Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
I. Preliminaries
1. *Constitution that body of rules and maxims in accordance with which the power of sovereignty are habitually exercised; puts limitations to the
powers of government rather than being the source of powers
* Constitutional Law is a term used to designate the law embodied in the constitution and the legal principles growing out of the interpretation and
application made by courts of the constitution in specific cases
* Political Law a branch of public law which deals with the organization and operations of the governmental organs of the State and defines the relations
of the State with the inhabitants of its territory
Constitutional Law
Administrative Law
Public Corporation Law
Election Law
2. Purpose To prescribe the permanent framework of a system of government, to assign to the several departments their respective powers and duties,
and to establish certain first principles on which government is founded.
3. Classification
A. (1) Rigid - is one that can be amended only by a formal and usually difficult process; cumbersome; subject to ratification
(2) Flexible - is one that can be changed by ordinary legislation; easier
B. (1) Written - is one whose precepts are embodied in one document or set of documents; codified
(2) Unwritten - consists of rules which have not been integrated into a single, concrete form but are scattered in various sources, such as statutes of a
fundamental character, judicial decisions, commentaries of publicists, customs and traditions, and certain common law principles; uncodified
C. (1) Evolved - or cumulative is the result of political evolution, not inaugurated at any specific time but changing by accretion rather than by systematic
method
(2) Enacted - or conventional constitution is enacted, formally struck off at a definitive time and place following a conscious or deliberate effort taken by a
constituent body or ruler
D. (1) Normative - adjusts to norms
(2) Nominal - not yet fully operational
(3) Semantic - perpetuation of power
*The Constitution of the Philippines is written, conventional and rigid.
4. Qualities of a good written constitution
1. Broad - it provides for the organization of the entire government and covers all persons and things within the territory of the State and also because it
must be comprehensive enough to provide for every contingency
2. Brief - must confine itself to basic principles to be implemented w/ legislative details more adjustable to change and easier to amend
3. Definite - to prevent ambiguity in its provisions which could result in confusion and divisiveness among the people
5. Essential parts of a good written constitution
1. Constitution of Government - The series of provisions outlining the organization of the government, enumerating its powers, laying down certain rules
relative to its administration and defining the electorate.
2. Constitution of Liberty - The series of proscriptions setting forth the fundamental civil and political rights of the citizens and imposing limitations on the
powers of government as a means of securing the enjoyment of those rights.
3. Constitution of Sovereignty - The provisions pointing out the mode or procedure in accordance with which formal changes in the fundamental law may
be brought about. It has to be changed through the instrumentality of the people.
6. Interpretation/Construction of the Constitution
1. Verba Legis - plain meaning rule
- whenever possible the words used in the Constitution must be given their ordinary meaning except when technical terms are employed
- textualist approach or intent
2. Ratio legis et anima - interpretation according to spirit
- words of the Constitution should be interpreted in accordance with the intent of the framers
- originalism (intent of the framers; original understanding of the people)
3. Ut magis valeat quam pereat - the constitution has to be interpreted as a whole
(Francisco, Jr. vs. House of Representatives)
7. Self-executing provision A constitutional provision is self-executing if the nature and extent of the right conferred and the liability imposed are fixed
by the constitution itself, so that they can be determined by an examination and construction of its terms, and there is no language indicating that the
subject is referred to the legislature for action. (Manila Prince Hotel vs. GSIS)
Page 1
8. Amendment/Revision
a. Definition
* Amendment - an alteration of one or a few specific provisions of the Constitution. Its main purpose is to improve specific provisions of the Constitution.
The changes being brought about by amendments will not affect the other provisions of the Constitution.
* Revision - an examination of the entire Constitution to determine how and to what extent it should be altered. A revision implies substantive change,
affecting the Constitution as a whole.
* Revision broadly implies a change that alters a basic principle in the constitution, like altering the principle of separation of powers or the system of
checks-and-balances. There is also revision if the change alters the substantial entirety of the constitution, as when the change affects substantial
provisions of the constitution. On the other hand, amendment broadly refers to a change that adds, reduces, or deletes without altering the basic principle
involved. Revision generally affects several provisions of the constitution, while amendment generally affects only the specific provision being amended.
(Lambino vs. COMELEC)
b. Constituent vs. Legislative Power
* Constituent (of an assembly) able to frame or amend a constitution; a constituent council
* Legislative Power people can pass for local statutes and legislations by initiative and referendum
c. Steps in the amendatory process
1. Proposal (3 methods) - there is a process of proposing a change in the Constitution
a. Constituent Assembly - amendments and revisions
- 3/4 of all its members voting separately
- there were instances in which the Senate and HP will convene and vote as a whole (during the Martial Law)
- since nothing is said about a joint session, it is submitted that each House may separately formulate amendments by a vote of of all its
members, and then pass it on to the other House for a similar process, and disagreement can be settled through a conference committee
b. Constitutional Convention - amendments and revisions
- calls for a constituent assembly first before Constitutional Convention
- 2/3 of all its members
c. People's Initiative - amendments only
- proposal by the people themselves
* The constitutional provision on people's initiative to amend the Constitution can only be implemented by law to be passed by Congress. No such law has
been passed. (Santiago vs. COMELEC)
* The people's initiative is limited to amendments to the Constitution, not to revision thereof. Extending or lifting of term limits constitutes a revision and
is, therefore, outside the power of the people's initiative. (Santiago vs. COMELEC)
2. Ratification - held in a plebiscite conducted under the election law
- supervised by the COMELEC
- where only registered voters take part
- all proposed amendments/revision made by the constituent assemblies must be submitted for ratification in a single plebiscite
- there cannot be a piece-meal ratification of amendments/revisions
9. Power of Judicial Review
a. Definition
The judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in such lower courts as may be established by law. Judicial power includes the duty of the
courts of justice to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable, and to determine whether or not there has
been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch/instrumentality of the Government. (Art. VIII, Sec. 1)
All cases involving the constitutionality of a treaty, international or executive agreement, or law, which shall be heard by the Supreme Court en banc, and
all other cases which under the Rules of Court are required to be heard en banc, including those involving the constitutionality, application, or operation of
presidential decrees, proclamations, orders, instructions, ordinances, and other regulations, shall be decided with the concurrence of a majority of the
Members who actually took part in the deliberations on the issues in the case and voted thereon. (Art. VIII, Sec. 4[2])
b. Who exercises the power of judicial review?
Supreme Court and inferior courts
The Constitution vests the power of judicial review or the power to declare a law, treaty, international or executive agreement, PD, order, instruction,
ordinance or regulation not only in the Supreme Court but in all RTCs. (Mirasol vs. Court of Appeals)
Review, revise, reverse, modify, or affirm on appeal or certiorari, as the law or the Rules of Court may provide, final judgments & orders of lower courts in:
a. All cases in which the constitutionality or validity of any treaty, international or executive agreement, law, presidential decree, proclamation,
order, instruction, ordinance, or regulation is in question.
b. All cases involving the legality of any tax, impost, assessment, or toll, or any penalty imposed in relation thereto.
c. All cases in which the jurisdiction of any lower court is in issue.
d. All criminal cases in which the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua or higher.
e. All cases in which only an error or question of law is involved.
(Art. VIII, Sec. 5[2])
* manner: (1) Supreme Court en banc; (2) majority of the members who participated in the deliberation and voted thereon
Page 2
the exceptional character of the situation and the paramount public interest is involved
when constitutional issue raised requires formulation of controlling principles to guide the bench, the bar, and the public
Requisites for Taxpayers Suit - there must be a claim of illegal disbursement of public funds or that the tax measure is unconstitutional
Requisites for Lawmakers Suit - there must be a claim that the official action complained of infringes upon their prerogatives as legislators
Requisites for Voters Suit - there must be a showing of obvious interest in the validity of the election law in question
Requisites for Concerned Citizens Suit - there must be a showing that the issues raised are of transcendental importance which must be settled
early
Presence of a clear case of disregard of a constitutional or statutory prohibition by a public respondent, agency or instrument of the
government
Lack of any other party with a more direct and specific injury
3. The constitutional question must be raised at the earliest possible opportunity; Exceptions
*General Rule: The question must be raised in the pleadings.
* Exceptions:
In criminal cases, the question can be raised at any time at the discretion of the court;
In civil cases, the question can be raised at any stage of the proceedings if necessary for the determination of the case itself; &
In every case, except where there is estoppel, it can be raised at any stage if it involves the jurisdiction of the court.
Page 3
* 2 kinds of estoppel:
A person is barred from questioning a particular act after where he has benefited from the same act.
Where a person is prevented from exercising a right, after a certain period he has slept that right.
* It is not the date of filing of the petition that determines whether the constitutional issue was raised at the earliest possible opportunity. The earliest
opportunity to raise a constitutional issue is to raise it in the pleadings before a competent court can resolve the same, such that, if it is not raised in the
pleadings, it cannot be considered at the trial, and if not considered at the trial, it cannot be considered on appeal. (Matibag vs. Benipayo)
4. The decision on the constitutional question must be determinative of the case itself
(constituional question must be the very lis mota)
- lis mota - essence of the subject matter of the case; existing or anticipated litigation
- determination of the constitutionality of the act is inevitable, cannot be avoided
- the court should respect the act of the other 2 branches
* Every law has in its favor the presumption of constitutionality, and to justify its nullification, there must be a clear and unequivocal breach of the
Constitution, and not one that is doubtful, speculative or argumentative. (Arceta vs. Judge Mangrobang)
d. Effects of declaration of unconstitutionality / partial unconstitutionality
1. The Orthodox View
- The law is void if on its face it does not enjoy any presumption of validity because it is patently offensive to the Constitution. It produces no effect,
creates no effect, and produces no duty.
- if the law is inconsistent with the Constitution, then the latter shall govern
- if the law has been declared unconstitutional, it is presumed that no law existed at all
- traditional view
* An unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; it affords no protection; it creates no office; it is, in legal contemplation, as
inoperative as though it had never been passed.
2. The Modern View
- The law is voidable if on its face it enjoys the presumption of unconstitutionality. The law becomes inoperative only upon the judicial declaration of its
invalidity. The declaration produces no retroactive effect.
* Under this view, the court in passing upon the question of constitutionality does not annul or repeal the statute if it finds it in conflict with the
Constitution. It simply refuses to recognize it and determines the rights of the parties just as if such statute had no existence. But certain legal effects of
the statute prior to its declaration of unconstitutionality may be recognized.
II. Fundamental Powers of the State
1. Inherent powers of the State: definition, distinctions and limitations
* police power- power of the State to regulate liberty and property for the promotion of the general welfare
* power of eminent domain enable the State to forcibly acquire private property, upon payment of just compensation, for some intended public use
* power of taxation the State is able to demand from the member of society their proportionate share or contribution in the maintenance of the
government
They are supposed to co-exist with the State.
Similarities:
They are inherent in the State and may be exercised by it without need of express constitutional grant.
They are not only necessary but indispensable. The State cannot continue or be effective unless it is able to exercise them.
They are methods by which the State interferes with private rights.
They all presuppose an equivalent compensation for the private rights interfered with.
police power & power of taxation may be exercised only by the government
power of eminent domain may be exercised by some private entities
property taken in the exercise of the police is destroyed because it is noxious or intended for a noxious purpose
property taken under the power of eminent domain and the power of taxation is intended for a public use or purpose and is therefore
wholesome
compensation of the person subjected to the police power is the intangible altruistic feeling that he has contributed to the general welfare
compensation involved in the other powers is more concrete, to wit, a full and fair equivalent of the property expropriated or protection and
public improvements for the taxes paid
Limitations:
The exercise of these fundamental powers is subject at all times to the limitations and requirements of the Constitution and may in proper cases be
annulled by the courts of justice.
Page 4
2. Police Power
a. Definition
Police Power has been defined as the power of promoting the public welfare by restraining and regulating the use of liberty and property.
Police power easily outspaces the other two inherent powers as instruments of the State in interfering with private rights. The power of
Eminent Domain and Taxation involve only property rights. By contrast, Police Power regulates not only the property, but more importantly,
the liberty of private persons and virtually all the people. It is regarded as infinitely more important than eminent domain or taxation.
Police power has been defined as the state authority to enact legislation that may interfere with personal liberty or property in order to
promote the general welfare. As defined, it consists of (1) an imposition of restraint upon liberty or property, (2) in order to foster the
common good. It is not capable of an exact definition but has been, purposely, veiled in general terms to underscore its all-comprehensive
embrace.
b. Scope
Police power regulates not only the property but, more importantly, the liberty of private persons, and virtually all the people.
The scope of police power, ever-expanding to meet the exigencies of the times, even to anticipate the future where it could be done
provides enough room for an efficient and flexible response to conditions and circumstances thus assuring the greatest benefits.
Characteristics
Police power is considered the most pervasive, the least limitable, and the most demanding of the three powers. It may be exercised as long
as the activity or the property sought to be regulated has some relevance to the public welfare.
Pervasive and non-waivable: The police power is the pervasive and non-waivable power and authority of the sovereign to secure and
promote all the important interests and needs or the public order of the general community.
Essential, insistent and illimitable: The police power of the state has been described as the most essential, insistent and illimitable of powers,
which enables it to prohibit all things hurtful to the comfort, safety and welfare of society.
Dynamic: Police power is a dynamic force that enables the state to meet the exigencies of changing times. There are occasions when the
police power of the state may even override a constitutional guaranty, such as that the constitutional provision on non-impairment of contracts
must yield to the police power of the state. Police power is dynamic, not static, must move with the moving society it is supposed to regulate.
Once exercised, it is not deemed exhausted and may be exercised repeatedly, as often as it is necessary for the protection or the promotion of
the public welfare.
Police power may sometimes use the taxing power as an implement for the attainment of a legitimate police objective.
Limits:
It is virtually limitless. Owing to the need to protect society from the inordinate assertion of individual liberty, it has been held that the police
power may not be bargained away by virtue of a contract or even a treaty, so long as it is regulated in order to promote the general welfare.
c. Who exercises the power?
Police power is an inherent attribute of sovereignty. It has been defined as the power vested by the Constitution in the legislature to make,
ordain, and establish all manner of wholesome and reasonable laws, statutes and ordinances, either with penalties or without, not repugnant
to the Constitution, as they shall judge to be for the good and welfare of the commonwealth, and for the subjects of the same. Police power is
lodged primarily in the National Legislature. It cannot be exercised by any group or body of individuals not possessing legislative power. The
National Legislature, however, may delegate this power to the President and administrative boards as well as the lawmaking bodies of
municipal corporations or local government units. Once delegated, the agents can exercise only such legislative powers as are conferred on
them by the national lawmaking body. (MMDA vs. Bel-Air Village Association, Inc.)
d. Tests for valid exercise
Lawful subject
Lawful subject simply means that the subject of the measure is within the scope of the police power, that is, that the activity or
property sought to be regulated affects the public welfare. If it does, the enjoyment of private rights may be subordinated to the
interests of the greater number, in consonance of the principle the welfare of the people is the supreme law. (Ople vs. Torres)
Lawful means
The means employed are reasonably necessary for the attainment of the object sought to be accomplished and not unduly
oppressive upon individuals. (Lucena Grand Central Terminal vs. JAC Liner)
The means employed are reasonably necessary for the accomplishment of the purpose and not unduly oppressive upon
individuals. The lawful objective must be pursued through a lawful method. The means employed for the accomplishment of the
police objective must pass to the test of reasonableness and conform to the safeguards embodied in the Bill of Rights for the
protection of private rights.
Even if the purpose be within the scope of the police power, the law will still be annulled if the subject is sought to be regulated
in violation of the second requirement. In Constitutional Law, the end does not justify the means. The lawful objective, in other
words, must be pursued through a lawful method; that is, both the end and the means must be legitimate. Lacking such
concurrence, the police measure shall be struck down as an arbitrary intrusion of private rights.
3. Power of Eminent Domain
a. Definition/Scope
Power of eminent domain is where private property is needed for conversion to some public use with just compensation.
The power of eminent domain results in the taking or appropriation of title to, and possession of, the expropriated property.
(Camarines Norte Electric Cooperative vs. Court of Appeals)
It is also called as Power of Expropriation
Page 5
Limitation: Private property shall not be taken for use without just compensation. (Art. III, Sec. 9)
b. Who may exercise the power?
The power of eminent domain is lodged in the legislative branch of the government. It delegates the exercise thereof to local government
units, other public entities and public utility corporations, subject only to Constitutional limitations. Local governments have no inherent power
of eminent domain and may exercise it only when expressly authorized by statute. (Masikip vs. City of Pasig)
The following may exercise the power of expropriation:
1. The Congress.
2. The President of the Philippines.
3. The various local legislative bodies.
4. Certain public corporations like the Land Authority and National Housing Authority.
5. Quasi-public corporations like Philippine National Railways, the Philippine Long Distance Telephone Co. and the Meralco.
* destruction from necessity may be validly taken by private individuals; cannot require the conversion of the property taken to public use;
nor is there any payment of just compensation
c. Requisites for exercise
1.
Genuine necessity essentially political when decided by the national legislature and are usually not subject to judicial review
The foundation of the right to exercise eminent domain is genuine necessity and that necessity must be of public character.
Government may not capriciously or arbitrarily choose which private property should be expropriated. (Lagcao vs. Judge Labra)
2.
Private property this includes real and personal, tangible and intangible properties
- exceptions: money and choses in action
Private property is subjected to a burden for public use and benefit. (Republic of the Philippines vs. PLDT)
3.
Taking in the constitutional sense imports a physical dispossession of the owner, as when he is ousted from his land or relieved of
his watch and his car and is thus deprived of all the beneficial use and enjoyment of his property
A number of circumstances must be present in the "taking" of property for purposes of eminent domain:
a.
Expropriator must enter private property.
b. Entrance must be for more than momentary period.
c.
Entrance must be under warrant or color of legal authority.
d. Property must be devoted to public use or otherwise informally appropriated or injuriously affected.
e. Utilization of property for public use must be in such a way as to oust the owner and deprive him of beneficial enjoyment
of the property.
(Republic vs. Castellvi)
4.
For public use any use directly available to the general public as a matter of right and not merely of forbearance or
accommodation
It is now settled doctrine that the concept of public use is no longer limited to traditional purposes. Here, as elsewhere, the idea
that "public use" is strictly limited to clear cases of "use by the public" has been abandoned. The term "public use" has now been
held to be synonymous with "public interest," "public benefit," "public welfare," and "public convenience." (Reyes vs. NHA)
5.
Payment of just compensation full and fair equivalent of the property taken from the private owner by the expropriator
* Equation: Just compensation = Fair Market Value + (Consequential Damage Consequential Benefits)
a.
Concept in which the owner of condemned property is entitled to its market value; market value is that sum of money
which a person desirous but not compelled to buy, and an owner willing but not compelled to sell would agree on as a
price to be given and received therefore (NAPOCOR vs. Sps. Chiong)
b.
c.
Page 6
d.
e.
Reckoning point of market value of the property date of filing of the complaint or taking whichever is earlier (as long
the constitutional requirements for taking are complied); exception is on RA 7160
The general rule in determining just compensation in eminent domain is the value of the property as of the date of
the filing of the complaint, as follows:
Sec. 4. Order of Condemnation. When such a motion is overruled or when any party fails to defend as required by
this rule, the court may enter an order of condemnation declaring that the plaintiff has a lawful right to take the property
sought to be condemned, for the public use or purpose described in the complaint, upon the payment of just
compensation to be determined as of the date of the filing of the complaint x x x
The general rule, however, admits of an exception: where this Court fixed the value of the property as of the date it
was taken and not at the date of the commencement of the expropriation proceedings.
(NAPOCOR vs. Court of Appeals)
f.
Entitlement of owner to interest until full payment; payment of interest accrue; expropriation to pay
The owner of private property should be compensated only for what he actually loses; it is not intended that his
compensation shall extend beyond his loss or injury. And what he loses is only the actual value of his property at the time
it is taken. This is the only way the compensation to be paid can be truly just; i.e., "just" not only to the individual whose
property is taken, "but to the public, which is to pay for it."
Thus, the value of petitioners' property must be ascertained as of 1960 when it was actually taken. It is as of that time
that the real measure of their loss may fairly be adjudged. The value, once fixed, shall earn interest at the legal rate until
full payment is effected, conformably with other principles laid down by case law.
(Nepomuceno vs. City of Surigao)
g.
Title to the property only vested upon full payment of just compensation of the property
No piece of land can be finally and irrevocably taken from an unwilling owner until compensation is paid. This is in
conformity with the just compensation requirement. (Visayan Refining vs. Camus)
h.
Right of landowners in case of non-payment of just compensation recovery of property within 5 years from the
judgment of non-payment
In summation, while the prevailing doctrine is that the non-payment of just compensation does not entitle the
private landowner to recover possession of the expropriated lots, however, in cases where the government failed to pay
just compensation within five (5) years from the finality of the judgment in the expropriation proceedings, the owners
concerned shall have the right to recover possession of their property. (Republic vs. Vicente Lim)
i.
Right to dismiss the complaint in eminent domain right to dismiss is not a matter of right, it needs the court approval
Ordinarily, the dismissal of the expropriation case restores possession of the expropriated land to the landowner.
However, when possession of the land cannot be turned over to the landowner because it is neither convenient nor
feasible anymore to do so, the only remedy available to the aggrieved landowner is to demand payment of just
compensation. (NAPOCOR vs. Court of Appeals)
j.
Right to repurchase or re-acquire property it depends; if the public purpose has been abandoned
had a right to repurchase the same if the purpose for which it was expropriated is ended or abandoned.
(Mactan-Cebu International Airport vs. Court of Appeals)
Page 7
this is because the government cannot exist without financial support; life-blood doctrine
it is inherent as regards the national government
SC: as long as this court sits, taxation cannot be used to destroys anybodys property
* difference between taxes imposed in taxation powers and license and permits:
if license and permits it is for the purpose of regulation; it is practice of police power (only the regulation expense (liberty and
property)
note: Taxation should not be confiscatory and should not violate due process.
* System of Taxation: (based on the question: How can you give when you dont have a source of income?)
Equitable tax is according to ones capacity to pay; tax shall be strictly proportional to the relative value of the property
Uniformity people and property of the same class is subjected to the same tax rate (same bracket, same tax rate)
* Attributes/Characteristics of Taxation:
1. A forced charge, imposition or contribution and as such it operates in invitum (against an unwilling person). Taxes are not in the
nature of contracts between the party and party but grow out of a duty to, and are the positive acts of the government, to the
making and enforcing of which, the personal consent of individual taxpayers is not required.
2. It is a pecuniary burden payable in money, but such a tax is not necessarily confined to those payable in money.
3. It is levied by the legislative body of the State because the taxing power is pecuniary and exclusively legislative in character.
4. It is assessed in accordance with some reasonable rule of apportionment, conformably with the constitutional mandate on
progressivity of a taxing system. (Article VI, Section 28[1], 1987 Constitution).
5. It reaches even the citizen abroad and his income earned from sources outside his State; as well as 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, are subject to its taxing power (Justice Cruz, Constitutional Law, 2000
edition, 86)
6. A tax is levied for a public purpose as taxation itself involves a burden to provide revenue for public purposes of a general nature.
* Nature of taxing power:
Inherent. The power to tax, an inherent prerogative, has to be availed of to assure the performance of vital state functions. It is
the source of the bulk of public funds. Taxes being the lifeblood of the government, their prompt and certain availability is of the
essence.
High prerogative of sovereignty. As the power of taxation is a high prerogative of sovereignty, the relinquishment is never
presumed and any reduction or diminution thereof with respect to its mode or its rate must be strictly construed, and the same
must be coached in clear and unmistakable terms in order that it may be applied.
Legislative. Taxing power is peculiarly and exclusively legislative in character and remains undiminished in the legislative in
character and remains undiminished in the legislature in the absence of an express surrender thereof, clear and explicit in its terms.
Constitutionally limited. The power to tax is an attribute of sovereignty. It is the strongest of all the powers of government. For all
its plenitude, the power to tax has restrictions. The Constitution sets forth such limits. Adversely affecting as it does property rights,
both the due process and equal protection clauses may properly be invoked to invalidate in appropriate cases a revenue measure.
* Purpose:
Taxes are the lifeblood of the government and so should be collected without unnecessary hindrance. Despite the natural reluctance to
surrender part of ones hard-earned income to the taxing authorities, every person who is able to must contribute his share in the running of
the government. The government for its part, is expected to respond in the form of tangible and intangible benefits intended to improve the
lives of the people and enhance their moral and material values. This symbiotic relationship is the rationale of taxation and should dispel the
erroneous notion that it is an arbitrary method of exaction by those in the seat of power.
1. Revenue: The purpose of taxation is to provide funds or property with which the State promotes the general welfare and protection of its
citizens. Raising of revenues is the principal object of taxation.
2. Non-Revenue:
a. Regulation: Taxes may also be imposed for a regulatory purpose as for example, in the promotion, rehabilitation and
stabilization of industry which is affected with public interest.
b. Promotion of general welfare: If objective and methods are alike constitutionally valid, no reason is seen why the state may not
be levy taxes to raise funds for their prosecution and attainment. Taxation may be made to implement the states police power.
c. Reduction of social inequality: Made possible through the progressive system of taxation where the objective is to prevent the
undue concentration of wealth in the hands of a few individuals.
d. Encourage economic growth: In the realm of tax exemptions and tax reliefs, the purpose of taxation (the power to tax being
the power also not to tax) is to grant incentives or exemptions in order to encourage investments and thereby promote the
countrys economic growth.
e. Protectionism: In some important sectors of the economy, taxes sometimes provide protection to local industries like
protective tariffs and customs duties.
* Scope/ Legislative taxing power or discretion extends to the following:
1. Subjects and objects of tax
2. Amount and rate of tax
3. Purpose for which taxes are to be levied
4. Apportionment of the tax ( general, limited to a particular locality, or mixed)
Page 8
5.
6.
inherently legislative
due process
equal protection
non-impairment of contracts
d. Double taxation
There is double taxation when additional taxes are laid on the same subject by the same taxing jurisdiction during the same taxing period
and for the same purpose.
Double taxation becomes obnoxious only where the taxpayer is taxed twice for the benefit of the same governmental entity.
e. Tax exemptions
Constitution Exemption is granted religious and charitable institutions because they give considerable assistance to the State in
the improvement of the morality of the people and the care of the indigent and the handicapped.
Statutory (Congress) Statutory exceptions are granted in the discretion of the legislature, but such law should be passed with the
concurrence of a majority of all the Members of Congress.
* Where the taxation is granted gratuitously, it may be validly revoked at will, with or without cause. However, if the exemption is granted for
valuable consideration it is deemed to partake of the nature of a contract and the obligation thereof is protected against impairment.
* By its very nature, the law that exempts one from tax must be clearly expressed because the exemption cannot be created by implication.
f. Distinguished from police power
police power regulates both liberty and property; power of taxation only affects property rights
the property taken in the exercise of the police power is destroyed because it is noxious or intended for noxious purpose; the property taken
under the power of taxation is intended for a public use or purpose and is therefore wholesome
the compensation of the person subjected to the police power is the intangible altruistic feeling that he has contributed to the general
welfare; the compensation involved in the other powers is more concrete, to wit, a full and fair equivalent of the property expropriated or
protection and public improvements for the taxes paid
The power to tax is an incident of sovereignty and is unlimited in its range, acknowledging in its very nature no limits, so that security against
its abuse is to be found only in the responsibility of the legislature which imposes the tax on the constituency that is to pay it. It is based on the
principle that taxes are the lifeblood of the government, and their prompt and certain availability is an imperious need. Thus, the theory behind
the exercise of the power to tax emanates from necessity; without taxes, government cannot fulfill its mandate of promoting the general
welfare and well-being of the people.
On the other hand, police power is the power of the state to promote public welfare by restraining and regulating the use of liberty and
property. It is the most pervasive, the least limitable, and the most demanding of the three fundamental powers of the State. The justification is
found in the Latin maxims salus populi est suprema lex (the welfare of the people is the supreme law) and sic utere tuo ut alienum non laedas
(so use your property as not to injure the property of others). As an inherent attribute of sovereignty which virtually extends to all public needs,
police power grants a wide panoply of instruments through which the State, as parens patriae, gives effect to a host of its regulatory powers.
We have held that the power to "regulate" means the power to protect, foster, promote, preserve, and control, with due regard for the
interests, first and foremost, of the public, then of the utility and of its patrons.
The conservative and pivotal distinction between these two powers rests in the purpose for which the charge is made. If generation of
revenue is the primary purpose and regulation is merely incidental, the imposition is a tax; but if regulation is the primary purpose, the fact that
revenue is incidentally raised does not make the imposition a tax.
(Gerochi vs. Department of Energy)
Page 9
Rational basis
Strict scrutiny
Immediate scrutiny
b. Procedural due process
- enforcement and application of laws; pertains to the implementation of the law (fair, just and reasonable)
- the heart of procedural due process is the need for notice and an opportunity to be heard; what is required is not actual hearing but the
opportunity to be heard
- is not always judicial due process, but also administrative proceedings, school proceedings, and extradition proceedings
- judicial proceedings: criminal and non-criminal
* requirements of due process in a judicial process (not a criminal case):
1) there must be a court tribunal clothed with judicial power to hear the and determine the matter before it;
2) jurisdiction must be lawfully acquired over the person of the defendant or over property which is the subject of the proceedings;
3) respondent must be given an opportunity to be heard;
4) judgment must be rendered upon lawful hearing.
Page 10
(more intrinsically) to the person who is the subject of deprivation, it gives him a sense of rational participation in a decision and
thus can affect his destiny and thus enhances his dignity as a thinking person
- fairness is not violated in administrative proceedings when the hearing officer is not the same person who decides the case
- the is violation of due process when the officer who reviews a case is the same person whose decision is on appeal
- notice and hearing required in judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings; not prerequisites in the promulgation of general rules
- fixing rates being a quasi-judicial process, requires hearing
c. Due process in administrative proceedings
- due process is not always judicial process
- legal controversies have to be decided not by the courts but by administrative bodies
- administrative bodies are not always bound by the finer points of judicial due process
* cardinal primary requirements in administrative proceedings:
The right to a hearing, which includes the right to present ones case and submit evidence in support thereof
decision must be based on the evidence presented at the hearing, or at least contained in the record and disclosed to the parties
affected
The tribunal body or any of its judges must act on its own independent consideration of the law and facts of the controversy, and
not simply accept the views of the subordinate
The Board or body should, in all controversial questions, render its decision in such manner that the parties to the proceeding can
know the various issues involved, and the reason for the decision rendered
(Ang Tibay vs. Court of Industrial Relations)
d. Due process in school proceedings
- due process in disciplinary cases involving students does not entail proceedings and hearings similar to those prescribed for actions and
proceedings in courts of justice
* minimum standards which must be met to satisfy the demands of procedural due process:
The students must be informed in writing of the nature and cause of any accusation against them
They shall have the right to answer against them, with the assistance of counsel, if desired
They shall have the right to adduce evidence in their own behalf
The evidence must be duly considered by the investigating committee or official designated by the school authorities to hear and
decide the case
(Guzman vs. National University)
- a teacher in a school administrative proceeding has a right to be assisted by counsel
* instances when hearings are not necessary:
1. When administrative agencies are exercising their quasi-legislative functions;
2. Abatement of nuisance per se;
3. Granting by courts of provisional remedies;
4. Preventive suspension;
5. Removal of temporary employees in the government service;
6. Issuance of warrants of distrait and/or levy by the BIR Commissioner;
7. Cancellation of passport of a person charged with a crime;
8. Issuance of sequestration orders
9. Judicial order which prevents an accused from traveling abroad
10. Suspension of banks operations by the Monetary Board upon a prima facie finding of liquidity problems in such bank.
Note:
* right to appeal, generally, is not a part of due process; is not a natural or statutory right; however if it is granted by law, then appeal becomes part of
due process
* right to preliminary investigation is not a constitutional right but merely provided for by a statute
C. Equal Protection of the Laws
Substantive equality is not enough. It is also required that the law be applied equally. Even if the law is fair and impartial on its face, it will still violate equal
protection if it is administered with an evil eye and an uneven hand, so as to unjustly benefit some and prejudice others.
The clause equal protection of the laws does not preclude classification of individuals, who may be accorded different treatment under the law as long as the
classification is not unreasonable or arbitrary.
Page 11
* Classification has been defined as the grouping of persons or things similar to each other in certain particulars and different from each other in these same
particulars. To be valid, it must conform to the following requirements:
1) it must be based on substantial distinctions;
2) it must be germane to the purposes of the law;
3) it must not be limited to existing conditions only; and
4) it must apply equally to all the members of the class.
(People vs. Cayat)
D. Arrest, Searches and Seizures
Article III, 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.
* Arrest taking of a person into custody in order that he may be bound to answer for the commission of an offense. (Sec. 1, Rule 113 of the Revised Rules of Court)
* Search warrant is an order in writing issued in the name of the People of the Philippines, signed by a judge and directed to a peace officer, commanding him to
search for personal property described therein and bring it before the court. (Sec. 1, Rule 126 of the Revised Rules of Court)
* Warrant of Arrest contemplated in Art. III, Sec. 2 of the Constitution refers to an arrest to bring the accused to answer in court.
General Rule: A search or a seizure is reasonable upon presentation of a valid warrant.
Exceptions: 1. valid warrantless arrest; 2. valid warrantless searches
- The rule that searches and seizures must be supported by a valid warrant is not an absolute rule. What is prohibited is unreasonable searches and seizures.
- 2 parts of search and seizure clause: a. prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures; b. requirements for a valid warrant
* Requisites for a valid warrant:
1.
2.
3.
Probable cause
is defined as referring to such facts and circumstances antecedent to the issuance of the warrant that in themselves are sufficient to induce a cautious
person to rely on them, and to act in pursuance thereof.
Probable cause for a search warrant --- such facts and circumstances which would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an
offense has been committed and that the objects sought in connection with the offense are in the place sought to be searched
Probable cause for a warrant of arrest --- such facts and circumstances which would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an
offense has been committed by the person sought to be arrested.
The purpose of each proceeding differs from the other. The first is to determine whether a warrant should issue or be quashed, and the second,
whether an information should be filed in court.
* What facts and circumstances should we look into in the case of prosecutors? Of judges?
For Prosecutor it is whether to hold the person liable for the charge and to hold a court trial.
For the Judge but if it is probable cause as determined by the judge for the issuance of warrant of arrest, it is whether there are facts and
circumstances sufficient to warrant that there is a need to place the accused into custody.
Determination by a judge
Only judges are vested with authority to issue warrants for the arrest of persons, including aliens.
It means exclusive, independent and personal satisfaction that a probable cause exists.
The key to the personal determination is the personal satisfaction of the judge that a probable cause exists sufficient to issue a warrant of arrest.
- complaint affidavit subpoena counter-affidavit resolution (to file information;
or not)
----- Executive Function
- there is probable cause
- there is no probable cause
court (issue warrant of arrest;
or not)
----- Judicial Function
- there is PC
- there is no probable cause
Personal examination
Determination must be made only after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce and the
warrant must contain the required particularity of description.
Oath required must refer to the truth of the facts within the personal knowledge of the petitioner or his witnesses, because the purpose thereof is to
convince the committing magistrate, not the individual making the affidavit and seeking the issuance of the warrant, of the existence of probable cause.
(Alvarez vs. Court of First Instance)
Judge is not required to personally examine the complainant and his witnesses or to await the submission of counter affidavits from an accused.
(Soliven vs. Makasiar)
Witnesses must have personal knowledge of the facts and circumstances. What is meant by probable cause is the facts and circumstances sufficient to
warrant a reasonable belief, it can only be facts and circumstances sufficient to warrant a reasonable belief if it is based on personal knowledge not based
on hearsay, that is precisely why the reason that it is placed in the Constitution complainant and witnesses, because it can happen that the complainant
could not have personal knowledge of how the crime was committed in which case, he must have to bring in witnesses because you only establish
probable cause by the presentation of evidence based on personal knowledge.
The following established doctrine and procedure, the judge shall:
Personally evaluate the report and the supporting documents submitted by the prosecutor regarding the existence of probable cause, and on
the basis thereof, he may already make a personal determination of the existence of probable; and
If he is not satisfied that probable cause exists, he may disregard the prosecutors report and require the submission of supporting affidavits of
witnesses to aid him in arriving at a conclusion as to the existence of probable cause (Soliven vs. Makasiar)
Page 12
a. Search Warrant The judge must, before issuing the warrant, personally examine in the form of searching questions and answers, in writing and under
oath, the complainant and the witnesses he may produce on facts personally known to them and attach to the record their sworn statements, together
with the affidavits submitted. (Sec. 5, Rule 126 of the Revised Rules o Court); disregard the prosecutors findings.
b. Warrant of arrest There is personal determination if the judge has personally evaluated the supporting documents or affidavits and is personally
satisfied that probable cause exists.
4.
Particularity of description
A search warrant should particularly describe the place to be searched and the things to be seized. The evident purpose and intent of this requirement
is to limit the things to be seized to those, and only those, particularly described in the search warrant to leave the officers of the law with no discretion
regarding what articles they shall seize, to the end that unreasonable searches and seizures may not be made, that abuses may not be committed.
One of the tests to determine the particularity in the description of objects to be seized under a search warrant is when the things described are limited
to those which bear direct relation to the offense for which the warrant is being issued. (Bache and Co. vs. Ruiz)
Description of Place --- The rule is that a description of the place to be searched is sufficient if the officer with the warrant can, with reasonable effort,
ascertain and identify the place intended to be searched.
Description of Items to be seized --- While it is true that the property to be seized under a warrant must be particularly described therein and no other
property can be taken thereunder, yet the description is required to be specific only in so far as the circumstances will ordinarily allow.
Prohibition:
General warrants a warrant that does not particularly describe the person to be sought or the things to be ceased
Scattered shot warrants a warrant which allows officers to search a particular place with different offenses
* John Doe warrant The warrant for apprehension of an unnamed party is void, except in those cases where it contains a descriptio personae such as
will enable the officer to identify the accused. The description must be sufficient to indicate clearly the proper person upon whom the warrant is to be
served. (People vs. Veloso)
Tests:
A search warrant may be said to particularly describe the things to be seized when the description therein is as specific as the circumstances
will ordinarily allow;
or when the description expresses a conclusion of fact not of law by which the warrant officer may be guided in making the search and
seizure;
or when the things described are limited to those which bear direct relation to the offense for which the warrant is being issued.
These 3 must be present:
Given Name
Description personae
What is material in determining the validity of a search is the place stated in the warrant itself, not what the applicants had in their thought, or had
represented in the proofs they submitted to the court issuing the warrant.
flagrante delicto When, in his presence, person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense.
hot pursuit When an offense has just been committed and he has probable cause to believe based on personal knowledge of facts and circumstances
that the person to be arrested has committed it.
escaped When a person to be arrested is a prisoner who escaped from a penal establishment, or place he is serving final judgment, or is temporary
confined while his case is pending, or has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to another.
Page 13
Page 14
People vs. Barros: When there was a demonstration of regard of supremacy of law.
Lui vs. Matillano: When ones conformity was given under fear.
* Allowable warrantless arrest:
* Arrest is the taking of a person into custody in order that he may be forthcoming to answer for the commission of an offense.
- Probable cause for an arrest without warrant is such a reasonable ground of suspicion supported by circumstances sufficiently strong in themselves as to warrant a
reasonable man believing the accused to be guilty.
- Any objection involving a warrant of arrest or procedure in the acquisition by the court of jurisdiction over the person of the accused must be made before he enters
his plea (quashing of info against him before arraignment), otherwise the objection is deemed waived.
- Section 26, Rule 114 of the Revised Rules of Procedure: An application for bail or the admission to bail by an accused is not considered a waiver of his right to assail
the warrant issued for his arrest of the legalities or irregularities thereof.
* Arrest without warrant; when lawful: (Rule 113, Section 5, Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure)
In flagrante delicto
* 2 requisites/elements:
1) The person to be arrested must exercise an overt act indicating that he has just committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit a
crime;
2) Such overt act is done in presence or within the view of the arresting officer. (People vs. Molina)
* presence not only limited to physical presence but also to hearing
- An offense is committed in the presence or within the view of an officer, within the meaning of the rule authorizing an arrest without a warrant, when the
officer sees the offense, although at a distance, or hears the disturbances created thereby and proceeds at once to the scene thereof. (People vs. Sucro)
Page 15
- It is not necessary that the arresting officers have direct knowledge of the crime. But they must have direct knowledge or view of the crime right after its
commission.
- It is not sufficient that a crime was indeed committed but it is required that the said crime has just been committed. The proximity of time of commission of
the crime must be close to the time of the arrest. Otherwise, the arrest is illegal.
Escaped prisoner
* 2 requisites/elements:
1) When a person to be arrested is a prisoner who escaped from a penal establishment; or
2) Place he is serving final judgment; or is
3) Temporary confined while his case is pending; or
4) Has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to another.
* Exclusionary Rule
Pieces of evidence seized in violation of Section 2 are inadmissible in any court proceeding (criminal, civil, admin) for they are fruits of a poisonous tree.
It bars admission of illegally obtained evidence.
As we understand it, the reason for the exclusion of evidence competent as such, which has been unlawfully acquired, is that exclusion is the only practical way of
enforcing the constitutional privilege. In earlier times the action of trespass against the offending official may have been protection enough; but that is true no longer.
Only in case the prosecution which itself controls the seizing officials, knows that it cannot profit by their wrong will that wrong be repressed. (Stonehill vs. Diokno)
The legality of a seizure can be contested only by the party whose rights have been impaired thereby, and that the objection to an unlawful search and seizure is
purely personal and cannot be availed of by third parties.
The inadmissibility of evidences, however, does not means that it must be returned where it came from. If the object is lawful, it must be returned. But if
contraband, it can be confiscated or destroyed.
To come under the exclusionary rule, however the evidence must be obtained by government agents and not by private individuals acting on their own.
E. Privacy of Communication and Correspondence
Article III, 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.
- It covers privacy relating to intangibles, and also intangibles. It refers to any means or forms of communication.
- Examples: Telephone conversation, letters, text messages, emails
- Nobody can just open your letters including electronic communication, or listen to your conversation, or record your conversation without your consent.
- It would be unreasonable to require the description of the contents of the communication. But the identity of the person or persons whose communication is to be
intercepted, and the identity of the offense or offenses sought to be prevented, and the period of the authorization given can be specified.
* 2 limitations for the right to privacy of communication:
1) Lawful order of the court
- while the text does not give any ground , probable cause must be determined
- it is judicial
2) When public safety or order requires otherwise as prescribed by law
- it would be based upon a government officials assessment that public safety and order demands such intrusion
- this discretion of the of the public officer must be exercised as prescribed by law
- is it non-judicial
- RA No. 4200 (Anti Wire-Tapping Law) You cannot record telephone cords.
Exception: extension lines. Tapping in the main line is what is prohibited. Even if it will establish the truth, this cannot be used as evidence. But if you
record it in an extension line, it may be admissible.
- does not consider it unlawful to record open and public communications
- what it protects are private conversations and communications. Specifically, it is considered unlawful: (1) secretly overhear; (2) intercept; or (3) record
private communication or spoken word when doing so is without authority of all the parties to such private communication.
- Publication by transcribing the communication If somebody is harassing you in your telephone, you cannot ask the telephone communication company to bug
your phone. What you should do is to apply a warrant in court and establish probable cause and the requirement of particularity: content of communication. You can
only make estimation for the conversation or communication to be bugged.
- Human Security Act (Anti-Terrorism act) It refers to terrorism or terrorist activities only. There is no implementing rule up to what extent the terrorism
communication is defined.
Q: When intrusion is made without a judicial order, how is the matter to be approached?
A: It would have to be based upon a non-judicial government officials assessment that public safety and order demands such intrusion.
* public order and safety the security of human lives, liberty and property against the activities of invaders, insurrectionists and rebels
(Zulueta vs. Court of Appeals)
- Wife was suspecting that the husband have an affair. So wife ransacked the table of husband and found all the love letters and used evidence against the husband.
- Not admissible against the husband but can be used against the wife for the violation of privacy.
(Ramirez vs. Court of Appeals)
- Wife recorded the quarrel. She went to the court and accused the other for libel making derogatory remarks.
- Not admissible because taken without the consent of the other party.
Page 16
(Waterous Drug Corp. vs. NLRC) & People vs. Marti (just base on these cases)
- Employee of company had a part time job which is the competitor of the company. He was receiving commissions from other company which was sent to him by
mail. Received by the clerk in the present company. Clerk believing it was for the company, opened the letter. So they found the check. The company dismissed him.
- Can the letter be admissible as evidence? SC said the opening of letter was not deliberate to intrude in the privacy. It was part of the work of the clerk thus
admissible to evidence. He was dismissed.
(In the matter of petition for habeas corpus of Capt. G. Alejano, et al. vs. Cabuay)
- If the letters are marked confidential communication between the detainees and their lawyers, the detention officials should not read the letters but only open the
envelopes for inspection in the presence of the detainees. That a law is required before an executive officer could intrude on a citizens privacy rights is a guarantee
that is available only to the public at large but not to persons who are detained or imprisoned. The right to privacy of those detained is subject to Section 4 of RA
7438, as well as to the limitations inherent in lawful detention or imprisonment. By the very fact of their detention, pre-trial detainees and convicted prisoners have
a diminished expectation of privacy rights.
(Trillanes case)
- Letters were passed through the attorney. Military reads letter before passing the letter. They questioned the acts of the military for opening the letter. SC said, if
you are prisoner, you dont enjoy as much privacy with the public at large. This is for public safety and security
- Letters of Prisoners routine inspection of jail warden and found under the pillow is a letter. Letter is seized by the jail warden and given to the fiscal. Can the
letter be used as evidence against the accused? Yes, because he does not enjoy the same privacy (routine investigation)
- Attorneys are mere couriers. Letters are not lawyer-client conversation. Unless he writes on the envelope that this is personal and confidential. It can be opened but
cannot be read.
- Only exception: Lawful order of the court. (Without the order, you cannot intrude. Even in emails.)
Q: Can a private courier open your letter?
A: No, privacy should still prevail. Thus information obtained should not be used or admissible in evidence.
F. Freedom of Expression, Assembly and Petition
Article III, 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.
- 2-fold purpose: (reasons why Freedom of expression is enshrined in the Constitution)
Free expression is needed for democracy to work properly.
Freedom of expression promotes individual self-realization and self-determination.
* Freedom of expression is the foundation of a free, open and democratic society. Freedom of expression is an indispensable condition to the exercise of almost all
other civil and political rights. No society can remain free, open and democratic without freedom of expression. Freedom of expression guarantees full, spirited, and
even contentious discussion of all social, economic and political issues. To survive, a free and democratic society must zealously safeguard freedom of expression.
(Chavez vs. Sec. Gonzales)
* Freedom of speech and press means something more than the right to approve existing political beliefs or economic arrangements, to lend support to official
measures, and to take refuge in the existing climate of opinion on any matter of public consequence. The right belongs as well- if not more- to those who question,
who do not conform, and who differ.
* The ideas that may be expressed under this freedom are confined not only to those that are conventional or acceptable to the majority.
* To paraphrase Justice Holmes, it is freedom for the thought that we hate, no less than for the thought that agrees with us.
1. Scope
- Rights protected:
Speech
Press
Assembly
- What is protected:
freedom to utter
freedom to publish
- All forms of media, whether print or broadcast, are entitled to the broad protection of the clause on freedom of speech and expression.
- It occupies a higher level or of primary position in the hierarchy of rights than substantive economic freedoms or other liberties.
(basic human right universal right)
- Note: Even if its absent in the Constitution, it can still be invoked bec. its protected by customary international laws w/c are deemed binding in our domestic laws.
* Dichotomy between print and broadcast media
- While all forms of communication are entitled to the broad protection of freedom of expression or clause, the freedom of film, television and radio
broadcasting is somewhat lesser in scope than the freedom accorded to newspapers and other print media.
- According to U.S. Courts, the three major reasons why broadcast media stands apart from print media are: (Chavez vs. Sec. Gonzales)
The scarcity of the frequency by which the medium operates [that is airwaves are physically limited while print medium is limitless];
Page 17
2. Aspects
General rule: The expression is not subject to any prior restraint or censorship because the Constitution commands that freedom of expression shall not be abridged.
Exceptions: (when expression may be subject to prior restraint) (Chavez vs. Sec. Gonzales)
pornography,
free from the wrongful publicizing of the private activities of an individual which are outside the realm of legitimate public concern
* 3 reasons why public figures were held to have lost, to some extent at least, their right of privacy:
they had sought publicity and consented to it, and so could not complain when they received it;
their personalities and their affairs had already become public, and could no longer be regarded as their own private business;
the press had a privilege, under the Constitution, to inform the public about those who have become legitimate matters of public interest
b. Freedom from subsequent punishment
- because if there is no freedom from subsequent punishment then you defeat the very purpose of freedom of prior restraint; people would hesitate to
speak what is on their thoughts
- 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
- general rule: no liability after speech; exception: when public welfare demands
- the tests applicable to prior restraint
- this freedom is not absolute; the State may validly impose sanctions over forms of unprotected speech a) libel; b) obscenity
* However, the mere prohibition of government interference before words are spoken or published would be inadequate protection of the freedom of
expression if the government could punish without restraint after publication.
* Thus, the guarantee of freedom of expression also means a limitation on the power of the state to impose subsequent punishment.
* It is enough to determine whether the challenged act constitutes some form of restraint of freedom of speech. A distinction has to be made whether the
restraint is content-neutral or content-based.
3. Content-based and content-neutral regulations (under prior restraint)
* Content-based: (Chavez vs. Sec. Gonzales)
a) Content-based restraint or censorship, i.e. the restriction is based on the subject matter of the utterance of speech.
b) Prior restraint on expression is content-based if the restraint is aimed at the message or idea of the expression.
c)
Courts will subject to strict scrutiny content-based restraint.
d) There is restraint or censorship.
e) Directed merely on the speech.
f)
Need to overcome the clear and present danger rule.
- With respect to content-based restrictions, the government must also show the type of harm the speech sought to be restrained would bring about especially the
gravity and the imminence of the threatened harm- otherwise the prior restraint will be invalid. Prior restraint on speech based on its content cannot be justified by
hypothetical fears, but only by showing a substantive and imminent evil that has taken the life of a reality on ground.
Page 18
the incident restriction on alleged First Amendment freedoms is no greater than is essential to the furtherance of that interest.
The SC ruled:
Criticism is permitted to penetrate even to the foundations of Government. Criticism, no matter how severe, on the Executive, the Legislature, and the Judiciary,
is within the range of liberty of speech, unless the intention and effect be seditious. But when the intention and effect of the act is seditious, the constitutional
guaranties of freedom of press and speech and of assembly and petition must yield to punitive measures designed to maintain the prestige of constituted
authority, the supremacy of the constitution and the laws, and the existence of the State.
4. Test of valid governmental interference
- Generally, restraints on freedom of speech and expression are evaluated by either or a combination of 3 tests.
a. Clear and present danger rule
- A standard which serves to emphasize the importance of speech to a free society without sacrificing other freedoms essential to a democracy.
- It rests on the premise that speech may be restrained because there is substantial danger that will likely lead to an evil the government has a right to
prevent. This rule requires that the evil consequences sought to be prevented must be substantive, extremely serious and the degree of imminence
extremely high. It is a question of proximity and degree.
- Youve got to show the presence of real danger as opposed to just a tendency of creating some danger; and it has to be real and imminent as opposed to
just creating or showing to the court that theres a tendency of danger. So here, the court is more stringent.
- The evil consequence of the comment or utterance must be extremely serious and the degree of imminence extremely high before the utterance can be
punished.
b. Dangerous tendency rule
- What we need to establish for the restriction to be valid is that the words of the expression made has a dangerous tendency to create disorder. Some the
tendency of it creating danger is sufficient for you to impose restriction.
- Speech may be curtailed or punished when it creates a dangerous tendency which the State has a right to prevent.
- All it requires, for speech to be punishable, is that there be a rational connection between the speech and the evil apprehended.
- It pertains to limitation on speech once a rational connection has been established restrained and the danger contemplated.
- The constitutionality of a statute curtailing speech is determined in the same manner that the constitutionality of any statute is determined, namely, by
answering the question whether a statute is reasonable.
- If the words uttered create a dangerous tendency which the state has a right to prevent, then such words are punishable; it is sufficient that such acts be
advocated in general terms; it is sufficient if the natural tendency and probable effect of the utterance be to bring about the substantive evil which the
legislative body seeks to prevent.
c. Balancing of interest test
- It is used as a standard when courts need to balance conflicting and social values and individual interests, and requires a conscious and detailed
consideration of the interplay of interest observable in a given situation or type of situation.
- The judiciary balances the interest of the public and the person who is uttering.
- These tests apply not only to freedom of speech and press, but also to other preferred freedoms: freedom of association, right of assembly and petition, freedom of
religion.
5. Unprotected speech
Libel is public and malicious imputation of a crime, or a vice or defect, real or imaginary, or any act, omission, condition, status, or circumstance tending
to cause the dishonor, credit, or contempt of a natural or juridical person, or to blacken the memory of one who is dead. (Art. 353 of RPC)
* Requisites: (Ledesma vs. Court of Appeals)
must be defamatory;
must be malicious;
Page 19
*Exceptions of Libel:
absolutely qualified communications statement made in official proceedings of the legislature by the members thereof
a private communication made by any person to another in the performance of any legal, moral, or social duty;
a fair and true report, made in good faith, without any comments or remarks, of any judicial, legislative, or other official proceedings which are
not of confidential nature, or of any statement, report of speech delivered in said proceedings, or of any other act performed by public officers
in the exercise of their functions
Obscenity something offensive to chastity, decency, or delicacy.
* Tests of Obscenity: (People vs. Kottinger)
whether the tendency of the matter charged as obscene, is to deprave or corrupt those whose minds are open to such immoral influences and
into whose hands a publication or other article charged as being obscene may fall
whether to the average person, applying contemporary standards would find the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest;
whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law; and
whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.
* In contempt of court by publication:
- The freedom of the press to express in good faith legal opinions on legal questions pending before the Courts guaranteed by the Constitution. So long as it is done
in good faith, newspapers have the legal right to have and express opinions on legal questions. To deny them that right would infringe upon the freedom of the press.
- Statements made in the course of judicial proceedings are absolutely privileged that is, privileged regardless of the defamatory tenor and of the presence of malice
-- if the same are relevant, pertinent or material to the cause in hand or subject of the inquiry.
6. Assembly and Petition
- These rights are not absolute; sometimes conflict with laws intended to protect public safety and order.
- Political rallies, conventions, opposition, marches, and freedom parades these are examples of what we usually see in our public streets and thoroughfares.
- Going through the pages of the history of contemporary Philippines, the exercise by the people of the right of assembly and petition has played a significant role in
reshaping our democratic landscape.
- However the freedom of assembly in order to protest sometimes conflicts with laws intended to protect public safety, even in democratic countries.
* What does this right, enshrined in the Constitution guarantee?
Nature of right: peaceful assembly / the right to peaceably assemble
* Limitation:
An assembly which orbits out of non-violence and order is not the one intended by the Constitution. Once violence, hostility or crimes characterized the
assemblage, the protection of the Constitution cannot be availed.
B.P. No. 880:
An Act Ensuring The Free Exercise By The People Of Their Right Peaceably To Assemble And Petition The Government [And] For Other Purposes
"Public assembly" means any rally, demonstration, march, parade, procession or any other form of mass or concerted action held in a public
place for the purpose of presenting a lawful cause; or expressing an opinion to the general public on any particular issue; or protesting or
influencing any state of affairs whether political, economic or social; or petitioning the government for redress of grievances.
The processions, rallies, parades, demonstrations, public meetings and assemblages for religious purposes shall be governed by local
ordinances: Provided, however, That the declaration of policy as provided in Section 2 of this Act shall be faithfully observed.
The definition herein contained shall not include picketing and other concerted action in strike areas by workers and employees resulting
from a labor dispute as defined by the Labor Code, its implementing rules and regulations, and by the Batas Pambansa Bilang 227.
"Public place" shall include any highway, boulevard, avenue, road, street, bridge or other thoroughfare, park, plaza, square, and/or any open
space of public ownership where the people are allowed access.
"Maximum tolerance" means the highest degree of restraint that the military, police and other peace keeping authorities shall observe
during a public assembly or in the dispersal of the same.
"Modification of permit" shall include the change of the place and time of the public assembly, rerouting of the parade or street march, the
volume of loud-speakers or sound system and similar changes.
* The right to assemble is not subject to previous restraint or censorship. But the exercise of these freedoms may be subject to certain limitation and may thus be
regulated by law. The laws that we have is intended to regulate the manner of how the right to assembly is exercised, not the right to assembly itself.
Page 20
* He may be allowed to deny or modify the application on ground specified by law namely:
first, when there is clear and convincing evidence that the public assembly will create a clear and present danger to public order, public safety, public
convenience, public morals or public health, and
second, the mayor is of the view that there is imminent and grave danger of a substantive evil warranting the denial or modification of the permit.
G. Freedom of Religion
Article III, Section 5. No law shall be made respecting an establishment or religion, or prohibiting the 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 and political rights.
* religion theistic (Phil. Jurisprudence); profession of faith to an active power that binds and elevates mans to his Creator (Aglipay vs. Ruiz)
1. Non-establishment clause (separation of Church and State)
- Neither a State nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither it can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer religion over another.
Neither can openly or secretly participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa.
Constitutional provisions on non-establishment:
Article II, Section 6: on separation of Church and State
Article IX, Section 2(5): on a religious sect that cannot be registered as a political party.
Article IX, Section 5(2): non-sectoral representative from the religious sector
Article IX, Section 29(2): prohibition against the use of public money or property for the benefit of religion, or any priest or minister, etc.
Exceptions:
Article VI, Section 28(3): exemption from taxation of properties actually, directly or exclusively used for religious purpose.
Article XIV, Section 4(2): citizenship requirement of ownership of educational institutions.
Article XIV, Section 3(3): optional religious construction in public elementary and high schools
Article VI, Section 29(2): appropriation allowed where the minister or ecclesiastic is employed in the armed forces, in penal institutions, or in government
orphanage or leprosarium.
* Non-establishment calls for is government neutrality in religious matters; 4 general propositions:
a) Government must not prefer one religion over another or religion over irreligion because preference would violate voluntarism and breed dissension;
b) Government funds must not be applied to religious purposes because this would too violate voluntarism and breed interfaith dissension;
c)
Government action must not aid religion because this too can violate voluntarism and breed interfaith dissension;
d) Government action must not result in excessive entanglement with religion because this too can violate voluntarism and breed interfaith dissension.
2. Free exercise clause (freedom of religious profession and worship)
- Freedom of choice guarantees the liberty of the religious conscience and prohibits any degree of compulsion or burden, whether direct or indirect, in the practice of
ones religion.
- This aspect embraces two concepts:
FREEDOM TO BELIEVE and FREEDOM TO ACT While the first is absolute; the second cannot be absolute (subject to governmental regulations).
- The absoluteness of the freedom to believe carries with it the corollary that the government, while it may look into the good faith of a person, it cannot inquire into
a persons religious pretensions.
- The moment, however, belief flows over into action, it becomes subject to government regulation.
* 2 main standards used by the Court in deciding religion clause cases (standards of separation): (Estrada vs. Escritor)
1) separation (in the form of strict separation or the tamer version of strict neutrality or separation)
- strict or tame - protects the principle of church-state separation with a rigid reading of the principle
strict separation (strict separationist view/strict) believes that the Establishment Clause was meant to protect the state from the church, and the
states hostility towards religion allows no interaction between the two; wall of separation to protect the state from the church
strict neutrality (separationist view/tame) is not hostile to religion, but it is strict in holding that religion may not be used as a basis for
classification for purposes of governmental action, whether the action confers rights or privileges or imposes duties or obligations; largely used by
the Court, showing the Courts tendency to press relentlessly towards a more secular society
2) benevolent neutrality or accommodation
- protects religious realities, tradition and established practice with a flexible reading of the principle
- this theory believes that with respect to governmental actions, accommodation of religion may be allowed, not to promote the governments favored
form of religion but to allow individuals and groups to exercise their religion without hindrance
* Lemon test requires a challenged policy to meet the following criteria to pass scrutiny under the Establishment Clause: (Estrada vs. Escritor)
second, its primary or principal effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion;
finally, the statute must not foster an excessive entanglement with religion.
* Compelling State Interest Test: (Estrada vs. Escritor)
whether the state in achieving its legitimate purpose has used the least intrusive means possible so that the free exercise is not infringed any more than
necessary to achieve the legitimate goal of the State
Page 21
liberty of abode
liberty to travel
* Limitations:
upon interest of national security, public safety, public health and as may be provided by law liberty to travel
upon lawful order of the court may also be applied to the 2nd liberty
- There was a splitting of the two guarantees and treating them differently.
- The liberty of abode can be impaired upon lawful order of the court and the court is guided by the limits prescribed by law on the liberty itself.
- The liberty to travel can be impaired without court order, but the appropriate executive officer is not armed with arbitrary discretion to impose limitations. He can
impose limits only on the basis of national security, public safety or public health and as may be provided by law.
(Silverio and Santiago case): Sec. 6 of Art. III should be no means be construed delimiting the inherent powers of the Court to use all means necessary to carry their
order with respect in criminal cases pending before them.
* some of the statutory limitations:
transparency
accountability
* 3 categories:
official records refers to any document that is part of the public records in the custody of government agencies or officials
documents and papers pertaining to official acts, transactions, or decisions refers to documents and papers recording, evidencing, establishing,
confirming, supporting, justifying or explaining official acts, transactions, or decisions of government agencies or officials
government research data used as basis for policy development refers to research data, whether raw, collated or processed, owned by the government
and used in formulating government policies
Page 22
trade secrets and banking transactions as provided by the Intellectual Property Code
- The drafters of the Constitution also unequivocally affirmed that, aside from national security matters and intelligence information, trade or industrial
secrets as well as banking transactions are also exempted from compulsory disclosure.
criminal matters those relating to the apprehension, the prosecution and detention of criminals
- Also excluded are classified law enforcement matters, such as those relating to the apprehension, the prosecution and the detention of criminals, which
courts may not inquire into prior to such arrest, detention and prosecution. Efforts at effective law enforcement would be seriously jeopardized by free
public access, for example, police information regarding rescue operations, the whereabouts of fugitives, or leads on covert criminal activities.
Matters of public concern In determining whether or not a particular information is of public concern, there is no rigid test which can be applied. Public
concern like public interest is a term that eludes exact definition. Both terms embrace a broad spectrum of subjects which the public may want to
know, either because these directly affect their lives, or simply because such matters naturally arouse the interest of an ordinary citizen. In the final
analysis, it is for the courts to determine on a case by case basis whether the matter at issue is of interest or importance, as it relates to or affects the
public.
Not exempted by law on the guarantees Pertains to recognized restrictions/limitations. (cited above)
While access to official records may be prohibited, but it may be regulated It is clear from the foregoing pronouncements of this Court that government
agencies are without discretion in refusing disclosure of, or access to, information of public concern. This is not to lose sight of the reasonable regulations
which may be imposed by said agencies in custody of public records on the manner in which the right to information may be exercised by the public.
* Chavez vs. PEA and Amari case ruling:
Information, however, on on-going evaluation or review of bids or proposals being undertaken by the bidding or review committee is not immediately
accessible under the right to information. While the evaluation or review is still on-going, there are no "official acts, transactions, or decisions" on the bids
or proposals. However, once the committee makes its official recommendation, there arises a "definite proposition" on the part of the government. From
this moment, the public's right to information attaches, and any citizen can access all the non-proprietary information leading to such definite proposition.
The right to information "contemplates inclusion of negotiations leading to the consummation of the transaction." Certainly, a consummated contract is
not a requirement for the exercise of the right to information.
The right to information, however, does not extend to matters recognized as privileged information under the separation of powers. The right does not
also apply to information on military and diplomatic secrets, information affecting national security, and information on investigations of crimes by law
enforcement agencies before the prosecution of the accused, which courts have long recognized as confidential. The right may also be subject to other
limitations that Congress may impose by law.
To sum it up: The constitutional right to information includes official information on on-going negotiations before a final contract. The information,
however, must constitute definite propositions by the government and should not cover recognized exceptions like privileged information, military and
diplomatic secrets and similar matters affecting national security and public order.40 Congress has also prescribed other limitations on the right to
information in several legislations.
J. Right to Association
Article III, 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.
- It guarantees the right to form associations. It does not include the right to compel others to form an association. But there may be situations in which, by entering
into a contract, one may also be agreeing to join an association.
- Exceptions:
The security guards because they are armed; it will be easy for them to threaten both employer and employee
Political parties to participate barangay election the purpose is to have a grassroots participation (walay makadaog na independent if nay big political
party)
- The right is thus recognized as belonging to people whether employed or unemployed, whether in the government or private sector.
- Also explicitly recognizes that the right to form associations includes the right to unionize.
- Degree of protection an association enjoys: depends on the position which the associations objective or activity occupies in the constitutional hierarchy of values.
Page 23
* 3 categories of workers:
Government employees
Supervisory employees
Security guards
* 2 areas of associational activity:
Labor unionism
Communist organization
* 2 distinct categories of managerial employees:
Page 24
- Police power cannot be surrendered or bargained away through the medium of a contract. Every contract affecting the public interest suffers a congenital infirmity
in that it contains an implied reservation of the police power as a postulate of the existing legal order. This power can be activated at any time to change the
provisions of the contract, or even abrogate it entirely, for the promotion or protection of the general welfare.
* Q: Who are prohibited from impairing obligations of contracts?
A: Those who exercise legislative function. Prohibit from passing a law that would interfere or change the intent of an existing contract.
* Contract lawful agreement involving property or property rights, whether real or personal, tangible or intangible, which may result to an obligation between two
parties.
* Impairment diminishes the efficacy of the contract, regardless the DEGREE. However, with regards to remedies, impairment only occurs if all of the remedies are
withdrawn.
* Note: there are certain contracts where in non-impairment clause does not apply.
Ex (1). Marriage Contract because this is more than a mere agreement between the spouses as it is regarded as a social institution subject at all times to regulation by
the legislature and to change of the original condition
Ex (2). The Grant of Permits or license can also be revoked. This can be done since such permits are only certain privileges granted by the state subject to revocation if
the public welfare so requires.
Ex (3). Pensions received by retirees and bonuses received by government employees can also be revoked because they are not a property right. Such are not a
property subject to contract
* Q: When does impairment occurs?
A: It occurs when a law must RETROACTS so as to affect existing contracts concluded before its enactment. Later law which changes the INTENT of the parties to the
contract is what is prohibited.
NOTE HOWEVER: Even when the law is passed and applied retroactively yet it does not change the contract, it is not violative of the non-impairment clause. (Sample
situation: increase of sale stock).
Note: the conditions are adding or subtracting from the contract. Or the new term is different from what was originally provided for in the contract.
* Non-impairment clause is not an absolute prohibition. If it is for the welfare of the people, it can be breached by a subsequent law (exercise of police power)
* Q: Should imposed administrative rules and regulation be subject of the non-impairment clause?
A: NIC extends to rules and regulations of administrative agency. Such rules are not allowed to contravene contracts (ex. if such will change the intent of the contract)
NOTE: Ordinances and resolutions cannot also change the terms and agreement of existing contract
NIC does NOT include judicial decision. Judicial decisions should not intervene the content of an existing contract. GR is that the court should respect the terms of the
party. This is because judicial decisions are not laws. However, if the interest has become unconscionable, (penalties are too expressive), such can be reduced by the
court to 12% per annum.
Note: Public office is not a property or property right thus cannot be under the protection of non-impairment clause and therefore can be a subject of the limitation
of laws.
* EXCEPTIONS: (cases when even if the law alters or changes the agreement it is non-violative of the non impairment clause)
a. Law was passed under the exercise of police power (ex. Increase of the minimum wage) this is curative in nature thus can be applied retroactively
NOTE: Police power is much superior. If the new law pertains to matters which are procedural or remedial, it can be applied retroactively even if it affects existing
contract. It does not affect substantive rights.
b. With the exercise of eminent domain power
Q: Can a lessee complain that you cannot expropriate land because it impairs the contract that the lease is for one year?
A: No. Eminent domain power is more superior that non impairment clause. What the lessor can do is ask for just compensation for the damages due to loss of
income and of the property. Lessee on the other hand can demand for damage if he has suffered due to loss of place to live in.
c. Taxation power
In case of a conflict, taxation will prevail because it is the life blood of the government. The tax law can be applied retroactively.
Note: the grant of exemption cannot be repelled if such exemption is made on valuable consideration (onerous)
d. Freedom of Religion
CBA between employee and union will govern agreement on the terms and conditions of employment for a certain period of time. Example, if the agreement was
about the salary, it is but fair that only the member of the union can enjoy such privilege (closed shop agreement). Such is allowed under existing laws. However,
there are some religious sect that does not allow its members to become members of any union. Because of the need for the benefits, they are forced to become
members of the union. Because of this circumstance, there was a law passed exempting the members of iglesia ni cristo from the closed shop agreement.
Q: Is this not a violation of non-impairment clause>
A: No because as between non impairment and freedom of religion, freedom of religion prevails
Page 25
Page 26
2)
3)
He must be warned that he has a right to remain silent and that any statement he makes may be used as evidence against him;
He must be informed that he has the right to be assisted at all times and have the presence of an independent and competent lawyer, preferably of his
own choice;
4) He must be informed that if he has no lawyer or cannot afford the services of a lawyer, one will be provided for him; and that a lawyer may also be
engaged by any person in his behalf, or may be appointed by the court upon petition of the person arrested or one acting in his behalf;
5) That whether or not the person arrested has a lawyer, he must be informed that no custodial investigation in any form shall be conducted except in the
presence of his counsel or after a valid waiver has been made;
6) The person arrested must be informed that, at any time, he has the right to communicate or confer by the most expedient means - telephone, radio, letter
or messenger - with his lawyer (either retained or appointed), any member of his immediate family, or any medical doctor, priest or minister chosen by
him or by any one from his immediate family or by his counsel, or be visited by/confer with duly accredited national or international non-government
organization. It shall be the responsibility of the officer to ensure that this is accomplished;
7) He must be informed that he has the right to waive any of said rights provided it is made voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently and ensure that he
understood the same;
8) In addition, if the person arrested waives his right to a lawyer, he must be informed that it must be done in writing AND in the presence of counsel,
otherwise, he must be warned that the waiver is void even if he insist on his waiver and chooses to speak;
9) That the person arrested must be informed that he may indicate in any manner at any time or stage of the process that he does not wish to be questioned
with warning that once he makes such indication, the police may not interrogate him if the same had not yet commenced, or the interrogation must
ceased if it has already begun;
10) The person arrested must be informed that his initial waiver of his right to remain silent, the right to counsel or any of his rights does not bar him from
invoking it at any time during the process, regardless of whether he may have answered some questions or volunteered some statements;
11) He must also be informed that any statement or evidence, as the case may be, obtained in violation of any of the foregoing, whether inculpatory or
exculpatory, in whole or in part, shall be inadmissible in evidence.
* The phrase "preferably of his own choice" does not convey the message that the choice of a lawyer by a person under investigation is exclusive as to preclude
other equally competent and independent attorneys from handling the defense; otherwise the tempo of custodial investigation will be solely in the hands of the
accused who can impede, nay, obstruct the progress of the interrogation by simply selecting a lawyer who, for one reason or another, is not available to protect his
interest. (People vs. Mojello)
* We ruled in People v. Continente that while the choice of a lawyer in cases where the person under custodial interrogation cannot afford the services of counsel
or where the preferred lawyer is not available is naturally lodged in the police investigators, the suspect has the final choice as he may reject the counsel chosen for
him and ask for another one. A lawyer provided by the investigators is deemed engaged by the accused when he does not raise any objection against the counsel's
appointment during the course of the investigation, and the accused thereafter subscribes to the veracity of the statement before the swearing officer. (People vs.
Mojello)
Rule begins to be available
where the investigation ceases to be a general inquiry into an unsolved crime and direction is then aimed upon a particular suspect who has been taken into police
custody and to whom the police would then direct interrogatory questions which tend to elicit incriminating statements
* The moment the offender is in the custody of the law, such person is now entitled of due process of law.
* The text of 1987 Constitution has preserved the phrase person under investigation without the word custodial, to expand the coverage of the right to situations
when a person under investigation is not yet I custody. The intention was to extend the guarantee beyond mere strict custodial investigation. The right should extend
to the period of custodial interrogation, temporary detention and preliminary technical custody.
* Custodial investigations does not apply to spontaneous statements.
When Section 12(1) rights end
outside of the situation (where enquiry is under the control of police officers)
a defendant on trial or under preliminary investigation is not under custodial investigation; his interrogation by the police, if any there had been would already
have been ended at the time for the filing of the criminal case in court (or in the public prosecutors office)
* The accused in court (or undergoing preliminary investigation before the public prosecutor), in common with all other persons, possesses the right against selfincrimination.
* Exception: Even after the charges are filed, the police might still attempt to extract confession or admissions from the accused outside of judicial supervision. In
such situation, Section 12(1) would still apply.
Waiver of the rights
The right to counsel may be waived but the waiver shall not be valid unless made with the assistance of counsel. (People vs. Galit)
These rights cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of counsel. (This is absolute.)
The waiver must be in language which clearly manifests the desire to waive the right.
* If there is no counsel available, you cant waive because it cannot be a valid waiver.
* The prosecution must prove with strongly convincing evidence that indeed the accused willingly and voluntarily submitted their confessions and knowingly and
deliberately manifested that they were not interested in having a lawyer to assist them during the taking of the confession.
*The rights subject to waiver are the right to remain silent and the right to counsel, but not the right to be informed of such rights.
Page 27
Page 28
proof evident or evident proof clear strong evidence which leads a well-grounded dispassionate judgment to the conclusion that the offense has
been committed as charged, that accused is the guilty agent, and that he will probably be punished capitally if the law is administered
presumption great exists when the circumstances testified to are such the interference of guilt naturally to be drawn therefrom is strong, clear, and
convincing to an unbiased judgment and excludes all reasonable probability of any other conclusion
* The test is not whether the evidence establishes guilt beyond reasonable doubt but rather whether it shows evident guilt or a great presumption of guilt.
Factors which must be considered in determining bail:
1) Ability to post bail
2) Nature of the offense
3) Penalty imposed by law
4) Character and reputation of the accused
5) Health of the accused
6) Strength of the evidence
7) Probability of appearing for trial
8) Prior forfeiture of bonds
9) Whether the accused was a fugitive from justice when arrested
10) Whether under bond in other cases
The criterion for determining whether the offense is punishable by reclusion perpetua The criterion to determine whether the offense charged is capital is the
penalty provided by the law regardless of the attendant circumstances. To require more will entail consideration not only of evidence showing commission of the
crime but also evidence of the aggravating and mitigating circumstances.
Implicit limitation on the right to bail:
1) The person claiming the right must be under actual detention
2) The constitutional right is available only in criminal cases
* The judge, however, has no authority to change the characterization of the offense, (for instance from murder to homicide).
* A court cannot require a strictly cash bond. The sole purpose of bail is to insure the attendance of the accused when required by re court, and there should be no
suggestion of penalty on the part of the accused nor revenue on the part of the government. The allowance of a cash bond in lieu of sureties is authorized in this
jurisdiction only because our rules expressly provide for it. And even where cash bail is allowed, the option to deposit cash in lieu of a surety bond primarily belongs
to the accused.
* Since bail is constitutionally available to all persons, it must be available to one who is detained even before formal charges are filed.
* The person claiming the right must be under actual detention or custody of the law. One is under the custody of the law either when he has been arrested or has
surrendered himself to the jurisdiction of the court.
Page 29
* If granted bail, the accused does not necessarily have the right to leave the country. A court may prevent a person admitted to bail from leaving the country.
* The constitutional right to bail is available only in criminal proceedings. Thus, it has been repeatedly held that respondents in deportation proceedings, which are
administrative in nature, do not enjoy the right.
* The right to bail has traditionally not been recognized and is not available in the military, for which reason the right to speedy trial is given more emphasis. The
unique structure of the military should be enough reason to exempt military men from the constitutional coverage on the right to bail. Aside from structural
peculiarity, it is vital to note that mutinous soldiers operate within the framework of democratic system, are allowed the fiduciary use of firearms by the government
for the discharge of their duties and responsibilities and are paid out of revenues collected from the people. All other insurgent elements carry out their activities
outside of and against the existing political system. National security considerations should also impress upon this Honorable Court that release on bail of
respondents constitutes a damaging precedent. (Comendador vs. De Villa)
* It has also been held that the right to bail may be waived even implicitly in an irrevocable manner. The accused waived his right when he agreed to remain in legal
custody even during the pendency of the trial of his criminal case. (People vs. Donato)
Distinction between life imprisonment and reclusion perpetua:
Life imprisonment
Penalty in special laws
Does not carry accessory liabilities
Indefinite
Reclusion perpetua
Imposed by the Revised Penal Code
Does
30 years after which the convict is eligible for pardon
* Effective October 1, 1994, Rule 114 was amended placing life imprisonment on the same level as death and reclusion perpetua.
* The prosecution must show that there is strong evidence of guilt of a capital offense [now of an offense punishable by at least reclusion perpetua]. Evidence
characterized merely as sufficient does not satisfy the constitutional requirement. The word strong, however, does not mean that the prosecution must present
proof beyond reasonable doubt.
* The constitutional right to bail necessarily includes the right to a hearing. When bail is denied without a hearing, a fundamental right is violated. The hearing,
however, need not be separate and distinct from the trial itself. And it need only be summary. The right to a prompt hearing is waived by agreeing to postponements.
* That parallel to the accuseds right to a hearing is the prosecutions right to present evidence. If the prosecution is denied such right, the grant of bail is void.
Does the right to bail exist in extradition proceedings?
* During the extradition proceedings cannot avail bail
The Court emphasized that bail may be granted to a possible extraditee only upon a clear and convincing showing:
1) That he will not be a flight risk or a danger to the community;
2) That there exists special, humanitarian and compelling circumstances
The Court said that it could not ignore the following trends in international law:
1) The growing importance of the individual person in public international law who has gradually attained global recognition;
2) The higher value now being given to human right in the international sphere;
3) The corresponding duty of countries to observe these universal human rights in fulfilling their treaty obligations;
4) The duty of the Court to balance the rights of the individual under our fundamental law, on one hand, and the law on extradition, on the other.
* The suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus does not suspend the right to bail.
* The 1987 Constitution also recognizes recognizance as may be provided by law as another instruments for obtaining release from detention.
Forms of bail:
Corporate surety
Property bond
Cash deposit
Recognizance
Recognizance is an obligation of record entered into before a court guaranteeing the appearance of the accused for trial; it is in nature of a contract between surety
and the state
* The Constitution prohibits excessive bail.
Article III, Section 14.
1. No person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense without due process of law.
2. In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved, and shall enjoy the right to be heard by himself and counsel, to be
informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him, to have a speedy, impartial, and public trial, to meet the witnesses face to face, and to have
compulsory process to secure the attendance of witnesses and the production of evidence in his behalf. However, after arraignment, trial may proceed
notwithstanding the absence of the accused: Provided, that he has been duly notified and his failure to appear is unjustifiable.
* The requirement that No person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense without due process of law simply requires that the procedure established by law
be followed.
Page 30
* Due process is satisfied if the accused is informed as to why he is proceeded against and what charge he has to meet, with his conviction being made to rest on
evidence that is not tainted with falsity after full opportunity for him rebutting it and the sentence being imposed in accordance with law. It is assumed that the
court that rendered judgment is one of competent jurisdiction.
* To warrant a finding of prejudicial publicity there must be allegation and proof that the judges have been unduly influences, not simply that they might be, by the
barrage of publicity.
2 different approaches to adverse publicity:
1. British approach which presumes that publicity will prejudice a jury
2. American approach which looks with skepticism on the potential effect of publicity on the right to a fair trial and which requires substantial probability
of irreparable harm, strong likelihood, clear and present danger, etc.
* Generally, the Supreme Court has no supervisory authority over military courts. Military courts cannot have jurisdiction over civilian when civilian courts are open
and functioning.
Some of the basic rights of the accused:
1. Right to be presumed innocent
2. Right to be heard by himself and counsel
3. Right to be informed of the nature and cause of the charge
4.
5.
6.
4.
5.
Right of confrontation
Right to compulsory process to secure attendance of witnesses
Page 31
Page 32
Right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him; purpose and scope: (People vs. Valdesancho)
1. To furnish the accused with such a description of the charge against him as will enable him to make his defense
2. To avail of himself of his conviction or acquittal for protection against a further prosecution for the same cause
3. To inform the court of the facts alleged, so that it may decide whether they are sufficient in law to support a conviction, if one should be had.
What must a criminal information contain in order to comply with the constitutional right of the accused to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation
against him? (People vs. Quitlong)
1) Name of the accused
2) The designation given to the offense by the statute
3) A statement of acts or omission so complained of as constituting the offense
4) The name of the offended party
5) The approximate time and date of the commission of the offense
6) The place where the offense has been committed
* (People vs. Valdesancho) Article III, Section 14 of the 1987 Constitution mandates that no person shall be held liable for a criminal offense without due process of
law. It further provides that in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be informed of the nature and cause of accusation against him and shall enjoy the right to
be heard by himself and counsel. Similarly, the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, as amended, which took effect on December 1, 2000, provides that in all criminal
prosecutions, it is the right of the accused to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. To convict an accused for an offense not alleged in
the complaint or information violates such right.
* (People vs. Alcalde) Settled is the rule that when a judge is informed or discovers that an accused is apparently in a present condition of insanity or imbecility, it is
within his discretion to investigate the matter. If it be found that by reason of such affliction the accused could not, with the aid of counsel, make a proper defense, it
is the duty of the court to suspend the proceedings and commit the accused to a proper place of detention until his faculties are recovered.[28] Moreover, the
aforementioned Section 12(a) of Rule 116 mandates the suspension of the arraignment and the mental examination of the accused should it appear that he is of
unsound mind.
The constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him under the Bill of Rights carries with it the correlative obligation to
effectively convey to the accused the information to enable him to effectively prepare for his defense. At the bottom is the issue of fair trial. While not every
aberration of the mind or exhibition of mental deficiency on the part of the accused is sufficient to justify suspension of the proceedings, the trial court must be fully
satisfied that the accused would have a fair trial with the assistance the law secures or gives. Under the circumstances in these cases, the trial court gravely failed in
this regard.
* (People vs. Flores) The allegation that accused-appellant did "sexually abuse" Filipina does not suffice. In the recent case of People v. Lito Egan alias Akiao, this Court
ruled that "although the prosecution has proved that [the therein private complainant] Lenie was sexually abused, the evidence proffered is inadequate to establish
carnal knowledge." Hence, sexual abuse cannot be equated with carnal knowledge or sexual intercourse. The allegation in the instant criminal complaints that
accused-appellant "sexually abuse[d]" the private complainant cannot thus be read to mean that accused-appellant had carnal knowledge or sexual intercourse with
the private complainant.
* The information need not allege the precise time of the commission of the offense, unless time is an essential element of the crime charged. What is essential
therefore is that the accused be informed of the facts alleged against him; he need not be informed of the characterization of the crime, which is the conclusion of
law.
Right to speedy, impartial and public trial
Right to speedy trial
- It means a trial free from vexatious, capricious and oppressive delays.
- However the concept of speedy trial is relative and the determination of whether the right has been violated must be based on the balancing of various factors.
While length of delay is a factor, other factors are considered:
1) reason for delay
2) effort of defendant to assert his right
3) prejudice caused to the defendant
What is the remedy for violation of the right to speedy trial?
The accused is entitled to dismissal of the case, and, if he is under detention, to release by habeas corpus. Moreover, dismissal for violation of the right to
speedy trial is equivalent to acquittal and is a bar to another prosecution for the same offense.
* (Martin vs. Ver) "x... the test of violation of the right to speedy trial has always been to begin counting the delay from the time the information is filed, not before
the filing. The delay in the filing of the information, which in the instant case has not been without reasonable cause, is therefore not to be reckoned with in
determining whether there has been a denial of the right to speedy trial."
Returning to the case at hand, the criminal act imputed to the petitioner unfortunately resulted in the death of three persons (including Rogelio Cruz who allegedly
bought the hand grenades from the petitioner) and very serious injuries to three others whose testimony is vital to the preferment of charges and prosecution of the
petitioner. It is therefore not unreasonable to heed the claim of respondents that the delay complained of was occasioned by the unavailability of witnesses, a claim
which has not at all been challenged or denied by the petitioner.
* (People vs. Gines) On the issue of the right of the accused to a speedy trial, the Court finds that said right has not been violated in the case at bar and thus holds
that the dismissal of the case as regards private respondents Labo and Floresca is premature and erroneous. "The right of an accused to a speedy trial is guaranteed
to him by the Constitution but the same shall not be utilized to deprive the State of a reasonable opportunity of fairly indicting criminals. It secures rights to a
defendant but it does not preclude the rights of public justice."
Page 33
The Court is convinced that private complainant's absences at the hearings of the case were in good faith and that he had justifiable and meritorious reasons
therefore. Said absences are evidently not capricious, oppressive, nor vexatious to the two accused who had waived their appearance at the trial of the case. It should
be remembered that the right to a speedy trial is relative, subject to reasonable delays and postponements arising from illness, medical attention, body operations, as
in the instant case where it was satisfactorily proven that private complainant had to undergo eye operations, hospitalization and a medical check-up abroad. The
subject case for libel was dismissed on October 15, 1987, some eight and a half months after the information was filed. This period is not such an extended,
prolonged or lengthy duration as to cause capricious and vexatious delay. For, speedy trial means one that can be had as soon after indictment is filed as the
prosecution can with reasonable diligence prepare for trial (Mercado v. CFI, supra). While accused persons do have rights, many of them choose to forget that the
aggrieved also have the same rights.
Right to impartial trial
- It simply requires the cold neutrality of an impartial judge.
* (People vs. Opida) Time and again this Court has declared that due process requires no less than the cold neutrality of an impartial judge. Bolstering this
requirement, we have added that the judge must not only be impartial but must also appear to be impartial, to give added assurance to the parties that his decision
will be just. The parties are entitled to no less than this, as a minimum guaranty of due process.
Right to a public trial
- It is public when the attendance is open to all irrespective of relationship to defendants.
- However, when the evidence presented is characterized as offensive to decency or public morals, the proceeding may be limited to friends, relatives, and counsel.
Purpose of public trial
- The purpose is to serve as a safeguard against any attempt to employ our courts as instruments of persecution. The knowledge that every criminal trial is subject to
contemporaneous review in the forum of public opinion is an effective restraint on possible abuse of judicial power.
Right to meet witnesses face to face
- to confront and cross-examine the witness against him at the trial
2-fold purpose of confrontation:
1) Primarily, to afford the accused an opportunity to test the testimony of the witness by cross-examination
2) Secondarily, to allow the judge to observe the deportation of the witness
As a consequence of this right:
1) The testimony of a witness who has not submitted himself to cross-examination is not admissible in evidence
2) The affidavits of witnesses who are not presented during the trial are inadmissible in evidence
Principal exceptions to the right of confrontation:
1) The admissibility of dying declarations they are declarations made in extremity, when the party is at the point of death, and when every hope of this
world is gone; when every motive to falsehood is silenced and the mind is induced by the most powerful considerations to speak the truth
2) Trial in absentia under Section 14(2)
* (People vs. Monje) In the case before us, no less than the presiding judge himself recognized the need for further cross-examination when he warned that witness
Cordero should return otherwise his testimony "not touched upon by the cross-examination would be stricken off the record." And the cross-examiner was insisting
on the constitutional right of the accused to confront the witnesses against him and to cross-examine them. Even the other witness, Jojit Vasquez, failed to appear
on 8 October 1998 when required as may be gathered from the order of the trial court issued on that date. In the instant case, prosecution witness Cordero failed to
appear four (4) times for his cross-examination without justifiable reason, thus depriving the cross-examiner of the right to confront him and test his credibility and
shed light on matters vital to the defense.
We discussed at length in Seneris the effects of the absence or the incomplete cross-examination of a witness on the admissibility in evidence of his testimony on
direct examination. The basic rule is that the testimony of a witness given on direct examination should be stricken off the record where there was no adequate
opportunity for cross-examination. Of course, there are notable modifications to the basic rule which make its application essentially on a case-to-case basis. Thus,
where a party had the opportunity to cross-examine a witness but failed to avail himself of it, he necessarily forfeits his right to cross-examine and the testimony
given by the witness on direct examination will be allowed to remain on record. But when the cross-examination is not or cannot be done or completed due to causes
attributable to the party offering the witness, or to the witness himself, the uncompleted testimony is thereby rendered incompetent and inadmissible in evidence.
The direct testimony of a witness who dies before the conclusion of the cross-examination can be stricken only insofar as not covered by the cross-examination, and
the absence of a witness is not enough to warrant striking of his testimony for failure to appear for further cross-examination where the witness has already been
sufficiently cross-examined, which is not true in the present case, or that the matter on which further cross-examination is sought is not in controversy.
* (People vs. Seneris, 99 SCRA 92)
After the direct examination, the defense proceeded with the cross-examination. Due to lack of material time, it was re-set. But before the appointed date, the
witness was shot dead.
It is thus apparent that no fault can be imputed to the private respondent for the length of time that elapsed before her counsel was able to commence his crossexamination of the witness. And private respondent's counsel was not able to complete his cross-examination of the witness on June 7, 1978 for lack of material time
by reason of which and upon agreement of the parties the hearing was adjourned and ordered resumed on July 3, 1978.
Right to compulsory process
- This is the right to secure the attendance of witnesses and the production of evidence in his behalf.
Page 34
To establish the right to continuance by reason of the absence of witnesses the accused must show:
Page 35
Writ of Amparo applies when there is deprivation of life, liberty and security (not necessarily actual deprivation, but applies even if there is mere threat)
Writ of Habeas Data
- It is a remedy available to any person whose right to privacy in life, liberty or security is violated or threatened by an unlawful act or omission of a public official or
employee or of a private individual or entity engaged in the gathering, collecting, or storing of data or information regarding the person, family, hone and
correspondence of the aggrieved party.
Article III, Section 16. All persons shall have the right to a speedy disposition of their cases before all judicial, quasi-judicial, or administrative bodies.
Speedy disposition of cases vs. Right to speedy trial
Civil case:
If the parties and witness they must wait until the incriminating question is asked
Administrative proceeding:
If penal character same as criminal proceeding
If otherwise same as civil proceeding
Page 36
Scope:
The kernel of the right is not against all compulsion, but testimonial compulsion only. What is prohibited is the use of physical or moral compulsion to extort
communication from the witness, not an inclusion of his body in evidence, when it may be material.
This does not apply when: (some instances)
Page 37
Article III, Section 20. No person shall be imprisoned for debt or non-payment of a poll tax.
The Constitutional Prohibition, stated in full, means:
- No person may be imprisoned for debt in virtue of an order in a civil proceeding, either as a substitute for satisfaction of a debt or as a means of compelling
satisfaction; but a person may be imprisoned as a penalty for a crime arising from a contractual debt and imposed in a proper criminal proceeding.
Meaning of debt in the provision
- It means any liability to pay money growing out of a contract, express or implied.
May a person be imprisoned for a fraudulent debt?
- Yes, but only if:
1) The fraudulent debt constitutes a crime (e.g. estafa)
2) The debtor has been duly convicted
What is a poll tax?
- A poll tax can be understood as the cedula tax or residence tax.
Article III, Section 21. 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.
Requisites for a valid defense of double jeopardy:
1) A 1st jeopardy must have attached prior to the second
2) The 1st jeopardy must have been terminated
3) The 2nd jeopardy must be for the same offense as that in the 1st
When does jeopardy of punishment attach?
a) Upon a good indictment
b) Before a competent court
c)
After arraignment
d) After plea
How is 1st jeopardy terminated in a manner that satisfies the 2nd element of the defense of double jeopardy?
1) By acquittal
2) By final conviction
3) By dismissal without express consent of the accused
4) By dismissal on the merits
* As a general rule, the dismissal or termination of the case after arraignment and plea of the defendant of a valid information shall be a bar to another prosecution
for the offense charged, or for any attempt to commit the same frustration thereof, or for any offense which necessarily includes or is necessarily included in the
complaint or information.
* However, an appeal by the prosecution from the order of dismissal (of the criminal case) by the trial court shall not constitute double jeopardy if:
1) The dismissal is made upon motion, or with the express consent, of the defendant; and
2) The dismissal is not an acquittal or based upon consideration of the evidence or of the merits of the case; and
3) The question to be passed upon by the appellate court is purely legal so that should the dismissal be found incorrect, the case would have to be remanded
to the court of origin for further proceedings, to determine the guilt or innocence of the defendant.
* Under the 1st sentence of the provision One may be twice put in jeopardy of punishment of the same act, provided that he is charged with different offenses, or
the offense charged in one case is not included in, or does not include, the crime charged in the other case.
* Under the 2nd sentence of the provision Even if the offenses charged are not the same, owing to the fact one constitutes a violation of an ordinance and the
other violation of a statute. If the 2 charges are based on one and the same act, conviction or acquittal under either the law or the ordinance shall bar a prosecution
under the other.
* The verbal dismissal is not final until written and signed by the judge.
Termination by acquittal prosecution cannot appeal
Termination by conviction prosecution can appeal
Acquittal vs. Dismissal
There is acquittal when the case is terminated upon the merits of the issue, as when there is a pronouncement that the evidence does not show the guilt
of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
There is dismissal, in the sense of the rule on jeopardy, when the case is terminated otherwise than upon the merits thereof, as when the dismissal is
based on the allegation that the Court has no jurisdiction either over the subject matter or over the territory, or on any other ground that does not decide
the merits of the issue as to whether the accused is or is not guilty of the offense charged.
* provisional dismissal upon order of the court
* permanent dismissal based upon merits
* Dismissal that is not on the merits and without the consent of the accused is a bar to subsequent prosecution. Termination based on the merits, even when
improperly called dismissal, and with or without the consent of the accused, is a bar to further prosecution, because such termination is, in fact, an acquittal.
Page 38
* A dismissal on the ground of denial of the right to a speedy trial amounts to an acquittal. However, when the dismissal or the case clearly constitutes an abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or jurisdiction, the dismissal, even if made on the merits, is invalid and is therefore no bar to a reinstatement of the case.
* An order of dismissal in a preliminary investigation does not in any way terminate a case. As long as the crime has not yet prescribed, the city court may conduct a
preliminary investigation.
* A defendants motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction constituted waiver of the defense of double jeopardy.
* By consenting to the provisional dismissal, the accused waived his right to the defense of double jeopardy.
When is the 2nd offense charged the same as the 1st offense?
- The test now is :
Page 39