Sie sind auf Seite 1von 54

Bill of Rights

History and Purpose of the Bill of Rights


The Preamble and the sovereign will
Bill of rights: protection of guaranteed rights to
liberty, property and other freedoms (Section
1, Article III, Constitution)
Republic v. Sandiganbayan: Even during the
Martial Law years, the Bill of Rights is
enforced and no one can be deprived of due
process of law without sufficient notice.

Bill of Rights

Limitations to the enjoyment of the guarantees under


the Bill of Rights:
1. Police Power
2. Power to Tax
3. Power to Expropriate
Who are covered: Both citizens and aliens within the
jurisdiction of the Philippines
Board of Medicine v. Ota: The rule on reciprocity would
apply where a Filipino physician is allowed to
practice medicine in Japan
Kuwait Airways Corp. v. PAL: In commercial relations,
the general principles in international law must be
respected.

Bill of Rights

Government of Hongkong SAR v. Olalia: The


extradition treaty signed by Hongkong
before its turnover to China can no longer
enforced.
Government of the United States of America
v. Puruganan and Mark Jimenez: Extradition
proceedings are not in the nature of criminal
proceedings. Where there is a conflict
between international law provisions with
that of a domestic law, the latter would
prevail.

Bill of Rights

Doctrines in the interpretation of the Bill of


Rights:
Void for Vagueness doctrine
Overbreadth doctrine
Estrada v. Sandiganbayan: S. C. made a
distinction between facial challenge and
overbreadth; former is allowed to a vague
statute but the latter is made due to its
chilling effect to the public.

Bill of Rights

Right to Life, Liberty and Property: Safeguards of Due


Process, Equal Protection and Non-Impairment Clauses
Right to Life:
Republic v. Kagandahan: As a signatory to the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights, the Philippines must
accord the individual the right to the preferred gender
(without medical intervention) so he can live a full life.
Gamboa v. P/Ssupt. Chan et al.: The act of the PNP in
forwarding certain information to the Zenarosa
Commission does violate or threaten the right to life,
liberty or security.

Bill of Rights

Due Process Clause


Types of Due Process: procedural and substantive
Guaranteed rights: right to be informed of the
nature of the complaint (notice) and the right to
confront the witnesses and present evidence on
ones behalf (hearing)
Tanada v. Tuvera: Publication of law is a prerequisite to impose a burden on an individual.
Corona v. United Harbor Pilots: An instrument
which invests a group of its right to practice
their profession is void if there is no notice.

Bill of Rights

Procedural Due Process


Mayor Tolentino v. COMELEC: Due process
simply requires: right to notice; right to
reasonable opportunity to appear;
competent tribunal; and right to a decision
based on evidence and law.
Acuzar v. Apresa: Due process in
administrative proceedings require: notice,
right to be heard; competent tribunal and a
finding supported by substantial evidence

Bill of Rights

Melendres v. PAGC: Due process, as a


constitutional precept, does not always and in all
situations require a trial-type proceeding. In
administrative proceedings, it is sufficient that
one is informed of the charges against him and
giving him reasonable opportunity to answer the
accusations against him.
Garcia v. Molina and Velasco: A decision rendered
without due process is void ab initio and be
attacked at any time in a separate action or
resisting such decision in any action or
proceeding where it is invoked.

Bill of Rights

Equal Protection: not an absolute guarantee but


assures legal equality; requires valid
classification.
Elements: classification must be germane;
individuals belong to the same class; must
distinction; not temporary
Mirasol v. DPWH: classification based on
practical convenience and common knowledge.
Santos v. People: classification is done to
prevent undue favor or privilege.

Bill of Rights

Biraogo v. Ochoa: No particular individual should


be singled out under a law or executive order.
Nicolas v. Romulo: there is no violation of equal
protection clause even if there is a substantial
basis for treatment of US military personnel
under a special agreement with the two
countries.
Victoriano v. Elizalde Ropeworkers Union:
labor law is secular, worldly and temporal not
spiritual but exemption based on religion is
valid and reasonable.

Bill of Rights

Serrano v. Gallant Maritime Services, Inc: the


distinction between domestic workers and OFWs
is valid and substantial.
Quinto v. COMELEC: there is a different
consequence between an elective and an
appointive public officials filing of Certificate of
Candidacy.
C.B. Employees Assn v. BSP: provisions of law
which are initially valid can become
unconstitutional for violating the equal
protection clause. The rank and file employees
can benefit from a later law.

Bill of Rights

To summarize, equal protection clause when


subjected to judicial review is examined by:
Strict scrutiny test where government must show that
challenge classification serves a compelling state interest
and that classification is necessary to serve the interest.
(Roe v. Wade case, religion, denial or dilution of right to
vote, access to the courts);
2. Middle-tier scrutiny test where government must show
that the challenged classification is at least substantially
related to that interest. (gender, illegitimacy); or
3. Rational or minimum scrutiny test where government
need only to show that the challenged classification is
1.

rationally related to serving a legitimate state interest.

Bill of Rights

Privacy of Communication: wiretapping or


eavesdropping is a form of intrusion into ones
sacred private precincts.
Salcedo-Ortanez v. Zamora: recording of telephone
conversation cannot be introduced in evidence if
made without the consent of the parties.
Navarro v. C.A. and People: when the recorded
event was done by person in the media industry,
the same may be admitted in evidence.

Bill of Rights

Ople v. Torres: the requirement for every


citizen to be issued national identification
card invades the privacy of individuals as it
calls for disclosure of personal information.
Alejano v. Cabuay: When a correspondence
addressed to detained persons is not sealed
the custodian of such persons may read the
contents of the correspondence.

Bill of Rights

Freedom of Expression: the right to speak


freely ones mind; right prohibits prior
restraint or censorship; the burden is on the
citizen to prove good motives and justifiable
ends in placing their complaints. Comments
or criticisms.
Estrada v. Sandiganbayan: made a distinction
between facial challenge and overbreadth;
former is allowed to a vague statute but the
latter is made due to its chilling effect.

Bill of Rights

Chavez v. Gonzalez: Freedom of speech


covers both entertaining and instructive or
informative matters. Press freedom is the
source of current events. Four aspects of
press freedom: Freedom from prior
restraint, freedom from punishment
subsequent to publication, freedom of
access to information and freedom of
circulation.

Bill of Rights

Content-neutral regulation distinguished from


Content-based restraint or censorship: In
the former, substantial government interest
is required for its validity and not subject to
strictest form of judicial scrutiny while in
the latter, it is given the strictest judicial
scrutiny in the light of their inherent and
invasive impact. The latter bears a heavy
presumption of invalidity and is measured
against the clear and present danger rule.

Bill of Rights

Emergence of new technology and social


media has introduced new consequences in
the field of communication.
The adoption of the Cyber Crime Law may
serve deterrent to commission of crimes
which rely on modern forms of
communication.

Bill of Rights

Dissenting Opinion of Justice Carpio:


Exceptions to prior restraint: pornography,
false or misleading advertisement, advocacy
of imminent lawless action and danger to
national security.
Only unprotected expression may be subject
to censorship: Prior restraint is presumed
unconstitutional and government bears the
heavy burden of proving the
constitutionality of the restraint.

Bill of Rights

Soriano v. La Guardia: guarantee of speech or


religious freedom does not include the utterance
of foul language. Proximity and degree of
danger/evils can be measured by applying the
principle of balancing of interests.
David v. Macapagal-Arroyo: Freedom of assembly
is not to be limited, much less be denied, except
on a showing of a clear and present danger of a
substantive evil that the state has a right to
present. The overbreadth doctrine is not intended
to test the validity of a law.

Bill of Rights

PHCA v. Duque: An absolute ban on


advertising of milk formula violates the right
of free speech and access to information.
The laudable concern for promotion of health
of infants and young children cannot justify
the absolute ban.
GMA Network, Inc. v. Bustos: In a case of
libel, proof of malice must be positively
established. The use of UP-PGH file photo
was not meant to degrade the institution.

Bill of Rights

Binay v. Secretary of Justice: The intent to


embarrass the daughter of the petitioner for
allegedly having a P1,000 worth of lingerie
is malice under the libel law.
In re: Macasaet: For failure to substantiate
that a female justice of the SC received
boxes of money as bribery, respondent
was found guilty of indirect contempt and
fined P20,000.00.

Bill of Rights

Flor and Ramos v. People: For impeaching,


demeaning the name of Villafuerte, Ramos is
convicted for libel.
Vasquez v. C.A.: For failure to implead the
publisher, editor and reporter, the source of the
libelous statement was exonerated.
Sanidad v. COMELEC: the call for a referendum to
affirm certain amendments to the Constitution is
proper but people must be given access to
information.

Bill of Rights

MTRCB v. ABS-CBN: The MTRCB has the sole


jurisdiction to exercise prior restraint in the
exhibition of Prosti TUITION episode.
SWS v. COMELEC: The right of the public to be
informed of matters of national interest is a
protected right. OBrien test requires that
the restriction exercised by the state is not
greater than is necessary to further
government interests but should not curtail
the fundamental right of expression.

Bill of Rights

Fermin v. People: The prosecution was able to


establish the elements of libel:
1. Evident imputation of the crime, vices or
defects for being a fugitive from law;
2. Attribution made in public; and
3. Victims are identifiable or actually identified
Tulfo v. People: The complainant public officer
was clearly identifed by the accused; and the
defamation was unsubstantiated and made in
bad faith.

Bill of Rights

Bayan Muna v. Ermita: freedom to assemble is


not absolute and may be subjected to
limitations but the government must also
comply with the standard of maximum
tolerance and not employ Calibrated
Preemptive Response.
IBP v. Mayor Atienza: Where it is not indicated
where the applicant wishes to stage a rally, the
mayor cannot substitute his own judgment
without the consent of the applicant.

Bill of Rights

GSIS and Garcia v. Villaviza et al: The harsh


treatment of GSIS employees cannot be
condoned since the wearing of red t-shirts
to express their grievance is protected by
the freedom of expression.

Bill of Rights

Freedom of religion: includes the freedom to


believe and to practice ones belief.
Estrada v. Escritor: the prescription of morality
under the Civil Service Rules and Regulations
must yield to higher right of the freedom of
religion.
Taruc v. Dela Cruz: matters internal to the ouster
or to discipline of members of a religious sect is
not protected by the freedom of religion.

Bill of Rights

Request of Muslim Employees: the request for additional


privilege not to work from 10am to 2pm every Friday for
prayers cannot be given due course since this will be
violative of the equal protection clause. Sec.5, Art III
covers: non-establishment clause and free exercise clause.
INC v. C.A. and MTRCB: The right of MTRCB to review
broadcast materials is affirmed but it cannot censor religious
speech which may include criticisms as it is included in the
protected rights of religion and free speech. For censorship
to be sustained, there must be clear and present danger.
Victoriano v. Elizalde Ropeworkers Union: freedom of religion
prevails over freedom of association.

Bill of Rights

Freedom of Abode and Freedom of Movement: the


right to choose ones domicile; right to travel.
Gudani v. Senga: the power of the President as
Commander in Chief was sustained in restraining
officers from testifying before the Senate.
Fr. Roberto P. Reyes v. Gonzalez: Writ of Amparo
will not lie to overcome an Hold Departure Order
since the petitioner is not detained.

Bill of Rights

Right of Association: right to form, join and


dissociate from a lawful organization
SSS Employees Assn. v. C.A.: Constitution
guarantees rights of public servants to form
associations and concerted action but subject to
CSC rules.
MPST Assn. v. Carino: mass action should not
interrupt with discharge of public service.
Dissenting Opinion: Authorities should not treat
employees with disdain and flatly ignore them
with expressed threats of dismissal.

Bill of Rights

Right to Information: right to know current state


of affairs of the government, need for
transparency in government transactions
CENPEG v. COMELEC: the people have to right to be
informed of the full aspects of AES including the
source code of the program.
Senate v. Ermita: The President cannot intrude into
the constitutional mandate of legislative inquiry.
Neri v. Senate Committees: Executive privilege
may be invoked under specific circumstances.

Bill of Rights

What is a valid search warrant


Bayaca v. Ramos: a judge cannot delegate the
determination of probable cause to his Clerk
of Court.
Yao v. People: personal knowledge is
mandatory in issuance of a warrant and not
reliable information.
People v. Nunez: the seizure of items not
particularly described in the search warrant
for violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act of
1972 must be returned to the accused.

Bill of Rights

What is a valid warrant of arrest?


Valeroso v. C.A.: A valid arrest allows the seizure
of evidence or dangerous weapons either on the
person of the one arrested or within the area of
his immediate control.
People v. Tuazon: search of a moving vehicle is
justified for practical reasons.
People v. Paguio, Jr.: Reliable information alone,
absent any overt act indicative of a felonious
enterprise in the presence and within the view
of arresting officers is not sufficient to effect a
warrantless arrest and search.

Bill of Rights

When can a warrant be sustained?


Valdez v. People: For warrantless arrest to be valid
two elements must concur: execution of an overt act
and act is committed in the presence or within the
view of the arresting officers.
Stonehill v. Diokno: warrant must specifically describe
the items/objects sought to be seized. Document
seized from illegal search is a fruit of a poisonous
tree.
NBI and Microsoft Corp v. Hwang: a warrant may be
issued to protect intellectual property rights. The
degree of evidence required for a civil case is only
substantial.

Bill of Rights

SJS v. Dangerous Drugs Board: mandatory, random and


suspicious drug testing of students and employees under
R.A.9165 is valid but not for candidates to public office.
Galvante v. Casimiro: There is no crime as searching
without a warrant.RPC punishes procuring warrants with
malice(Art. 129) and searching domicile without
witnesses (Art. 130).
UNILAB v. Isip: Plain view doctrine will not apply when the
following cannot be proved:
Prior intrusion must be legal, officer must discover the
incriminating evidence inadvertently and object must be
immediately apparent.

Bill of Rights

In Re: Request of Chief PNP Razon to delegate


power to endorse application for a search
warrant: Considering the urgency to seize items
which are probably objects of a crime,
delegation may be granted.
Spouses Marimba v. People: Even if the
application for a search warrant was done in
Manila and the items to be searched are in
Pampanga, the seizure of the items for violation
of the Dangerous Drugs Act can be sustained.

Bill of Rights

AAA v. Hon. Carbonell: The judge abused his


discretion when he dismissed the case for
rape for lack of probable cause for failure of
the victim and her witnesses to take the
witness stand.
Abelita v. Doria: The pursuit of a judge who
fled from the scene of the shooting and his
subsequent arrest as well as the seizure of a
gun while inside the premises of residence is
justified.

Bill of Rights

To summarize:
Searches and Seizures: freedom from unwarranted and
unreasonable intrusions; right upholds privacy; as general rule
search and arrest must covered by warrant
Warrant must be issued by a judge; existence of probable cause;
personal examination of complainant, witnesses and
documents; addressed to law enforcers for service
Exceptions: search incident to a lawful arrest (in flagrante
delicto, hot pursuit and escaped prisoners), search of moving
vehicles, plain view doctrine and airport searches ; and all
circumstances set forth in the Rules in Criminal Procedure.

Bill of Rights

Writ of Habeas Corpus


In cases allowed by law, the right to bail shall not be
impaired even when the writ of habeas corpus is
suspended. (Sec. 13, Art. III)
The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be
suspended except in cases of invasion or rebellion when
the public safety requires it. (Sec. 15, Art. III )
The President, in proper cases, may suspend the privilege
of the writ of habeas corpus. (Sec. 18, Art. VII)
Villavicencio v. Lukban: the right of women not be
excluded from the City of Manila by virtue of their work.

Bill of Rights

Villavicencio v. Lukban: the Mayors order that some


170 individuals be put in custody and be dispatched
to Davao City for work is a valid subject of a writ of
habeas corpus. Freedom of abode is guaranteed for
ours is a government of laws and not of men.
Secretary of Defense v. Manalo: The writ of amparo is
legal relief for victims of enforced disappearances to
protect their rights of life, liberty and security. It is
both preventive and curative in nature as it breaks
the expectation of impunity and facilitates
subsequent punishment.

Bill of Rights

Writ

of Amparo and Writ of Habeas Data

Both

writs were issued by the Supreme


Court to check on possible abuses of law
enforcers and agents of government which
impair the lives and property of individuals.
Both writs may be availed of at any hour by
an individual without payment of docket
fees.

Bill of Rights

Razon, Jr. v. Tagitis: Writ of amparo is a protective remedy


against the violations or threats against the rights of life,
liberty and security with the context of the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
Rubrico v. Macapagal-Arroyo: The President will not be held
liable for custody of a person when there is no positive
proof that she has personal knowledge of detention. The
doctrine of Command Responsibility will not apply to the
case.
Canlas v. Napico Homeowners Assn: Issuance of writ of
amparo will not apply to informal settlers.

Bill of Rights

Free access to the Courts (Sec. 11, Art. III)


Every person is entitled to free access to the
courts.
Legal assistance shall not be denied to any
person by reason of poverty.
Role of public prosecutors and PAO lawyers;
and legal aid program of the IBP.

Bill of Rights

Appropriate representation assures the


individual that his rights will be protected.
On costs of litigation: Clients are expected to
shoulder the costs of litigation. Indigent or
pauper litigants are entitled to certain
reliefs on the costs of litigation.

Bill of Rights

Rights of Suspects (Sec. 12, Art. III)


1. The right to be informed of his right to
remain silent;
2. The right to a competent and independent
counsel preferably of his choice;
3. If the person cannot afford the services of
counsel, he must be provided with one.
4. The foregoing rights cannot be waived
except in writing and in presence of counsel.
(Miranda rights/ warnings)
Effect of waiver of the right

Bill of Rights

When will Miranda Rights apply


1.
2.
3.

One must be in the custody of law


enforcers;
One must be under investigation for a
commission of an offense; and
The information sought is testimonial in
nature.

Bill of Rights

When will Miranda Rights will not apply


1.
2.
3.

The proceeding is not custodial in nature;


One is not under restraint; and
The information sought is not testimonial
in nature.

Bill of Rights

Rights of the Accused


1. The right to substantive and procedural
due process
2. The right to be presumed innocent
3. The right to be heard by himself and
counsel
4. The right to be informed of the nature and
cause of the accusation against him
5. The right to bail when circumstance
warrants

Bill of Rights

Rights of the Accused


6. The right to have a speedy, impartial and
public trial
7. The right to meet the witnesses face to face
8. To have compulsory process to secure tha
attendance of witnesses and the production
of evidence in his behalf
9. The right against self-incrimination
10. The right against double jeopardy

Bill of Rights

Crimes and Punishments


1. No detention for political beliefs or
aspirations (Sec. 18 (1), Art. III)
2. Exceptions to involuntary servitude (Sec.
18(2), Art. III)
3. Rational behind the imposition of death
penalty (Sec. 19 (1), Art. III)
conditions: for compelling reasons
involving heinous crimes and when
Congress provides for it

Bill of Rights

Crimes and Punishments


4. Non-imposition of excessive fines (Sec.19 (1),
Art. III)
5. Prohibition against cruel, degrading or inhuman
punishment (Sec. 19 (1), Art. III)
6. Prohibition against the employment of physical,
psychological, or degrading punishment; or use
of substandard penal facilities under subhuman
conditions (Sec. 19 (2), Art. III
7. Non- imprisonment for debt or poll tax (Sec. 20,
Art. III)

Bill of Rights

Ban on Ex Post Facto Law and Bill of


Attainder
General Rule: A law must be given a
prospective effect but a law which favors an
accused may be given a retroactive effect.
No new law which punishes an act before its
effectivity may render an individual liable
under any of its provisions.

Bill of Rights