Consti 2 Section 1-4 PDF

TABLE OF CONTENTS
THE BILL OF RIGHTS………………………………………………………….. 1

DUE PROCESS CLAUSE……………………………………………………….. 5
POLICE POWER………………………………………………………………… 13
EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE……………………………………………….. 17
SEARCHES AND SEIZURES…………………………………………………… 22
EXCLUSIONARY RULE………………………………………………………… 45
PRIVACY OF COMMUNICATINS AND CORRESPONDENCE……………… 46
FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND ASSEMBLY……………………………………. 48
FREEDOM OF RELIGION………………………………………………………. 59
LIBERTY OF ABODE AND RIGHT TO TRAVEL…………………………….. 67
RIGHT TO INFORMATION…………………………………………………….. 60
RIGHT TO FORM ASSOCIATIONS……………………………………………. 72
EMINENT DOMAIN…………………………………………………………….. 74
NON-IMPAIRMENT CLAUSE………………………………………………….. 79
FREE ACCESS TO COURTS……………………………………………………. 83
RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED IN CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION…………… 84
BAIL……………………………………………………………………………… 99
THE RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED……………………………………………… 108
HABEAS CORPUS………………………………………………………………. 118
RIGHT TO SPEEDY DISPOSITION OF CASES……………………………….. 123
RIGHT AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION…………………………………… 124
FREEDOM OF CONSCIENCE AND
FREEDOM FROM INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE……………………………. 129
PROHIBITED PUNISHMENTS…………………………………………………. 131
NON-IMPRISONMENT FOR NON PAYMENT OF DEBTS…………………... 133
DOUBLE JEOPARDY…………………………………………………………… 135
EX POST FACTO LAW AND BILL OF ATTAINDER………………………… 147
Constitutional Law 2 The Fraternal Order of St. Thomas More
2008 Edition Ateneo de Davao University, College of Law
The Bill of Rights
FUNCTIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION

1. To establish government powers 3. To limit government powers
2. To define government powers 4. To distribute powers
BASIC CONCEPTS
Bill – declaration which is made in the Constitution
Bill of Rights – It is the list of rights that the State cannot interfere with.
It does not exhaust all rights of the citizens as other rights are embodied in statutes and
laws. Affirmative rights are not included in the Bill of Rights. It includes only negative rights.
SIGNIFICANCE IN THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE BILL OF RIGHTS AND RIGHTS EMBODIED
IN STATUTES:
Framers seemed to think that there are rights that are so important and fundamental that they
wanted to place it above the reach of Congress. In effect, Congress cannot pass a law which will
amend or diminish the rights found in the Bill of Rights, above the reach of Partisan politics.
PURPOSE: The Bill of Rights is a restriction on government power. This is an area where the State cannot
interfere.
STRUCTURE: It is placed in the constitution because rights are more important than the laws. It puts
rights in a higher category and limits the power of the government. There are 22 sections in the Bill of
rights. The provisions in sections 1 to 11 generally pertain to rights which everyone can enjoy; sections 12
to 22 pertain to the rights of the accused or persons who are suspected of the crimes.
BASIC PRINCIPLES
1.) The provisions of the Bill of Rights are self-executing. It is immediately effective.
Self-executing means that there is no more need of an implementing legislation before it can be
invoked. This is the distinction between other rights found in the Constitution and rights found in the
Bill of Rights.
The provisions of the Bill of Rights are self-executory because even in the absence of any
legislation, the Bill of Rights can be used as a defense or may be invoked as a cause of action in
litigation without the need of any statute from Congress. So meaning, you can automatically go to
court and have them enforced.
2.) The Bill of Rights can be invoked solely against the State.
The Bill of Rights can only be invoked against the state and not against private individuals. Why?
Let’s go back to the function of the Constitution. The provisions of the Constitutions are intended
only to govern a relationship between the individual and the state. The provision governs a
relationship in another individual is the Civil Code, Revised Penal Code or other laws made by the
Congress but NOT the Constitution.
Rahima S. Ayunan, CB 1
PEOPLE VS. MARTI
Andre Marti and his wife wanted to have some packages delivered to
Switzerland by a forwarding company. In accordance with the SOP of the
company, the company inspected the package. It turned out that the
package contained marihuana which was neatly stashed to avoid detection.
A case was filed against Marti by the State for violation of the
Dangerous Drugs Act. Marti contested that there was an illegal search and
invoked his right against unreasonable search, therefore, the evidences
should be held inadmissible in court.
RULING: The court ruled that he cannot invoke this right because the Bill
of Rights can only be invoked against the State. It governs the
relationship of the State and its citizens. It does not apply to issues
between two individuals (Marti and the forwarding company). The search
was conducted by a private individual and not a peace officer. The police
were just looking as the proprietor did the search of the package.
Query: What if the policeman asks a civilian to conduct a search for him, is this circumvention of the
law?
The victim can still invoke his right found in the Bill of Rights. If the search is done by an individual who
is acting as an agent for the policeman, it is as if the policeman himself is conducting the search. The
policeman must first obtain a search warrant to make a valid search.
If the issue concerns private individuals as the parties, they can invoke ordinary statutes, like the civil
or penal code, for example.
3.) Basic human rights are superior to property rights.
PBMLO VS. PBMCI
Union wanted to participate in a demonstration. The management allowed

them on the condition that it should not be during their shift so that
operation will not be hampered. But union wanted all of the members to
participate at the same time and they did. As a consequence, the
management dismissed the officers of the union.
ISSUE: Whether the rights of the workers (right to assembly, expression

and petition for redress of grievances) should be given more importance
over the rights of the management-property rights
RULING: The court ruled in favor of the workers. Human rights enjoy
primacy over property rights. Not all rights are equal. There is a
hierarchy of rights in the Bill.
Basis of the court’s decision:

1. Property rights prescribe, human rights do not.
2. The test for limiting property rights – Reasonable Standard Test
(reasonable relation between the means employed by the law and its
object).
Note: The Doctrines of prescription and estoppels applies only to property rights and not to human rights.
Preferred Rights:
1. Freedom of speech
2. Freedom of the press These are the right so essential to the
3. Freedom of assembly validity of a democratic society.
4. Right to petition
5. Right to religion
LIFE – to live; right against physical harm; right to a good life (reasonable standard of living); right to life
starting from conception.
Any measure that would, even only endanger his health or subject him to unnecessary pain or to
unreasonable physical execution would be subject to challenge.
LIBERTY – the right to do anything which is not injurious to others.
These are the rights not mentioned in the Constitution but are implied as protected in the text of
the Constitution, e.g. right to privacy. It includes others provided by statutes or by other laws. It is not
unbridled license, it is regulated by law. In short, do anything that does not offend the public welfare.
Chief elements:
1. The right to labor
2. The right to contract
3. The right choose one’s employment
4. The right to locomotion (Justice Laurel)
PROPERTY – includes movable and immovable property, tangibles or intangibles (trademarks, stocks,
trade names), vested rights (court judgments, perfected homestead claims)
employment, profession, or trade.
Property may be regarded as anything that can come under the right of ownership and be the
subject of a contract.
Not included as rights are:

1. Licenses, permits and certificates of public convenience, because these are privileges
revocable according to the will of the grantor even without due process.
2. Public office, because it is a public trust.
4.) Provisions of the Bill of Rights have NO RETROACTIVE APPLICATION.
The Bill of rights gives rights. It does not punish unlike penal laws. If the law is favorable to
the accused, the provisions of the Bill of Rights have no retroactive application.
FILOTEO, JR. v. SANDIGANBAYAN, 263 S 222 (1996)
Accused committed a crime on May 3, 1982. He was investigated by

the police during which he waived his right to a lawyer in writing but
without the assistance of counsel. He is now before the Supreme Court
challenging the admissibility of his confession on the gound that under
the 1987 Constitution the waiver of the right to counsel can only be made
with the assistance of counsel.
HELD: Petitioner’s contention that Art. III, Sec. 12 of the 1987

Constitution should be given retroactive effect for being favorable to
him as an accused, cannot be sustained. While Art. 22 of the Revised
Penal Code provides that “penal laws shall have a retroactive effect
insofar as they favor the person guilty of a felony who is not a habitual
criminal,” what is being construed here is a constitutional provision
specifically contained in the Bill of Rights which is obviously not a
penal Statute. A bill of Rights is a declaration of the individual rights
and privileges which the constitution is designed to protect against
violations be government, or by individuals or groups of individuals.
PEOPLE V. DOMANTAY, 307 S 1 (1999)
Accused was charged with rape with homicide. While detained in a

municipal jail, he was interviewed by a radio reporter during which he
confessed to the crime. Two or three meters away from the reporter were
policemen, but no lawyer assisted the accused. Is the confession of
accused to the reporter admissible?
HELD: Yes. The confession is not covered by Sec. 12(1) of BOR. The BOR
does not concern itself with the relation between a private individual
and another individual. It governs the relationship between the
individual and the state. The prohibitions therein are primarily
addressed to the State and its agents. In this case, the presence of the
police officers 2-3 meters away did not exert undue pressure or influence
on accused or coerced him into giving his confession. Accused could have
refused to be interviewed, but instead he agreed.
SERRANO V. NLRC, 323 S 445 (2000)
Serrano was head of the Security Checker’s Section of Isetann

Department Store. In 1999, as a cost-cutting measure Isetann phased out
the entire security section and engaged the services of an independent
security agency. Thus, it wrote a notice of termination to Serrano
effective on the same day, contrary to the provisions of Art. 283 of the
Labor Code which requires a one-month notice. Was the constitutional
right of Serrano violated?
HELD: No. The employer’s failure to comply with the notice requirement
does not constitute a denial of due process, but a mere failure to
observe a procedure for termination. The reason is that the due process
clause is a limitation on government power, not on private power such as
the termination of employment under the Labor Code. Secondly, the notice
and hearing are required under the due process clause before the powers
of organized society are brought to bear upon the individual. Under Art.
283, however, the purpose of the 30-day notice is not to give him an
opportunity to be heard on the charge against him, for there is non, but
to prepare him for the eventual loss of his job. Thirdly, the requirement
of Art. 282 and Art. 283 of notice cannot be considered part of the due
process clause because the employer cannot be entirely an impartial judge
of his own cause.
Due Process Clause
Art. III, Sec 1. No person shall be deprived of

life, liberty, or property without due process of law,
xxx
There is no exact definition of “due process” in the Constitution because it might prove
constricting and prevent the judiciary from adjusting it to the circumstances of particular cases and to
the ever changing conditions of society. (JP Laurel)
Due Process continues to be dynamic and resilient, adaptable to every situation calling for its
application.
Quote: “It is a responsiveness to the supremacy of reason and obedience to the dictates of justice”.
(Justice Fernando)
It is a guaranty against any arbitrariness on the part of the government, whether committed by
any of its three bodies. The due process clause protects all persons, natural (citizens and aliens) as well
as artificial (juridical persons).
As applied to due process, DEPRIVATION connotes denial to the right to life, liberty or property.
Deprivation per se is not unconstitutional. What is prohibited is if deprivation is without due process.
Two aspects of due process:

1. Procedural Due Process
2. Substantive Due Process
PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS
- It simply means that the process is due under the circumstances. It is with regards to the
procedure for implementing a law.
- A mode of procedures which must be followed in the enforcement and application of laws.
- To give chance to a person of fair play or chance against illegal arbitrariness.
- It is in essence “hears before it condemns, which proceeds upon inquiry and renders
judgment only after trial.”
Procedural Due Process must be applied in the following: Other proceedings:

1. Judicial Proceedings 1. Deportation and Extradition
2. Administrative proceedings 2. Publication Laws
3. Discipline of students 3. Vague Laws
4. Rule-making by Administrative bodies 4. Appeals
5. Summary Dismissal
Due Process is not needed in the following:

1. abatement of Nuisance per se 4. Contempt
2. Preventive Suspension 5. Rule-Making where no notice and hearing is required
3. Provisional Increases
ANZALDO VS. CLAVE
An additional to the seven cases where procedural due process is applied

in administrative proceedings
Anzaldo was head of one department and he decided a certain case.
The case was appealed to the Office of the President. But the person who
decided the case on appeal was the same person who decided the case in
the first instance affirming his first decision.
RULING: The court held that this is a violation of due process since it
cannot be expected that the person will reverse his own decision. He will
always be biased to favor his own decision. Although this case does not
fall under the seven situations which require procedural due process,
nevertheless this is a violation of due process.
Elements of Procedural Due Process:
a.) In Judicial Due Process
1.) There must be a court or tribunal to hear and determine the matter before it (a
court with power and jurisdiction).
2.) Jurisdiction must be acquired over the person of the defendant and over the
property which is the subject matter of the proceeding.
3.) The defendant must be given an opportunity to be heard.
4.) Judgment must be rendered upon lawful hearing.
Note: There is no violation of due process where a person is not heard because he has chosen
not to be heard
b.) In Administrative Due Process (Ang Tibay Case)

Q: So what do we mean by administrative proceedings?
A: This simply means that there are proceedings in other bodies other than that of the
courts. For instance, if you’re a laborer, you go to the NLRC. The requirements in
administrative proceedings are enunciated in the case of Ang Tibay vs. CIR.
ANG TIBAY VS. CIR

(69 PHIL 365)
There are cardinal primary rights which must be respected even in proceedings of this
character:
1. The right to hearing – it includes the right of the party interested or affected to present his own
case and submit evidence in support hereof.
2. Consider the evidence presented – not only must the party be given an opportunity to present
his case and to adduce evidence tending to establish the rights which he asserts but the tribunal
must consider the evidence presented.
3. Something to support its decision – while the duty to deliberate does not impose the
obligation to decide right, it does imply a necessity which cannot be disregarded, namely, that
of having something to support its decision. A decision with absolutely nothing to support is a
nullity, a place when directly attached.
4. Substantial Evidence – the evidence presented must also be substantial. Meaning, it is more
than a mere scintilla. Such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate
to support a conclusion.
5. The decision must be rendered on the evidence presented at the hearing or at least
contained in the record and disclosed to the parties affected.
6. Independent consideration – the Court of Industrial Relations or any of its judges, therefore,
must act on its or his own independent consideration of the law and facts of the controversy
and not simply accept the vies of a subordinate in arriving at a decision.
7. Various Reasons and Issues involved in rendering decision – the Court of Industrial Relations
should, in all controversial questions, render its decision in such a manner that the parties to the
proceeding can know the various issues involved, and the reasons for the decisions rendered.
The performance of his duty is inseparable from the authority conferred upon it.
Q: When can we say that evidence is adequate to support a conclusion?

A: By nature, it is not easy to define but the best way to learn this is:
In administrative cases: preponderance of evidence. This means 51% is already
preponderance of evidence.
In criminal cases, what is required is guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Take note that it only
says proof beyond reasonable doubt. It does not say proof beyond reasonable doubt. It does
not mean that the judge is 100% sure of the conviction. There could be a doubt but a doubt
should be reasonable. There will always be doubt.
Q: What about administrative?

A: Substantial evidence.
Q: Can legislative body render decision by simple saying, “ Ok, fine, whatever, after
perusal of your records, I found you guilty” and not stating the law and the facts?
A: The answer is NO! the Ang Tibay case is now saying that as an element of due process,
you must state the reason for the decision. In a sense, Ang Tibay supplements that regarding
administrative bodies.
MOLANEDA vs. UMACOB

358 SCRA 537 (2001)
Facts: A sexual harassment case. Petitioner complained that he was not furnished with the copy of
Atty. Buena’s notes and recommendation.
Ruling: Petitioner/respondent in administrative case is not entitled to be informed of the findings

and recommendation of any investigating committee created to inquire into the charges filed
against him. He is entitled only to the administrative decision based on substantial evidence made
of record and a reasonable opportunity to meet the charges and the evidence presented against him
during the meeting.
c.) In Deportation Proceedings

What about deportation? It needs due process for the reason that is has a basic consequence
in your life and liberty. The Supreme Court did not set the details of the elements of due
process in deportation case but it is mentioned that it is similar to a criminal case. So, due
process in deportation should conform to the requirements of criminal procedure. So, you
need notice and hearing.
Procedural Due Process:
1.) There must be a preliminary investigation.
2.) The charge must be sated with precision.
3.) The requirements in criminal cases must be followed, not just a summary procedure.
(e.g. bail, trial, etc.)
What about extradition? It happens when we have an extradition treaty with another country. We have
one in Indonesia and the USA. We have one in Australia, with Canada, Hong Kong, but none in Japan
and Malaysia. There are two stages: one is before the deportation. So, what will happen is that the USA
will file a request with the DFA and the request is forwarded to the DOJ and the DOJ studies the
documents. The DOJ determines whether there is enough evidence or probable cause. If there is
probable cause, the case will be filed in the RTC. The RTC will now decide if he will be deported or not.
Q: In deportation cases, is he entitled to due process?

A: The answer is YES and NO. It is NO in the DOJ (Govt. vs. Purganan). Persons undergoing extradition
cases are not subject to due process.
If the DOJ file a probable cause, this is what happens: If the DOJ finds enough evidence, it will be
submitted to the court and there will be a hearing. At the hearing, you will then be entitled to due
process. Evidence will be given by you and you will have the chance to defend yourself.
LAO GI vs. CA
180 SCRA 756 (1989)
Facts: On Sept 3, 1958, the Secretary of Justice found Filomeno Chia, Jr., alis Sia Pieng Hui, to be a Filipino Citizen as it
appears that hid father is a Filipino citizen. However, on October 3, 1980, the Minister of Justice set aside his citizenship on
the ground hat it was founded on fraud and misrepresentation. On March 9, 1981, a charge for deportation was filed with
the CID against Lao Gi alias Filomeno Chia, Jr., his wife and children. In this case, it appears that petitioners are charged with
having entered the Philippines by means of false and misleading statements or without inspection or admission by the
immigration authority at a designated port of entry.
Issue: Whether due process was denied from the petitioners
Held: While it is not disputed that it is also within the power and authority of the commissioner to require an alien to
register, such a requirement must be predicated in a positive finding that the person who is so required is an alien. In this
case where the very citizenship of the petitioner is in issue, there should be a previous determination by the CID that they
are aliens before the petitioners may be directed and required to register as aliens. Although a deportation proceeding
does not partake of the nature of a criminal action, however, considering that it is a harsh and extraordinary administrative
proceeding affecting freedom and liberty of a person, the constitutional right of such person to due process should not be
denied. The charge against an alien must specify the acts or omissions complained of which must be stated in ordinary and
concise language to enable a person of common understanding to know on what ground he is intended to be deported and
enable the CID to pronounce a proper judgment before any charge should be filed in the CID. A preliminary investigation
must be conducted to determine if there is sufficient cause to charge the respondent for deportation.
Petition is GRANTED and the question order of the respondent CID is set aside. CID is directed to continue hearing
the deportation case against the petitioners and thereafter, based on the evidence before it, resolve the issue of citizenship
of petitioners, and if found to be aliens, to determine whether or not the petitioners should be deported and/or otherwise
ordered to register as aliens.
d.) Discipline of Students

ADM VS CAPULONG
(The Lenny Villa Case)
There was a hazing conducted as part of the initiation rites of the

Aquila Legis Fraternity of ADM where the victim, Villa, was an applicant,
and was killed as a result thereof. Students who acted as master
auxiliaries were refused admittance to the school after having been found
guilty of participating in hazing. The decision of the school to dismiss
the students was based on the findings submitted by the Board. The
accused contested that they were not given copies of the school’s rules
and regulations. They were not warned on the conduct to avoid, thus, they
were not afforded due process.
RULING: The court held that this is an exception to due process. Since
they are law students, they cannot use that argument. It was presumed
that they have received a copy or have diligently asked for one. If they
were undergraduates, they would have been treated differently. Hazing was
not defined in the manual but is the same punishable.
Minimum standards to be satisfied in the imposition of disciplinary sanctions are:

1. Students must be informed in writing of the nature and cause of any accusation against them;
2. They shall have the right to answer the charges against them with the assistance of counsel, if
desired;
3. Informed of the evidence against them;
4. Right to adduce evidence must be duly considered by the investigating committee or official
designated by the school authority to hear and decide the case.
Respondent students may not use the argument that since they were not accorded the opportunity to
see and examine the written statements which became the basis of the order, they were denied
procedural due process. Disciplinary cases involving students need not necessarily include the right to
cross-examine. An administrative proceeding conducted to investigate students’ participation in a
hazing act need not be clothed with the attributes of a judicial proceeding. The charge filed is not a
criminal case requiring proof beyond reasonable doubt but is merely administrative in character. It is not
subject to the rigorous requirement of criminal due process, particularly with respect to the specification
of the charge involved. Accordingly, disciplinary charges against a student need not be drawn with the
precision of a criminal information or complaint.
What is most significant in the case of ADMU vs. CAPULONG is the statement of the court that while you
can have a lawyer, you have no right to cross examine the witness against you. So this is what will
happen: the dean will call you and give you the written charge. Then, the dean will tell you, “ OK,
answer this with your lawyer.” Afterwards, he will check your affidavits, your documents and…”you are
guilty!” It can be done because that is summary in nature, no need of actual trial. Take note, however,
this would apply only to disciplinary proceedings, not to cases where you are held accountable for
academic deficiency (QPI).
Q: Do you need due process when an administrative body issued an order?

A: The answer should be distinguished.
Example: Who decides for increase of fare in jeepney? When the order is quasi-legislative, the answer is
NO! When the order is quasi-judicial, the answer is YES!
Q: When do we say that it is quasi-legislative?

A: The answer is when the order generally applies to all. But when an order applies to an individual, it is
considered to be quasi-judicial and you need notice and hearing.
e.) Rule Making by Administrative Bodies
PHILCOMSAT VS. ALCUAZ
PHILCOMSAT was given franchise to operate facilities for satellite

communications. After a few years it was placed under the jurisdiction of
the NTC which had the power of fixing rates. NTC ordered the petitioner
to reduce its rate by 15%. Since the order was issued without notice and
hearing, it was challenged as a violation of due process.
RULING: The court held that the order issued by NTC applies to one
individual. It is quasi-judicial in nature. Henc, notice and hearing are
essential for due process. If the order applies to all, it is rule-making
and therefore quasi-legislative.
It does not need notice and hearing. In this case, since it is only
PHILCOMSAT that is affected by the order, it is entitled to notice and
hearing to have due process. It is quasi-judicial. Likewise the order was
based on petitioner’s financial statement. Therefore, it should have been
given an opportunity to dispute the findings.
Generally, rate-fixing is quasi-legislative but in this case it is quasi judicial because there
was only one entity to be affected by the rate fixing.
Quasi-Legislative - when rules are applicable to all, there is no need for the requirement of
notice and hearing (RULE-MAKING).
Quasi-Judicial – when the rule is applicable only to one individual, notice and hearing is
required(ADJUDICATION).
RCPI VS. NTC
PLDT applied for approval to increase rates for its digital

transmission service facilities. Pending hearing of the main petition,
NTC granted PLDT provisional authority to increase its rates. RCPI, one
of those affected by the increase, questioned the approval as a violation
of due process since it was not notified of the application nor given the
opportunity to oppose.
RULING: It was held that Sec. 16 of the Public service Act allows the
commission to approve provisionally for 30 days the rates proposed
without notice and hearing. Said approved rate is only temporary and
subject to readjustments after final hearing. Hence, notice and hearing
are not required.
f.) Vague Laws
If a law lacks the comprehensive standards that men of common intelligence must
necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application, then it is a vague law.
PEOPLE VS. NAZARIO
One of the issues raised was whether the lower court erred in not
declaring the that the ordinance of which he was accused of violating is
null and void for being ambiguous and uncertain (thus, a vague law).
RULING: The court held that a law is vague if it cannot be clarified by

either a saving clause or by construction and if you do not know what
conduct to avoid.
As a rule, a statute or act may be said to be vague when it lacks comprehensible standards that
men “of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its
application. It is repugnant to the Constitution in two respects (1) it violates due process for failure
to accord persons, especially the parties targeted by it, fair notice of the conduct to avoid and (2)
it leaves law enforcers unbridled discretion in carrying out its provisions and becomes an arbitrary
flexing of the Government muscle. But the act must utterly vague on its face, that is to say, it
cannot be clarified by either a saving clause or by construction. In no way the ordinances at be
said to be tainted with the vice of vagueness. As the actual operator of the fishponds, he comes
within the term manager. He does not deny the fact that he financed the construction of the
fishpond introduced fish fries into the fishponds and he had employed laborers to maintain them.
While it appears that it is the National Government which owns them, the Government never
shared in the profits they had generated. It is therefore logical that he shoulders the burden of tax
under the said ordinance.
Vague laws will give authorities unbridled discretion in enforcing it, and the victims will
never know how or why they violated the law. I almost all cases, courts will resort to the rules of
statutory construction to find the meaning of a statute, which is why it is very rare when it cannot
find any meaning to the statute.
g.) Publication of Laws
TAÑADA VS. TUVERA
The case involves the requirement that all laws must be published
in order to take effect. The court stated that publication of laws is an
element of due process because how can it be effective if people do not
know about its existence.
Laws would entail publication of all laws, including statutes of local
application that are of public interest. Only regulations that are
internal in nature or which regulate the personnel of an administrative
agency are not required to be published.
The clause “unless it is otherwise provided” refers to the date of effectivity and
not the requirement of the publication itself which cannot in any event be omitted.
It is not correct to say that unless the disputed clause publication may be
dispensed with altogether. The reason is that such omission would offend due
process insofar as it would deny the public knowledge of the laws that are supposed
to govern it. All statutes shall be published as a condition for their effectivity,
which shall begin 15 days after publication unless a different effectivity date is
fixed by the legislature. All laws defined shall immediately upon their approval,
or as soon thereafter as possible, be published in full in the Official Gazette, to
become effective only after 15 days from this publication, or on another date
specified by the legislature, in accordance with Article 2 of the Civil Code.
APPEAL
The last item is appeal. This means that you have the right to an impartial
tribunal.
SUMMARY IN NATURE. Marcos made PD 803 in which one provision states that an
employee can be summarily dismissed. Aquino repealed that. But there was a problem
when DILG enacted the DILG Act. There was this provision for the police. It stated
that police officers will be summarily dismissed.
GO vs. NATIONAL POLICE COMMISSION

271 SCRA 447 (April 18, 1997)
Go had been a member of the Olangapo Police Department since April 18, 1997. He was
dismissed for alleged involvement in Jai-alai. His house was raided in January and
June 1983. He asked to dismiss the case against his wife and brother with the
promise that jai-alai activities committed in his residence will be stopped. The
Fiscal later dismissed the case for insufficiency of evidence, for failure on the
part of the raiding team to prosecute the case. It was clearly established that Go
had the full knowledge on the existence of jai-alai activities. He was dismissed
and he complained of denial of due process. He claimed that his copy of complaint
with supporting affidavits had been served on him.
Issue: Whether or not Go was denied of due process.
Ruling: Petitioner maintains that he was not served written charges and informed of
the nature of such charges; that no hearing had actually been held by the summary
dismissal board; and that he was not heard. Petitioner’s claim is meritorious.
While PD 971 authorizes summary dismissal without necessity of a formal
investigation when the charge is serious and evidence is strong, Go has the right
to be furnished a copy of the complaint and to file an answer within 3 days. In
summary dismissal, proceedings, unless other fully effective means for implementing
the constitutional requirement of notice and hearing are devised, it is mandatory
that charges be filed in writing and that the affidavits in support thereof are
attached to the complaint because these are the only ways by which evidence against
the respondent can be brought to his knowledge.
The question is this: Is summary dismissal valid? Does it violate the due process
of law? This was answered by the Supreme Court in the case Go vs. NAPOLCOM. Go was
a policeman and he was subjected by a summary dismissal. Concerning summary
dismissal, the respondent shall be informed of the charge against him. This means
that he will be given a copy of the complaint and in addition, he shall be given a
copy of all the evidence against him. Once he is given that copy, he should also be
given enough time to submit his answer and to attack the evidence. This means that
he must be given an opportunity to present his side. Afterwards, the investigator
shall implement the law and if the charge is enough, the investigation can be
dismissed. Summary involving dismissal of policeman is valid. It may not violate
the due process of law provided that the two minimum requirements are met. It is
not only that the complaint is filed against you. You still have a chance to
answer. It is summary only in the sense that no actual hearing is convicted.
BASIC ELEMENTS IN DUE PROCESS:
1. Notice – to warn you

2. Hearing – to give you an opportunity to be heard
WHEN DUE PROCES IS NOT REQUIRED:
1. In cases of abatements of nuisance per se which may be abated summarily without the
necessity of judicial authorization.
Nuisances per accidence need due process but nuisance per se doesn’t need due
process. There are some instances wherein we can define what nuisance per se. The
former is the nuisance at all times and under all circumstances. Another way to define
it is be saying that this is a kind of nuisance that poses danger of threat or immediate
danger to life and property. On the other hand, nuisance per accidence is the opposite.
It is solely by reason of place and time, it becomes a nuisance. For instance, the noise
during late at night, 2AM. We consider that as nuisance per accidence because that is
only by reason of time, 2AM. However, if it is in the morning, there would be no
problem. Therefore, you have NO RIGHT to go to your neighbor and break the karaoke,
radio or anything that is noisemaker, because of DUE PROCESS.
ESTATE VS CA
Petitioner owned a Quonset building located on a lot of the PPA.

The Quonset was being used to store copra and petitioner had a lease
contract over the lot with PPA. Respondent, the mayor, demolished the
building on the ground that it did not conform with the zoning ordinance
which located the zone for warehouse elsewhere.
RULING: The court held that while the zoning ordinance authorizes
the removal of any property which does not conform to it. It should not
be interpreted as authorizing the summary removal of the Quonset
building. If it does, it would be a contravention of the requirements of
due process. Violation of an ordinance does not empower the mayor to
avail of extrajudicial remedies. On the contrary the LGC imposes upon him
the duty to institute judicial proceedings for violation of ordinance.
The authority to abate nuisances without judicial proceedings applies to
nuisances per se. While the Sangguniang Bayan may provide for the
abatement of a nuisance per se when it is not, the nuisance can only be
so adjudged by a judicial determination. Petitioner ws entitled to an
impartial hearing to determine whether the Quonset building was a
nuisance per se.
2. Preventive Suspension of students/workers.
Note: Suspension as a preventive measure does not require notice and hearing, however
suspension as a penalty must require notice and hearing. Notice means to inform you that
changes have been filed against you. Hearing means giving opportunity to defend yourself.
In this case, the Supreme Court stated that only opportunity to be heard and not actual hearing.
Hearing can be done in different ways because it involves administrative bodies. If there’s no
actual hearing done, then it is already hearing in its broader sense even if only the papers are being
submitted.
ADM VS CAPULONG
(The Lenny Villa Case)
There was a hazing conducted as part of the initiation rites of the

Aquila Legis Fraternity of ADM where the victim, Villa, was an applicant,
and was killed as a result thereof. Students who acted as master
auxiliaries were refused admittance to the school after having been found
guilty of participating in hazing. The decision of the school to dismiss
the students was based on the findings submitted by the Board. The
accused contested that they were not given copies of the school’s rules
and regulations. They were not warned on the conduct to avoid, thus, they
were not afforded due process.
RULING: The court held that this is an exception to due process. Since
they are law students, they cannot use that argument. It was presumed
that they have received a copy or have diligently asked for one. If they
were undergraduates, they would have been treated differently. Hazing was
not defined in the manual but is the same punishable.
Important points in this case:

 Five requirements to satisfy due process in the discipline of students:
a.) The students must be informed in writing of the nature and cause of
any accusation against them.
b.) They shall have the right to answer the charges against them with the
assistance of counsel if desired
c.) They shall be informed of the evidences against them.
d.) They shall have the right to adduce evidence in their own behalf
e.) The evidences must be duly considered by the investigating
committee or official designated by the school authorities to hear and
decide the case.
 The students invoked the Ang Tibay case but the court held that the applicable
case is the Guzman case.
 They also argued that the fifth requirement was not satisfied: their evidence was
not considered. The court ruled that whether or not the evidence entered the
process of decision making or consideration is very hard to prove and that is why
the court said that the fact that it was mentioned as having been considered is
sufficient.
3. Provisional Rate Increases
Note: It is not a final decision. It is merely temporary. Hence notice and hearing is not required.
4. Cancellation of the passport of a man accused of a crime
5. Preventive suspension of a civil servant facing administrative charges
Note: Preventive suspension is not a penalty, but a measure to enable the disciplining authority
to investigate charges against respondent by preventing the latter from intimidating or in
any way influencing witnesses against him. (Gloria vs CA)
6. Direct Contempt
RIVERA vs. CXC, Land Bank of the Philippines
Petitioner, the manage of LBP, was charged with dishonesty and acts committed
punishable under the Anti-Graft Las and pursuit of private business vocation or
profession without permission required by CSC. Rivera allegedly told Perez that he would
facilitate the processing, approval and release of his loan if he would be given 10%
commission. Rivera was further charge having served and acted, without prior authority
required by CSC, as the personal consultant of Lao and consultant in various companies
where Lao had investments. LBP held Rivera guilty of grave misconduct and acts
prejudicial to the best interest of the service in accepting employment from a client of the
bank. The penalty of forced resignation, without separation benefits and gratuities, was
thereupon imposed on the petitioner.
SUBSTSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS
Substantive Due Process requires the intrinsic validity of the law in interfering with the rights of the
persons to his life, liberty and property.
It is not whether or not the law being enforced in accordance with the prescribed manner but
whether or not, to begin with, it is a proper exercise of legislative power.
Substantive Due Process vs. Procedural Due Process

The basic distinction among the two is that procedural due process involves process and substantive
due process involves the content of the law. A good example would be if Congress passes a law saying
that cheating is strictly prohibited and students who will be caught cheating will be shot immediately
and that teachers are required to bring firearms during examinations. It is now the content of the law
that is put into challenge – its fairness and its justness.
Another point that I would like to emphasize, considering that we are looking at the contents of the law:
Can Congress in the same way pass a law when a municipal ordinance is passed? About 98% of the
laws and ordinances are in the exercise of police powers. Maybe about 1% only in the exercise of
taxation power and also about 1% in the exercise of eminent domain.
BAR QUESTIONS:
Q: If the person who decides the case is not the same person who conducted the hearing or
investigation, does it violate due process?
A: In the seven elements of administrative due process, there is no requirement that the same person
who conducted the hearing should also decide the case. The testimonies of the witnesses do not
necessarily have to be given to the same person who will decide on the case. What is important is that
all the facts should be considered by the deciding authority to satisfy due process.
AMERICAN TOBACCO VS. DIR. OF PATENTS
ISSUE: Is there a requirement that the deciding officer must be the one
who should hear the case?
RULING: The court held that due process does not require that the actual
taking of testimony must be by the person who will decide the case. What
it requires is that the deciding officer should consider all the
evidences presented.
Q: What if the lawyer prosecuting the case, the witnesses to the case, and the agency as the decision
maker belong to the same agency, will it violate due process?
A: No, there is no violation as long as the seven elements are met. In fact, this is what is being done in
most agencies, where the judge, jury and executioner is from the same agency. What is important is
that there is no violation of the seven elements enumerated in the Ang Tibay case.
Q: Policemen are conducting drunk-driving tests at random, with the use of a “breathalyzer” gadget. If
you fail to pass the test, your license to drive shall be suspended for 90 days. Does it violate due
process?
A1: The taking of something (the license) from somebody should also be considered here. There is a
violation. UP suggested that a post-suspension hearing should be conducted immediately. Of course,
they are aware that this is for the welfare of the people against drunk-driving, which could make the
government’s conduct reasonable. There is compelling interest against drunk-driving. The purpose of
the post-suspension hearing is for determining whether the person is guilty or not. The suspension of the
license shall, in effect, be provisional or temporary. It should not be considered as a penalty. Post-
suspension hearings are very important so there would be no violation of due process.
A2: Another view would be, the license is just a privilege granted by the State which may be revoked
anytime. On the contrary, the suspension of the license for a long time can also deprive a jeepney
driver of his property right. It is not just a license to him but also a means of livelihood. Therefore
confiscations should have due process.
Q: The ERB, in response to public protest, issued a decree containing a schedule of lowering the price
of petroleum products for a period of one year. The oil company objected stating that the period is too
long. Is the conduct of the ERB proper?
A: The conduct of the ERB is not valid because there was no hearing conducted. The decree cannot
be considered also as provisional in nature because the period covered is too long.
Rate-fixing:
When it comes to rate fixing, due process is required after determining if the exercise of power
by the authority was judicial, quasi-judicial or quasi-legislative because it affects all oil companies. There
should be notice and hearing first.
Test for substantive due process:
General Rule: If an administrative body exercises quasi-legislative function, there is no need of notice
and hearing.
Exception: If the rules of that body requires notice and hearing and also if there is an opposition to the
decree or provision made by a legislative body.
If there is a law which states that a student caught cheating can be shot immediately, the
question of procedural process cannot be invoked. What should be invoked is substantive due process
as there is obviously something wrong with the law itself.
Test: “Whether the law is a reasonable exercise of Police Power, or an undue interference on the life,
liberty and property.”
The test being set will prevent the passing of laws which are in nature unjust.
Summary:
Procedural Due Process – it concerns procedure or the manner of conduct

Substantive Due Process – it concerns the exercise of Police Power.
Police Power
It is the power of the Government to prescribe regulations to promote health, morals, education,
good order, or safety and the general welfare of the people.
EXCLUSIVE AREAS ON WHICH POLICE POWER CAN BE EXERCISED BY THE GOVERNMENT

(LAWFUL SUBJECTS):
1. Health
2. Morals
3. Education
4. Good Order
5. Safety
6. General Welfare
Law-Making Bodies cannot pass laws which do not concern any of these areas. Otherwise, the laws
passed shall be void.
Q: How do we know whether the exercise of police power is valid or how do we know that the law
passed the test for substantive due process? How do we know that it is a valid exercise of police
power?
A: The first test is that the interest of the public generally, as distinguished from that of the general
class, requires such interference. Justice Cruz says that it is the law of subject test. The means are
reasonably necessary for the accomplishment of the purpose and not unduly oppressive upon the
individual. Justice Cruz said that this is the lawful method.
CHAVEZ vs. ROMULO

431 SCRA 430 (2004)
Facts: On January 31, 2003, the Chief of the Philippine National Police issued the Guidelines in the Implementation of the
Ban on the Carrying of Firearms Outside of Residence (PTCFOR). Among others, the guidelines suspended the issuance of
permits to carry firearms outside of one’s residence. Does the Constitution protect the right to bear arms? Does the ban on
carrying firearms constitute deprivation of property without due process?
Held: The right to bear arms is a mere statutory privilege, not a constitutional right. The Philippine Constitution contains no
provision similar to the Second Amendment. Similarly, a license to permit authorizing a person to enjoy certain privileges is
neither a property nor a property right. Just like ordinary licenses in other regulatory fields, a license to carry firearm may
be revoked anytime. It does not confer an absolute right, but only personal privilege to be exercised under existing
restrictions, ad such as may thereafter be reasonably imposed. Even if it is assumed that a PTCFOR constitutes a property
right protected by the Constitution, the same cannot be considered as absolute to be placed beyond the reach of the
State’s police power. All property in the State is held subject to its general regulations, necessary to the common good and
general welfare.
BASIC PRINCIPLES ATTACHED TO POLICE POWER:
1. It is inherent in the government.

With or without any law or constitutional provision, the State can exercise police power
because it is part and parcel of the definition of a Government.
2. It is primarily exercised by the National Legislature but it can also be delegated to

local governments.
e.g. Ordinances by the city government is an exercise of police power
3. It is the least limitable of all powers.

It is the most compelling of all governmental powers.
4. It enjoys a presumption of validity and constitutionality.

The burden of proof is on those who dares to challenge its validity.
TEST FOR A VALID EXERCISE OF POLICE POWER:

(Whether the law complied with substantive due process)
- applicable only to property rights.
1. LAWFUL SUBJECT – that the interest of the general public over a certain class requires such
interference.
It should serve the public interest and not a particular person or class. It should cover the six
areas of police power. If it goes outside the areas, the law does not have a lawful subject and
can be declared unconstitutional. The welfare of the people is the supreme law.
2. LAWFUL MEANS – that the means are reasonably necessary for the accomplishment of the
purpose and not unduly oppressive upon individuals.
The law must pass two tests:
a.) Rational Connections Test (the reasonable relation between the means and the end)
If that is the law, what should be the method used or the means employed for the purpose?
b.) Unduly Oppressive Test

The law should not unreasonably burden the rights. They shall not be unduly oppressive of
other’s rights. It must conform to the safeguards embodied in the Bill of Rights
Example:
What if there is a law punishing smoking with death after trial?
Lawful Subject : Health
Rational Relation Test : to promote health, smoking must be discouraged
Unduly Oppressive Test : the penalty is very harsh. The law does not satisfy the test because it is
unduly oppressive.
US VS. TORRIBIO
The law in issue prohibits the slaughter of carabaos.

There is a lawful subject since it might concern public welfare.
Maybe, they are trying to prevent the introduction of infected carabao
meat in the market.
The means employed could be considered unlawful since it violates
property rights as it deprives of income from the sale of the meat by a
farmer.
The law is not oppressive if the means provided allows the
slaughter of carabaos after obtaining a permit from the government.
Q: If the city passes an ordinance prohibiting the renting of hotels or motels on a short time basis, does it
violate property rights of the owner or the right of the customers to rent the rooms for really resting or
sleeping?
A: First, short time should be defined before it can be argued on. If short time is less than eight hours, the
law can be valid if challenged by the hotel owners. If short time is more than eight hours, the ordinance
can or might be considered as oppressive or an unreasonable burden to the owner’s rights (property
rights derived from income).
Note: The tests for the valid exercise of police power are applicable only to those affecting property
rights.
Example:
1. property itself
2. freedom of contract
3. ownership of property
4. disposal of property
All laws tend to interfere with property rights but it will only be unconstitutional if the rights of a
person are unduly burdened.
At present, the SC condones the State’s interference with property rights, unlike in the early days
because of the “social justice clause” found in the Constitution. This regulates the property rights in order
to equalize the distribution of wealth. It is now considered constitutional for the State to interfere with
property rights for the welfare of the people.
ERMITA VS CITY OF MANILA
The ordinance being challenged was one which regulated the

operation of hotels and motels. The ordinance required the following: 1)
registration in the lobby should be open to public view; 2) that the
mayor can conduct an inspection of the establishment at any time; 3)
prohibits the renting of the room more than once within 24 hrs; 4) that
minors should be accompanied by their parents or adults.
TAXICAB VS BOT
The law concerns the phasing out of dilapidated taxicabs. The

lawful subject here is public welfare. The lawful method is to phase out
old taxis to ensure public safety. Taxicab owners and operators
challenged this by saying that it affects their property rights.
RULING: The court held that the law is not unduly oppressive, therefore
valid. Six years cut-off time is sufficient for the owners to have
substantial return of their investment.
DEPARTMENT VS SAN DIEGO
San Diego challenged the NMAT rule that one cannot take a medical
course after failing the test three times. The lawful subject here is
health. The rational relation is that the medical profession is
intimately related to life and health and is impressed with public
interest. Restriction of the medical profession is related to health
(because doctors promote health). What is being burdened here according
to San Diego is the right to education.
RULING: The court held that the right to education is not unduly burdened
because if a person fails the NMAT three times, it seems that he is not
fit to be in the medical profession at all.
DEL ROSARIO VS BENGZON
This concerns the Generic Act which was quite an issue in the
medical world. The Act requires doctors to prescribe medicine using
generic names and not to use brand names, which was the common practice
before the passage of the law. Doctors contended that the law burdened
their freedom to contract. The lawful subject is health. The Supreme
Court also cited some constitutional policies wherein the State will
promote health and make it affordable to the people.
RULING: The court held that it is too hard to challenge the presumption
of validity. And since it has constitutional basis, the more it would be
difficult to challenge. With regards the doctor’s argument, the court
said that there is no contract between the doctor and the patient. In
fact, the patient can refuse to buy the medicine prescribed by his
doctor. Therefore the freedom of contract is not involved here. In fact,
there seems to be no case wherein the doctors sued his patient for not
following his prescription.
BALACUIT VS CFI
The ordinance: 1) reduced by ½ the fee for children aged 7-12 years
old to enter into a movie house; 2) prohibited theater owners from
selling tickets beyond the seating capacity; 3) prohibited owners from
selling a ticket to two persons. The lawful subject used as basis is
general welfare. What is burdened is the property right of the theater
owners.
RULING: The court held that the fee paid to enter movie houses represents
property rights. The theater owners should have the right to sell their
tickets in whatever way they want to. Interference on the right to sell
tickets was not validated. As to #2 and #3, the court ruled them to be
valid because they affect public safety which fell within the scope of
police power. What is being avoided is the overcrowding of movie houses.
They comply with Substantive Due Process.
YNOT VS IAC
Pres. Marcos promulgated an EO which prohibited the inter-

provincial movement of carabaos and carabeefs. Anyone caught violating
the law will have his carabao and carabeef confiscated. The purpose of
the law is to prevent indiscriminate slaughter of carabaos so that they
could be preserved for agricultural use by the farmers. The lawful
subject is general welfare since the Philippines is an agricultural
country. The farmers need them for farming instead of using machineries.
(The country was in an energy crisis)
RULING: The court held that there was a lawful subject which is general
welfare. However, the method chosen by the government has no logical
connection with the purpose of the law. Prohibiting the inter-provincial
transfer of carabaos would not prevent their indiscriminate slaughter.
The carabaos can still be killed anywhere without even transferring them.
Note: The test for a valid exercise of police power applies only to property rights (Philippine Booming
Mills Case) whereas, in human rights, the test applicable is the Clear and Present Danger Test.
With the adoption of the Social Justice Clause of the Constitution, the courts now can tend to
explain that the Police Power is simply construed broadly to justify the intrusion into property rights (this is
an abandonment of the Laissez Faire Principle). Property rights can now be easily invaded by police
power.
Equal Protection Clause
Art. III, Sec 1. xxx nor shall any person be

denied the equal protection of the laws.
This means the equal protection of all persons before the law, also known as justice. The book of
Cruz states that the law does not demand absolute equality but it merely requires that all persons shall
be treated alike under like circumstances and conditions, both as to rights conferred and responsibilities
imposed.
Equal protection clause simply prohibits two things:

1. it prohibits giving favors
2. it prohibits setting someone disadvantages.
Giving equal treatment to persons under different circumstances can result to injustice.
The clause prohibits laws which are unfair, discriminatory, motivated by favoritism, hostility,
prejudice and partiality. It prohibits favoring and discriminating individuals.
It is otherwise known as the PRINCIPLE OF NON-DISCRIMINATION.
It is also important that there is equal protection, not only in the contents of the law, but also in
the administration of the law. The law protects all persons, natural as well as judicial. Artificial persons,
however, are protected only insofar as their property is concerned.
CLASS LEGISLATION
– These are laws which tend to violate the equal protection clause.
CLASSIFICATION
– The grouping of persons or things similar to each other in certain particulars and different
from all others.
– These are laws that set apart a group of persons. However, this does not necessarily
mean that all laws which tend to classify are unconstitutional. Not all violates the equal
protection clause.
Example: The RPC classifies criminals from other persons but it does not violate the
clause.
REQUIREMENTS FOR A VALID CLASSIFICATION:

1. It must rest on a substantial distinction.
2. It must be germane to the purpose of the law. It should be relevant to the purpose of the law.
3. It must not be limited to existing conditions only. It must apply indefinitely, as long as the problem
sought to be corrected continues to exist.
4. It must apply equally to all members of the class.
If the law passes the tests, then it passes the test for equal protection. If any test is missing, it is
unconstitutional.
Some classifications may pose some problems, like gender. But we cannot question the law
outright, take the maternity law for example. It is important that when you classify, it must be relevant
some purpose and the method used must have some logical bearing to the purpose. It must also apply
indefinitely while the problem continues to exist.
ICHIONG VS. HERNANDEZ
There is substantial distinction between aliens and Filipinos since

alien’s loyalty to the country is transitory in nature which is motivated
only by some kind of personal interest.
The purpose of the law is to prevent aliens from engaging in
business in the Philippines. It is observed that there is alien dominance
in retail trade. That is the reason why the law intends to give it back
to the Filipinos.
It also applies to all members of the class, except to Americans,
since they are covered by the Parity Amendment found in the 1935
Constitution. This provision authorizes Americans to engage in all trade
in the country. The classification also has relevance to the lawful
subject and method.
PASEI VS DRILON
What was questioned was the order by the DOLE which prohibited
temporarily the sending of female domestic abroad. The law was challenged
as violative of the equal protection clause since it singled out domestic
helpers who are female only.
RULING: The SC ruled that there is valid classification since it is the

females who experience the various abuses abroad. The female domestic
workers are those who live with their employers, unlike entertainers, and
it is their houses where most abuses occur. They are very susceptible to
maltreatment. The ban is germane to the purpose of the law which is to
protect them. The law applies to all members of the class. It will apply
as long as there are female domestic workers abroad
But the law would have a different effect if the prohibition is applicable only to one country. It
seems that it will be invalid, although, it was not really address by the court. Nobody raised the
geographical problem as violating the equal protection clause. But this may be justified by raising the
substantial distinction.
If the law will state that, from now on, no workers can go abroad. It becomes a “substantive due
process” issue, not an equal protection clause problem anymore.
ORMOC SUGAR COMPANY VS TREASURER
An ordinance was passed imposing tax specifically on sugar produced

by Ormoc Sugar Co.
It violated the equal protection clause because there is a
possibility that somebody might put up a new sugar company. In effect,
the law will still apply singly to Ormoc Sugar Company because it was
specifically sated so.
RULING: The court held that the ordinance violated the equal protection
clause. It did not satisfy requirement #3. The law was only limited to
existing conditions. Although Ormoc Sugar was the only sugar miller at
the time, the ordinance should also cover for other future sugar millers.
Presently, the law does not cover other future millers.
Q: How will you cure the ordinance?

A: “All sugar produced in Ormoc will be taxed” – In this manner, it will not be limited to existing
conditions only.
A case cited in Bernas’ book saying a law was passed which prohibits women from becoming
bartenders. And the American SC upheld the law as valid and constitutional on the basis that the
purpose of the law is to protect the morals of the women. However, the prohibition may not be as
acceptable today as it was in the past. The existence of female pilots and military officers are some
proofs of the changing outlook of the society.
NUÑEZ VS SANDIGANBAYAN
Nuñez claimed that the PD minimizes the constitutional rights of

the public officers. What the law imposes is that public officials are to
be tried by the Sandiganbayan for cases concerning their position or
office. If an appeal is made by the official, it goes straight to the SC
unlike ordinary citizens, whose cases can still be appealed in the CA.
Nuñez claimed that the law is discriminatory since public officials have
only one chance to appeal (certiorari), while others have more remedies.
It should be noted that the SC only deals with appeals with questions of
law.
RULING: The court held that the law did not violate the equal protection
clause. There is a substantial distinction since public officers occupy a
position different from others: Public office is a public trust. It is
also germane to the purpose of the law. It can also apply inefinitely and
it applies to all members of the class.
The right against violations of the equal protection is provided in the Constitution. However, the
creation of the Sandiganbayan is also provided in the Constitution. There seems to be a conflict
between the two provisions in the Constitution. But because there is a specific provision also in the
constitution that equal protection must give way to the other provisions in the Constitution, the creation
and function of the Sandiganbayan must be upheld.
Thus, when a law is passed by Congress has constitutional basis for favoring certain sectors of the
society, it will be difficult to challenge it by using the equal protection clause as your own basis to
invalidate the law passed.
CHUA VS. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION
In 1988, in order to bring about the reorganization in the

government, an early retirement law was enacted. The law covered regular,
temporary casual and emergency employees who have rendered at least 2
years of consecutive service. Chua, who was hired and rehired 4 times,
has worked with the government continuously for 15 years as a contractual
employee. And she applied for early retirement. She was refused the
benefits of the law because under existing civil service law she was
classified as a contractual, and her tenure is co-terminous with the
project. She was not considered as included in the law. She contested
this being violative of the equal protection clause having no substantial
distinction among casual temporary, emergency and contractual workers.
RULING: The court ruled in favor of Chua, the law violates the equal
protection clause. However, the court did not declare the law null and
void for being unconstitutional. Usually, it will. The court merely
explained the law in another manner, it injected contractual workers as
included in the law.
There is no substantial distinction between a co-terminous employee and a

casual employee when in fact the former should enjoy better treatment
than the casuals since they are in plantilla.
VILLEGAS VS. HIU CHIONG
An ordinance was passed imposing a P50.00 working fee for permits

to aliens who wish to work in Manila. This was a revenue raising program
of the City of Manila.
RULING: The court held that it violated the equal protection clause
because it did not indicate as to the particular class of aliens who are
required to pay for working permits. The ordinance was applicable to all,
whether the alien is a lowly worker or a highly paid executive or a rich
businessman.
The decision is an exception to the general rule that there should be no class legislation. But
failure to classify the aliens according to their financial standing would seem a violation of the equal
protection clause because it would be favorable to the rich and burdensome to poor aliens.
Equal protection means, “equal should be treated equally and unequal, unequally.”
If the fee is only regulatory, for example P5.00, it will be constitutional because it is minimal and
the fee will only be used to defray expenses for the registration of aliens working in the Philippines.
PEOPLE VS. CAYAT
There was a law which prohibited native non-Christians from

drinking foreign liquor. A native was caught drinking imported wine and
he was charged. He challenged this being violative of the equal
protection clause.
RULING: The court held that the law is not violative of the equal
protection clause. The substantial distinction is the degree of
civilization between Christian and non-Christian tribes. The court also
said it was germane to the purpose of the law. The purpose of the law was
to keep peace and order. Experience showed that these become trouble-
makers after getting drunk on imported liquor. They are not used to
drinking imported liquor and they get easily drunk with it. Requirement
No. 3 was satisfied. The law is effective indefinitely. There will be
classification as long as there is a difference in the two groups. But
concerning the 4th requisite, that it will apply to all members of the
class, it seems that it is prejudiced to natives who are already
educated. This law may not be applicable nor acceptable nowadays. It will
be discrimination towards a group or class of people.
BAR QUESTIONS:
Q: One person challenged the law requiring people to undergo subsidiary imprisonment for failure to
pay the fine or bond on the ground that it prejudicially classifies the people according to property
(economic status).
A1: UP’s suggested answer is that the RPC is unconstitutional because it violates the equal protection
clause. People who are more fortunate never have to serve the additional jail term while those who are
not as fortunate have to serve the subsidiary imprisonment without any choice. The (UP) contended
that classification based on economic status is not a substantial distinction.
A1: The equal protection clause does not compel the eradication of every disadvantage caused by
indigents. Therefore, classification based on economic status can be a valid substantial distinction in a
way. This is another way of looking at the problem as presented also by UP, although some people do
not accept this kind of argument.
Q: DECS issued a circular prohibiting or disqualifying anyone who fails for the fourth time in the National
Entrance Examination in the College of Dentistry. Does the circular deprive a flunker for the fourth time
his right to education?
A: This concerns substantive due process. There is a lawful subject which is to serve public interest. There
is a lawful means. There is rational relevance to the subject. It does not unduly burden other people’s
rights.
Q: Did the circular violate the equal protection clause of the Constitution?
A: There is substantial distinction of people who wants to become a dentist from other professions, for
example, future engineers or accountants. The example is important because it concerns a vital
profession which deals with people’s health. This does not violate the equal protection clause because
it does not demand that we should all be subjected to the same exam or procedure. Dentistry entrance
exam cannot be given in the same way as the College of Law entrance exams are given.
Searches and Seizures
Art. III, Sec. 2. The right of the people to be

secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects
against unreasonable searches and seizures of
whatever nature and for any purpose shall be
inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of
arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be
determined personally by the judge after
examination under oath or affirmation of the
complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and
particularly describing the place to be searched and
the persons or things seized.
“The sanctity of a person’s house is a time-honored hallmark of all free societies”
Section 2 covers:
- search warrant
- arrest warrant
- warrantless arrest
- warrantless searches
- exclusionary rule
Scope of the Protection against unreasonable searches and seizures and to privacy of
communications and correspondence:
1.) It is available to all persons, including aliens, natural or juridical.

2.) This right is personal, and may be invoked only by the person entitled to it.
3.) The right extends not only to the privacy of one’s home but also to his office. It also covers
papers and other effects.
As a GENERAL RULE, premises may not be searched nor may the papers and effects be seized, EXCEPT
by virtue of a valid warrant.
PROBABLE CAUSE
- defined as such facts and circumstances which would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent
man to believe that an offense has been committed and that the object sought in connection
with the offense are in the place sought to be searched. (J. Escolin, Burgos vs Chief of Staff, pp.
134 Cruz).
o Evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt is not required, unlike in criminal cases.
o There is probable cause when it is more likely than not that the object being searched is
kept in that place
SEARCH WARRANTS
- An order of a judge in writing directed to a peace officer commanding him to search a

particular place in order to confiscate matters which are related to a crime.
PRINCIPLES FOR A VALID SEARCH WARRANT:
1.) as to the subject

The Constitution requires that the object being searched should be specified in the
search warrant. Otherwise, in a general warrant, the authority will not know what to get and
what not get during the search.
2.) as to the place

The place to be searched should also be specified or described in the warrant. Failure to
do so will make the warrant general.
3.) it must alienate to one specific offense
PROCEDURES IN OBTAINING A SEARCH WARRANT?

1. The judge should issue a warrant based on probable cause.
2. The judge must examine the witnesses personally.
3. The examination must be by means of searching questions.
4. The warrant must entertain specific descriptions as to object, as to place and the
requirement that it shall only be for one crime or one offense. It is not enough that you
suspect the person. You need to support it with affidavits of witnesses. Submit it to the
judge can now issue a search warrant if there is probable cause.
REQUISITES OF A VALID SEARCH WARRANT:
1.) It must be based on probable cause.

What is probable cause? There are circumstances that make a prudent man
conclude that the object to the searched is in that place to be searched. He should be
reasonably convinced that the object to be searched is that place and the object is
there more likely than not. It should not be based on suspicion. Proof beyond reasonable
doubt is not required.
CORRO VS. LISING
- Search of the Philippine Times with search warrant based on two

affidavits filed by the witnesses
o Affidavit of Col. Castillo submitted to the judge contained:
We found that the said publication in fact commenced distrust
and hatred against the government of the Philippines and its duly
constituted authorities defined and penalized under Art. 142 of the
RPC as amended by PD1835.
o The other witness, Lt. Ignacio stated in his affidavit:
The said periodical published by Corro contains article
leading to cite distrust and hatred for the authority of the
Republic of the Philippines or any of the duly concerned
authorities.
The judge issued the search warrant based on the 2
affidavits. This was challenged before the SC arguing that there was no
probable cause.
RULING: The court held that the above statements do not amount to
probable cause. The statements do not contain facts for conclusions of
law. The statements do not contain facts for conclusions of law. The
statements are only conclusions determined by the witnesses and not by
the judge.
Q: How will you cure the defect?

A: Quote contents of the newspaper in the affidavit or attach copies of the newspapers. With this, facts
would now be presented to the judge and not only in the conclusions of the officer.
Q: Based on the statements made by the witnesses, does it satisfy the definition of probable cause?
A: No, it does not satisfy the definition of probable cause
2.) The probable cause must be determined personally by the judge.

This requirement is that it should be personal examination of the judge to the witness.
When the constitution says it is personal, the constitution means it literally. In one case, I think the
judge was busy so he called the clerk of court. It was null and void because the judge did not
personally examine.
BACHE VS. RUIZ
The police went to a judge to a judge to apply for a search

warrant. Since the judge was busy. He designated the clerk of court to
examine the witnesses and to write down his findings. After his trial the
judge took the oath of the witnesses to verify the truthfulness of their
answers to the searching questions of the clerk. The judge issued the
search warrant. Was probable cause personally determined by the judge?
RULING: The court ruled that there was no personal examination by the
judge. It was not sufficient even if he studied and ratified the
affidavits. The judge should personally determine probable cause.
3.) The determination must be made after the examination under oath or affirmation on the
complainant and the witnesses he may produce (not after the investigation)
This requirement also means that the determination must be by means of searching
questions. And again there are no clear parameters. But the only guideline is indirect. The
court only requires that “Do not ask leading questions.” Leading question is a question
which suggests to the witness the answer.
4.) It must particularly describe the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.
The warrant must contain specific description as to objects, as to place, and as to the
offense. If a warrant fails in these requirements, we call this as General Warrant and it is
null and void. It is useless. This means that the objects taken under that warrant cannot
be used as evidence.
Purpose:
- to prevent the peace officer from exercising discretion as to what are to be seized, otherwise,
he can seize anything he wants.
PRUDENTE VS. DAYRIT
During evacuation in Leyte, Prudente allowed the evacuees to be
housed on the Polytechnic University. The police applied for a search
warrant alleging the existence of firearms in the school. The judge
commanded to make an immediate search anytime in the day or night of the
premises of Polytechnic Univ. of the Philippines, more particularly in
the office of the Dept. of Science and Tactics at the ground floor and
other rooms at the second floor.
Lawyers of Prudente got hold of a copy of the examination of the
witness by the judge. They discovered that the judge did not ask
searching questions, but only leading questions in which the witness only
answered: yes sir.
RULING 1: In the first issue, the Court ruled that this is not a general
search warrant. It appears that if the general place follows the
particular place, there is no violation of the Constitution as long as
the place is under the control of the same person. It would be different
if the search is to be conducted on a condo building, you cannot search
anymore the other condo units which are not owned by the same person.
Usually a search warrant must be specific of the place to search and the
object to be seized. This is to prevent the peace officers from
exercising discretion as to what are to be seized. Otherwise, he can
seize anything he wants which are void and unconstitutional.
RULING 2: As to the 2nd issue, the court ruled that the warrant is void
because the judge did not ask searching questions, but leading questions.
It would seem that the judge knows more about the alleged crime than the
witness. In addition, was found that the witness did not hve personal
knowledge of the facts regarding the crime than the witness. In addition,
it was found that the witness did not have personal knowledge of the
facts regarding the crime. His affidavit contained statements like “…I
have been informed and have good reason to believe…”, “…with regards to
the statement…”, “…the undersigned has verified the report…” therefore
acquiring personal knowledge, the court held that nothing in the
verification was made. It did not satisfy the requirement of searching
questions.
COLUMBIA VS. FLORES
The judge issued a search warrant for violation of the Decree on

Protection of Intellectual Property against FGT Video Network, a licensed
video tape distributor. In addition to video tapes, posters, and journal,
it is also ordered the seizure of:
xxx
c.) television sets, video cassette recorders, rewinders, tape head
cleaners, accessories, equipment and other machines and paraphernalia or
materials used or intended to be used in the unlawful sale, lease,
distribution, or possession for purpose of sale, lease, distribution,
circulation or public exhibition of the above-mentioned pirated video
tapes.
RULING: The court ruled that these articles and appliances are generally
connected with, or related to a legitimate business not necessarily
involving piracy of intellectual property or infringement of copyright
laws. Hence, including these articles without specification and/or
particularly that they were really instruments in violating the Anti-
Piracy Law makes the search warrant too general which could result in the
confiscation of all items found in any video store.
General warrants:
General warrants are unconstitutional and are considered inadmissible in the court. Failure to
comply with the restrictions of a valid search warrant is that it must alienate to one specific offense
only.
Q: If in just one search conducted, the court issued a warrant charging the accused of violation of
PD1866 or the Illegal Possession of Firearms, etc. Does it violate the Constitution requiring that the
warrant should be for one specific offense only?
A: No. The reason given by the court pertaining to etc. is it stands for ammunition.
Others would object to the ruling made since the judge was not the one conducting the search.
It was not for the judge to give his reason for issuing a warrant similar to a general warrant. What is
stated in the warrant should be specific that the authority conducting the search will have little
chance of committing an error in the process.
Another doctrine would say that there is no need to specifically mention the provision violated if
the law itself contains closely related provisions (like firearms and explosives). But it will differ if the
charge would be, “crimes under the RPC”. (too broad)
Three types of a general warrant:
When it fails to describe:

1. the object to be seized
2. the place to conduct the search
3. to what specific offense it is related to
STONEHILL VS. DIOKNO
Note: This case was also in the exclusionary rule.

Stated in the warrant: The above items are subject to the offense, stolen
or embezzled, or intended to be used as a means to commit offenses
violating CB laws, tariffs and customs laws, The Internal Revenue Code,
and the RPC.
RULING: There was no specific offense mentioned. There is a need to

mention only one specific offense. Otherwise, it will be considered a
general warrant.
In related offenses, there is no need to mention specific provisions on offenses. (ex. PD 1866 covers
firearms, explosives, etc.)
Q: Is this a general warrant as to the offense?

A: Yes, because it mention 4 laws. In fact, one of the laws stated is sufficient enough to invalidate
the warrant because one law covers hundreds or thousands of offenses. The warrant should be
specific as to the offenses.
TO ISSUE A SEARCH WARRANT, THE JUDGE SHALL: (RULE 112, SEC. 6, RC)
1.) Personally evaluate the report and the supporting documents submitted by the fiscal regarding
the existence of probable cause and on the basis thereof.
2.) If on the basis thereof, he finds no probable cause, he may disregard the fiscals report and
require the submission of supporting affidavits of witnesses to aid him arriving at a conclusion as
to the existence of probable cause.
Note: While he could rely on the findings of the fiscal, he is, nevertheless, not bound thereby.
Note: It is not the duty of the judge to personally conduct the evaluation. It is sufficient that he follows
established procedures by personally evaluating the reports and supporting documents submitted by
the prosecutor (ENRILE VS. SALAZAR and SOLIVEN VS. MAKASIAR, pp. 137)
Note: the requirement of probable cause is not applicable in proceedings which are not criminal in
nature. Deportation is purely administrative (SALAZAR VS. ACHACOSO)
PEOPLE VS. DICHOSO
The court issued a search warrant for violation of the Dangerous

Drugs Act. It directed the peace officer to search and seize the
following: a.)marijuana, b.)shabu, c.)and paraphernalia. The accused
challenged the constitutionality of the warrant on the basis that it
covers three articles, making it a general search warrant. He claimed
that the warrant failed to specify the thing to be seized.
RULING: The court ruled that this is not a general search warrant. The
offenses involved, or the objects subject for seizure belong to the same
class. Therefore, the officer does not need one warrant for each item.
SALAZAR VS. ACHACOSO
In line with the power granted by Art. 38 of the Labor Code, the
Secretary issued a warrant to conduct a search in a particular property,
in connection with the crime of illegal recruitment.
RULING: The court held that the PD which was later incorporated in to the
Labor Code as Art. 38 was unconstitutional. Under the Constitution, only
judges can issue search warrants.
MALALUAN VS. CA
The RTC judge of Caloocan issued a warrant to search for loose

firearms, in a particular house located in Quezon City. As a result of
the search, the accused was charged for violation of PD 1866. The accused
raised the issue of validity of the warrant that the Quezon City is no
longer under the jurisdiction of the Caloocan RTC judge. Therefore, if
the warrant is void, the search is invalid and all those confiscated
cannot be held admissible in court.
ISSUE: Is the warrant valid or not?
RULING: The court ruled that the warrant is valid. They resorted to BP129
which grants jurisdiction to all the courts. It states that all processes
in court are valid and effective all over the Philippines.
A problem will arise if one judge issues a warrant which is later found to be defective.
Following the procedures of court, the suspect must file a case in court, before the same court
and judge who issued the warrant, to quash that warrant it will be an inconvenience to the party
charged if the warrant was issued in Batangas and he is in Davao City.
BP 129 took into consideration the possibility that the judge in your local court could be
controlled by a syndicate. Justice in your favor will be impossible.
But, you cannot get a warrant anywhere anymore if there is already a case filed in one
court. This is the only limitation to the rule that a warrant must be acquired from the same court.
PROCEDURE TO OBTAIN A SEARCH WARRANT:

1. Petition for a search warrant before a judge and such must be supported by your affidavit.
2. The judge must personally examine the complainant and his witness in the form of
searching questions and answers, in writing and under oath.
3. The facts must be personally known to them. Hearsay is not allowed.
SILVA VS. PRESIDING JUDGE
The deposition of the witness in support of the application for search

warrants proceeded as follows:
Q: Do you personally know M/Sgt. Ranulfo Villamor Jr., the applicant of a

search warrant?
A: Yes sir.
Q: Do you have personal knowledge that the said premises subject of the
offense stated above and other proceeds or fruit of the offense used or
obtained are intended to be used as means of committing the offense?
A: Yes sir.
Q: Do you know personally the person(s) who have the property in

his/their possession and control?
A: Yes sir.
Q: How did you know all their(sic) things?

A: Through discreet surveillance
RULING: The court held that the abuse deposition did not only contain
long questions but it was also very broad. The questions propounded to
the witness were not probing but were merely routinary. The deposition
was already mimeographed and all that the witnesses had to do was to fill
in their answers on the blanks provided.
Asking of leading questions to the deposition and conducting of an
examination in a general manner would satisfy the requirements for
issuance of a valid search warrant.
ARREST WARRANTS
PROCEDURES TO OBTAIN AN ARREST WARRANT:
1.) A case must be filed before the city prosecutor’s office against the person accused. This
must be supported by your affidavit, evidences, other relevant documents to the case.
2.) The fiscal will give the accused a chance to file his counter-affidavit if he thinks that a
crime was actually committed.
3.) The accused submits his counter-affidavit.
4.) The fiscal studies the documents and conducts a preliminary investigation. The preliminary
investigation is to find out whether there is probable cause to hold the person accused for
trial. If the fiscal believes that there is probable cause, he will submit all the evidences,
affidavits, and other documents to the judge.
5.) If the judge will agree that there really is probable cause, he will issue the warrant of arrest.
(The judge is allowed 90 days to study if there is probable cause.)
BASIC STEPS BEFORE AN ARREST CAN BE ISSUED:
1.) It must be determined if there is probable cause to hold a person for trial
o This is a job of the City Prosecutor’s Office, which falls under the executive
department. The Prosecutor belongs to the Dept. of Justice, which is under the
Office of the President. (#1 & #2 procedure)
2.) It must be determined if there is probable cause to issue an arrest warrant

o This is the duty of the judge which is a judicial function. (#4 procedure)
SOLIVEN VS. MAKASIAR
This is the famous libel case filed by former Pres. Aquino against
Luis Beltran. Beltran questioned the issuance of the warrant. He said the
judge did not “personally examine” the witnesses, which is
unconstitutional. In an arrest warrant, the judge may rely on the
evidences. He need not call the witnesses.
RULING: The court said that the judge need not personally conduct the
investigation because it will duly burdensome on the part of the judges
if they will be required to do so. They will not have enough time to
conduct the trial, which is their main responsibility.
LIM VS. FELIX
The killing of Congressman Espinosa happened in Masbate. The fiscal

conducted a preliminary investigation to find out if there was probable
cause to hold the accused for trial. And he found out that there was.
During the pendency of the case before the RTC of Masbate, the SC
approved a petition for a change in venue to Makati. The judge, on the
certificate alone, which was issued by the prosecutor, determined that
there was probable cause. The accused challenged the validity of the
warrant. He argued that the judge should make a personal determination as
to the existence of probable cause to issue the warrant.
ISSUE: Whether the judge can issue a warrant based on the certificate
alone. Can it be considered valid?
RULING: The court ruled that the warrant is void. Before the fiscal can
conclude that there is probable cause, he should first examine all the
evidences, documents presented to him, and all of those should be
attached on the certificate stating that there is sufficient ground that
the accused should be put on trial. In this case, there was nothing
attached to the certificate stating that there is sufficient ground that
the accused should be put on trial. In this case, there was nothing
attached to the certificate. The Constitution underscores that the judge
should determine if there is probable cause basing on all the facts and
evidences, and not on the certificate alone.
In the case of arrest warrant, the judge need not call the witnesses for
questioning. He may rely on the record submitted to him by the fiscal.
But he must not rely solely on the resolution or certification of the
fiscal. The resolution must be supported by other evidence which led to
the filing of the case. In the case of a search warrant, the judge must
personally examine the witnesses himself to determine probable cause.
Q: Can the judge decide to disregard all evidences presented and the certificate issued by the fiscal
and order the witnesses to testify before him? Can he also require more evidences before he decide?
A: The judge can because he has a wide discretion to decide on the matter. He is not bound to
decide on the recommendation given by the prosecutor.
PANGANDAMAN VS. CESAR
There was a shooting incident which killed 5 people. After the

incident and after preliminary investigation, the Lanao judge issued a
warrant for the arrest of 14 individuals and 50 John Does. Not one of the
50 can be identified by the witnesses, but it seems that the number was
about the number of people who participated in the shooting.
ISSUE: Is a John Doe warrant valid?
RULING: According to the court, a John Doe warrant is void. The

Constitution requires that there must be specific description or
designation of the person to be arrested. John Does warrants are general
warrants.
PEOPLE VS. VELOSO
A search warrant was issued for an establishment designated as the

“Parliamentary Club” which was believed to be a gambling den. The search
warrant identified the owner. They also recovered gambling paraphernalia
hidden in his pocket. The accused questioned the warrant being a John Doe
warrant. There was not exact description of the person to be arrested.
ISSUE: Is this a violation of the Constitution?
RULING: According to the court, this is not a violation of the

Constitution because it describes the John Doe. The police can also
identify him by the following designation written in the warrant who is
the owner of the establishment.
Descriptio Personae:
General Rule:
John Doe warrants are void
Exception:
When it describes the particular person who will be arrested, also known as
descriptio personae
MUÑEZ VS. ARIÑO
Sometime in 1989, a mayor issued a search warrant for a number of

people. The mayor was sued for usurpation of judicial function but the
judge dismissed the case. Then, the complainant sued the judge for
ignorance of the law. The SC stats that the mayor cannot issue a warrant,
only a judge can.
Q: Can the President issue a warrant?

A: Yes, but only for deportation and after there has been final judgment by the court against the alien.
The arrest warrant is served for the deportation of the alien, not for the purpose of conducting a hearing
or investigation.
Q: Will it not go against the Constitution that only the judge can issue an arrest warrant?
A: It does not. The only exception to the general rule is the President can also issue an arrest warrant.
The basis for this is his foreign relations as part of his executive functions as stated in the Constitution. It is
the final judgment which grants him the power to issue the arrest and the deportation.
WARRANTLESS SEARCH
Comment [Atty:1]: no warrant
General Rule:
All warrantless arrests are void and all evidences obtained from these are held inadmissible
as evidence in court.
Exceptions:
1.) Search incident to a lawful arrest
2.) Consented search
3.) Search in plain view
4.) Stop and Frisk (Terry Search)
5.) Search in moving vehicle
6.) Search in the enforcement of Custom laws
7.) Search during exigency
I. SEARCH INCIDENT TO A LAWFUL ARREST:

Note: If the arrest is unlawful, the search is also unlawful
Search is valid only in the following cases:

a.) If the search is in connection with an arrest by virtue of an arrest warrant
b.) If the search is in connection with a valid warrantless arrest.
NOLASCO VS. PANO
Nolasco and another companion was arrested while aon board on the
jeepney at around 11:30AM at the intersection of Mayon & Margal St. At
around 12:00nn of the same day, there was also a search conducted on the
premises of 239-B Mayon St., which was believed to be the residence of
the two. There was no mention of the distance where the two incidents
happened. When they were arrested, there was only one warrant of arrest
for one person. The operatives also had a search warrant but it turned
out that the warrant was void.
ISSUE: whether the subsequent search conducted can be justified as an
incident to a lawful arrest by virtue of an arrest warrant.
RULING: In the first case, the court ruled that the warrantless search
conducted was valid. According to the court, it was incident to a lawful
arrest because the search was conducted within the general vicinity of
the place where the arrest had taken place – this is as to the element of
place. As to the element of time, the 30 min gap was still allowable.
(This was based on the old doctrine of incident to a lawful arrest).
In the motion for reconsideration, the court already declared this
doctrine illegal. The court ruled that a search incident to a lawful
arrest is only valid if it is conducted on: (1) the person of the
accused; and (2) the premises within his immediate control – that is to
search him of weapons and evidences of the crime. With regards to time,
the search should be contemporaneous with the arrest. Meaning, the search
should be conducted simultaneously with the arrest. (Immediately after or
during)
PEOPLE VS. MUSA
The police conducted a “buy-bust operation”, an instance where in a

warrantless arrest is considered as legal (Selling marijuana is a valid
ground for a policeman to make an arrest, even without a warrant). The
incident took place in the sala of the accused. The policeman used marked
money during the operation. While they were looking for the money, they
found a plastic bag in the kitchen which after opening, contained
marijuana.
ISSUE: Can the arresting officers raise the issue that this was incident
to a lawful arrest? Since the accused was a dealer of marijuana.
Therefore the marijuana found should be admissible as evidence.
RULING: The search was not incident to a lawful arrest because the
marijuana was not obtained in the person of the accused nor in the place
within his immediate control. It would be valid if Musa were in the
kitchen when the bag was found.
2 Purposes of the search incident to a lawful arrest:
1.) In order to find out if the accused has a weapon in which he can use for escaping
2.) To find out, whether the search is conducted at his body or in the place within his immediate
control, there are matters which are related to, or instruments of the crime.
Note: Policemen are not allowed to go to other rooms to fish for evidence unless they are merely
following the accused to prevent him from escaping. Evidences incidentally obtained, can be
held admissible in court.
Principles for a valid warrantless search:

1.) The person should be committing a crime.
2.) The search should be an incident to a lawful arrest (there is a valid arrest warrant)
Principles for a search incident to a lawful arrest:

1.) The search should be contemporaneous to the arrest
2.) The search should be in the person or in the premises where the person has immediate
control.
SUMMARY:
The search incident to a lawful arrest is valid when: 1) There is a valid arrest warrant, or the
person is actually committing the crime; 2) The search must be limited to the person of the accused or
to the place within his immediate control; 3) The search must also be contemporaneous with the arrest.
II. CONSENTED SEARCH:
- It is also called a waiver. The person allows that a search can be conducted. He waives his
rights against unreasonable searches.
Note: This can only be applied if the search is on the house, as a house is a man’s castle, and
therefore they should not be invaded by police authorities unless there is compelling reason, and if
they will comply with some stringent requirements.
General Rule:
A waiver, before it can be considered as valid, should be expressed (verbally or
orally), Mere silence does not constitute a consent to a warrantless search. Courts indulge
in the presumption against waiver of a constitutional right. The burden of proof that there
was waiver of such right rests on the prosecution.
Exception:
An exception is the Exala Case, where silence means consent.
Requisites:
1.) The person must possess such right. It must appear that the right exists
2.) The person has knowledge of the existence of such right.
3.) The person has the intention to relinquish such right
Note: All requisites must be present to be a valid waiver. The police must prove clearly and
convincingly by evidence that the person searched has waived his constitutional right.
PEOPLE VS. EXALA
This is a strange decision. An exception to the general rule

against implied waiver.
The accused was searched in a moving vehicle in a checkpoint. When
the accused was searched, he just kept quiet.
RULING: The court held that the fact the person did not object means that
he has consented or has waived his right against unreasonable searches.
The new doctrine is: Implied waiver can be done by not objecting to the search. Silence means implied
consent.
The Exala decision is not en banc. This is a problem because one division cannot reverse the decision of
another division
LOPEZ VS. COMMISSIONER
The NBI searched a room in Skylark Hotel, which was occupied by

Veloso. The NBI did not possess a warrant at that time. When they knocked
and entered the room, there was a woman inside who introduced herself as
the wife of Veloso. When the agents stated their purpose, the woman gave
them consent to search the place. In effect, they confiscated the illegal
documents and firearms, which they used as evidence in court against
Veloso. Veloso contested this because the woman in the room had no right
to give the consent for the policeman to enter the room.
RULING: The court ruled that the consent given by the woman is sufficient
to validate the search. It would be awkward if the agents would require
the woman to produce her marriage license to prove his identity. On the
other hand, this has been modified by the next case.
PEOPLE VS. DAMASO
The PC conducted a search on the house rented by the accused, who

was believed to be a member of the NPA. The PC had no search warrant.
That time, only the helper was present. She gave them the consent to
enter and search the house and rooms wherein they obtained firearms. The
accused challenged the admissibility of the evidences.
RULING: The court stated that the evidences are inadmissible. Only the
person whose rights will be invaded can give the consent to a search.
Only Damaso can waive his rights. Consent can also be given by a person
authorized to do so. Such authorization must be expressly given by the
owner to a caretaker.
VEROY VS. LAYAGUE
Here was a report that there were rebels in the house of Veroy.
During that time, Veroy was out of town. To conduct the search, the
police asked the permission from Veroy, through a long distance call to
search the house for rebels. In effect of the search, they were able to
recover firearms, but there were no rebels.
ISSUE: Are the firearms admissible in court, even if the warrant was for
the search of rebels?
RULING: The court held that the firearms were not admissible as evidence
since the warrant was for the search of rebels, not firearms. There was a
prior justification for the intrusion. On the other hand, the police did
not come across the guns inadvertently since they were inside the drawer.
This also does not make the illegality of the guns readily apparent.
What if the rebel is holding the firearm, can the police take the firearm too? Or if the search was for the
firearm and some rebels happened to be there, can they not arrest the rebels? (Take note of the case
of People vs. Evaristo)
PEOPLE VS. BARRIOS
The accused, while carrying a carton, boarded on a bus ahead of two

policemen. He then placed the box under his seat. At a certain stop, one
of the policemen opened the box when the accused went down and found
marijuana. Upon reaching their destination, one of the policemen went to
the back and asked the passengers “Who is the owner of this box?” but
nobody answered. They arrested the accused.
RULING: The court held that the evidence is not admissible because there
was no probable cause to justify the search. It is very normal to carry a
box. He was not acting suspiciously.
III. SEARCH IN PLAIN VIEW:
Requisites:
1.) There must be a prior justification for the intrusion. Meaning the police officers should have a
right to be there in the first place.
Ex:
a. A crime is being committed
b. There is consent to the search
c. There is a valid search warrant
d. There is a valid arrest warrant
2.) The police must come across the evidence inadvertently or accidentally.
3.) The illegality must be readily apparent.
PEOPLE VS. EVARISTO
The police while on patrol heard gunfires. They saw Rosillo in the
act of firing his gun in the air. When they tried to approach him,
Rosillo ran away and entered a house. The police followed him. When they
came to the house, they asked Evaristo, the owner, about the suspect’s
whereabouts. Evaristo replied that Rosillo was no longer in the house.
Anyway, the police were able to get Evaristo’s consent to conduct a
search of the house. It turned out that the house was full of firearms.
ISSUE: Are the evidences recovered admissible in court?
RULING: The court ruled that they are. The police had prior justification
for the intrusion since they were given consent by Evaristo. They also
came across the guns inadvertently, and the illegality of the objects are
readily apparent.
COMPARING the case of People vs. Evaristo with the case of Veroy vs. Layague:
In both cases, the police were looking for persons. They were also able to recover firearms. In the
Evaristo case, the evidences were found in the sala which were in plain view of the policemen. In the
Veroy case, the gun was found inside a closed drawer.
The difference in the location of the guns when they were found is very significant according to
the court. Meaning, in the Veroy case, it is implied that the policemen were already looking for guns not
just rebels. The policemen had no right to open the compartments when their authority was only to look
for rebels.
But if the search was for firearms and the policemen found marijuana inside a cabinet, it is
considered as search in plain view. Naturally, they will have to open compartments to find firearms – this
is a valid reason for the intrusion.
PEOPLE VS. MUSA
- (People vs. Musa, supra)

RULING: the court ruled that this was not a search in plain view. The
police did not come across the evidences inadvertently. There was prior
justification for the intrusion but it is limited only within the
immediate vicinity. Also, the illegality was not readily apparent since
it was inside a plastic bag.
Observation:
Therefore, search in plain view would seem that there was no search at all. The officer would
have just come across the evidence.
An observation it would seem to be an exception to the rule: “If the object to be seized is
specifically described in the search warrant, the police would have no authority to confiscate other
objects even if they come across the object in plain view. It will not be held admissible in court. (This is
just an observation on the decisions made by the court on the example cases. This is not binding.)
This exception is considered advantageous for us citizens since the officers cannot just seize an
object which is not specified in the warrant.
PEOPLE VS. DEL ROSARIO
The policemen had a search warrant for the seizure of shabu and
their paraphernalia. When the police entered the house, they found a gun
and a cup filled with bullets on top of the television set.
ISSUE: Are these admissible in court?
RULING: Basing on the Musa case, they should be held as admissible in

court. But according to the court, they are not. The authority given by
the court was only to obtain the shabu and paraphernalia. They had no
authority to get the firearms and ammunitions. The warrant specifically
defines the object to be searched. It would seem that there should be
some modification in the requisites of search in plain view.
NOTE: The possession of parts of a gun will also hold a person liable under the crime of illegal possession
of firearms.
IV. STOP AND FRISK (TERRY SEARCH):
The idea seen here is that the person is not on board a vehicle nor inside his house, the person
can just be walking and the police will stop and search him.
POSADAS VS. CA
Posadas was carrying a buri bag. When he was stopped by the police,
he tried to run away but he failed to escape. The police found guns and
ammunitions inside his bag. The police reasoned that he was acting
suspiciously and that he was acting suspiciously and that is why they
searched him.
RULING: The court ruled that the search was valid. There was probable
cause(acting suspiciously) for the police to conduct the search. The
suspect was looking side-to-side and he tried to flee when the police
stopped him.
PEOPLE VS. MENGOTE
The police received a phone call that there were three suspiciously
looking men at a street corner in Tondo. The police found 2 men looking
side-to-side, and one had his hand on his abdomen. When the police
approached them, the two tried to flee. The police caught up with them
and they were searched. The police found a .38 caliber pistol with 6 live
ammunitions.
RULING: The court ruled that the firearm was not admissible as evidence.
The search was not valid since there was no probable cause. When the
court tried to look at the facts how the police arrived to the conclusion
that the suspects were acting suspiciously, they found it insufficient.
Looking side-to-side or holding one’s abdomen does not necessarily
constitute acting suspiciously.
As to the illegal possession of firearm, the court ruled that the police
had no personal knowledge that the suspect was actually carrying a gun at
that time. Subsequent discovery of the firearm will not cure the
illegality of the search.
In both cases of stop and frisk, a person can be subject to a search if he is acting suspiciously.
Acting suspiciously would be a basis for the probable cause. The problem that arises now is on how the
term acting suspiciously shall be determined or defined.
It would have been different if Mengote were caught loitering in the dark, not in broad daylight
like in the Posadas case. There would have been a clear significance between the two incidents
happening in daytime. So right now there is still no clear distinction of who is acting suspiciously and who
is not. Acting suspiciously will still have to be defined by decisions.
V. SEARCH IN MOVING VEHICLE:
Searches of moving vehicles are considered legal. They are regarded as one of the traditional
exceptions to the constitutional requirement for a search warrant.
The reason for this is because moving vehicles can easily be removed from one locality to
another. It will be difficult for the officer to obtain a warrant because the vehicle may already be gone
by the time he gets one.
Reasonable Warrantless Searches In Searches Of Moving Vehicles:

1.) The police can simply look at the vehicle
2.) The police can draw aside the curtain of a parked vehicle
3.) The police can flash a light inside the vehicle.
NOTE: According to the court, extensive searches can also be allowed. However, there should be
probable cause before extensive searches can be conducted without a search warrant.
There is probable cause if:

a. There is reasonable belief that the motorists is an offender
b. The vehicle contains instruments of a crime
Examples of extensive searches: (These are prohibited without the warrant if without probable
cause)
1. Body searches
2. Inspection of vehicles other than visual inspection, e.g. opening of the compartments, ordering
the passenger to alight from the car
VALMONTE VS. DE VILLA
The government put up check points in Manila because some problems

in peace and order. Valmonte sought to dismantle these check points for
being unconstitutional. The police conducted arbitrary searches on the
vehicles and the passengers without a valid warrant.
RULING: The court upheld the constitutionality of the search because

removing it will hamper the police from performing some of their
functions.
PEOPLE VS. MALMSTEADT
The police received a report that a foreigner from the Sagada will
be riding a bus carrying marijuana. The police immediately put up check
points and inspected the buses coming from that direction. During the
checks, they saw a Caucasian matching the description. The police noticed
a bulge on his waist. When they asked for his passport, he did not
comply. They then ordered him to turn of the pouch on his waist. The
police found it to contain marijuana.
ISSUE: Is the marijuana admissible in court?
RULING: The court held that the search was legal.
1. There was probable cause based on the report
2. The accused acted suspiciously since he refused to give his
passport.
3. There was a bulge on his waist.
The search was also valid since this was a search of moving vehicles.
Requiring a warrant gives the suspect time to flee.
PEOPLE VS. BAGISTA
The NARCOM received a report that a person is transporting

marijuana. The report described the person as a woman, 5’2” in height,
about 25 years of age, with short curly hair. The agents put up check
points and conducted extensive searches on the buses. In one of the
buses, they saw a woman matching the description sitting quietly at the
rear, with a bag on her lap. When they searched the bag, they found
marijuana.
RULING: According to the court, the evidence is admissible. There was
probable cause based on the report which also gave a description of the
suspect.
COMPARING the case of People vs. Malmsteadt with the case of People vs. Bagista:
The two cases suggest that in the case of search of moving vehicles, you can be searched
without a warrant provided there is probable cause.
The Malmsteadt case is the authority for the view of what probable cause means: that there is a
report and a person is acting suspiciously in order to authorize the search.
In the Bagista case, probable cause is satisfied the moment there is a report that will give
jurisdiction even if the person is not acting suspiciously.
PEOPLE VS. EXALA
There were several people including Exala riding a jeepney and they
were stopped in a checkpoint. While the police were conducting a routine
check and asking questions, they noticed a black leather bag with budging
sides. An officer asked what the contents of the bag were but nobody
responded. The police noticed the demeanor of the accused hanged. They
become suspiciously quiet and nervous as if they were trying to connect
something. When the bag was opened, the police found it to contain
marijuana.
RULING: According to the court, the evidence is admissible. There was

probable cause since the accused were acting suspiciously. They did not
seem to be acting normally which gave the police a reason to an exclusive
search. Likewise, there were no protests and objections regarding the
search. It was an implied waiver of the right against unreasonable
searches and seizures.
NOTE: As a general rule, there is no waiver if the consent is just implied. The Exala case is an exception to
the rule. This is where the conflict arises. It seems silence means consent. And it would also seem that not
objecting to a search makes you suspicious.
NOTE: A rule would be: “Silence means consent”. But if the circumstance is so intimidating, the court
ruled that mere silence will not be regarded as consent
PEOPLE VS. CLAUDIO
There was a police officer who aboard a bus bound for Olongapo.
While he was riding, there was a woman who boarded the bus and seated in
front of the officer. However, the woman placed her bag at the rear seat
of the bus she sat. This act of the woman raised the suspicion of the
policeman. At the next station, when the woman went down to the bus maybe
just to relieve herself in a CR. The policeman went to the bag and placed
his hand inside the bag. When he smelled his fingers, it smelled like
marijuana. He did not immediately arrest the woman. At the next bus stop,
the policeman unboarded the bus at the same time he also invited the
woman to the police station. In short he arrested the woman. In the
station they searched the bag and they found marijuana.
ISSUE: Is the marijuana admissible based on the facts presented?
RULING: In search of moving vehicle, you can only conduct extensive

search if there is probable cause. According to the S, the evidence is
admissible since the search was done in the police station. The police
had reason to do the search and arrest because he already knew that she
is already committing a crime, she was already carrying marijuana. The
court ruled that it was a search incident to a lawful arrest.
Q: If you are the lawyer for the woman, what possible defenses can you use to declare that the
evidence was inadmissible?
A: You can ague that the search was not done in the station but rather it was done on board the bus.
When the policeman put his hand inside the bag he was already conducting a search which he has no
right to do.
Q: If you were the lawyer of the government, how will you argue that the search is valid?
A: Since the search conducted was an extensive search, you’ll have to argue that there is a probable
cause. Probable cause will constitute the suspicious conduct of the accused by putting her bag at the
backseat, which is quite an unusual practice for a passenger.
Q: The question would be at what point can you say that the police is already conducting a search
which can already raise a constitutional issue?
A: When the police inspect, or look for evidences for a crime, and in doing so starts to intrude or invade
into the privacy of an individual. It is not enough that he is looking for evidence.
PEOPLE VS. BARRIOS
The accused, while carrying a carton, boarded on a bus ahead of two

policemen. He then placed the box under his seat. At a certain stop, one
of the policemen opened the box when the accused went down and found
marijuana. Upon reaching their destination, one of the policemen went to
the back and asked the passengers “Who is the owner of this box?” but
nobody answered. They arrested the accused.
RULING: The court held that the evidence is not admissible because there
was no probable cause to justify the search. It is very normal to carry a
box. He was not acting suspiciously.
FOOD FOR THOUGHT:
What the Bill of Rights is trying to do is balance the conflicting rights of the State against the
individuals and the individuals against the State. Rightists only tend to interpret the provisions in
favor of the State while the leftists tend to interpret them in favor of the people.
Rule 1: When the crime concerns national security like rebellion, sedition, inciting to sedition,
proposal to commit rebellion, you use the UMIL decision. That is the loose interpretation of the time
element, or the idea that the crime has just committed and also the idea of what is “personal
knowledge.”
Rule 2: When the issue concerns other crimes aside from the national security you stick to the
stricter rule. Crime has just been committed would mean there is immediacy of the crime when it
happened up to the time of the arrest. “personal knowledge” is derived from the personal
experience.
GUAZON VS. DE VILLA
The police a few years ago, were conducting “zonal searches” to

look for rebels. What the police did was just select a certain locality
and then condone it. They knocked on the houses and then conducted
searches on the abodes and its occupants anytime, even at night. The
petitioner tried to stop this through the court because he believes it to
be unconstitutional.
RULING: The court ruled that the police can still do it but they must be
careful not to violate any human rights. The court did not actually
legalize it but they did not also say that the evidences obtained from
these operations be admissible in the court. Evidences shall be
admissible under these warrantless searches only if they fall under the
seven exceptions. The court stated that they cannot actually stop the
“saturation drives” but the court never intended to expand the exceptions
to warrantless searches
VI. SEARCH IN THE ENFORCEMENT OF CUSTOM LAWS:
A traditional exception to the search without a warrant for the same reason as search in moving
vehicles is the search in the enforcement of custom laws because smuggled goods can easily be
transported and taken out, or brought to another locality and out of the jurisdiction of one court. It
would be difficult to enforce the law if the police must first obtain a search warrant.
PAPA VS. MAGO
Customs Authorities received information that there were

misdeclared or undervalued goods which were to be released in the port of
Manila. This prompted to put up surveillance. They saw two trucks
presumably full of goods and which they immediately pursued. Without the
benefit of a search warrant, they seized the items loaded in the truck.
ISSUE: Is the search permissible? Is it legal?
RULING: According to the court, it was a search under Tariffs And Customs
Code and it can be done without a search warrant provided there is
probable cause. The court provided several requisites where you can
conduct warrantless searches under the Tariffs and Customs Code.
4 Requisites for a Valid Warrantless Search under the Tariffs and Customs Code:
1.) It must be conducted by persons exercising authority under customs law.

- Only the customs police. Ordinary police or military do not possess this authority. Although some
of the members of the Sta. Ana police have been conducting searches, under this, they are not
allowed but only if they are deputized by the customs police.
2.) There must be probable cause.

- According to the Mago case, a mere report is sufficient to constitute probable cause. Acting
suspiciously is not necessary.
3.) The search must be limited to persons, vehicles, vessels (ships), aircrafts, land enclosure (fenced
places), warehouse, stores, and also dwelling houses.
- In dwelling house, the probable cause might require more stringent reason or cause.
4.) Only dutiable or prohibited goods can be seized.

- Meaning, these are items subject to tariffs duties and taxes. Or goods which are prohibited that
are entering the country.
VII. SEARCH DURING EXIGENCY:
PEOPLE VS. DE GRACIA
Accused was charged with illegal possession of firearms which was

obtained from a warrantless search. The search was conducted at the
height of the coup attempt in 1989. The authorities were conducting
searches and surveillance as counter-measures to stop the activities of
the rebel forces in one of the searches, the officers were able to obtain
firearms from the accused.
ISSUE: Whether the evidence obtained is admissible considering the search

was without a warrant.
RULING: According to the court, they will allow searches without the
warrant because it was an abnormal time and the police do not have the
opportunity to secure a search warrant. In this case, the judge even
testified that his court was not always open because of the tension
existing at that time. But this is just a very exceptional circumstance.
WARRANTLESS ARREST
In warrantless arrests, the general principles are basically the same with warrantless searches.
Meaning, all warrantless arrests are illegal. One can be subjected to criminal prosecution for doing
warrantless arrests. However, there are also exceptions to make warantless arrests valid.
3 Exceptions for a Valid Warrantless Arrests:

1.) When in the his presence, the person to be arrested: (In Flagrante Delicto)
a. Has committed
b. Is actually committing, or
c. Is attempting to commit an offense
2.) When an offense has just been committed and the arresting officer has personal knowledge of
the facts that the person to be arrested has committed it. Meaning, this is knowledge derived
from his sensed perception. It must have just been freshly committed.
3.) When the person to be arrested is an escapee after final judgment or a person temporarily
confined while his case is still pending.
PEOPLE VS. GO
On July 2, 1991, Rolito Go shot Maguan, a student. As a result of

the investigation, the police immediately identified Go as the killer.
The police conducted a manhunt for the arrest of Go. On July 8, Rolito
Go, after reading in the newspaper that there was manhunt for him went to
the police station while being accompanied by his two lawyers. It turned
out that the witnesses to the shooting were also there. The witness
pointed to him as the killer which prompted the police to arrest him on
the spot.
ISSUE: Whether Rolito Go was validly arrested.
RULING: Applying the principles of the law, the crime has not just been
committed since a few days had already lapsed. The police also had no
personal knowledge of the fact that he committed the crime. Their
knowledge was just based on the statement of the witnesses. To say that
the crime has just been committed, there must be immediacy of the time
which is from the commission of the crime up to the arrest. Personal
knowledge of facts means that his knowledge must be derived from his own
personal sensed perception, not knowledge derived from investigation, nor
from witnesses, nor from any secondary sources.
PEOPLE VS. MANLULU
At about midnight of May 29, the accused shot and stabbed and agent
of the NARCOM to death. At around 7pm of May 30, Manlulu was arrested by
policemen based on information given by an eyewitness. The police did not
have a warrant of arrest.
ISSUE: Can the State argue that the crime has just been committed,
considering that 19 hours had lapsed?
RULING: according to the court you cannot arrest a person after 19 hours
without a valid warrant of arrest. There was also no personal knowledge
since the info was from a witness.
UMIL VS. RAMOS
This is a consolidation of about 8 or 9 cases. What are important

are the cases of Nazareno and Dural.
Dural Case:
On Jan. 31, 1998, there were two CAPCOM soldiers who were killed by
Dural in a shootout in Quezon City. On Feb. 1, Dural was arrested based
on information that he was a member of the sparrow unit. He was arrested
in a hospital while undergoing treatment. Only a few hours had lapsed.
Nazareno Case:
Nazareno was charged with the killing of a person which took place
on Dec. 14, 1998. On Dec. 28, he was arrested. 14 days had lapsed. The
arrest of Nazareno was based on the statement by an arrested suspect who
implicated Nazareno.
ISSUE: In the 2 cases, have the crime just freshly been committed? Did
the officers have personal knowledge of the facts to the crime to
constitute the arrest as valid? (Take note that there is a significant
difference in the time element)
RULING: The court ruled the arrests as valid. In the Dural case, the
police got the identity of the killer at about 5am. The arrest was made
by 7am. The court said that the crime had just been committed , only 2
hours and 20m minutes had passed after learning of the suspect’s
identity. The authorities acted immediately after having the knowledge.
In this case, the court ruled that “personal knowledge” can be made up of
“personal knowledge of probable cause”. It was not personal knowledge of
facts anymore.
Personal knowledge of probable cause can be made up of 2:
1. That there were reasonable grounds of suspicion based on actual
facts.
Basis:
i. There was a confidential information which led to the arrest
of the accused
ii. There was actually a crime that happened: 2 soldiers were
killed in the shootout.
iii. There was actually a wounded person, who happened to be the
accused, being treated in the hospital.
2. That the police must be acting in good faith when conducting the
arrest. There is always a presumption that the police are
performing their duties regularly.
NOTE: There seems to be an inconsistency here because the personal knowledge given here in the Umil
case is derived from investigation and “personal knowledge of probable cause”. Note also that it has
been observed that personal knowledge in non-political cases is usually derived from personal sensed
perception. Also, the 14 days that passed in the Nazareno case still considered that a crime was just
“freshly committed.”
Continuing Offense Doctrine:

These are crimes which are not instantaneous.
- Even without the requisites this doctrine can still be invoked in continuing offenses. An example
of this is the case of Garcia vs. Enrile.
- Under this doctrine, the offenses like rebellion, insurrection, subversion, conspiracy, and proposal
to commit such crimes (Crimes against National Security), are crimes in the mind. Meaning, you
are in Flagrante Delicto at all times as long as you are a rebel and you continue to follow that
belief, and you can be arrested at any time.
- Other examples of this doctrine are squatting and tax evasion. This doctrine seems to favor the
accused at one point since he can only be charged of one offense. On the other hand, the
doctrine can also be prejudicial to the accused since he can be arrested anytime in his life.
NOTE: This doctrine does not clearly specify that it only applies to crimes of national security. Therefore,
there is a reason to believe that this doctrine could be applicable to cases similar to the above case.
Remember the case where the accused stole several roosters. The judgment was favorable to him since
he was convicted of a continuing crime because he had only one criminal intent. But it also implied
that he can be arrested even after a long period of time, the crime being a continuous one.
For exam purposes only, if the case involves crimes against national security the Umil case shall be used
– the loose interpretation of the time element.
PEOPLE VS GERENTE
At 2pm of April 30, 1995, Clarito Blace was killed. At 4pm, the
police learned of the killing and after which they immediately went to
the hospital only to find out that the victim was pronounce DOA. The
police went to the crime scene where they found a piece of wood with
blood stains and a hollow block. They were able to interview an
eyewitness to the incident who identified the accused as the killer. The
police went to the house of the accused where they found him sleeping,
and they arrested him.
ISSUE: Was the arrest valid? Did the police have personal knowledge of
the facts?
RULING: The court ruled that the arrest was valid. The crime has just
been freshly committed. The police had personal knowledge because they
saw the victim dead in the hospital and they also saw the instruments of
the crime. (the wood and the hollow block). The police had also
interviewed the eyewitness.
NOTE: The problem with “personal knowledge” here is that it was not derived from personal sensed
perception but from an interview. They had knowledge that a person had been killed but they had no
knowledge on who did it. This is a reversal of the decision in the Umil case. Therefore there is still no
standards fixed with regards to the time element. It will still depend on the facts of the case. There is still
no jurisprudence on this matter.
Exclusionary Rule
Art. III, Sec. 3(2). Any evidence obtained in

violation of this or the preceding section shall be
inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding.
When the Exclusionary Rule can be invoked:
1.) When the search is warrantless and it does not fall in any of the 7 exceptions.
2.) When there is a warrant but it was void.
NOTE: Items confiscated which are illegal per se will not be returned but are forfeited in favor of the
government.
STONEHILL VS. DIOKNO
The court issued several warrants, 42 in all, to search the houses

and business addresses of Stonehill and of the members of his board.
Stonehill was known to engage in various illegal activities.
Unfortunately, all the warrants were declared null and void for the
reason that they were general warrants. The warrant stated that the
objects to seize were to be used as evidence for violations of the Tariff
Laws, Internal Revenue Laws, Central Bank Laws, RPC, and etc.
RULING: The court ruled that evidences obtained from Stonehill’s
residences cannot be held admissible in any proceeding against him. The
court however, declared that evidences obtained from his offices can be
used against him. The reason for this is section 2 can only be invoked by
the person whose rights have been invaded. Evidences obtained from the
corporation, being a different person and entity from Stonehill, can be
held admissible in court.
Privacy of Communication and Correspondence
Art. III, Sec. 3(1). The privacy of communication

and correspondence shall be inviolable except upon
lawful order of the court, or when public safety or
order requires otherwise as prescribed by law.
Communication and Correspondence includes the following:
1.) Letters
2.) Telephone calls
3.) Telegrams
4.) Other messages
These are subject to restrictions under the following situations:
1.) It may be restricted by the court

– The court may still issue an order of the seizure of correspondence.
2.) It may be limited by law
– Congress may do so only under 2 situations: when public order and safety so requires.
RAMIREZ VS. CA
This is an annulment case based on the ground of psychological

incapacity. In the trial, plaintiff presented as evidence 3 cassette
tapes of conversation between the spouses.
ISSUE: Whether this can be admitted as evidences in court.
RULING: The court ruled by virtue of the Constitution, the evidences can
be admissible in court since the bill of rights can only be invoked by an
individual against the State (Marti case). In the light of RA4200 (Anti-
Wire tapping law), this cannot be admitted as evidence. RA4200 was
intended to strengthen the provisions of the Constitution and to expand
its cover of applications, even to individuals, not only to the State.
Under the law, any communication secretly obtained, including the tape
recorded conversations without authority of both parties in a private
conversation. Hence cannot be held as evidence. However this does not
include listening using extension telephones. The Act admits recorded
conversations as evidence of both parties have knowledge of the fact that
they are being recorded. Recording private conversations without the
knowledge of the other can also hold a person criminally liable. The Act
only applies to private conversations and also with the use of electronic
gadgets.
BAR QUESTIONS:
Q: Pursuing reports that prohibited drugs are being smuggled at night time, the So. Luzon Comm. set up
checkpoints at the end of Cavite coastal road to check passing motor vehicles. A 19 year old boy was
stopped by the officers and without objections, his car was searched. The back of his car yielded
marijuana. The drug was immediately confiscated and the boy was brought to the station for
questioning. Was the warrantless search legal? Was there also probable cause based on the facts
given?
A: This is a case of an extensive search. In search of moving vehicles, extensive search is
only allowed if there is probable cause. Similar to the Bagista case, the search was also based
on a general report. There was no probable cause to conduct an extensive search.
Q: Some police operatives acting under a lawfully issued search warrant, conducted a search for
firearms in X’s house, located at #10 Shaw Blvd. The police recovered 10 kilos of cocaine instead of
firearm. Is the evidence admissible?
A: The doctrine of “plain view” can be used by the police (similar to People vs Del
Rosario case).
When evidences not held admissible in the court
1. When the search is warrantless and it does not fall under the 7 exceptions
2. When the warrant is void
3. When the search is valid but the object taken is not what is specifically described in the
warrant
Q: Supposed the police officers recovered the unlicensed firearm in an adjacent lot, Lot #12, which still
belongs to X, will it be admissible?
A: No, because the warrant specifically indicates that the place to be searched is #10
and not #12. The police have no right to search for other places.
Q: On the basis of a report and confidential information, the various electronic equipments which were
illegally imported into the Phil. were found in the bodega of G Corp. in Cebu. The collector of customs of
Cebu issued in the morning of Oct. 27, 1988 a warrant for the seizure of the electronic equipments and
stated that the Tariff and Customs Code were violated. Is the seizure valid?
A: It is valid. Also enumerable are the requisites for a valid warrantless search by customs
personnel.
Q: John learned that the police were looking for him in connection to a rape of an 18 year old girl. He
presented himself to the police desk sergeant about a week later. It so happened that the victim was at
the station. Upon seeing him, she immediately pinpointed John as the rapist. He was immediately
arrested. Is the arrest valid?
A: No. It is not a valid warrantless arrest. The police had no personal knowledge. The crime has not been
freshly committed. One week had already passed. It is important that the two requisites must go
together unless the case involves a crime concerning National Security. The immediacy of the crime
with the arrest is imperative.
Freedom of Speech or Press and Assembly
Art. III, Sec. 4. No law shall be passed abridging

the freedom of speech, of expression, or the press, or
the right of the people to peaceably to assemble and
petition the government for redress of grievances.
INTRODUCTION:
Under the American Constitution, this is known as the 1st amendment rights. It includes the freedom
of religion (Under the Philippine Constitution, the freedom of religion is found elsewhere in the Bill of
Rights). Freedom of expression is not found in the American Constitution itself but the American SC has
stated that the first amendment includes the freedom of expression.
Section 4 is not absolute. The rights under this section are preferred rights.
Freedom of Speech, Press, and Expression is important to the vitality of a Democratic Society. It is
defined as the liberty to discuss publicly and truthfully any matter of public interest without censorship or
punishment.
Acts Protected Under Section 4:

1. Political Speeches
2. Self or Artistic Expression
3. Commercial Speech (Ads, etc.)
4. Scientific information
5. Symbolic Speeches (pins, etc.)
6. Picketing
Acts not covered (according to jurisprudence)

1. Seditious speeches
2. Libelous Speeches
3. Obscene Speeches
4. Contemptuous Speeches
Coverage of Section 4:
1. Forms of restrictions or Elements of Freedom of Expression

2. Tests on restrictions
3. Contempt, libel, & obscenity
4. Assembly and petition
I. FORMS OF RESTRICTIONS OR ELEMENTS OF FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION:
1. Freedom from Previous Restraint or Censorship

2. Freedom from Subsequent Punishment
Freedom from Previous Restraint or Censorship
- Government Restriction on forms of expression in advance of actual publication or

dissemination.
Forms of prior restraint:

1. Censorship
2. Closures
3. Court injunctions
4. System of Issuance of Permits and Licenses
General Rule: All exercise of Police Power bears a presumption of Constitutionality
Exception: in cases of Prior Restraint. In this case, all exercises of prior restraint on the part of the
government suffer from punishment of unconstitutionality. The burden of proof is on govt.
to provide its constitutionality or that it is extremely necessary in order to overcome the
presumption. This is because these rights are vital to democracy.
Exception to the exception:

1. in times of war (Near vs. Minessota)
2. When the COMELEC exercise its power to regulate mass media for election purposes.
(Art. IX-C, Sec. 4 & NPC vs. COMELEC)
In this case, the presumption of unconstitutionality does not apply. The burden of proof is upon
the person restrained that he is doing something proper or legal. The act of the govt. in restraining is
presumed to be valid.
NPC VS COMELEC
RA 6646 or the Electoral Reforms Law provided that it is illegal

for any newspaper, radio, or tv to sell or give free space or time to
anybody for election or campaign purposes. Instead, the law allowed the
COMELEC to buy said space and time and allot them free of charge among
the candidates. This was challenged by NPC. Art. IX-C, Sec. 4 of the
Constitution was used as the basis of the law which empowers the COMELEC
to supervise and regulate franchise or permits for the operation of mass
media to ensure equal opportunity, time and space among candidates. This
was, however challenged as violative of freedom of expression.
RULING: The court held that the technical effect of this provision (Art
IX-C, Sec. 4) is to remove any presumption of invalidity of the prior
restraint. Since the Constitution itself authorizes COMELEC to regulate
mass media for election purposes, the presumption of unconstitutionality
disappears. It is authorized by the Constitution itself.
Q: Since there is authority from the Constitution, how do we try to evaluate the validity of the law?
A: The court ruled that the only thing to consider here is whether the law constitutes a permissible
regulation which does not amount to the repression of freedom of speech.
In this case, it is permissible because:
1. It is limited to the election period (the time is not unlimited)
2. It applies only to sale or donation for campaign or election purposes (scope is
limited)
3. It does not prohibit the buying of space or time by the COMELEC itself. In fact, it is
authorized by law to do such (the ban is not total)
SANIDAD VS COMELEC
The COMELEC scheduled a plebiscite for the notification of the

Organic Act for the Cordillera Autonomous Region. COMELEC passed a
resolution prohibiting columnist, commentators and announcers from using
their column in order to campaign for or against the plebiscite issue.
Sanidad, as a columnist, challenged this as violative of Sec. 4. COMELEC,
on the other hand, invoke provisions in the NPC case and RA 6646. It is
not a total ban because one can still see the COMELEC space and time.
RULING: The court held that under the Constitution and RA 6646, COMELEC
is only empowered to regulate permits and franchises and it does not have
the power to regulate the commentators. MOreover, the purpose of the
Constitutional provision allowing the COMELEC to regulate mass media
(Art. IX-C, Sec. 4), is to allow while time for the rich and poor
candidates. In this present case, it does not apply to a plebiscite.
Therefore m the contention of COMELEC is not correct. The resolution is
void.
BLO VS. COMELEC
For the campaign for the 1992 national elections, COMELEC passed
this COMELEC resolution prohibiting the posting of decals and stickers in
mobile places and running vehicles. Petitioner contends such as violative
of Freedom of Expression.
RULING: The Court held that the law is unconstitutional. The posting of
decals and stickers does not endanger any public interest as to justify
the curtailment of Freedom of Expression. In this case, the court did not
apply the Permissible Regulation Rule, but it applied the Clear and
Present Danger Rule. Moreover, according to the court, the regulation is
overbroad. It is over broad when the regulation speaks unnecessarily
broadly and thereby invades the area of protected freedom. The regulation
must be narrowly tailored so as not to invade any other right. In this
case, it even included in its coverage private property. Thirdly, the
prohibition does not serve the constitutional purpose of giving equal
time and opportunity to the rich and poor candidates. Posting of stickers
on mobile places depends on the consent of the owners of the property.
AYER VS CAPULONG
Hal McElroy, an Australian film-maker, wanted to join the People’s

Power Revolution in a movie entitled “The 4-day Revolution”. The movie
was a mixture of fiction and history to that in addition to a love story,
prominent personalities, like Enrile, had to be portrayed. While the
production was in progress, Enrile obtained a court injunction to stop
it. He argued that the film violated his right to privacy.
ISSUE1: WON Sec. 4 also protects foreigners

ISSUE2: WON it violated Enrile’s right to privacy
RULING1: The court held that the Freedom of Expression protects not only
citizens of the Philippines but also foreigners in our country. Sec.4
also extends to commercial media. Even if they did it for profit, they
are also protected. The reason is that most media is privately owned and
operates for profit. To prohibit them would render Sec. 4 useless. Nobody
can say anything anymore.
RULING2:As to the contention of Enrile that it violated his right to
privacy. The SC looked at the particular circumstances and did not apply
any formula to decide on the issue of which shall prevail: right to
privacy or the freedom of expression. The court ruled that the events
that were portrayed were of public interest and Enrile is also a public
figure. And because of this, the SC is constrained to rule that his Right
to Privacy shall give way to Freedom of Expression. Only the balancing of
interest was used by the SC in deciding.(during this time, Enrile was a
Senator)
What is protected by the Right to Privacy is unwarranted publicity and

wrongful publicizing of private affairs. The trial judge should not have
issued an injunction beforehand because of the preferred character of the
Right of Freedom of Speech and of Expression. And while production was
still in progress, no one knew whether the final outcome would pose a
clear and present danger. There should have been no prior restraint
because there was no basis yet.
NOTE: Private individuals have more rights than public figures. The decision did not, however, define
what a “public figure” is. The right to privacy comes out of the shadows of the other rights in the
Constitution. There is no textual grant of the Right of Privacy found in the Constitution.
KAPUNAN VS DE VILLA
Kapunan was charged before a court martial for being involved in

the failed coup attempt in 1998 against the govt. While under house
arrest, he was also prohibited from giving interviews to the press. He
cannot give press statements or hold any press conference during his
detention. He challenged the validity of the restriction, it being a form
of prior restraint on the right of free expression.
RULING: The court held that the restriction was valid. Certain liberties
may be validly denied him since he was a military man. He was given a
discriminatory treatment because the court held that it is essential that
in order for the military to discharge of their duties, they must be
subjected to a form of discipline. Meaning, this may also include the
violation of Sec. 4.
Subsequent Punishment
- A restraint on Freedom of Speech, Press and Expression that comes after the exercise of
the said rights.
This includes:
1. Criminal Prosecutions for Sedition, Libel, and Obscenity
2. Citation for Contempt
3. Suits for Damages
PEOPLE VS PEREZ
Perez was punished because his words tended to stir up people

against the authorities. He had made statements and done acts which tend
to instigate others to cabal or meet together for unlawful purposes.
Perez was a lowly municipal secretary who, during a casual conversation
with another person, remarked that: “Filipinos like myself must use bolos
for cutting off Wood’s head for having recommended a bad thing for the
Filipinos, for he has killed our independence.” He was sentenced to jail.
EASTERN VS DANS
DYRA radio station was closed because of certain materials

broadcasted. No hearing was conducted on the case. They only received an
order that they will be closed. During the litigation, the owner sold the
station. In this case, the SC laid down the guidelines for the closure of
radio stations: 1.) In closing a broadcasting media, the requirements of
Ang Tibay case should be followed (Due Process); 2.) All forms of media
enjoy Freedom of Speech and Expression. The test for limiting it is the
Clear and Present Danger Rule. Government has to prove that the station
poses a Clear and Present Danger.
COLUMN OF RAMON TULFO (Apr. 17, 1990)
After the SC came out of the decision of Valmonte vs. De Villa,

Ramon Tulfo wrote in the Inquirer, calling the SC justices as
“sangkatutak na bobo”. The SC issued an order asking Tulfo to explain why
he should not be cited for contempt. Tulfo came out with an explanation.
NPC intervened for Tulfo and claimed that the order asking Tulfo to
explain has implications to Press freedom.
RULING: The court held that Tulfo committed an error. Tulfo was cited for
contempt but was only reprimanded. The statement of Tulfo destroys the
integrity of the judicial system and drives people to take the law into
their own hands.
IMPORTANT POINTS:
The power to declare people in contempt is inherent in the SC even without any express
grant in the Constitution. It is part of the exercise of Judicial Power.
With regards to NPC’s contention that the statement of Tulfo comes under the protection
of Sec. 4, according to the SC, Tulfo’s statements had no social value, no intellectual significance,
nor literary right. The implication to this is, only speeches which are probably informative or helps
people in making enlightened opinions, those with intellectual values, or those which are
entertaining, are protected under Sec. 4. This decision narrowly restricts the scope of Sec. 4.
Sec. 4 is subordinate to the authority, integrity, independence of the judiciary and the proper
administration of justice. (This seems to be a fixed formula)
II. TESTS ON RESTRICTION OF FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION:
1. Dangerous Tendency
2. Clear and Present Danger
3. Balancing of Interests
Dangerous Tendency
If the words spoken create a dangerous tendency which the State has a right to prevent, then such
words are punishable.
PEOPLE VS PEREZ
Perez was punished because his words tended to stir up people

against authorities. The court does not really look into the probable
danger but the possible effect. Perez was only expressing his opinion but
the court found out that this satisfies the dangerous tendency rule.
This test has been largely abandoned. (J.Cruz)
NOTE: In Umil vs Ramos case, there is one portion in which the Dangerous Tendency Rule was applied.
NOTE: In determining probable cause for an offense, the SC is no longer using the Dangerous Tendency
Rule, but it is sufficient to bring about the conviction for the crime of sedition. This is the only ground to
use this test.
The Clear and Present Danger Test
The Rule mostly applied by the SC.

It is used also in contempt cases in the inferior courts.
GONZALES VS. COMELEC
The provision of the law states limits in the campaign period and
prohibits the early nomination of candidates. This law was challenged.
RULING: The Clear and Present Danger Test was defined here as: Whether
the words are used in such circumstances and are of such nature as to
create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the
substantive evil that Congress has a right to prevent. Substantive evil
must be extremely serious and its probability of occurrence is
inevitable.
Discussion of the case: Tañada in the case was arguing in favor of the law. According to
him, the evil being sought to avoid is substantive. Limiting the campaign period will: 1.)
debase the election process; 2.) excess of partisanship; 3.) loss of _____; 4.) will result in loss
of life. These evils are substantive enough.
Is the probability inevitable?
No. It is not. The court sustained the validity of the law. The argument of Tañada seemed to
convince the justices that there was clear and present danger.
ZALDIVAR VS GONZALES
The SC charged Raul Gonzales with contempt for attacking the

integrity of the court. Gonzales contended that his contemptuous
statement did not satisfy the clear and present danger rule because it
will not immediately have the effect of destroying the faith of the
people in the judiciary.
RULING:The Court had Gonzales disbarred. The Clear and Present Danger
Test invoked by Gonzales is not a magic incantation which dissolves all
problems and dispenses with analysis and judgment in testing of the
legitimacy of claims to free speech and which compels the court to
exonerate the defendant the moment the doctrine is invoked absent proof
of impending apocalypse.
This means that the clear and present danger does not mean that there has to be an
immediate catastrophe if someone is allowed to speak. This seems to be an abandonment of the old
analysis which has a stricter interpretation of the doctrine.
According to the court, the evils sought to be avoided are the:

1. Obstruction of fair dealing
2. The degradation of the judicial system
3. That it threatens the standards of professional conduct required of lawyers
The speech of Gonzales has the effect of destroying the integrity of the courts and the trust and faith of
the people in the judicial system. In the long run, it is more deleterious. It is more far reaching in its
implications compared to immediate disorders. The court did not discuss the impending threat in this
case.
Balancing of Interest
The courts will weigh or balance the conflicting social interests that will be affected by legislation. It
involves many considerations, but in the end, it will uphold what should be considered as the most
important interest.
LAGUNSAD VS. SOTTO
Lagunsad was a movie producer. He entered into a contract with the

heirs of Moises Padilla for the production of the movie “The MOises
Padilla Story”. After the movie earned profits, Lagunsad refused to pay
the royalty to the heirs of Padilla, saying that the contract is void
because it violated the freedom of expression. According to him, the life
of Padilla is a matter of public interest and he should be allowed to
produce the movie without the obligation to pay the heirs. Padilla was
already considered a national hero or a folklore legend of the Ilonggos.
The conflict to be resolved here is between the right of free expression
against the right to privacy.
RULING: The court held that the right to privacy of the Padilla family
should prevail. One consideration was that the movie intruded into the
private life of the Padilla family. Another was that the movie was partly
“fictionalized”. Furthermore, Lagunsad also agreed to enter into the a
contract with the Padillas.
Distinction Between the AYER case and the LAGUNSAD case:
1. In the AYER case, the movie was a historical portrayal of the EDSA revolution and did not intrude
into the private life of Enrile. What was portrayed only was the role of Enrile played in the revolution,
whereas, in the LAGUNSAD case, the movie intruded into the private life of the Padilla family as it
portrays the life of Moises Padilla.
2. The AYER case constitutes a prior restraint, but in the Lagunsad case, this is an ordinary case of
enforcement of contract. There was no restraint, but only an action for payment of royalty.
In the Balancing of Interests Rule, there is no fixed formula for deciding. The Court will look at the
particular factors in order to come out with a decision. The court will just examine all facts and
evidences.
Guidelines to follow:
1.) Rule No. 1 – When two private individuals have conflicting claims under the Bill of Rights, the
Balancing of Interest Rule is used.
2.) Rule No. 2 – When suit is between a private individual and the government, courts usually use the
Clear and Present Danger Rule.
III. CONTEMPT,LIBEL, & OBSCENITY:
Contempt
Purpose of Holding a Columnist in Contempt by the Court:

1. To shield the courts against the influence of newspaper comments on the court’s duty of
administering justice on a pending case.
2. It is to vindicate the courts from any act or conduct calculated to bring them into disfavor of to
destroy public confidence in them.
Libel
- Libelous Statements are by no means an essential part of any exposition of ideas and are such
scant social value as a step to growth that any benefit which may be derived from them is
clearly outweighed by the social interest in public order.
- This means that libelous statements are not protected by the Constitution. They do not promote
public debate.
- There are no tests in determining libel
PEOPLE VS BELTRAN
The case arose out of the column of Beltran in the Phil. Star
wherein he charged that Pres. Aquino hid under the bed during one coup
attempt. Beltran claims that as a newspaperman, what he wrote in his
column is protected by the freedom of press and expression (Sec. 4). It
seems that this statement has implications on Cory’s moral fitness to be
in office. Furthermore, it also seems that the statement was made not in
good faith. Regarding Beltran’s contention that it was only a figure of
speech and it was not intended to convey the fact that she really did
hide under the bed.
RULING: According to the court, the INTENT IS IMMATERIAL. What is

important is the meaning that can be derived by the ordinary person who
is reading the article. If the “No Intent” defense is allowed, nobody
could be convicted of libel anymore. (This was before the appeal decided
by Judge Makasiar). As the case progressed in court, however, the Court
ruled in finality that Beltran’s comment was not malicious. It concerns
the performance of a public official. It only means that Cory was
“looking for shelter”.
Decisions usually make a distinction between libelous statements against private persons and public
officials.
1.) As to private persons
Libelous statement is almost always punishable because a person has a right to his
reputation and integrity. It will raise no constitutional issues. You cannot raise Freedom of
Expression as a defense because this can only be invoked against the State.
2.) As to public officials

Matters which are essentially part of his private life are protected by the libel law. This will
also raise no Constitutional questions since a public official is also entitled to his integrity. But if
the statements made are about matters which are connected with his official acts, or when
related to his mental, moral or physical fitness to be in office, it will now raise constitutional
issues – never concerning him as a private individual.
Statements that can also affect his function as an official (which are just purely
destructive) are restricted. But as a public officer, you must also be prepared to address
criticisms.
Press people must make comments or write-ups which are fair and must be done in good faith in order
to be protected by Sec. 4.
Obscenity
Obscene – are those which are offensive to chastity and decency or delicacy, or those that deals with
sex in a manner appealing to prurient (lewd) interest, and those which have the tendency to corrupt
the minds of the people. This is limited only to “Sexual Obscenity”.
Test to apply if a work is Obscene: (Miller vs. California)

1. Whether the average person applying contemporary community standards would find that the
work taken in its entirety appeals to prurient interest.
2. Whether the work depicts or describes in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically
defined by the applicable law.
3. Whether the work taken as a whole lacks a serious literary, artistic, or scientific value.
All of the tests are still vague. These tests are a danger to the freedom of artistic expression. The
determination of the meaning of “Obscenity” shall be done on a case-to-case basis.
The standard to apply is usually the “Clear and Present Danger Rule”
What about porno materials in the Internet, how are we going to control its usage considering that the
users are from different cultures and communities? It could be legal in some parts but taboo and illegal
in other parts.
GONZALES VS KALAW
The movie “Kapit sa Patalim” passed the MTRCB. Restricting the

movie is a violation of the Freedom of Expression.
RULING: The court stated that the test to apply here is the clear and
present danger rule. But some stated that the Balancing of Interests Rule
should be applied. The Board abused its discretion, but not really grave.
The SC did not reverse the decision of the Board because it was “not
grave”. But what was also stated that the Board cannot cut or edit the
film. It has no power to do so, but the Board can petition in court to
ban the film. What the Board is empowered with is just to put
classifications on the films.
PITA VS CA
The City of Manila conducted an anti-smut campaign. Pursuant to it,
the police confiscated copies of magazines and other publications from
dealers, distributors and newsstands. There was no court order
authorizing the seizure. The seized materials were later burned by the
City officials.
RULING: The court held that before confiscating alleged obscene

materials, the authorities must…
a.) first obtain a search warrant
b.) it must be the judge, not the policeman who will determine
what is obscene and what is not
c.) the warrant can only be granted if there is a clear and
present danger of a substantive evil.
Obscene materials cannot just be considered as a nuisance per se. There
must be judicial intervention because it is a judicial function to
decide. Hence, the procedure adopted by the City Govt. was illegal.
Q: Can you penalize people who are showing or selling obscene materials?
A: The city can pass an ordinance penalizing it. However, the State cannot pass a law preventing
people from watching bold movies privately inside their own house.
IV. ASSEMBLY AND PETITION:
Freedom of Assembly
It is the right of the people to assemble peaceably for consultation and discussion of matters of public
concern.
Procedures to Hold a Rally:

1. Must apply for a permit
2. Must contain the date, time, and place of activity
3. Permit is for the place
4. Authorities can modify it if there is a Clear and Present Danger
5. If it is on private property, consent of the owner is sufficient
- Therefore, it can be said that the power exercised by authorities is not prohibition but of regulation.
- The permit must be filed:
o At the Mayor’s office
o At least 4 days before the activity
o And acted within 2 days by the office (otherwise, it is deemed granted by the Mayor)
- Whatever the result, decisions regarding the permission of the rally are appealable in Court
Ideally, the test of a lawful assembly should be the purpose for which it is held, regardless of the
auspices under which it is organized. Untoward incidents during the assembly does not make it unlawful.
MALABANAN VS RAMENTO
Several student leaders were suspended for one year when they held
a demonstration in the premises of a university outside the area
permitted by the school authorities which disrupted classes and disturbed
the work of the administrative personnel. The SC issued a temporary
restraining order that in effect permitted the students to re-enroll and
finish their studies.
RULING: Although the case became moot and academic, the court
nevertheless decided to rule on the merits of the constitutional issues
raised and held that the penalty imposed was out of proportion to the
misdeed. The decision emphasized that the students did not “shed their
constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the
schoolhouse gate,” although these rights were not unlimited.
NOTE: Students do not lose their constitutional rights once they enter the school grounds. However, they
still need to obtain a permit from the school authorities. Schools can still deny permit if there is Clear and
Present Danger.
NOTE: However if the permit granted allows the rally to be held only in a particular place, there is a
possibility that the place designated may be far and therefore impossible for other people to heat the
group’s grievances. The State is not allowed to do such.
NESTLE VS SANCHEZ
Laborers picketed the SC while waiting for the resolution of their

cases. They set up temporary shelters and took turns attacking the SC
through a loud speaker. The SC ordered them to explain why they should
not be cited for contempt.
RULING: The court stated that no pickets or determinations in order to

influence or pressure courts shall be allowed within the vicinity of all
courts. While citizens can invoke their right to speech, assembly and
petition against courts, they must go through the proper channels. Any
exercise of freedom of speech, expression and assembly done without
complying with what is allowed. In order to influence the courts is not
constitutionally protected. The case presented here is an example of one
which is not allowed.
In cases involving the court holding somebody in contempt for conducting a rally within the court’s
vicinity, the issue would be how to strike a proper balance between the freedom of expression and
integrity of the courts.

Consti 2 Section 1-4 PDF

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Consti 2 Section 1-4 PDF

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

TABLE OF CONTENTS

THE BILL OF RIGHTS………………………………………………………….. 1

The Bill of Rights

FUNCTIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION

PEOPLE VS. MARTI

3.) Basic human rights are superior to property rights.

PBMLO VS. PBMCI

Union wanted to participate in a demonstration. The management allowed

ISSUE: Whether the rights of the workers (right to assembly, expression

Basis of the court’s decision:

LIBERTY – the right to do anything which is not injurious to others.

Not included as rights are:

4.) Provisions of the Bill of Rights have NO RETROACTIVE APPLICATION.

FILOTEO, JR. v. SANDIGANBAYAN, 263 S 222 (1996)

Accused committed a crime on May 3, 1982. He was investigated by

HELD: Petitioner’s contention that Art. III, Sec. 12 of the 1987

PEOPLE V. DOMANTAY, 307 S 1 (1999)

Accused was charged with rape with homicide. While detained in a

SERRANO V. NLRC, 323 S 445 (2000)

Serrano was head of the Security Checker’s Section of Isetann

Due Process Clause

Art. III, Sec 1. No person shall be deprived of

Two aspects of due process:

PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS

Procedural Due Process must be applied in the following: Other proceedings:

Due Process is not needed in the following:

ANZALDO VS. CLAVE

An additional to the seven cases where procedural due process is applied

Elements of Procedural Due Process:

a.) In Judicial Due Process

b.) In Administrative Due Process (Ang Tibay Case)

ANG TIBAY VS. CIR

Q: When can we say that evidence is adequate to support a conclusion?

Q: What about administrative?

MOLANEDA vs. UMACOB

Ruling: Petitioner/respondent in administrative case is not entitled to be informed of the findings

c.) In Deportation Proceedings

Q: In deportation cases, is he entitled to due process?

d.) Discipline of Students

There was a hazing conducted as part of the initiation rites of the

Minimum standards to be satisfied in the imposition of disciplinary sanctions are:

Q: Do you need due process when an administrative body issued an order?

Q: When do we say that it is quasi-legislative?

e.) Rule Making by Administrative Bodies

PHILCOMSAT VS. ALCUAZ

PHILCOMSAT was given franchise to operate facilities for satellite

RCPI VS. NTC

PLDT applied for approval to increase rates for its digital

f.) Vague Laws

PEOPLE VS. NAZARIO

RULING: The court held that a law is vague if it cannot be clarified by

g.) Publication of Laws

TAÑADA VS. TUVERA

GO vs. NATIONAL POLICE COMMISSION

Issue: Whether or not Go was denied of due process.

BASIC ELEMENTS IN DUE PROCESS:

1. Notice – to warn you

WHEN DUE PROCES IS NOT REQUIRED:

Petitioner owned a Quonset building located on a lot of the PPA.

2. Preventive Suspension of students/workers.

There was a hazing conducted as part of the initiation rites of the

Important points in this case:

3. Provisional Rate Increases