Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
” Matthew 21:22
Those are the exceptions where hearing is NOT required. EQUAL PROTECTION OF LAWS
El Blanco Español - Filipino vs Palanca G.R. No. L-11390, Basically, the concept is that all persons and properties
March 26, 1918 situated under the same circumstances must be treated
alike in terms of rights that may be conferred by law and
The requisites of due process in hearing in civil cases, the obligations that may be imposed.
minimum requirements that must be satisfied for procedural The exception is when there is a valid classification.
due process that must be complied with:
1. There has to be an impartial court or tribunal clothed When is there a valid classification? When there is:
with the judicial authority or power to hear and 1. Substantial distinction
determine the matters before it 2. Germane to the purpose of the law
- When we speak of impartial courts, 3. Applicable not only to existing conditions but also in
meaning that which has no interest in the future for as long as the reason for the
the outcome of the case where it must classification still exist
observe cold neutrality especially in the 4. It applies to all persons and things situated under
presiding judge and the court must be the same circumstances
clothed with the authority to hear and try
the case, this is determine of course by What was asked in the bar exam is on the principles being
law applied in determining whether classification is justifiable or
whether it is valid. You have on:
2. It must have jurisdiction over the property and over 1. Rational basis
the defendant or at least over the property subject 2. Strict scrutiny
of the case 3. Intermediate scrutiny
- How do you acquire jurisdiction over the
defendant? Through the service of the On rational basis, it depends on the reason of classification
summons. How is that summon serve? in the first place. Based on the purpose.
Through personal service or substituted
service of summons and if he cannot be Rational basis based on the purpose-- why is there a
located or found, you may serve the classification in the first place. Usually this classification
summons through publication. Usually it applies in general such as economic or social legislation
is conducted in in rem cases and quasi
in rem cases. Even today, personal
actions may be converted into a quasi in
rem and in which case you may publish
1
I’m not sure if ang numbers 3 and 4 are still part of the requisites,
basta gi discuss pani ni maam, wala nalang niya gi numberan
the order and the complaint through a
POLITICAL LAW REVIEW: JUDGE SINGCO | BATCH 2016 | 2
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: “And whatever you ask in prayer, you will receive,if you have faith.” Matthew 21:22
Example: the classification in rational basis, must be rationally related
Central Bank Employees Association Incorporated vs to the legislative purpose it has to be related.
BSSP GR 148208
what's the reason for classification in the first place in order
Prior to amendment of the law creating the BSP, there is a to justify the distinction
law stating that in so far as officers of BSP they will receive for example, the right to vote is enjoy only by the citizens of
different scale of salary as compared to rank and file-- salary the country because foreigners have nothing to do with the
grade 19 and lower. so there is no ceiling in so far as the establishment of government
officers of BSP.
Classification Under Strict Scrutiny
Rationale of classification uphold as valid:
Relativity in the constitutionality of the law classification must be necessary and narrowly tailored to
At the time, there was difficulty in attracting persons who are achieve the legislative purpose. you recall the cybercrime
competent in order to work for BSP especially for higher law one of the reasons for objecting this law is that it is
positions. To attract them, there is an economic package against a certain group of individuals using the social media
that cant be refused by the. There was no question of the the internet. why this particular group of individuals only that
classification back then. this law addressed. they are following strict scrutiny here
whether its applicable because it goes into the freedom of
So things change cause the law was amended. Bsp is one of expression.
the govt financial institution, like sss dbp, gsis ldb.. They are
exempted from standardization of salary including the rank Jose Jesus m. Disini, Et.Al v. The Secretary Of Justice
and file. So the rank and file is now asking, why are we g.r. No. 203335 February 11, 2014
discriminated when we already belong to the government
financial institution and yet we have the same scale of salary. The Court has in a way found the strict scrutiny standard, an
SC sustained this that there is valid classification. It applied American constitutional construct, useful in determining the
STRICT SCRUTINY. They consist of a group that is constitutionality of laws that tend to target a class of things or
distinct that would justify a valid classification as to officers persons. According to this standard, a legislative
and rank and file of BSP classification that impermissibly interferes with the exercise
of fundamental right or operates to the peculiar class
TRUTH COMMISSION declared unconstitutional cause it disadvantage of a suspect class is presumed
focused on the Arroyo administration. To curb graft and unconstitutional. The burden is on the government to prove
corruption is a valid classification but in Arroyo, it is a that the classification is necessary to achieve a compelling
suspect classification, rather than a group. state interest and that it is the least restrictive means to
protect such interest. Later, the strict scrutiny standard was
Question: So they said why not other previous used to assess the validity of laws dealing with the regulation
administration? Justification? of speech, gender, or race as well as other fundamental
A. Previous to arroyo admin, there is already an rights, as expansion from its earlier applications to equal
investigation, thus double investigation protection.
B. There was a previous commission called In the cases before it, the Court finds nothing in Section
PCGG investigating the marcos administration on 4(a)(1) that calls for the application of the strict scrutiny
ill-gotten wealth standard since no fundamental freedom, like speech, is
involved in punishing what is essentially a condemnable
In PCGG, no one questioned it. But here, SC said it is act – accessing the computer system of another without right.
discriminatory as to the Arroyo administration in terms of It is a universally condemned conduct.
investigation by that particular body. It can hardly be
considered a class of its own to justify a valid classification. So this has not been applicable. the validity of the law has
been sustained because there is a valid classification in this
RATIONAL BASIS (legislative basis is: legitimate) case
- it is general in classification such as social and as to the intermediate scrutiny, the purpose of the
economic legislation which do not affect fundamental classification must be substantially related to the legislative
rights or suspect classes or not based on gender or purpose. so it's not so strict.
legitimacy
Section 2. The right of the people to be secure in their
STRICT SCRUNITY (legislative basis is: compelling) persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable
searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any
- applicable only to legislative classification purpose shall be inviolable, and no search warrant or
affecting fundamental rights or suspect classes as applied in warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to
BSP case be determined personally by the judge after examination
under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the
ITERMEDIATE SCRUTINY (legislative basis is: important) witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the
place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.
- applicable only to legislative classification based On searches and seizure this time. the rule is whatever
only on gender or illegitimacy (? She said legitimacy at search and seizure. whatever it's purpose. or whatever is the
first then illegitimacy daun) reason without a warrant, is unreasonable and therefore
unconstitutional.
As To The Legislative Purpose Of The Classification
1. in rational basis it must be legitimate this right is enjoyed not only by the citizens of the country.
2. in strict scrutiny, it must be compelling also this is available to aliens whether accused of a crime or
3. in intermediate scrutiny, it must be important not.
You recall under RA 9165 if you are charged with a crime 1. You have Search Incidental To A Lawful
where the penalty is 6 years and 1 day or if you are a Arrest. Take note, the requirements to justify a
candidate for an elective position. also the requirement on search incidental to a lawful arrest. The search must
students secondary and tertiary come after a lawful arrest, because if in the first
….. place the arrest was unlawful, then there is no
(c) Students of secondary and tertiary schools. – Students of justification for a search incidental to that arrest. Or
secondary and tertiary schools shall, pursuant to the related at least the search is made simultaneous to the
rules and regulations as contained in the school's student arrest.
handbook and with notice to the parents, undergo a random
drug testing: Provided, That all drug testing expenses When is an arrest lawful?
whether in public or private schools under this Section will be
borne by the government; If it is accompanied by a warrant of arrest. Otherwise, it falls
under the exceptions of a warrantless arrest under Rule 113
(d) Officers and employees of public and private offices. –
Officers and employees of public and private offices, 1. In Flagrante Delicto
whether domestic or overseas, shall be subjected to 2. Hot Pursuit
undergo a random drug test as contained in the company's 3. An Escapee can be arrested even without a
work rules and regulations, which shall be borne by the warrant
employer, for purposes of reducing the risk in the workplace.
Any officer or employee found positive for use of dangerous Now, you have to note the difference between this
drugs shall be dealt with administratively which shall be a one and a search that is made under a
ground for suspension or termination, subject to the Stop-And-Frisk or the Ohio vs. Terry case. Here,
POLITICAL LAW REVIEW: JUDGE SINGCO | BATCH 2016 | 4
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: “And whatever you ask in prayer, you will receive,if you have faith.” Matthew 21:22
what happened was that search was made first, and was any justification for the search, because the search has
in the event that a contraband is found, then you to be incidental to a lawful arrest. Was there an arrest in the
have the lawful arrest. first place in this case? Supreme court said that there was
none because you cannot be arrested for violation of traffic
Take note, ang search incidental, there's arrest rules since the penalty is only administrative in nature and
that's lawful, and then thereafter there is the search. not criminal which would have warranted imprisonment.
In Stop-And-Frisk, there is a search however limited
Therefore, it was not preceded by an arrest. So the search
only to the outer clothing. Protective search only.
conducted cannot be considered as incidental to a lawful
But in the event a contraband is found, or the person
is committing a crime in the presence of the arrest. Ergo, the search was illegal as there was no warrant.
arresting officer, then he can be arrested without a Being illegal, the things that were seized from the accused
warrant, a thereafter an extensive search can be cannot be used against him being fruits of the poisonous
made. tree.
When you do a Stop-and-Frisk, it is deemed merely That was also asked in the bar exams, “what is the concept
based on suspicion. But the moment you make an of the fruit of the poisonous tree?” AIE SUSMARYOSEP!
arrest, it must be based on probable cause. He must Kung di pa mo kamao ana, ambot lang!
have committed overt acts that would indicate that
he was committing a crime in the presence of the So Supreme Court was saying in this case,
arresting officer. The question is whether or not a road side
questioning of a motorist detained pursuant to a
(Question by Nathan inaudible) routine traffic stop can be considered as a formal
Judge: Alright. If it is a moving vehicle, it is limited to visual arrest.
search. Plain view. Where they found the contraband
through plain view... What was the justification? If it was with Here, Luz was waiting for PO3 Alteza to write the
the consent, then the search would be justified. citation ticket. Luz could not have been considered
as “under arrest.” There was no intention on the part
(Question continued still inaudible) of PO3 Alteza to arrest him, deprive him of his liberty
Judge: What was the probable cause? It has to be an act of or take him under custody. Prior to the issuance of
the accused that would lead to believe that a crime was the ticket, the period during which Luz was at the
being committed. police station may be characterized merely as
waiting time. In fact, PO3 Alteza himself testified that
(Question inaudible) the only reason they went to the place was that Luz
Judge: It has to be personal. Because even if it is a reliable had been flagged down almost in front of that place.
information, it's not personal to the arresting officer. Hence, it was only for the sake of convenience that
they were waiting there. There was no intention to
(Question inaudible) take Luz into custody. Therefore, there was no
Judge: That's too much extension. I'm not a justice of the arrest at all.
Supreme Court, but I had a lot of cases like those. If there is
no overt act then it should not be.. You are not supposed to It also appears that, according to City Ordinance No.
do that. 98-012, which was violated by Luz, the failure to
wear a crash helmet while riding a motorcycle is
You stick to the basic. Unless if it is like a Stop-and-Frisk. penalized by a fine only. Under the Rules of Court, a
You stop him and then you frisk because of the suspicion warrant of arrest need not be issued if the
that he is committing the crime. I think that is the justification. information or charge was filed for an offense
In Stop-and-Frisk, because of their experience as arresting penalized by a fine only. There is no warrant.
officers, his acting suspiciously, like he is restless. Then they Kanang BP 22, wa mana’y warrant kay fine ra mana
make a stop, and then they frisk him. So in the process of ang iyang penalty. You don’t issue warrant. It may
frisking, they found the contraband. Then, that would justify be stated as a corollary that neither can a
an extensive search. I suppose that was the justification. warrantless arrest be made for such an offense.
Now, in relation to this guys, you also take note of the case This ruling does not imply that there can be no arrest
of Luz vs. People. This actually happened here in Cebu. This for a traffic violation. Certainly, when there is an
is the roadside questioning of a motorist. He was stopped intent on the part of the police officer to deprive the
and then he was asked to go to the police station. motorist of liberty, or to take the latter into custody,
the former may be deemed to have arrested the
Luz vs. People2 case actually happened in Cebu. This motorist. In this case, however, the officers issuance
involves the road side questioning of a motorist. The reason (or intent to issue) a traffic citation ticket negates the
possibility of an arrest for the same violation.
he was apprehended was because he was not wearing his
helmet in violation of the city ordinance of Naga. He was If it were true that Luz was already deemed arrested
thereafter invited to the police station because it would be a when he was flagged down for a traffic violation and
lot easier to issue a citation or a ticket to the motorist. So he while he waiting for his ticket, then there would have
went to the police, however, he was restless which made the been no need for him to be arrested for a second
police suspicious that he may be hiding something. So he time after the police officers allegedly discovered the
was asked to place all his things on the table. As a result of drugs as he was already in their custody.
which, the police found that he was in possession of illegal
drugs and so he got arrested and charged with violation of So there was no arrest, why arrest him when he was already
R.A. no. 9165. So the question there was that whether there in the custody of the police?
2
G. R. No. 197788, February 29, 2012
included na ang BUS TERMINAL and SEA PORTS Question: So there is no need to further examine it?
in the exceptions Answer: Yes, probable cause is already established.
An escapee, never mind that one. Wa nay If the court will sustain the admission, don't lose hope.
pangutana ana. It’s self-explanatory. Remember, ADMISSION of the evidence is one thing, giving
PROBATIVE VALUE is another. During the making of the
Question: What would be the consequences if there is decision, the judge may decide not to consider it if it was
violation of searches and seizure? illegally seized.
Answer: Inadmissible.
ADMINISTRATIVE ARREST
Question: Can you recover the property that was illegally
seized? What are the causes of administrative arrest?
Answer: Kung contraband, ang2x naman I uli nimo ang
shabu or ang unlicensed firearm, of course you will not 1. You breached the peace or you were planning to do so,
return it. but only if it is absolutely necessary.
ex. nanghagis kay kay you were drunk, you
Question: If money? What about if it’s the money that was can be arrested without warrant, even if you were
the payment for the shabu sold? not committing a crime!
Answer: Money is not illegal per se, and since the crime 2. If you are disturbing a court hearing
was not established and also that it was not established that 3. In a drunken state in a public highway. (You are not only
it was the fruit of the crime, then definitely it will be returned. causing threats to public safety but also to yourself)
4. In case of Brawling.
Question: If not returned by the police, what will be your 5. If you block traffic without authorization
remedy? 6. If you refuse to present your Identification documents or
Answer” Sue them at the Office of the Ombudsman or if you such are questionable
want to get the money right away then you go to the court 7. If you are staying in the country illegally
and ask for a writ of replevin.
What would happen if you are arrested illegally? What are Read Disini Jr., et.al vs. Secretary of Justice-
the two options?
On the right to privacy, this pertains to your communications
1. Post Bail and correspondence, including LETTERS, ELECTRONIC
- Even if the case was not yet filed in court, yes you COMMUNICATION and OTHER WAYS of communicating
can for as long as you are deprived of your thru the INTERNET.
physical liberty. You petition that you be allowed
to post bail. SC said that in the Constitution, there are those(?) of privacy
- If you post bail, would that be a waiver for you to that are guaranteed:
question the validity of your arrest? No. Under 1. The right against unreasinable searches and seizure
the New Rules of Procedure, you can still 2. The right to privacy of communication and
question while you can file a writ of habeas correspondence
corpus.
- Maayo man tong bail kay hangtud inig file ug kung "The right to privacy, or the right to be let alone, was
mutaas imung charge.. for example, homicide institutionalized in the 1987 Constitution as a facet of the
then it is bailable. Pero kung ma murder, it may right protected by the guarantee against unreasonable
be cancelled. searches and seizures xxx"
Those are the requisites. This was applied in that case Tapping of these communications is not authorized although
involving the opening of letters of detention prisoners. The under the same law, the tapping of conversations of judicially
SC was saying that you are a detainee. Even if it’s only declared terrorists groups is allowed.
preventive detention, there is least expectation of privacy
compared to the people outside jail. This was the case In SEC. 7. Surveillance of Suspects and Interception
the Matter of the Petition for Habeas Corpus of Capt. and Recording of Communications. -The provisions
Gary Alejano (G.R. No. 160792, August 25, 2005) where of Republic Act No. 4200 (Anti-Wire Tapping Law) to
the Supreme Court said that – the contrary notwithstanding, a police or law
enforcement official and the members of his team may,
“The right to privacy of those detained is subject to upon a written order of the Court of Appeals, listen to,
Section 4 of RA 7438, as well as to the limitations intercept and record, with the use of any mode, form,
inherent in lawful detention or imprisonment. By the kind or type of electronic or other surveillance
very fact of their detention, pre-trial detainees and equipment or intercepting and tracking devices, or with
convicted prisoners have a diminished expectation the use of any other suitable ways and means for that
of privacy rights.” purpose, any communication, message, conversation,
discussion, or spoken or written words between
Then there was the case of Zulueta vs. CA (G.R. No. members of a judicially declared and outlawed terrorist
107383. February 20, 1996). This was a landmark case. organization, association, or group of persons or of any
Even private letters, if you can recall, cannot be intruded into person charged with or suspected of the crime of
and cannot be used in evidence if seized illegally. This was terrorism or conspiracy to commit terrorism.
the case of the paramour. The letters coming from the Provided, That surveillance, interception and recording
paramour were kept by the husband and found by the wife. of communications between lawyers and clients,
Are they admissible in evidence if they were seized without doctors and patients, journalists and their sources and
the consent of the husband? The Supreme Court said you confidential business correspondence shall not be
can’t use them. authorized.
Excerpt from the case –
On RA 4200, what is prohibited?
Indeed the documents and papers in question are 1. Possession of tapes with the knowledge of their
inadmissible in evidence. The constitutional nature as illegal wiretap.
injunction declaring the privacy of communication 2. Replaying the tapes to any person.
and correspondence [to be] inviolable is no less 3. To communicate the contents thereof either verbally
applicable simply because it is the wife (who thinks or in writing such as provision of transcript.
POLITICAL LAW REVIEW: JUDGE SINGCO | BATCH 2016 | 9
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: “And whatever you ask in prayer, you will receive,if you have faith.” Matthew 21:22
What is the penalty? Six (6) months to six (6) years prision of offensive disclosure was no more than the actuality that
correccional. respondents appended said photographs in their
memorandum submitted to the trial court in connection with
The most recent decision on this right to privacy guys – you Civil Case No. CEB-38594.52 These are not tantamount to a
have that concerning Facebook. The STC case. Recently, violation of the minor’s informational privacy rights, contrary
the Supreme Court pronounced that there is no privacy in to petitioners’ assertion.
Facebook. So you be careful, I got a lot of cases where
evidence were downloaded from Facebook accounts. Even In sum, there can be no quibbling that the images in question,
if you’re not friends with that person whose pictures you are or to be more precise, the photos of minor students scantily
downloading. Now, can you sue that person for violation of clad, are personal in nature, likely to affect, if indiscriminately
your right to privacy? The answer is no. In the STC case, circulated, the reputation of the minors enrolled in a
who downloaded those pictures? It was the friend of those conservative institution. However, the records are bereft of
students involved. And then thereafter, the friend gave the any evidence, other than bare assertions that they utilized
pictures to the teacher. SC was saying that the teacher is not Facebook’s privacy settings to make the photos visible only
liable for violation of the right to privacy. You go back to the to them or to a select few. Without proof that they placed the
two requisites – was there a reasonable expectation of photographs subject of this case within the ambit of their
privacy? When you publish and post it in Facebook, there is protected zone of privacy, they cannot now insist that they
no privacy. Everybody knows even if you delete it. The have an expectation of privacy with respect to the
moment it goes into your friends’ accounts, then it will be photographs in question.
there forever. I keep telling my nieces that when you have
boyfriends now, please do not publish it. Sus mga gahi ug Had it been proved that the access to the pictures posted
ulo. Every year you change boyfriends. You have this guy were limited to the original uploader, through the “Me Only”
one time then you break up with that guy and then you have privacy setting, or that the user’s contact list has been
another boyfriend. Susmaryosep. Ay dios ko. Hambog pa screened to limit access to a select few, through the
“Custom” setting, the result may have been different, for in
Excerpt from the STC case (Vivares and Sps. Suzara vs. such instances, the intention to limit access to the particular
STC G.R. No. 202666, September 29, 2014) – post, instead of being broadcasted to the public at large or all
the user’s friends en masse, becomes more manifest and
STC did not violate petitioners’ daughters’ right to palpable.
privacy
*Question about whether one can invoke violation of the right
Without these privacy settings, respondents’ contention that to privacy against private individuals given that the Bill of
there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in Facebook Rights can only be invoked against violations of government
would, in context, be correct. However, such is not the and its agents.
case. It is through the availability of said privacy tools
that many OSN users are said to have a subjective Judge: This right on privacy applies even to private
expectation that only those to whom they grant access individuals. Section 2 (right against unlawful searches and
to their profile will view the information they post or seizures) can only be invoked against law enforcers. Section
upload thereto.35 3 (privacy of communication and correspondence) applies to
both government and private individuals. The only limitations
This, however, does not mean that any Facebook user being that there is a lawful order from the court or when
automatically has a protected expectation of privacy in all of public safety and order requires otherwise.
his or her Facebook activities.
So mail matters, packages sa postal, magovernment or
Before one can have an expectation of privacy in his or her maprivate – the moment it is sealed, you cannot open it.
OSN activity, it is first necessary that said user, in this That would be a violation of the right t o privacy. Worse,
case the children of petitioners, manifest the intention to kawaton pa ang sud. Qualified theft! Do you understand
keep certain posts private, through the employment of guys? Take note of that.
measures to prevent access thereto or to limit its
visibility.36 And this intention can materialize in cyberspace Again, if the right is violated, any evidence that is obtained is
through the utilization of the OSN’s privacy tools. In inadmissible in any proceedings.
other words, utilization of these privacy tools is the
manifestation, in cyber world, of the user’s invocation of Another limitation to the right of privacy of communication
his or her right to informational privacy.37 XXXXX and correspondence – The Writ of Habeas Data
As applied, even assuming that the photos in issue are What is your remedy if your privacy is intruded into on the
visible only to the sanctioned students’ Facebook friends, basis of some communication or document; however, you
respondent STC can hardly be taken to task for the cannot obtain them because it’s private to this agency or
perceived privacy invasion since it was the minors’ institution? You apply for a writ of habeas data. And this
Facebook friends who showed the pictures to Tigol. information will be brought to court and for the court to
Respondents were mere recipients of what were posted. determine if indeed your privacy has been intruded into.
They did not resort to any unlawful means of gathering the Your privacy therefore with regards to that document is
information as it was voluntarily given to them by persons regulated by the writ of habeas data.
who had legitimate access to the said posts. Clearly, the
fault, if any, lies with the friends of the minors. Curiously Section 1. Habeas Data. - The writ of habeas data is a
enough, however, neither the minors nor their parents remedy available to any person whose right to privacy in life,
imputed any violation of privacy against the students who liberty or security is violated or threatened by an unlawful act
showed the images to Escudero. or omission of a public official or employee, or of a private
individual or entity engaged in the gathering, collecting or
Furthermore, petitioners failed to prove their contention that storing of data or information regarding the person, family,
respondents reproduced and broadcasted the photographs. home and correspondence of the aggrieved party (A. M. No.
In fact, what petitioners attributed to respondents as an act 0 1-16-SC, The Rule On The Writ Of Habeas Data)
POLITICAL LAW REVIEW: JUDGE SINGCO | BATCH 2016 | 10
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: “And whatever you ask in prayer, you will receive,if you have faith.” Matthew 21:22
What is your remedy if your privacy is being intruded into by C. balancing of interest test
some communication, documents or correspondence? -When it does not involve public
However you cannot obtain them because it is with a private safety or national security, but rather
person, agency or entity. involves a conflict between rights that are
- You demand for a writ of habeas data. The equally important that require protection
information will be brought to court and it is the court under the law.
who will determine whether or not your privacy is
violated. If such is the case, the document can be On Subsequent Liability (whether you will be punished after
destroyed. the exercise of the freedom of expresion); TEST:
- Your privacy referred to by the document is 1. Clear And Present Danger Rule
protected by the writ of habeas data. 2. Dangerous Tendency Rule
3. Balancing Of Interest
Two test to determine reasonableness of expectation of
privacy: In normal circumstances within our jurisdiction—what is the
1. Whether by one’s conduct, the individual has test that we follow to hold you liable as in exercising the
exhibited an expectation of privacy. freedom of expression? It is the CLEAR AND PRESENT
2. Whether this expectation is recognized by society as DANGER RULE.
reasonable.
-so if you post something on Facebook, do you expect it to When it does not involve public safety or national
be private? And as far as the public is concerned, is it security—when there is conflict between rights that are
reasonable that you demand privacy after posting publicly all equally important that require protection of the law; what do
your personal things there? Pati pangotot you have to say you use? The BALANCING OF INTEREST.
that?! Doklon tamo ron
-there is no reasonable expectation in facebook ha! be RECAP:
careful sa inyung epang post If prior restraint; 2 TEST:
o 1)Content-based;
FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION o 2)Content-Neutral regulation
Also, A HECKLER'S VETO, a limitation on the freedom of Compelling State Interest - more on the prior restraint
expression, occurs when an acting party's right to freedom of Dangerous Tendency - the determination of subsequent
speech is curtailed or restricted by the government in order liability or punishment
to prevent a reacting party's behavior. Like for example:
when you are delivering your speech, someone was Do you see the difference? While you can be stopped from
heckling or gi.buno baka ug kamatis—so, just to avoid there’s prior restraint, there’s censorship there, prior
further disturbance of peace and order in the premises, you censorship. On the dangerous tendency, you have already
will be stopped from further delivering your speech. So, committed or you have already exercised the right and now
that’s Heckler’s veto. This is a valid limitation on one’s it’s the determination of your liablity. So they use either the
exercise of freedom of expression. clear and present danger rule, the dangerous tendency or
the balancing of interests.
Q; with reagrds to the two test (void for vaugeness and
overbreadth doctrine), does these apply also to all rights As I was saying earlier, that is why I made a distinction.
under the Bill of Rights? Or thus these only apply to the
freedom of expression? To determine whether there should be prior restraint or
Answer: particulary to the freedom of _ only and on the censorship of the exercise of your freedom of expression
freedom of religion as well. it cannot be used. you can use 2 tests:
1. Content-based restriction
In Re: Mr. Garcia’s question about the Void for Vagueness 2. Content-neutral regulation
and Overbreadth Doctrines.
To determine subsequent liability or punishment for the
Q: Does it apply also to other rights under the Bill of Rights exercise of the freedom of expression, you have the three:
or does it only apply to the freedom of expression? 1. The Clear and Present Danger Rule
Answer: Particularly on the freedom of speech only or 2. Dangerous Tendency
freedom of religion as well is included. 3. Balancing of Interests.
Read: Batas Pambansa Blng. 880 (The Public Assembly Example: bench/penshoppe billboard (where two
Act) males are holding hands) or the mannequins
suggesting males kissing
General Rule: The requirement of a permit. Judge: there is no clear and present danger, or
substantive evil that needs to be protected and as
Supreme Court said its not unconstitutional because its only long as there is no interest of the government that
a content-neutral regulation. You are not being stopped must be protected, then I suppose there is no
from holding a rally only that there’s a regulation on the time, violation there. Commercial speech is allowed and
manner and place of the holding of the rally. protected by law.
If for example we would apply the punishment for Take note of the tests in intruding into your freedom of
the speech an administrative liability, is it possible that you religion:
as a government officer be removed for not following the 1. Clear and present danger test
stand of the government regarding the RH Law? 2. Compelling state interest test
3. Conscientious objector test
You cannot. That is under the decision of the SC
that you can’t be removed. That particular provision In conscientious objector test, I suppose, that you cannot be
of the law was already declared unconstitutional by compelled or there is no liability by reason of your freedom of
the SC so there is no more law that would be a basis religion. We have a limit in the application of the
to remove you from office or punish you. conscientious objector test.
Reconciliation of the two doctrines on private and public For example: your refusal to render military service because
speech in relation to the freedom of religion more particularly of your religion like you are a Jehovah’s Witness. That is not
on the Conscientious Objector Test acceptable under present jurisprudence. But this one has
been used in America, in determining liability for those who
Let me go over that and we will discuss this in the next refuse to render military service for it is against their religion
meeting. (freedom of speech with regards to the RH law.) for as long as there is consistency according to the supreme
court in America, that is an accepted test in determining
FREEDOM OF RELIGION liability.
Things need to take note: A person who because of principles of religious training and
1. Non establishment of religion moral beliefs is opposed to all war regardless of its cause, so
2. Freedom of religion the conscientious objector may be release from the
3. No religion test obligation to serve in the Armed Forces or to participate in a
selective service registration. A conscientious objector must
NON ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION opposed to war in any form and not just a particular war in
order to avoid military service.
How is this being enforce? You have the prohibitions. We
have gone over this before right guys. So I don’t have to I suppose that you can apply this to the Muslims. They are
repeat that guys. You have the exceptions to the non allowed to have four wives. If they are married to two wives
establishment of religions, so I don’t have to go over that and is charged with bigamy, then they can always invoke
guys because we have discussed about that guys. their religion if it is allowed to by their religion as a
conscientious objector. But if you are a former catholic and
you convert yourself to Muslim so you can marry the second
FREEDOM OF RELIGION wife as the first wife’s marriage cannot be annulled then you
are not a conscientious objector. You have no
2 ASPECTS: conscience(hehehe). This does not justify. You cannot be
1. Freedom to exercise considered as a conscientious objector. It is not based on
2. Freedom to believe religion or your belief but based on your convenience to
avoid criminal liability for bigamy. Simply put, you apply it in
To believe is absolute, however, to exercise is limited and religion, so this was applied in the RH law.
what you follow as basis is the clear and present danger
rule and compelling state interest.
POLITICAL LAW REVIEW: JUDGE SINGCO | BATCH 2016 | 14
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: “And whatever you ask in prayer, you will receive,if you have faith.” Matthew 21:22
Question (classmate)(inaudible) (about singer of ANAK)
On the right to travel, take note, that is the freedom to go
Judge: He can be charged with violation of child abuse. wherever you want to go either within the country or outside
Jusmariajoseph. I wonder if he is not married, this is the first of the country. The only limitation being in the interest of
time he got married? Ahw, second. Second na ni niya? He national security, public safety or public health as within the
can be charged with bigamous marriage. Ohh, nagpa limits prescribed by law. In other words, the limitation to right
convert. Can he be charge criminally? YES. Can he invoke to travel is not, as a general rule, prescribed by an order of
freedom of religion? Certainly NOT. He cannot used the the court. It is only by an administrative agency and there are
objector’s conscientious test in applying the law against him. only 2 grounds, that is, national security, public safety and
public health.
Conscientious Objector’s Test in RH Law
In other words, the limitation to the right to travel is not as a
The conscientious objector’s test in relation to government general rule prescribed by an order of the court, it is only by
speech. an administrative agency and there can be three grounds:
1. national security
Let me just emphasize on the nature of Government Speech 2. public safety
after each particular side the government has to adopt - it 3. public health
cannot be neutral to a particular subject matter. Therefore, if
you are connected with the government or receiving funding Take note of the jurisprudence regarding on a court order
from the government, for example, then there is no freedom such as hold departure order simply because you are facing
in so far as taking a stand either for or against. It is expected criminal charges wherein you have posted bail. So bail now
of you to follow the stand of the government - that is is kind of a limitation on your right to travel because you
basically the gist of government speech. There is no need permission form the court before you are allowed to
neutrality. travel. This is because of your undertaking under that bail
bond that wherever you are required to appear before that
In relation to conscientious objector’s test, this is only court, you will appear. So that is precisely the reason why if
applied where it may affect your beliefs, religious or moral you failed to appear when you’re out on bail, the court can
beliefs. But this originated actually from the rendition of always issue a bench warrant to compel you to appear in
military service because back then in America they are court.
selling or either accept payment for not serving the military
or otherwise because of their beliefs they refuse to render Now if you have gone abroad already without the consent or
military service. Now then, on the basis of the belief of that without the knowledge of the court, most likely you will
person that needs to be respected as long as it is consistent, appear in court when you are required to appear. So the
then there may not be liability. court will be compelled to issue the warrant. But how can the
court now enforce or implement the warrant when you are
If you are connect it with RH Law, on the objector’s test, already beyond its reach? That’s basically the reason why
generally it should have not been applied in the case of RH there is a limit to one’s right to travel if one is facing criminal
Law. Nonetheless, it was in a sense applied because that charges and out of jail or enjoying his provisional liberty
liability on the part of a private or government practitioner under a bail bond.
has been deleted in so far as refusing to implement or to
assist the government in the implementation of the program Take note of these cases:
under the RH Law. In the sense that if you are a private 1. Manotoc
practitioner, in that RH Law, you can, supposedly, held liable 2. Santiago vs ombudsman
if you refuse to render service that would support RH Law, 3. Romualdez vs Sandiganbayan
example, the giving of contraceptives or even providing
services for abortion.
There is liability to both government doctor or a health - Read: Villavicencio vs. Lukban; Manotoc
worker and a private doctor or private health worker. So they vs. CA; Silverio vs CA- Relate to
may be compromised except because of the respect of one’s suspension of deployment of OFWs to
religious or moral beliefs. Under the concept of SARs infected countries. In relation to
conscientious objector’s test, they are given such leeway bail (Manotoc vs. CA; Santiago vs.
that instead of being compelled to follow the law, they have Vasquez)- valid restriction on his right
now the option that if it is against the religious belief, they to travel.
may refer that to another facility or another doctor if he is a
private practitioner. If you are a government practitioner or - Marcos vs. Sandiganbayan, GR No.
health worker who has, supposedly, the obligation to follow 115132, August 9, 1995- The person’s
the policy and program of the government, you have now the right to travel is subject to the usual
option to refer that person to another facility of the constraints imposed by the very
government providing that service if personally out of his necessity of safeguarding the system of
religious belief.
justice. Whether the accused should be
permitted to leave the country for
LIBERTY OF ABODE
humanitarian reasons is a matter
Section 6. There are 2 rights involved here. On the liberty of addressed to the court’s discretion. (Yap
abode, we don’t have much any problem here. It is simply vs. CA, GR No. 141529, June 6, 2001).
the (1) right to choose where do you want to live and the (2)
- Yap vs. CA- 6/6/01- court my restrict right
changing of your residence within the limits prescribed by
law of abode in granting bail.
(Pre-Bar)
The only limitation to the liberty of abode is when there is a
lawful order of the court. That is the only limitation.
POLITICAL LAW REVIEW: JUDGE SINGCO | BATCH 2016 | 15
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: “And whatever you ask in prayer, you will receive,if you have faith.” Matthew 21:22
Constitution. 10 Section 6 reads:
The only thing that is new as regards to the right to travel is Sec. 6.The liberty of abode and of changing
with respect to court personnel and judges and justices the same within the limits prescribed by law
being required to first ask permission from the Supreme shall not be impaired except upon lawful
Court before they are allowed to travel abroad. order of the court. Neither shall theright to
travel be impaired except in the interest
Judge: We cannot travel abroad without that permit, aw we of national security, public safety,
can, why not? but the thing is there is administrative or public health, as may be provided by
liabilities. And the question on the constitutionality of this law. [Emphases supplied]
requirement saying that we are guaranteed of our
constitutional right such as to travel, why are we now being Let there be no doubt that the Court recognizes a citizen's
required to secure that permit considering how tedious it is to constitutional right to travel. It is, however, not the issue in this
apply for it because you have to give your reason why you case. The only issue in this case is the non-compliance with
have to go abroad. the Court's rules and regulations. It should be noted that
respondent, in her Comment, did not raise any constitutional
Office of the administrative services – Office Of The concerns. In fact, she was apologetic and openly admitted that
Court Administrative Vs Judge Ignacio Macarile she went abroad without the required travel authority. Hence,
this is not the proper vehicle to thresh out issues on one's
Judge was sanction because he did not ask for permission, constitutional right to travel. Cdasia
the supreme court said that there is actually no prohibition, it
is only being regulated. The right to travel is guaranteed by Nonetheless, granting that it is an issue, the exercise of one's
the constitution however the exercise of such right is not right to travel or the freedom to move from one place to
absolute. Sec 6 Art 3 of the 1987 Consti allows restrictions another, 11 as assured by the Constitution, is not absolute.
on such right provided that such restriction is in the interest There are constitutional, statutory and inherent limitations
of national security, public safety and public health as may regulating the right to travel. Section 6 itself provides that
be provided by law. This however should no means "neither shall the right to travel be impaired except in the
construed as limiting, the supreme court in their power of interest of national security, public safety or public health, as
administrative supervision over the courts. It does not restrict may be provided by law."
in this case but merely regulates. To make sure that kung
nag suroy-suroy ka abroad and you got a lot of cases to hear Inherent limitations on the right to travel are those that
and resolve, you might prejudice public service particularly in naturally emanate from the source. These are very
the administration of justice. The supreme court said to basic and are built-in with the power. An example of
restrict is to restrain or prohibit a person from doing such inherent limitation is the power of the trial courts
something. To regulate however is to govern or direct to prohibit persons charged with a crime to leave the
according to rule. To ensure management of court dockets, country. 13 In such a case, permission of the court is
and to avoid disruption in the administration of justice, thus necessary. Another is the inherent power of the
the circular of the supreme court requiring a judge who legislative department to conduct a congressional
wishes to travel abroad to submit together with his inquiry in aid of legislation. In the exercise of
application of absence, duly recommended for approval by legislative inquiry, Congress has the power to issue
his executive judge, a certification from the statistic division a subpoena and subpoena duces tecum to a witness
court management office of the OCA. That the certification in any part of the country, signed by the chairperson
shall state the condition of his docket based on his certificate or acting chairperson and the Speaker or acting
of service for the month immediately preceding the date of Speaker of the House; 14 or in the case of the
his intended travel that he has decided and resolve all cases Senate, signed by its Chairman or in his absence by
and incidence within three months from date of submission. the Acting Chairman, and approved by the Senate
President. 15”aEcHCD |||
On the hold departure order, only RTC and the higher court (Leave Division, Office of Administrative
can issue HDO, courts of first level cannot issue HDO. That Services-OCA v. Heusdens, A.M. No.
can be issued even without informing the accused especially P-11-2927, December 13, 2011)
when he is still at large. But when he is already within the
jurisdiction of the court such as he is detained if not out of (warrior notes)
bail, then there has to be a hearing before the HDO is issued
by the court. And usually the HD issued by the court is Hold Departure Order (chika ni judge)
indefinite. - accused went abroad without informing the court and the
HDO was not yet filed, naniguwang naxa and he came back
A:TN the case of the Office the Administrator services, office here , when she went back to america he was held by the
of the court administrator in Judge Ignacio Makarili, where the Bureau of Immigration because in the record an HDO was
supreme court said the right to travel guaranteed by the still issued by the court supposedly it should not be more
constitution should by no means be construed as limiting the than five years but there is no updating of records in
supreme court’s inherent power of administrative supervision immigration
over lower courts. The law does not restrict but merely
regulates by providing guidelines to be complied by the judges Watchlist order of the Department of Justice
- not more than 60 days but it cannot stop anyone from going
and court personnel before they can go on leave to travel
abroad but it will only delay his flight-- his fight will not wait
abroad. To restrict is to restrain or prohibit a person from for him. He is practically stopped from going abroad on
doing something to regulate however is needed to govern or account of a watch list order.
direct according to rule. There is no prohibition but merely a
regulation. RIGHT TO INFORMATION AND ACCESS TO
INFORMATION
“It has been argued that OCA Circular No. 49-2003 (B) on
vacation leave to be spent abroad unduly restricts a citizen's Sec. 7. Accessible to people as a matter of public concern
right to travel guaranteed by Section 6, Article III of the 1987 and the determination is discretionary:
POLITICAL LAW REVIEW: JUDGE SINGCO | BATCH 2016 | 16
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: “And whatever you ask in prayer, you will receive,if you have faith.” Matthew 21:22
That is why they are demanding that he Freedom of The cornerstone of this republican
Information Bill be passed so that it will no longer be system of government is delegation of power
discretionary of the Supreme Court to determine its propriety by the people to the State. In this system,
as being part of public concern. The moment it is declared as governmental agencies and institutions
a matter of public concern it becomes ministerial on the part operate within the limits of the authority
of the government to give out the information to the public. conferred by the people. Denied access to
information on the inner workings of
The MANNER OF ACCESS IS DISCRETIONARY-- like the government, the citizenry can become prey to
hours on which they are available, the circumstances, fees, the whims and caprices of those to whom the
etc. power had been delegated. The postulate of
public office is a public trust,
What are the matters that are of public concern: institutionalized in the Constitution to
protect the people from abuse of
- contracts under negotiation as long as concrete governmental power, would certainly be
propositions before consummation because whats the point mere empty words if access to such
of giving this right if the contract is already concluded. How information of public concern is denied x x
can you question the terms if i is already consummated.
x x x The right to information goes
* EXC. TREATY NEGOTIATION hand-in-hand with the constitutional policies of full
- contracting loans with GSIS public disclosure and honesty in the public service. It
is meant to enhance the widening role of the citizenry
MANNER is discretionary of government or the in governmental decision-making as well as in
custodian of the information checking abuse in government. (Emphases supplied)
NOT ACCESSIBLE TO PUBLIC Originally, that is confidential. you cannot access this
- national security information. in a recent decision of the supreme court, now it
- intelligence is accessible to the public.
- Trade secrets
- Banking transaction Question: what was the reason why it was not accessible?
- Diplomatic correspondence Answer: because the justices were afraid that they might be
- executive session the subject of kidnapping, extortion, robbery, etc. it might be
- closed door public meeting used against them. precisely you have this new ruling now
- Supreme court deliberation saying that the information disclosed in the SALN is now
- Judicial privilege considered a matter of public concern and interest. in other
- executive privilege words a duty to disclose sprang from the right to know.
Thus, while public concern like public interest eludes exact
SALN CASE: REQUEST FOR COPY OF 2008 definition and has been said to embrace a broad spectrum of
STATEMENT OF ASSESTS, LIABILITIES AND NET subjects which the public may want to know, either because
WORTH AND PERSONAL DATA SHEET OR such matters directly affect their lives, or simply because
CURRICULIM VITAE OF THE JUSTICES OF THE such matters naturally arouse the interest of an ordinary
SUPREME COURT AND EMPLOYEES OF THE citizen, the Constitution itself, under Section 17, Article XI,
JUDICIARY has classified the information disclosed in the SALN as a
matter of public concern and interest. In other words, a duty
RE: REQUEST FOR COPY OF 2008 STATEMENT OF to disclose sprang from the right to know. Both of
ASSETS, LIABILITIES AND NETWORTH [SALN] AND constitutional origin, the former is a command while the latter
PERSONAL DATA SHEET OR CURRICULUM VITAE is a permission. Hence, the
OF THE JUSTICES OF THE SUPREME COURT AND
OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES OF THE JUDICIARY. duty on the part of members of the government to disclose
A.M. No. 09-8-6-SC June 13, 2012 their SALNs to the public in the manner provided by law:
“Corollary to the above pronouncements, Section 7, Section 17. A public officer or employee shall, upon
Article III of the Constitution is relevant in the issue of assumption of office and as often thereafter as may be
public disclosure of SALN and other documents of public required by law, submit a declaration under oath of his
officials, viz: assets, liabilities, and net worth. In the case of the President,
the Vice-President, the Members of the Cabinet, the
Sec. 7. The right of the people to Congress, the Supreme Court, the Constitutional
information on matters of public concern Commissions and other constitutional offices, and officers of
shall be recognized. Access to official the armed forces with general or flag rank, the declaration
records, and to documents, and shall be disclosed to the public in the manner provided by
paperspertaining to official acts, law. (A.M. No. 09-8-6-SC June 13, 2012)
transactions, or decisions, as well as to
government research data used as basis for Take note as i have emphasized earlier,
policy development, shall be afforded the
citizen, subject to such limitations as may be While public officers in the custody or control of public
provided by law. records have the discretion to regulate the manner in which
records may be inspected, examined or copied by interested
Emphasizing the import and meaning of the persons, such discretion does not carry with it the authority
foregoing constitutional provision, the Court, in the to prohibit access, inspection, examination, or copying of the
landmark case of Valmonte v. Belmonte, records. After all, public office is a public trust. Public officers
Jr.,[50] elucidated on the import of the right to information and employees must, at all times, be accountable to the
in this wise: people, serve them with utmost responsibility, integrity,
that is not included in the right to travel or the liberty of NON-IMPAIRMENT OF OBLIGATION OF CONTRACTS
abode.
Sec 10: There should not be any retroactive application
it is provided for by the declaration of human rights and of any law that would affect the rights of the parties to a
convention on political and civil rights which are generally contract.
accepted principles of international law and under the This actually originated from America, where some
incorporation clause they are automatically adopted as part persons have been relieved of their debts because of a
of the legal system subsequent law passed by Congress, relieving them or
exonerating them from any civil liability and thereby
FERDINAND E. MARCOS v. HONORABLE RAUL affecting the contract they entered thereto.
MANGLAPUS G.R. No. 88211 September 15, 1989
It should only be contemporary application of the law of
Section 8. The right of the people, including those employed contracts. Anything that would modify or change the
in the public and private sectors, to form unions, terms and conditions of the contract that would diminish
associations, or societies for purposes not contrary to law the rights and obligations of the parties to a contract is
shall not be abridged. not allowed.
On the right to association. emphasis on public employees
they can now for unions for as long as the purpose is not This is only addressed to the Congress, not to the courts
contrary to law. or other offices of the government exercising
quasi-judicial functions. Again, this is only addressed
this also include the right not to be compelled to be a to the Congress, being prohibited from passing laws that
member of a union or organization for that matter if you do would impair existing obligations of contract.
not like to become a member of such organization
Exceptions (to the application of Non-impairment
Take note of some exceptions here: clause):
1. Stipulation in the contract (Waiver)
1. Prohibition against security guards from forming a union. “unless otherwise provided by law.” That is the
For obvious reasons they are armed and they can easily reservation clause.
hold the owner of the security agency hostage should the 2. Police Power of the State.
owner not agree with the terms that they want in a collective Police power that is curative in nature, it might be
bargaining applied retroactively even if it would affect existing
2. supervisory (incorrect. later in the discussion) rights of parties in a contract
3. Eminent Domain of the State
On the other hand, one may be compelled for reasons of As between this and non-impairment clause, eminent
public interest. in the exercise of police power, all lawyers domain is superior.
are integrated under one organization and the membership 4. Taxation
is compulsory. this is only to regulate them with their It could apply retroactively to an existing contract,
shenanigans. there is only one way of monitoring them by adding to the burden to the parties in a contract like
the supreme court through the integrated bar of the increase in the tax rate on whatever it is agreed upon
Philippines because they are too many they are so under the context that it would be applied retroactively
dangerous that they need to monitored closely through the as well.
integrated bar of the Philippines. nonetheless the supreme 5. Public Utility Franchise
court was saying anyway you are compelled only insofar as No less than the constitution provides for an
membership. in fact you cannot practice law if you are not a exemption, it is subject to alteration, repeal and
member of IBP and you have not paid your annual dues. that amendment.
is what is compulsory. the members however are never
compelled to join the activities of the IBP. its only the No less than the Constitution provides for the exception that
payment of the annual dues that is compulsory. it is subject to alteration, repeal and amendment. Again I
repeat this does not apply to the courts and quasi-judicial
IBP membership of Lawyers (continuation) bodies.
-cannot continue practicing law if not a member of the
IBP and if you did not pay your annual dues. INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE
-this is compulsory, the members however are not
compelled to join the activities of the IBP. It is only the "Section 17. (2) No involuntary servitude in any form shall
payment of the annual fess that is compulsory. exist except as a punishment for a crime whereof the party
shall have been duly convicted."
POLITICAL LAW REVIEW: JUDGE SINGCO | BATCH 2016 | 18
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: “And whatever you ask in prayer, you will receive,if you have faith.” Matthew 21:22
Invitation of the police, under RA 7438 is included as already
You cannot be compelled to render service for another being placed in the custody of law. Then he stands enjoying
against your will without your consent. The exceptions are: the rights of a suspect.
* When you are convicted of a crime and part of the penalty
is forced labor. For as long as the judgment is already final Rights of a suspect
and executory. 1. The right to remain silent
* Or under Patria Potestas 2. The right to be assisted with counsel and to make this
* Or under Posse Comitatus - able citizens of the community available to him while in custody
may be compelled to render service 3. To be informed that he has these rights
* Military defense
* When you are employed in a merchant vessel. You cannot Take note that a police line-up is not yet part of custodial
just leave the vessel. investigation. It is for purposes of identification only, as long
as he is in a police line-up. So when he is the only person in
Exception to involuntary servitude; among the room where he is being identified by the witness as the
others: perpetrator then in that case, he is already entitled to the
assistance of a lawyer. So kung police line-up lang, that is
still exploratory, there is no particular suspect yet being
1. Punishment for a crime; pointed out as the culprit or perpetrator, then you need not
be accorded with those custodial rights that we have
2. service in defense of the state enumerated. But even if he is in a police line-up however, it
3. naval enlistment zeroes in on him as the suspect who committed the crime,
then he is entitled to such custodial rights.
4. posse comitatus
***The latter is called a suggestive police line-up
5. return to work order based from american jurisprudence. A commentator
provides some striking examples:
6. patria potestas
In a Canadian case ... the defendant had been
picked out of a line-up of six men, of which he was
NON-PAYMENT OF DEBTS the only Oriental. In other cases, a black-haired
suspect was placed among a group of light-haired
"Section 20. No person shall be imprisoned for debt or
persons, tall suspects have been made to stand with
non-payment of a poll tax."
short non-suspects, and, in a case where the
As long as the debt arises from a contractual obligation. That perpetrator of the crime was known to be a youth, a
includes rental. You cannot be imprisoned for the suspect under twenty was placed in a line-up with
non-payment of rentals for your house. But if you don’t pay five other persons, all of whom were forty or over.
your hotel bills that would be a different story. That would be
Estafa. Similarly state reports, in the course of describing
prior Identifications admitted as evidence of guilt,
On the non-payment of Poll Tax, you cannot also be put to reveal numerous instances of suggestive
jail. But income tax, you go to jail if you fail to pay, especially procedures, for example, that all in the lineup but the
under this administration. suspect were known to the Identifying witness, that
the other participants in a lineup were grossly
(Question Inaudible) dissimilar in appearance to the suspect, that only the
Judge: I suppose they can. That would be a conflict of suspect was required to wear distinctive clothing
interest. So if supervisory employees they cannot join which the culprit allegedly wore, that the witness is
rank-and-file employees in a union, but among themselves, told by the police that they have caught the culprit
they can now. after which the defendant is brought before the
witness alone or is viewed in jail, that the suspect is
"Article 245. Ineligibility of managerial employees to join any pointed out before or during a lineup, and that the
labor organization; right of supervisory employees. — participants in the lineup are asked to try on an
Managerial employees are not eligible to join, assist or form article of clothing which fits only the suspect.**
any labor organization. Supervisory employees shall not be
eligible for membership in a labor organization of the RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT
rank-and-file employees but may join, assist or form
separate labor organizations of their own." The thing you need to remember for the right to remain silent,
this is not limited to giving answers that would place him at
Can they engage in strike too? No, they can form a union but the crime scene but also includes requiring him to do acts
they cannot engage in concerted activities. that will belater used against him that are communicative,
that is what is prohibited. This does not include when his
body or anything connected thereto is used as object
THE RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED evidence. It is only when he is required to do an act, for
1. Before criminal prosecution, and example to reenact the crime, he cannot be compelled, that
2. During criminal prosecution is tantamount to compelling him to answer to
self-incriminating questions when he has the right to remain
Before criminal prosecution this is what we call as The silent. Or asking him to sign the booking sheet or the arrest
Rights Of A Suspect. That is when he is placed in the record showing that he has been arrested, he may not be
custody of law. Or if he has been in any manner deprived of compelled because that is communicative in nature. Also,
his freedom of action in any significant way. when he is asked to give a sample of his handwriting, that is
still not allowed since it is communicative in nature. It is a
different story when he is asked to give a sample of his hair,
POLITICAL LAW REVIEW: JUDGE SINGCO | BATCH 2016 | 19
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: “And whatever you ask in prayer, you will receive,if you have faith.” Matthew 21:22
blood, urine or saliva or he is required to place his foot for a provide him a lawyer (counsel de officio)
foot print or he may be required to remove his clothes or and he (suspect) cannot say no.
undergo pregnancy test. Where the body is used as the Can there be a waiver for this right?
object evidence, then he may be compelled because what is o Yes as long as done in writing and in the
prohibited here is only testimonial compulsion. When he is presence of another lawyer.
asked to give a part of himself for DNA testing, he cannot
say no because it involves a mechanical act. It does not RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT
use intelligence or freewill to produce this evidence. Can that be waived?
o Yes! For as long as it is done in accordance
What is prohibited is when he is forced to give information or with the provisions of RA 7438 like it should
answer to questions that will incriminate him. So if he is be in writing, in the presence of his lawyer or
asked what is his name, that is not self-incriminating his relatives or government officials
because the name does not matter for it is not an element responsible in his community.
of the crime. Like, where he lives, that is also not
self-incriminating so you may be compelled to answer those RIGHT TO BE INFORMED OF HIS CUSTODIAL RIGHTS
questions. Is this waivable?
o NO!
Also take note that when it is part of res gestae, such that he
made the statement when he was not yet placed under the RIGHT TO BAIL
custody of the police, then that is admissible in evidence. In This is also another right of the suspect while he is in
other words, these were spontaneous statements. When custodial investigation.
he makes the statements, even when he has admitted the
crime, to a private individual, then that is admissible because What is this right to bail?
this does not apply to statements given to private individuals. o In the meantime that he is being charged or
This is only applicable when he gives the testimony to a law detained, he can continue to enjoy his
enforcer, including a barangay tanod for the latter is an provisional liberty provided that he post bail.
agent of a person in authority. So a confession made by a When is it a matter of right? When is it a matter of
person when he is under custody of the barangay tanod discretion? When should it be denied? “kani dapat ni
without being informed of his custodial rights, whatever ninyu MASTERON”
information that was extracted, is inadmissible in evidence.
This is only available in CRIMINAL CASES
Even Bantay Bayan – case of PP vs Lauga
This is not available in military proceeding or
extradition proceedings or deportation proceedings.
where SC says that a Bantay Bayan is also a person in
authority. Here the sc said that “a barangay based volunteer
o But in the recent case of Government of
or organization of watch group as in the case of Bantay
Hongkong Special Administrative vs
Bayan are recognized by LGU to perform functions relating
Judge Olaliya Jr - this is a case of
to preservation of peace and order at the barangay level.” So
extradition proceeding. The sc was saying,
that’s why precisely if testimony during investigation was
you cannot deny the fact that if you are a
given to him without being informed of his constitutional
deportee, you are denied of your physical
rights or rights of suspect will be inadmissible. The supreme
liberty or if you are charged of a criminal
court find the extrajudicial confession of Lauga who was the
case before a court martial and you are
accused in this case as being taken without a lawyer and
being detained, you are still being deprived
therefore inadmissible in evidence. He admitted to have
of your physical liberty or when you are for
raped the victim in this case to the Bantay Bayan and yet it
extradition already while you are arrested
was inadmissible in evidence because a Bantay Bayan is
while you are going to be extradited, then
considered to be performing functions which is related to
you are deprived of physical liberty. The
preservation of peace and order. In other words, a law
mere fact that you are deprived of physical
enforcer.
liberty, according to the sc, bail is generally
available in criminal proceeding. But in the
Admissions in administrative cases are likewise are
DISCRETION OF THE COURT, bail may be
admissible in evidence because these custodial rights are
granted (in extradition cases).
not available in administrative cases. It is only in criminal
cases.
- Government of Hongkong Special Administrator
That’s why admission of police to have committed the crime Region vs. Judge Olalia, Jr., April 19, 2007 –
or infraction in administrative case is admissible. But that Potential extraditee may be granted bail on the
cannot be used in the criminal aspect of the complaint if it basis of “clear and convincing evidence” that the
was made by him without assistance of lawyer. person is not a flight risk and will abide with all the
orders and processes of the extradition court.
Say for example, a police charged for bribery (this was a
decided case) he was charged for both grave misconduct Pre-Bar
and bribery. Grave misconduct is administrative, bribery is
criminal. His admission was admitted in the administrative This is an extradition proceeding. The Supreme Court
case because the custodial rights there are not available in was saying you cannot deny the fact that if you are a
administrative cases but inadmissible in the criminal case. deportee, you are denied of your physical liberty. Or if
you are charged of a criminal case before a
THE RIGHT TO BE ASSISTED WITH COUNSEL court-marshall and you are detained, you are still being
Who is competent and independent deprived of your physical liberty. Or if you are already
o tn: choice is not exclusive to the suspect. If for extradition, and you are arrested while you are going
suspect cannot afford the service of a to be extradited then you are deprived of physical liberty.
lawyer, the police has the obligation to According to SC, right to bail is only available in
IS it a matter of right? Discretionary or should be It will now be Discretionary upon the court.
denied?
Discretionary on the court. BUT because it is more than 6 years of imprisonment, if
attended with circumstances such as recidivism, habitual
But if attended by circumstances such as recidivist, delinquency, etc. THEN IT SHOULD BE DENIED.
evaded sentence, frequently jumped bail, flight risk,
habitual delinquent, previously convicted, violated Other Rights of the Suspect....
probation, evaded sentence that discretion of the court
is removed. SPEEDY DISPOSITION
When the accused is convicted of more than six
years of imprisonment, it should be denied. This is in contrast to Speedy Trial.
That is why we should always ask the accused after Speedy Disposition is available to not just an accused.
conviction especially those who are bonded to justify Speedy TRIAL, available only to Criminal Proceedings.
why he should continue to enjoy liberty while he is Speedy DISPOSITION, available in judicial, quasi-judicial,
appealing the decision of the RTC. and administrative bodies.
Now when the accused is CHARGED of an offense Effect of Violation of Speedy DISPOSITION
punishable by reclusion perpetua or death, before
conviction, it is a matter of right, discretionary or should Tatad vs. Sandiganbayan
be denied? Is it automatic that it should be denied?
It is tantamount to violation of due process. Thus, case
The fiscal merely recommends no bail but it is dismiss.
ultimately the court who will decide whether he
should be allowed to post bail or not. If it is a capital The delay of the conduct of preliminary examination or
offense, it is discretionary on the court which would investigation for 3 years is a violation of the right to SPEEDY
first determine if evidence of guilt is strong hence DISPOSITION of the case or the right to DUE PROCESS. In
there should be a hearing. effect, case dismissed when it reached Sandiganbayan
POLITICAL LAW REVIEW: JUDGE SINGCO | BATCH 2016 | 21
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: “And whatever you ask in prayer, you will receive,if you have faith.” Matthew 21:22
was absent. Otherwise, he should have been present
Where the case for violation of the Anti-Graft Law was because it was his constitutional right.
pending for preliminary investigation with the Office of the
Tanodbayan for 3 years and it is indicated that the case is of 3. Right to have a speedy, impartial, and public trial-
simple nature and was prosecuted for political reasons, it is
held that there was violation of the accused’s right to speedy On public trial, just take note that PUBLICIZED TRIAL is
disposition of case. Right to speedy disposition extends to prohibited. Broadcasting of the trial is prohibited. If the
preliminary investigations. court will be influenced by public opinion or the accused will
be subjected to public opinion, then that will deny him due
SPEEDY TRIAL process of law.
Let's go to Speedy Trial in contrast. Public trial on the otherhand means that anyone who is
interested may just walk in and observe by himself how the
That is a right available to the ACCUSED facing a criminal trial is conducted by the just.
prosecution. If it is invoked by the accused and granted by
the court, that is tantamount to HAVING THE CASE Ampatuan Case- at first the court allowed it and then it was
DECIDED ON THE MERIT as PROOF OF GUILT WAS NOT prohibited. Finally, in Estrada, this was prohibited.
PROVED BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT. Therefore,
there is ACQUITTAL. Double Jeopardy will therefore come Just take note of the Ampatuan case guys. At first the Court
in. In Speedy Disposition, there is no double jeopardy! allowed it but then it changed its mind. It was prohibited. We
went back to the ruling in the case of Estrada where
So it cannot be filed anymore if you invoked Right to Speedy publicized trial is prohibited.
Trial. On speedy trial, this is not inconsistent to postponing the
trial. What is prohibited is whimsical, capricious and
Also, he has the right to be assisted by a counsel. Poverty oppressive postponements. If allowed, that would violate the
should not be a reason to deny him of legal assistance. As to right to speedy trial of the accused. In which case, the
what are these types, you just go over that. This came out in accused may demand for the dismissal of the case if there is
the bar though: delay in the prosecution of the case as when the prosecution
1. IBP has no witnesses despite the number of postponements
2. Circulars of the SC requiring lawyers to extend free legal granted by the court. And if granted by the court then that is
assistance tantamount to dismissal of the case on the merits or an
3. PAO acquittal. And therefore, it cannot anymore be refilled without
violating the right against double jeopardy.
Rights of the Accused during Criminal Prosecution
RIGHT TO CONFRONT WITNESSES
1. Presumption of Innocence- You have mastered this na.
Just take note of the Presumption of Laws. The accused has the right to a face to face confrontation of
witnesses through cross-examination.
Will this violate the presumption of innocence?
NO. This is because the connection of the Fact Proved and Take note of the exceptions to this –
Fact that is Presumed. The burden of proving or overcoming 1. Dying declaration – you cannot confront a dead
of the presumption of the fact will now shift to the accused. person;
The moment the accused is able to explain the presumption 2. When it is an examination of a child witness
of the law, then he again is restored to his right to There cannot be a face to face confrontation. Here,
presumption of innocence. we do not have the technology. Not all family courts
have that technology like sa TV lang ka where the
Also, take note of this Equipoise Rule. child would be inside one chamber separate from
the accused. I had a murder case where the mother
When the evidence are even, then it should be resolved in was murdered. I had no choice. I can’t bring the
favor of presumption of innocence. child witness somewhere else. So I had the child in
my chamber. But it is the right of the accused to be
2. Right to be heard by himself and counsel- TN that he has present during his trial. You have to leave the
the right to be present at every stage of the trial beginning accused kay nahadlok man ang bata. You have to
from the arraignment up to the promulgation of the judgment. leave the accused outside of the chamber, in the
courtroom, while the defense lawyer is attending to
However, this right is waivable. If he did not appear, then he the cross-examination of the child.
is deemed to have waive it. However, if he is unable to 3. Trial in absentia – the accused did not appear so
appear because he was sick, then it should be postponed how can he cross-examine the witnesses of the
because that is his right to be present. prosecution?
MR in the Supreme Court, is not allowed because there is 2. The invocation to the right to speedy trial
no/ even if its reconsidered that would amount to double Always remember: if granted, in case
jeopardy. Not even an MR. Kung acquittal lang, basta valid; it is dismissed, is tantamount to
valid acquittal—cannot be appealed. How much more filling dismissal without the consent of
an MR. the accused; tantamount to acquittal;
double jeopardy will lie.
Re MR in Lejano vs. People, GR No. 176389,
January 18, 2011-- Take note: To constitute a double jeopardy, there must be a
As a rule, a judgment of acquittal cannot be second jeopardy.
reconsidered because it places the accused under
double jeopardy. What is a second jeopardy?
1. When one offense is identical with the other offense.
Back to CONVICTION
How do you know? What is the test?
If the accused appeals the judgement of conviction The evidence you presented in proving the first offense
then, definitely, the prosecution can appeal too would be the same evidence that is required to prove the
because in this case the accused is considered to second offense even if they have different names. Then that
have waived his right against double jeopardy—it would constitute double jeopardy.
reopens the case and even can go back to the original
charge. Example:
Murder to homicide they are identical, different names but
DISMISSAL WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF THE the same death, the same killing of the same victim. Only the
ACCUSED (favorite in the Bar exam) difference is the attendance of aggravating circumstance.
That is prohibited.
When the court dismisses the case, you should Or when one offense, ang confusion lang gyud aning second
manifest your vehement objection to the dismissal jeopardy is when is it considered as identical?
because if you agree to the dismissal—that is
tantamout to a waiver in which usually the courts will Just TN of the test. The test of determining whether the
put it–“provisional dismissal with the consent of the offense is identical with the second on jeopardy.
accused” because that can still be refiled—
Where the penalty is more than 6years of 2. When one offense is a frustration or an attempt with
improsonment - within 2years; another offense. So first attempted murder, convicted man,
Where the penalty is 6years or less - within 1 inspite, let’s have him charged with frustrated murder this
year. time, they can’t do that. Or consummated then you will
change it to frustrated or attempted because it would be
The moment the period lapse and expires, if 1year or much lesser to establish the evidence. That is not allowed.
2years have passed and it has never been refiled
then—double jeopardy will set in (case: Pp v. Lacson 3.When one offense necessarily includes the other offense
or the Koratong Baleleng case) or is necessarily included in the other offense then that
would constitute double jeopardy.
Provisional Dismissal case will last only for 1year or
2years, depending on the penalty, but once the period Ex: Gi charge nmu with rape tapos charge him with acts of
expires then doulble jeopardy will sets in. lasciviousness. Acts of lasciviousness is necessarily
included in the crime of rape.
SO WHEN WE SPEAK OF: DISMISSAL WITH THE
CONSENT OF THE ACCUSED Take note: However, on the Rule on Supervening Event.
There has to be a vehement of objection from the So in the case of serious physical injuries, convicted and
accused for having the case dismissed, and instead thereafter the victim died because of his injuries. Even if
he must invoke his right to speedy trial. The moment there was already a termination of the first case, he can still
the right to speedy trial is invoked by the accused and be charged with homicide under the rule on supervening
dismissal is granted—that is tantamount to an event. There’s no double jeopardy there.
acquittal for failure to prosecute, in which case,
double jeopardy will set in if refiled. Asked in the bar exam. What are the 2 kinds of double
How would you know if it is with the consent of the jeopardy.
accused ang dismissal? Because the accused himself
filed the motion to dismiss and granted that it is a 1. If it is the same offense, similar offense. When
dimissal with a consent. EXC: even if the motion to there’s similar offense with the first jeopardy and the
dismiss was filed by the accused but the groud are: second jeopardy.
1. After the prosecution rested its 2. When an act or omission is punished by law and
case—demurre to evidence (that the ordinance. Conviction or acquittal under either will
evidence of the prosecution is insufficient to bar to another prosecution.
prove the guilt of the accused beyond
reasonable doubt); or Same act of violating. Crossing the street that is not the
pedestrian lane punished by law and a city ordinance.
POLITICAL LAW REVIEW: JUDGE SINGCO | BATCH 2016 | 24
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: “And whatever you ask in prayer, you will receive,if you have faith.” Matthew 21:22
You were already convicted, this was asked in the bar exam,
for violation of the city ordinance, you cannot anymore be
charged for violation of the law punishing the same act. TN
of the 2 kinds of double jeopardy.
TN of the requisites.
1. It always refer to criminal matters(penal in nature)
2. It is applied retroactively to the accused
3. Always to the disadvantage of the accused
BILL OF ATTAINDER