Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
They are inherent powers because they belong to the very essence of
government and without them no government can exist.
Differences:
Police Power
Eminent Domain
Taxation
regulates property
rights only
regulates
property rights
only
government and
some private
entities
only the
government
As to the
property taken
-wholesome
-taken for a
public use or
purpose
As to
Compensation
intangible altruistic
feeling that the person
has contributed to the
protection and
public
improvements
general welfare
expropriated
Limitations:
(a) Bill of Rights
A. POLICE POWER
Police Power is an inherent power of the State to promote the welfare of
society by restraining and regulating the use of liberty and property.
Justification of existence:
Salus populi est suprema lex the welfare of the people is the supreme
law;
Sic utere tuo ut alienum non laedas a person must use his own
property so as not to injure another
Scope:
(a) cannot be bargained away through the medium of a treaty or contract
(Stone v Mississippi)
(b) may use taxing power as its implement (Tio vs Videogram Regulatory
Board)
(c) may use eminent domain as its implement (Assoc. of Small Landowners
vs Sec. of Agrarian Reform)
(d) could be given retroactive effect and may reasonably impair vested rights
or contracts (police power prevails over contract)
(e) dynamic, not static, and must move with the moving society it is supposed
to regulate
Who may exercise Police Power?
(a) the Legislature (inherent)
(b) President (by delegation)
(c) administrative boards (by delegation)
(d) lawmaking bodies on all municipal levels, including barangay (by
delegation)
(e) Municipal governments / LGU's (conferred by statute general welfare
clause of RA 7160)
Tests (Limitations):
(a) Lawful subject interests of the public generally, as distinguished from
those of a particular class, require the exercise of police power
(b) Lawful means the means employed are reasonably necessary for the
accomplishment of the purpose and not unduly oppressive upon
individuals
Additional limitations (when exercised by delegate) [Nachura Reviewer]:
[T}he mere fact that some individuals in the community may be deprived of
their business or a particular mode of earning a living cannot prevent the
exercise of police power. .. [P]ersons licensed to pursue occupations
which may in the public need and interest be affected by the exercise of
the police power embark in these occupations subject to the
disadvantages which may result from the exercise of that power.
Government can take away a license and increase the cost of license fees
even to prohibitive levels, if public interest dictates so, without any
constitutional violations.
In Ynot v. IAC, the Court here ruled that the ban on transportation of
carabao under the assailed ordinance and their outright confiscation and
disposal without court hearing is a violation of due process hence it is an
invalid exercise of police power.
The court adopted the measures laid down in the Toribio case
Protection general welfare is a function of police power which both restrains and
is restrained by due process, which requires notice and hearing
Case emphasized the need to have a lawful method to follow due process
requirement
Reasons why ordinance is invalid are:
No reasonable connection between means employed (absolute
ban on movement of carabeef) and purpose sought to be
achieved (conservation of carabao for general welfare)
Unduly oppressive since petition not given due process or
opportunity to be heard in proper court
B. EMINENT DOMAIN
Eminent Domain is the use of the government of its coercive authority, upon
just compensation, to forcibly acquire the needed property in order to devote the
same to public use.
Eminent domain is also known as expropriation, or condemnation.
Who may Exercise?
1. The Congress (inherent)
2. President
public right
arises from the laws of
society and is vested in the
state or grantee, acting
under the right and power of
the state or benefit of the
state
The Regional Trial Court (RTC) has the jurisdiction over a complaint for
eminent domain.
Necessity of exercise
Private property
Taking
Public use
Just compensation
1. Necessity of Exercise
2. Private Property
General Rule: anything that can come under the dominion of man is
subject to expropriation
Exceptions: money and chose in action (personal right not reduced into
possession, i.e. the right to bring an action to recover debt, money or
thing)
Private property already devoted to public use cannot be expropriated by
a delegate acting under a general grant of authority (City of Manila vs
Chinese Community)
3. Taking
Requisites (Republic vs Castellvi):
(a) expropriator must enter a private property
(b) entry must be for more than a momentary period
(c) entry must be under the warrant of legal authority
(d) entry is for public use
(e) the owner is deprived of enjoying his property
Eminent Domain
paupers. The Court held that such ordinance is not an exercise of police
power but the taking of private property for public use. Hence, to satisfy
the Constitution, there must be compensation.
4. Public Use
Public use is whatever may be beneficially employed for the general welfare,
including both direct or indirect benefit or advantage to the public
5. Just Compensation
Just compensation is fair and full equivalent payment for the loss sustained,
which is the measure of the indemnity, not whatever gain would accrue to the
expropriating agency. It is not market value per se. (Epza v. Dulay)
Entitlement of interest:
General Rule: when there is delay, there must be interest by way of
damages (Art. 2209, CC)
Exception: when waived by not claiming the interest
Payment of Taxes : taxes paid from the time of the taking until the
transfer of the title, during which the owner did not enjoy any beneficial
use of the property, are reimbursable by the expropriator.
But in Republic vs. Knecht, the same property was ordered expropriated.
Apparently, BP 340, which called for the taking of the property, was
enacted after the 1st De Knecht case. De Knecht argued that there was
already a law of the case, which should not be disturbed.
Court responded that while it is true that there was a law of the case, it is
equally true that there is constitutional grant given to the State to take
private property upon payment of just compensation. Such expropriation
proceedings may be undertaken by the [State] not only by voluntary
negotiation with landowners but also by taking appropriate court action or
by legislation.
The prior court decision is no obstacle for the legislature to make its own
assessment of the circumstances that prevailed after the decision as well
as supervening events and reaching a conclusion as to the propriety of
undertaking the appropriation of the De Knecht property.
In the case Republic v. PLDT, the Court ordered the PLDT to allow the
reconnection of telephone lines of the Republic.
No cogent reason appears why Eminent Domain may be availed of to
impose only a burden upon the owner of condemned property without
loss of title or possession for public use subject to just compensation
Case highlights that even services may be subjected to eminent
domain
In Epza v. Dulay, P.D. Nos. 76, 464, 794, and 1533 prescribed a formula
for arriving at just compensation in expropriation proceedings , dispense
with the need to appoint commissioners to determine just compensation.
The Court held that those decrees are unconstitutional and void for they
constitute impermissible encroachment on judicial prerogatives.
C. POWER OF TAXATION
Power of Taxation is a method by which contributions are exacted from
persons and property for the support of government and for all public needs.
Taxes vs Licenses
Tax
to raise
revenues
License
Scope
all income earned in the taxing state, whether by citizens or aliens, and all
immovable and tangible personal properties found in its territory, as well
as tangible personal property owned by persons domiciled therein
where the tax is used solely for the purpose of raising revenues
Procedural : due process does not require previous notice and hearing
before a law prescribing specific taxes on specific articles may be
enacted. However, where the tax to be collected is to be based on the
value of the taxable property, the taxpayer is entitled to be notified of the
assessment proceedings and to be heard therein on the correct valuation
of the property.
2. Equal Protection
embodied in Sec. 28 (1), Art. VI, 1987 Constitution (The rule of taxation
shall be uniform and equitable. The Congress shall evolve a progressive
system of taxation.)
(a) standards that are used are substantial and not arbitrary
(b) categorization is germane to achieve the legislative purpose
(c) the law applies, all things being equal, to both present and future
conditions
(d) classification applies equally well to all those belonging to the same
class
3. Public Purpose
Bill of Rights set of prescriptions setting forth the fundamental civil and
political rights of the individual, and imposing limitations on the powers of the
government as a means of securing the enjoyment of those rights.
Significance of the Bill of Rights
Government is powerful. When unlimited, it becomes tyrannical. The Bill of
Rights is a guarantee that there are certain areas of a person's life, liberty, and
property which governmental power may not touch.
Classification of Rights
1. Political Rights granted by law to members of community in relation to
their direct or indirect participation in the establishment or administration of
the government;
2. Civil Rights rights which municipal law will enforce at the instance of
private individuals for the purpose of securing them the enjoyment of their
means of happiness;
3. Social and Economic Rights; and,
4. Human Rights.
A. DUE PROCESS
Section 1, Art. III. 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.
Protection of Person
Covers Natural (citizen and alien) and Artificial Persons. As to the latter, with
respect only to property because its life and liberty are derived from and subject
to control of legislature
Deprivation (in Sec. 1, Art. III)
1. Life
2. Liberty
(1) freedom to do right and never wrong (Mabini)
(2) right to be free from arbitrary personal restraint or servitude
3. Property
anything that can come under the right of ownership and be the subject of
contract
However, one cannot have a vested right to a public office as this is not
regarded as property. If created by statue, it may be abolished by the
legislature at any time.
Mere privileges are not property rights and are therefore revocable at will
In Lochner v. New York, Lochner was charged with violation of the labor
laws of New York for wrongfully and unlawfully permitting an employee to
work more than 60 hours in one week. The statute allegedly violated
mandates that no employee shall contract or agree to work more than 10
hours per day.
Issue: Whether the statute is unconstitutional.
Ruling: Yes. The statute is unconstitutional.
The statute interferes with the liberty of a person and the right of free contract
between employer and employee by determining the hours of labor in the
occupation of a baker without reasonable ground for doing so.
The general right to make a contract in relation to ones business is a liberty
Our cases include Court of Industrial Relations (Ang Tibay vs. CIR) as an
administrative court which exercises judicial and quasi-judicial functions in
the determination of disputes between employers and employees.
National Telecommunications Company (PHILCOMSAT vs. Alcuaz),
National Labor Relations Commission or NLRC (DBP vs. NLRC) and
school tribunals (Ateneo vs. CA-Board of Discipline, Alcuaz vs. PSBA,
Non vs. Judge Dames, Tinker vs. Des Moines Community School
District) also are clothed with quasi-judicial function. It is a question of
whether the body or institution has a judicial or quasi-judicial function that
makes it bound by the due process clause. (Judicial function is
synonymous to judicial power which is the authority to settle justiciable
controversies or disputes involving rights that are legally enforceable and
demandable or the redress of wrongs for violations of such rights. It is a
determination of what the law is and what the legal rights of the parties are
with respect to a matter in controversy).
In Ang Tibay vs. CIR, the Court laid down cardinal requirements in
administrative proceedings which essentially exercise a judicial or quasijudicial function. These are:
(1) the right to a hearing, which includes the right to 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 itself
(4) The evidence must be substantial. Substantial evidence means such a
B. EQUAL PROTECTION
Section 1, Art. III. 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.
available to natural and artificial persons, but the latter's books of accounts
may be required to open for examination by the State in the exercise of
police power or power of taxation
Search Warrant
2. Personal
determination
of probable
cause by the
judge
In Valmonte v. Gen. De Villa, the Court held that not all searches and
seizures are prohibited. Those which are reasonable are not forbidden. A
reasonable search is not to be determined by any fixed formula but is to
be resolved according to the facts of the case.
Checkpoints are not illegal per se... Routine inspection and few questions do not
constitute unreasonable searches. If the inspection becomes more thorough to
the extent of becoming a search, this can be done when there is deemed to be
probable cause. In the latter situation, it is justifiable as a warrantless search of a
moving vehicle.
The Court also held that the search warrant description has the sweeping tenor
making the document a general warrant. The search warrant particularly
states:all printing equipment, typewriters... of the WE Forum newspaper and any
other documents...
It is not required that the property to be searched should be owned by the person
against whom the search warrant is directed. It is sufficient that the property is
under the control or possession of the person sought to be searched.
In Lim v. Felix, the Court held that the judge in issuing a warrant of arrest
cannot rely solely on the certification or recommendation of a prosecutor
that probable cause exists. The judge must look at the report, the
affidavits, the transcripts of stenographic notes (if any), and all other
supporting documents behind the Prosecutor's certification.
The Court further held that the objection to an unlawful search or seizure and to
D. MIRANDA RIGHTS
Section 12, Art. III.
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 will shall 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.
(a) Voluntary
(b) With assistance of counsel
(c) In writing, and
(d) Express
Rights Under Custodial Investigation
(a) To be informed of right to remain silent and to counsel
RA 7309: victims of unjust imprisonment may file their claims with the
Board of Claims under DOJ
E. RIGHT TO BAIL
Section 13, Art. III. All persons, except those charged with offenses
punishable by reclusion perpetua when evidence of guilt is strong, shall,
Bail is security given for the release of a person in custody of law, furnished by
him or a bondsman, to guaranty his appearance before any court as may be
required
Kinds of Bail
(a) Cash bond
(b) Security bond
Who May Invoke?
A person under detention even if no formal charges have yet been filed (Rule
114, Rules of Court)
Who Are Entitled?
(a) Persons charged with offenses punishable by Reclusion Perpetua or
Death, when evidence of guilt is strong
(b) Persons convicted by the trial court. Bail is only discretionary pending
appeal.
(c) Persons who are members of the AFP facing a court martial.
One is under the custody of the law either when he has been arrested or has
surrendered himself to the jurisdiction of the court, as in the case where through
counsel petitioner for bail who was confined in a hospital communicated his
submission to the jurisdiction of the court.
Other Rights in Relation to Bail
The right to bail shall NOT be impaired even when the privilege of the writ
of habeas corpus is suspended.
(b) The constitutional right is available only in criminal cases, not, e.g. in
deportation and extradition proceedings.
Note:
(a) Right to bail is not available in the military.
In Comendador v. De Villa, soldier under court martial does not enjoy the
right to bail. It is because of the disciplinary structure of the military and
because soldiers are allowed the fiduciary right to bear arms and can
therefore cause great havoc... Nor can appeal be made to the equal
protection clause ebcause equal protection applies only to those who are
equally situated.
(b) Apart from bail, a person may attain provisional liberty through
recognizance.
There is violation of due process when law not published and a person is
impleaded for violation of such law.
2. Presumption of Innocence
Equipoise Rule evidence of both sides are equally balanced, in which case
the constitutional presumption of innocence should tilt the scales in favor of the
accused.
Indispensable in any criminal prosecution where the stakes are the liberty
or even the life of the accused
Assistance of counsel begins from the time a person is taken into custody
and placed under investigation for the commission of a crime.
This is not subject to waiver.
The description and not the designation of the offense is controlling (The
real nature of the crime charged is determined from the recital of facts in
the information. It is not determined based on the caption or preamble
thereof nor from the specification of the provision of law allegedly
violated.)
If the information fails to allege the material elements of the offense, the
accused cannot be convicted thereof even if the prosecution is able to
present evidence during the trial with respect to such elements.
Void for Vagueness Rule accused is denied the right to be informed of the
charge against him and to due process as well, where the statute itself is
couched in such indefinite language that it is not possible for men of ordinary
intelligence to determine therefrom what acts or omissions are punished and
hence, shall be avoided.
5. The Trial
Factors in Determining Whether There Is Violation
(a) Time expired from the filing of the information
(b) Length of delay involved
(c) Reasons for the delay
(d) Assertion or non-assertion of the right by the accused
(e) Prejudice caused to the defendant.
Public trial: The attendance at the trial is open to all irrespective of their
relationship to the accused. However, if the evidence to be adduced is
offensive to decency or public morals, the public may be excluded.
The right of the accused to a public trial is not violated if the hearings are
conducted on Saturdays, either with the consent of the accused or if failed
to object thereto.
General Rule: the accused may waive the right to be present at the trial
by not showing up. However, the court can still compel the attendance of
the accused if necessary for identification purposes.
Exception: If the accused, after arraignment, has stipulated that
he is indeed the person charged with the offense and named in the
information, and that any time a witness refers to a name by which
he is known, the witness is to be understood as referring to him.
Trial in Absentia is mandatory upon the court whenever the accused has
been arraigned.
The trial in absentia does not abrogate the provisions of the Rules of Court
regarding forfeiture of bail bond if the accused fails to appear at his trial.
A court has the power to prohibit a person admitted to bail from leaving the
Philippines as this is a necessary consequence of the nature and function
of a bail bond
7. Compulsory Process
There are exceptional circumstances when the defendant may ask for
conditional examination, provided the expected testimony is material of
any witness under circumstances that would make him unavailable from
attending the trial.
8. Trial in Absentia
Trial in Absentia May Only Be Allowed If the Following Requisites Are Met:
(1) the accused has been validly arraigned;
(2) Accused has already been arraigned;
G. HABEAS CORPUS
Section 15, 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.
Writ of Habeas Corpus is a written order issued by a court, directed to a
person detaining another, commanding him to produce the body of the prisoner
at a designated time and place with the day and cause of his caption and
detention.
Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus the right to have an immediate
determination of the legality of the deprivation of physical liberty.
The President may suspend the privilege:
(1) in cases of invasion or rebellion
(2) when public safety requires it.
Habeas corpus lies only where the restraint of a person's liberty has been
judicially adjudged to be illegal or unlawful (In re: Sumulong)
Section 18, Art. VII. The President shall be the Commander-in-Chief of all
armed forces of the Philippines and whenever it becomes necessary, he
may call out such armed forces to prevent or suppress lawless violence,
invasion or rebellion. In case of invasion or rebellion, when the public
safety requires it, he may, for a period not exceeding sixty days, suspend
the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus or place the Philippines or any
part thereof under martial law. Within forty-eight hours from the
Lansang doctrine (Lansang vs Garcia): SC has the power to inquire into the
factual basis of the suspension of the privilege of the writ. It is written in Article
VII, Sec. 18 of the Constitution.
H. WRIT OF AMPARO
A.M. No. 07-9-12-SC
(25 September 2007)
THE RULE ON THE WRIT OF AMPARO
SECTION 1. Petition. The petition for a writ of amparo is a remedy available to
any person whose right to life, liberty and security is violated or threatened with
violation by an unlawful act or omission of a public official or employee, or of a
private individual or entity.
The writ shall cover extralegal killings and enforced disappearances or threats
thereof.
SEC. 2. Who May File. The petition may be filed by the aggrieved party or by
any qualified person or entity in the following order:
1. Any member of the immediate family, namely: the spouse, children
and parents of the aggrieved party;
2. Any ascendant, descendant or collateral relative of the aggrieved
party within the fourth civil degree of consanguinity or affinity, in
default of those mentioned in the preceding paragraph; or
3. Any concerned citizen, organization, association or institution, if
there is no known member of the immediate family or relative of the
aggrieved party.
The filing of a petition by the aggrieved party suspends the right of all other
authorized parties to file similar petitions. Likewise, the filing of the petition by an
authorized party on behalf of the aggrieved party suspends the right of all others,
observing the order established herein.
SEC. 3. Where to File. The petition may be filed on any day and at any time
with the Regional Trial Court of the place where the threat, act or omission was
committed or any of its elements occurred, or with the Sandiganbayan, the Court
of Appeals, the Supreme Court, or any justice of such courts. The writ shall be
enforceable anywhere in the Philippines.
When issued by a Regional Trial Court or any judge thereof, the writ shall be
returnable before such court or judge.
When issued by the Sandiganbayan or the Court of Appeals or any of their
justices, it may be returnable before such court or any justice thereof, or to any
Regional Trial Court of the place where the threat, act or omission was
committed or any of its elements occurred.
When issued by the Supreme Court or any of its justices, it may be returnable
before such Court or any justice thereof, or before the Sandiganbayan or the
Court of Appeals or any of their justices, or to any Regional Trial Court of the
place where the threat, act or omission was committed or any of its elements
occurred.
SEC. 4. No Docket Fees. The petitioner shall be exempted from the payment of
the docket and other lawful fees when filing the petition. The court, justice or
judge shall docket the petition and act upon it immediately.
SEC. 5. Contents of Petition. The petition shall be signed and verified and shall
allege the following:
1. The personal circumstances of the petitioner;
2. The name and personal circumstances of the respondent
responsible for the threat, act or omission, or, if the name is
unknown or uncertain, the respondent may be described by an
assumed appellation;
3. The right to life, liberty and security of the aggrieved party violated
or threatened with violation by an unlawful act or omission of the
respondent, and how such threat or violation is committed with the
attendant circumstances detailed in supporting affidavits;
4. The investigation conducted, if any, specifying the names, personal
circumstances, and addresses of the investigating authority or
individuals, as well as the manner and conduct of the investigation,
1. Motion to dismiss;
2. Motion for extension of time to file return, opposition, affidavit,
position paper and other pleadings;
3. Dilatory motion for postponement;
4. Motion for a bill of particulars;
5. Counterclaim or cross-claim;
6. Third-party complaint;
7. Reply;
8. Motion to declare respondent in default;
9. Intervention;
10.
Memorandum;
11.
Motion
for
reconsideration of interlocutory orders or interim relief orders; and
12.
Petition for certiorari,
mandamus or prohibition against any interlocutory order.
SEC. 12. Effect of Failure to File Return. In case the respondent fails to file a
return, the court, justice or judge shall proceed to hear the petition ex parte.
SEC. 13. Summary Hearing. The hearing on the petition shall be summary.
However, the court, justice or judge may call for a preliminary conference to
simplify the issues and determine the possibility of obtaining stipulations and
admissions from the parties.
The hearing shall be from day to day until completed and given the same priority
as petitions for habeas corpus.
SEC. 14. Interim Reliefs. Upon filing of the petition or at anytime before final
judgment, the court, justice or judge may grant any of the following reliefs:
(a) Temporary Protection Order. The court, justice or judge, upon motion
or motu proprio, may order that the petitioner or the aggrieved party and
any member of the immediate family be protected in a government agency
or by an accredited person or private institution capable of keeping and
securing their safety. If the petitioner is an organization, association or
institution referred to in Section 3(c) of this Rule, the protection may be
extended to the officers involved.
The Supreme Court shall accredit the persons and private institutions that
shall extend temporary protection to the petitioner or the aggrieved party
and any member of the immediate family, in accordance with guidelines
which it shall issue.
The accredited persons and private institutions shall comply with the rules
and conditions that may be imposed by the court, justice or judge.
(b) Inspection Order. The court, justice or judge, upon verified motion and
after due hearing, may order any person in possession or control of a
designated land or other property, to permit entry for the purpose of
inspecting, measuring, surveying, or photographing the property or any
relevant object or operation thereon.
The motion shall state in detail the place or places to be inspected. It shall
be supported by affidavits or testimonies of witnesses having personal
knowledge of the enforced disappearance or whereabouts of the
aggrieved party.
If the motion is opposed on the ground of national security or of the
privileged nature of the information, the court, justice or judge may
conduct a hearing in chambers to determine the merit of the opposition.
The movant must show that the inspection order is necessary to establish
the right of the aggrieved party alleged to be threatened or violated.
The inspection order shall specify the person or persons authorized to
make the inspection and the date, time, place and manner of making the
inspection and may prescribe other conditions to protect the constitutional
rights of all parties. The order shall expire five (5) days after the date of its
issuance, unless extended for justifiable reasons.
(c) Production Order. The court, justice or judge, upon verified motion and
after due hearing, may order any person in possession, custody or control
of any designated documents, papers, books, accounts, letters,
photographs, objects or tangible things, or objects in digitized or electronic
form, which constitute or contain evidence relevant to the petition or the
return, to produce and permit their inspection, copying or photographing
by or on behalf of the movant.
The motion may be opposed on the ground of national security or of the
The clerks of court shall submit to the Office of the Court Administrator a
consolidated list of archived cases under this Rule not later than the first week of
January of every year.
SEC. 21. Institution of Separate Actions. This Rule shall not preclude the filing
of separate criminal, civil or administrative actions.
SEC. 22. Effect of Filing of a Criminal Action. When a criminal action has
been commenced, no separate petition for the writ shall be filed. The reliefs
under the writ shall be available by motion in the criminal case.
The procedure under this Rule shall govern the disposition of the reliefs available
under the writ of amparo.
SEC. 23. Consolidation. When a criminal action is filed subsequent to the filing
of a petition for the writ, the latter shall be consolidated with the criminal action.
When a criminal action and a separate civil action are filed subsequent to a
petition for a writ of amparo, the latter shall be consolidated with the criminal
action.
After consolidation, the procedure under this Rule shall continue to apply to the
disposition of the reliefs in the petition.
SEC. 24. Substantive Rights. This Rule shall not diminish, increase or modify
substantive rights recognized and protected by the Constitution.
SEC. 25. Suppletory Application of the Rules of Court. The Rules of Court
shall apply suppletorily insofar as it is not inconsistent with this Rule.
SEC. 26. Applicability to Pending Cases. This Rule shall govern cases
involving extralegal killings and enforced disappearances or threats thereof
pending in the trial and appellate courts.
SEC. 27. Effectivity. This Rule shall take effect on October 24, 2007, following
its publication in three (3) newspapers of general circulation.
Length of delay
Reason of delay
Assertion of the right or failure to assert it
Prejudice caused by delay
Only natural persons can invoke this right. Judicial persons are subject to
the visitorial powers of the state in order to determine compliance with the
conditions of the charter granted to them.
Scope:
(1) Testimonial Compulsion
Either:
a) Directly, or
b) By failure to invoke it PROVIDED the waiver is certain and
unequivocal and intelligently and willingly made.
Section 18 (1), Art. III. No person shall be detained solely by reason of his
political beliefs and aspirations.
Punishment for a crime for which the party shall have been duly
convicted (Sec. 18, Art. III)
2.
3.
Naval enlistment remain in service until the end of voyage so that the
crew would not desert the ship, making it difficult for the owners to recruit
new hands to continue the voyage (Robertson vs Baldwin)
4.
5.
6.
US vs
An Act providing for the method by which the people of the town
Pompeya may be called upon to render assistance for the protection of the
public and the preservation of peace and good order is
constitutional. It was enacted in the exercise of the police power of
the state and does not violate the constitutional prohibition on
involuntary servitude.
Pollock
No indebtedness warrants a suspension of the right to be free from
vs
compulsory service, and no state can make the quitting of work
Williams any component of a crime, or make criminal sanctions available for
holding unwilling persons to labor.
Note: Fr. Bernas says that the accused cannot be convicted of the crime to
which the punishment is attached if the court finds that the punishment is cruel,
degrading or inhuman.
Reason: Without a valid penalty, the law is not a penal law.
Debt any civil obligation arising from a contract, expressed or implied, resulting
in any liability to pay in money.
Scope of guaranty against imprisonment for non-payment of debt
If an accused fails to pay the fine imposed upon him, this may result in his
subsidiary imprisonment because his liability is ex delicto and not ex
contractu.
A tax is not a debt since it is an obligation arising from law. Hence, its
non-payment maybe validly punished with imprisonment.
M. DOUBLE JEOPARDY
Section 21, Art. III. No person shall be twice put in jeopardy of punishment
for the same offense. If an act is punished by a law and an ordinance,
conviction or acquittal under either shall constitute a bar to another
prosecution for the same act.
Double jeopardy when a person was charged with an offense and the case
was terminated by acquittal or conviction or in any other manner without his
consent, he cannot again be charged with the same or identical offense.
Requisites of Double Jeopardy
1.
2.
3.
4.
Same Offense
Requisites for a valid defense of double jeopardy:
(1) First jeopardy must have attached prior to the second.
(2) The first jeopardy must have terminated.
(3) The second jeopardy must be for the same offense as that in the first.
When does jeopardy ATTACH: (1st requisite)
(a) A person is charged
(b) Under a complaint or information sufficient in form and substance to
sustain a conviction
(c) Before a court of competent jurisdiction
(d) After the person is arraigned
(e) Such person enters a valid plea.
When does jeopardy NOT attach:
(a) If information does not charge any offense
(b) If, upon pleading guilty, the accused presents evidence of complete selfdefense, and the court thereafter acquits him without entering a new plea
of not guilty for accused.
(c) If the information for an offense cognizable by the RTC is filed with the
MTC.
(d) If a complaint filed for preliminary investigation is dismissed.
When does first jeopardy TERMINATE: (2ND REQUISITE)
1)
2)
3)
4)
Acquittal
Conviction
Dismissal W/O the EXPRESS consent of the accused
Dismissal on the merits.
This amounts to an
Same Act
Double jeopardy will result if the act punishable under the law and the
ordinance are the same. For there to be double jeopardy, it is not
necessary that the offense be the same.
Supervening Facts
1) Under the Rules of Court, a conviction for an offense will not bar a
prosecution for an offense which necessarily includes the offense charged
in the former information where:
(a) The graver offense developed due to a supervening fact arising
from the same act or omission constituting the former charge.
(b) The facts constituting the graver offense became known or were
discovered only after the filing of the former information.
(c) The plea of guilty to the lesser offense was made without the
consent of the fiscal and the offended party.
2) Under (1)(b), if the facts could have been discovered by the prosecution
but were not discovered because of the prosecutions incompetence, it
would not be considered a supervening event.
Effect of appeal by the accused
If the accused appeals his conviction, he WAIVES his right to plead double
jeopardy. The whole case will be open to review by the appellate court.
Such court may even increase the penalties imposed on the accused by
the trial court.
In Almario v. CA, the Court held that the delays were not unreasonable;
hence, there was no denial of the right to speedy trial. Second, the
dismissal was with the consent of the accused. Hence, reinstatement did
not violate the right against double jeopardy.
Section 22, Art. III. No ex post facto law or bill of attainder shall be enacted.
Kinds of Ex Post Facto Laws
(1) One which makes an action done before the passing of the law, and which
was innocent when done, criminal, and punishes such action.
(2) One which aggravates the crime or makes it greater than when it was
committed.
(3) One which changes the punishment and inflicts a greater punishment than
that which the law annexed to the crime when it was committed.
(4) One which alters the legal rules of evidence and receives less testimony
than the law required at the time of the commission of the offense in order
to convict the accused.
(5) One which assumes to regulate civil rights and remedies only BUT, in
effect, imposes a penalty or deprivation of a right, which, when done, was
lawful.
(6) One which deprives a person accused of a crime of some lawful protection
to which he has become entitled such as the protection of a former
conviction or acquittal, or a proclamation of amnesty. (In Re Kay Villegas
Kami)
Characteristics of Ex Post Facto Law
(a) Must refer to criminal matters
(b) Prejudicial to the accused
(c) Retroactive in application
In Lacson v. Exec. Sec., the Court held that in general, ex post facto law
prohibits retrospectivity of penal laws. RA No. 8249 is not a penal law....
The contention that the new law diluted their right to a two-tiered appeal is
incorrect because the right to appeal is not a natural right but statutory in
nature that can be regulated by law. RA 8249 pertains only to matters of
procedure, and being merely an amendatory statute it does not partake
the nature of ex post facto law.
In Calder v. Bull, the Court said that when the law alters the legal rules of
evidence or mode of trial, it is an ex post facto law. Exception: (Beazell v.
Ohio) unless the changes operate only in limited and unsubstantial
manner to the disadvantage of the accused.
BILL OF ATTAINDER
Bill of attainder is a legislative act which inflicts punishment without judicial trial.
If the punishment be less than death, the act is termed a bill of pains and
penalties. (Cummings v. Missouri)
(All Bills of Attainder are Ex Post Facto Laws)
Elements of Bill of Attainder
1. There must be a law.
2. The law imposes a penal burden on a named individual or easily
ascertainable members of a group.
3. There is a direct imposition of penal burden without judicial trial.
O. PRIVACY OF COMMUNICATION
Section 3(1), Art. III. 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.
Forms of Correspondences and Communication Covered
1.
letters
2.
3.
4.
5.
messages
telephone calls
telegrams, and
the likes
Public Order and Safety the security of human lives, liberty, and property
against the activities of invaders, insurrectionists, and rebels.
P. RIGHT TO PRIVACY
In no uncertain terms, we also underscores that the right to privacy does not bar
all incursions into individual privacy. The right is not intended to stifle scientific
and technological advancements that enhance public service and the common
good. It merely requires that the law be narrowly focused. Intrusions into the
right must be accompanied by proper safeguards and well-defined standards to
prevent unconstitutional invasions.
In Roe v. Wade, the Court held that abortions are permissible for any
reason a woman chooses, up until the "point at which the fetus becomes
viable, that is, potentially able to live outside the mother's womb.
(a) The Constitution does not explicitly mention any right to privacy but
the Court has recognized that such right does exist in the
Constitution. The Court deemed abortion a fundamental right under
the United States Constitution, thereby subjecting all laws
attempting to restrict it to the standard of strict scrutiny. Where
certain fundamental rights are involved, the Court has held that
regulation limiting these rights may be justified only by a
compelling state interest.
(b) The right to privacy is broad enough to encompass a womans
decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy. But a womans
right to terminate her pregnancy at whatever time, in whatever way
and for whatever reason she alone chooses is NOT absolute. While
recognizing the right to privacy, the Court also acknowledges that
some state regulation in areas protected by a right is appropriate. A
state may properly assert important interests in safeguarding
health, in maintaining medical standards, and in protecting potential
life.
It is governed by The Rule on the Writ of Habeas Data (A.M. No. 08-1-16SC full text), which was approved by the Supreme Court on 22 January
2008. That Rule shall not diminish, increase or modify substantive rights.
Constitutional Basis
Section 5(5), Art. VIII. Promulgate rules concerning the protection and
enforcement of constitutional rights, pleading, practice, and procedure in
all courts, the admission to the practice of law, the integrated bar, and legal
assistance to the under-privileged. Such rules shall provide a simplified
and inexpensive procedure for the speedy disposition of cases, shall be
uniform for all courts of the same grade, and shall not diminish, increase,
The Rule takes effect on 2 February 2008, following its publication in three
(3) newspapers of general circulation.
Who may file a petition for the issuance of a writ of habeas data?
A clerk of court who refuses to issue the writ after its allowance, or a
deputized person who refuses to serve the same, shall be punished by the
court, justice or judge for contempt without prejudice to other disciplinary
actions.
The writ shall be served upon the respondent by the officer or person
deputized by the court, justice or judge who shall retain a copy on which to
make a return of service. In case the writ cannot be served personally on
the respondent, the rules on substituted service shall apply.
The respondent shall file a verified written return together with supporting
affidavits within five (5) work days from service of the writ, which period
may be reasonably extended by the Court for justifiable reasons.
Contents of Return
(a) The lawful defenses such as national security, state secrets, privileged
communication, confidentiality of the source of information of media and
others;
(b) In case of respondent in charge, in possession or in control of the data or
information subject of the petition:
(i) a disclosure of the data or information about the petitioner, the nature of such
data or information, and the purpose for its collection;
(ii) the steps or actions taken by the respondent to ensure the security and
confidentiality of the data or information; and
(iii) the currency and accuracy of the data or information held; and
(c) Other allegations relevant to the resolution of the proceeding.
When the respondent fails to file a return, the court, justice or judge shall
proceed to hear the petition ex parte, granting the petitioner such relief as
the petition may warrant unless the court in its discretion requires the
petitioner to submit evidence.
The hearing on the petition shall be summary. However, the court, justice
or judge may call for a preliminary conference to simplify the issues and
determine the possibility of obtaining stipulations and admissions from the
parties.
Upon its finality, the judgment shall be enforced by the sheriff or any lawful
officer as may be designated by the court, justice or judge within five (5)
work days.
When a criminal action has been commenced, no separate petition for the
writ shall be filed, but the reliefs under the writ shall be available by motion
in the criminal case, and the procedure under this Rule shall govern the
disposition of the reliefs available under the writ of habeas data.
When a criminal action and a separate civil action are filed subsequent to
a petition for a writ of habeas data, the petition shall be consolidated with
the criminal action. After consolidation, the procedure under this Rule shall
continue to govern the disposition of the reliefs in the petition.
The introduction of the Writ of Habeas Data into Philippine Justice System
complemented several writs used in the Philippines. These writs which
protect the rights of the individual against the state are as follows:
the citizenry has a right to know what is going on in the country and in his
government so he can express his views thereon knowledgeably and
intelligently.
Rights Guaranteed
1. Right to information on matters of public concern ; and
2. Corollary right of access to official records and documents.
These are political rights that are available to citizens only (Bernas,
Philippine Constitution, p. 85).
Baldoza v
Dimaano
1976
Legaspi v
Civil Service
Commission
1987
Chavez v
PCGG
1998
Echegaray
case
The people have a right to access official records but they cant
compel custodians of official records to prepare lists, abstracts,
summaries and the like, such not being based on a
demandable legal right.
Then right to privacy belongs to the individual and must be
invoked by the individual. A public agency like the GSIS
cannot invoke the right to privacy.
Judges cannot prohibit access to judicial records. However, a
judge may regulate the manner in which persons desiring to
inspect, examine or copy records in his office, may exercise
their rights.
Personal interest is not required in asserting the right to
information on matters of public concern.
What matters constitute public concern should be determined
by the court on a case to case basis.
Public concern (def.) writings coming into the hands of public
officers in connection with their official functions
Ill-gotten wealth is, by its nature, a matter of public concern.
Privileged communication: (1) national security, (2) trade
secrets, (3) criminal matters pending in court,
SC held that making the Lethal Injection Manual inaccessible
to the convict was unconstitutional.
S. FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION
Freedom of Speech at once the instrument and the guaranty and the bright
consummate flower of all liberty. (Wendell Philips)
Scope
Importance
The ultimate good desired is better reached by a free trade in ideas that the
best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the
competition of the market; and that truth is the only ground upon which their
wishes safely can be carried out.
Modes of Expression
(a) Oral and written language
(b) Symbolisms (e.g. bended knee, salute to the flag, cartoons)
Censor, therefore, assumes the role of arbiter for the people, usually
applying his own subjective standards in determining the good and the
not. Such is anathema in a free society.
In New York Times v. United States, the Court held that prohibition of
prior restraint is not absolute, although any system of prior restraint
comes to court bearing a heavy presumption against its constitutionality.
In SWS v. Comelec, Sec. 1 of RA No. 9006, the Fair Election Act says
that surveys affecting national candidates shall not be published fifteen
(15) days before an election and surveys affecting local candidates shall
not be published seven days before an election. The provision is
challenged as violative of freedom of expression. The Court held that as
prior restraint, the rule is presumed to be invalid. The power of the
Comelec over media franchises is limited to ensuring equal opportunity,
time, space and the right to reply as well as to reasonable rates of
charges for the use of media facilities for public information and forums
among candidates. Here the prohibition of speech is direct, absolute and
substantial. Nor does the rule pass the O'Brien test for content related
regulation because (1) it suppresses one type of expression while
allowing other types such as editorials, etc. and (2) the restriction is
greater than what is needed to protect government interest because the
interest can be protected by narrower restriction such as subsequent
punishment.
In Re: Request for Radio-TV Coverage of the Estrada Trial, the Court
held that the propriety of the Estrada trial involves the weighing out of the
constitutional guarantees of freedom of the press and the right to public
information, on the one hand, and the fundamental rights of the accused,
on the other hand, along with the constitutional power of a court to control
its proceedings in ensuring a fair and impartial trial... With the possibility
of losing not only the precious liberty but also the very life of an accused, it
behooves all to make absolutely certain that an accused receives a verdict
solely on the basis of a just and dispassionate judgment...
Grosjean vs
American
Press Co.
Burgos
vs
Chief of Staff
Primicias vs
Fugosos
Section 18(1), Art. III. No person shall be detained solely by reason of his
political beliefs and aspirations.
Without this assurance, the individual would hesitate to speak for fear that
he might be held to account for his speech, or that he might be provoking
the vengeance of the officials he may have criticized.
freedoms of speech and of the press. Hence, the Comelec cannot ban
totally in the guise of of promoting clean, honest, orderly and credible
elections. The ban does not satisfy the clear and present danger rule
because the evils envisioned are merely speculative.
Terminiello vs City of
Chicago
Primicias vs Fugosos
Navarro vs Villegas
Reyes vs Bagatsing
decided in 1947
(compare with Primicias case)
SC sustained respondent mayor's act of
refusing to issue a permit enabling students to
hold a public rally. Mayor feared the rally would
result to public disorder.
- decided in 1970
the denial of a permit to hold a public rally was
invalid as there was no showing of the
probability of a clear and present danger of an
evil that might arise as a result of the meeting.
The burden of proving such eventually rests on
the Mayor.
Bayan vs Executive
Secretary Ermita
(f)
Cabansag vs Fernandez
People vs Perez
CLEAR AND
PRESENT DANGER
RULE
DANGEROUS
TENDENCY RULE
BALANCE OF INTEREST
RULE
liberty is preferred
Authority is preferred
When faced with border line situations where freedom (of expression) to speak &
freedom to know (to information) are invoked against (vs.) maintaining free and
clean elections- the police, local officials and COMELEC should lean in favor of
freedom.
For in the ultimate analysis, the freedom of the citizen and the States power to
regulate are NOT ANTAGONISTIC.
There can be no free and honest elections if in the efforts to maintain them, the
freedom to speak and the right to know are unduly curtailed.
We examine the limits of regulation. J. Feliciano shows that regulation of election
campaign activity may not pass the test of validity if:
It is too general in its terms
Not limited in time and scope in its application
It if restricts ones expression of belief in a candidate or ones opinion of
his or her qualifications,
If it cuts off the flow of media reporting
If the regulatory measure bears no clear and reasonable nexus with the
constitutionally sanctioned objective.
The regulation strikes at the freedom of an individual to express his preference
and, by displaying it on his car, to convince others to agree with him. A sticker
may be furnished by a candidate but once the car owner agrees to have it placed
in his private vehicle, the expression becomes a statement by the owner,
primarily his own and not of anybody else.
Libel = falsity + actual malice (uttered in full knowledge of its falsity or with
reckless disregard)
Exemption: When the subject of the supposed libelous or defamatory material is
a public officer. Defamatory words may be uttered against them and not be
considered libelous. The reason is that 1) they asked for it (they voluntarily
thrust themselves into the public eye and therefore should not be thin-skinned);
2) its a matter of public interest; and 3) public figures have the opportunity and
resources to rebut whatever is said against them. (Policarpio vs Manila Times); (
New York Times vs Sullivan)
In New York Times v. Sullivan, The New York Times is protected under
the freedom of speech in publishing paid advertisement, no matter if it
contained erroneous claims and facts. Said publication was not
commercial in the sense that it communicated information, expressed
opinion, recited grievances, protested claimed abuses, and sought a
financial support on behalf of a movement. That the Times was paid for
publishing the advertisement is as immaterial as the fact that newspapers
and books are sold.
Newspapers do not forfeit the protection they enjoy under speech freedom just
Held: MTRCB do not have the power to exercise prior restraint. The power of the
MTRCB is limited to the classification of films.
The test to determine whether a motion picture exceeds the bounds of
permissible exercise of free speech and, therefore should be censored, is the
clear and present danger test.
The right to assemble is not subject to prior restraint and may not be
conditioned upon the prior issuance of a permit or authorization from the
government authorities. However, the right must be exercised in such a
way that it will not prejudice the public welfare. (De la Cruz v. Court of
Appeals)
In JBL Reyes v. Bagatsing, retired J. JBL Reyes sought a permit from the
City of Manila to hold a march and rally on Oct 26, 1983 2-5pm from
Luneta to gates of US Embassy, and was denied by the Mayor due to
Vienna Convention Ordinance and fear of subversives may infiltrate the
ranks of the demonstrators.
Held: no justifiable ground to deny permit because Bill of Rights will prevail over
Vienna Ordinance should conflict exist (none proven because 500m not
measured from gate to US Embassy proper) and fear of serious injury cannot
alone justify suppression of free speech and assembly- only clear and present
danger of substantive evil.
Notes: the Court is called upon to protect the exercise of the cognate rights
to free speech and peaceful assembly
Tanada vs
Bagatsing
Malabanan vs
Ramento
Villar vs TIP
Non vs Dames
PBM
Employees
Assoc vs PBM
ideally, the test should be the purpose for which the assembly is held,
regardless of the auspices under which it is organized
In People v. Bustos, Bustos and several people sent complaint letters via
counsel against Justice of Peace Roman Punsalan, who charged them
with libel.
Section 8, Art. III. 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.
SSS
Employees
Assoc vs CA
Victoriano vs
Elizalde Rope
Workers'
Union
Occena vs
COMELEC
In re Edillon
T. OBSCENITY CASES
US vs Kottinger
People vs Go Pin
Pita vs CA
Miller vs California
The CDA was replaced with Child Online Protection Act, 1. The scope had
been limited to material displayed only on the world wide web. Chat and
email were not included. The classification of content was limited as
harmful to minors using the Miller V California Test. So, it was upheld by
the Supreme Court.
In re Laureta
Zaldivar vs
Sandiganbayan
U. FREEDOM OF RELIGION
Section 5, Art. III. 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.
Religion defined
1. Non-establishment Clause
other provisions which support this: Sec 2(5), Art. IX-C [a religious sect or
denomination cannot be registered as a political party], Sec 5(2), Art. VI
[no sectoral representative from the religious sector], and Sec 29 (2), Art.
VI [prohibition against the use of public money or property for the benefit
of any religion, or of any priest, minister or ecclsiastic], Sec. 28 (3), Art. VI
[exemption from taxation of properties actually, directly and exclusively
used for religious purposes, Sec 4(2), Art XIV [citizenship requirement of
ownership of educational institutions except those owned by religious
groups], Sec 29(2), Art VI [appropriation allowed where the minister is
employed in the armed forces, penal institution or government-owned
orphanage or leprosarium]
authorities
Gonzales vs
Archbishop of
Manila
Fonacier v CA
People vs Zosa
Victoriano vs Elizalde Rope
Workers Union
American Bible Society vs City
of Manila
freedom.
invocation of religious scruples in order to
avoid military service was brushed aside by
the SC
SC upheld the validity of RA 3350, exempting
members of a religious sect from being
compelled to join a labor union
the constitutional guarantee of free exercise
carries with it the right to disseminate
information, and any restraint of such right
can be justified only on the ground that there
is a clear and present danger of an evil which
the State has the right to prevent;
Hence, City ordinance imposing license fees
to on sale is inapplicable to the society
the free exercise clause does not prohibit
imposing a generally applicable sales and
use tax on the sale of religious materials;
the registration fee is not imposed for the
exerise of a privilege, but only for the purpose
of defraying part of the cost of registration
Religious Tests
People vs Zosa
V. RIGHT TO TRAVEL
Section 6, Art. III. The liberty of abode and of changing the same within the
limits prescribed by law shall not be impaired except upon lawful order of
the court. Neither shall the right to travel be impaired except in the interest
of national security, public safety, or public health, as may be provided by
law.
82 Phil 851