POLICE POWER

Definition
- It is the power of the State to regulate liberty and property for the promotion of the
public welfare or the public good
- Based on the principle, You cannot exercise your rights to the detriment or prejudice to
the rights of another
- As contrasted to the Power of Eminent Domain and Taxation which only regulate
property, Police Power also regulates liberty

Characteristics
- (1) Most pervasive, (2) least limitable, (3) most demanding, (4) cannot be bargained
away by a medium of a contract or treaty, and (5) dynamic
- It is pervasive in the sense that almost all human activity may be regulated by the State
all in the name of Police Power. This is because there is hardly any human activity which
cannot be related to public welfare or public good. Almost all activity from womb to tomb
is governed by Police Power.
- Art. 10, Sec. 3 of the Constitution provides that, No law shall be passed impairing the
obligations of contracts. However, in Ortigas and Co., Ltd. v. CA, the SC upheld the
validity of an ordinance, pursuant to the Police Power of the State, reclassifying the
property as a commercial zone despite the previous contract among the parties that only
residential buildings should be erected thereon. This is because Police Power cannot be
bargained away by a medium of a contract.
- In MMDA v. Garin, the SC held that a drivers license is nothing but a privilege. As such, it
can be revoked and suspended by the State all in the name of Police Power
- In Chavez v. Romulo, the SC sustained the revocation of the permit to carry a licensed
firearm outside of the residence. It is a privilege and it can be revoked and suspended by
the State pursuant to the Police Power
- In Oposa v. Factoran, the SC revoked the grant of timber licenses in the name of Police
Power
- Lim v. Pacquing, the SC revoked the permit to operate a gambling business under the
Police Power
- In Ichong v. Hernandez, the SC upheld the superiority of a law passed by Congress which
is the Retail Trade Nationalization Law pursuant to the Police Power despite its conflict
with the Treaty of Amity between the Philippines and China and the Universal Declaration
of Human Rights. However, this decision is frowned upon by the international community
because of the principle of Pacta Sunt Servanda or that treaties should be complied in
good faith

Police Power using Taxation or Eminent Domain

- The power of Taxation or Eminent Domain may be used as an implement of Police Power
for the attainment of a legitimate police objective. This is the only instance when Police
Power may take a property which is not noxious and is not destroyed
- The Sin Tax Law is enacted pursuant to the Police Power but using the Power of Taxation
as its implement thereof

- In Carlos Superdrug Corp. v. CA, the SC held that the value added tax was enacted
pursuant to the Police Power using the Power of Taxation as its implement thereof. The
taking of property here was under the Police Power rather than Eminent Domain

- In Luz v. Araneta, the SC held that the certain special laws imposing taxes on sugar
companies was enacted pursuant to the Police Power using the Power of Taxation as its
implement thereof. The purpose of which is to rehabilitate the sugar industry
- The CARP law is enacted pursuant to the Police Power but using the Power of Eminent
Domain as its implement thereof

- In Telecommunications and Broadcast Attorneys of the Philippines v. COMELEC, the SC

upheld the validity of a COMELEC resolution requiring radio stations to give free air time
to COMELEC. However, in Philippine Press Institute v. COMELEC, the SC nullifies a COMELEC
resolution requiring newspapers to give free print spaces to COMELEC. The difference is
that in the former, radio broadcast is a franchise or a privilege which can be regulated by
the State under the Police Power while the latter is not.

Who can Exercise Police Power?

- Police Power is primarily lodged in the Congress. However, it may be delegated to other
government bodies such as the Local Government Units through the Local Government
Code by means of enacting ordinances
- The requisites of a valid ordinance are (1) must not contravene the Constitution, (2)
must not contravene any law, (3) must only be within the jurisdiction of the LGU, (4) must
not be oppressive, (5) must not be unreasonable, (6) must only regulate and not prohibit
trade, (7) must be general in application
- The exercise of Police Power is discretionary upon the body who has the power to
exercise it. The exercise of such cannot be compelled through a court order. The remedy
is to resort to the bar of public opinion. However, the courts can nullify such act if it is
exercised unlawfully. Political v. Justiciable Questions

Requisites
- The requisites for a valid exercise of Police Power are (1) lawful subject and (2) lawful
means. Lawful subject means that the purpose of the exercise of Police Power must be
the promotion of the public interest generally as distinguished from those of a
particular class while lawful means implies that the means employed must be
reasonably necessary for the accomplishment of the purpose and not unduly oppressive
upon individuals
- In Ynot v. IAC, the SC nullify a law prohibiting the transfer of carabaos from one
province to another. The Court held that while the law have a lawful subject which is
the regulation of the slaughter of carabaos, such does not have a lawful means. The
means employed which is the prohibition of transfer of carabaos from one province to
another is not reasonably necessary for the accomplishment of the purpose for carabaos
may still be slaughter even if they are not transferred from one province to another.
Such law also amounts to a bill of attainder

- In Villacienco v. Lukban, the SC nullify an order of the City of Manila deporting 170
women to Davao. The SC held that the intent of the mayor in such order was noble, there
was problem in the implementation of such for it was unduly oppressive upon individuals.

EMINENT DOMAIN

Definition
- The power of the State to take private property for public use upon payment of just
compensation. It is a coercive power
- However, before the State can exercise this power, it must first try to negotiate with the
property owner for a voluntary sale of such property. If the property owner agrees, there
is no need to exercise the Power of Eminent Domain

Who Can Exercise Eminent Domain?

- Primarily lodged in Congress
- May be validly delegated to the President, LGUs, public corporations like the NHA and
quasi public corporations like the NPC, MERALCO, VECO, MCWD, and etc. But this can only
be done if there is a valid delegation of such through a law. Without any law, they cannot
exercise this power
- In Moday v. CA, the SC held that municipalities can validly exercise the delegated Power
of Eminent Domain in line with the provisions of the Local Government Code

Requisites
- (1) Necessity of taking and it must be in strict constitutional sense, (2) what is taken is a
private property, (3) property taken must be for public use, (4) there should be payment
of just compensation, and (5) there is observance of due process meaning prior notice and
hearing

(1) Taking
- Taking must be impelled with necessity
- If exercised by Congress, the issue of its necessity is not open for judicial review. The
courts cannot be resorted to to question the necessity of taking. It is a political question
and not justiciable. However, if there is grave abuse of discretion by Congress, the courts
may review such
- If exercised by a delegate of Congress, the issue of its necessity is now open for judicial
review

- In Chinese Community v. City of Manila, the SC nullify an ordinance of the City of Manila
to expropriate a cemetery owned by the Chinese Community on the ground that there
was no necessity of the taking of such property

- Taking must also be in strict constitutional sense. In Republic v. Castelvi, the requisites
of taking are (1) the expropriator must enter a private property, (2) the entry must be
for more than a momentary period, (3) the entry must be under warrant or color of
legal authority, (4) the property must be devoted to public use or otherwise informally
appropriated or injuriously affected, and (5) the utilization of the property for public
use must be in such a way as to oust the owner or deprive him of beneficial enjoyment
of the property.

- Actual physical dispossession is not required, it is sufficient if the owner is deprived of

the beneficial enjoyment of the property or if he is burdened
- In US v. Cosby, the US Supreme Court held that there was taking of the property of
Cosby, which is near an airport, because he cannot construct a high rise building on such
property due to the danger of flying and landing airplanes. Cosby was allowed to
recover just compensation

- In Pp. v. Fajardo, the SC held that there was taking of the property of Fajardo, which
was near the national highway, because the municipality prohibited him through an
ordinance from constructing any building that obstructs the view of the public plaza
from the national highway. Fajardo was allowed to recover just compensation

- However, not all taking of private property is compensable. This is called Damnum
Absque Injuria. This happens when the taking is pursuant to the Police Power or to the
principle of destruction by necessity under Art. 432 of the Civil Code. In destruction by
necessity, the aggrieved property owner can demand payment from those who benefited
and not from the State. -If the burden is shared equally by the members of the
community, it is not considered taking under Eminent Domain. Thus, there is no
payment of just compensation. It is also Damnum Absque Injuria. However, if there is
one person who suffered more, it is otherwise.
-
- In Richards v. Washington Tunnel, the US Supreme Court held the there was taking on the
house of Richards, which was near a government tunnel, because of the smoke from the
tunnel that goes into Richards house as a result of an exhaust fan which was installed in
the tunnel. Although other members of the community are also burdened by the smoke, it
was Richards who suffered the most. Richards was allowed to recover just compensation
(2) Private Property

- May be real, personal, tangible, or intangible. Includes services and churches

- Money cannot be expropriated because of absurdity. Chooses of action cannot also be
expropriated like ones right to collect the debt of his debtor
- If the private property is already used for public use, it can still be expropriated by the
State if directly done by Congress or if done by a delegate when there is a specific grant
of authority

(3) Public Use

- Public use means that the converted property is directly available to the general public
as a matter of right or redounds to their indirect advantage or benefit.
- Synonymous with public welfare, public interest, public health, and public safety.
- Still public use even if it is not for free and even if not everyone can avail or make use of
the property
- In NHA v. Reyes, the SC held that the taking of the private property for low-cost housing
is for public use even if not all have the financial capacity to avail of such

-In Lagcao v. Labra and City of Mandaluyong v. Francisco, the SC held that if the public use
of the Eminent Domain is for resettlement or socialized housing, the State must strictly
comply with the provisions of RA 7279 wherein private property is the last in order in the
priority of the acquisition of lands and that the Power of Eminent Domain must be
resorted to as a last recourse. Moreover, RA 7279 mandates that the rights of small-
property owners must be respected

- Abandonment by the State of the public use of the property entitles the property owner
to file a case for recovery of the expropriated property but should return the just
compensation received with legal interest from his default. If the State uses such property
for another public purpose, the property owner can file an injunction against State and
recover such expropriated property. The State may then later institute another
expropriation case for such same property for the new public use.

(4) Just Compensation

- It is equated with fair market value. In NPC v. Henson, the SC held that fair market
value is a sum of money which a person desirous but not compelled to sell and another
person willing but not compelled to buy a property would agree on as a price for that
particular property
- Upon filing of the expropriation case, the expropriator is required to deposit an amount
which is equivalent to the full assessed value of the property as appearing in the tax
declaration in order for the court to issue a writ of possession allowing the expropriator
to take actual possession of the property during the pendency of the case. But if the
expropriator is an LGU, the amount deposited is only 15% of the assessed value of the
property. If the expropriation is the implementation of a national infrastructure project,
what needs to be done is not a deposit but payment of BIR zonal valuation of the
property. This amount deposited or paid is NOT the just compensation.
-
- In determining the fair market value or the just compensation, the following
circumstances are considered, (1) the acquisition cost of the property, (2) the actual
value of similar properties, (3) the actual use of properties concerned, (4) the shape,
location, and size of the property

- If what is expropriated is only a portion of the property, the formula is: Fair Market
Value + (Consequential Loss Consequential Benefits) = Just Compensation. However,
this formula only applies if the Consequential Loss is greater than the Consequential
Benefits. Otherwise, the amount of just compensation is merely the Fair Market Value.

- The courts have the final determination of the amount of just compensation. See EPZA
v. Dulay. The proper court is the RTC regardless of the amount of the expropriated
property. A Board of Commissioners of 3 members will also be constituted to determine
the just compensation for recommendation to the court. One will be appointed by the
expropriator, one by the property owner, and the other one by the court who will be the
chairman. The constitution of the Board is mandatory except when (1) there is no issue
in the valuation of the property and (2) in agrarian cases. The Board is mandated to
conduct a hearing where the parties are heard and allowed to submit their respective
manifestations regarding the valuation of the property. The court is not duty-bound to
accept the valuation of the property as fixed by the Board especially if the valuation of
the Board is illegal, grossly excessive, ridiculous, or very low.

-The reckoning point in the computation of the just compensation is the date of taking or
the date of filing of the expropriation case, whichever is earlier. However, if the
expropriator is an LGU, the reckoning point is always the date of taking even if the date of
filing of the expropriation case is earlier. See City of Cebu v. Dedano
- Legal interest is imposed at 6% per annum
- It is paid in the form of money either in cash or check. But if the taking is due to CARP,
payment of just compensation may be through cash bonds
- The owner and other persons who have interest on the expropriated property such as a
lessee or a vendee of an executory contract of sale are entitled to just compensation
- If the State takes private property without an expropriation proceeding and without
payment of just compensation, the remedy of the property owner is to file for collection
of just compensation and not recovery of the property. The defense by the State of
immunity from suit cannot be availed of. See Amicable v. Cuenca and Delos Santos v. IAC.
Such action would not prescribe. See Spouses Campos v. NPC
- If there is an expropriation proceeding and the State fails to pay the just compensation
after 5 years from the time of the finality of the expropriation case, the property owner
can file a recovery of the expropriated property but should return the just compensation
received with legal interest from his default. Prior to such 5 year period, he can only ask
for payment of just compensation through a writ of execution of judgment and not
recovery of the property. See Republic v. Lim
- It is only upon full payment of just compensation by which there is transfer of ownership
of the property to the State. See Republic v. Salem Investment. However, in agrarian
cases, the title of the property is already transferred to the farmers even if there is as yet
no full payment of just compensation.

TAXATION

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.

- The power by which sovereign, through its lawmaking body, raises revenue to
defray the necessary expenses of the government.

- Enforced proportional contributions from persons and property levied by the state
by virtue of its sovereignty, for the support of the government and for all public
needs.

Attributes of Taxation

Enforced Contribution (will not depend on the will of the person)

Personal Contribution ( base on ones ability to pay ( the bigger your income, the
bigger your income tax)

It is a pecuniary burden payable in money, but such a tax is not necessarily

confined to those payable in money.

Imposed on persons and property

Imposed by the State (exercising jurisdiction over the person in a state)

Normally exercised by the Lawmaking body of the State concerned

 It is levied for public purpose as taxation itself involves a burden to provide
revenue for public purposes of a general nature.

Purpose: Tax- Enforced contribution Income Tax- based on the taxpayers income

- 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 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.

- To Raised Revenues

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
the 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.Used as an implement of police power

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 progressive system of

taxation where the objective is to prevent the undue concentration of
wealth in the hands of few individuals (that is why, the bigger income of the
person, the bigger the income tax).

d) Promote 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 tariff and customs
duties.

Characteristics/Nature of Taxing Power

 1) Inherent the power to tax, an inherent prerogative, has to be availed of to assure
the performance of vital state functions.

2) Legislative taxing power is peculiarly and exclusively legislative in character and

remains undiminished in the legislative in character.

3) Constitutionally limited the power to tax is an attribute of sovereignty. It is the

strongest of all the powers of the government. The Constitution sets forth such
limits.

Distinguished between tax imposition pursuant to police power and tax imposition
pursuant to power of taxation.

(Gerochi vs. Department of Energy)

If Taxation power - if the primary purpose is raising revenue.

Pursuant to Police Power it is for the purpose of regulation.

Limitations of the Taxing power of the State

a) Inherent Limitation

Public Purpose

Inherently legislative

Exceptions to the general rule:

- Can be delegated to the President (Art. 6, Sec. 28, par.2)

Example: Tariff powers of the president

- Taxing Power exercised by the LGU (Art. 10, Sec.5). LGU is vested with the authority
to create their own sources of revenues. Taxing power of the LGU is directly conformed
by the constitution itself and canimpose taxes without Congress delegation.

- Exercised by BIR

Government is exempt from taxation Government properties are exempt from

tax.

Exemption to the rule: if the property is transferred to a taxable person.

International Committee (Ex: Philippines cannot impose a tax to the U.S Embassy)

It is territorial (within its jurisdiction)

 Ex. Income of Filipinos abroad are not taxable unless otherwise if the person is a
resident of the Philippines.

b) Constitutional Limitations

Sec. 1 , Art. 3 DUE PROCESS OF LAW

No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law,
nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws.

Sec. 5, Art. 3- PROHIBITION AGAINST INFRINGEMENT OF RELIGIOUS FREEDOM

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

free exercise thereof. The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and
worship, without discrimination or preference, shall forever be allowed. No
religious test shall be required for the exercise of civil or political rights.

Sec. 10, Art. 3 - PROHIBITION AGAINST IMPAIRMENT OF OBLIGATIONS OF

CONTRACTS

No law impairing the obligation of contracts shall be passed.

CASE ( Casanova vs. Hord)

FACTS:

This is an action brought by defendant, Casanova, against the Commission of

Internal Revenue to recover P9,600, which he paid for the taxes on mining claims
he owned in the Province of Ambos Camarines.

In January, 1897, the Spanish Government, in accordance with the provisions of the
royal decree of the 14th of May, 1867, granted to the plaintiff certain mines in the
Province of Ambos Camarines.

The mines (note: Granted before April 11, 1899) were then considered by the
Collector of Internal Revenue, citing that they fall within the provisions of section
134 ofAct No. 1189, known as the Internal Revenue Act:

SEC. 134. On all valid perfected mining concessions granted prior to April eleventh,
eighteen hundred and ninety-nine, there shall be levied and collected on the after
January first, nineteen hundred and five, the following taxes:

2. (a) On each claim containing an area of sixty thousand square meters, an annual
tax of one hundred pesos; (b) and at the same rate proportionately on each claim
containing an area in excess of, or less than, sixty thousand square meters.
3. On the gross output of each an ad valorem tax equal to three per centum of the
actual market value of such output.

ISSUE: Whether Section 134 is Valid or Not

Petitioner claims that such provision is void because according to section 5 of the
act of Congress of July 1, 1902: "that no law impairing the obligation of contracts
shall be enacted."

The Court of First Instance ruled in favor of the defendant.

SC Ruling:

GRANTED. The judgment of the lower court was reversed.

The royal decree granting the mines to the plaintiff constituted a contract
between the Spanish Government and the plaintiff. The obligation of the contract
was impaired by the enactment of section 134 of the Internal Revenue Law.

This section is also void because it is in conflict with section 60 of the act of
Congress of July 1, 1902:

That nothing in this Act shall be construed to effect the rights of any person,
partnership, or corporation, having a valid, perfected mining concession granted
prior to April eleventh, eighteen hundred and ninety-nine, but all such concessions
shall be conducted under the provisions of the law in force at the time they were
granted, subject at all times to cancellation by reason of illegality in the
procedure by which they were obtained, or for failure to comply with the
conditions prescribed as requisite to their retention in the laws under which they
were granted:Provided, That the owner or owners of every such concession shall
cause the corners made by its boundaries to be distinctly marked with permanent
monuments within six months after this act has been promulgated in the Philippine
Islands, and that any concessions, the boundaries of which are not so marked
within this period shall be free and open to explorations and purchase under the
provisions of this act.2

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and judgment is ordered in favor of
the plaintiff and against the defendant for P9,600, with interest thereon, at 6 per
cent, from the 21st day of February, 1906, and the costs of the Court of First
Instance. No costs will be allowed to either party in this court.
 Sec. 20, Art. 3 PROHIBITION AGAINST IMPRISONMENT FOR NON-PAYABLE OF
POLL TAX

No person shall be imprisoned for debt or non-payment of a poll tax.

Sec. 28, par. 1 , Art. 6 - UNIFORMITY AND EQUITY IN TAXATION

The rule of taxation shall be uniform and equitable. The Congress shall evolve a
progressive system of taxation.

Sec. 28 , par. 3, Art. 6 - PROHIBITION AGAINST TAXATION OF REAL

PROPERTYACTUALLY, DIRECTLY AND EXCLUSIVELY USED FOR RELIGIOUS,
CHARITABLE AND EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES

Charitable institutions, churches and parsonages or convents appurtenant thereto,

mosques, non-profit cemeteries, and all lands, buildings, and improvements, actually,
directly, and exclusively used for religious, charitable, or educational purposes shall be
exempt from taxation.

CASE (Abra Valley College vs. Aquino)

Facts:

Abra Valley College rents out the ground floor of its college building to Northern
Marketing Corporation while the second floor thereof is used by the Director of the
College for residential purposes. The municipal and provincial treasurers served upon
the College a notice of seizure and later a notice of sale due to the alleged
failure of the College to pay real estate taxes and penalties thereon. The school filed
suit to annul said notices, claiming that it is tax-exempt.

Issue:

Whether the College is exempt from taxes

HELD:

While the Court allows a more liberal andnon-restrictive interpretation of the

phrase

Exclusivelyused for educational purposes, reasonable emphasis has always been

madethat exemption extends to facilities whichare incidental to and reasonably
necessaryfor the accomplishment of the mainpurposes.

While the second floors use, as residence of the director, is incidental to

education; the lease of of the first floor cannot by any stretch of imagination be
considered incidental to the purposes of education.
 The test of exemption from taxation is theuse of the property for purposes
mentioned in the Constitution

Use overrides ownership.

If a property is incidentally used for theaforementioned purposes, it is clear

fromdecided cases that tax exemption stillsubsist.

Sec. 28, par. 4, Art. 6 - GRANT OF TAX EXEMPTION

No law granting any tax exemption shall be passed without the concurrence of a
majority of all the Members of the Congress.

Sec. 29, par. 2, Art. 6 -

No public money or property shall be appropriated, applied, paid, or employed,

directly or indirectly, for the use, benefit, or support of any sect, church,
denomination, sectarian institution, or system of religion, or of any priest, preacher,
minister, or other religious teacher, or dignitary as such, except when such priest,
preacher, minister, or dignitary is assigned to the armed forces, or to any penal
institution, or government orphanage or leprosarium.

Sec. 29, par. 3, Art. 6 -

All money collected on any tax levied for a special purpose shall be treated as a
special fund and paid out for such purpose only. If the purpose for which a special
fund was created has been fulfilled or abandoned, the balance, if any, shall be
transferred to the general funds of the Government.

Sec. 4, par. 3, Art. 14 PROHIBITION AGAINST TAXATION OF REVENUES AND

ASSETS OF NON-STOCK, NON-PROFIT EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS

All revenues and assets of non-stock, non-profit educational institutions used

actually, directly, and exclusively for educational purposes shall be exempt from
taxes and duties. Upon the dissolution or cessation of the corporate existence of
such institutions, their assets shall be disposed of in the manner provided by law.

Proprietary educational institutions, including those cooperatively owned, may

likewise be entitled to such exemptions, and subject to the limitations provided by
law, including restrictions on dividends and provisions for reinvestment.

This exemption from corporate income tax isembodied in Section 30 of the NIRC
which includes anon-stock, non-profit educational institution.
 Note: however the last paragraph of Section 30 which states: Notwithstanding the
provisions in thepreceding paragraphs, the income of whatever kindand character
of the foregoing organizations from anyof their property, real or personal, or from
any of their activities conducted for profit, regardless of thedisposition made of
such income, shall be subject to

tax imposed under this Code.

Sec. 4, par. 4, Art. 14-

Subject to conditions prescribed by law, all grants, endowments, donations, or

contributions used actually, directly, and exclusively for educational purposes shall
be exempt from tax.

Sec. 2, Art. 8 in conjunction to Sec. 5, Art. 8 NON-IMPAIRMENT OF THE

JURISDICTION OF THE SUPREME COURT

Double Taxation there is double taxation when additional taxes are laid on by the same
taxing jurisdiction during the same taxing period and for the same purpose.

- It becomes obnoxious only where the taxpayer is taxed twice for the benefit of the
same governmental entity.

CASE (Punzalan vs. Municipal Board of Manila)

Facts: Petitioners, who are professionals in the city, assail Ordinance No. 3398 together
with the law authorizing it (Section 18 of the Revised Charter of the City of Manila). The
ordinance imposes a municipal occupation tax on persons exercising various professions in
the city and penalizes non-payment of the same. The law authorizing said ordinance
empowers the Municipal Board of the city to impose a municipal occupation tax on
persons engaged in various professions. Petitioners, having already paid their occupation
tax under section 201 of the National Internal Revenue Code, paid the tax under protest
as imposed by Ordinance No. 3398. The lower court declared the ordinance invalid and
affirmed the validity of the law authorizing it.

Issue: Whether or Not the ordinance and law authorizing it constitute class legislation,
and authorize what amounts to double taxation.

Held: The Legislature may, in its discretion, select what occupations shall be taxed, and
in its discretion may tax all, or select classes of occupation for taxation, and leave others
untaxed. It is not for the courts to judge which cities or municipalities should be
empowered to impose occupation taxes aside from that imposed by the National
Government. That matter is within the domain of political departments. The argument
against double taxation may not be invoked if one tax is imposed by the state and the
other is imposed by the city. It is widely recognized that there is nothing inherently
terrible in the requirement that taxes be exacted with respect to the same occupation by
both the state and the political subdivisions thereof. Judgment of the lower court is
reversed with regards to the ordinance and affirmed as to the law authorizing it.

Constitutionality of Double Taxation

Unlike the United States Constitution, our Constitution does not prohibit double
taxation.

However, while it is not forbidden, it is something not favored. Such taxation should,
whenever possible, be avoided and prevented.

In addition, where there is direct double taxation, there may be a violation of the
constitutional precepts of equal protection and uniformity in taxation.

REMEDY OF THE TAX PAYER

- When there is Double Taxation, the person concern can invoke Sec. 1 of Article 3

No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of

law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws.

Due Process
- Based from human history, the concept of due process based its roots from the
Magna Carta.
- The kind of due process guaranteed under the Magna Carta was procedural due
process. It was only when the forces of the United States came to our place that
Substantive due process was introduced.

Sec 1, Article 3, 1987 Constitution provides: No person shall be deprived of life, liberty
and property without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal
protection of the laws.
Take note that nowhere in the nook and cranny of the 1987 Constitution, and other
past Constitutions, that due process was very particularly defined.
It only provides for a mere general provision of what due process is.
In one case, Justice Fernando said, due process refers to the responsiveness to the
supremacy of reason and obedience to the dictates of justice.
Having no concrete definition of Due Process, is it a product of sheer negligence on
the part of the framers of the Constitution? NO. Even so, this was intended. The
framers of our Constitution where of the view that if you would particularly define
due process, any such definition would prove to be constrictive or it would rather
be strict in application thereof in a particular case. They did not define DP if only
to give the courts enough leeway in applying the same in a given circumstance, or a
particular case. Remember, no two cases are exactly the same.
Decoding the provision:
Person
a. Juridical Persons only with respect to their (sorry guys dilinakomaklaro )
b. Natural not only limited to Filipino citizens; Foreigners are equally
protected and afforded due process

Deprivation take away forcibly, to prevent or prohibit the possession

- Take note that what is prohibited is the taking of life, liberty and property
without due process of law. In other words, the observance of the rudiments of
due process is of paramount importance. Such that, if a person is charged with a
crime and after trial, it is found out that he is indeed guilty as charged, then he
may be meted with the penalty of imprisonment. There is deprivation of liberty
but that is allowed; what matters most is that he was afforded due process.
- Taking away of private property for public use with payment of just
compensation. Then, there is a valid taking.

Life
- Physical existence, but in relation to the law, it means more than that. Atmost,
we have the right to enjoy the God-given talents and faculties.

Liberty
- Freedom to do what is right

Property
- Personal, real, intangible and tangible
- Can a person claim vested property right over a public office? No. As was ruled
in the case of Libanan vs SandiganBayan.
- How about a privilege granted by the government?
No, as was provided in the case of Garin vs MMDA.
- How about a franchise granted by the State?
No. Sec 11 of Article 12 provides that franchises granted by the Government may
always be altered and revoked by the State.
- Therefore, a person cannot claim a vested right over a public office, franchise,
or a privilege granted by the Government.

Substantive Due Process Procedural Due Process

 -Intrinsic validity of a law
-The point of inquiry is the existence or
absence of a lawful governmental objective
Such that when a law has no lawful
governmental objective, such may be struck
down as void for being in violation of due
process
- A manner by which a law or obligation is
administered
- Strike but hear me first.
- Refers to the law which hears before it
condemns which proceeds upon inquiry and
renders judgment after that.
- Generally, the observance of notice and
hearing.

In relation to Procedural Due Process:

The case of Lim vs CA, the SC invalidated the act of Mayor Lim in relation to the
order of the foreclosure of the establishments in dispute because there was no
observance of procedural due process. The establishment, Bistro, was not given by
Mayor Lim a chance to explain on the alleged violation committed. There was no
prior notice and hearing; therefore, the SC declared the action of Mayor Lim was in
violation of due process.
The case of Ynot vs IAC, the SC struck down as void the regulation authorizing the
outright confiscation. Accordingly, it ran afoul with due process because it already
imposed punishment even without notice and hearing.

Requisites of Judicial Procedure: ( Corona vs United Harbor Pilots)

1. Impartial court clothed with judicial power to hear and determine the matter
before it.
Jurisdiction is prescribed or apportioned by law which is enacted by Congress.
Example: Cases involving the imposition of a penalty exceeding 6 years of
imprisonment such cases should be tried by the RTC
The importance herein is that the courts must be impartial; because, whats
the use of the court having jurisdiction if it is not expected to come up with a
fair trial.
The case of Javier vs COMELEC, according to the SC, the commissioner should
be meted out in the case because he was expected to be biased by one party.
In the case of Cruz vs CSC, according to the SC, the fact that the case was
filed by the officer of the CSC, and such officers had been the prosecutor and
judge, would not be enough to invalidate the decision rendered by the CSC.

2. Jurisdiction must be lawfully acquired over the person of the defendant or the
property that is the subject matter
CriminalCases: The moment the accused is place under actual arrest.
Civil Cases: It depends on the kind of action.
3. The defendant must be given an opportunity to be heard.
Emphasis on the word opportunity: actual hearing is not always required.
Sometimes, the filing of MR cures the absence of prior hearing.
Trial type hearing process by which each party is given the chance to cross
examine the other party and/or witnesses. Is this always required? No.
Actual trial type hearing is not required in the following:
1. Ejectment case
2. Small Claims Cases
3. Labor Cases
4. Police Power in re: nuisance per se
5. Preventive Suspension Libanan vs SandiganBayan
6. TRO
7. Issuance of Warrant of Arrest
8. Cancellation of passport
9. Tax delinquent
10. Closure of a restaurant found out to be unsanitary
4. Judgment rendered upon lawful hearing or trial.
Sec 14 Art 8 of the 1987 Constitution provides, No decision shall be rendered
in any court without expressing therein clearly and distinctly the facts and the
law to which it is based.
Is a minute Resolution valid? Yes.When the SC or CA decides taking the petition
as bereft of merit then such reason is valid.
A publication is necessary and indispensable as provided in the case of Tanada
vs Tuvera
How about Prelim Investigation?
- An investigation conducted by the FisCal or the body to determine the
existence or absence of probable cause to indict the respondent.
- It depends upon the imposable penalty.
- If penalty is imprisonment for more than 4 years, 2 months and 1 day, then,
PI is a matter of right; conversely, where the penalty imposable for the
offense is imprisonment not exceeding 4 years, 2 months and 1 day, PI is not
a matter of right.
An appeal is merely considered as a statutory right as was ruled in the case of
Lacson.
But when an appeal is provided by law, a violation thereof is a denial of due
process. Sec 5 p2 Article 8 of the 1987 Consitution provides forinstances when
appeal in the SC is a matter of right.
1. Constitutionality or validity of treaty , international or executive agreement,
law, presidential decree, proclamation, order, instruction , ordinance or
regulation is in question
2. Legality of any tax, impost, assessment or toll, or any penalty imposed in
relation thereto.
3. Jurisdiction of any lower courts is in issue.
 4. Criminal cases in which the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua or higher
5. Only an error or question of law is involved.

Example: In small claims cases, the remedy of appeal is not provided for by law. No
remedy of appeal is provided in such kind of case.
In labor cases, you cannot file a motion for reconsideration for a decision granted by the
labor arbiter.

Therefore, MR and filing of an appeal is a Statutory right.

Requisites of Due Process in Admin Proceedings: (AngTibay vs CIR)

1. Right to a hearing which includes the right of the party interested or affected to
present his own case and submit evidence in support thereof.
2. The tribunal must consider the evidence presented
3. The evidence must be substantial
4. The decision must be rendered on the evidence presented at the hearing or
atleast contained in the records and disclosed to the parties affected
5. The tribunal must rely on its own independent consideration of the law and facts
of the controversy and not simply accepts the view of a subordinate
6. The tribunal must render its decision in such a manner that all the parties can
know the various issues involved and the reason for the decision rendered.

Crim Cases proof beyond reasonable doubt

Civil Cases preponderance of evidence
Admin Cases - substantial evidence

DUE PROCESS OF LAW

Procedural Due Process- opportunity to be heard

Due Process- Section 1 ART 3 of the constitution: no person shall be deprived of life liberty
and property without due process of law.
-take note however that the term due process is not entirely defined by the constitution.
In our jurisdiction, we only have descriptions of what due process is.
-in one case, Justice Fernando said that due process refers to the responsiveness to the
supremacy of reason and obedience to the dictates of justice. (because there is no
particular definition given to the term due process.)

REASON WHY THERE IS NO DEFINITE MEANING OF DUE PROCESS

-This is because the framers are afraid that if they would define the term due process, any
such definition would restrict the application thereof.
- the failure to define due process is nothing but a result of a deliberate effort

Due Process- Section 1 ART 3 of the constitution: no person shall be deprived of life
liberty and property without due process of law.

A. PERSON
-the term person pertains to both natural and juridical persons
-The protection afforded to juridical persons like partnerships and corporations has
something to do only with their property rights
-when you talk about natural persons, it also includes foreigners who are inside our
jurisdictions such that if a foreigner commits a crime in the Philippines, that does not
mean that the foreigner will be sent to jail without the benefit of trial because even if he
is not a Filipino, he is still be afforded due process as governed by the constitution.

B. Deprivation
-to deprived means to take away forcibly, to prevent or to prohibit the possession,
enjoyment and or use of a right or thing.
-what is prohibited under the constitution is not just the taking of life, liberty and
property but the taking of life, liberty and property without due process of law.

C. LIFE
-refers to our physical existence but the term life as used therein connotes more than
mere physical existence. It likewise includes our right to exercise or too enjoy god given
faculties and talents.

D. LIBERTY
-it refers to freedom to do what is right.

F. PROPERTY
-refers to real properties like lands or personal and movable properties. Tangible or
intangible properties.
Tangible properties- those that can be perceived by senses
Intangible properties- those which cannot be perceived by senses like a right.
-but can person vest a right to public office? NO. This was answered in the case of libanan
vs. sandiganbayan.
-can a person claim a vested right over a privilege? CASE of Garin vs. MMDA where a
drivers license is not considered a right or a property right but is merely a privilege.
-in like manner, a person cannot claim property right over a franchise granted by the
government because under the constitution, a franchise is always subject to the right of
the republic to alter or modify the same.

TWO ASPECTS OF DUE PROCESS

A. Substantive Due Process
-the point of inquiry is the existence or absence of lawful governmental objective
-it refers to intrinsic validity of a law or a regulation
-absence of such lawful governmental objective will strike the law as invalid.

B. Procedural Due Process

- It has something to do with the manner by which a law or regulation is
administered or enforced.
- The essence of procedural due process is expressed in the immortal cry of
themostikles strike but hear me first!
- It refers to a law which hears before it condemns proceeds upon inquiry and
renders judgment only after trial.
- Requires prior notice and hearing
- Case of LIM vs. CA, the SC struck down as void or invalid the act of mayor lim in
ordering the outright closure of the establishments owned by Denzon. Denzon was
not given the ample time to defend himself. There was no notice and hearing.
- In YNOT vs. IAC, the SC struck down E.O 626-A authorizing outright confiscation of
carabaos because it already imposed punishment even before or without trial.

Due process as applied in judicial proceeding normally requires the concurrence

of the following requisites:

1. there should be an impartial court cloth with the power or authority to

decide the matter or the case
NOTE: -jurisdiction of courts is defined or apportioned by law enacted by
congress
-court must be impartial. The court must not be biased.Refers also to the
tribunal judge.
-Remedy if judge is perceived as biased: File for motion for inhibition.
In our case, the filing of motion for inhibition is governed by rule 137 of the
rules of court.
Grounds for Motion for inhibition:
a. when the judges is a party to the case itself
b. one of the party disputants of the case is his or her spouse or children
c. where the judge slated to one of the party disputants within 6th degree of
consanguinity or affinity. Affinity by law or by blood.
d. where one of the lawyers in a case is related to the judge with 4th civil
degree of consanguinity or affinity
e. the judge has been an executor of the estate that is involved in the case
f. or where the judge for exampleis now a judge in a higher court and the
decision sought to be reviewed by him is a decision he himself rendered while
he still a presiding judge
2. the court must acquire jurisdiction over the person of the defendant

NOTE: Naturally in a case, the court acquires jurisdiction over the plaintiff the
moment the plaintiff files a complaint before a court. After the filing of the
complaint, the court needs to acquire jurisdiction over the person of the
defendant. How is it done? Normally, the court will issue summons directing
the defendant to file his answer to the complaint within 15 days from receipt
of the summons. This is with regards to civil cases. Service of summons is
required before the court could validly acquire over the jurisdiction of the
defendant in a civil cases.

-If the action is action in persona, or one which would only bind the parties in
a case, then actual service of summons is a requirement. Meaning to say that
the defendant must be served with summons either through his lawyer or any
person of suitable agent discretion living inside his residence or the summons
maybe tendered personally to the defendant. Example of this is collection of
sum of money because a decision that would be rendered therein would only
bind the party disputants in that particular case. It does not bind 3rd parties or
outside parties.

-If the action is action in quasi in re or in re, an action which binds not just
the parties in the case but even 3rd parties like the whole world, then service
of summons may be done through publication. Meaning to say, the complaint
may be published to the newspaper of general circulation if only to acquire
jurisdiction over that person of the defendant or the subject matter of an
action normally a real property. This will happen only if personal service of
summons could not be done as well as when the defendant for example is
outside of the Philippines. Example of quasi in re: petitions of annulment of
marriage. The petitioner there is usually the husband or wife and the
respondent is the other spouse. Take note that while the parties in that
particular case are but the husband and the wife, the decision rendered
therein would bind the whole world. Such that when the marriage is annulled,
then any third party may want to marry the husband or the wife.

-if the court cannot acquire jurisdiction over the person of the defendant,
then any decision therein would not be binding for violation of procedural
process.

-In criminal cases, the court acquires the jurisdiction of the accused the
moment the accused already placed under arrest. Its not upon arraignment.

3. parties should be given ample opportunity to be heard

NOTE: what is required is nothing but a mere opportunity to be heard. Actual
hearing is not always a requirement. If the plaintiff or the defendant is
afforded the chance to be heard, but the defendant or the plaintiff missed the
chance, then he cannot later complain that he is denied of due process. In a
civil case for example, the defendant is served upon with summons directing
him to file his answer within 15 days from the receipt thereof, but if the
defendant does not file his answer, such that the court eventually renders
judgement by default, the defendant cannot complain that there is no due
process because even there was no actual hearing, he was already afforded
the chance to be heard. But sometimes the person can also file motion for
reconsideration which can cure the absence of prior notice and hearing.

-when we talk about opportunity to be heard or trial, it does not necessarily

follow that it should be in a trial type of hearing.

-Trial Type Hearing- one where the other party through his lawyer is given a
chance to cross examine the plaintiff or the adverse party and the other
partys witnesses.

-there are cases when trial type hearing maybe dispensed with. Example of
such cases is an ejectment case. An ejectment case must be decided only on
the basis of the position papers between the parties and the attachments
thereto. If there are witnesses, their testimonies are reduced into affidavit
forms and attach the same to the position paper. There will be no more cross
examination. Also in small scale cases where the action is only collection of
small amount of money not exceeding 100k, the same may be decided through
a proof format complain and proof format answer.
-there are instances when prior notice and hearing may be validly
dispensed with. Issuance of temporary retraining order as once ruled in the
case of marohombsar. The same can be done without prior notice and hearing.
After all, after the TROs are issued, there will be a subsequent hearing to be
conducted within 20 days following the issuance of the TRO by the court. And
as ruled in the case of USA vs. Purganan citing the case of webb vs. de leon, a
warrant of arrest may also be issued even without prior notice and hearing.
Likewise, the passport of a person who is wanted for the commission of the
crime may be cancelled without prior notice and hearing. The estate of real
properties for tax delinquency may be taken without prior notice and hearing.
This explains why henares freeze the accounts of pacquiao for alleged tax
deficiency. Closure of restaurants found to be unsanitary and movie houses
showing lewd movies can be done without prior notice and hearing. More so if
we have to avail nuisance per se as explained in the case of Cabrera vs. lapid.
 -The prior notice and hearing is therefore not absolute as there are
instances when such can be dispensed with without running a foul with
procedural due process.

4. Judgment/decision must be rendered only after trial

NOTE: It is only after hearing that the court would render judgment. In this
respect, take note the requirement under section 14 of art. 8 of the
constitution and that the decision must be clearly and distinctively set fort the
facts and the case and the law on which the decision is based.

-is publication of laws a requirement in procedural due process? Yes. There is a

requirement of publication of laws before the same would become effective.
This is in relation to the principle that ignorance of the law excuses no one. If
laws will not be published, it would unfair to charge us with knowledge of
these laws when in the first place the same were not duly published.

-Preliminary investigation in criminal cases is a proceeding wherein the

investigating prosecutor would determine presence or absence of probable
cause. If the prosecutor believes that indeed a crime has been committed
under the person charged therewith, then he can file the information in court.
Is preliminary investigation part of procedural due process? the answer is it
depends on the imposable penalty. Such that if the imposable penalty for the
offense is imprisonment exceeding 4 years, 2 months and 1 day, then
preliminary investigation becomes a matter of right as provided for under
section 1 of rule 112 on the revised rules on criminal procedures. Without
which, the respondent may say that he is denied of due process as stated in
the case of UY vs Sandiganbayan.

-Conversely, if the imprisonment does not exceed 4 years, 2 months and 1 day,
then in such situation, preliminary investigation is not a matter of right.

-How about appeal? Is it part of due process? Generally, the remedy of appeal
is a statutory right because other than those cases enumerated under section
5 par. 2 of article 8, or those cases which would fall under the appellate
jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, the remedy of appeal is not a matter of
right. The remedy of the appeal may be provided for or may be denied by
Congress at its discretion. If the congress does not provide the remedy of
appeal, then we cannot say that there is denial of due process especially if the
case is not one of the cases mentioned under section 5 par. 2 of art. 8 of the
constitution or those cases which would fall under the appellate jurisdiction of
the Supreme Court.
 CASES under sec. 5 par. 2 art. 8: (REMEDY OF APPEAL IN THESE CASES IS
GUARANTED BY THE CONSTITUTION)
1. cases involving the constitutionality of a treaty, international or executive
agreement. Law, presidential decrees, proclaimation orders, instructions,
ordinances and other regulations.
2. cases involving the legality of tax imposed assessment or penalty imposed
on the collection therewith.
3. cases where the issue is the jurisdiction of the trial discussed under the
appellate jurisdiction of the SC.
4. criminal cases also where the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua or
higher. Review in this case is automatic.
5. cases also which would only involve questions of law.
-the cases above must not be withdrawn by the SC. Other cases not listed
above may be withdrawn without violating due process of law.

Administrative proceedings for procedural due process- REQUISITES:

1. Opportunity to be heard which includes right to present or adduced evidence

2. The tribunal must consider the evidence presented
3. The evidence should be substantial
NOTE: in administrative proceedings, the degree of proof required therein is
nothing but substantial evidence. Whereas in criminal cases, what is required
is proof beyond reasonable doubt. In civil cases, what is required is
preponderance of evidence.
4. The decision must have something to support itself.
NOTE: the conclusions must not be taken out of thin air. It has to have some
basis for such decision. That evidence must be the one presented by the party
during the hearing or attached to the case and disclosed or made known to the
parties.
5. The tribunal, the body or the judge making the decision must rely on its
independent consideration on facts and the law on the case rather than rely on
the recommendation of his subordinates
Example: NLRC division, a commissioner of NLRC is assisted by 3 reviewing
persons. The commissioner must come up with his own decision based on the
facts of the case and must not rely on the decisions of his subordinates.
6. The decision must be rendered in such a way to enable the parties to know the
facts of the case and the law on which the decision is based.

EQUAL PROTECTION OF LAWS

2nd clause of Section 1 Article 3

No person shall be deprived of his life, liberty and property without the due process of
laws. Nor shall any person be denied the Equal protection of laws.

- ..Not given a particular definition. The purpose is to give the courts or tribunal of
justice enough leeway in applying the different principles in light of the varying or
peculiar circumstances..

- But when we talk about Equal protection, it does not necessarily mean that all laws
must at all times be given universal application. Sometimes if you do that it will
result in inequality. A typical example of this is a regulation for example prohibiting
the sale of Viagra. If that prohibition is imposed on minors, it is perfectly valid. But
if that regulation is imposed on elderly people, like Attorney you know who that
regulation would be invalid. Thats unfair. As far as theyre concerned, their mind
might be willing but their body is *inaudible*

Requires that All person or things belonging to the same belonging to the same class shall
be treated alike for the rights conferred and the obligation imposed. In fact, what it
requires is that there is equality among equals.

It is not enough that the law on its face appears to be fair and reasonable. According to
Justice Cruz, what is the use of a law which appears to be valid or fair if the same is
administered with an evil eye and an uneven hand. So as to unjustly benefit some and
prejudice others

Yick Wo vs Hopkins, an ordinance authorizing the board of supervisors to license the

establishment of laundries in an American city was annulled by the us Supreme Court after
finding that all Chinese applicants for such license had been systematically rejected
whereas all other applications but one had been approved.

AttyG- On its face, the regulation appears to be valid, but it was found out in the
implementation of that regulation that there was discrimination.

People vs Vera, the old probation law provided that the probation system shall be
applicable only in those provinces in which the respective provincial boards have
provided for the salary of a probation officer.

Supreme court declared the old probation law as void for being violative of the equal
protection clause. Take note that the law on its face, the old probation act appears to be
valid or fair, but there is inequality or discrimination in the form of the implementation
law.

Scope of protection:
 -Equal protection is available to all persons, natural as well as judicial. Artificial
persons, however, are entitled to the protection only insofar as their properties are
concerned.

Requisites for a Valid Classification

Substantial Distinctions

- Superficial differences do not make for a valid classification. The distinction, to

be valid, must be substantial.

e.g. The congress passed a law that only persons with receding hairline can take up law.
invalid
e.g The minimum Height requirement in entering the Armed Forces of the Philippines.
valid
e.g. VAWC Battered husbands could not avail of this. valid

A case illustrative of the application requirement is in the case of Quinto vs Comelec. The
provision applies only to an appointed public official. Supreme Court said in the case
there was a substantial distinction between an appointed public official and an Elected
public official.

Lagman vs ochoa investigation of the past administration of Gloria Arroyo should not be
differentiated from past or previous administrations.

International Alliance of Educators vs Quisumbing tne local-hire faculty members of the

International School, mostly Filipinos, complained against the better treatment of their
colleagues who have been hired abroad. These foreign-hires enjoy certain benefits not
accorded to the local-hires, among them housing, transportation, shipping costs, taxes,
home leave travel allowance, and a salary rate 25% higher than that of the local-hires. The
reason given by the school was twofold, to wit, the dislocation factor and the limited
tenure of the foreign-hires. After reviewing various constitutional, statutory and
international provisions for the protection of labor, the Supreme court declared that there
is no showing that there is no showing that the foreign hired professors perform better
than local hired professors.

Germane to the purpose of law

germane /jrmn/ adjective
- relevant to a subject under consideration.

AttyG - Can the congress, for the purposes of enacting a legislation where the males
taking the Bar Examination would only need 70 since mag-inum na sila before the bar
exam whereas the passing score for the female is 75 kay medyo dili sila mag-inum?

No, because it is not Germane to the purpose of the law.

In fact, the right to vote and be voted upon is not given to the foreigners. The right to
own land

A case in point is in the case of Dumlao vs COMELEC. Where sec. 4 BP Blg. 52 disqualifies
retired elective officials who has received retirement benefits and is already 65 years old
to run for the same elective local office from which he has retired. Petitioner said it is
concocted and designed against him to prevent him from running again.

According to Dumlao Nganu gud tawn imong I prohibit nang mga tiguwang, after all men
are like wine, they mellow down with age

Supreme court disagreed, noting the court of the law want to encourage new blood in
public governance. According to the supreme court, that classification based on age was
valid for the purpose of the regulation. Because it is to encourage the participation of new
breed of politicians or young politicians. Tanzan na gani mapandol na, mudagan pa

*8:30 mahuman akong klase, muabut kog 8:31 bunalan kos akong misis. Strike me, but
hear me first!

Not limited to exisiting conditions only

A case illustrative of this principle is Ormoc Sugar Company inc vs Treasurer of Ormoc City.
The Municipal Board of Ormoc City passed Ordinance No. 4 imposing on any and all
productions of centrifugal sugar milled at the Ormoc Sugar Company, Inc., in Ormoc City
amunicipaltaxequivalentto one per centum (1%) per export sale to USA and other foreign
countries. Payments for said tax were made, under protest, by Ormoc Sugar Company,
Inc. Ormoc Sugar Company, Inc. filed before the Court of First Instance of Leyte a
complaint against the City of Ormoc as well as its Treasurer, Municipal Board and Mayor
alleging that the ordinance is unconstitutional for being violative of the equal
protectionclause and the rule of uniformity of taxation.

A perusal of the requisites shows that the questioned ordinance does not meet them, for it
taxes only centrifugal sugar produced and exported by the Ormoc Sugar Company, Inc. and
none other. The taxing ordinance should not be singular and exclusive as to exclude any
subsequently established sugar central for the coverage ofthe tax.

But the case of Ormoc Sugar Company Inc. should be differentiated with the case of Lutz
vs Araneta. In this case, Commonwealth Act No. 567, otherwise known as
SugarAdjustment Act was promulgated in 1940 to stabilize the sugar industry so as to
prepare it for the eventuality of the loss of its preferential position in the United States
market and the imposition of export taxes. Plaintiff, Walter Lutz, in his capacity as
Judicial Administrator of the Intestate Estate of Antonio Jayme Ledesma, seeks torecover
fromtheCollectorof Internal Revenue the sum of P14,666.40 paid by the estate as taxes,
under Sec.3 of theAct, alleging that such tax is unconstitutional and void, being levied for
the aid and support of the sugar industry exclusively, which in plaintiffs opinion is not a
public purpose for which a tax may be constitutionally levied

Theactis primarily an exercise of the police power. It is shown in theActthatthe taxis

levied with a regulatory purpose, to provide means for the rehabilitation and stabilization
of the threatened sugar industry.

It is inherent in the power to tax that a statebe freeto select the subjects oftaxation,
and it has been repeatedly held that inequalities which result from a singling out of one
particular class fortaxationorexemptioninfringe no constitutional limitation.

The funds raised under theActshould be exclusively spent in aid of the sugar industry,
since it is that very enterprise that is being protected. It may be that other industries are
also in need of similar protection; but the legislature is not required by the Constitution to
adhere to a policy of all or none.

Applicability to all

This was illustrated in the case of Lagman v Ochoa

Same ruling was reached by the Supreme court in the case of Yick Wo vs Hopkins in that
there should be no distinction between a Chinese Applicant and an American Applicant
with respect to the application of the operation of Laundry Services.

And the notable case of Tatad vs Department of Energy the Downstream Oil Deregulation
Act of 1996 or RA 8180. This law allows that any person or entity may import or purchase
any quantity of crude oil and petroleum products from a foreign or domestic source, lease
or own and operate refineries and other downstream oil facilities and market such crude
oil or use the same for his own requirement, subject only to monitoring by the
Department of Energy. Tatad assails the constitutionality of the law. He claims, among
others, that the imposition of different tariff rates on imported crude oil and imported
refined petroleum products violates the equal protection clause. Tatad contends that the
3%-7% tariff differential unduly favors the three existing oil refineries and discriminates
against prospective investors in the downstream oil industry who do not have their own
refineries and will have to source refined petroleum products from abroad.3% is to be
taxed on unrefined crude products and 7% on refined crude products.

The tariff differential of 4% therefore works to their immense benefit. Yet, this is only one
edge of the tariff differential. The other edge cuts and cuts deep in the heart of their
competitors. It erects a high barrier to the entry of new players. New players that intend
to equalize the market power of Petron, Shell and Caltex by building refineries of their
own will have to spend billions of pesos. Those who will not build refineries but compete
with them will suffer the huge disadvantage of increasing their product cost by 4%. They
will be competing on an uneven field. The argument that the 4% tariff differential is
desirable because it will induce prospective players to invest in refineries puts the cart
before the horse. The first need is to attract new players and they cannot be attracted by
burdening them with heavy disincentives. Without new players belonging to the league of
Petron, Shell and Caltex, competition in our downstream oil industry is an idle dream.

RA 8180 is unconstitutional on the ground inter alia that it discriminated against the
new players insofar as it placed them at a competitive disadvantage vis--vis the
established oil companies by requiring them to meet certain conditions already being
observed by the latter.

Due process was instituted by God in the Garden of Eden. But you may want to add
that Equal protection also instituted by God at the Garden of Eden.

EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE

-The concept of equal protection is articulated under Sec. 1 Art. 3 of the 1987
constitution. It provides that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty and property
without due process of law. It also provides that no persons shall be denied of equal
protection of the law.

-the term EQUAL PROTECTION just like due process, is not also particularly defined for the
same reason that the framers of the constitution are afraid that any such definition would
restrict the application thereof.

-Equal protection does not necessarily mean that laws must be given universal application
at all times because sometimes, if laws would be given universal application, that would
rather result in inequality. Example: the regulation of the use of Viagra. Such would be
unfair to older people.

-Equal protection of law means that all persons or things belonging to the same class shall
be treated alike both as to the rights conferred and obligations imposed. What is required
only is equality among equals.

-According to Justice Cruz, it is not enough that the law or regulation appears on its face
to be valid or fair. Such law or regulation should also be administered without
discrimination.

-In the case of Yick Ho vs. Hopkins, the US Supreme Court struck down as invalid for being
violative of equal protection clause the regulation authorizing the board of supervisors to
issue licenses or permits for the operation of laundry business. On its face, the regulation
appears to be valid but in the enforcement thereof, it was found out that the board of
supervisors would deny the application for permits if the applicants are Chinese. On its
face, the law is valid but there is inequality in the enforcement or administration. It is
therefore violative of the equal protection clause.
-In the case of Pp. vs. Vera, it has something to do with the validity of the Old Probation
Act. Under the old probation act, the act would be effective in provinces which could
afford to provide the salary of provincial probation officer. In other words; the law could
not be applicable in those provinces which could not afford to provide for the salaries of
the probation officers. The law appears to be valid in its face but there is discrimination in
the enforcement thereof. The SC therefore struck down as invalid the said old probation
act for it violated the equal protection clause.

-Equal protection of law means there should be equality among equals. In other words,
there may be a valid classification not withstanding with what is known as equal
protection of the law. But for such classification to be valid, the concurrence of the
following requirements or requisites is required.

REQUISITES IN ORDER TO HAVE A VALID CLASSIFICATION UNDER THE LAW

1. Such classification must be based on substantial distinction

NOTES:

Superficial differences would not make a good ground for classification such
that classifications based on the color of ones skin or the color of his eyes
would not be a good ground for classification. A law for example providing
that only those who have fair skin could take up medicine would be struck
down as invalid.

Take note however that sometimes, physical differences would become a

valid ground for making a classification. Such that under the law or the
constitution, there is substantial equality between men and women, yet
when we make a distinction between women and men for purposes of
enacting regulation tending to regulate the conditions of women. Can the
state enact a law prohibiting women from being employed as coal miners? Is
it a valid regulation based on physical differences? The answer is YES in that
situation. This is because the law is designed to protect women who are
presumed to be not stronger compared to men.

The case of Quinto vs. COMELEC- In this case, the SC upheld the validity of
that law noting that such classification made between appointed public
officials on one hand and elected public officials on the other hand, is
founded on substantial difference because one is appointed and the other is
elected. One enjoys the security of tenure while the other one has fixed
term. In sum, the SC ruled that while these are all public officials, there is
however a substantial distinction between appointed public officials and
elected public officials.

But in the case of Lagman vs. Ochoa, the SC said that there is no substantial
distinction between a past administration of arroyo and the other previous
 administrations. SC said that corrupt or not, if you want to conduct an
investigation, then you can conduct investigations on all the past
administrations and not just investigate the administration of arroyo because
it should not be differentiated from the rest.

The case of International Schools Alliance of Educators vs. Quisombing- the

SC in this case, struck down the regulation of according more benefits to
foreign hired professors in the international schools. According to SC, it does
not necessarily follow that foreign based instructors could perform better
than local hired professors. In this case, there is no substantial difference
between foreign instructors and local instructors.

Can we make distinctions between foreigners and Filipinos? SOMETIMES.

Especially if it involves the right to vote and be voted upon. Under the
constitution, there are privileges which are only afforded to Filipino citizens
like the right to own lands.

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

NOTES:

The case of Dumlao vs. COMELEC- the SC in this case upheld the validity of
the regulation prohibiting the provincial, municipal elected public officials
who already attained the age of 65 years old and who have already received
the monetary benefits to which he is entitled under the law shall not be
qualified to run for the same elective local office from which he has retired.
According to SC, this is to allow new set of politicians to in the public
offices. The classification of the young politicians and the old politicians is
germane to the purposes of the law.

The case of DECS vs. San diego- the SC upheld the validity of the regulation
prohibiting those who already flunk the NMAT thrice from taking the same
examination again. The SC held that the purpose of the regulation is valid.
This is to prevent a situation where we will be having doctors that are
incompetent in the field. The decision in this case is germane to the purpose
of the law.

3. It should not be limited only to existing or present conditions

NOTES:

The case of Ormoc Sugar Inc vs. Treasurer of Ormoc City- a tax is particularly
imposed on sugar products milled at the ormoc sugar company. Under the
 questioned ordinance, the tax imposition was imposed rather on ormoc sugar
Inc. it was questioned and the SC invalidated the ordinance of ormoc. The
reason is that according to SC, it would appear that if there will be new
payers (new industries) in the sugar industry in ormoc, then any such
imposition as fixed therein would not be applicable to the new payers. Why?
Because it was particularly imposed only on Ormoc Sugar Inc.

The case above is to be differentiated in the case of Lutz vs. Araneta

wherein special taxes were imposed for the rehabilitation of the sugar
industry. That imposition was valid according to SC because unlike in the
case of Ormoc Sugar Inc, the tax imposition in this case was equally applied
to all those engaged in sugar industries. In the case of ormoc, it was only
imposed on one establishment.

4. It must apply equally to all members belonging to the same class

NOTES:

All persons and things belonging to the same class must be treated alike both
as to the rights conferred and obligations imposed.

The case of Tatad vs. department of Energy- The SC struck down the law
deregulating the oil industry because it discriminated the new entrance to
the oil industry in that the law somehow favored Caltex, petron and shell.

The case of Lagman vs. Ochoa- according to SC, there is no difference

between a past administrations of Arroyo vis a vis the previous
administrations before her. There must be equal treatment to persons
belonging in the same class.

SEARCH AND SEIZURE

CONSTITUTIONAL BASIS

Article III, Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution states:

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.

Article III, Section 3 (2) of the 1987 Constitution states:

2. Any evidence obtained in violation of this or the preceding section shall be

inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding.

PERSONS INCLUDE JURIDICAL PERSONS

This was discussed in the case of David v. Arroyo. But such right of the juridical persons
only pertains to their houses, papers, and effect excluding persons.

INSTANCES WHEN EXCLUSIONARY RULE DOES NOT APPLY

The exclusionary does not apply if the search was conducted by private individuals and not
by the State. This was discussed in the case of Pp. v. Bongcarawan.

It also does not apply when the incriminating evidences will be used against the person
who made the illegal search and seizure and not against the person illegally searched and
seized.

Also, when the offended party fails to make a timely objection when the prosecution
presented it as evidence in court.

WARRANT OF ARREST

The requisites for the issuance of a warrant of arrest are the ff:
a) Probable cause
b) Determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of
the complainant and the witnesses he may produce
c) Particularly describing the person to be arrested

It is issued only after an information is filed in court.

The police are the ones who enforce the warrant of arrest within 10 days from receipt
thereof. But it is still valid even after the expiration of the 10 day period as long as the
police asks for extension of time and the same is granted. However, this rule does not
apply to search warrants.

It can be enforced at any given time of the day or night and reasonable force may be
used.
The police need not have a copy of the warrant at the time of the arrest.

a) Probable Cause

Such facts or circumstances which would give a reasonably discreet and prudent man to
believe that an offense had been committed and the person to be arrested is the one
responsible of the commission thereof.

It is to be differentiated with the determination of the prosecutor of probable cause for

purposes of filing an information in court. Such determination may be appealed to the
court in a motion for judicial determination of probable cause.

b) Determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation

of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce

Generally, only the judge can issue a warrant of arrest. However, administrative officers
can also issue but this can only be done to carry out a final determination of a violation of
a law such as an order of deportation or contempt.

The determination need not be personal. This was discussed in the case of Soliven v.
Makasiar. The reason of the Supreme Court is because the judge is presumed to be busy.
But it is more correct to say that it is because there had already been a prior
determination of probable cause in the office of the prosecutor. This is also manifested in
Rule 112, Section 5 (a) of the Rules of Court.

However, such examination must be determined by the judge by his own judgment and
must not rely solely on the recommendation of the prosecutor.

c) Particularly describing the person to be arrested

If the first, middle, and, last name of the person to be arrested is known, such must be
expressed in the warrant of arrest.

But if the identity of the accused is not known, A John Doe or Jane Doe warrant is
sufficient as long as it is accompanied by some descriptio personae that will enable the
officer to identify the accused.

WARRANTLESS ARREST

Rule 113, Section 5 of the Rules of Court states:

 Sec. 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful. A peace officer or a private person
may, without a warrant, arrest a person:
(a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is
actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense;
(b) When an offense has just been committed and he has probable cause to
believe based on personal knowledge of facts or circumstances that the
person to be arrested has committed it; and
(c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a
penal establishment or place where he is serving final judgment or is
temporarily confined while his case is pending, or has escaped while being
transferred from one confinement to another.

In cases falling under paragraphs (a) and (b) above, the person arrested without a
warrant shall be forthwith delivered to the nearest police station or jail and shall
be proceeded against in accordance with section 7 of Rule 112.

Also, when the person arrested consented to the arrest.

a) Warrantless arrest under paragraph (a) Inflagrante Delicto

The person making the arrest need not actually see the crime committed. It is enough that
he has actual and personal knowledge of the crime committed. The term in his presence
is satisfied when he had perceived the crime committed by his senses.

A person liable for a continuing crime may be arrested at any time.

b) Warrantless arrest under paragraph (b) Hot Pursuit

There must be a large measure of immediacy between the time of the arrest and the time
of the commission of the crime. However, there is no exact mathematical formula of the
requisite of immediacy for it depends upon the attendant circumstances.

c) Warrantless arrest under paragraph (c) Accused is an Escape Prisoner

It applies to both convicted and detained prisoners.

d) Other warrantless arrest Consented Arrest

It must be given consciously, freely, and intellectually. Mere silence is not tantamount to
consent.
This is also manifested when the person arrested failed to question the illegality of the
arrest prior to arraignment. But a putting up of a bail is not tantamount to a consent or
waiver of the illegality of the arrest.

REMEDIES AGAINST UNLAWFUL ARREST

1. File a case for arbitrary detention if the person arresting is a public officer
2. File a case for kidnapping or illegal detention if the person arresting is a private
individual
3. File a petition for habeas corpus but this does not apply if there is already an
information filed in court
4. File a petition for writ of amparo but this does not apply if there is already an
information filed in court
5. File a motion to quash, if there is already an information filed in court, under Rule
117, Sec. 3 (c) on the ground that the court did not acquire jurisdiction over the
person of the accused because what confers jurisdiction to the court is the arrest
of the accused. However, this does not apply if the illegality of the arrest is not
determinable of the guilt of the accused. Then, the illegality of the arrest will only
be considered as a continuing objection.

SEARCH WARRANT

A court order directly commanding the law enforcer to search a particular place and
confiscate the items specified therein.

The requisites for the issuance of a search warrant are the ff:
a) Probable cause
b) Determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of
the complainant and the witnesses he may produce
c) Particularly describing the place and object to be searched or confiscated

The search warrant will be implemented by the law enforcement agencies. They are
authorized to use reasonable and necessary force to gain entry to the residence or
liberate themselves therefrom. 1. Inventory of the Evidences.
2. Photograph of the drugs in the
house or at the crime scene in the
In the course of the search, either of the following persons must be present: presence of the accused or any
member of his house
a) lawful occupants of the house or Media Representative and
b) any member of the family, or Representative of the DOJ and an
elected public official.
c) any 2 residents of the locality of sufficient age and discretion

The search warrant can only be enforced during daytime unless the judge directs that it
may be enforced during nighttime.
 Only issued by the
The search warrant is valid only for 10 days from the date of its issuance. judge

a) Probable Cause after 10 days it will be invalid, reckoned from the day of its issuance

Such facts or circumstances which would give a reasonably discreet and prudent man to
believe that an offense had been committed and the object or thing sought to be searched
or confiscated are in connection therewith.

If the search warrant enumerates several things to be searched and there was no probable
cause with respect to some things, such lack of probable cause will not invalidate the
entire search warrant but only the particular things thereto. This was ruled in the case of
Pp. v. Salanguit.

Moreover, the search warrant should only cover 1 specific offense. Otherwise, it is invalid
for being a scatter shot warrant. However, in Pp. v. Salanguit, it was held that a search
warrant covering 2 or more offenses is valid as long as such offenses belong to a same law
or statute.

b) Determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation

of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce

Only the judge can issue a search warrant. Administrative bodies cannot.

The application for search warrant should be filed before the court (RTC or CA) who have
the territorial jurisdiction of the crime committed. However, if there is a compelling
reason such as there will be a possibility that the accused will know the issuance of the
search warrant, then it may be issued in any court within the same judicial region where
the crime was committed.

However, under Section 12 of SC Circular 03-08-02 effective on February 16, 2004, the
executive judges of RTC in Manila and Quezon City are empowered to hear applications for
search warrant, even outside their territorial jurisdiction, as initiated by the NBI, PNP, and
ACTAF in relation to the ff. particular offenses:
a) heinous crimes
b) illegal gambling
c) illegal possession of firearms and ammunitions
d) illegal possession of prohibited drugs
e) violation of intellectual property law
f) violation of anti money laundering law
g) violation of tariff and customs code

The determination by the judge of the probable cause must be personal unlike in the
warrant of arrest. The judge must really conduct a personal examination under oath or
 1. Motion to quash the search if search has no probable cause.
2. Motion to suppress evidence illegally obtained.
Search of
3. Right to object once the incriminating evidence is given to the court.
motor
Text 4. Petition for certiorari
vehicles
5. Criminal Cases
Exceptional: affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce. This is because there
Extensive
search is
was no prior preliminary investigation conducted by the prosecutor such as in the case of a
1. Failure to object will allow the inadmissable evidence to be valid in court.
allowed- warrant of arrest. 2. If it against the person who took the inadmissable evidence.
when 3. When the illegal search is conducted by a private citizen. ( Case of Bongcarawan)
probable
cause is The complainant and witnesses must have personal information and not merely reliable
believed that
this vehicle information from others. Moreover, the judge must render a decision based on his personal
is used for
the
wisdom and not merely rely on the opinion of the prosecutor or his colleagues.
commission
of the crime.
c) Particularly describing the place and object to be searched or confiscated
(Certain
description
of the The police officers cannot search a place other than those specified in the warrant as held
vehicle)
Case of
in the case of Pp. v. CA. A sketch of the place to be searched may be accompanied in the
Malsmedt, search warrant. Case of Musa: By bust operation. The police officer conducted a search for the mark money.
Transaction happened in the living room of his house
maspil,
tangliben They saw cellophane with illegal drugs (inadmissable)
and montilla.
A search warrant which does not particularly describe the objects to be searched is invalid
for being a general warrant. If there are only some objects in the search warrant which
Peripheral
or visual
are not particularly described, it does not invalidate the search warrant in its entirety but
Pp vs Salanguit : Search warrant was for Shabu. Where valid portion have been enforced, no n
search. only those particular objects therein. for further search. Shabu was already found before the marijuana.
No body
search/body If marijuana is found while looking for shabu it is valid.
frisking. However, the objects to be searched need not be technically described for a general
description is sufficient as long as such object is in relation to the crime committed.
Checkpoint
must be in a No need for the warrant, to determine
designated violation of tarriff and custom code
place. Proper
The objects to be searched and confiscated must only be the ff: Case of Figueroa
marking and a) objects of the crime compare to the case of salanguit and musa.
signage and
police must be b) fruits of the crime Caballes Case: Consent must be given by the holder of the right
all in uniform c) anything which is used or to be used in the commission of the crime
and police
Rule now: Consent must be given only given by the holder of such right.
vehicle.
The objects which can be searched and confiscated are only those which are specified in
Stop and
Frisk: the warrant. Case of Susan Canton:
Every ticket should contain a provision that passengers consent to any search.
Search first
before the Lopez vs Collector of customs: Search conducted in the hotel, the occupant of the room was
arrest. WARRANTLESS SEARCH out. Only manicurista was present and she gave consent.
When the
Case of Malacat, not Stop and Frisk: Because they could not have observed the fast moving of the eyes
person is
positive The ff. are the exceptions to the rule that no search can be conducted unless a search
bringing any
weapon. warrant is first secured: Consent must be expressly given.
Case of Mengote: a) Consent searches Giving his consent to such warrantless search, search will become valid and legal Case of
Justified on Stop Police officer is justified for stopping a person on the street. He has to intro that
and Frisk unta. b) Stop and frisk search he is a police and he can ask questions. Prevent commission of the crime. solayao and
posadas
The arrest would
fall into in
c) Search incidental to a lawful arrest Once a person is placed under arrest, the police officer is justified to conduct a
frisking on the person. Arrest first before the search. The preceding arrest must be
flagrante delicto d) Plain-view doctrine valid. Covered by a warrant or must fall upon the 3 exceptional circumstances
arrest.
e) Customs search conducted on vessels and aircrafts
f) Search of moving vehicles Case of Libnao: Search conducted at the checkpoint
g) Inspection of building or premises for the enforcement of fire, sanitary, and/or
building regulation
Case during Coup
h) Search under emergency instances d etat Requirements of Plain View
1. Valid Intrusion
Take note of the Chua Case Case of Caballes: No checkpoint
2. Inadvertent/ Unintentional discovery of the illegal item
Search incidental to a lawful arrest- Espano Case: Arrested on the street. He was frisked and marijuana was 3. Illegality of the Item must be apparent
found. Limited to the body of the person arrrested or the surrounding of his immediate or direct control
 Pp vs nuevas-
Failure to object for the illegal arrest does not amount to waiver of the
right to object against illegal search
a) Consent searches

The consent must not only be freely given but also intellectually and intentionally. It must
be free from any intimidation or undue influence. It also has to be unequivocal and clear.
It can only be made by the holder thereof and not by any other person. The holder refers
to any member of the family or the lawful occupants thereof.

b) Stop and frisk search

This can be done by the police officer when he has a genuine reason that the person to be
searched is acting suspiciously or when criminality can be inferred. Before the police
officer can do this, they must first introduce themselves to the person to be searched.

The purpose thereof is to discover if whether the person to be searched is carrying a

dangerous weapon which may be used against the police officer.

c) Search incidental to a lawful arrest

The search must occur after a lawful arrest and not the other way around. If the arrest is
unlawful, then the search incidental thereto is also unlawful. It can only be conducted
within the immediate control of the person lawfully arrested such as his body and the
surrounding premises under his immediate control.

d) Plain-view doctrine

The police officer must clearly see the illegal object to be confiscated and such must be
discovered inadvertently or by accident. The illegality of the object must be readily
apparent.

e) Customs search conducted on vessels and aircrafts

This is for practical purposes because vessels and aircrafts can easily travel from one place
to another.

f) Search of moving vehicles

This refers to land transportation vehicles at checkpoint. The checkpoint must be for
purposes of public policy and order. The police officers cannot just indiscriminately
establish a checkpoint. They should also be in uniform, put a signage that they are
conducting a checkpoint, and place a police vehicle therewith.
Generally, the police officers can only conduct a visual or peripheral search such as merely
flashing a light into the vehicle without barging therein or open its compartments.
However, if the police officers have probable cause that a crime is committed, then they
can conduct an extensive search.

This search can also be conducted even if there was no checkpoint but only a visual or
peripheral search can be done.

g) Inspection of building or premises for the enforcement of fire, sanitary, and/or

building regulation

This is by virtue of the police power of the State.

h) Search under emergency instances

An example of which is when there is the existence of a coup dtat or mutiny where the
police officers can conduct warrantless searches on specified areas.

REMEDIES AGAINST UNLAWFUL SEARCH

1. File a motion to quash the search warrant and suppress evidence illegally obtained
if a search warrant is issued and the same is invalid. This motion is filed in the
court who issued the search warrant or in the court where the case is already filed.
2. File a petition for certiorari on the ground of grave abuse of discretion on the part
of the judge who issued the search warrant
3. Interpose a timely objection when the prosecution presents the evidences during
the trial for the inadmissibility of the evidences. The failure to object of the
illegality of the arrest does not include the waiver of the inadmissibility of the
objects confiscated.
4. File a criminal case for violation of domicile or illegal procurement of search
warrant.
5. Ask for the return of the objects confiscated when the same is not illegal. However,
this can only be asked during the termination of the case except when the objects
confiscated are not included in the search warrant.

RIGHTS UNDER CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION

CONSTITUTIONAL BASIS

Article III, Section 12 of the 1987 Constitution provides:

 Section 12.
1. Any person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have
the right to be informed of his right to remain silent and to have competent
and independent counsel preferably of his own choice. If the person cannot
afford the services of counsel, he must be provided with one. These rights
cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of counsel.
2. No torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation, or any other means which
vitiate the free will shall be used against him. Secret detention places,
solitary, incommunicado, or other similar forms of detention are prohibited.
3. Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this or Section 17 hereof
shall be inadmissible in evidence against him.
4. The law shall provide for penal and civil sanctions for violations of this
Section as well as compensation to the rehabilitation of victims of torture or
similar practices, and their families.

These rights are called as the Miranda Rights. This is because these rights are enunciated
in the case of Miranda v. Arizona.

RIGHT TO BE INFORMED OF HIS RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT AND TO HAVE COMPETENT AND
INDEPENDENT COUNSEL

The law enforcement agency must read these rights to the accused in a language and
manner which can be clearly understood by the accused. The law enforcement agency
must see to it that the accused had intelligently and fully understood these rights
including its legal effects and significance.

RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT

This refers to the right of a person not to answer any questioning as may be propounded
on him by the law enforcement agencies because whatever he may say may be used as
evidence against him.

RIGHT TO HAVE COMPETENT AND INDEPENDENT COUNSEL

The lawyer must be competent and independent. Thus, a lawyer chief of the police or a
lawyer mayor cannot represent an accused because they are presumed to be not
independent for they are biased in favor of the State.

The lawyer must be present during the custodial investigation.

WAIVER OF THESE RIGHTS

In order for the right to remain silent and right to have competent and independent
counsel may be validly waived, the ff. must concur:
a) The waiver must be in writing by the accused
b) Such waiver must be done in the presence of counsel

The counsel should attest and sign into the waiver. This is to ensure that the waiver by the
accused of these rights is done freely, voluntarily, and intelligently.

However, the right to be informed of his right to remain silent and to have competent and
independent counsel cannot be waived. This is because rights cannot be waived if in the
first place the person entitled thereto did not know that he have these rights.

Moreover, the rights under Art. III, Sec.12 (2) can never be waived.

OTHER RIGHTS

Under R.A. 7438, the accused also have the ff. rights under custodial investigation:
a) To confer with any immediate member of his family who are his parents, spouse,
children, brothers, sisters, grandparents, grandchildren, uncles, aunts, nephews,
and nieces
b) To confer with a doctor
c) To confer with a priest or religious minister
d) To confer with an NGO duly accredited by the Commission of Human Rights

Under the same law, it is mandated that for an extrajudicial confession during custodial
investigation to be valid, it has to be:
a) In writing
b) Signed by the accused
c) It must be attested by the counsel. However, if the right to competent and
independent counsel is waived, it must be attested to by any of his parents, elder
brothers or sisters, spouse, municipal mayor, municipal judge, school district
supervisor, priest, or minister as chosen by the accused

CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION

These rights only apply when the accused is in custodial investigation. Conversely, when
the accused is not in custodial investigation, then he cannot invoke these rights.

Custodial investigation refers to the process or state of proceedings whereby a person is

formally interrogated by the police authorities after the person is taken into custody or
when he is deprived of his freedom of movement in a significant manner.
A person who is merely invited to come to the police station to give information regarding
a particular crime is deemed to be under custodial investigation.

In Pp. v. Bolano, the Supreme Court held that when the police officer asked the accused
some questions in a casual conversation while the accused was brought to the police
station is already considered as a custodial investigation. This is because a custodial
investigation is not always a formal investigation. It is enough if the accused was
interrogated while he was deprived of his freedom of movement in a significant manner.
Thus, the extrajudicial confession of the accused was inadmissible for he was not afforded
with his Miranda Rigths.

In Pp. v. Dela Cruz and Pp. v. Dy, the Supreme Court held that the spontaneous and
voluntary confession of the accused after he was arrested cannot be considered as done
under custodial investigation because there was no interrogation conducted by the police
officers. The accused had spontaneously and voluntary made such extrajudicial
confessions. Thus, such are admissible in evidence.

In Pp. v. Ordonio and Medina, the Supreme Court held that the extrajudicial confessions of
the accused to the media reporters cannot be considered as done under custodial
investigation. This is because a custodial investigation can only be conducted by the police
authorities. Thus, such extrajudicial confessions are admissible as evidence.

Moreover, an investigation conducted by an employer regarding an infraction committed

by an employee is not a custodial investigation.

A person included in a police line-up cannot be considered as under custodial

investigation. However, if the police line-up had already become accusatorial and not only
inquisitorial, then such police line-up will deemed as a custodial investigation. The police
line-up is deemed to be accusatorial when the police officers already have a suspect in
mind

EFFECT OF VIOLATION OF THESE RIGHTS

If any of the rights of the accused under custodial investigation are violated, then any
extrajudicial confessions thereto are inadmissible in evidence in court by virtue of Art. III,
Sec. 12 (3)

However, the accused must make a timely objection in order for such extrajudicial
confessions to be inadmissible as evidence.

If such inadmissible extrajudicial confessions are the only evidences against the accused,
then the accused may be acquitted.
 BAIL

CONSTITUTIONAL BASIS

Article III, Section 13 of the 1987 Constitution mandates:

Section 13. All persons, except those charged with offenses punishable by
reclusion perpetua when evidence of guilt is strong, shall, before conviction, be
bailable by sufficient sureties, or be released on recognizance as may be provided
by law. The right to bail shall not be impaired even when the privilege of the writ
of habeas corpus is suspended. Excessive bail shall not be required.

4 KINDS OF BAIL

Bail is a security for the release of a person in the custody of the law which may be
supplied by him or by a bondsman in the condition that he will appear in court when such
appearance is required. While under bail, such person cannot leave the country without
asking permission from the court.

The 4 kinds of bail are the ff:

a) Cash bail
b) Surety bail
c) Property bail
d) Recognizance

a) Cash bail

Bail is paid through money or cash. This is the most advisable kind of bail because a
reduction of at most 50% can be negotiated.

b) Surety bail

Bail is issued by a surety company and the accused will pay a premium to such company
depending on how much will the company ask but is usually 10% of the recommended bail.
When the accused will later be convicted or acquitted, the bail will go back to the surety
company and the accused cannot ask the return of the premium that he had paid.

c) Property bail

The property put up as bail must be a real property and covered by a certificate of title
which is free from encumbrances.

d) Recognizance
This is only applicable if the offense committed is not grave but only a minor offense.
Also, when the offender is classified as a juvenile

AMOUNT OF BAIL

It is the prosecutor who recommends the amount of bail. However, the court is not bound
to accept such recommendation. The court has the sole jurisdiction to increase or
decrease such amount of bail.

The ff. are the circumstances that have to be considered by the court in increasing or
decreasing the bail:
a) financial capacity of the accused
b) nature of the offense
c) penalty imposable
d) character and reputation of the accused
e) age and health condition of the accused
f) weight and sufficiency of the evidences
g) forfeiture of previous bail
h) the fact that the accused may have already absconded
i) the accused is a fugitive from justice before he was arrested
j) the accused is facing numerous cases

BAIL AS A MATTER OF RIGHT OR A MATTER OF DISCRETION

Generally, all persons who are detained can apply for bail as a matter of right. However, if
the imposable penalty is reclusion perpetua AND the evidence of guilt is strong, then bail
should not be granted for it is not a matter of right. But in the Dela Rama case, the
Supreme Court allowed to grant bail to the accused even if the imposable penalty is
reclusion perpetua and the evidence of guilt is strong because the accused was already of
advanced age.

If the accused believes that the evidence of guilt is not strong, he may file a Motion or
Petition for Bail in court. In such a case, the court will then conduct a hearing regarding
such motion. If the prosecution fails to present its answer regarding such motion, then the
court cannot just automatically grant the motion. It is mandated that the court should
conduct a hearing to determine the sufficiency of the motion. Otherwise, the judge may
be administratively liable.

Also, a person who is detained even if no criminal case had been filed against him may
apply for bail as a matter of right.
However, there are instances when bail is only a matter of discretion. This is illustrated in
the following instances:

a) 1st instance

A case is first filed in MTC/MTCC/MCTC. In such a case, bail is a matter of right because
the offense here is not punishable by reclusion perpetua.

If the MTC/MTCC/MCTC ordered a judgment of conviction and the accused appealed to

RTC, then the accused can still ask for bail as a matter of right. The accused will ask bail
from the MTC/MTCC/MCTC and not from the RTC.

If the RTC later ordered a judgment of conviction and the accused appealed to CA, then
the accused can still ask for bail but only a matter of discretion. The accused will ask bail
from the MTC/MTCC/MCTC and not from the RTC or CA.

b) 2nd instance

A case is first filed in the RTC and the penalty imposable is lower than reclusion perpetua
and the evidence of guilt is strong. In such a case, bail is a matter of right because the
offense here is not punishable by reclusion perpetua even if the evidence of guilt is
strong.

If the RTC ordered a judgment of conviction and the accused appealed to CA, then the
accused can still ask for bail but only a matter of discretion. The accused will ask bail
from the RTC and not from the CA.

c) 3rd instance

A case is first filed in the RTC and the penalty imposable is reclusion perpetua and the
evidence of guilt is strong. In such a case, bail is not matter of right.

If the RTC ordered a judgment of conviction but the penalty imposed is lower than
reclusion perpetua and the accused appealed to CA, then the accused can still ask for bail
but only a matter of discretion. The accused will ask bail from the CA and not from the
RTC because it is his first time to ask for bail.

d) Negating circumstances to prohibit bail when it is a matter of discretion

In cases when bail is only a matter of discretion and not a matter of right, the bail should
not be allowed if any of the ff. negating circumstances is present:
a) accused is a recidivist, quasi-recidivist, or habitual delinquent
b) accused previously evaded the service of his sentence
 c) accused previously violated the conditions of his bail
d) accused committed the offense while he is on probation, parole, or conditional
pardon
e) accused is a flight risk
f) when there is convincing evidence that the accused will commit another offense
while on bail

OTHER CASES WHEN BAIL IS ONLY A MATTER OF DISCRETION

As held in USA v. Purganan, the Supreme Court held that in extradition cases, bail is only a
matter of discretion. This is because the provision under Article III, Section 13 of the
Constitution only applies to criminal cases as exemplified when it mentions before
conviction. Extradition cases are sui generis. In the Government of Hong Kong case, the
Supreme Court held that the extraditee may be granted bail if he is able to prove by clear
and convincing evidence that he is not a flight risk and that he undertakes to faithfully
abide by the conditions as may be imposed upon him by the court.

In Commendador v. De Villa, the Supreme Court held that in military cases pending before
court martials, bail is only a matter of discretion.

RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED UNDER TRIAL

CONSTITUTIONAL BASIS

Article III, Section 14 of the 1987 Constitution provides:

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.

RIGHT TO CRIMINAL DUE PROCESS

The law which the accused is prosecuted must be valid in itself. Such law must also be
published in accordance with law.

Preliminary investigation is mandatory if the imposable penalty is at least 4 years, 2

months, and 1 day.

Appeal by the accused should not be denied if the penalty imposed by the court is death.

RIGHT TO BE PRESUMED INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN OTHERWISE

The quantum of proof required to convict the accused is proof beyond reasonable doubt.

This right still applies even if the accused is caught inflagrante delicto.

The burden of proof rests on the prosecution. However, such will be shifted to the accused
when he will interpose the defense of self-defense.

In criminal cases of forgery of documents, the burden is also shifted to the accused if the
prosecution already established that the document is forged and is in the possession of the
accused.

Also, in illegal possession of prohibited drugs, the burden is shifted to the accused when
the prosecution already established that the prohibited drugs were found in the possession
of the accused.

If the accused pleads guilty to the offense during arraignment of a capital offense, then
the court should see to it that the accused fully understands his plea and direct the
prosecution to present its evidence in order to determine the proper penalty to be
imposed upon him. If the plea is not to a capital offense, the court will only see to it that
the accused fully understands his plea.

RIGHT TO BE HEARD BY HIMSELF AND COUNSEL

This right to counsel during trial cannot be waived unlike that under custodial
investigation and in civil cases. But if the accused is a lawyer, he can defend his case.

A counsel de officio should be appointed for the accused if he cannot afford for one. But
the accused cannot choose his counsel de officio as long as the latter is a competent and
independent counsel.

RIGHT TO BE INFORMED OF THE NATURE AND CAUSE OF THE ACCUSATION AGAINST HIM
This is afforded to the accused during arraignment when the information is read to the
accused. The information is written in English but if the accused cannot understand
English, then the information must be translated in a dialect known to the accused.

The accused can only be convicted of the offense charged in the information or to any
other offense necessarily included in such information.

The information must only charge one offense except when such offense can be
characterized as a complex crime.

RIGHT TO SPEEDY, IMPARTIAL, AND PUBLIC TRIAL

This right is reinforced by RA 8483 which requires that the accused should be scheduled
for arraignment within 30 days after the information is filed, the prosecution should
present its evidence within 30 days after arraignment, and the case should be terminated
within 120 days after the information is filed. However, this law is seldom enforced for it
is only directory and not mandatory.

Long and undue delay in the disposition of cases is a ground for a motion to dismiss by the
accused.

Public trial means that the court room is open to the general public. However, if the case
is sensitive in nature such as that of rape, then the court may limit the publicity of the
case. A public trial is not synonymous with a publicized trial. A trial cannot be covered by
radio and television.

RIGHT TO MEET THE WITNESSES FACE TO FACE

This includes the right of the accused to confront or cross-examine the witnesses against
him. Mere affidavits of the witnesses are not sufficient.

RIGHT TO HAVE COMPULSORY PROCESS TO SECURE THE ATTENDANCE OF WITNESSES

AND THE PRODUCTION OF EVIDENCE IN HIS BEHALF

This is done by applying for subpoena ad testificandum and subpoena duces tecum.

Subpoena ad testificandum is an order of the court to compel a person to appear during

the trial and testify in the case. Subpoena duces tecum is an order of the court to compel
a person to bring certain documents or objects of evidence to the court.

RIGHT NOT TO BE PRESENT IN ALL STAGES OF THE CASE

The presence of the accused is only mandatory during arraignment when he has to enter
his plea. After arraignment, the accused has the option not to appear in court. This is
called as trial in absentia.

Trial in absentia is allowed when (1) there is already an arraignment, (2) the accused has
been duly notified that there will be a trial, and (3) his failure to appear is unjustifiable.

DOUBLE JOEPARDY

CONSTITUTIONAL BASIS

Article III, Section 21 of the 1987 Constitution provides:

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 OF DOUBLE JEOPARDY

The following requisites must be present in order for double jeopardy to apply:
a) There must be a valid complaint or information
b) It must be filed in a proper court
c) There should be a valid plea by the accused
d) Accused must have been previously either of the ff: (1) acquitted, (2) convicted,
(3) the case against him be dismissed without his express consent, or (4) the case
against him be dismissed with his consent when it is anchored on his right to speedy
trial or in the insufficiency of the evidences against him

The prosecution cannot, therefore, file a motion for reconsideration or appeal of a

judgment of acquittal or conviction. However, if there is a clear denial of due process on
the part of the prosecution, then the prosecution can file a motion for reconsideration or
appeal.

If the accused filed an appeal of a judgment of his conviction and the appellate court
increases the penalty, his right to double jeopardy is not violated.

If there are two accused and only one appealed the judgment of their conviction and the
appellate court increases the penalty, then such penalty will only affect the accused who
appealed. However, if the penalty was decreased, then such penalty will affect both the
accused who appealed and the accused who did not appeal.
A case which is provisionally dismissed with the consent of the accused may be refilled
without violating the right of the accused against double jeopardy. However, it must be
within the ff. reglementary period:
a) Within 2 years from dismissal if the imposable penalty is more than 6 years (RTC)
b) Within 1 year from dismissal if the imposable penalty is less than 6 years (MTC)

SCOPE OF THE APPLICATION OF DOUBLE JEOPARDY

The scope of the application of double jeopardy includes:

a) The offense charged
b) Attempt or frustration of the offense charged
c) Any other offense which is necessarily included in the offense charged or
necessarily includes the offense charged

DOCTRINE OF SUPERVENING EVENT

Under the Doctrine of Supervening Event, an accused may be validly prosecuted for a new
offense brought about by a subsequent development which changes the character of the
original offense charged even if he will later on be dismissed, acquitted, or convicted of
the original offense charged.

The supervening event must occur or made known to the prosecutor after the
arraignment. If such occur and known prior to the arraignment, the prosecutor should
amend the information filed; otherwise, the prosecutor cannot file for the new offense as
a result of the supervening event.

SELF-INCRIMINATION

CONSTITUTIONAL BASIS

Article III, Section 17 of the 1987 Constitution provides:

Section 17. No person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.

RIGHT AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION

In criminal cases, this right is invoked by the accused by not taking the witness stand. The
moment the accused takes the witness stand, this right can no longer be invoked for it is
deemed waived.

This right is also available to a witness in a criminal case. This right is invoked by the
witness only when an incriminating question is being asked against him. An incriminating
question is one which tends to expose the witness to any possible criminal liability. The
witness cannot refuse to take the witness stand.

In civil cases, this right is invoked by the party concerned only when an incriminating
question is being asked against him. The party concerned cannot refuse to take the
witness stand.

In administrative cases, this right is invoked by the party concerned only when an
incriminating question is being asked against him. However, when an administrative case
partook of the nature of a criminal case as when it involves the forfeiture of the license to
practice a profession or forfeiture of a property or an office, this right can be invoked by
the respondent by not taking the witness stand.

In legislative inquiry, this right is invoked by the party concerned only when an
incriminating question is being asked against him. The party concerned cannot refuse to
take the witness stand.

LIMITATIONS ON THE RIGHT AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION

This right is only limited against the compulsion or extortion of the accused of any
evidence that is communicative in nature which is prejudicial against him.

This right is not applicable to purely mechanical acts which do not involve the use of any
mental activity even if such mechanical act may be prejudicial to the accused. Thus, the
accused may be compelled to give a sample of his urine to determine his liability for usage
of dangerous drugs.

Compelling the accused to perform purely mechanical acts is allowed as long as such is in
relation to the crime charged.

Compelling the accused to give a sample of his customary signature cannot be considered
as a purely mechanical act because such act involves the use of a mental activity even if it
is only minimal. Also, the accused cannot be compelled to give a sample of his seminal
fluid because it will involve the use of a mental activity.

However, the accused cannot be compelled to present certain documents which are
prejudicial to him except when such documents are mandated by law to be made such as
official receipts.

CRUEL PUNISHMENT

CONSTITUTIONAL BASIS
Article III, Section 19 of the 1987 Constitution provides:

Section 19.
1. Excessive fines shall not be imposed, nor cruel, degrading or inhuman
punishment inflicted. Neither shall death penalty be imposed, unless, for
compelling reasons involving heinous crimes, the Congress hereafter provides
for it. Any death penalty already imposed shall be reduced to reclusion
perpetua.
2. The employment of physical, psychological, or degrading punishment against
any prisoner or detainee or the use of substandard or inadequate penal
facilities under subhuman conditions shall be dealt with by law.

Cruel, degrading, or inhuman punishment refers to punishments which are inhuman, cruel,
barbarous and shocking to the conscience such as the garrote, thumbscrew, rack, burning
at the stake, crucifixion, torture, and whipping.

NON-PAYMENT OF DEBT

CONSTITUTIONAL BASIS

Article III, Section 20 of the 1987 Constitution provides:

Section 20. No person shall be imprisoned for debt or non-payment of a poll tax.

Debts only refer to those which arise from contracts.

Poll tax refers to the community tax or cedula. Non-payment of other taxes constitutes
tax evasion which is a criminal offense. Tax evasion is not synonymous with tax avoidance.

However, a person can be imprisoned for estafa and violation for bouncing checks not
because of non-payment of debt but because of his fraudulent act. Also, a person who is
ordered by the court to give support and did not do such even if he is capable of doing so
may be liable for contempt which includes imprisonment. This is because support is a legal
obligation and not contractual in nature.

EX POST FACTO LAW AND BILL OF ATTAINDER

CONSTITUTIONAL BASIS

Article III, Section 22 of the 1987 Constitution provides:

Section 22. No ex post facto law or bill of attainder shall be enacted.

An ex post facto law has 3 elements, to wit:
a) Refers to criminal matters
b) Retroactive in its application, and
c) Prejudicial to the accused

A bill of attainder is a legislative act that inflicts punishment without a trial, its essence
being the substitute of legislative fiat for a judicial determination of guilt.

KINDS OF EX POST FACTO LAW

The following are the kinds of ex post facto law:

a) Every law that makes criminal an act done before the passage of the law and which
was innocent when done, and punishes such as act
b) Every law that aggravates a crime, or makes it greater than it was when committed
c) Every law that alters the legal rules of evidence, and receives less or different
testimony than the law required at the time of the commission of the offense, in
order to convict the offender
d) Every law which, assuming to regulate civil rights and remedies only, in effect
imposes a penalty or the deprivation of a right for something which when done was
lawful
e) Every law which deprives persons accused of crime of some lawful protection to
which they have become entitled, such as the protection of a former conviction or
acquittal, or of a proclamation of amnesty

SUSPENSION OF THE PRIVILEGE OF THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CONSTITUTIONAL BASIS

Article III, Section 15 of the 1987 Constitution provides:

Section 15. The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended
except in cases of invasion or rebellion, when the public safety requires it.

Article VII, Section 18 of the 1987 Constitution provides:

Section 18. The President shall be the Commander-in-Chief of all armed forces of
the Philippines and whenever it becomes necessary, he may call out such armed
forces to prevent or suppress lawless violence, invasion or rebellion. In case of
invasion or rebellion, when the public safety requires it, he may, for a period not
exceeding sixty days, suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus or place
the Philippines or any part thereof under martial law. Within forty-eight hours from
 the proclamation of martial law or the suspension of the privilege of the writ of
habeas corpus, the President shall submit a report in person or in writing to the
Congress. The Congress, voting jointly, by a vote of at least a majority of all its
Members in regular or special session, may revoke such proclamation or suspension,
which revocation shall not be set aside by the President. Upon the initiative of the
President, the Congress may, in the same manner, extend such proclamation or
suspension for a period to be determined by the Congress, if the invasion or
rebellion shall persist and public safety requires it.

The Congress, if not in session, shall, within twenty-four hours following such
proclamation or suspension, convene in accordance with its rules without need of a
call.

The Supreme Court may review, in an appropriate proceeding filed by any citizen,
the sufficiency of the factual basis of the proclamation of martial law or the
suspension of the privilege of the writ or the extension thereof, and must
promulgate its decision thereon within thirty days from its filing.

A state of martial law does not suspend the operation of the Constitution, nor
supplant the functioning of the civil courts or legislative assemblies, nor authorize
the conferment of jurisdiction on military courts and agencies over civilians where
civil courts are able to function, nor automatically suspend the privilege of the
writ.

The suspension of the privilege of the writ shall apply only to persons judicially
charged for rebellion or offenses inherent in or directly connected with invasion.

During the suspension of the privilege of the writ, any person thus arrested or
detained shall be judicially charged within three days, otherwise he shall be
released.

Second sentence of Article III, Section 13 of the 1987 Constitution provides:

The right to bail shall not be impaired even when the privilege of the writ of
habeas corpus is suspended.

NOTES

What the president can only suspend is merely the privilege and not the writ of habeas
corpus itself. Thus, a petition for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus may still be filed
but such will be denied if the court finds that there is a suspension of the writ and the
accused is charged for rebellion or offenses inherent in or directly connected with
invasion.
Read Article VII, Section 18 of the 1987 Constitution above for further limitations of the
power of the President to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus.

SPEEDY TRIAL

CONSTITUTIONAL BASIS

Article III, Section 16 of the 1987 Constitution provides:

Section 16. All persons shall have the right to a speedy disposition of their cases
before all judicial, quasi-judicial, or administrative bodies.

NOTES

This right to speedy trial under this article is different from the right of speedy trial under
article 14 for the latter only pertains to criminal cases.

FREE ACCESS TO THE COURTS

CONSTITUTIONAL BASIS

Article III, Section 11 of the 1987 Constitution provides:

Section 11. Free access to the courts and quasi-judicial bodies and adequate legal
assistance shall not be denied to any person by reason of poverty.

This provision is realized through the creation of the Public Attorneys Office, IBP free
legal assistance, and other free legal services.

PRIVACY OF COMMUNICATION AND CORRESPONDENCE

CONSTITUTIONAL BASIS

Article III, Section 3 of the 1987 Constitution provides:

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.
See also the following laws which reinforce the right to privacy of communication and
correspondence:
a) Article 90 of the RPC on Discovery of Secrets through Seizure of Correspondence
b) Article 291 of the RPC on Revelation of Secrets with Abuse of Confidence
c) Article 291 of the RPC on Revelation of Industrial Secrets
d) Article 299(b)(2) of the RPC on Robbery
e) SC Administrative Circular 08-1-15 on the Writ of Habeas Data
f) RA 4200 or the Anti Wire Tapping Act

EXCEPTIONS TO THE PRIVACY OF COMMUNICATION AND CORRESPONDENCE

Parents are not liable for violating the rights, under this provision, of their unemancipated
children who are under their parental authority.

Also, when there is a court order as authorized under the Anti Wire Tapping Act. However,
the court order allowing the law enforcers to tap a conversation can only be done if the
crimes committed are treason, espionage, provoking war and disloyalty in case of war,
piracy, mutiny in the high seas, rebellion, conspiracy and proposal to commit rebellion,
inciting to rebellion, sedition, conspiracy to commit sedition, inciting to sedition,
kidnapping as defined by the Revised Penal Code, and violations of Commonwealth Act
No. 616, punishing espionage and other offenses against national security.

A private data stored in a government-owned computer will not be protected by this right
to privacy of communication and correspondence despite the fact that such data is
protected by a password.

EXCEPTIONS TO THE NON-EXCLUSIONARY RULE

The exclusionary rule does not apply if the violation was done by private individuals and
not by the State. This was discussed in the case of Pp. v. Bongcarawan. However, if it
constitutes a violation of the Anti Wire Tapping Act, such will be inadmissible even if done
by a private individual.

It also does not apply when the incriminating evidences will be used against the person
who made the illegal seizure and not against the person illegally seized.

Also, when the offended party fails to make a timely objection when the prosecution
presented it as evidence in court.

LIBERTY OF ABODE AND TRAVEL

CONSTITUTIONAL BASIS
Article III, Section 6 of the 1987 Constitution provides:

Section 6. The liberty of abode and of changing the same within the limits
prescribed by law shall not be impaired except upon lawful order of the court.
Neither shall the right to travel be impaired except in the interest of national
security, public safety, or public health, as may be provided by law.

NOTES

The liberty of abode refers to ones right to choose his own residence. The right to travel
refers to the right of a person to travel anywhere he pleases.

Some examples of the exceptions to these rights are when there is war, hostile countries,
epidemic, contagious disease, outbreak, and etc.

RIGHT TO INFORMATION

CONSTITUTIONAL BASIS

Article III, Section 7 of the 1987 Constitution provides:

Section 7. The right of the people to information on matters of public concern

shall be recognized. Access to official records, and to documents and papers
pertaining to official acts, transactions, or decisions, as well as to government
research data used as basis for policy development, shall be afforded the citizen,
subject to such limitations as may be provided by law.

EXCEPTIONS TO THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION

There are recognized exceptions to the right to information. In such cases, the citizen
may be deprived of his right to information. Such cases are the following:
a) National security matters
b) Intelligence information
c) Trade secrets
d) Banking transactions
e) Criminal matters
f) Cases involving minors
g) Other confidential information

RIGHT TO ASSOCIATION

CONSTITUTIONAL BASIS
Article III, Section 8 of the 1987 Constitution provides:
 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.

NOTES

The right to associate includes the right not to associate. However, a closed-shop
agreement wherein an employee is automatically a member of an employee union is valid
unless the employee is a member of a religious organization which prohibits the joining of
such closed-shop agreement.

NON-IMPAIRMENT OF CONTRACTS

CONSTITUTIONAL BASIS

Article III, Section 10 of the 1987 Constitution provides:

Section 10. No law impairing the obligation of contracts shall be passed.

NOTES

The prohibition under this provision is akin to an ex post facto law which has a retroactive
effect but the latter only pertains to criminal matters.

The term contracts include franchises but exclude marriage contracts.

The term law includes executive orders, administrative regulations, and ordinances.

There is impairment when the law diminishes the efficacy of the contract.

The exceptions of this right to non-impairment of contracts are the 3 inherent powers of
the State which are the Police Power, Eminent Domain, and Taxation.

INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE

CONSTITUTIONAL BASIS

Article III, Section 18 of the 1987 Constitution provides:

Section 18.
1. No person shall be detained solely by reason of his political beliefs and
aspirations.
 2. No involuntary servitude in any form shall exist except as a punishment for a
crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted.

OTHER EXCEPTIONS TO THE RIGHT AGAINST INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE

The other exceptions to the right against involuntary servitude are the ff:
a) Compulsory military service pursuant to Article II, Section 4 of the 1987
Constitution
b) When a person is employed in a merchant ship wherein he can be compelled to
work until the voyage is finished
c) Compelling a private person to assist the police officers in the arrest of criminals
d) When there is a labor strike and the Secretary of Labor issues an Order for Return
to Work
e) Exercise of parental authority by the parents to their children

FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION

CONSTITUTIONAL BASIS

Article III, Section 4 of the 1987 Constitution provides:

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.

NOTES

The freedom of expression is not only limited to oral or written statements but includes
symbols and signages.

Freedom of expression includes the (1) freedom from prior restraint and censorship and
(2) freedom from subsequent punishment. However, a content-neutral restriction which
only regulates the time, manner, and place of the exercise of the freedom of expression
may be valid.

The right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for redress of
grievances refers to a valid rally wherein a permit is secured unless the rally is held in a
private place, campus operated by the government, Freedom Park or public plaza if the
place does not have a freedom park.

Students have the right to rally inside the campus as long as they will not resort to
coercion, destroy properties, and disrupt ongoing classes.
LIMITATIONS ON THE FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION

Freedom of expression may be restricted or prohibited when it goes beyond the walls of
decency and propriety. The tests to determine are the following:

a) Clear and Present Danger Test - the court will determine if the exercise of
freedom of expression are made under such circumstances and that they are of
such nature as to create a clear and present danger which brings an evil to the
state
b) Dangerous Tendency Test the court will determine if the exercise of freedom of
expression would create a tendency to bring about an evil which the state has the
right to prevent
c) Balancing of Interests Test - the court will strike a balance between the exercise
of the freedom of expression and the right of the state to regulate the exercise of
such right

FREEDOM OF RELIGION

CONSTITUTIONAL BASIS

Article III, Section 5 of the 1987 Constitution provides:

Section 5. No law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion, or

prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The free exercise and enjoyment of religious
profession and worship, without discrimination or preference, shall forever be
allowed. No religious test shall be required for the exercise of civil or political
rights.

NON-ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION CLAUSE

This is manifested in the first sentence of the above provision wherein it states, No law
shall be made respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise
thereof.

The state has to be neutral. The state must protect all religion and discourages none.
Religion does not require a belief of a supreme being for it is enough if the group is
governed by a code of ethics or way of life.

This non-establishment clause is further reinforced by the following provisions:

a) Art. II, Sec. 6 of the Constitution on Separation of Church and State
 b) Art. VI, Sec. 29 (2) of the Constitution on No Appropriation of Property for
Sectarian Purposes

Teaching of religion in public schools is not allowed unless there is consent from the
parents of the students.

FREEDOM TO EXERCISE ONES RELIGION

The freedom to exercise ones religion is manifested in the second sentence of the above
provision wherein it states, The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and
worship, without discrimination or preference, shall forever be allowed.

The freedom to exercise ones religion has 2 aspects, to wit, (1) freedom to believe and
(2) freedom to act on ones belief.

The freedom to believe is absolute but the freedom to act on ones belief may be
regulated by the state. The Balancing of Interest Test will be applied by the state in
determining whether the freedom to act on ones belief should be regulated.