Constitutional Law 2.pdf

8/9/2019 Constitutional Law 2.pdf

1/43

NOVEMBER 13, 2014

ARTICLE III: BILL OF RIGHTS

The Bill of Rights is a list of the most important rights of citizens. The purpose of putting them

in the Constitution is to protect these rights against infringement. The first coded Bill of Rights was

done in England in 1689, although England already had their Magna Carta as early as 1215. TheUnited States had its Bill of Rights only in 1776.

The Bill of Rights contains mandates against the State. The state is so powerful that it even has

inherent powers. The Bill of Rights was created to protect the citizens from the powers of the State.

Example of such powers of the State:

1. The emergency powers of the President to call upon the Armed Forces to suppress lawless

violence, declare the suspension of the privilege to the writ of habeas corpus, declare martial

law in the Country or any part thereof.

2.

The over-all power of Government or the power of Government to protect itself.

To protect the citizens from being trampled upon, the Bill of Rights was created. The Bill of Rights is

always directed against the State, the people who violates the Bill of Rights are the people from

Government or the Government itself.

Example:

Illegal search principally, it is violated by police officers or people in Government, however,

private citizens likewise be charged for illegal search but not under the Bill of Rights, but under

the Civil Code.

The Bill of Rights may only be violated by people in Government or the Government itself, the Bill

of Rights is a tool for the private people for protection against the State.

The Bill of Rights applies to Filipino citizens and any person within the jurisdiction of the

Philippines, even to foreigners. All rights equally apply to both Filipinos and foreigners except Section

7 which is only enjoyed by Filipino Citizens. Section 7 is a political right to be informed of

Governmental transaction and right to get copies of documents of governmental transaction.

The three great powers of Government (inherent powers):

1. Police Powerhas been characterized as the most essential and the most insistent and the least

limitable power extending as it does to all public needs.

It is the inherent and plenary power of the State which enables it to prohibit all that is

hurtful to the comfort, safety and welfare of society.

It rest upon public necessity and upon the right of the State and the Public to self-

protection.

It is exercised by the Government through the Legislature but it may also be delegated,

within limits, to the Local Government.

It has been used to justify such public safety measures as in building regulations (it is

for the protection of the people that there must be building regulations), regulation on

the carrying of deadly weapons, regulation of gasoline stations, movie houses andjustify public health measures (as in compulsory connection of sewerage system),

regulation of cattle imports. In the field of public morals, police power has been used as


2/43

basis for judicial approval of legislation, punishing, vagrancy, prohibiting gambling,

regulating the operation of dance halls, motels and hotels and many others.

In the case of Dela Cruz vs. Judge Paras, where the Municpality refused

to give any permit for night clubs or any license for professional dancers, the

court declared the act as unconstitutional as going beyond mere regulation into

prohibition of a profession or calling which properly regulated can be legitimate.

In the case of Magtajas vs. Pryce, while gambling may be prohibited, itmay still be allowed (example PAGCOR), the Courts will not pass judgment on

the choice of Congress. Congress already said that gambling through PAGCOR is

legal, that is why there is a law that governs/regulates gambling. The morality of

gambling is not a justiciable issue. Gambling is not illegal per se, although it is

generally inimical to the interest of the people. There is nothing in the

Constitution categorically proscribing or penalizing gambling or for that matter,

even mentioning it all. Local Governments cannot, even when vested with local

autonomy, contravene the judgment of Congress not to prohibit gambling.

2. Power of Eminent Domain;

3.

Power of Taxation.

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.

1st part no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law (due

process clause).

2ndpartnor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws (equal protection clause).

Question:

What are the rights protected under the due process clause of the Consitution?

o Life, liberty and property.

Is the exercise of police power subject to judicial inquiry/judicial review?

o The exercise of this power, in so far as it affects the life, liberty or property of any

person, is always subject to judicial inquiry.

When you go to court to question the powers of the State, what would be the principle yard

stick (standard or measure) to be used by the courts to regulate police power, power of eminentdomain and power of taxation and to declare an act unconstitutional?

o The practice of States powers may be considered unconstitutional when it is against the

due process clause and equal protection clause.

o The yard stick used is the consideration that it is in accordance with due process and

equal protection clauses of the Constitution. For so long as the procedural and

substantive due process together with the equal protection clause are observed or

complied with by an action of the State, then the act shall be considered

constitutional(U.S. vs. Toribio).

Police power must be exercised within the limits set by the Constitution, in the words of the

leading case of U.S. vs. Toribio, the legislative determination of what is proper exercise of police power

is not final or conclusive, but is always subject to the supervision of the courts, and the principle yard


3/43

stick against which such exercise must be measured are the due process clause and the equal

protection clause.

In Marcos vs. Manglapus, the Supreme Court said that the Constitution is a law for rulers and

people which cover with its shield of protection all classes of men at all times under all circumstances.

The reach of the due process and equal protection clauses touch all persons whether citizens or aliens,

natural or corporate.

Question:

What is the extent to the right to life that is protected by the Constitution?

o The Constitutional protection of the right to life is not just a protection of the right to be

alive or the security of ones limbagainst physical harm, the right to life is also the right

to a good life.

What is the extent to right to liberty? Is it only confined to the right not to be unlawfully

incarcerated or be put in jail?

o The right to liberty that is protected by the due process clause does not simply means

freedom from bodily restraint but also the right of the individual to contract, to engagein any common occupation of life, to acquire useful knowledge to study, to marry, to

establish a home and bring up children, liberty to worship God according to the dictates

of ones conscience.

What is the extent of the right to property?

o Protected property includes all kind of property found in the Civil Code, it has been

deemed to include vested rights, rights that are already existed, rights to a perfected

mining claim, perfected homestead or a final judgement.

Is there a hierarchy of rights among the three rights protected among the due process clause

and of the equal protection clause under Section 1 of the Bill of Rights?

o

Private property is placed as inferior to life and liberty. Between life and liberty, theSupreme Court said that life is most important right protected by the Constitution.

In the case of Arroyo vs. De Lima, Arroyo intended to go abroad for medical

examinations but De Lima stopped them from leaving the court through a hold

departure order. Arroyo then filed a case against De Lima and the Supreme

Court, in issuing the Temporary Restraining Order to De Lima, adverted to the

right to life as the most important right protected by the Constitution. They

restrained De Lima from implementing the hold departure order against Arroryo.

Unfortunately for Arroyo, De Lima filed a case and in the next day, there was

already a case filed against Arroyo and there was already a Judicial Court Order

and not merely an administrative order preventing Arroyo from leaving theCountry. The one which was restrained by the Supreme Court was an

administrative Hold Departure Order which is within the power of the

Department of Justice.

In the case of the Philippine Blooming Mills Employees Association vs Philippine Blooming

Mills Co., Inc., the primacy of human rights over property rights is recognized said the decision. The

superiority of freedoms over property rights is underscored by the fact that a mere reasonable relation

between the means employed by the law and the object or purpose that the law is neither arbitrary or

discriminatory or oppressive would suffice to validate a law which restricts or impairs property rights.

In the case cited, the Court said that there are only a few restrictions of the right to property, on the

other hand, a constitutional or valid infringements of human rights requires a more stringent criterion,namely, the existence of a great and immediate danger of a substantial evil which the state has the

right to prevent.


4/43

Question:

What are the two aspects of due process?

o Procedural due process and substantive due process.

Substantive due process is a prohibition of arbitrary laws. One must go into the substance of

the law or the subject matter of the law to ascertain if the law complies with the substantive due

process.

Where the procedural due process concentrates on the procedure laid down by the law for the

exercise of what the law contemplates in doing. If all that due process require is proper procedure,

then life, liberty and property could be destroyed arbitrarily, provided, proper formalities are observed.

Observing proper formalities are not enough, there has to be the substantive aspect of the law which

should be favorable to the citizens.

As a procedural requirement, it relates chiefly, to the mode or procedure which government

agency must follow in the enforcement and application of laws. It is a guarantee of procedural fairness.

Its essence was expressed by Daniel Webster as a law which hears before it condemns. Daniel Webster

became popular because he argued the Darth Mouth College Case before the Supreme Court

regarding due process, his definition of due process of due process in the oral arguments has always

been followed even by courts in the United States as well as in the Philippines. Daniel Webster said:

Due process is more clearly intended the general law, a law which hears before it condemns, which

proceeds upon inquiry and renders judgment only after trial.

Due process of law depends on the circumstances, there could be a set of requirements for due

process depending on the situation/circumstances, that is why there is a set of procedural due process

in judicial proceedings, in administrative proceedings and another set in student discipline cases.

Question:

What are the requirements in procedural due process in judicial proceedings?

o As held in Bangko Espanol Filipino vs. Palangka:

1. There must be court or a tribunal, clothed with judicial power to hear and

determine the matter brought before it.

2. Jurisdiction must be lawfully acquired over the person/property of the

defendant which is the subject of the proceedings.

3. The defendant must be given an opportunity to be heard.

4. Judgment must be rendered upon lawful hearing.

What are the requirements in procedural due process in administrative proceedings?

o

In Angtibay vs. BIR:

1. The right to a hearing, which includes present ones case and submit evidence in

support thereof.

2. The tribunal must consider the evidence presented.

3. The decision must have something to support it.

4. The evidence must be substantial.

5. The decision must be based on the evidence presented during the hearing.

6. The tribunal or the body or any of its judges must act on his own judgment on

independent consideration of the law and facts of the controversy.

7. The board should render its decision in such a manner that the parties to the

proceedings can know the various issues involved. What are the requirements in procedural due process in Student discipline cases?

o In the case of Guzman vs. University:


5/43


6/43

o Ruby vs. Provincial Board of Mindoro, there was a law creating reservation for

Mangyanes of Mindoro. The members of the Mangyanes Tribes were herded to a

reservation for them to stay there (if you do this now, it will already be considered

unconstitutional). The Supreme Court (during this time) that the law was constitutional

because it was in accordance to public safety, welfare and interest.

o In Villavicencio vs. Lukban, was a case between a police in Manila and a Mayor

[Lukban], the mayor ordered all prostitutes to be gathered and was thrown to otherplaces. The Supreme Court ruled that the act is not allowed since no allowed such

actions and was against due process.

o In People vs. Fajardo, a building permit was denied the owner of the property because

when he constructs his house, it will obstruct the access from the highway to the town

plaza. The Supreme Court ruled that the act of denying the permit as a deprivation of

private property, it oversteps the bounds of police power and amounts to taking of

property without just compensation.

What is the principle of presumed constitutionality or validity of statutes?

o Ermita-Malate Hotel and Motel Operators Association, Inc. vs. City of Manilathis case

stemmed from a city ordinance of Manila designed to curb the rampant use of Hotelsand Motels as places of illicit assignation. It was contested by the Ermita-Malate Hotel

and Motel Operators Association, Inc., they sued the City of Manila, but because they

could not present evidence that would convince the Court to rebut the presumption of

the Constitutionality of the Law, there was no evidence presented, the Supreme Court

ruled that they cannot just decide the case without any evidence to rebut the

presumption. There being no evidence presented to rebut the presumption of

constitutionality of the statute then the statute remains to be constitutitonal.

What is the rule on the publication of laws as requirement of due process?

o In Tanada vs. Tuvera, 1986, under Article 2 of the Civil Code, provides, laws shall take

effect after 15 days following the completion of their publication in the Official Gazetteunless it is otherwise provided. The phrase unless it is otherwise provided refers to the

15-day period and not the requirement of publication. A statute that is not published

violates due process, it is a violation of due process if a statute which is supposed to be

published in the official gazette is not published, one may go to court to question if one

is sued for a law that is not published properly.

Is the rule requiring publication, for the effectivity of laws, apply only to laws passed by

Congress?

o No, it also applied to Presidential Decrees and Executive Orders promulgated by the

President in the exercise of legislative powers, whenever the same are validly delegated

by the Legislature or, at present, directly conferred by the Constitution.

Republic vs. Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Co. requirement for publication before

the effectivity of laws.

What is void for vagueness rule?

o A law that is utterly vague is defective, because it fails to give notice of what it

commands (People vs. Nazario).

o In the case of Estrada vs. Sandiganbayan, Josepth Estrada was sued for plunder, he

contends that the plunder law is vague and therefore it is against due process but the

Supreme Court disagreed. According to the Court, a statute or act is vague when it lacks

comprehensible standards that men of common intelligence guess as its meaning and

differ as to its application. In such an instance, the Statute is repugnant to the

Constitution in two (2) respects 1st, it violates due process for failure to accord

persons fair notice of what conduct to avoid and 2nd, it leaves law enforcers unbridled

discretion in carrying out its provisions and becomes an arbitrary flexing of the


7/43

Government muscle. In the case of Estrada, the Court ruled that the plunder law is not

vague.

o In People vs. Dela Piedra, 2001 a criminal statute that fails to give a person of

ordinary intelligence fair notice that his contemplated conduct is forbidden by the

statute or is so indefinite that it encourages arbitrary and erratic arrest and convictions

is void for vagueness.

The equal protection clauseis a specific constitutional guarantee of the equality of the person.

The equality it guarantees is legal equality or the equality of all persons before the law. The equality

guaranteed, however, does not deny to the State the power to recognize and act upon factual

differences between individuals and classes. It recognizes that inherent in the right to legislate is the

right to classify. The problem, thus, in equal protection cases is one of determining the validity of the

classification made by law.

Example:

There is a law that was enacted by Congress which would apply to women and men alike. In

that way the law enacted in Congress failed to recognize the difference or the classification, thelaw recognizes the inherent right of the Legislature to classify.

The guarantee of equal protection simply means that no person or class of persons shall be

deprived of the same protection of the laws which is enjoyed by other persons or other classes in the

same place and in like circumstances.

In People vs. Cayat, it is an established principle in Constitutional Law that the guarantee of the

equal protection of the laws is not violated by a legislation based on reasonable classification.

Question:

What are the requirements of a reasonable classification?

o 1. It must rest on substantial distinction.

2. It must be germane to the purpose of the law.

3. Must not be limited to existing conditions only.

4. Must apply equally to all members of the same class.

In Farinas vs. Executive Secretary, 2003the provisions in the Fair Elections Act providing that

elective officials are not deemed resigned was held by the Supreme Court not to be applicable to

appointive officials because they are not of the same class, Appointive against Elective.

RA 7227, The Subic Freeport Law, was challenged as violative of the equal protection clausebecause it granted tax and duty incentives to businesses and residence within the secured area of the

Subic special economic zone and denied them to those who lived within the zone but outside the fence

area. In Subic, there is a fence area where those who are entitled. The residence of Subic outside the

fenced area complained, they questioned the unequal treatment to them. The Supreme Court said,

there is a classification therefore the statute is valid. The Court justified the classification, saying that

the Constitution does not require absolute equality.

International School Alliance of Educators vs. Quisumbing, Quisumbing was the Secretary of

Education before 2001. The practice of the International School of giving higher salary to foreign hires

than to local hires was question. Both the local and the foreign hires had the same circumstances but

the local hires were given less pay. The Supreme Court ruled that the practice is unconstitutional.

The Constitution as a general rule places the civil rights of aliens in equal footing with those of

citizens. Political rights are not applied equally between aliens and citizens.


8/43

In Villegas vs. Hiu Chiong, a law can offend against equal protection not only when it classifies

but also when it fails to classify. The Court invalidated a Manila Ordinance imposing uniform license

fee on all aliens as a pre-condition in accepting employment. The uniform fee was found unlawful

because it fails to consider valid differences in situation among individual aliens who were required to

pay.

Himagan vs. People, concerns with the provision of the National Police Law. Under theNational Police Law, suspension can continue beyond 90 days until after the case against the

policeman is terminated (other civil servants only the 90 days period applied). This was questioned

before the Supreme Court and the Court said: the Policemen are classified differently from other civil

service employee.

Question:

Does the equal protection clause prohibit the State from Institutionalizing inequality or does it

command the State to take positive measures to eradicate inequalities that has arisen, not

necessarily through State action?

o

So far, under the equal protection clause of Section 1, the concerns mainly involved actsof the legislative that is violative the equal protection clause. It indicates that the

Constitution is only proactive, that the violation against the equal protection clause is

there only to remedy a situation.

Does the Constitution have provisions that are not dependent on actual cases or remedial

measures but acts that would enhance equal protection?

o Yes, according to Bernas, they are the following:

1. No less than the preamble proclaims equality as an ideal.

2. Command to promote social justice in all face of development in Article II,

Section 10, further explicated in Article XIII, National Patrimony.

3.

The Commission on Elections is given broad powers in order to implement lawsseeking to equalize political opportunities.

4. So is the command of the Constitution to prohibit political dynasties.

5. Article III section 11 expressly guarantees free access to the courts.

6. Article XIV commands the State to make quality education accessible to all.

o The above mentioned enumeration are the provisions of the Constitution that enhances

the equal protection of people, not necessarily as a result of a legislature that is being

corrected by the equal protection clause of section 1.

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.

The command of section 2 reads: 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 anypurpose shall be inviolable


9/43

Procedure on how a lawful warrant of arrest and search warrant shall be issued: no search

warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon:

1. Probable cause

2. To be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the

complainant and the witnesses he may produce (not necessarily by the judge)

3.

and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized

Twin mandates of Section 2:

1. Protect the privacy and sanctity of the person and his house and other possessions against

arbitrary intrusions of the State.

2. It provides for conditions under which a valid intrusion may be made.

Question:

May a private person or an entity be made liable for illegal search?

o Yes, but not under the Constitution but under Article 32 of the Civil Code (Silahis

International Hotel, Inc. vs. Rogelio Soluta)

As earlier, the provisions of the Bill of Rights can only be violated by the State and not private

individuals, but it does not mean that the private individuals may go scotch free, they can be held

liable.

Question:

Is Section 2 a prohibition against all searches and seizures?

o No, only of unreasonable searches and seizures. As a general rule, searches and seizure

are unreasonable unless authorized by a validly issued search warrant.

1.

In Valmonte vs. Villa, People vs. Escano, the Court had the occasion to determinewhen is there illegal search. This has something to do with checkpoints. The

Court held that there as yet no cause for the application of the Constitutional

when what are involved are routine checks consisting of a brief question or 2,

for as long as the vehicle is neither searched nor its occupants subjected to

bodily search and the inspection of the vehicle is limited to visual search. Said

routine checks cannot be regarded as violative as an individuals right against

unreasonable searches and seizures.

When may a search be conducted without a warrant?

o When there is probable cause. If there is reason to believe that a person is committing a

crime and the policeman believes that there is probable cause for the search then hemay undertake the search, but, there must be a good and serious reason that a crime

has been, will be or has been committed and that a person searched is involved in the

crime.

What are the essential requisites of a valid warrant?

o Essentials requisites are:

1. It must be issued upon probable cause.

2. Probable cause must be determined personally by the judge. Such judge must

examine, under oath or affirmation, the complainant and the witnesses they may

produce but in the recent cases, the Supreme Court said that they examination

under oath of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce does notnecessarily be made by the judge, but, the result if the examination is done by

another person must be written and the result must be provided to the judge.


10/43

3. Warrant must particularly describe the place to be searched or the person or

thing to be seized.

No search warrant or warrant of arrest issue except upon probable cause.

Question:

What is probable cause?o Is such facts and circumstances antecedent to the issuance of a warrant that are in

themselves sufficient to induce a cautious man to rely upon them and act in pursuance

thereof.

What is the probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest?

o Is such facts and circumstances which lead in a reasonably prudent man to believe that

an offense had been committed by the person sought to be arrested. The reasonably

prudent man is the judge.

What is the probable cause for the issuance of a search warrant?

o Facts and circumstances that would lead a reasonably prudent man to believe that an

offense has been committed and that the objects sought in connection of the offense arein the place sought to be searched.

What is the quantum of evidence needed to reach probable cause?

o Probability, only the probability that a crime has been committed is enough. Based on

the narration of the complainant and that of the witnesses which are before the judge,

he must determine probable cause. The standards of the judgment are those of a

reasonably prudent man, not the exacting calibration of the judge after a full blown

trial.

Probable cause for a search warrant need not point to a specific offender but it must point to

some specific violation of our criminal law.

Probable cause for a warrant of arrest must point to a specific offender.

Under Section 3, Rule 126 of the Rules of Court, it is not provided that a search warrant shall

not issue but upon probable cause in connection with one specific offense, and that no search warrant

shall issue for more than one specific offense. If there are several offenses, there must also be several

search warrants.

In the case of Stonehill vs. Diokno, the description of the offense was made in a general manner

[it merely stated it there is a violation of the Central Bank Laws, tariff and Customs Law, Internal

Revenue Code and Revised Penal Code], no specific act or provision was mentioned. The Supreme

Court then ruled that it [the description of the offense] does not provide enough basis for the issuing

judge to determine if there is probable cause.

Question:

Must there be personal knowledge of the specific illegal transactions with identified parties in

the issuance of a search warrant?

o In the case of Central Bank vs. Judge Morfe, the Court ruled and upheld that the

issuance of the search warrant and said that the failure of the witness to mention

particular individuals did not necessarily prove that he had no personal knowledge of

specific illegal transactions even if the names of the individuals involved whereunknown to him. This is only applicable in a search warrant.


11/43

In the 1935 Constitution, the probable cause may be determined by a judge alone, in the 1973

Constitution, probable cause may be determined by the judge or such other persons as may be

authorized by law, In the 1987 Constitution, the practice returned to the 1935 practice that only the

judge can determine probable cause.

It is a different scenario when a case is filed against a person and it is investigated by the

Fiscals office. The Fiscals office will determine probable cause before he files the case, the probablecause here is not the same as the probable cause in the issuance of a warrant of arrest or a search

warrant because the probable cause that a Fiscal determines is an administrative determination, the

determination is an executive function for the purposes of filing and nothing more. If the case is filed

and is assigned to a judge, the judge will now issue a warrant which is issued only upon a judicial

probable cause (which has been defined earlier). Even if the Fiscal says that there is probable cause, it

is incumbent upon the judge when it issues the warrant to determine probable cause (judicial

probable cause).

Question:

What is the oft required for the complainants and witnesses when they appear before the judgebefore the issuance of a warrant of arrest or search warrant (test of sufficiency)?

o Alvarez vs. CFI Court of First Instance), as laid down in this case, the test is whether it

had been drawn in such manner that perjury could be charged thereon and affidavit be

held liable for damages caused.

What is meant by personally in Section 2 (to be determined personally by the judge)?

o In Soliven vs. Judge Makasiar, the judge need not be the one to examine the complaint

and his witnesses, it can be done by a commissioner (the Clerk of Court or some other

person), however, the report of the examination must be given or provided the judge

when he sits down to personally determine probable cause. What the judge would do is

personal determination and not personal examination, therefore, the word personallyin section 2 refers to the act of the judge in personally determining probable cause and

not personally examining the witnesses.

Lim vs. Felix, reiterated the Soliven vs. Makasiar.

What is the purpose of requiring particularity of description in a search warrant?

o The evident purpose of the requirement is to limit the things to be seized to those and

only those particularly described in a search warrant.

The rule that searchers and seizure must be supported by a valid warrant is not an absolute

rule, what the provision prohibits is unreasonable searches and seizure. A search or seizure not

supported by a warrant is not necessarily unreasonable because there may be warrantless searches

and seizures. These are the following circumstances where seizure and searches may be had even

without a warrant:

1. Search incidental to an arrest.

2. Search of moving vehicles.

3. Seizure of evidence in plain view.

4. Customs searches.

5. Where there is waiver of the right.

6. Rule on exigent circumstances.

7. Stop and frisk rule.

Moreno vs. Ago Chi is an example of a search incidental to an arrest, the officer making an

arrest may take from the person any money or property found in his person which was used in the


12/43

commission of the crime or was the fruit of the crime or which might furnish the prisoner with a

means of committing violence or escaping or which may be used as an evidence of the trial of the case.

Question:

May a search incidental to an arrest be made in a place other than where the suspect is

arrested?

o

In the case of Nolasco vs. Pano, the arrest was made in a jeepney, the search was made

in the house, the court ruled that the search was not proper. To quote Chief Justice

Teehankee in his concurring opinion he said: Such warrantless search obviously

cannot be made in a place other than the of arrest.

Search of moving vehicles, because it is not practical to secure a warrant because the vehicle

can move out of the locality or jurisdiction to which the warrant was sought, then search of a moving

vehicle can be done even without a warrant.

Anag vs. COMELEC, Anag was a Congressman of the 8thCongress, in the election of 1992, his

car was flagged down 20 meters away from the gate of the Batasan, when the search was done,

authorities found several firearms. The Supreme Court said that the search was unlawful because

there was no showing or evidence that the occupant of the car is a suspected person. There was no

showing likewise that a prior report was done that the car had contrabands. The search was

invalidated because there was no probable cause. There must be a determination of the Policeman of

probable cause before searching the vehicle. The search of the car made by police officers 20 meters

away from the entrance of the Batasan Complex was not justified by any earlier confidential report

nor by the behavior or appearance of the motorist. The court further held, an extensive search without

warrant could only be resorted to if the officers conducting the search had reasonable or probable

cause to believe, before the search, that either the motorist was a law offender or that they would find

the instrumentality or evidence pertaining to the commission of the crime in the vehicle to be searched.

Requirements for evidence in plain view as an exception:

1. There must be a valid prior intrusion into a place the ingress of the authorities into a

place must be legal.

2. The evidence was inadvertently discovered by the police who had the right to be where

they are. If the officers do not inadvertently discover evidence outside the place specified by

the warrant then the seizure or search is invalid.

3. Illegality of the evidence must be immediately apparent (e.g. shabu, guns and bullets).

4. It is noticed without further search.

In People vs. Tapar, where marijuana sticks fall before the eyes of the Police officer from theobject a person is carrying, seizure of the sticks will not require a warrant.

People vs. Musa, the evidence in plain, discovery must be inadvertent.

Customs Inspection since it is there duty then they may the right to inspect even without a

warrant.

Waiver of Constitutional Right People vs. Barros, 1994, and De Garcia vs. Locsin, the Court

ruled that the failure to object in an unlawful search is not an implied waiver of a persons right,

instead it is just a demonstration of the regard for the supremacy of the law.

In People vs. Comapacion, the military was allowed by the owner to enter the premises of his

home, his silence for the unreasonable search and seizure is not a waiver of voluntary submission or


13/43

implied acquiescence. The implied conformity given under coercive or intimidating circumstances is

considered no consent at all.

In Spouses Veroy vs. Layague, while it is true that the owners permitted the authorities to enter

their home, the consent given to the authorities to enter the home does not carry with it permission

given for them to search, go from one room to another to make a search.

Exigent Circumstancesthere is no time or opportunity anymore to go to court. This happened

during the time of Coup detat. The Police saw a cache of firearms, seen from the outside, inside a

bodega, because of the exigent circumstances (there was a coup and there was fighting all around) the

police can no longer go to court and file a warrant thus they seized the firearms then and there.

Stop and Frisk rule Posadas vs. Court of Appeals and Malacat vs. Court of Appeals

suspicious acts made by people may warrant a stop and frisk situation even if no arrest is made.

In Amarga vs. Abbas, 1956, the Supreme Court already said the requirements for the issuance

of a search warrant are the same as the requirements for the issuance of a warrant of arrest. It is now

a constitutional provision. The 1987 Constitution does not provide for a different requirement for the

issuance of a warrant of arrest from that of the issuance of a search warrant.

Question:

Is a John Doe warrant of arrest valid?

o Yes, provided that the warrant contains a descriptio personae or a description of the

person such that the person can be easily identified.

Is a warrant of arrest for numerous John Doe?

o It cannot be done, a general warrant is clearly a violation of the requirement of

particularity of description.

There are valid searches without warrant or warrantless searches, there are also warrantless

arrests, this is summarized under rule 113, Section 5 of the Rules of Court, these are:

1. When in his presence the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing or is

about to commit an offense (this provision gives power not only to a police officer but also

to a private individual to make an arrest). This instance is also known as the Flagrante

delicto rule.

a. In People vs. Burgos and People vs. Jayson, the court said that the officer arresting a

person who has just committed, is committing, or about to commit an offense must

have personal knowledge of the fact. The offense must be committed in his presence

or within his view2. When an offense has in fact been committed and he has personal knowledge of the facts

indicating that the person to be arrested has committed it.

3. When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal establishment.

Question:

May a warrantless arrest be effected 3 month or 6 days after the commission of a crime?

o No, a warrantless arrest must be done on the spot.

Is entrapment legal?

o Entrapment is legal depending on the circumstances. The type of entrapment the law

forbids is the inducing of another to violate the law, the seduction of an otherwiseinnocent person into a criminal career. Where the criminal intent originates from the

mind of entrapping person and the accused is lured into the commission of the offense


14/43

charged in order to prosecute him, there is entrapment and no conviction maybe had

(this entrapment is called instigation). In a buy-bust operation, the officers already

know who are the criminals, they merely engage with these criminals to catch them

red-handed and thus this kind of entrapment is legal (People vs. Doria).

Go vs. Court of Appeals is an instance where a crime had been committed and the peace officer

or the person making an arrest has personal knowledge of the facts indicating that the person to bearrested has committed it.

Question:

When must the validity of an arrest be challenged?

o It must be made before a person enters a plea in the arraignment otherwise the

objection is deemed waived. The Accused must move for the quashing of the

information against him before the arraignment otherwise he is estopped from

questioning the validity of the arrest.

Is an application for bail a waiver of the right of an accused to question the illegality of his

arrest?o No, Section 26, Rule 112 and Okabe vs. Judge de Leon.

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.

1stpart of the section 3(1)general rule, the 2ndpart is the exception.

The privacy of communication and correspondence shall be inviolablegeneral rule.

Exceptions:

1. Upon lawful order of the court.

2. When public safety or order requires otherwise, as prescribed by law.

Question:

True or False: Is the privacy to communication and correspondence absolutely inviolable?

o False, it admits exceptions.

What type of communications and correspondents are covered in Section?

o The provisions covers letters and messages.

Does Section 3 allow intrusions into the privacy of communication and correspondence?

o Yes, the 2ndpart of the 1stsentence of Section provides for them.

Upon what grounds may the courts allow intrusion? Section 3 prohibits intrusion into the

privacy of communication and correspondence but there is an exception: when the courts

allows it, when you apply for intrusion (e.g. wiretapping), what would be the yard stick of the

courts in providing for the exception?

o The Court may order intrusion based on the requirements of probable cause (section 2).

This is because intrusion into communication and correspondence is a form of a search.


15/43

What is the meaning of the exclusionary rule under paragraph 2 of Section 3?

o The exclusionary rule bars admission of illegally obtained evidence for any purpose in

any proceeding.

How may evidence declared inadmissible be disposed of?

o The inadmissibility of evidence does not mean that it must be returned where it came

from pending determination of the legality of the seized articles. It must remain in

custoria legisor in the custody of the court. If the object is not a prohibited object, thenafter the case is disposed of, it must be returned, but if it is a contraband it must be

confiscated (Ali vs. Castro).

In the absence of governmental interference, the constitutional right against unreasonable

search and seizure cannot be invoked against the State (People vs. Andre Marti).

Question:

May evidence that is unlawfully obtained by private individuals come under the exclusionary

rule?

o

To come under the exclusionary rule, the evidence must be obtained by governmentagents and not by individuals acting on their own.

NOVEMBER 27, 2014

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.

Two parts of Section 4:

1stNo law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press;

2ndThe right to peaceably assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances.

Originally Section 4 does not include the freedom of expression. The phrase of expression is

a new addition in the 1987 Phil. Constitution. It was here that freedom of speech or of the press was

considered vague as to include other forms of expression, an example is pantomime (acting without

words coming out from a persons mouth). Freedom of speech includes other forms of expression, in

the 1987 Phil. Constitution, they made it explicit, it now reads as freedom of the press, of speech andof expression which now includes different kinds of expression and not only speech.

The second part of Section 4 is an old provision carried by the 1987 Phil. Constitution.

Question:

What are the twin mandates of Section 4?

o 1stis the protection of the freedom of speech, of expression, and of the press; and

o 2nd the protection to peaceably assemble and petition the government for redress of

grievances.

What does speech, expression, or press include?o It includes every form of expression, whether oral, written, taped, disc-recorded,

movies, symbolic speech (wearing of arm bands) and peaceful picketing.


16/43

What are the two prohibitions of the abridgement of the freedom of speech, expression, or of

the press?

o 1st, the prohibition on prior restraint it is restraint prior to the act. Official

government restriction on the press or other forms of expression in advance of actual

publication or dissemination. Its most blatant form is a system of licensing administered

by an executive officer (movie censorship, although not placed on the same level as

press censorship, belongs to this type of prior restraint). In addition to the acts of priorrestraint is judicial prior restraint which takes the form of injunctions issued by the

courts against publication. Equally objectionable prior restraints are licensing taxes

measured by gross receipts for the privilege to engaging in the business of advertising in

any newspaper or flat license fees for privilege of selling religious books.

o 2nd, prohibition on subsequent punishmentrestraint of speech, expression, and of the

press after the act. The mere prohibition of government interference (prior restraint)

before words are spoken or published would be inadequate protection of the freedom of

expression if government could punish without restraint after publication. The

guarantee of freedom of expression also means a limitation in the power of the State to

impose subsequent punishment. Is the warning against media against airing of the conversation between the President and

other personalities constitute constitutional prior restraint?

o Yes, it constitutes prior restraint and is unconstitutional as held in Chavez vs. Gonzales

(Hello Garci tapes).

When the right to free speech and the press collides with the right of the accused to a fair trial

how will the court dispose of the conflict?

o In the case of Secretary of Justice vs. Sandiganbayanduring the hearing in the case of

President Estrada, the Supreme Court said the case involved a petition to allow live

television coverage of the trial of the Former-President. The case involved the weighing

out of the constitutional guarantees of the freedom of the press and the right of thepeople to public information on the one hand and the fundamental rights of the accused

on the other hand. When these rights are raised against one another, jurisprudence tells

us that the rights of the accused must be preferred. In denying the petition, the Court

said that television coverage of judicial proceedings involves an inherent denial of due

process in the rights of a criminal-defendant.

o In the Maguindanao Massacre cases, a petition for radio and TV coverage was requested.

The Supreme Court said that the indication of serious risk posed by live coverage to the

accuseds right to due process left unexplained in the Estrada case has left a blow to the

exercise to press freedom and the right to public information. Apparent circumstance

makes the Maguindanao Massacre different from the Estrada cases, one of which is the

impossibility of accommodating all interested parties inside the courtroom (because

there are more than 150 accused). Initially the Supreme Court said, yes, live coverage

maybe done in the Maguindanao Massacre cases, however, on reconsideration, the

Supreme Court did not allow live coverage as reiterated by Chief Justice Sereno, the

members of the press must be allowed inside the courtroom but no live coverage is

allowed. While the Court recognizes the freedom of the press and the right to public

information (these rights belongs to non-direct parties) the rights of the direct parties

should not be forgotten. In a clash amongst these competing interests, jurisprudence

makes it clear that the balance should always be weighed in favor of the accused (the

decision went back to the justification on the Estrada case for live coverage).

Ayer Productions vs. Kapulong, the case involved the production of the 4-day revolution (a

movie-documentary on the EDSA revolution) and Senator Juan Ponce Enrile. Since Enrile was a crucial


17/43

player during this revolution the documentary included his persona in the film. Enrile went to court

and wanted to stop the production and the recording of his participation, he asserted his right to

privacy while the petitioners (producers) asserted their right of expression. The Court said that the

freedom of expression must be balanced to the right to privacy (which was recognized by law as the

right to be left alone). A limited intrusion into a persons privacy has long been regarded as

permissible where the person is a public figure and the information sought to be elicited from him or

to be published about him constitute matters of public character. In this case, there was no doubt thatthe events of the 4-day revolution is of a public character. In addition, Enrile was a public figure

which meant that he had no right to prevent the publication of the story of his participation in the

event.

Question:

Is the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press absolute?

o No, the freedom of speech is not absolute.

May these rights be lawfully restrained?

o Yes, laws may be had for the restraint for the freedom of speech but there must be a

standard for the restraint.

What are the requirements for the lawful restraint of these rights?

o Dangerous tendency rule speech can be curtailed or punished when it creates a

dangerous tendency to bring about the evil which the state has the right to prevent. The

tendency alone for the evil to come about will justify the restraint these rights. All it

requires for speech to be punishable is that there be rational connection between the

speech and the evil sought to be apprehended.

o Clear and present danger ruleis founded on whether the words used are used in such

circumstance and are of such nature as to create a clear and present danger that they

will bring about the evils that Congress has a right to prevent. It is a question of

proximity and degree in both instances. In the dangerous tendency rule, if the speech isuttered in such a way that there is a tendency to bring about the evil sought to be

prevented then speech may be curtailed. Under the clear and present danger rule there

must already be a clear and present danger of the evil before the right to speech, to

expression, or of the press to be curtailed.

o Balancing of interest rule Courts have the duty to balance the evil sought to be

prevented as against the rights. If general welfare is the reason for the curtailment of

speech then speech may be prevented. But if the courts, in balancing this interest will

say that the speech does not bring about the evil sought to be avoided then the courts

will allow speech. Jurisprudence in this test uses the case of Gonzales vs. COMELEC.

Freedom of expression has never been understood to be an absolute right. Some forms of

speech are not protected by the Constitution.

Question:

What are the forms of speech not protected by the Constitution?

o Libel jurisprudence on libel has been developed around Article 353 of the revised

penal code. Libel is a public and malicious imputation of a crime, a vice, 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. Elements required to be liable for libel:

1. The allegation of a discreditable act or condition concerning another;

2. Publication of the charge;


18/43

3. Identity of the person defamed;

4. Existence of malice.

When is a speech libelous?

o When the imputation is public;

o When it is malicious.

When is imputation considered public?

o

The imputation is public when the information is made known to anyoneother than the person to whom it is written.

When is speech/statement considered malicious?

o It is malicious when the author of the imputation is prompted by evil or

spite or speech not in response to duty but merely to injure the

reputation of the person who claims to have been defamed.

o Obscenity

If a speech is not malicious even if defamatory it is privileged, libel does not set in as stated in

the case of Alonzo vs. Court of Appeals.

In Alonzo vs. Court of Appeals, every defamatory imputation is presumed to be malicious even

if it be untrue. If no good intention and justifiable motive for making it is shown.

Exceptions:

1. A private communication to another in the performance of any legal, moral, or social duty; and

2. A fair and true report made in good faith without any comments/remarks of any judicial,

legislative, or other official proceedings which are not of confidential nature or of any

statement, report, or speech delivered in such proceedings or of any other act performed by

public officers in the exercise of their duties and functions.

Question:

Are pleadings filed in court privileged?

o The prevailing rule is that parties, counsels and witnesses are exempted from liability in

libel or slander, for words otherwise defamatory published in the course of judicial

proceedings, provided, the statements are relevant to the case (Armovit vs. Judge

Purisima).

Pleadings are privileged, but to be so, they must be relevant to the matter under

investigation (Gutierrez vs. Abila).

The case of People vs. Del Rosario defines who is injured in cases of libel. In

criminal law, in the commission of the crime, it is the State who is injured, inlibel, it is not the disturbance of public order coxed by defamatory language but

its tendency to injure the person defamed.

There are three objects of criticisms in the life of a public figure:

1. His public and official acts;

2. His mental, moral and physical fitness for office;

3. His strictly private life.

When the object of criticism is his strictly private life, defamatory implications are not

constitutionally protected expression. When object of criticism is his public or official acts then theexpression is constitutionally protected. True criticism of a persons mental, moral and physical fitness

for office is privilege but false criticism is not privilege if malicious (if used as a cloak for assaults for a

persons private life).


19/43

Fermin vs. People, Public figures are not unprotected, they are protected from criticisms.

Second part of Section 4:

The right of the people to peaceably assemble cannot and must not be impaired, but it may be

regulated (like the other rights).

Standards for allowing restraint or regulation:

1. Dangerous Tendency rule;

2. Clear and Present danger rule;

3. Balancing of interest rule.

Evangelista vs. EarnshawDangerous Tendency rule. Evangeslista was a Communist leader

(CPP) while Earnshaw was mayor of manila.

Primicias vs. FugosoClear and Present danger rule. Fugoso was a mayor and Primicias was a

communist leader.

Question:

Which rule is more in keeping with the spirit of the constitutional guarantees of free

expression, of peaceful assembly, and petition?

o Not answered.

o Opinion: The Clear and Present Danger rule gives more guarantee to the constitutional

right than the dangerous tendency rule.

Section 5:

No law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise

thereof. The free exercise 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.

1stsentencemeat of section 5 (non-establishment clause and free-exercise clause)

The Spanish Constitution of 1876 provides that Catholicism was the States religion. It was also

the State religion in the Philippines, but one of the immediate effects of the American constitutionalism

in the Philippines was the denial to the Catholic Church of the privilege position it held under theSpanish Sovereignty. The free exercise of religion was first guaranteed under the 1935 Constitution.

Question:

How did this provision get into the 1935 Philippine Constitution?

o It was guaranteed under Section 10 of the Treaty of Paris, which guaranteed that the

territories ceded to the U.S. by Spain shall be secured of a free exercise of religion.

The non-establishment and the free-exercise clauses express an underlying relational concept

of separation between religion and secular government (related to this is Article II section 5).

Question:

What is the basis for the free exercise clause?


20/43

o It is the respect for the inviolability of human conscience. There must be free exercise of

religion because no law can be passed to regulate the free exercise of religion. The

exercise of religion is an exercise of human conscience. People must be free to exercise

their religion because their religion is a manifestation of their conscience.

o Cantwell vs. Connecticut, 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 forms of worship. Freedom of conscienceand freedom to adhere to such religious organization or form of worship as the

individual may choose cannot be restricted by law, on the hand; it safeguards the free

exercise of the chosen form of religion. Once a person has chosen his religion then the

government must ensure that this person has the freedom to exercise his chosen

religion. It safeguards the free exercise of the chosen religion thus the amendment

embraces two concepts, freedom to believe and freedom to act. The first, which is the

freedom to believe, is absolute but the second, the freedom to act, cannot be absolute.

Can the State impose civic obligations that might conflict with a persons religious beliefs?

o In Gerona vs. Secretary of Educationthe government said that religion must give way to

law, but in 1993 the Gerona case was abandoned in favor of Ebralinag vs. DivisionSuperintendent of Schools of Cebu were the Court held that the freedom of religion

requires that protesting members be exempt from the operation of the law. Ebralinag

and Gerona had something to do with Jevohas Witnesses not wanting to salute the

Philippine Flag.

What is the non-establishment clause?

o The non-establishment clause means that the State cannot establish or sponsor a State or

official religion. The non-establishment clause prohibits the State:

1. From passing laws which aid one religion;

2. Aid of religion; and

3.

Prefer one religion over another.o Austria vs. NLRC, a pastor who could not account for the tithes collected in his church

was dismissed by his church. The case reached the NLRC then the Supreme Court.

Austria claims that the NLRC does not have jurisdiction because the case concerned his

religion, the Court said no. The subject of the case had something to do with the

employer-employee relationship between Austria and his church and had nothing to do

with religion.

What is the condition for the exemption for realty taxes for religious property?

o The property should be used:

1. Actually;

2. Directly; and

3.

Exclusively used for the purposes of religion, charity and/or education.

What is the purpose for prohibiting religious test?

o The purpose is to render the Government powerless to restore the policy of probing

religious beliefs by test or limiting public offices to persons who have or profess their

beliefs to some or particular kind of religious concept. To allow religious test would

have the effect of formal or practical establishment of a particular religious faith with

consequent burdens imposed on the free exercise of the faith of non-favored believers

(Torcaso vs. Watkins)

Can the State compel a person to bear arms in defense of the Country when bearing arms is

contrary to the persons beliefs?

o

NOT ANSWERED

o Opinion: Yes, the urgency of the situation calls upon the citizens to defend their nation.


21/43

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 bylaw.

General rule = the liberty of abode and of changing the same within the limits prescribed by law shall

not be impaired.

Exception = upon lawful order of the court.

Question:

Is the liberty of abode and of changing the same within the limits prescribed by law absolute?

o No it is not, it admits of an exception which is the lawful order of the court.

2ndsentence deals with the right to travel.

Question:

Is the right to travel absolute?

o No, it may be impaired if it is for the interest of national security, public safety, or

public health as may be provided by law.

In both instances, the exceptions involve the judiciary. The first instance the liberty of abode

and changing the same may be restrained by lawful order of the court and the second instance of

traveling also includes national security, public safety and public health in accordance with anexisting law.

The freedom of movement involves two rights:

1. The liberty of abodeincludes the freedom to choose and change once place of abode within

the limits prescribed by law and maybe impaired only upon lawful order of the court (e.g. of

lawful order of the court would be a condition imposed in connection with the grant of bail. In

a bail, it is always imposed there that the accused cannot leave the jurisdiction of the court thus

it impairs the accuseds freedom of abode).

2. The liberty of travelinclude the freedom to travel within the country and outside the country.

It may be impaired even without a court order, but the appropriate executive officer can only

impose these limits on the basis of national security, public safety, and public health as maybe

provided by law (e.g. passports, passport officers, there is a law that you must have a passport

before you can leave the country).

a. Gloria Arroyo vs. De Lima, former president Arroyo wanted to leave the country but De

Lima stopped her, the Supreme Court issued a restraining order against De Lima and

DOJ.

Section 7:

The right of the people to information on matters of public concern shall be recognized. Access to

official records, and to documents and papers pertaining to official acts, transactions, or decisions,


22/43

as well as to government research data used as basis for policy development, shall be afforded the

citizen, subject to such limitations as may be provided by law.

The FOI (Freedom of Information Bill) is based on this Section. The restriction on the FOI bill

can be found on administrative issuances which are existing restrictions. Without the FOI bill there is

already a mandate on the right of the people to information on matters of public concern (this is the

subject matter of Section 7).

The two rights guaranteed by the provision are:

1. The right to information on matters of public concern and;

2. The corollary right to access to official records.

These rights are subject to limitations as may be provided by law.

These rights are political rights available only to citizens, and are the exception to the general rule that

the bill of rights are applicable to everyone within the Philippines, even foreigners.

Chavez vs. Pea-Amari(2002) answers the question on when a bid proposal may be accessed bythe public.

Recognized limitations on the exercise of the right to information that existed even before the FOI bill

are:

1. National Security matters;

2. Criminal Matter or classified law enforcement matters;

3. Diplomatic correspondence;

4. Close door Cabinet meetings;

5. Executive sessions of either houses of Congress and;

6.

Internal Deliberations of the Supreme Court.

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.

Deals with the rights of the people, including those employed in private and public sectors, to

form unions. Before the 1987 Phil Constitution, the right of government employees to form unions is

not specifically mandated/protected.

There is an exception, while the right of government employees to form unions and

associations, societies and organizations is protected/mandated, government employees still do not

have the right to strike. Only private employees are allowed to go on strike.

Section 8 means the right to form associations shall not be impaired without due process of law.

Question:

What if Section 8 was not included in the Constitution? Can employees in the private and

public sector form associations?o Yes they can.

The right of association involves litigations on two areas of associational activity:


23/43

1. Labor unionism;

2. Communist organization.

In the case of Philippine Association of Free Labor Unions vs. Secretary of Labor, in contention in

this case is section 23 of the Labor Code, requiring the registration of Labor Unions. This was

challenged as a violation of the Constitutional provision to form associations. The Supreme Court ruled

that it (section 23) is not a violation of the constitutional provision. The particular provision is notpreventing the organization of associations and labor unions, it mere requires them to register.

In People vs. Hernandez (1956), the case revolved around the question of whether mere

membership in a communist organization is already punishable as a criminal offense. The Court said

no, mere membership is not criminal because there is no overt act committed yet. Membership in the

Communist party of the Philippines is not criminal but membership in the HMB is considered illegal

because the HMB has already announced that their purpose is to overthrow the Philippine

Government through radical means. This case gave way for Congress to enact RA 1700 (Anti-

subversion law), this law declared the Communist party as illegal. Section 4 of its provision provides

that whoever, knowingly, willfully, and by overt acts, affiliates himself with the Communist party of

the Philippines and becomes a member thereof shall be punished (this law is no longer in effect).

Section 9:

Private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation.

Question:

Does Section 9 provide for the basis for the power of Eminent Domain?

o

No, the power of eminent domain is inherent and exists even without the Constitution.Section 9 merely regulates the power and does not provide for it.

Section 9 provides that for the exercise of eminent domain there are two constitutional requirements:

1. The land shall be used for public purpose;

2. Just compensation should be paid.

In Article XII (National Patrimony), public lands when declared alienable and disposable shall be

given to private person either by sale, by award or etc. and thus they become private property. This

private property is now the subject matter of eminent domain. The process is from an originally public

land to a private land to a public land.

The constitutional provisions on eminent domain:

1. Section 9, Article III;

2. Section 18, Article XIII;

3. Section 4 on Land Reform;

4. Section 22, Article XVIII (idle or abandoned agricultural lands);

5. Section 18, Article XII says if it entails expropriations it is, it is required that transfer of

ownership can only be upon payment of just compensation and;

6. Section 4, Article XIII deals with just distribution of agricultural lands subject to the payment of

just compensation.

The right of eminent domain is understood to be the ultimate right of the sovereign power to

appropriate not only for public but also for the private property of all citizens for public purposes.


24/43

The exercise of the power of eminent domain is by tradition lodge with the executive although the

power must be granted by the legislature. The executive cannot exercise this power without the

mandate from the legislature. Once authority is given to exercise the power of eminent domain the

matter ceases to be legislative, the executive may then decide whether the power will be invoked and

to what extent. The power of eminent domain may also be conferred upon municipal governments

and other government entities also to private entities operating public utilities. As to the legislature, the

power (eminent domain) is inherent, but for government agencies, local government and publicutilities it is only a delegated power. In the hands of congress the scope of the power is like the scope of

legislative power itself, it is plenary, it is as broad as the scope of police power, it can thus reach every

form of property which the State might need for public use. The delegated power of eminent domain

of local governments is not a power of eminent but of inferior domain, a share, merely in eminent

domain.

City of Manila vs. Chinese Community of Manila , the city of manila wanted to expropriate the

Chinese cemetery to build the Rizal avenue extension. The Court reached the Supreme Court, the

Court said, it could not be expropriated because it had already been expropriated. The Court further

said that the City of Manila did not have any authority because there was no legislative mandate to

exercise the power of eminent domain. The City of Manila then went to Congress and secured an

authority to expropriate the Chinese Cemetery and thus it was expropriated.

The requisites for the exercise of the power of eminent domain are:

1. There is taking of private property;

2. The taking must be for public usepublic use does not mean or equate to use by the public, it

means public usefulness, utility or advantage or what is productive of the general benefit; The

concept of public use is as broad as public welfare, the scope of the power of eminent domain

has become broad as the expansive and ever expanding scope of police power. The taking of

private property for subdivision and resale for land reform is for public use because landreform is mandated by the Constitution, that fact already establishes the public purpose of the

taking (Mataas na Lupa vs. Dimayuga). Expropriation for socialize housing is for public use

(Sumulong vs. Guerrero). Expropriation for the construction of irrigation canals (Cosculluela

vs. Court of Appeals).

a. In Manosca vs. Court of Appeals, the non-establishment clause of the Constitution came

into play.

3. There must be just compensationit is the just and complete equivalent of the loss which the

owner of the thing expropriated has to suffer by reason of the expropriation. It is the

compensation given to the owner is just if he receives for his property a sum equivalent to its

market value.

a.

Market Valuethe price which the property will command if the seller is not bound to

sell and the buyer is not bound to buy. This is the definition of the deliberation of the

Constitutional Commission. A statutory determination (a determination of congress or a

legislative authority) of just compensation would only be prima facie assessment. In the

end, the final determination of just compensation will have to be made by the court.

Question:

Who are entitled to just compensation?

o Not only the owner of the land to be expropriated but also include all those who have

lawful interest in the property to be condemned including a mortgagee of a registeredmortgage, a lessee, a vendee, or every person having an interest at law or in equity in

the land taken is entitled to share in the award.

When may the expropriator enter into the property expropriated?


25/43

o Entry may be made by the expropriator even prior to actual payment of just

compensation. What is merely required is that a deposit is made of the provisional value

of the property.

As a general rule, the value of the property expropriated is determined during the time of the

taking of the property expropriated.

In Republic vs. Serabia, there may be instances that there will be taking before the filing of an

expropriation complaint. When both happen simultaneously then there is no problem. But when the

taking comes first before the filing then an issue rises. Compensation for property expropriated must

be determined as of the time the expropriating authority takes possession.

Question:

May just compensation and expropriation for land reform be less than the market value?

o Yes, because land reform is both an eminent domain act and a police power act. The

Guido Guido vs. Rural Progress Administration)-Baylosis Republic vs. Baylosis) cases

under the 1935 Phil Constitution (expropriation of large landed estates were guided by

the Guido-Baylosis cases). The guideline is that expropriation for housing to be resolved

to landless must be of big landed estates. This was amended in the case of Tuason vs.

Land Tenure Administration where the area test in the Guido-Baylosis cases was

rejecting in favor of the States quest for social justice and peace. The Tuason Doctrine

was carried in the 1973 and 1987 Phil Constitution. Therefore, even if it was not a

large landed estate even if it is lesser it can be expropriated for resale to the landless.

The exercise of the power of eminent domain is always subject to judicial review. There are two

cases/situations that may be reviewed by the courts.

Two Situations:

1. Compensationit must always be determined by the Court;

2. Exercise of eminent domain.

Question:

Is the exercise of eminent domain subject to judicial review?

o It depends. When expropriation is done not directly by Legislative authority but by

another government agency or by a municipal corporation in virtue of an authorizing

statute which neither specifies the purpose of the taking nor the property to be taken it

is always subject to judicial review. If it is an exercise of a delegated eminent domainthen it is always subject to judicial review. When the legislature itself specifies the

purpose of the taking and singles out the property to be taken, the judgment made by

the legislature is not reviewable by the Courts.

Res Judicata is a principle which says that once a case has become final it can never be

opened. It is a principle necessary to the judicial system so that there be end to litigations. The very

nature of eminent domain as an inherent power of the State dictates that the right to exercise the

power is absolute; it is unfettered by prior judgment or res judicata. Res judicata does not affect the

power to exercise eminent domain.

Difference between regulation and taking:

Regulationpolice power that is involved. In police power, property is regulated; there is no transfer

of ownership. Regulation is not compensable.


26/43

Taking with just compensation then it is eminent domain. In eminent domain, property is taken;

there is transfer of ownership. Taking must be compensated.

When a property interest is appropriated and applied to some public purpose there is

compensable taking.

When property interest is merely restricted, the cause continued on restricted use would be

injurious to public welfare or where the property is destroyed because continued existence tothe property would be injurious to public interest there is no compensable taking, it is the

exercise of police power.

When the entry into private property is not just a simple right of way, which is ordinarily

allowed by court under the civil code, but is for purposes of conducting mining activities such

as exploration and extraction, there is already compensable taking. All these will definitely oust

the owners or occupants of the affected areas (Didipio Earth Savers vs. Secretary).

When the right of way enforced by the State results in making the adjoining property unusable,

just compensation is due (Republic vs. Andaya)

Where the nature of an effect of an installation of a 230 kilovolts transmission line results in

the imposition of limitation against the use of the land for an indefinite period, there iscompensable taking (National Power Corporation vs. San Pedro)

When the Municipal property is taken by the State, compensation is required if:

o It is patrimonial property of the municipality (property acquired by it with its private

funds in its private capacity). If it is any other property such as public buildings, held

the Local Government for the State in trust for its inhabitants, the State is free to dispose

of it at will (Province of Zamboanga del Norte vs. City of Zamboanga).

The power of eminent domain under the Local Government Code has been given to Local

Governments.

Question:

What are the essential requisites for the practice of eminent domain for Local Governments?

o There must be an ordinance authorizing the expropriation. The power must be

exercised for public use;

o It must be with just compensation;

o There must be an offer previously made and the same was not accepted.

Section 10:

No law impairing the obligation of contracts shall be passed.

This particular section of the Bill of Rights is directed to the Legislative bodies because of the

phrase: no law shall be passed.

Section 10 speaks of the obligation of the contract or the meat of the contract. The essence of a

contract is the obligation itself.

Not all changes are prohibited, just because a contract already exist does not mean that laws

can no longer be passed. To fall within the prohibition, the change must impair the obligation of the

existing contract and the impairment must be substantial and a remedy is provided for the impairmentof the contract then the law is not considered violative of Section10 (Manila Trading Company vs.

Reyes).


27/43

The power of the Legislature to change remedies and modes of procedure rest on police power,

meaning the obligation of contracts may be impaired.

Question:

On what basis may be the obligation of contracts be impaired?

o Through Police power. If it is for the general welfare that the obligation of a contract

must be impaired then it will be so using police power.

Jurisprudence has established that a valid exercise of police power is superior to obligation of

contracts. With the acceptance of the superiority of police power over contract, the contract clause has

very limited usefulness and may even be removed from the Constitution without substantial loss. The

non-impairment clause is a superfluity. It has accomplished nothing which the due process clause

could not have accomplished. It has prevented nothing which the due process clause could not have

prevented. There has been a distinct acknowledgement of the expansiveness of police power which the

contract clause alone cannot curtail Fr. Bernas.

Even if the non-impairment clause is removed contracts will still be protected under the due

process clause.

La Insular vs. Machuca, to come under the constitutional prohibition, the law must affect the

rights of the parties with reference to each other. Example, A and B entered into a contract of sale of

cigars. The government imposed additional taxes in the selling of cigars , therefore the transaction that

is covered by the contract has changed.

Question:

In the situation given, was it an impairment of the obligation of the contract?

o No, because the impairment of the obligation of contracts must affect the parties to the

contract and not by virtue of a third person that is coming in to the contract.

The non-impairment clause is a limit on the exercise of legislative power and not of judicial or

quasi-judicial power. It is a limit on the exercise by legislature, by Congress, of its legislative power. It

is not a limit on the exercise by the Courts of its power, so that when a court nullifies or interprets a

contract in such a way as to affect the contractual relation of the parties to the contract, there is no

impairment of the obligation of contracts in the Constitutional sense (Lim vs. Secretary).

There is a reservation clause (Section 11, Article XII) in the grant of franchises. When Congress

believes that general welfare dictates the need to change the franchise given then it shall do so.

Question:

What if there is no reservation clause for non-impairment? May Congress still pass a law that

would impair the franchises?

o Yes it may. Under the exercise of Police Power. With or without the reservation clause,

franchises are subject to alteration through a reasonable exercise of police power.

Section 11:

Free access to the courts and quasi-judicial bodies and adequate legal assistance shall not bedenied to any person by reason of poverty.


28/43

This section is the basis for legislative acts or statutes that provides for pauper litigants.

Although Statutes (RA 6033, RA 6034 and RA 6035) that are crafted on the basis of this provision is

being enforced, the efforts are not enough to meet the mandate of section 11.

It is heavily related to Article XIII, Social Justice, stating that those that have less in life must

have more in law.

JANUARY 15, 2015

Section 12:

1. Any person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have the right to be

informed of his right to remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel preferably

of his own choice. If the person cannot afford the services of counsel, he must be provided with one.

These rights cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of counsel.

2. No torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation, or any other means which vitiate the free willshall be used against him. Secret detention places, solitary, incommunicado, or other similar forms

of detention are prohibited.

3. Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this or Section 17 hereof shall be

inadmissible in evidence against him.

4. The law shall provide for penal and civil sanctions for violations of this Section as well as

compensation to the rehabilitation of victims of torture or similar practices, and their families.

The United States Supreme Court decided the case of Escobeda vs. Illinois in 1964 (case thatheld that criminal suspects have a right to counsel during police interrogation otherwise known as

custodial investigation).

In 1966 the case of Miranda vs. Arizona (landmark case which allowed inculpatory and

exculpatory statements made in response to interrogation by a defendant in police custody will be

admissible at trial only if the prosecution can show that the defendant was informed of the right to

consult with an attorney befor

Constitutional Law 2.pdf

Documents