BILL OF RIGHTS.
Requisites in Criminal Proceedings: The requisites are:
Section 1. No Person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property
without due process of law. Nor shall any person be denied the
equal protection of the laws.
What is the significance of the Bill of Rights?
Government is powerful. When unlimited, it becomes tyrannical. The
Bill of Rights is guarantee there are certain areas of a person’s life, liberty, and
property which governmental power may not touch.
3 Greats Powers of Government
1. Eminent Domain - the power to expropriate private property for public
use, with payment of just compensation.
2. Taxation – imposition of financial charges on private persons or
entities.
3. Police Power – power of the state to prohibit all that is hurtful to the
comfort, safety, and welfare of society.
Protected Rights:
1. Right to Life – not only the right to be alive or the security of one’s
limb, but also the right to a good life.
2. Right to Liberty – right to be free from personal restraint or servitude.
3. Right to Property – right to own or acquire a thing and to enjoy and
dispose of it, without other limitations than those established by law.
2 Aspects of Due Process
1. Substantive Due Process – prohibition against arbitrary laws which
interfere with life, liberty, or property.
Requisites for Valid Interference:
1. That the interests of the public generally, as distinguished from
those of a particular class, require such interference.
2. That the means are reasonably necessary for the accomplishment
of the purpose and not unduly oppressive upon individuals.
2. Procedural Due Process – mode of procedure which government
agencies must follow in the enforcement and application of laws.
Requisites in Non-Criminal Proceedings:
1. There must be a court or tribunal clothed with judicial power to
hear and determine the matter before it.
2. Jurisdiction must be lawfully acquired over the person of the
defendant or over the property, which is the subject of the
proceedings.
3. Defendant must be given an opportunity to be heard.
4. Judgment must be rendered upon lawful hearing.
1. The accused be informed as to why he is proceeded against and
what charge he has to meet.
2. The accused be given the full opportunity to rebut the evidence
presented against him.
3. He is convicted only based on evidence that is not tainted with
falsity.
4. The sentence imposed be in accordance with a valid law.
5. That it is imposed by a court of competent jurisdiction.
Requisites in Administrative Proceedings:
1. The right to a hearing, which includes the right to present one’s
case and submit evidence in support thereof.
2. The agency concerned must consider the evidence presented.
3. The decision must have something to support itself.
4. The evidence must be substantial or such evidence that a
reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a
conclusion.
5. The decision must be based in the evidence presented at the
hearing, or at least contained in the records and disclosed to the
parties affected;
6. The body or any of its offices must act on its or his own
independent consideration of the law and facts of the controversy,
and not simply accept the views of a subordinate.
7. The body or agency should, in all controversial questions, render
its decision in such manner that the parties to the proceeding can
know the various issues involved and the reason for the decision
rendered.
Requisites in Academic Discipline Proceedings:
1. The 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. They shall be informed of the evidence against them.
4. They shall have the right to adduce evidence in their own behalf.
5. The evidence must be duly considered by the investigating
committee or official designated by the school authorities to hear
and decide the case.
Equal Protection of the laws.
Meaning; persons protected. All persons or things similarly situated
should be treated alike, both as to rights conferred and responsibilities imposed.
Natural and juridical persons are entitled to this guarantee; but with respect to
artificial persons, they enjoy the protection only insofar as their property is
concerned.
Valid Classification. Persons or things ostensibly similarly situated may,
nonetheless, treated differently if there is a basis for valid classification.
a.) Substantial distinctions which make for real differences.
i) In Mirasol v. DPWH, where the petitioners assailed the validity of
DPWH Administrative Order No. 1, which prohibited motorcycles on limited
access highways on the basis of RA 2000 (Limited Access Highway Act), the
Supreme Court held that there is a real and substantial distinction between a
motorcycle and other motor vehicles. Not all motorized vehicles are created
equal — real and substantial differences exist between a motorcycle and other
forms of transport sufficient to justify its classification among those prohibited
from plying the toll ways.
b) Germane to the purpose of the law. The distinctions which are the bases for
the classification should have a reasonable relation to the purpose of the law.
c) Not limited to existing conditions only.
i) In People v. Cayat, 68 Phil 12, the Supreme Court upheld the validity
of the law prohibiting members of non-Christian tribes from drinking foreign liquor,
on the ground that their low degree of culture and unfamiliarity with the drink
rendered them more susceptible to its effects. In Ormoc Sugar Co. v. Treasurer
of Ormoc City, 22 SCRA 603, the ordinance was declared invalid because it
taxes only centrifugal sugar produced and exported by the Ormoc Sugar
Company, and none other, such that if a new sugar central is established in
Ormoc, it would not be subject to the ordinance.
d) Must apply equally to all members of the same class.
i) In Philippine Judges Association v. Prado, 227 SCRA 703, Sec. 35,
R.A. 7354, which withdrew franking privileges formerly granted to the judiciary but
remained with the executive and legislative departments, was declared
unconstitutional, because the three branches of government are similarly
situated.
Section 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 to
be seized.
NATURE:
Personal
It may be invoked only by the person entitled to it. [Stonehill v. Diokno (1967)]
It may be waived expressly or impliedly only by the person whose right is
invaded, not by one who is not duly authorized to effect such waiver. [People v.
Damaso (1992)]
Directed Against the Government and Its Agencies (State Action
Requirement)
The right cannot be set up against acts committed by private individuals. The
right applies as a restraint directed only against the government and its agencies
tasked with the enforcement of the law. The protection cannot extend to acts
committed by private individuals so as to bring them within the ambit of alleged
unlawful intrusion by the government. [People v. Marti (1991); Yrasuegui v.
Philippine Airlines (2008)]
What constitutes a reasonable or unreasonable search and seizure in any
particular case is purely a judicial question, determinable from a consideration
of the circumstances involved. [Valmonte v. De Villa (1989)]
Objections to the warrant of arrest must be made before the accused enters his
plea. [People v. Codilla (1993); People v. Robles (2000)]
SCOPE
Natural Persons
It protects all persons including aliens [Qua Chee Gan v. Deportation Board
(1963)]
Artificial Persons
Artificial persons are protected to a limited extent. [Bache and Co. Inc v. Ruiz
(1971)] The opening of their account books is not protected, by virtue of police
and taxing powers of the State.
WARRANT REQUIREMENT PURPOSE
(1)Search Warrant- to gain evidence to convict
(2) Warrant of Arrest - to acquire jurisdiction
Must refer to one specific offense. [Asian Surety v. Herrera, (1973); Castro v.
Pabalan (1976)]
The Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972 is a special law that deals specifically with
dangerous drugs which are subsumed into “prohibited” and “regulated” drugs,
and defines and penalizes categories of offenses which are closely related or
which belong to the same class or species; thus, one search warrant may be
validly issued for several violations thereof. [People v. Salanguit (2001).
How it is done: In the form of searching questions and answers, in writing and
under oath [Rule 126, Sec. 6, ROC]
(a) Mere affidavits of the complainant and his witnesses are thus not sufficient.
(b) The examining judge has to take depositions in writing of the complainant and
the witnesses he may produce and attach them to the record.
(c) Such written deposition is necessary in order that the judge may be able to
properly determine the existence or non-existence of the probable cause, to hold
liable for perjury the person giving it if it will be found later that his declarations
are false
(d) It is axiomatic that the examination must be probing and exhaustive, not
merely routine or proforma, if the claimed probable cause is to be established.
(e) The examining magistrate must not simply rehash the contents of the affidavit
but must make his own inquiry on the intent and justification of the application.
[Roan v. Gonzales (1984)]
(4) The warrant must describe particularly the place to be searched and the
persons or things to be seized.
Requirement is primarily meant to enable the law enforcers serving the warrant to
—(1) readily identify the properties to be seized and thus prevent them from
seizing the wrong items; and (2) leave said peace officers with no discretion
regarding the articles to be seized and thus prevent unreasonable searches and
seizures. [People v. Tee (2003)]
The search warrant issued to search petitioner’s compound for unlicensed
firearms was held invalid for failing to describe the place with particularity,
considering that the compound was made up of 200 buildings, 15 plants, 84 staff
houses, 1 airstrip etc spread out over 155 hectares. [PICOP v. Asuncion (1999)]
GENERAL WARRANT
One that:
(1) Does not describe with particularity the things subject of the search and
seizure; and
(2) Where probable cause has not been properly established. It is a void warrant.
[Nolasco v. Paño (1985)]
Exception to General Warrants: General descriptions will not invalidate the entire
warrant if other items have been particularly described. [Uy v. BIR (2000)]
Conduct of the Search [Sec. 7, Rule 126, ROC]
(1) In the presence of a lawful occupant thereof or any member of his family, OR
(2) If occupant or members of the family are absent, in the presence of 2
witnesses of
(a) sufficient age
(b) discretion
(c) residing in the same locality
(3) Force may be used in entering a dwelling if justified by Rule 126 ROC.
Failure to comply with Sec. 7 Rule 126 invalidates the search. [People v.
Gesmundo (1993)]
FORCIBLE ENTRY JUSTIFIED
Occupants of the house refused to open the door despite the fact that the
searching party knocked several times, and the agents saw suspicious
movements of the people inside the house. [People v. Salanguit (2001)]
UNLAWFUL SEARCH
Police officers arrived at appellant’s residence and “sideswiped” (sinagi)
appellant’s car (which was parked outside) to gain entry into the house.
Appellant’s son, who is the only one present in the house, opened the door and
was immediately handcuffed to a chair after being informed that they are
policemen with a warrant to search the premises. [People v. Benny Go (2003)]

REQUISITES OF A VALID WARRANT DESCRIPTION OF PLACE/ THINGS

(1) Existence of probable cause The description of the property to be seized need not be technically accurate or WARRANTLESS SEARCHES
precise. Its nature will vary according to whether the identity of the property is a
Probable Cause in Warrant of Arrest matter of concern. The description is required to be specific only in so far as the 1. Incidental to a lawful arrest
Such facts and circumstances antecedent to the issuance of the warrant that in circumstances will allow. [Kho v. Judge Makalintal (1999)] 2. Seizure of evidence in Plain view
themselves are sufficient to induce a cautious man to rely on them and act in 3. Search of a moving vehicle
pursuance thereof. [People v. Syjuco (1937); Alvarez v. CFI (1937)] A search warrant may be said to particularly describe the things to be seized 4. Consented warrantless search
when the description therein is as specific as the circumstances will ordinarily 5. Customs Search
Probable Cause in Search Warrant allow. [People v. Rubio (1932)] or when the description expresses a conclusion of 6. Stop and Frisk
Such facts and circumstances which would lead a reasonably discreet and fact, not of law, by which the warrant officer may be guided in making the search 7. Exigent and Emergency Circumstances
prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed and that tof the and seizure; or when the tings described are limited to those which bear direct
existence if aphe objects sought in connection with the offense are in the place relation to the offense for which the warrant is being issued. [Bache and Co. v. Incidental to a lawful arrest
sought to be searched. [Burgos v. Chief of Staff (1984)] Ruiz (1971)]
1. The item to be searched was within the arrestees’ custody
Probability not absolute or even moral certainty. DESCRIPTION OF PERSONS SEARCHED 2. The search was contemporaneous with the arrest
Standards of judgement: Those of a reasonably prudent man. Search warrant is valid despite the mistake in the name of the persons to be
searched. The authorities conducted surveillance and test-buy ops before Seizure of evidence in Plain view
Note: To establish probable cause of illegal possession of firearms, the obtaining the search warrant and subsequently implementing it. They had
witness must have personal knowledge of the existence of firearms personal knowledge of the identity of the persons and the place to be searched, 1. A prior valid intrusion into a place
and the absence of license for such firearms. although they did not specifically know the names of the accused. [People v. Tiu 2. The evidence was inadvertently discovered by the police who had the
Won Chua (2003)] right to be where they are
(2) Determination of probable cause personally by the judge. 3. The illegality of the evidence must be immediately apparent
A John Doe search warrant is valid. There is nothing to prevent issue and 4. And Is noticed without prior search
(3) After examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the service of warrant against a party whose name is unknown. [People v. Veloso
witnesses he may produce. (1925)]
Search of a moving vehicle
1. There must be a highly reasonable suspicion amounting to probable
cause that the occupant committed criminal activity.
Consented warrantless search
1. The right exists
2. The person involved has knowledge, either actual or constructive of the
existence of such right
3. The said person had actual intention to relinquish the right
Customs Search or seizure of goods concealed to avoid duties
Sec. 2203 of the customs code; Persons Having Police Authority. — For the
enforcement of the customs and tariff laws, the following persons are authorized
to effect searches, seizures and arrests conformably with the provisions of said
laws: a. Officials of the Bureau of Customs, collectors, assistant collectors,
deputy collectors, surveyors, security and secret-service agents, inspectors, port
patrol officers and guards of the Bureau of Customs.
Stop and Frisk
A basic criterion would be that the police officer, with his or her personal
knowledge, must observe facts, leading to a suspicion of an illicit act. (people vs
cogaed, Natsura page 173)
Malacat: “Where a police officer observes unusual conduct which leads him
reasonably to conclude in light of his experience that criminal activity may be
afoot and that the person with whom he is dealing may be armed and that the
person with whom he is dealing may be armed and presently dangerous, where
in the course of investigation of this behavior he identifies himself as a policeman
and makes reasonable inquiries, and where nothing in the initial stages of the
encounter serves to dispel his reasonable fear for his own or other’s safety, he is
entitled for the protection of himself and others in the area to conduct a carefully
limited search of the outer clothing of such person in an attempt to discover
weapons which might be used to assault him.”
Malacat (1997): Probable cause is not required. However, mere suspicion or a
hunch is not enough. Rather, a “genuine reason must exist, in light of the police
officer’s experience and surrounding conditions, to warrant the belief that the
person detained has weapons concealed about him.”
The stop and frisk serve two-fold interests
1. The effective crime prevention and detection
2. Interest of safety and self-preservation which permits the officer to take
steps to assure himself that the person with whom he deals is not
armed.
Exigent and Emergency Circumstances
Where there are intelligence reports that the building was being used
as headquarters by the RAM during the 1989 coup d’tat, the raiding team had no
opportunity to apply for and secure a search warrant from the courts. Under such
urgency and exigency of the moment, a search warrant should lawfully be
dispensed with. (People V De Gracia)
WARRANTLESS ARRESTS
GENERAL RULE: Sec 2 imposes that warrants are necessary for the arrest and
all of the warrants must be based on Probable Cause. Otherwise, this will be
infringement of the right to liberty.
Section 5, Rule 113 of the Rules of Court
This discusses about Arrest and enumerates the 3 instances when a person may
be arrested without any warrant therein:
A peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person:
 IN FAGRANTE DELICTO: When, in his presence, the person to be
arrested has committed, is actually committing, or attempting to commit
an offense;
 HOT PURSUIT: When an offense has in fact been committed, and he
has personal knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be
arrested has committed it; and
 ESCAPED PRISONER: When the person to be arrested is a prisoner
who has escaped from a penal establishment or place where he is
serving final judgment or temporarily confined while his case is pending
or has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to
another
a. In flagrante delicto
When in case of a buy-bust operations the person arrested was in
possession of an item prohibited by law, there is no need for warrant as
there is a crime being committed in the mere possession during an
entrapment. (People v. De La Cruz, GR 83260, April 18, 1990)
However, when there is instigation from the Police Officer or any form
of inducement that will occur, that is the prohibition of the law as to the
entrapment. When seduction into a criminal mind is present in the acts
of the police officer, such entrapment will be invalid. (People v. Doria,
GR 125299, January 22, 1999)
The evidence that is gathered in an illegal arrest will not be admissible
to court for proceedings against him. (People v. Mengote – 210 SCRA
174)
NB: There must be an actual commission of the crime that time is of essence to
arrest the person committing therein that is when a warrantless arrest is valid. In
Criminal Law, the immediacy of the act in in flagrante delicto is immaterial but the
personal knowledge of the criminal act is non-negotiable.
b. Hot pursuit
Requisites for an arrest in hot pursuit:
 An offense had just been committed.
 The person making the arrest has probable cause to believe, based on
his personal knowledge of facts and circumstances, that the person to
be arrested committed it.
 There must be immediacy between the time the offense is committed
and the time of the arrest.
Go v. CA – 206 SCRA 138
There must be an actual crime committed and that the fact of such
must come first with the concurrence of the personal knowledge of the
arresting officer as to who committed the crime therein. (People v.
Manlulu, 231 SCRA 701 (1994) and People v. Jayson, 282 SCRA 166
(1997)
NB: A warrantless arrest coupled with a warrantless search is allowed by law.
Otherwise, there is no valid arrest and all evidence therein is inadmissible. A valid
warranted arrest may also be allowed with warrantless reach provided limited
within the prescriptions of the Rules of Court.
c. Escaped prisoner
There is no need for a warrant of arrest as the arrest of an escaped prisoner is
predicated upon the judicial order of detention which the person have escaped
from. The mere arrest of an escapee is an extension of the execution of the aid
judicial order.
d. Waiver
The active knowledge of an illegal arrest and subsequent plea without the
defense of the illegality therein will be a direct and express waiver of the illegality
of arrest under Art 3 Sec 3 of the Constitution and Rules of Court 113 Sec 5.
e. Procedural rules
People v. Rabang – 187 SCRA 682
People v. Lopez – 246 SCRA 95
Velasco v. CA – 245 SCRA 677
People v. Buluran – 325 SCRA 476
Additional readings:
- Section 2, Article III, Constitution
- RA 7438: An Act defining certain rights of person arrested,
detained under custodial investigation as well as the duties
of the arresting, detaining and investigating officers, and
providing penalties for violations thereof
Cases:
 AAA v. Carbonell, G.R. No. 171465, 8 June 2007, 524
SCRA 496
 People v. Alunday, G.R. No. 181546, 3 September 2008,
564 SCRA 135
 People v. del Rosario, G.R. No. 127755, 14 April 1999, 305
SCRA 740
 People v. Jayson, G.R. No. 120330, 18 November 1997,
282 SCRA 166
 People v. Edaño, G.R. No. 188133, 7 July 2014, 729 SCRA
255
 Pestilos v. Generoso, G.R. No. 182601, 10 November 2014,
739 SCRA 337
Privacy of Communications and Correspondence.
Section 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.
(2) Any evidence obtained in violation of this or the preceding
section shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding.
1. Inviolability. Exceptions: (a) Lawful order of the court; or (b) When public
safety or order requires otherwise, as may be provided by law.
2. The guarantee includes within the mantle of its protection tangible, as well
as intangible, objects. Read R.A. 4200 [Anti-Wire-Tapping Act],
a) In Ramirez v. Court of Appeals, 248 SCRA 590, it was held that R.A.
4200 clearly and unequivocally makes it illegal for any person, not
authorized by
all the parties to any private communication, to secretly record such
communications by means of a tape recorder. The law does not make
any
distinction. In Gaanan v. Intermediate Appellate Court, 145 SCRA 112,
it was held
that a telephone extension was not among the devices covered by this
law.
3. The right may be invoked against the wife who went to the clinic of
her husband and there took documents consisting of private communications
between her husband and his alleged paramour [Zulueta v. Court of Appeals 253
SCRA 699]. "
4. However, in Waterous Drug Corporation v. NLRC, G.R. No. 113271,
October 16, 1997, the Supreme Court said that the Bill of Rights does not protect
citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures made by private individuals. In
this case, an officer of the petitioner corporation opened an envelope addressed
to the private respondent and found therein a check evidencing an overprice in
the
purchase of medicine. Despite the lack of consent on the part of the private
respondent, the check was deemed admissible in evidence.
5. Exclusionary Rule.
a) In In Re: Wenceslao Laureta, 148 SCRA 382, letters addressed by a
lawyer (of one of the parties to a case) addressed to individual Justices
of the
Supreme Court in connection with the performance of their judicial
functions,
become part of the judicial record and are a matter of concern for the
entire Court
— and thus, are not covered by the constitutional guarantee. In People
v. Albofera,
152 SCRA 123, a letter written by the accused to a witness which was
produced
by the witness during the trial is admissible in evidence; it was not the
result of an
unlawful search, nor through an unwarranted intrusion or invasion into
the privacy
of the accused. It was produced by the recipient of the letter who
identified the
same. Besides, there is nothing self-incriminatory in the letter.
Note: To come under exclusionary rule, the evidence must be obtained by
government
agents and not by private individuals acting on their own.
People vs. Marti
Inspection of the individual was reasonable and a standard operating procedure
on the part
of Mr. Reyes as a precautionary measure before delivery of packages to the
Bureau of
Customs.
People vs. Bongcarawan
Even if the vessel security is armed and tasked to maintain peace and order, he
is still a
private employee and does not discharge any governmental function.
Section 4 – No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of
speech, of expression, or of the press, or the right of the people
peaceably to assemble and petition the government for redress of
grievances.
SPEECH, EXPRESSION, PRESS
Prior restraint – official government restrictions on the press or other forms of
expression in advance of actual publication or dissemination
 Content-based regulation – restraint is aimed at the message or idea of
the expression
 Content-neutral regulation – restraint is aimed to regulate the time,
place or manner of the expression in public place without any restraint
on the content of the expression
 Facial challenge concept – an exception to the rule that only persons
who are directly affected by a statute have legal standing to assail the
same; only applicable to statutes involving free speech, impeached on
the grounds of overbreadth or vagueness; litigants are permitted to
challenge a statute because of a judicial prediction or assumption that
the statute’s very existence may cause others not before the court to
refrain from constitutionally protected speech or expression
 Overbreadth doctrine – a ground to declare a statute void when it
offends the constitutional principle that a government purpose to
control or prevent activities constitutionally subject to state regulations
may not be achieved by means which sweep unnecessarily broadly
and thereby invade the area of protected freedoms
Aspects
a) Freedom from censorship or prior restraint
b) Freedom from subsequent punishment
 Requires the court to take conscious and detailed
consideration of the interplay interests observable in a given
situation; which rights should prevail?
Subsequent punishment
 Free speech and press clause also prohibits systems of subsequent
punishment which have the effect of unduly curtailing expression
Commercial speech – communication which no more than proposes a
commercial transaction
 GR: To enjoy protection, commercial speech must not be false or
misleading
 XPN: Even truthful and lawful commercial speech may be regulated if
1. Government has a substantial interest to protect;
2. The regulation directly advances that interest; and
3. It is not more extensive than is necessary to protect that
interest.
Tests for valid government interference to freedom of expression
a) Clear and present danger test – whether the words are used in such
circumstances and of such nature as to create a clear and present
danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that the State has
the right to prevent
 Substantive evil must be extremely serious and the degree of
imminence extremely high before utterances can be
punished
b) Dangerous tendency test – if the words uttered create a dangerous
tendency of an evil which the State has the right to prevent, then such
words are punishable; it is sufficient if the natural tendency and the
probable effect of the utterance were to bring about the substantive evil
that the legislative body seeks to prevent
 There be a rational connection between the speech and the
evil apprehended
 c) Balancing of interest test – when particular conduct is regulated in the
interest of public order, and the regulation results in an indirect,
conditional, or partial abridgement of speech, the duty of the courts is
to determine which of the two conflicting interests demands the greater
protection under the particular circumstances presented
Libel as unprotected speech
 Libel – a public and malicious imputation of a crime, or of a vice or a
defect, real or imaginary, or any act, omission, condition, status or
circumstance tending to cause the dishonor, discredit or contempt of a
natural or juridical person, or to blacken the memory of one who is
dead (Article 353, RPC)
 Elements
1. Allegation of a discreditable act or condition concerning
another
2. Publication of the charge
 Publication – making the defamatory matter, after
it has been written, known to someone other than
the person to whom it has been written
3. Identity of the person defamed
4. Existence of malice
 There is malice when the author of the imputation
is prompted by ill-will or spite and speaks not in
response to duty but merely to injure the reputation
of the person who claims to have been defamed
Obscenity as unprotected speech
 Test for obscenity
a) Whether the average person, applying contemporary
community standards would find that the work, taken as a
whole, appeals to the prurient interest
b) Whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently
offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the
applicable state law
c) Whether the work, taken as a whole lacks serious literary,
artistic, political or scientific value
ASSEMBLY AND PETITION
Right of petition
 Primary right
Right peaceably to assemble
 Subordinate and instrumental right
 A right cognate to those of free speech and free press
Rules on assembly and petition
a) The applicant for a permit to hold an assembly should inform the
licensing authority of the date, the public place where and the time
when it will take place
b) Application is filed well ahead in time to enable the public official
concerned to appraise whether there may be valid objections to the
grant of the permit or to its grant but to another public place
c) Clear and present danger test should be the standard for the decision
reached
d) Presumption must be to incline the weight of the scales of justice on
the side of liberty
e) Decision of public authority must be transmitted to the applicants at the
earliest opportunity
f) Applicants can have recourse to the proper judicial authority
Section 5. No law shall be made respecting an establishment of
religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The free and
enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without
discrimination or preference, shall forever be allowed. No religious
test shall be required for the exercise of civil or political rights.
A. Purpose – to protect voluntarism and assure insulation of the political
process from interfaith dissension.
B. Two principles under this section:
a. Non-establishment clause - prohibits establishment of any
religion.
 Neither a State nor the Federal Government can
set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid
one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion
over another. Neither can, openly or secretly,
participate in the affairs of religious organizations
or groups and vice versa. In the words of
Jefferson, the clause against establishment of
religion by law was intended to erect "a wall of
separation between Church and State." (Board of
Education v. Everson)
 Government aid must: (1) have a secular
legislative purpose; (2) have a primary effect that
neither advances nor inhibits religion; (3) must not
require excessive entanglement with recipient
institutions.
 Exceptions: (A) Sec. 28 (3), Art. VI; exemption
from taxation of properties actually, directly and
exclusively used for religious purposes; (2) Sec. 4
(B), Art. XIV; citizenship requirement of ownership
of educational institutions, except those
established by religious groups and mission
boards; (C) Sec. 3 (3), Art. XIV; optional religious
instruction in public elementary and high schools:
at the option expressed in writing by the parents or
guardians, religious instruction taught within
regular class hours by instructors designated or
approved by the religious authorities of the religion
to which the children or wards belong, without
additional cost to the Government; and (D) Sec. 29
(2), Art. VI; appropriation allowed where the
minister or ecclesiastic is employed in the armed
forces, in a penal institution, or in a government-
owned orphanage or leprosarium.
Cases
 Aglipay v. Ruiz - What is guaranteed by our
Constitution is religious freedom and not mere
religious toleration. It is however not an inhibition
of profound reverence for religion and is not a
denial of its influence in human affairs. Religion as
a profession of faith to an active power that binds
and elevates man to his Creator is recognized.
And in so far as it instills into the minds the purest
principles of morality, its influence is deeply felt
and highly appreciated.
 Garces v. Estenzo - Not every governmental
activity which involves the expenditure of public
funds and which has some religious tint is violative
of the constitutional provisions regarding
separation of church and state, freedom of worship
and banning the use of public money or property.
 School District v. Schempp - Public schools cannot
sponsor Bible readings and recitations of the
Lord’s Prayer under the First Amendment’s
Establishment Clause.
 Board of Education v. Allen - The loans of
textbooks were constitutionally acceptable
because they went to the students, not to their
nonpublic schools. Furthermore, the court pointed
out that the provision’s purpose was to ensure that
all children received the benefits of education.
 Lemon v. Kurtzman - In order to determine
whether the government entanglement with
religion is excessive, a court must examine the
character and purposes of the institutions that are
benefited, the nature of the aid that the state
provides, and the resulting relationship between
the government and the religious authority.
 Tilton v. Richardson - The Court also held that the
Act did not excessively entangle the government
with religion, noting that college students were less
susceptible to religious indoctrination, that the aid
was of "nonideological character," and that one-
time grants did not require constant state
surveillance.
 Country of Allegheny v. American Civil Liberties
Union - Congress does not have constitutional
authority to apply the provision of the Family and
Medical Leave Act permitting employees to take
leave when they have serious health conditions
that interfere with their ability to work to state
employers.
 Manosca vs. CA - The purpose in setting up the
marker is essentially to recognize the distinctive
contribution of the late Felix Manalo to the culture
of the Philippines, rather than to commemorate his
founding and leadership of the Iglesia ni Cristo.
 Islamic Da’wah vs. Executive Secretary - The
certification of food as halal, that is, suitable for
consumption by Muslims according to their
religious belief, is a religious exercise. Hence, it
 may not be performed by a government agency
like the Office on Muslim Affairs.
 Taruc vs. Bishop de la Cruz - The expulsion or
excommunication of members of a religious
institution or organization is a matter best left to
the discretion of the officials, and the laws and
canons, of said institution or organization. It is not
for the courts to exercise control over church
authorities in the performance of their discretionary
and official functions.
b. Free exercise of Religion - guarantees the free exercise of
religion.
 The constitutional inhibition on legislation on the
subject of religion has a double aspect. On the one
hand, it forestalls compulsion by law of the
acceptance of any creed or the practice of any
form of worship. Freedom of conscience and
freedom to adhere to such religious organization or
form of worship as the individual may choose
cannot be restricted by law. On the other hand, it
safeguards the free exercise of the chosen form of
religion. Thus the amendment embraces two
concepts, — freedom to believe and freedom to
act. The first is absolute, but in the nature of
things, the second cannot be.
Tests
 Clear and Present Danger Test: When words are used in such
circumstance and of such nature as to create a clear and present
danger that will bring about the substantive evil that the State has a
right to prevent.
 Compelling State Interest Test: When a law of general application
infringes religious exercise, albeit incidentally, the state interest sought
to be promoted must be so paramount and compelling as to override
the free exercise claim. Three-step test:
o Has the statute or government action created a burden on
the free exercise of religion?
o Is there a sufficiently compelling state interest to justify this
infringement of religious liberty?
o Has the state in achieving its legitimate purposes used the
least intrusive means possible so that the free exercise is not
infringed any more than necessary to achieve the legitimate
goal of the state? (Estrada v. Escritor)
 Conscientious Objector Test: Persons who are conscientiously
opposed to participation in war in any form by reason of religious
training and belief may be exempted from combat training and service
in the armed forces. Religious training and belief means an individual’s
belief in relation to a Supreme Being involving duties superior to those
arising from any human relation, but does not include essentially
political, sociological or philosophical views or a merely personal code.
Cases
 Cantwell v. Connecticut - With regard to the freedom to
express or preach religion, a State can regulate the time,
place, and manner generally in the interest of public safety
and convenience. However, it cannot put a prior restraint on
religious speech with a licensing requirement.
 United States v. Ballard - The First Amendment protects the
right to choose and practice a religion of the individual’s
choice. This includes freedom to believe and freedom to act.
Just because a religious doctrine cannot be proven does not
mean that it is not a religion and not protected by the United
States Constitution.
 American Bible Society v. City of Manila - The provision
aforequoted is a constitutional guaranty of the free exercise
and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, which
carries with it the right to disseminate religious information.
 Ebranilag v. Divison Superintendent - Forcing a small
religious group, through the iron hand of law, to participate in
ceremony that violates their religious beliefs, will hardly be
conducive to love of country or respect the duly constituted
authorities therein. Refusal of the children to participate in
the flag salute ceremony would not interfere with or deny the
rights of other school children to do so. It bears repeating
that their absence from the ceremony hardly constitutes a
danger so grave and imminent as to warrant the state's
intervention.
 Wisconsin v. Yoder - In light of this showing, and weighing
the minimal difference between what the State would require
and what the Amish already accept, it was incumbent on the
State to show with more particularity how its admittedly
strong interest in compulsory education would be adversely
affected by granting an exemption to the Amish.
 Goldman v. Weinberger - Sherbert test: by demonstrating a
"compelling interest" for the violation. The majority opinion,
written by Rehnquist, held that this was of no consequence-
it contended that the Sherbert test did not apply because the
Free Exercise Clause and even the First Amendment in
general did not apply to the military in the same way that it
did to civilian society.
 German v. Baranganan - While every citizen has the right to
religious freedom, the exercise must be done in good faith.
 Tolentino vs. Secretary of Finance - The Free Exercise of
Religion Clause does not prohibit imposing a generally
applicable sales and use tax on the sale of religious
materials by a religious organization.
 Centeno v. Villalon-Pornillos - Solicitation of contributions for
the construction of a church is not solicitation for “charitable
or public welfare purpose” but for a religious purpose, and a
religious purpose is not necessarily a charitable or public
welfare purpose.
 Church of the Lukumi v. City of Hialeach - Where
government restricts only conduct protected by the First
Amendment and fails to enact feasible measures to restrict
other conduct producing substantial harm or alleged harm of
the same sort, the governmental interests given in
justification of the restriction cannot be regarded as
compelling.
 Lamb’s Chapel v School District - Religious meetings where
religious films are shown can take place on public school
property during nonschool hours.
 In re Request of Muslim Employees in the Different Court of
Iligan City - Where the individual externalizes his beliefs in
acts or omissions that affect the public, his freedom to do so
becomes subject to the authority of the State. As great as
this liberty may be, religious freedom, like all other rights
guaranteed in the Constitution, can be enjoyed only with a
proper regard for the rights of others.
 ESTRADA V. ESCRITOR - In the area of religious exercise
as a preferred freedom, however, man stands accountable to
an authority higher than the state, and so the state interest
sought to be upheld must be so compelling that its violation
will erode the very fabric of the state that will also protect the
freedom. In the absence of a showing that such state interest
exists, man must be allowed to subscribe to the Infinite.
 IMBONG V. OCHOA - The State is not precluded to pursue
its legitimate secular objectives without being dictated upon
by the policies of any one religion.
C. No religious test - "to restore the historically and constitutionally
discredited policy of probing religious beliefs by test oaths or limiting
public offices to persons who have, or perhaps more properly, profess
to have a belief in some particular kind of religious concept." (Torcaso
v. Watkins); For, indeed, to allow religious tests would have the effect
of "formal or practical 'establishment' of particular religious faiths with
consequent burdens imposed on the free exercise of the faiths of non-
favored believers."
Cases
 TORCASO V. WATKINS - There is, and can be, no
dispute about the purpose or effect of the Maryland
Declaration of Rights requirement before us it sets up a
religious test which was designed to and, if valid, does
bar every person who refuses to declare a belief in God
from holding a public "office of profit or trust" in
Maryland.
 Pamil V Teleron - Section 2175 of the Revised
Administrative Code, as far as ecclesiastics are
concerned, must be accorded respect. The presumption
of validity calls for its application.
 McDaniel V. Patty - Freedom of belief protected by that
Clause embraces freedom to profess or practice that
belief, even including doing so for a livelihood.
Government may not fence out from political
participation people such as ministers whom it regards
as overinvolved in religion.
  Ang Ladlad V Comelec - Non-establishment clause
calls for is "government neutrality in religious matters."
learly, "governmental reliance on religious justification is
inconsistent with this policy of neutrality."
D. Ecclesiastical Matter
Cases
 United Church of Christ in the Philippines Inc. vs.
Bradford United Church of Christ Inc. - An ecclesiastical
affair is one that concerns doctrine, creed or form of
worship of the church, or the adoption and enforcement
within a religious association of needful laws and
regulations for the government of the membership, and
the power of excluding from such associations those
deemed unworthy of membership.
Section 6. The liberty of abode and of changing the same within
the limits prescribed by law shall not be impaired except upon
lawful order of the court. Neither shall the right to travel be
impaired except in the interest of national security, public safety or
public health, as may be provided by law.
Rights guaranteed under Section 6:
Freedom to choose and change one’s place of abode.
Freedom to travel within the country and outside.
Limitations
1. Freedom of movement is not an absolute right. It has limitations. Liberty of
abode may be impaired or restricted when there is a “lawful court order.”
2. The right to travel may also be restricted in interest of national security, public
safety, or public health, or when a person is on bail, or under a watch-list and
hold departure order.
Right to Return to One’s Country
Although the right to return to one’s country is not among the rights expressly
mentioned in the Bill of Rights, it is nonetheless recognized and protected in the
Philippines. It is a generally accepted principle of international law, and as such it
is part of the law of the land, pursuant to the doctrine of incorporation. It is
different from the right to travel and is guaranteed under the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The fact that the Declaration of Human
Rights and the Covenant on Human Rights have separate guarantees for these,
it only shows that the right to return to one’s country is not covered by the specific
right to travel and liberty of abode.
Marcos v Manglapus (1989) – right to return to one’s country, a distinct right
under international law, is independent from although related to the
right to travel. The president has the power (residual/implied) to impair
the right to return when such return poses threats to the government
Liberty of Abode and the Right to Travel Section 8. The right of the people, including those employed in the
public and private sectors, to form unions, associations, or
societies for purposes not contrary to law shall not be abridged.
Watch List Order – issued against accused in criminal cases (irrespective of
nationality in RTC or below), any person with pending case in DOJ A. SCOPE
Hold-Departure Order – issued against accused in criminal cases (irrespective - An aspect of general liberty
of nationality in courts below RTC), aliens, any person motu proprio by - Aspect of freedom of contract – for the advancement of beliefs
Sec of Justice or request of heads of departments, ConComm, - FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION – IS AN ASPECT OF FREEDOM OF
Congress, or SC EXPRESSION and/or BELIEF
Both orders are issued by Secretary of Justice MEANING – the right to form associations shat not be impaired except through
valid exercise of police power.
- THE GUARANTEE ALSO COVERS THE RIGHT NOT TO JOIN AN
Rubi v. Provincial Board of Mindoro – relocation of manguinaes, a nomadic ASSOCIATION.
people, is a proper restraint their liberty. It is for their advancement in civilization
and so that material prosperity may A local union, being a separate and voluntary association, is free to serve the
interest of all its members including the freedom to disaffiliate when
Section 7. The right of the people to information on matters of circumstances warrant
– Volkschel Labor Union vs Bureau of Labor Relations
public concern shall be recognized. Access to official records, and
to documents and papers pertaining to official acts, transactions,
B. Right to Association
or decisions, as well as to government research data used as basis
for policy development, shall be afforded the citizen, subject to D buys a lot that would make him an automatic member of the homeowners
such limitations as may be provided by law. association. Valid?
- Yes. The buyer freely buys the low knowing the purchase will entail
Rights guaranteed by Sec. 7 an obligation
- Bel Air Village Association v Dionisio
1.) The right to information on matters of public concern
The automatic membership clause is not a violation of its freedom of association.
2.) The corollary right of access to official records and documents. PADCOM was never forced to join the association. It could have avoided such
membership by not buying the land from TDC. Nobody forced it to buy the land
Note: when it bought the building with the annotation of the condition or lien on the
Certificate of Title thereof and accepted the Deed. PADCOM voluntarily agreed to
Public interest v Public concern - embraced a broad spectrum of subjects which be bound by and respect the condition, and thus to join the Association –
the public may want to know, either because discreetly it affect their lives or PADCOM vs Ortigas
simply because such matters arouse the interest of an ordinary citizen.
Art245 Labor Code – “Managerial employees are not able to join, assist or form
Limitations on the right to information. any labor organization”
-Valid because - Sec.8 is subject to the condition that its exercise
1.) national security matters and intelligence information should not be for purposes contrary to law.
-Rational basis: Philips Industrial development Inc. vs NLRC
2.) trade secrets and banking transactions -“because these managerial employees would belong to or
be affiliated with a Union, the latter might not be assured
3.) criminal matters of their loyalty to the Union in view of evident conflict of interest.
The Union can also become company-dominated with the presence of
4.) other confidential information. ( e.g. Diplomatic correspondence, closed door managerial employees in the Union membership.
cabinet meeting, and executive sessions.) -UPSU vs laguesma
Note: Batas Blg. 222 – prohibits any candidate of Brgy. Election of May 17, 1982 for
representing or allowing himself to be represented as a candidate of any political
party and prohibits any political party/association from giving aid or support to the
Access to court records may be permitted at the discretion and subject to the
candidate’s campaign for election.
supervisory and protective powers of the court. Decisions and opinions of a court
-Does it violate the right to form associations?
are, of course, matters of public concern or interest. Unlike court orders and
-NO. The right is not absolute. The law intended to meet a clear and
decisions however, pleadings and other documents filed by parties to a case
imminent danger of the – d debilitation of the electoral process and also
need not be a matter of public concern or interest.
danger of disenabling barangay officials from adequately performing their
functions as agents of a NEUTRAL community The teachers have given cause for their suspension, for being absent in their Note: An ordinance, not a resolution, is required for the exercise of the power of
-Occena vs. COMELEC classes and joining in the mass actions. They were not fully innocent of the eminent domain. (Heirs of Alberto Suguitan vs. City of Mandaluyong, 328 SCRA
charges against them although they were eventually found guilty only of conduct 137, G.R. No. 135087 March 14, 2000)
Do all societies and associations enjoy the same constitutional protection? prejudicial to the best interest of the service and not grave misconduct or other
No. the degree of protection an association enjoys depends on the offense warranting their dismissal from the service; “being found liable for a Elements of Taking:
position which the association’s objective or activity occupies in the lesser offense is not equivalent to exoneration.” In the case of Merlinda Jacinto, 1. The expropriator must enter upon the private property;
constitutional hierarchy of values. there was a finding that there was no proof that she joined the unlawful mass 2. The entrance must not be for a momentary period, that is the
- Phil. Blooming Mills Employees vs Phil. Blooming Mills actions. – Jacinto vs CA entrance must be permanent;
3. The entrance must be under warrant or color of legal authority;
Communist Party of the Phil. aka Partido komunista ng Pilipinas a subversive Whether the mass action staged by or participated in by GSIS employees partook 4. The property must be devoted to public use or otherwise informally
association in RA 1700? of a strike? YES appropriated or injuriously affected;
-No. It is distinct from the CPP-NPA engaging in mass actions resulting in work stoppage or service disruption 5. The utilization of the property must be in such way as to oust the
constitutes, in the minimum, the punishable offense of acting prejudicial to the owner and deprive him of all beneficial enjoyment of the property.
C. Government Employees and the Right to Strike best interest of service. – GSIS vs Kapisanan
Lease not basis for taking- There is a “taking” when the expropriator enters
Do government employees have the right to from unions? D. Membership in the Philippine Bar private property not only for a momentary period but for a more permanent
-YES. Guaranteed by Art III, Sec 8. Art IX,B, Sec2(5) and Art XIII, Sec duration, for the purpose of devoting the property to a public use in such a
3. - Trade Union vs NHC In Re: Edillion manner as to oust the owner and deprive him of all beneficial enjoyment thereof.
ISSUE: Whether the provisions enclosing the membership dues are constitutional Thus, in that case, where, as here, the owner was compensated and not
deprived of the ordinary and beneficial use of his property by its being
The workers or employees of NHC undoubtedly have the right to form unions or
Yes. To compel a lawyer to be a member of the Integrated Bar of the diverted to public use, there is no taking within the constitutional sense.
employees' organizations. The right to unionize or to form organizations is now
explicitly recognized and granted to employees in both the governmental and the Philippines is not violative of his constitutional freedom to associate. Philippine National Oil Company vs. Maglasang, 570 SCRA 560, G.R. No.
private sectors. The Bill of Rights provides that "(t)he right of the people, including Moreover, it is quite apparent that the fee is indeed imposed as a regulatory 155407 November 11, 2008
those employed in the public and private sectors, to form unions, associations or measure, designed to raise funds for carrying out the objectives and purposes of
integration. And, if the power to impose the fee as a regulatory measure is A police regulation that unreasonably restricts the right to use business property
societies for purposes not contrary to law shall not be abridged"
recognized, then a penalty designed to enforce its payment, which penalty may for business purposes amounts to taking of private property, and the owner may
be avoided altogether by payment, is not void as unreasonable or arbitrary. recover therefor. (Office of the Solicitor General vs. Ayala Land, Incorporated,
There is no impediment to the holding of a certification election among the
Power of the Court to promulgate rules and regulations – Atty.Delotina 600 SCRA 617, G.R. No. 177056 September 18, 2009)
workers of NHC for it is clear that they are covered by the Labor Code, the NHC
being a government-owned and/or controlled corporation without an original
To compel print media companies to donate “Comelec space” of the
charter. – Trade Union vs NHC Section 9. Private Property shall not be taken for public use dimensions specified in Section 2 of Resolution No. 2772, amounts to “taking” of
without just compensation. private personal property for public use or purposes. (Philippine Press Institute,
DO GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES HAVE THE RIGHT TO STRIKE? Inc. vs. Commission on Elections, 244 SCRA 272, G.R. No. 119694 May 22,
-The right to strike is limited by law Power of Eminent Domain- It is the power of the state to take private property 1995)
- Private Employees have the right to strike. Public Employees do not for public use upon payment of just compensation. It is inherently possessed by
have the right to strike. Atty.Beldua the State and is exercise by the national government. In expropriation proceedings, the value of the land and its character at the time it
- air grievances balanced by delivery of service should not be was taken by the government are the criteria for determining just compensation.
prejudiced. – Davao Water District vs.Aranjuez Scope- In the hands of Congress the scope of the power is, like the scope of (Philippine National Oil Company vs. Maglasang , 570 SCRA 560, G.R. No.
- SERVICE over sentiment. legislative power, itself, plenary. 155407 November 11, 2008)
-Atty.Ben – gov employees can go on strike as long as delivery of
services not compromised Elements of PED: Expropriation in General- There are two (2) stages in every action for
- discussion: Strike on weekend or wearing of black shirts as
expropriation.
a sign of protest etc. 1. There is “taking: of private property;
2. The taking must be for needed “public use;” 1. The first is concerned with the determination of the authority of the
SSS employees do not have the right to strike – SSS vs CA 3. 3. There must be just compensation. plaintiff to exercise the power of eminent domain and the
propriety of its exercise in the context of the facts involved in the
Public-School Teachers do not have the right to strike –Manila Public School Requisites to be complied with by the local government unit in the exercise suit. It ends with an order, if not of dismissal of the action, “of
Teachers Vs Sec. of Edu. of the power of eminent domain. condemnation declaring that the plaintiff has a lawful right to take the
1. An ordinance is enacted by the local legislative council authorizing property sought to be condemned, for the public use or purpose
the terms and conditions of employment in the government, including any political the local chief executive, in behalf of the local government unit, to described in the complaint, upon the payment of just compensation to
subdivision or instrumentality thereof and government-owned and controlled exercise the power of eminent domain or pursue expropriation be determined as of the date of the filing of the complaint.” An order of
corporations with original charters are governed by law and employees therein proceedings over a particular private property. dismissal, if this be ordained, would be a final one, of course, since it
shall not strike for the purpose of securing changes. Workers in the public sector 2. The power of eminent domain is exercised for public use, purpose or finally disposes of the action and leaves nothing more to be done by
do not enjoy the right to strike, the Constitution itself qualifies its exercise with the welfare, or for the benefit of the poor and the landless. the Court on the merits. So, too, would an order of condemnation be a
proviso “in accordance with law.” This is a clear manifestation that the state may, 3. There is payment of just compensation, as required under Section 9, final one, for thereafter, as the Rules expressly state, in the
by law, regulate the use of this right, or even deny certain sectors such right. The Article III of the Constitution, and other pertinent laws. proceedings before the Trial Court, “no objection to the exercise of the
Civil Service law and rules governing concerted activities and strikes in the 4. A valid and definite offer has been previously made to the owner of right of condemnation (or the propriety thereof) shall be filed or heard.”
government service shall be observed. the property sought to be expropriated, but said offer was not
accepted. 2. The second phase of the eminent domain action is concerned with the
determination by the Court of “the just compensation for the
 property sought to be taken.” This is done by the Court with the
assistance of not more than three (3) commissioners. The order fixing
the just compensation on the basis of the evidence before, and findings
of, the commissioners would be final, too. It would finally dispose of the
second stage of the suit, and leave nothing more to be done by the
Court regarding the issue. Obviously, one or another of the parties may
believe the order to be erroneous in its appreciation of the evidence or
findings of fact or otherwise. Obviously, too, such a dissatisfied party
may seek a reversal of the order by taking an appeal therefrom.
(National Housing Authority vs. Heirs of Isidro Guivelondo, 404 SCRA
389, G.R. No. 154411 June 19, 2003)
Power to Undertake Expropriation Case- For the legislative authority, a long
time ago, enacted a continuing or standing delegation of authority to the
President of the Philippines to exercise, or cause the exercise of, the power of
eminent domain on behalf of the Government of the Republic of the Philippines.
(Iron and Steel Authority vs. Court of Appeals, 249 SCRA 538, G.R. No. 102976
October 25, 1995)
Rights of Owner Before Expropriation- Until expropriation proceedings are
instituted in court, the landowner cannot be deprived of its right over the land.
(Greater Balanga Development Corporation vs. Municipality of Balanga, Bataan,
239 SCRA 436, G.R. No. 83987 December 27, 1994)
Unless and until the transfer is consummated, or expropriation proceedings
instituted by the government, the owner continues to retain ownership.
(Velarma vs. Court of Appeals, 252 SCRA 406, G.R. No. 113615 January 25,
1996)
It is only upon payment of just compensation that title over the property
passes to the government. Therefore, until the action for expropriation has
been completed and terminated, ownership over the property being expropriated
remains with the registered owner. Consequently, the latter can exercise all rights
pertaining to an owner, including the right to dispose of his property, subject to
the power of the State ultimately to acquire it through expropriation. (Republic vs.
Salem Investment Corporation, 334 SCRA 320, G.R. No. 137569 June 23, 2000)
Public Use- As a requirement for a valid exercise of power of eminent domain is
a flexible and evolving concept influence by changing conditions may be
beneficially employed for the general welfare satisfies the requirement of public
use. (Sumulong vs. Guerrero, 154 SCRA 461, No. L-48685 September 30, 1987)
Just Compensation- The just and complete equivalent of the loss which the
owner of the thing expropriated has to suffer by reason of the expropriation. It
also includes the payment for the land within a reasonable period of time from its
taking.
"Compensation" means an equivalent for the value of the land taken. Anything
beyond that is more and anything short of that is less than compensation. The
word "just" is used merely to intensify the meaning of the word "compensation."
(City of Manila vs. Estrada., 25 Phil. 208, No. 7749 September 9, 1913)
When PED become subject of Judicial Review
1. The adequacy of the compensation;
2. The necessity of the taking;
3. The pubic use character of the purpose of the taking.
There is no question as to the right of the Republic of the Philippines to take
private property for public use upon the payment of just compensation. Section 2,
Article IV of the Constitution of the Philippines provides: “Private property shall
not be taken for public use without just compensation.” It is recognized,
however that the government may not capriciously or arbitrarily choose
what private property should be taken. (De Knecht vs. Bautista, 100 SCRA
660, No. L-51078 October 30, 1980)
The Constitution impresses upon the Supreme Court to respect the acts
performed by a co-equal branch done within its sphere of competence and
authority, but at the same time, allows it to cross the line of separation — but only
at a very limited and specific point — to determine whether the acts of the
executive and the legislative branches are null because they were undertaken
with grave abuse of discretion. Thus, while the Court may not pass upon
questions of wisdom, justice or expediency of the RH Law, it may do so
where an attendant unconstitutionality or grave abuse of discretion results.
The Court must demonstrate its unflinching commitment to protect those
cherished rights and principles embodied in the Constitution. (Imbong vs. Ochoa
Jr., 721 SCRA 146, G.R. No. 207563 April 8, 2014)
Section 10. No law impairing the obligation of contracts shall be
passed.
Q: When is a law considered an impairment of an obligation?
A:
(1) When it changes the terms/period of a legal contract between
parties either in time OR mode of performance
(2) It imposes new condition OR dispenses with those expressed
(3) It authorizes for its satisfaction something different from that
provided in its terms
General Rule: The said law is Null and Void
Q: Is this absolute?
A: No. Exceptions are:
(1) Valid exercise of Police Power  Superior over obligations of a
contract
**While it is true that police power is superior to the
impairment clause, the principle will only apply only where
the contract is so related to the public welfare that it will be
considered congenitally susceptible to change by the
legislature in the interest of the greater number.
(2) Free Exercise of Religion
Notes:
*The contract clause protects both public and private contracts
*License agreements such as Timber Licenses are for regulatory purposes which
the government can freely modify, replace, amend, and rescind. These therefore
does not fall under the purview of the contracts protected discussed in Sec. 10
Section 11. Free access to the courts and quasi-judicial bodies and
adequate legal assistance shall not be denied to any person by
reason of poverty.
Significance: Those protected include low paid employees, domestic servants,
and laborers. They need not be persons so poor that they must be supported at
public expense. It suffices that plaintiff is indigent. Indigent are persons who have
no property or sources of income sufficient for their support aside from their own
labor through self-supporting when able to work and in employment.
Legal Provisions on Free Access:
 RA 6035 – stenographers are required to give free transcript of
stenographic notes to indigent and low income litigants.
 ROC, Rule 3 Section 21 - A party may be authorized to litigate his
action, claim or defense as an indigent if the court, upon an ex
parte application and hearing, is satisfied that the party is one who has
no money or property sufficient and available for food, shelter and
basic necessities for himself and his family. Such authority shall include
an exemption from payment of docket and other lawful fees, and of
transcripts of stenographic notes which the court may order to be
furnished him. The amount of the docket and other lawful fees which
the indigent was exempted from paying shall be a lien on any judgment
rendered in the case favorable to the indigent, unless the court
otherwise provides. Any adverse party may contest the grant of such
authority at any time before judgment is rendered by the trial court. If
the court should determine after hearing that the party declared as an
indigent is in fact a person with sufficient income or property, the
proper docket and other lawful fees shall be assessed and collected by
the clerk of court. If payment is not made within the time fixed by the
court, execution shall issue or the payment thereof, without prejudice to
such other sanctions as the court may impose.
 Constitution, Article 3, Section 12 – The court appoints a counsel de
officio for an accused who cannot afford to engage the service of a
counsel de parte.
 Rule on the Writ of Amparo, Section 4 – No docket or other lawful fees
shall be required for the filing of the petition.
 Rule on the Writ of Habeas Data, Section 4 – No docket and other
lawful fees are required from indigent petitioner.