lies only where the restraint of a person's liberty has
· The accused is entitled to the issuance of subpoena ad testificandum been judicially adjudged to be illegal or unlawful (In re: Sumulong)
and subpoena duces tecum for the purpose of compelling the
attendance of witness and the production of evidence that he may · The writ is a prerogative writ employed to test the validity of detention
need for his defense.
· Failure to obey – punishable as contempt of court. · To secure the detainee’s release
· There are exceptional circumstances when the defendant may ask
for conditional examination, provided the expected testimony is · The action shall take precedence in the calendar of the court and
material of any witness under circumstances that would make him must be acted upon immediately
unavailable from attending the trial.
When available (enumeration not exclusive)
8. Trial in Absentia
restoration of liberty of an individual subjected to physical restraint
Trial in Absentia May Only Be Allowed If the Following Requisites
Are Met: may be availed of where, as a consequence of a judicial proceeding:
1. there has been deprivation of a constitutional right resulting
(1) the accused has been validly arraigned; in the restraint of the person
(2) Accused has already been arraigned; 2. the court has no jurisdiction to impose the sentence, or
(3) Accused has been duly notified of the trial; and 3. an excessive penalty has been imposed, since such
(4) His failure to appear is unjustifiable. sentence is void as to the excess.

G. HABEAS CORPUS May be extended to cases by which rightful custody of any person is
Section 15, Art. III. The privilege of the writ of habeas withheld from the person entitled thereto
corpus shall not be suspended except in cases of invasion
or rebellion, when the public safety requires it. When moral restraint is exerted (Caunca vs Salazar)

Writ of Habeas Corpus – is a written order issued by a court, directed Right was accorded a person was sentenced to a longer penalty
to a person detaining another, commanding him to produce the body than was subsequently meted out to another person convicted of the
of the prisoner at a designated time and place with the day and cause same offense. (Gumabon vs Director of Prisons)
of his caption and detention.
Unlawful denial of bail

When not available (enumeration not exclusive)

the writ or the extension thereof, and must promulgate its
the person alleged to be restrained is in the custody of an officer decision thereon within thirty days from its filing.
under a process issued by the court which has jurisdiction to do so
desaparecidos (disappeared persons) – persons could not be found; A state of martial law does not suspend the operation of the
remedy is to refer the matter to Commission on Human Rights Constitution, nor supplant the functioning of the civil courts or
legislative assemblies, nor authorize the conferment of
Procedure jurisdiction on military courts and agencies over civilians where
Need to comply with writ; disobedience thereof constitutes contempt civil courts are able to function, nor automatically suspend the
privilege of the writ.
Who may suspend the privilege
The President The suspension of the privilege of the writ shall apply only to
persons judicially charged for rebellion or offenses inherent in or
Grounds for Suspension of the privilege directly connected with invasion.
1. invasion or rebellion
2. when public safety requires it During the suspension of the privilege of the writ, any person
thus arrested or detained shall be judicially charged within three
Section 18, Art. VII. The President shall be the Commander-in- days, otherwise he shall be released.
Chief of all armed forces of the Philippines and whenever it
becomes necessary, he may call out such armed forces to Lansang doctrine (Lansang vs Garcia): SC has the power to inquire
prevent or suppress lawless violence, invasion or rebellion. In into the factual basis of the suspension of the privilege of the writ. It is
case of invasion or rebellion, when the public safety requires it, written in Article VII, Sec. 18 of the Constitution.
he may, for a period not exceeding sixty days, suspend the
privilege of the writ of habeas corpus or place the Philippines or
any part thereof under martial law. Within forty-eight hours from H. WRIT OF AMPARO
the proclamation of martial law or the suspension of the privilege
of the writ of habeas corpus, the President shall submit a report A.M. No. 07-9-12-SC
in person or in writing to the Congress. The Congress, voting (25 September 2007)
jointly, by a vote of at least a majority of all its Members in regular
or special session, may revoke such proclamation or suspension, THE RULE ON THE WRIT OF AMPARO
which revocation shall not be set aside by the President. Upon
the initiative of the President, the Congress may, in the same SECTION 1. Petition. The petition for a writ of amparo is a remedy
manner, extend such proclamation or suspension for a period to available to any person whose right to life, liberty and security is
be determined by the Congress, if the invasion or rebellion shall violated or threatened with violation by an unlawful act or omission of a
persist and public safety requires it. public official or employee, or of a private individual or entity.

The Congress, if not in session, shall, within twenty-four hours The writ shall cover extralegal killings and enforced disappearances or
following such proclamation or suspension, convene in threats thereof.
accordance with its rules without need of a call.
SEC. 2. Who May File. The petition may be filed by the aggrieved
The Supreme Court may review, in an appropriate proceeding party or by any qualified person or entity in the following order:
filed by any citizen, the sufficiency of the factual basis of the
proclamation of martiallaw or the suspension of the privilege of
1. Any member of the immediate family, namely: the spouse, children
and parents of the aggrieved party; SEC. 5. Contents of Petition. The petition shall be signed and
verified and shall allege the following:
2. Any ascendant, descendant or collateral relative of the aggrieved
party within the fourth civil degree of consanguinity or affinity, in default 1. The personal circumstances of the petitioner;
of those mentioned in the preceding paragraph; or
2. The name and personal circumstances of the respondent
3. Any concerned citizen, organization, association or institution, if responsible for the threat, act or omission, or, if the name is unknown
there is no known member of the immediate family or relative of the or uncertain, the respondent may be described by an assumed
aggrieved party. appellation;

The filing of a petition by the aggrieved party suspends the right of all 3. The right to life, liberty and security of the aggrieved party violated
other authorized parties to file similar petitions. Likewise, the filing of or threatened with violation by an unlawful act or omission of the
the petition by an authorized party on behalf of the aggrieved party respondent, and how such threat or violation is committed with the
suspends the right of all others, observing the order established attendant circumstances detailed in supporting affidavits;
4. The investigation conducted, if any, specifying the names, personal
SEC. 3. Where to File. The petition may be filed on any day and at circumstances, and addresses of the investigating authority or
any time with the Regional Trial Court of the place where the threat, individuals, as well as the manner and conduct of the investigation,
act or omission was committed or any of its elements occurred, or with together with any report;
the Sandiganbayan, the Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court, or any
justice of such courts. The writ shall be enforceable anywhere in the 5. The actions and recourses taken by the petitioner to determine the
Philippines. fate or whereabouts of the aggrieved party and the identity of the
person responsible for the threat, act or omission; and
When issued by a Regional Trial Court or any judge thereof, the writ
shall be returnable before such court or judge. 6. The relief prayed for. The petition may include a general prayer for
other just and equitable reliefs.
When issued by the Sandiganbayan or the Court of Appeals or any of
their justices, it may be returnable before such court or any justice SEC. 6. Issuance of the Writ. Upon the filing of the petition, the court,
thereof, or to any Regional Trial Court of the place where the threat, justice or judge shall immediately order the issuance of the writ if on its
act or omission was committed or any of its elements occurred. face it ought to issue. The clerk of court shall issue the writ under the
seal of the court; or in case of urgent necessity, the justice or the judge
When issued by the Supreme Court or any of its justices, it may be may issue the writ under his or her own hand, and may deputize any
returnable before such Court or any justice thereof, or before the officer or person to serve it.
Sandiganbayan or the Court of Appeals or any of their justices, or to
any Regional Trial Court of the place where the threat, act or omission The writ shall also set the date and time for summary hearing of the
was committed or any of its elements occurred. petition which shall not be later than seven (7) days from the date of its
SEC. 4. No Docket Fees. The petitioner shall be exempted from the
payment of the docket and other lawful fees when filing the petition. SEC. 7. Penalty for Refusing to Issue or Serve the Writ. A clerk of
The court, justice or judge shall docket the petition and act upon it court who refuses to issue the writ after its allowance, or a deputized
immediately. person who refuses to serve the same, shall be punished by the court,
justice or judge for contempt without prejudice to other disciplinary v. to identify and apprehend the person or persons
actions. involved in the death or disappearance; and
vi. to bring the suspected offenders before a competent
SEC. 8. How the Writ is Served. The writ shall be served upon the court.
respondent by a judicial officer or by a person deputized by the court,
justice or judge who shall retain a copy on which to make a return of The return shall also state other matters relevant to the investigation,
service. In case the writ cannot be served personally on the its resolution and the prosecution of the case.
respondent, the rules on substituted service shall apply.
A general denial of the allegations in the petition shall not be allowed.
SEC. 9. Return; Contents. Within seventy-two (72) hours after
service of the writ, the respondent shall file a verified written return SEC. 10. Defenses not Pleaded Deemed Waived. All defenses shall
together with supporting affidavits which shall, among other things, be raised in the return, otherwise, they shall be deemed waived.
contain the following:
SEC. 11. Prohibited Pleadings and Motions. The following
1. The lawful defenses to show that the respondent did not violate or pleadings and motions are prohibited:
threaten with violation the right to life, liberty and security of the
aggrieved party, through any act or omission; 1. Motion to dismiss;
2. Motion for extension of time to file return, opposition, affidavit,
2. The steps or actions taken by the respondent to determine the fate position paper and other pleadings;
or whereabouts of the aggrieved party and the person or persons 3. Dilatory motion for postponement;
responsible for the threat, act or omission; 4. Motion for a bill of particulars;
5. Counterclaim or cross-claim;
3. All relevant information in the possession of the respondent 6. Third-party complaint;
pertaining to the threat, act or omission against the aggrieved party; 7. Reply;
and 8. Motion to declare respondent in default;
9. Intervention;
4. If the respondent is a public official or employee, the return shall 10. Memorandum;
further state the actions that have been or will still be taken: 11. Motion for reconsideration of interlocutory orders or interim relief
orders; and
i. to verify the identity of the aggrieved party; 12. Petition for certiorari, mandamus or prohibition against any
interlocutory order.
ii. to recover and preserve evidence related to the death
or disappearance of the person identified in the petition SEC. 12. Effect of Failure to File Return. In case the respondent fails
which may aid in the prosecution of the person or to file a return, the court, justice or judge shall proceed to hear the
persons responsible; petition ex parte.
iii. to identify witnesses and obtain statements from them
concerning the death or disappearance; SEC. 13. Summary Hearing. The hearing on the petition shall be
iv. to determine the cause, manner, location and time of summary. However, the court, justice or judge may call for a
death or disappearance as well as any pattern or preliminary conference to simplify the issues and determine the
practice that may have brought about the death or possibility of obtaining stipulations and admissions from the parties.
The hearing shall be from day to day until completed and given the The movant must show that the inspection order is necessary to
same priority as petitions for habeas corpus. establish the right of the aggrieved party alleged to be threatened or
SEC. 14. Interim Reliefs. Upon filing of the petition or at anytime
before final judgment, the court, justice or judge may grant any of the The inspection order shall specify the person or persons authorized to
following reliefs: make the inspection and the date, time, place and manner of making
the inspection and may prescribe other conditions to protect the
(a) Temporary Protection Order. The court, justice or judge, upon constitutional rights of all parties. The order shall expire five (5) days
motion or motu proprio, may order that the petitioner or the aggrieved after the date of its issuance, unless extended for justifiable reasons.
party and any member of the immediate family be protected in a
government agency or by an accredited person or private institution (c) Production Order. The court, justice or judge, upon verified motion
capable of keeping and securing their safety. If the petitioner is an and after due hearing, may order any person in possession, custody or
organization, association or institution referred to in Section 3(c) of this control of any designated documents, papers, books, accounts, letters,
Rule, the protection may be extended to the officers involved. photographs, objects or tangible things, or objects in digitized or
electronic form, which constitute or contain evidence relevant to the
The Supreme Court shall accredit the persons and private institutions petition or the return, to produce and permit their inspection, copying
that shall extend temporary protection to the petitioner or the or photographing by or on behalf of the movant.
aggrieved party and any member of the immediate family, in
accordance with guidelines which it shall issue. The motion may be opposed on the ground of national security or of
the privileged nature of the information, in which case the court, justice
The accredited persons and private institutions shall comply with the or judge may conduct a hearing in chambers to determine the merit of
rules and conditions that may be imposed by the court, justice or the opposition.
The court, justice or judge shall prescribe other conditions to protect
(b) Inspection Order. The court, justice or judge, upon verified motion the constitutional rights of all the parties.
and after due hearing, may order any person in possession or control
of a designated land or other property, to permit entry for the purpose (d) Witness Protection Order. The court, justice or judge, upon motion
of inspecting, measuring, surveying, or photographing the property or or motu proprio, may refer the witnesses to the Department of Justice
any relevant object or operation thereon. for admission to the Witness Protection, Security and Benefit Program,
pursuant to Republic Act No. 6981.
The motion shall state in detail the place or places to be inspected. It
shall be supported by affidavits or testimonies of witnesses having The court, justice or judge may also refer the witnesses to other
personal knowledge of the enforced disappearance or whereabouts of government agencies, or to accredited persons or private institutions
the aggrieved party. capable of keeping and securing their safety.

If the motion is opposed on the ground of national security or of the SEC. 15. Availability of Interim Reliefs to Respondent. Upon
privileged nature of the information, the court, justice or judge may verified motion of the respondent and after due hearing, the court,
conduct a hearing in chambers to determine the merit of the justice or judge may issue an inspection order or production order
opposition. under paragraphs (b) and (c) of the preceding section.
A motion for inspection order under this section shall be supported by SEC. 20. Archiving and Revival of Cases. The court shall not
affidavits or testimonies of witnesses having personal knowledge of dismiss the petition, but shall archive it, if upon its determination it
the defenses of the respondent. cannot proceed for a valid cause such as the failure of petitioner or
witnesses to appear due to threats on their lives.
SEC. 16. Contempt. The court, justice or judge may order the
respondent who refuses to make a return, or who makes a false A periodic review of the archived cases shall be made by the amparo
return, or any person who otherwise disobeys or resists a lawful court that shall, motu proprio or upon motion by any party, order their
process or order of the court to be punished for contempt. The revival when ready for further proceedings. The petition shall be
contemnor may be imprisoned or imposed a fine. dismissed with prejudice upon failure to prosecute the case after the
lapse of two (2) years from notice to the petitioner of the order
SEC. 17. Burden of Proof and Standard of Diligence Required. archiving the case.
The parties shall establish their claims by substantial evidence.
The clerks of court shall submit to the Office of the Court Administrator
The respondent who is a private individual or entity must prove that a consolidated list of archived cases under this Rule not later than the
ordinary diligence as required by applicable laws, rules and regulations first week of January of every year.
was observed in the performance of duty.
SEC. 21. Institution of Separate Actions. This Rule shall not
The respondent who is a public official or employee must prove that preclude the filing of separate criminal, civil or administrative actions.
extraordinary diligence as required by applicable laws, rules and
regulations wasobserved in the performance of duty. SEC. 22. Effect of Filing of a Criminal Action. When a criminal
action has been commenced, no separate petition for the writ shall be
The respondent public official or employee cannot invoke the filed. The reliefs under the writ shall be available by motion in the
presumption that official duty has been regularly performed to evade criminal case.
responsibility or liability.
The procedure under this Rule shall govern the disposition of the
SEC. 18. Judgment. The court shall render judgment within ten (10) reliefs available under the writ of amparo.
days from the time the petition is submitted for decision. If the
allegations in the petition are proven by substantial evidence, the court SEC. 23. Consolidation. When a criminal action is filed subsequent to
shall grant the privilege of the writ and such reliefs as may be proper the filing of a petition for the writ, the latter shall be consolidated with
and appropriate; otherwise, the privilege shall be denied. the criminal action.

SEC. 19. Appeal. Any party may appeal from the final judgment or When a criminal action and a separate civil action are filed subsequent
order to the Supreme Court under Rule 45. The appeal may raise to a petition for a writ of amparo, the latter shall be consolidated with
questions of fact or law or both. the criminal action.

The period of appeal shall be five (5) working days from the date of After consolidation, the procedure under this Rule shall continue to
notice of the adverse judgment. apply to the disposition of the reliefs in the petition.

The appeal shall be given the same priority as in habeas corpus SEC. 24. Substantive Rights. This Rule shall not diminish, increase
cases. or modify substantive rights recognized and protected by the
SEC. 25. Suppletory Application of the Rules of Court. The Rules J. RIGHT AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION
of Court shall apply suppletorily insofar as it is not inconsistent with Section 17, Art. III. No person shall be compelled to be a witness
this Rule. against himself.

SEC. 26. Applicability to Pending Cases. This Rule shall govern Based on:
cases involving extralegal killings and enforced disappearances or
threats thereof pending in the trial and appellate courts. 1. Humanitarian reasons – it is intended to prevent the State, with all
its coercive powers, from extracting from the suspect testimony that
SEC. 27. Effectivity. This Rule shall take effect on October 24, 2007, may convict him;
following its publication in three (3) newspapers of general circulation.
2. Practical reasons – a person subjected to such compulsion is likely
I. SPEEDY DISPOSATION OF CASES to perjure himself for his own protection
Section 16, Art. III. All persons shall have the right to a speedy Applicable to:
disposition of their cases before all judicial, quasi-judicial, or
administrative bodies. · Criminal prosecutions, government proceedings, including civil
actions and administrative or legislative investigations
Speedy Trial vs. Speedy Disposition of Cases
Speedy trial Speedy disposition of cases Transactional Immunity Statute – testimony of any person or whose
Refers to trial phase only Refers to disposition of cases (All possession of documents or other evidence necessary or convenient
phases) to determine the truth in any investigation conducted is immune from
Criminal cases only Judicial, quasi-judicial or admin. criminal prosecution for an offense to which such compelled testimony
Proceedings relates.

· Periods for decision for courts (Sec. 15, Art. VIII) Use and Fruit Immunity Statute – prohibits the use of the witness'
· SC: 24 months from submission compelled testimony and its fruit in any manner in connection with the
· All lower collegiate courts: 12 months unless reduced by SC criminal prosecution for an offense to which such compelled testimony
· All other lower courts: 3 months relates.

Periods for decision for Constitutional Commissions (Sec 7, Art. May be Claimed by:
 60 days from date of submission for decision or resolution 1. Accused – at all times; there is a reasonable assumption that the
purpose of his interrogation will be to incriminate him
Factors considered in determining whether the right is violated
1. Length of delay 2. Witness – only when an incriminating question is asked, since the
2. Reason of delay witness has no way of knowing in advance the nature or effect of the
3. Assertion of the right or failure to assert it question to be put to him
4. Prejudice caused by delay
- He cannot invoke right to self-incrimination when:
Remedy in case there has been unreasonable delay in resolution a) The question is relevant and otherwise allowed even if the
of a case: answer may tend to incriminate him or subject him to civil
Dismissal through mandamus liability
b) the question relates to past criminality for which the witness b) By failure to invoke it PROVIDED the waiver is certain and
can no longer be prosecuted unequivocal and intelligently and willingly made.
c) he has been previously granted immunity under a validly
enacted statute Section 18 (1), Art. III. No person shall be detained solely by
reason of his political beliefs and aspirations.
· Only natural persons can invoke this right. Judicial persons are
subject to the visitorial powers of the state in order to determine J. RIGHT AGAINST INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE
compliance with the conditions of the charter granted to them. Section 18 (2), Art. III. No involuntary servitude in any form shall
exist except as a punishment for a crime whereof the party shall
Scope: have been duly convicted.

(1) Testimonial Compulsion Involuntary Servitude – the condition of one who is compelled by
force, coercion, or imprisonment, and against his will, to labor for
· In Villaflor v. Summers, since the “kernel of the privilege” was the another, whether he is paid or not.
prohibition of “testimonial compulsion”, the Court was willing to compel
a pregnant woman accused of adultery to submit to the indignity of Involuntary Servitude Includes
being tested for pregnancy. Being purely a mechanical act, it is not a
violation of her constitutional right against self-incrimination. (1) Slavery –civil relation in which one man has absolute power over
the life, fortune and liberty of another;
(2) Production of Documents, Papers and Chattels. Exception: when
books of accounts are to be examined in the exercise of police power (2) Peonage – a condition of enforced servitude by which the servitor
and power of taxation. is restrained of his liberty and compelled to labor in liquidation of some
debt or obligation, real or pretended, against his will
· What is prohibited is the use of physical or moral compulsion to extort
communication from the witness or to otherwise elicit evidence which General Rule
would not exist were it not for the actions compelled from the witness. No involuntary service in any form shall exist.

· The right does not prohibit the examination of the body of the Exceptions
accused or the use of findings with respect to his body as physical
evidence. Hence, the fingerprinting of an accused would not violate the 1. Punishment for a crime for which the party shall have been duly
right against self-incrimination. However, obtaining a sample of the convicted (Sec. 18, Art. III)
handwriting of the accused would violate this right if he is charged for
falsification. 2. Personal military or civil service in the interest of national
· The accused cannot be compelled to produce a private document in (Sec. 4, Art. II)
his possession which might tend to incriminate him. However, a third
person in custody of the document may be compelled to produce it. 3. Naval enlistment – remain in service until the end of voyage so that
the crew would not desert the ship, making it difficult for the owners to
Right May be Waived: recruit new hands to continue the voyage (Robertson vs Baldwin)
- Either:
a) Directly, or
4. Posse comitatus – in pursuit of persons who might have violated conditions shall be dealt with by law.
the law, the authorities might command all male inhabitants of a
certain age to assist them (US vs Pompeya) When is a penalty “cruel, degrading and inhuman”?

5. Return to work order in industries affected with public interest (1) A penalty is cruel and inhuman if it involves torture or lingering
(Kapisanan ng Manggagawa sa Kahoy vs Gotamco) suffering.
Ex. Being drawn and quartered.
6. Patria Potestas – unemancipated minors are obliged to obey their
parents so long as they are under parental power and to observe (2) A penalty is degrading if it exposes a person to public humiliation.
respect and reverence to them always (Art. 311, Civil Code) Ex. Being tarred and feathered, then paraded throughout town.

Standards Used
US vs Pompeya An Act providing for the method by
which the people of the town may (1) The punishment must not be so severe as to be degrading to the
be called upon to render dignity of human beings.
assistance for the protection of the (2) It must not be applied arbitrarily.
public and the preservation of (3) It must not be unacceptable to contemporary society
peace and good order is (4) It must not be excessive, i.e. it must serve a penal purpose more
constitutional. It was enacted in effectively than a less severe punishment would.
the exercise of the police power of
the state and does not violate the Excessive Fine
constitutional prohibition on
involuntary servitude. · A fine is excessive, when under any circumstance, it is
Pollock vs Williams No indebtedness warrants a disproportionate to the offense.
suspension of the right to be free
from compulsory service, and no Note: Fr. Bernas says that the accused cannot be convicted of the
state can make the quitting of work crime to which the punishment is attached if the court finds that the
any component of a crime, or punishment is cruel, degrading or inhuman.
make criminal sanctions available Reason: Without a valid penalty, the law is not a penal law.
for holding unwilling persons to
K. CRUEL AND INHUMAN PUNISHMENT Section 20, Art. III. No person shall be imprisoned for debt or non-
Section 19, Art. III. payment of a poll tax.
1. Excessive fines shall not be imposed, nor cruel, degrading or
inhuman punishment inflicted. Neither shall death penalty be For humanitarian reasons… an added guaranty of the liberty of
imposed, unless, for compelling reasons involving heinous persons against their incarceration for the enforcement of purely
crimes, the Congress hereafter provides for it. Any death penalty private debts because of their misfortune of being poor
already imposed shall be reduced to reclusion perpetua.
2. The employment of physical, psychological, or degrading Debt – any civil obligation arising from a contract, expressed or
punishment against any prisoner or detainee or the use of implied, resulting in any liability to pay in money.
substandard or inadequate penal facilities under subhuman
Scope of guaranty against imprisonment for non-payment of debt Two (2) Kinds of Double Jeopardy

· If an accused fails to pay the fine imposed upon him, this may result (1) When a person is put twice in jeopardy of punishment for the
in his subsidiary imprisonment because his liability is ex delicto and same offense (1st sentence of Section 21)
not ex contractu.
(2) When a law and an ordinance punish the same act (2nd
A FRAUDULENT debt may result in the imprisonment of the sentence of
debtor if: Sec. 21)

1. The fraudulent debt constitutes a crime such as estafa; and Same Offense
2. The accused has been duly convicted.
Requisites for a valid defense of double jeopardy:
General Rule: Non-payment of taxes is punishable with imprisonment. (1) First jeopardy must have attached prior to the second.
Exception: Failure to pay a poll tax (2) The first jeopardy must have terminated.
(3) The second jeopardy must be for the same offense as that in the
Poll tax – a specific sum levied upon every person belonging to a first.
certain class without regard to his property or occupation.
When does jeopardy ATTACH: (1st requisite)
· A tax is not a debt since it is an obligation arising from law.
Hence, its non-payment maybe validly punished with (a) A person is charged
(b) Under a complaint or information sufficient in form and substance
M. DOUBLE JEOPARDY to sustain a conviction
Section 21, Art. III. No person shall be twice put in jeopardy of
punishment for the same offense. If an act is punished by a law (c) Before a court of competent jurisdiction
and an ordinance, conviction or acquittal under either shall
constitute a bar to another prosecution for the same act. (d) After the person is arraigned

Double jeopardy – when a person was charged with an offense and (e) Such person enters a valid plea.
the case was terminated by acquittal or conviction or in any other
manner without his consent, he cannot again be charged with the When does jeopardy NOT attach:
same or identical offense.
(a) If information does not charge any offense
Requisites of Double Jeopardy
(b) If, upon pleading guilty, the accused presents evidence of complete
1. valid complaint or information selfdefense, and the court thereafter acquits him without entering a
2. filed before a competent court new plea of not guilty for accused.
3. to which defendant has pleaded, and
4. defendant was previously acquitted or convicted or the case (c) If the information for an offense cognizable by the RTC is filed with
dismissed or otherwise terminated without his express consent. the MTC.
(d) If a complaint filed for preliminary investigation is dismissed. (a) Exact identity between the offenses charged in the first and second
When does first jeopardy TERMINATE: (2ND REQUISITE)
(b) One offense is an attempt to commit or a frustration of the other
1) Acquittal offense.
2) Conviction
3) Dismissal W/O the EXPRESS consent of the accused (c) One offense is necessarily included or necessary includes the
4) Dismissal on the merits. other.

· Note: where a single act results in the violation of different laws or

different provisions of the same law, the prosecution for one will not
Examples of termination of jeopardy: bar the other so long as none of the exceptions apply.

(a) Dismissal based on violation of the right to a speedy trial. This Same Act
amounts to an acquittal.
· Double jeopardy will result if the act punishable under the law and the
(b) Dismissal based on a demurrer to evidence. This is a dismissal on ordinance are the same. For there to be double jeopardy, it is not
the merits. necessary that the offense be the same.

(c) Dismissal on motion of the prosecution, subsequent to a motion for Supervening Facts
reinvestigation filed by the accused.
1) Under the Rules of Court, a conviction for an offense will not bar a
(d) Discharge of an accused to be a state witness. This amounts to an prosecution for an offense which necessarily includes the offense
acquittal. charged in the former information where:

When can the PROSECUTION appeal from an order of dismissal: (a) The graver offense developed due to a supervening fact arising
from the same act or omission constituting the former charge.
(a) If dismissal is on motion of the accused. Exception: If motion is
based on violation of the right to a speedy trial or on a demurrer to (b) The facts constituting the graver offense became known or were
evidence. discovered only after the filing of the former information.

(b) If dismissal does NOT amount to an acquittal or dismissal on the (c) The plea of guilty to the lesser offense was made without the
merits consent of the fiscal and the offended party.

(c) If the question to be passed upon is purely legal. 2) Under (1)(b), if the facts could have been discovered by the
prosecution but were not discovered because of the prosecution’s
(d) If the dismissal violates the right of due process of the prosecution. incompetence, it would not be considered a supervening event.

(e) If the dismissal was made with grave abuse of discretion. Effect of appeal by the accused

What are considered to be the “SAME OFFENSE”: · If the accused appeals his conviction, he WAIVES his right to plead
double jeopardy. The whole case will be open to review by the
appellate court. Such court may even increase the penalties imposed (c) Retroactive in application
on the accused by the trial court.
· In Lacson v. Exec. Sec., the Court held that in general, ex post facto
· In Almario v. CA, the Court held that the delays were not law prohibits retrospectivity of penal laws. RA No. 8249 is not a penal
unreasonable; hence, there was no denial of the right to speedy trial. law.... The contention that the new law diluted their right to a two-tiered
Second, the dismissal was with the consent of the accused. Hence, appeal is incorrect because “the right to appeal is not a natural right
reinstatement did not violate the right against double jeopardy. but statutory in nature that can be regulated by law. RA 8249 pertains
only to matters of procedure, and being merely an amendatory statute
N. EX POST FACTO LAWS AND BILL OF ATTAINDER it does not partake the nature of ex post facto law.”
Section 22, Art. III. No ex post facto law or bill of attainder shall be
enacted. · In Calder v. Bull, the Court said that when the law alters the legal
rules of evidence or mode of trial, it is an ex post facto law. Exception:
Kinds of Ex Post Facto Laws (Beazell v. Ohio) unless the changes operate only in limited and
unsubstantial manner to the disadvantage of the accused.
(1) One which makes an action done before the passing of the law,
and which was innocent when done, criminal, and punishes such · In Bayot v. Sandiganbayan, the accused was convicted by the
action. Sandiganbayan for estafa on May 30, 1980. Accused appealed. On
March 16, 1982, BP Blg. 195 was passed authorizing suspension of
(2) One which aggravates the crime or makes it greater than when it public
was committed. officers against whom an information may be pending at any stage. On
July 22, 1982, the court suspended the accused. The Supreme Court
(3) One which changes the punishment and inflicts a greater ruled that Art. 24 of the Revised Penal Code that suspension of an
punishment than that which the law annexed to the crime when it was officer during trial shall not be considered a penalty. The suspension in
committed. the case is merely a preventive and not a penal measure which
therefore does not come under the ex post facto prohibition.
(4) One which alters the legal rules of evidence and receives less
testimony than the law required at the time of the commission of the BILL OF ATTAINDER
offense in order to convict the accused.
Bill of attainder – is a legislative act which inflicts punishment without
(5) One which assumes to regulate civil rights and remedies only judicial trial. If the punishment be less than death, the act is termed a
BUT, in effect, imposes a penalty or deprivation of a right, which, when bill of pains and penalties.” (Cummings v. Missouri)
done, was lawful.
(All Bills of Attainder are Ex Post Facto Laws)
(6) One which deprives a person accused of a crime of some lawful
protection to which he has become entitled such as the protection of a Elements of Bill of Attainder
former conviction or acquittal, or a proclamation of amnesty. (In Re 1. There must be a law.
Kay Villegas Kami) 2. The law imposes a penal burden on a named individual or easily
ascertainable members of a group.
Characteristics of Ex Post Facto Law 3. There is a direct imposition of penal burden without judicial trial.

(a) Must refer to criminal matters O. PRIVACY OF COMMUNICATION

(b) Prejudicial to the accused Section 3(1), Art. III. The privacy of communication and
correspondence shall be inviolable except upon lawful order of enhance public service and the common good. It merely requires that
the court, or when public safety or order requires otherwise, as the law be narrowly focused.” Intrusions into the right must be
prescribed by law. accompanied by proper safeguards and well-defined standards to
prevent unconstitutional invasions.
Forms of Correspondences and Communication Covered
· In Roe v. Wade, the Court held that abortions are permissible for any
1. letters reason a woman chooses, up until the "point at which the fetus
2. messages becomes ‘viable,’ that is, potentially able to live outside the mother's
3. telephone calls womb.
4. telegrams, and
5. the likes (a) The Constitution does not explicitly mention any right to privacy but
the Court has recognized that such right does exist in the Constitution.
Intrusion into the Privacy of Communication May Be Allowed The Court deemed abortion a fundamental right under the United
1. Upon lawful order of the court, or States Constitution, thereby subjecting all laws attempting to restrict it
2. When public safety or order requires otherwise as prescribed by to the standard of strict scrutiny. Where certain “fundamental rights”
law. are involved, the Court has held that regulation limiting these rights
may be justified only by a “compelling state interest.”
· When intrusion is made without a judicial order, it would have to be
based upon a government official's assessment that public safety and (b) The right to privacy is broad enough to encompass a woman’s
order demand such intrusion. decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy. But a woman’s
Public Order and Safety – the security of human lives, liberty, and right to terminate her pregnancy at whatever time, in whatever way
property against the activities of invaders, insurrectionists, and rebels. and for whatever reason she alone chooses is NOT absolute. While
recognizing the right to privacy, the Court also acknowledges that
· RA No. 4200 known as the Anti-Wiretapping Law provides some state regulation in areas protected by a right is appropriate. A
penalties for specific violations of private communication. state may properly assert important interests in safeguarding health, in
Under Sec. 3 of the Act allows court-authorized taps, under maintaining medical standards, and in protecting potential life.
specific conditions for the crimes of treason, espionage,
provoking war and disloyalty in case of war, piracy, mutiny in Q. WRIT OF HABEAS DATA
the high seas, rebellion, conspiracy and proposal to commit
rebellion, inciting rebellion, sedition, conspiracy to commit Writ of habeas data – is a remedy available to any person whose
sedition, inciting to sedition, kidnapping. right to privacy in life, liberty or security is violated or threatened by an
unlawful act or omission of a public official or employee, or of a private
P. RIGHT TO PRIVACY individual or entity engaged in the gathering, collecting or storing of
data or information regarding the person, family, home and
· In Ople v. Torres, the right to privacy being a fundamental right, the correspondence of the aggrieved party.
government has the burden of proof to show that a statute (AO no. 308
in this case) is justified by some compelling state interest and that it is · It is governed by The Rule on the Writ of Habeas Data (A.M. No. 08-
narrowly drawn. 1-16- SC – full text), which was approved by the Supreme Court on 22
January 2008. That Rule shall not diminish, increase or modify
“In no uncertain terms, we also underscores that the right to privacy substantive rights.
does not bar all incursions into individual privacy. The right is not Constitutional Basis
intended to stifle scientific and technological advancements that Section 5(5), Art. VIII. Promulgate rules concerning the protection
and enforcement of constitutional rights, pleading, practice, and upon immediately, without prejudice to subsequent submission of
procedure in all courts, the admission to the practice of law, the proof of indigency not later than 15 days from the filing of the petition.
integrated bar, and legal assistance to the under-privileged. Such
rules shall provide a simplified and inexpensive procedure for the The verified written petition shall allege the following:
speedy disposition of cases, shall be uniform for all courts of the
same grade, and shall not diminish, increase, or modify (a) The personal circumstances of the petitioner and the respondent;
substantive rights. Rules of procedure of special courts and
quasi-judicial bodies shall remain effective unless disapproved (b) The manner the right to privacy is violated or threatened and how it
by the Supreme Court. affects the right to life, liberty or security of the aggrieved party;

· The Rule takes effect on 2 February 2008, following its publication in (c) The actions and recourses taken by the petitioner to secure the
three (3) newspapers of general circulation. data or
Who may file a petition for the issuance of a writ of habeas data?
(d) The location of the files, registers or databases, the government
· General rule: The aggrieved party. office, and the person in charge, in possession or in control of the data
· Exceptions: In cases of extralegal killings and enforced or information, if known;
disappearances, the petition may be filed by:
(e) The reliefs prayed for, which may include the updating, rectification,
(1) Any member of the immediate family of the aggrieved party, suppression or destruction of the database or information or files kept
namely: the spouse, children and parents; or by the respondent. In case of threats, the relief may include a prayer
for an order enjoining the act complained of; and
(2) Any ascendant, descendant or collateral relative of the aggrieved
party within the fourth civil degree of consanguinity or affinity, in default (f) Such other relevant reliefs as are just and equitable.
of those mentioned in the preceding paragraph.
When is the writ of habeas data issued?
Where can the petition be filed?
Upon the filing of the petition, the court, justice or judge shall
(1) Regional Trial Court where the petitioner or respondent resides, or immediately order the issuance of the writ if on its face it ought to
that which has jurisdiction over the place where the data or information issue. The clerk of court shall issue the writ under the seal of the court
is gathered, collected or stored, at the option of the petitioner. and cause it to be served within three (3) days from its issuance; or, in
case of urgent necessity, the justice or judge may issue the writ under
(2) Supreme Court; his or her own hand, and may deputize any officer or person to serve
it. The writ shall also set the date and time for summary hearing of the
(3) Court of Appeals; or petition which shall not be later than ten (10) work days from the date
of its issuance.
(4) Sandiganbayan, when the action concerns public data files of
government offices. · A clerk of court who refuses to issue the writ after its allowance, or a
deputized person who refuses to serve the same, shall be punished by
· No docket and other lawful fees shall be required from an indigent the court, justice or judge for contempt without prejudice to other
petitioner. The petition of the indigent shall be docketed and acted disciplinary actions.
· The writ shall be served upon the respondent by the officer or person · The hearing on the petition shall be summary. However, the court,
deputized by the court, justice or judge who shall retain a copy on justice or judge may call for a preliminary conference to simplify the
which to make a return of service. In case the writ cannot be served issues and determine the possibility of obtaining stipulations and
personally on the respondent, the rules on substituted service shall admissions from the parties.
· Upon its finality, the judgment shall be enforced by the sheriff or any
· The respondent shall file a verified written return together with lawful officer as may be designated by the court, justice or judge within
supporting affidavits within five (5) work days from service of the writ, five (5) work days.
which period may be reasonably extended by the Court for justifiable
reasons. · When a criminal action has been commenced, no separate petition
for the writ shall be filed, but the reliefs under the writ shall be available
Contents of Return by motion in the criminal case, and the procedure under this Rule shall
govern the disposition of the reliefs available under the writ of habeas
(a) The lawful defenses such as national security, state secrets, data.
privileged communication, confidentiality of the source of information
of media and others; · When a criminal action and a separate civil action are filed
subsequent to a petition for a writ of habeas data, the petition shall be
(b) In case of respondent in charge, in possession or in control of the consolidated with the criminal action. After consolidation, the
data or information subject of the petition: procedure under this Rule shall continue to govern the disposition of
the reliefs in the petition.
(i) a disclosure of the data or information about the petitioner, the
nature of such data or information, and the purpose for its collection; · The introduction of the Writ of Habeas Data into Philippine Justice
System complemented several writs used in the Philippines. These
(ii) the steps or actions taken by the respondent to ensure the security writs which protect the rights of the individual against the state are as
and confidentiality of the data or information; and follows:
· The Writ of Habeas Corpus – a writ ordering a person who
(iii) the currency and accuracy of the data or information held; and detained another to produce the body and bring it before a
judge or court. Its purpose is to determine whether the
(c) Other allegations relevant to the resolution of the proceeding. detention is lawful or not;

· When the respondent fails to file a return, the court, justice or judge · The Writ of Mandamus – a writ ordering a governmental
shall proceed to hear the petition ex parte, granting the petitioner such agency to perform a ministerial function;
relief as the petition may warrant unless the court in its discretion
requires the petitioner to submit evidence. · The Writ of Prohibition – a writ ordering a person to prohibit
the commission of an illegal act;
· Instead of having the hearing in open court, it can be done in
chambers when the respondent invokes the defense that the release · The Writ of Certiorari – a writ ordering a person to correct an
of the data or information in question shall compromise national erroneous act committed with grave abuse of discretion; and
security or state secrets, or when the data or information cannot be
divulged to the public due to its nature or privileged character. · The Writ of Amparo – a writ designed to protect the most
basic right of a human being. These are the right to life, liberty
andsecurity guaranteed by the Constitution.
R. ACCESS TO PUBLIC INFORMATION Legaspi v Civil Service Personal interest is not required in
Section 7, Art. III. The right of the people to information on Commission asserting the right to information
matters of public concern shall be recognized. Access to official 1987 on matters of public concern. What
records, and to documents and papers pertaining to official acts, matters constitute “public concern”
transactions, or decisions, as well as to government research should be determined by the court
data used as basis for policy development, shall be afforded the on a case to case basis.
citizen, subject to such limitations as may be provided by law. Chavez v PCGG 1998 Public concern (def.) – writings
coming into the hands of public
· the citizenry has a right to know what is going on in the country and officers in connection with their
in his government so he can express his views thereon knowledgeably official functions Ill-gotten wealth
and intelligently. is, by its nature, a matter of public
concern. Privileged
Rights Guaranteed communication: (1) national
security, (2) trade
1. Right to information on matters of public concern ; and secrets, (3) criminal matters
pending in court,
2. Corollary right of access to official records and documents.
Echegaray case SC held that making the Lethal
· These are political rights that are available to citizens only (Bernas, Injection Manual inaccessible to
Philippine Constitution, p. 85). the convict was unconstitutional.

Limitations: “As may be provided by law” S. FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION

Valmonte v Belmonte 1989 The people have a right to access Freedom of Speech – “at once the instrument and the guaranty and
official records but they can’t the bright consummate flower of all liberty.” (Wendell Philips)
compel custodians of official
records to prepare lists, abstracts, Scope
summaries and the like, such not
being based on a demandable · Freedom of Expression is available only insofar as it is exercised for
legal right. the discussion of matters affecting the public interest. Purely private
interest matters do not come within the guaranty (invasion of privacy is
Then right to privacy belongs to not sanctioned by the Constitution).
the individual and must be invoked
by the individual. A public agency · covers ideas that are acceptable to the majority and the unorthodox
like the GSIS cannot invoke the view. (One of the functions of this freedom is “to invite dispute” – US
right to privacy. Supreme Court; “I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend
Baldoza v Dimaano 1976 Judges cannot prohibit access to to the death your right to say it.” - Voltaire)
judicial records. However, a judge
may regulate the manner in which · The freedom to speak includes the right to silent. (This freedom was
persons desiring to inspect, meant not only to protect the minority who want to talk but also to
examine or copy records in his benefit the majority who refuse to listen. - Socrates)
office, may exercise their rights.
Importance · In SWS v. Comelec, Sec. 1 of RA No. 9006, the Fair Election Act
The ultimate good desired is better reached by a free trade in ideas – says that surveys affecting national candidates shall not be published
that the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself fifteen(15) days before an election and surveys affecting local
accepted in the competition of the market; and that truth is the only candidates shall not be published seven days before an election. The
ground upon which their wishes safely can be carried out. provision is challenged as violative of freedom of expression. The
Court held that as prior restraint, the rule is presumed to be invalid.
Modes of Expression The power of the Comelec over media franchises is limited to ensuring
(a) Oral and written language “equal opportunity, time, space and the right to reply” as well as to
(b) Symbolisms (e.g. bended knee, salute to the flag, cartoons) reasonable rates of charges for the use of media facilities for “public
information and forums among candidates.” Here the prohibition of
Elements of Freedom of Expression speech is direct, absolute and substantial. Nor does the rule pass the
(1) Freedom from prior restraint or censorship O'Brien test for content related regulation because (1) it suppresses
(2) Freedom from subsequent punishment one type of expression while allowing other types such as editorials,
etc. and (2) the restriction is greater than what is needed to protect
Freedom From Previous Restraint or Censorship government interest because the interest can be protected by
Section 4, Art. III. No law shall be passed abridging the freedom narrower restriction such as subsequent punishment.
of speech, of expression, or of the press, or the right of the
people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for · In Re: Request for Radio-TV Coverage of the Estrada Trial, the
redress of grievances. Court held that the propriety of the Estrada trial involves the weighing
out of the constitutional guarantees of freedom of the press and the
Censorship – conditions the exercise of freedom of expression upon right to public information, on the one hand, and the fundamental rights
the prior approval of the government. Only those ideas acceptable to it of the accused, on the other hand, along with the constitutional power
are allowed to be disseminated. of a court to control its proceedings in ensuring a fair and impartial
trial... With the possibility of losing not only the precious liberty but also
· Censor, therefore, assumes the role of arbiter for the people, usually the very life of an accused, it behooves all to make absolutely certain
applying his own subjective standards in determining the good and the that an accused receives a verdict solely on the basis of a just and
not. Such is anathema in a free society. dispassionate judgment...”

· In New York Times v. United States, the Court held that prohibition · The doctrine of freedom of speech was formulated primarily for the
of “prior restraint” is not absolute, although any system of prior protection of “core speech,” i.e., speech which communicates political,
restraint comes to court bearing a heavy presumption against its social or religious ideas. Commercial speech, however, does not.
Grosjean vs American Press Co. There need not be total
· In Near v. Minnesota, the exceptions to the prohibition of “prior suppression; even restriction of
restraint is enumerated by the Court, thus: “When a nation is at war, circulation constitutes censorship
many things that might be said in time of peace are such a hindrance Burgos vs Chief of Staff the search, padlocking and sealing
to its effort .... No one would question but that government might of the offices of Metropolitan Mail
prevent actual obstruction to its recruiting service or the publication of and We Forum by military
sailing dates of transports or the number or location of troops.... The authorities, resulting in the
security of the community life may be protected against incitements to discontinuance of publication of the
acts of violence and the overthrow by force of orderly government.” newspapers, was held to be prior
Mutuc vs COMELEC the COMELEC prohibition against present danger of an evil which the
the use of taped jingles in the State ought to prevent.
mobile units used in the campaign Primicias vs Fugosos The respondent mayor could only
was held to be unconstitutional, as reasonably regulate, not absolutely
it was in the nature of censorship prohibit, the use of public places
Sanidad vs COMELEC the Court annulled the COMELEC for the purpose indicated.
prohibition against radio National Press Club vs the Supreme Court upheld the
commentators or newspaper COMELEC validity of Sec. 11(b), RA 6646,
columnists from commenting on which prohibited any person
the issues involved in the making use of the media to sell or
scheduled plebiscite on the organic to give free of charge print space
law creating the Cordillera or air time for campaign
Autonomous Region as an or other political purposes except
unconstitutional restraint on to the COMELEC. This was held to
freedom of expression be within the power of the
But... COMELEC to supervise the
enjoyment or utilization of
Gonzales vs COMELEC the Court upheld the validity of the franchises for the operation of
law which prohibited, except during media of communication and
the prescribed election period, the information, for the purpose of
making of speeches, ensuring equal opportunity, time
announcements or commentaries and space, and the “right to reply,”
for or against the election of any as well as uniform and reasonable
party or candidate for public office. rates of charges for the use of such
JUSTIFICATION: the inordinate media facilities.
preoccupation of the people with Osmeňa vs COMELEC SC reaffirmed validity of RA 6646
politics tended toward the neglect as a legitimate exercise of police
of the other serious needs of the power. The regulation is unrelated
nation and the pollution of its to the suppression of speech, as
suffrages. any restriction on freedom of
Iglesia ni Cristo vs CA The Board of Review for Motion expression occasioned thereby is
Pictures and Television (BRMPT) only incidental and no more than is
has the authority to review the necessary to achieve the purpose
petitioner's television program. of promoting equality.
However, the Board acted with NOTE: This is not inconsistent
grave abuse of discretion when it with the ruling in PPI vs
gave an “X-rating” to the TV COMELEC, because in the latter,
program on the ground of “attacks SC simply said that COMELEC
against another religion.” Such a cannot procure print space without
classification can be justified only if paying just compensation.
there is a showing that the tv
program would create a clear and Adiong vs COMELEC COMELEC's resolution prohibiting
the posting of decals, and stickers General Rule: a student shall not be expelled or suspended solely on
in mobile units like cars and other the basis of articles he has written
moving vehicles was declared Exception: when the article materially disrupts class work or involves
unconstitutional for infringement of substantial disorder or invasion of rights of others, the school has the
freedom of right to discipline its students (in such a case, it may expel or suspend
expression. Besides, the the student)
constitutional objective of giving
the rich and poor candidates' equal Tests of valid governmental interference
opportunity to inform the electorate (criteria in determining the liability of the individual for ideas expressed
is not violated by the posting of by him) :
decals and stickers on cars and
other vehicles. 1. Clear and present danger rule
“Overbreadth doctrine” = 2. Dangerous tendency doctrine
prohibits the government from 3. Balance of interest test
achieving its purpose by means
that weep unnecessarily broadly,
reaching constitutionally protected 1. Clear and Present Danger Rule – when words are used in such
as well as unprotected activity; the circumstance and of such nature as to create a clear and present
government has gone too far; its danger that will bring about the substantive evil that the State has a
legitimate interest can be satisfied right to prevent. (As formulated by Justice Holmes in Schenck v.
without reaching so broadly into United States)
the area of protected freedom.
Gonzales vs petitioner questioned the Clear – causal connection with the danger of the substantive evil
katigbak classification of the movie as “for arising from the utterance
adults only.” the petition was
dismissed because the Board did Present – time element; imminent and immediate danger (the danger
not commit grave abuse of must not only be probable but also inevitable). (Gonzales v. Comelec)
· In ABS-CBN v. Comelec, the Comelec banned “exit polls” in the
Freedom From Subsequent Punishment exercise of its authority to regulate the holders of media franchises
during the lection period. It contends that “an exit poll has the tendency
Section 18(1), Art. III. No person shall be detained solely by to sow confusion considering the randomness of selecting
reason of his political beliefs and aspirations. interviewees.... However, the Court said that exit polls constitute an
essential part of the freedoms of speech and of the press. Hence, the
· Without this assurance, the individual would hesitate to speak for fear Comelec cannot ban totally in the guise of of promoting clean, honest,
that he might be held to account for his speech, or that he might be orderly and credible elections. The ban does not satisfy the clear and
provoking the vengeance of the officials he may have criticized. present danger rule because the evils envisioned are merely
· Not absolute; subject to police power and may be regulated (freedom
of expression does not cover ideas offensive to public order) Terminiello vs City of · (speech inside an auditorium
Chicago with 800 persons)
Right of students to free speech in school premises not absolute · speech is often provocative and
challenging. hence, “fighting using it and to strictly observe the
words” are not sufficient to convict requirements of maximum
a person absent a clear and tolerance.
present danger of a serious Cabansag vs Fernandez It is not necessary that some
substantive evil definite or immediate acts of force
Primicias vs Fugosos The respondent mayor could only or violence be advocated. It is
reasonably regulate, not sufficient that such acts be
absolutely prohibit, the use of advocated in general terms. A
public places for the purpose mere tendency toward the evil was
indicated. enough.
· the condition of Manila at that People vs Perez Accused declared: “The Filipinos
time did not justify the mayor's like myself must use bolos for
fears. there was no clear and cutting off (Governor- General)
present danger. Wood's head for having
· decided in 1947 recommended a bad thing for the
Navarro vs Villegas (compare with Primicias case) Filipinos, for he has killed our
SC sustained respondent mayor's independence.” He was sentenced
act of refusing to issue a permit to jail.
enabling students to hold a public
rally. Mayor feared the rally would 3. Balance of Interest Test – when particular conduct is regulated in
result to public disorder. the interest of public order, and the regulation results in an indirect,
- decided in 1970 conditional, partial abridgment of speech, the duty of the courts is to
Reyes vs Bagatsing the denial of a permit to hold a determine which of the two conflicting interests demands the greater
public rally was invalid as there protection under the circumstances presented. (American
was no showing of the probability Communications Association v. Douds)
of a clear and present danger of
an evil that might arise as a result CLEAR AND DANGEROUS BALANCE OF
of the meeting. The burden of PRESENT TENDENCY RULE INTEREST RULE
proving such eventually rests on DANGER
the Mayor. RULE
liberty is preferred Authority is preferred the issue is resolved
2. Dangerous Tendency Doctrine – if the words uttered create a in the light of the
dangerous tendency of an evil which the State has the right to peculiar
prevent.(Cabansag v. Fernandez) circumstances
obtaining in each
· Justice Holmes, critique of this doctrine: Every idea is an incitement. particular case
If believed, it is acted on unless some other belief outweighs it, or
some failure of energy stifles the movement at its birth. · In Mutuc v. Comelec, the preferred freedom of expression calls all
the more the utmost respect when what may be curtailed is the
Bayan vs Executive Secretary (f) the Calibrated Pre-emptive dissemination of information to make more meaningful the equally vital
Ermita Response Policy is null and void. right of suffrage.
Respondents are enjoined from
When faced with border line situations where freedom (of expression)
to speak & freedom to know (to information) are invoked against (vs.) · In New York Times v. Sullivan, The New York Times is protected
maintaining free and clean elections- the police, local officials and under the freedom of speech in publishing paid advertisement, no
COMELEC should lean in favor of freedom. matter if it contained erroneous claims and facts. Said publication was
not “commercial” in the sense that it communicated information,
For in the ultimate analysis, the freedom of the citizen and the State’s expressed opinion, recited grievances, protested claimed abuses, and
power to regulate are NOT ANTAGONISTIC. sought a financial support on behalf of a movement. That the Times
was paid for publishing the advertisement is as immaterial as the fact
There can be no free and honest elections if in the efforts to maintain that newspapers and books are sold.
them, the freedom to speak and the right to know are unduly curtailed.
Newspapers do not forfeit the protection they enjoy under speech
We examine the limits of regulation. J. Feliciano shows that regulation freedom just because they publish paid advertisements. Otherwise,
of election campaign activity may not pass the test of validity if: newspapers will be discouraged from carrying “editorial
· It is too general in its terms advertisements” and so might shut off an important outlet for the
· Not limited in time and scope in its application promulgation of information and ideas by persons who do not
· It if restricts one’s expression of belief in a candidate or one’s opinion themselves have access to publishing facilities.
of his or her qualifications,
· If it cuts off the flow of media reporting On errors: “Some degree of abuse is inseparable from the proper use
· If the regulatory measure bears no clear and reasonable nexus with of every thing; and in no instance is this truer than that of the press.”
the constitutionally sanctioned objective. Erroneous statement is inevitable in free debate.

The regulation strikes at the freedom of an individual to express his Moreover, criticism of official conduct does not lose its constitutional
preference and, by displaying it on his car, to convince others to agree protection merely because it effective criticism and hence diminishes
with him. A sticker may be furnished by a candidate but once the car their official reputations. Presence of clear and present danger of
owner agrees to have it placed in his private vehicle, the expression substantive evil must be proved. Actual Malice needs to be proved if a
becomes a statement by the owner, primarily his own and not of public official wants to recover damages for a defamatory falsehood
anybody else. relating to his official conduct. “Even a false statement may be deemed
to make a valuable contribution to public debate since it brings about
· The general rule for a speech to be considered libelous or the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its
defamatory is: collision with error.”

Libel = falsity + actual malice (uttered in full knowledge of its falsity or · In Gonzales v. Kalaw-Katigbak, Kapit sa Patalim was classified as
with reckless disregard) “For Adults Only” by the MTRCB and was suggested to have certain
portions cut/ deleted.
Exemption: When the subject of the supposed libelous or defamatory
material is a public officer. Defamatory words may be uttered against Held: MTRCB do not have the power to exercise prior restraint. The
them and not be considered libelous. The reason is that 1) they asked power of the MTRCB is limited to the classification of films.
for it (“they voluntarily thrust themselves into the public eye and
therefore should not be thin-skinned”); 2) it’s a matter of public interest; The test to determine whether a motion picture exceeds the bounds of
and 3) public figures have the opportunity and resources to rebut permissible exercise of free speech and, therefore should be
whatever is said against them. (Policarpio vs Manila Times); ( New censored, is the clear and present danger test.
York Times vs Sullivan)
Assembly and Petition university outside the area
permitted by the school authorities)
· The right to assemble is not subject to prior restraint and may not be SC emphasized that the students
conditioned upon the prior issuance of a permit or authorization from did not shed their constitutional
the government authorities. However, the right must be exercised in rights to free speech at the
such a way that it will not prejudice the public welfare. (De la Cruz v. schoolhouse gate, and permitted
Court of Appeals) the students to re-enroll and finish
their studies.
· If assembly is to be held at a public place, permit for the use of such Villar vs TIP (several students were barred from
place, and not for the assembly itself, may be validly required. Power re-enrollment for participating in
of local officials is merely for regulation and not for prohibition. demonstrations) while the Court
(Primicias v. Fugoso) upheld the academic freedom of
institutions of higher learning,
· Permit for public assembly is not necessary if meeting is to be held which includes the right to set
in: a private place; the campus of a government-owned or operated academic standards to determine
educational institution; and freedom park. (B.P. Blg. 880 - “The under what circumstances failing
Public Assembly Act of 1985') grades suffice for expulsion of
students, it was held that this right
· In JBL Reyes v. Bagatsing, retired J. JBL Reyes sought a permit cannot be utilized to discriminate
from the City of Manila to hold a march and rally on Oct 26, 1983 2- against those who exercise their
5pm from Luneta to gates of US Embassy, and was denied by the constitutional rights to peaceful
Mayor due to Vienna Convention Ordinance and fear of subversives assembly.
may infiltrate the ranks of the demonstrators. Non vs Dames SC abandons its ruling in Alcuaz
vs PSBA (that enrolment of a
Held: no justifiable ground to deny permit because Bill of Rights will student is a semester-to-semester
prevail over Vienna Ordinance should conflict exist (none proven contract and the school may not be
because 500m not measured from gate to US Embassy proper) and compelled to renew the contract)
fear of serious injury cannot alone justify suppression of free speech upholding the primacy of freedom
and assembly- only clear and present danger of substantive evil. of expression, because the
students do
Notes: the Court is called upon to protect the exercise of the cognate not shed theur constitutionally
rights to free speech and peaceful assembly… protected rights at the school
Tanada vs Bagatsing SC sustained the petitioner's PBM Employees Assoc vs PBM right to free assembly and petition
motion compelling the mayor of prevails over economic rights.
Manila to issue a permit to hold a
rally, but changed the meeting Tests of a lawful assembly
place to Ugarte Field, a private
park (1) Purpose Test
Malabanan vs Ramento (several students were suspended
for 1 year for conducting · ideally, the test should be the purpose for which the assembly is held,
demonstration in the premises of a regardless of the auspices under which it is organized
(2) Auspices Test T. OBSCENITY CASES

· Evengelista vs Earnshaw: the mayor of Manila prohibited the US vs Kottinger SC acquitted accused who was
members of the Communist Party from holding any kind of meeting, charged of having
revoking all permits previously granted by him on the ground that the offered for sale pictures of half-clad
party had been found (by the fiscal's office) to be an illegal association. members of
non-Christian tribes, holding that
· In People v. Bustos, Bustos and several people sent complaint he had only
letters via counsel against Justice of Peace Roman Punsalan, who presented them in their native attire
charged them with libel. People vs Go Pin Accused was convicted for
exhibiting nude
Held: Bustos and the others were acquitted, paintings and pictures,
Ratio: the guarantees of free speech and a free press include the right notwithstanding his claim
to criticize judicial conduct. And these people did so in proper channels that he had done so in the interest
without undue publicity, believing they were right. of art. SC,
noting that he has charged
Right of Association admission fees to the
Section 8, Art. III. The right of the people, including those exhibition, held that his purpose
employed in the public and private sectors, to form unions, was commercial,
associations, or societies for purposes not contrary to law shall not merely artistic.
not be abridged. Pita vs CA SC declared that the determination
of what is
The Right of Association is deemed embraced in freedom of obscene is a judicial function.
expression because the organization can be used as a vehicle for the Miller vs California Test of Obscenity:
expression of views that have a bearing on public welfare. · whether the average person,
SSS Employees Assoc vs CA right to organize does not carry contemporary community
with it right to strike standards, would
Victoriano vs Elizalde Rope find that the work, taken as a
Workers' Union whole, appeals to the prurient
Occena vs COMELEC right of association was not interest
violated where political parties · whether the work depicts, in a
were prohibited from participating patently
in the barangay elections to insure offensive way, sexual conduct
the non-partisanship of the specifically
candidates. defined by the applicable law
In re Edillon Bar integration does not compel · whether the work, taken as a
the lawyer to associate with whole, lacks
anyone. Integration does not serious literary, artistic, political or
make a lawyer a member of any scientific
group of which he is not already a value
member. Justice Douglas, dissent: I do not
think we, the was limited as “harmful to minors” using the Miller V California Test.
judges, were ever given the So, it was upheld by the Supreme Court.
constitutional power to make
definitions of obscenity. Obscenity Notes: the Court’s Jurisprudence teaches that it is the publisher’s
is a responsibility to abide by that community’s standards.
- The Courts should not apply a national standard but the standard of The fact that distributors of allegedly obscene materials may be
the subjected to varying community standards in the various federal
community in which the material is being tested. judicial districts into which they transmit the materials does not render
a federal statute unconstitutional.
· In Reno v. ACLU, Communications Decency Act seek to protect
minors from obscenity on the internet. - Criticism of Official Conduct
· Held: overbroad, vague, unconstitutional. Lagunzad vs Sotto Vda. de the Court granted the petition to
· Notes: Sexual expression which is indecent but not obscene is Gonzales restrain the public exhibition of the
protected by the First Amendment. movie “Moises Padilla Story,”
because it contained fictionalized
The internet is not an “invasive” medium because it requires a series embellishments. Being a public
of affirmative steps more deliberate and directed than merely turning a figure does not destroy one's right
dial (tv or radio). to privacy.
Ayer Productions vs Judge the tribunal upheld the primacy of
There is no effective way to determine the identity or the age of a user Capulong freedom of
who is accessing material through email, mail exploders, newsgroups expression over Enrile's “right to
or chat rooms. privacy,” because
Enrile was a public figure and a
The Community Standard as applied to the internet means that any public figure's right
communication available to a nationwide audience will be judged by to privacy is narrower than that of
the standards of the community most likely to be offended by the an ordinary
message. The effect of CDA is such that when a site is blocked for citizen. Besides, the movie “Four
being “indecent” or “patently offensive” the remaining content even if Days of Revolution (sabi ni Cruz)”
not indecent cannot be viewed anymore. Imposition of requirements / “A Dangerous Life
(adult identification number or credit card) would bar adults who do not (sabi ni Nachura)” / “The Four Day
have a credit card and lack the resources to obtain one from accessing Revolution
any blocked material. It burdens communication among adults. (sabi sa case)” would not be
historically faithful
The CDA is punitive, a criminal statute. The CDA is a content- based without including therein the
blanket restriction on speech, and as such, cannot be properly participation of Enrile in the EDSA
analyzed as a form of time, place and manner regulation. revolution.
US vs Bustos SC compared criticism of official
· The CDA was replaced with Child Online Protection Act, 1. The conduct to a
scope had been limited to material displayed only on the world wide “scalpel that relieves the
web. Chat and email were not included. The classification of content abscesses of officialdom”
People vs Alarcon newspaper publications tending to
impede, questioning their decision
obstruct, embarrass or influence Zaldivar vs a member of the Bar who imputed
the courts in Sandiganbayan charges of
administering justice in a pending improper influence, corruption and
suit or proceeding constitutes other misdeeds to members of the
criminal contempt which is Supreme Court was suspended
summarily punishable by the from the practice of law as
courts. “neither the right of free speech
In re Jurado a publication that tends to impede, nor the right to engage in political
embarrass or activities can be so construed or
obstruct the court and constitutes extended as to permit any such
a clear and liberties to a member of the bar.”
present danger to the
administration of justice is U. FREEDOM OF RELIGION
not protected by the guarantee of Section 5, Art. III. No law shall be made respecting an
press freedom establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
and is punishable by contempt. It The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and
is not necessary that publication worship, without discrimination or preference, shall forever be
actually obstructs the allowed. No religious test shall be required for
administration of justice, it is the exercise of civil or political rights.
enough that it tends to do so.
In re Sotto a senator was punished for
contempt for having Religion defined
attacked a decision of SC which
he called · “any specific system of belief, worship, conduct, etc., often involving
incompetent and narrow-minded, a code of ethics and philosophy” (defined by Cruz)
and announcing
that he would file a bill for its · In Aglipay vs Ruiz religion is defined as “a profession of faith to an
reorganization active power that binds and elevates man to his Creator.
In re Tulfo Tulfo's “Sangkatutak na Bobo”
column was held Two Guarantees Contained Section 5, Art. III of the Constitution
contumacious. Freedom of the
press is subordinate to the (1) Non-establishment clause
decision, authority and integrity of (2) Free exercise of religious profession and worship
the judiciary and the proper
administration of justice. 1. Non-establishment Clause
In re Laureta a lawyer was held in contempt
and suspended · reinforces Sec. 6, Art. II on the separation of church and State
from the practice of law for wrting
individual letters to members of · other provisions which support this: Sec 2(5), Art. IX-C [a religious
the SC division that decided a sect or denomination cannot be registered as a political party], Sec
case against his client, arrogantly 5(2), Art. VI [no sectoral representative from the religious sector], and
Sec 29 (2), Art. VI [prohibition against the use of public money or (1) Voluntarism – the growth of a religious sect as a social force must
property for the benefit of any religion, or of any priest, minister or come from the voluntary support of its members because of the belief
ecclsiastic], Sec. 28 (3), Art. VI [exemption from taxation of properties that both spiritual and secular society will benefit if religions are
actually, directly and exclusively used for religious purposes, Sec 4(2), allowed to compete on their own intrinsic merit without benefit of
Art XIV [citizenship requirement of official patronage.
ownership of educational institutions except those owned by religious
groups], Sec 29(2), Art VI [appropriation allowed where the minister is (2) Insulation of the political process from interfaith dissension –
employed in the armed forces, penal institution or government-owned voluntarism cannot be achieved unless the political process is
orphanage or leprosarium] insulated from religion and unless religion is insulated politics.

Scope: The State Engel vs Vitale recitation by students in public

schools in New York of a prayer
(a) cannot set up a church; composed by the Board of
(b) cannot pass laws which aid one religion, all religions or prefer one Regents was unconstitutional
over another; Everson vs Board of Education US Supreme Court sustained the
(c) cannot influence a person to go to or remain away from church law providing free
against his will; nor transportation for all schoolchildren
(d) force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. without discrimination, including
those attending parochial schools
Rationale: Board of Education vs Allen US Supreme Court sustained the
law requiring the
· to delineate boundaries between the two institutions; and petitioner to lend textbooks free of
· to avoid encroachment by one against the other. charge to all students from grades
7-12, including those attending
private schools
In Everson and Allen, the government aid was given directly to the
· A union of Church and State would either: student and parents, not to the church-related school
◦ tend to destroy government and to degrade religion; or Adong vs Cheong Seng Gee in line with the constitutional
◦ result in a conspiracy because of its composite strength principle of equal treatment of all
religions, the State recognizes the
· separation of church and state is not a wall of hostility validity of marriages performed in
· The Government is neutral. It protects all, but prefers none and conformity with the rites of
disparages none. Mohammedan religion
· Freedom of religion includes freedom from religion; the right to Rubi vs Provincial Board the expression “non-Christian” in
worship includes right not to worship “non-Christian tribes” was not
meant to discriminate. It refers to
degree of civilization, not to the
religious belief.
Two values sought to be protected by the non-establishment Islamic Da'wah Council of the by arrogating to itself the task of
clause: Philippines vs Office of Exec. issuing halal
Sec. certifications, the State has, in
effect, forced Muslims to accept its
own interpretation of the Qur'an (c) Justice Frankfurter: the constitutional provision on religious
and Sunna on halal food. freedom terminated disabilities, it did not create new privileges... its
essence is freedom from conformity to religious dogma, not freedom
from conformity to law because of religious dogma

German vs Barangan SC found that petitioners were

· Intramural Religious Dispute – outside the jurisdiction of the not sincere in
secular authorities their profession of religious liberty
and were
Gonzales vs Archbishop of where a civil right depends upon using it merely to express their
Manila some matter pertaining to opposition to
ecclesiastical affairs, the civil the government
tribunal tries the civil right and Ebralinag vs division SC reversed Gerona vs Sec. of
nothing more. Superintendent of Schools of Educ. , and
Fonacier v CA where the dispute involves the Cebu upheld the right of petitioners to
property rights of the religious refute to
group, or the relations of the salute the Philippine flag on
members where the property account of their
rights are involved, the civil courts religious scruples. To compel
may assume jurisdiction. students to
take part in a flag ceremony
when it is against
2. Free Exercise Clause their religious beliefs will violate
their religious
Two Aspects of Free Exercise Clause: freedom.
People vs Zosa invocation of religious scruples in
1. Freedom to Believe order to avoid military service
was brushed aside by the SC
(a) absolute Victoriano vs Elizalde Rope SC upheld the validity of RA
(b) includes not to believe Workers Union 3350, exempting
(c) “everyone has a right to his beliefs and he may not be called to members of a religious sect from
account because he cannot prove what he believes” being
compelled to join a labor union
2. Freedom to Act According to One's Beliefs American Bible Society vs City of the constitutional guarantee of
Manila free exercise
(a) happens when the individual externalizes his beliefs in acts or carries with it the right to
omissions disseminate information, and any
restraint of such right can be
(b) subject to regulation; can be enjoyed only with proper regard to justified only on the ground that
rights of others there is a clear and present
danger of an evil which the State
has the right to prevent; Hence,
City ordinance imposing license consider this a prohibited “religious test.” Five justices said it is not a
fees to on sale is inapplicable to religious test but a safeguard against the constant threat of union of
the society Church and State that has marked the Philippine history. (Hence,
Tolentino vs Sec. of Finance the free exercise clause does not since the majority vote needed under the 1973 Constitution to nullify a
prohibit imposing a generally statute was not reached, thedisqualification remains enforceable.)
applicable sales and use tax on
the sale of religious materials; the
registration fee is not imposed for People vs Zosa invocation of religious scruples in
the exercise of a privilege, but order to avoid military service was
only for the purpose of defraying brushed aside by the SC
part of the cost of registration
· Compelling State Interest test [Estrada vs Escritor]
Section 6, Art. III. The liberty of abode and of changing the same
· the constitution's religion clause's prescribe not a strict bu within the limits prescribed by law shall not be impaired except
abenevolent neutrality (which recognizes that government mustpursue upon lawful order of the court. Neither shall the right to travel be
its secular goals and interests, but at the same time, strive to uphold impaired except in the interest of national security, public safety,
religious liberty to the greatest extent possible within flexible or public health, as may be provided by law.
constitutional limits
Liberty Guaranteed by Sec. 6 Art. III
· benevolent neutrality could allow for accomodation morality based on 1. freedom to choose and change one's place of abode; and
religion provided it does not offend the compelling state interest test. 2. freedom to travel both within the country and outside

· two steps (as regards the test): Limitations

▪ inquire whether respondent's right to religious freedom has · Liberty of Abode – “upon lawful order of the court”
been burdened; and · Right to Travel – “national security, public safety or public health as
▪ ascertain respondent's sincerity in her religious belief. may be provided by law”

· In Centeno vs Villalon-Pornillos, the Court held that solicitiations Caunca vs Salazar 82 Phil 851 Whether a maid had the right to
for religious purposes requires not a prior permit from DSWD as it is transfer to another residence even
not included in solicitations for “charitable or public welfare purposes.” if she had not paid yet the amount
advances by an employment
Religious Tests agency:
Yes. The fortunes of business
· Purpose: to stop government's clandestine attempts to prevent a cannot be controlled by controlling
person from exercising his civil of political rights because of his a fundamental human freedom.
religious beliefs. Human dignity and freedom are
essentially spiritual – inseparable
· In Pamil v. Teleron, Sec. 2175 of the Revised Adminsitrative Code is from the idea of eternal. Money,
questioned whether or not it is consistent with the religious clause of power, etc. belong to the
the Constitution. Said Code disqualifies an “ecclesiastic” from being ephemeral and perishable.
elected or appointed to a municipal office. Seven Justices voted to Rubi vs Provincial Board of The respondents were justified in
Mindoro 1919 requiring the members of certain precedent because Marcos was a
non-Christian tribes to reside in a class in himself.
reservation, for their better Philippine Association of Service Right to travel may be impaired in
education, advancement and Exporters vs Drilon the interest of national security,
protection. The measure was a 1988 public health or public order, as
legitimate exercise of police may be provided by law.
power. An order temporarily suspending
Villavicencio vs Lukban 1919 Prostitutes, despite being in a the deployment of overseas
sense lepers, are not workers is constitutional for
chattels but Philippine citizens, having been issued in the interest
protected by the same of the safety of OFWs, as
constitutional guarantee of provided by the Labor Code.
freedom of abode. They may not
be compelled to change their
domicile in the absence of a law
allowing such.
Salonga vs Hermoso 97 SCRA the case became moot and
121 academic when the permit to
travel abroad was issued before
the case could be heard.
Lorenzo vs Dir. of Health1927 Laws for the segregation of lepers
have been provided the world
over and is supported by high
scientific authority. Such
segregation is premised on the
duty to protect public health.
Manotok vs CA 1986 Bail posted in a criminal case, is a
valid restriction on the right to
travel. By its nature, it may serve
as a prohibition on an accused
from leaving the jurisdiction of the
Philippines where orders of
Philippine courts would have no
binding force.
Marcos vs Manglapus 1989 The liberty of abode and the right
to travel includes the right to
leave, reside and travel within
one’s country but it does not
include the right to return to one’s
NOTE: Court warned that this
case should not create a