CODES AND NOTES ON CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II Justification of existence:

NOTES AND CASES ON CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II - Salus populi est suprema lex – the welfare of the people is the supreme law;
I. THE INHERENT/ FUNDAMENTAL POWERS OF THE STATE
1. Police Power - Sic utere tuo ut alienum non laedas – a person must use his own property so as not to
2. Power of Eminent Domain injure another
3. Power of Taxation
Scope:
- They are inherent powers because they belong to the very essence of government and (a) cannot be bargained away through the medium of a treaty or contract (Stone v
without them no government can exist. Mississippi)
(b) may use taxing power as its implement (Tio vs Videogram Regulatory Board)
Similarities, Distinctions, and Limitation (c) may use eminent domain as its implement (Assoc. of Small Landowners vs Sec. of
Agrarian Reform)
Similarities: (d) could be given retroactive effect and may reasonably impair vested rights or contracts
- They are inherent in the State and may be exercised by it without need of express (police power prevails over contract)
constitutional grant. (e) dynamic, not static, and must move with the moving society it is supposed to regulate
- They are necessary and indispensable The State cannot continue or be effective unless it
is able to exercise them. Who may exercise Police Power?
- They are methods by which the State interferes with private rights. (a) the Legislature (inherent)
- They all presuppose an equivalent compensation for the private rights interfered with. (b) President (by delegation)
- They are exercised primarily by the legislature. (c) administrative boards (by delegation)
(d) lawmaking bodies on all municipal levels, including barangay (by delegation)
Differences: (e) Municipal governments / LGU's (conferred by statute – general welfare clause of RA
Police Power Eminent Domain Taxation 7160)

As to regulates both regulates property Regulates property o Not being a political subdivision but merely an executive authority it has no police
regulation/extent of liberty and property rights only rights only power. (MMDA v. Bel-Air Village Assoc.)
power
As to who may only the government and only the government Tests (Limitations):
exercise government some private entities
As to the property destroyed because -wholesome -wholesome (a) Lawful subject – interests of the public generally, as distinguished from those of a
taken it is -taken for a public -taken for a public particular class, require the exercise of police power
noxious or intended use or purpose use or purpose
for (b) Lawful means – the means employed are reasonably necessary for the accomplishment
noxious purpose of the purpose and not unduly oppressive upon individuals
As to Compensation intangible altruistic full and fair protection and
feeling that the equivalent of the public Additional limitations (when exercised by delegate) [Nachura Reviewer]:
person property improvements for the · express grant by law (e.g. RA 7160)
has contributed to expropriated taxes paid · within territorial limits (for LGU's)
the · must not be contrary to law (City Government of Quezon City vs Ericta)
general welfare · for municipal ordinances -
1. must not contravene the Constitution or any statute
Limitations: 2. must not be unfair and oppressive
(a) May not be exercised arbitrarily to the prejudice of the Bill of Rights. 3. must not be partial and discriminatory
(b) Subject at all times to the limitations and requirements of the Constitution and may in 4. must not prohibit, but may regulate, trade
proper cases be annulled by the courts, i.e. when there is a grave abuse of 5. must not be unreasonable
discretion. 6. must be general in application and consistent with public policy

A. POLICE POWER · In Ermita-Malate Hotel and Motel Operators Association, Inc. v. Mayor of Manila, police
power has been characterized as the most essential, insistent and least limitable of
Police Power – is an inherent power of the State to promote the welfare of society by powers extending as it does “to all great public needs.”
restraining and regulating the use of liberty and property.
 “[T}he mere fact that some individuals in the community may be deprived of vested in the state or grantee, acting necessity has nothing
their business or a particular mode of earning a living cannot prevent the exercise of police under the right and power of the state · to do
power. .. [P]ersons licensed to pursue occupations which may in the public need and interest or benefit of the state · comes under the right of necessity, of
be affected by the exercise of the police power embark in these occupations subject to the self-preservation
disadvantages which may result from the exercise of that power. ” · arises under the laws of society or society
itself
Government can take away a license and increase the cost of license fees even to · · cannot require the conversion of the
prohibitive levels, if public interest dictates so, without any constitutional violations. property taken to public use, nor is there
any need for the payment of just
Licenses for regulating non-useful occupation are incidental to the exercise of police power compensation
and the right to exact fees is may be implied from that power to regulate. In setting the fees,
municipal corporations are given wider discretion in this class of licenses (than for licenses · The Regional Trial Court (RTC) has the jurisdiction over a complaint for eminent domain.
issued to regular business). Courts have generally upheld these because of the desirability of
imposing restraints on individuals who engage in these unuseful enterprises. Requisites of Eminent Domain:
1. Necessity of exercise
· In Ynot v. IAC, the Court here ruled that the ban on transportation of carabao under the 2. Private property
assailed ordinance and their outright confiscation and disposal without court hearing is a 3. Taking
violation of due process hence it is an invalid exercise of police power. 4. Public use
5. Just compensation
The court adopted the measures laid down in the Toribio case.
1. Necessity of Exercise
Protection general welfare is a function of police power which both restrains and is · genuine necessity, and
restrained by due process, which requires notice and hearing. · must be of public character
◦ When exercised by legislature – political question
Case emphasized the need to have a lawful method to follow due process requirement . ◦ When exercised by a delegate – justiciable question
▪ determine the: (a) adequacy of compensation; (b) necessity of taking;
Reasons why ordinance is invalid are: and (c) public use
◦ No reasonable connection between means employed (absolute ban on
movement of carabeef) and purpose sought to be achieved (conservation of 2. Private Property
carabao for general welfare) · General Rule: anything that can come under the dominion of man is subject to
◦ Unduly oppressive since petition not given due process or opportunity to be heard expropriation
in proper court · Exceptions: money and chose in action (personal right not reduced into possession, i.e.
the right to bring an action to recover debt, money or thing)
B. EMINENT DOMAIN · Private property already devoted to public use cannot be expropriated by a delegate
acting under a general grant of authority (City of Manila vs Chinese Community)
Eminent Domain – is the use of the government of its coercive authority, upon just
compensation, to forcibly acquire the needed property in order to devote the same to 3. Taking
public use. Eminent domain is also known as expropriation, or condemnation.
Requisites (Republic vs Castellvi):
Who may Exercise? (a) expropriator must enter a private property
1. The Congress (inherent) (b) entry must be for more than a momentary period
2. President (c) entry must be under the warrant of legal authority
3. Various local legislative bodies (d) entry is for public use
4. Certain public corporations (e.g. National Housing Authority) (e) the owner is deprived of enjoying his property
5. Quasi-public corporations (e.g. PLDT)
· if taking is under police power, it is not compensable
Eminent Domain Distinguished from Destruction from Necessity
Eminent Domain Destruction from Necessity Taking Under Eminent Domain vs Taking in Police Power :
Police Power Eminent Domain
· public right · private right vested in every individual
· arises from the laws of society and is with which the right of state or state - the prejudice suffered by the individual · the individual suffers more than his
 property owner is shared in common aliquot part of the damages, i.e. a
with the rest of the community special injury above that sustained by
the rest of the community
· In Amigable v. Cuenca, where there is taking in the constitutional sense, the property
owner need not file a claim for just compensation with the Commission of Audit; he may
go directly to the court to demand payment. Arbitrary action of the government shall be
deemed a waiver of its immunity from suit.
· In City Government v. Ericta, an ordinance of Quezon City, under the guise of exercising
police power, prescribed that at least 6% of the totalarea of memorial parks must be
developed and set aside for the burial of paupers. The Court held that such ordinance is
not an exercise of police power but the taking of private property for public use. Hence,
to satisfy the Constitution, there must be compensation.
4. Public Use
Public use – is whatever may be beneficially employed for the general welfare, including
both direct or indirect benefit or advantage to the public
· In Heirs of Ardona v. Reyes, the Court held that the Constitution understand public use in
a broad sense as meaning public welfare. That includes development of tourism.
5. Just Compensation
Just compensation – is fair and full equivalent payment for the loss sustained, which is the
measure of the indemnity, not whatever gain would accrue to the expropriating agency. It is
not market value per se. (Epza v. Dulay)
· Where only part of the property is expropriated: entitlement to consequential damages,
if any
+ consequential benefits must be deducted from the total compensation provided
consequential benefits does not exceed consequential damages
◦ Payment of the correct amount + Payment within a reasonable time
· Form of Compensation: Money (However, in Assoc. of Small Landowners vs Sec. of
Agrarian Reform, payment is allowed to be made partly in bonds because it deals with a
revolutionary kind of expropriation).
· Transfer of Title: payment of just compensation before title is transferred.
· Reckoning point of market value of property: either as of the date of taking or filing of the
complaint, whichever comes first
· Entitlement of interest:
◦ General Rule: when there is delay, there must be interest by way of damages (Art. 2209,
CC)
◦ Exception: when waived by not claiming the interest
· Payment of Taxes : taxes paid from the time of the taking until the transfer of the title,
during which the owner did not enjoy any beneficial use of the property, are
reimbursable by the expropriator.
· Right of the landowner in case of non-payment:
◦ General Rule: landowner is not entitled to recover possession of the property, but only
to demand payment
◦ Exception: when the government failed to pay just compensation within 5 years from
the finality of judgment in expropriation proceedings, there is a right to recover property
· In De Knecht v. Bautista, the court ruled that the expropriation proceeding against the
property of petitioner was arbitrary and cannot receive judicial approval. There was
another area where the expansion of EDSA can be undertaken, which will cost
government less, affect lesser homeowners, etc.
· But in Republic vs. Knecht, the same property was ordered expropriated. Apparently, BP
340, which called for the taking of the property, was enacted after the 1st De Knecht
case. De Knecht argued that there was already a law of the case, which should not be
disturbed.
Court responded that while it is true that there was a law of the case, it is equally true that
there is constitutional grant given to the State to take private property upon payment of just
compensation. “Such expropriation proceedings may be undertaken by the [State] not only
by voluntary negotiation with landowners but also by taking appropriate court action or by
legislation.”
The prior court decision is no obstacle for the legislature to make its own assessment of the
circumstances that prevailed after the decision as well as supervening events and reaching a
conclusion as to the propriety of undertaking the appropriation of the De Knecht property.
· In the case Republic v. PLDT, the Court ordered the PLDT to allow the reconnection of
telephone lines of the Republic.
◦ No cogent reason appears why Eminent Domain may be availed of to impose only
a burden upon the owner of condemned property without loss of title or possession
for public use subject to just compensation
◦ Case highlights that even services may be subjected to eminent domain
· In City of Manila v. Chinese Community of Manila, the Court said that “[T]he very
foundation of the right to exercise eminent domain is a genuine necessity and that
necessity must be of public character.”
· In Epza v. Dulay, P.D. Nos. 76, 464, 794, and 1533 prescribed a formula for arriving at just
compensation in expropriation proceedings , dispense with the need to appoint
commissioners to determine just compensation. The Court held that those decrees are
unconstitutional and void for they constitute “impermissible encroachment on judicial
prerogatives.”
· In Republic v. CA, the government argued that the nullification should only have
prospective effect. The Court agreed. Thus under the “operative fact” doctrine, the
effect of the invalidated law was allowed to affect transactions completed before the
declaration of nullity.
 · Uniformity – persons or things belonging to the same class shall be taxed at the same rate
C. POWER OF TAXATION ◦ Requisites (Tan vs Del Rosario):
(a) standards that are used are substantial and not arbitrary
Power of Taxation – is a method by which contributions are exacted from persons and (b) categorization is germane to achieve the legislative purpose
property for the support of government and for all public needs. (c) the law applies, all things being equal, to both present and future conditions
· Obligation to pay taxes is a duty (d) classification applies equally well to all those belonging to the same class

Taxes vs Licenses · Equitable taxation – based on the capacity to pay

Tax License
· Equality in taxation – tax shall be strictly proportional to the relative value of the property
· to raise revenues · for regulatory purpose only
· justified under police power · Progressive system of taxation – the rate increases as the tax base increases
· amount of fees required is usually limited
to the 3. Public Purpose
- cost of regulation · whatever may be beneficially employed for the general welfare

Scope · Double Taxation / Direct Duplicate Taxation

· all income earned in the taxing state, whether by citizens or aliens, and all immovable
and tangible personal properties found in its territory, as well as tangible personal
property owned by persons domiciled therein
Power to Tax Includes Power to Destroy
(1) when used validly as an implement of the police power in discouraging and in effect
ultimately prohibiting certain things or enterprises inimical to public welfare
Power to Tax Does Not Include Power to Destroy
· where the tax is used solely for the purpose of raising revenues
◦ when additional taxes are laid on the same subject by the same taxing jurisdiction
during the same taxing period and for the same purpose.
◦ despite the lack of specific prohibition, double taxation will not be allowed if it
results in a violation of the equal protection clause.
· Tax Exemptions may either be:
◦ constitutional
▪ Art. Vi, Sec. 28 (3) : when lands, buildings and improvements are actually,
directly and exclusively for religious, charitable or educational purposes –
entitled to exemption

Who May Exercise ◦ statutory- discretion of legislature

1. Legislature / Congress (inherent)
2. President (by delegation / tariff powers [Sec. 28 (2), Art. VI, Consti]) I. CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS
3. local legislative bodies (conferred by direct authority [Sec. 5, Art. X, Consti])
Bill of Rights – set of prescriptions setting forth the fundamental civil and political rights of the
Limitations of Taxation: individual, and imposing limitations on the powers of the government as a means of securing
1. Due Process of Law the enjoyment of those rights.
2. Equal Protection
3. Public Purpose Significance of the Bill of Rights

1. Due Process
· Substantive : tax should not be confiscatory except when used as an implement of
police power
· Procedural : due process does not require previous notice and hearing before a law
prescribing specific taxes on specific articles may be enacted. However, where the tax
to be collected is to be based on the value of the taxable property, the taxpayer is
entitled to be notified of the assessment proceedings and to be heard therein on the
correct valuation of the property.
Government is powerful. When unlimited, it becomes tyrannical. The Bill of
Rights is a guarantee that there are certain areas of a person's life, liberty, and property
which governmental power may not touch.
· Bill of Rights are generally self-implementing.
Classification of Rights

2. Equal Protection 1. Political Rights – granted by law to members of community in relation to their direct or
· embodied in Sec. 28 (1), Art. VI, 1987 Constitution (The rule of taxation shall be uniform indirect participation in the establishment or administration of the government;
and equitable. The Congress shall evolve a progressive system of taxation.)
2. Civil Rights – rights which municipal law will enforce at the instance of private individuals for · As a procedural requirement, it relates chiefly to the mode of procedure which
the purpose of securing them the enjoyment of their means of happiness; government agencies must follow in the enforcement and application of laws. It is a
guarantee of procedural fairness.
3. Social and Economic Rights; and,
Substantive Due Process
4. Human Rights
Substantive due process – requires intrinsic validity of the law in interfering with the rights of
DUE PROCESS the person to his life, liberty or property

Section 1, Art. III. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process Requisites:
of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws. (a) Lawful Subject
(b) Lawful Means
· no precise definition because it might prove constricting and prevent the judiciary from
adjusting it to the circumstances of particular cases Procedural Due Process
· responsiveness to the supremacy of reason, obedience to the dictates of justice
· embodiment of sporting idea on fair play Procedural due process – is the restriction on actions of judicial and quasi-judicial agencies of
· guaranty against any arbitrariness on the part of the government government.

Protection of Person 1. Judicial Due Process

Covers Natural (citizen and alien) and Artificial Persons. As to the latter, with respect only to
property because its life and liberty are derived from and subject to control of legislature
Deprivation (in Sec. 1, Art. III)
· connotes denial of right to life, liberty or property
· not unconstitutional. what is prohibited is deprivation without due process of law.
· When the State acts to interfere with life, liberty, or property, the presumption is that the
action is valid.
1. Life
· It is not just a protection of the right to be alive or to the security of one's limb against
physical harm. The right to life is the right to a good life... a life of dignity and... a decent
standard of living.
2. Liberty
(1) freedom to do right and never wrong (Mabini)
(2) right to be free from arbitrary personal restraint or servitude
Requisites:
(a) Impartial and Competent Court
(b) Jurisdiction lawfully acquired over the person of the defendant and/or property
(c) Hearing
· not necessarily trial-type hearing; submission of position papers is enough
· right of a party to cross-examine the witness against him in a civil case is an indispensable
part of due process
· the filing of a motion for reconsideration cures the defect of absence of a hearing
· Cases in which notice and hearing may be dispensed with without violating due process:
◦ abatement of nuisance per se
◦ preventive suspension of a civil servant facing administrative charges
◦ cancellation of passport of a person sought for the commission of a crime
◦ statutory presumptions
(d) Judgment rendered upon lawful hearing (Banco Espanol Filipino v. Palanca)
2. Administrative Due Process

3. Property Requisites:
· anything that can come under the right of ownership and be the subject of contract (a) Right to a hearing
· all things within the commerce of man (b) Tribunal must consider the evidence presented
· However, one cannot have a vested right to a public office as this is not regarded as (c) Decision must have something to support itself
property. If created by statue, it may be abolished by the legislature at any time. (d) Evidence must be Substantial
· Mere privileges are not property rights and are therefore revocable at will (e) Decision must be rendered on the evidence presented at the hearing, or at least
contained in the record and disclosed to the parties affected
Aspects of Due Process (f) Tribunal, body, or any of its judges must act on its or his own independent consideration
1. Substantive Due Process of the facts and law of the controversy
2. Procedural Due Process (g) Decision is rendered in such a manner that the parties to the proceeding can know the
various issues involved, and the reason for the decision rendered
· As a substantive requirement, it is a prohibition of arbitrary laws.
· In administrative proceedings, the quantum of proof required is only substantial
evidence, such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to
support a conclusion.
· The law is vague when it lacks comprehensible standards that men “of common
intelligence must necessarily guess as to its meaning and differ as to its application. It is
repugnant to the Constitution in two respects:
▪ it violates due process for failure to accord persons fair notice of conduct to avoid;
and,
▪ it leaves law enforcers unbridled discretion in carrying out its provisions and
becomes arbitrary flexing of the Government muscle.
· In Estrada vs. Sandiganbayan, it was held that there was no violation of due process
because the nature of the charges against the petitioner is not uncertain and void
merely because general terms are used or because it employed terms that were not
defined. The Anti-Plunder law does not violate due process since it defines the act which
it purports to punish, giving the accused fair warning of the charges against him, and
can effectively interpose a defense against on his behalf.
· A Connecticut statute making it a crime to use any drug or article to prevent conception
violates the right of marital privacy which is within the penumbra of specific guarantees
of the Bill of Rights.
◦ Although the Bill of Rights does not mention ‘privacy’ the Court ruled that that the
right was to be found in the "penumbras" of other constitutional protections. “The First
Amendment has a penumbra where privacy is penumbra where privacy is
protected from governmental intrusion.”
· In Lochner v. New York, Lochner was charged with violation of the labor laws of New
York for wrongfully and unlawfully permitting an employee to work more than 60 hours in
one week. The statute allegedly violated mandates that no employee shall contract or
agree to work more than 10 hours per day.
Issue: Whether the statute is unconstitutional.
Ruling: Yes.
The statute is unconstitutional. The statute interferes with the liberty of a person and the right
of free contract between employer and employee by determining the hours of labor in the
occupation of a baker without reasonable ground for doing so.
The general right to make a contract in relation to one’s business is a liberty protected by the
14th amendment.
The state may interfere with and regulate both property and liberty rights to prevent the
individual from making certain kinds of contracts in its exercise of police power which relates
to safety, health, morals and general welfare of the society. In this instance, the 14th
amendment cannot interfere.
The trade of a baker is not an alarmingly unhealthy one that would warrant the state’s
interference with rights to labor and contract.
Doctrine: The rule must have a more direct relation, as means to an end, and the end itself
must be appropriate and legitimate, before an act can be held to be valid which interferes
with the general right of an individual to be free in his person and in his power to contract in
relation to his own labor.
· Our cases include Court of Industrial Relations (Ang Tibay vs. CIR) as an administrative
court which exercises judicial and quasi-judicial functions in the determination of disputes
between employers and employees. National Telecommunications Company
(PHILCOMSAT vs. Alcuaz), National Labor Relations Commission or NLRC (DBP vs. NLRC)
and school tribunals (Ateneo vs. CA-Board of Discipline, Alcuaz vs. PSBA, Non vs. Judge
Dames, Tinker vs. Des Moines Community School District) also are clothed with quasi-
judicial function. It is a question of whether the body or institution has a judicial or quasi-
judicial function that makes it bound by the due process clause. (Judicial function is
synonymous to judicial power which is the authority to settle justiciable controversies or
disputes involving rights that are legally enforceable and demandable or the redress of
wrongs for violations of such rights. It is a determination of what the law is and what the
legal rights of the parties are with respect to a matter in controversy).
· In Ang Tibay vs. CIR, the Court laid down cardinal requirements in administrative
proceedings which essentially exercise a judicial or quasijudicial function. These are:
1) the right to a hearing, which includes the right to present one’s case and submit
evidence in support thereof
2) The tribunal must consider the evidence presented
3) The decision must have something to support itself
4) The evidence must be substantial. Substantial evidence means such a reasonable
evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion
5) The decision must be based on the evidence presented at the hearting or at least
contained in the record and disclosed to the parties affected
6) The tribunal or body of any of its judges must act on its own independent
consideration of the law and facts of the controversy and not simply accept the
views of a subordinate
7) The Board or body should, in all controversial questions, render its decision in such
manner that the parties to the proceeding can know the various issues involved and
the reason for the decision rendered.
EQUAL PROTECTION
Section 1, Art. III. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due
process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws.
· The Equality Protection Clause is a specific constitutional guarantee of the Equality of the
Person. The equality it guarantees is “legal equality or, as it is usually put, the equality of
all persons before the law.
· embraced in the concept of due process
· embodied in a separate clause to provide for a more specific guaranty against undue
favoritism or hostility from the government
Due Process Clause attacks arbitrariness in general
Equal Protection Clause attacks unwarranted partiality or prejudice
Substantive Equality – all persons or things similarly situated should be treated alike, both as to
rights conferred and responsibilities imposed.
Equality in enforcement of the law – law be enforced and applied equally
Requisites of Valid Classification:
(a) it must be based on substantial distinctions
(b) it must be germane to the purposes of the law
(c) it must not be limited to existing conditions only
◦ must be enforced as long as the problem sought to be corrected exists
(d) it must apply equally well to all members of the class
◦ both as to rights conferred and obligations imposed
· In De Guzman v. Comelec, petitioners theorize that Sec. 44 of RA 8189 is violative of the
equal protection clause because it singles out the City and Municipal Election Officers of
the COMELEC as prohibited from holding office in the same city or municipality for more
than four years. The Court held that the law is valid. The singling out of election officers in
order to “ensure the impartiality of election officials by preventing them from developing
familiarity with the people of their place of assignment.
· In Ormoc Sugar Central v. Ormoc City, Ormoc City imposes a tax on Ormoc Sugar
Central by name. Ormos Sugar Central is the only sugar central in Ormoc City. The Court
held that such ordinance is not valid for it would be discriminatoory against the Ormoc
Sugar Central which alone comes under the ordinance.
II. SEARCH AND SEIZURE
Section 2, Art. III. 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.
Section 2, Art. III – deals with tangibles; embodies the “castle” doctrine (a man's house is his
castle; a citizen enjoys the right against official intrusion and is master of all the surveys within
the domain and privacy of his own home.)
· This provision applies as a restraint directed only against the government and its
agencies tasked with enforcement of the law. It does not protect citizens from
unreasonable searches and seizures perpetrated by private individuals.
Section 3, Art. III. (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.
Section 3 (1), Art. III – deals with intangibles
Section 3 (2), Art. III – Exclusionary Rule (which embodies the Doctrine of the Fruit of the
Poisonous Tree)
Exclusionary Rule – evidence obtained in violation of Sec. 2, Art.III, shall be inadmissible for
any purpose in any proceeding (Fruit of Poisonous Tree Doctrine). (Stonehill v. Diokno)
· available to natural and artificial persons, but the latter's books of accounts may be
required to open for examination by the State in the exercise of police power or power
of taxation The right is personal (Stonehill vs Diokno)
· General Rule: only a judge may issue a warrant.
Exception: orders of arrest may be issues by administrative authorities but only for the purpose
of carrying out a final finding of a violation of a law
RIGHT TO PRIVACY
· In Ople v. Torres, the right to privacy being a fundamental right, the government has the
burden of proof to show that a statute (AO no. 308 in this case) is justified by some
compelling state interest and that it is narrowly drawn.
“In no uncertain terms, we also underscores that the right to privacy does not bar all
incursions into individual privacy. The right is not intended to stifle scientific and technological
advancements that enhance public service and the common good. It merely requires that
the law be narrowly focused.” Intrusions into the right must be accompanied by proper
safeguards and well-defined standards to prevent unconstitutional invasions.
· In Roe v. Wade, the Court held that abortions are permissible for any reason a woman
chooses, up until the "point at which the fetus becomes ‘viable,’ that is, potentially able
to live outside the mother's womb.
(a) The Constitution does not explicitly mention any right to privacy but the Court has
recognized that such right does exist in the Constitution. The Court deemed abortion a
fundamental right under the United States Constitution, thereby subjecting all laws
attempting to restrict it to the standard of strict scrutiny. Where certain “fundamental rights”
are involved, the Court has held that regulation limiting these rights may be justified only by a
“compelling state interest.”
(b) The right to privacy is broad enough to encompass a woman’s decision whether or not to
terminate her pregnancy. But a woman’s right to terminate her pregnancy at whatever time,
in whatever way and for whatever reason she alone chooses is NOT absolute. While
recognizing the right to privacy, the Court also acknowledges that some state regulation in
areas protected by a right is appropriate. A state may properly assert important interests in
safeguarding health, in maintaining medical standards, and in protecting potential life.
WRIT OF HABEAS DATA
Writ of habeas data – is a remedy available to any person whose right to privacy in life, liberty
or security is violated or threatened by an unlawful act or omission of a public official or
employee, or of a private individual or entity engaged in the gathering, collecting or storing
of data or information regarding the person, family, home and correspondence of the
aggrieved party.
· It is governed by The Rule on the Writ of Habeas Data (A.M. No. 08-1-16- SC – full text),
which was approved by the Supreme Court on 22 January 2008. That Rule shall not
diminish, increase or modify substantive rights.
Constitutional Basis
Section 5(5), Art. VIII. Promulgate rules concerning the protection and enforcement of
constitutional rights, pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts, the admission to the
practice of law, the integrated bar, and legal assistance to the under-privileged. Such rules
shall provide a simplified and inexpensive procedure for the speedy disposition of cases,
shall be uniform for all courts of the same grade, and shall not diminish, increase, or modify
substantive rights. Rules of procedure of special courts and quasi-judicial bodies shall remain
effective unless disapproved by the Supreme Court.
· The Rule takes effect on 2 February 2008, following its publication in three (3) newspapers
of general circulation.
Who may file a petition for the issuance of a writ of habeas data?
· General rule: The aggrieved party.
· Exceptions: In cases of extralegal killings and enforced disappearances, the petition may be
filed by:
(1) Any member of the immediate family of the aggrieved party, namely: the spouse,
children and parents; or
(2) Any ascendant, descendant or collateral relative of the aggrieved party within the fourth
civil degree of consanguinity or affinity, in default of those mentioned in the preceding
paragraph.
Where can the petition be filed?
a. Regional Trial Court where the petitioner or respondent resides, or that which has
jurisdiction over the place where the data or information is gathered, collected or stored,
at the option of the petitioner.
b. Supreme Court;
c. Court of Appeals; or
d. Sandiganbayan, when the action concerns public data files of government offices.
· No docket and other lawful fees shall be required from an indigent petitioner. The
petition of the indigent shall be docketed and acted upon immediately, without
prejudice to subsequent submission of proof of indigency not later than 15 days from the
filing of the petition.
The verified written petition shall allege the following:
a) The personal circumstances of the petitioner and the respondent;
b) The manner the right to privacy is violated or threatened and how it affects the right to
life, liberty or security of the aggrieved party;
c) The actions and recourses taken by the petitioner to secure the data or information;
d) The location of the files, registers or databases, the government office, and the person in
charge, in possession or in control of the data or information, if known;
e) The reliefs prayed for, which may include the updating, rectification, suppression or
destruction of the database or information or files kept by the respondent. In case of
threats, the relief may include a prayer for an order enjoining the act complained of;
and
f) Such other relevant reliefs as are just and equitable.
When is the writ of habeas data issued?
Upon the filing of the petition, the court, justice or judge shall immediately order the issuance
of the writ if on its face it ought to issue. The clerk of court shall issue the writ under the seal of
the court and cause it to be served within three (3) days from its issuance; or, in case of
urgent necessity, the justice or judge may issue the writ under his or her own hand, and may
deputize any officer or person to serve it. The writ shall also set the date and time for summary
hearing of the petition which shall not be later than ten (10) work days from the date of its
issuance.
· A clerk of court who refuses to issue the writ after its allowance, or a deputized person
who refuses to serve the same, shall be punished by the court, justice or judge for
contempt without prejudice to other disciplinary actions.
· The writ shall be served upon the respondent by the officer or person deputized by the
court, justice or judge who shall retain a copy on which to make a return of service. In
case the writ cannot be served personally on the respondent, the rules on substituted
service shall apply.
· The respondent shall file a verified written return together with supporting affidavits within
five (5) work days from service of the writ, which period may be reasonably extended by
the Court for justifiable reasons.
Contents of Return
(a) The lawful defenses such as national security, state secrets, privileged communication,
confidentiality of the source of information of media and others;
(b) In case of respondent in charge, in possession or in control of the data or information
subject of the petition:
i. a disclosure of the data or information about the petitioner, the nature of such data
or information, and the purpose for its collection;
ii. the steps or actions taken by the respondent to ensure the security and
confidentiality of the data or information; and
iii. the currency and accuracy of the data or information held; and
(c) Other allegations relevant to the resolution of the proceeding.
· When the respondent fails to file a return, the court, justice or judge shall proceed to hear
the petition ex parte, granting the petitioner such relief as the petition may warrant unless
the court in its discretion requires the petitioner to submit evidence.
· Instead of having the hearing in open court, it can be done in chambers when the
respondent invokes the defense that the release of the data or information in question
shall compromise national security or state secrets, or when the data or information
cannot be divulged to the public due to its nature or privileged character.
· The hearing on the petition shall be summary. However, the court, justice or judge may · In Aniag v. Comelec, twenty meters away from the gate of the Batasan, a truck was
call for a preliminary conference to simplify the issues and determine the possibility of stopped and searched. The motorists had not given any evidence of suspicious behaviour
obtaining stipulations and admissions from the parties. nor had the searching officers received any confidential information about the car. The Court
held that the search was not justifiable as a warrantless arrest of a moving vehicle as there
· Upon its finality, the judgment shall be enforced by the sheriff or any lawful officer as may was no probable cause.
be designated by the court, justice or judge within five (5) work days.
3. searches of prohibited articles in plain view
· When a criminal action has been commenced, no separate petition for the writ shall be Requisites:
filed, but the reliefs under the writ shall be available by motion in the criminal case, and 3. prior valid intrusion to a place
the procedure under this Rule shall govern the disposition of the reliefs available under 4. evidence was inadvertently discovered by the police who has the right to be there
the writ of habeas data. 5. evidence is immediately apparent
6. there is no further search
· When a criminal action and a separate civil action are filed subsequent to a petition for
a writ of habeas data, the petition shall be consolidated with the criminal action. After 4. enforcement of customs law
consolidation, the procedure under this Rule shall continue to govern the disposition of
the reliefs in the petition. 5. consented searches

· The introduction of the Writ of Habeas Data into Philippine Justice System complemented
several writs used in the Philippines. These writs which protect the rights of the individual
against the state are as follows:
· The Writ of Habeas Corpus – a writ ordering a person who detained another to
produce the body and bring it before a judge or court. Its purpose is to determine
whether the detention is lawful or not;
· The Writ of Mandamus – a writ ordering a governmental agency to perform a
ministerial function;
· The Writ of Prohibition – a writ ordering a person to prohibit the commission of an
illegal act;
· The Writ of Certiorari – a writ ordering a person to correct an erroneous act
committed with grave abuse of discretion; and
· The Writ of Amparo – a writ designed to protect the most basic right of a human
being. These are the right to life, liberty andsecurity guaranteed by the Constitution.
6. stop and frisk (limited protective search of outer clothing for weapons)
· In Terry v. Ohio, the stop-and-frisk rule is stated thus: “(W)here a police officer observes
unusual conduct which leads him reasonably to conclude in the light of his experience
that criminal activity may be afoot and that the person with whom he is dealing may be
armed and presently dangerous, where in the course of investigation of this behavior he
identifies himself as a policeman and makes reasonable inquiries, and where nothing in
the initial stages of the encounter serves to dispel his reasonable fear for his own or
others' safety, he is entitled for the protection of himself and others in the area to
conduct a carefully limited search of the outer clothing of such persons in an attempt to
discover weapons which might be used to assault him.”
· Stop-and-frisk rule serves a two-fold interest:
(1) the general interest of effective crime prevention and detection;
(2) the more pressing interest of safety and self-preservation. (Malacat)
7. routine searches at borders and ports of entry
8. searches of businesses in the exercise of visitorial powers to enforce police regulations

Valid Warrantless Searches Valid Warrantless Arrest

1. in flagrante delicto
[NOTE: each of these requires probable cause, except stop and frisk] 2. hot pursuit
3. the offender escaped from the penal establishment
1. searches incidental to lawful arrest (rule 126, Rules of Court) – for dangerous weapons or
anything that may have been used or constitute in the commission of an offense Requisites of a valid warrant
Requisites:
1. the item to be searched was within the arrestee's custody or area of immediate Arrest Warrant Search Warrant
control
2. the search was contemporaneous with the arrest 1. Probable Such facts and circumstances Such facts and circumstances which
Cause which would lead a reasonably would lead a reasonably
2. searches of moving vehicles must refer to one prudent man to believe that an prudent man to believe that an
(1) specific offense has been committed offense has been committed
offense and the person sought to be and the objects sought in the
 arrested had committed it connection of the offense are in
the place sought to be searched · In Corro v. Lising, the Affidavit of Col. Castillo stated that in several issues of the Philippine
2. Personal The judge personally determines The judge must personally Times:”... we found that the said publication in fact foments distrust and hatred against
determination of the existence of probable cause; examine in the form of searching the government of the Philippines. The Court held that the affidavit does not establish
probable cause it is not necessary that he should questions and answers... probable cause, and is nothing but conclusions of law.
by the judge personally examine the in writing and under oath...
complainant and his witnesses the complainants and his · In Burgos v. Chief of Staff, a search warrant for the newspaper WE Forum is issued on the
(Soliven vs Makasiar) witnesses... basis of a broad statement of the military that Burgos, Jr. is “in possession of printing
on facts personally known to equipment and other paraphernalia... used as means of committing the offense of
Procedure: them... subversion.” The Court held that such allegation is not sufficient to establish probable
(1) personally evaluate the and attach to the record their cause. It is a mere conclusion of law unsupported by particulars.
fiscal's report, or sworn statements and affidavits.
(2) if [1] is insufficient, disregard it (Silva vs Presiding Judge) The Court also held that the search warrant description has the “sweeping tenor” making the
and require the submission of released document a general warrant. The search warrant particularly states:”all printing equipment,
supporting affidavits of witnesses typewriters... of the WE Forum newspaper and any other documents...” It is not required that
Preliminary inquiry (task of the property to be searched should be owned by the person against whom the search
the judge) – determination of warrant is directed. It is sufficient that the property is under the control or possession of the
probable cause for the issuance person sought to be searched.
of warrant of arrest
Preliminary investigation proper · In Soliven v. Judge Makasiar, the Court clarified the meaning of “personally” in the
(task of the prosecutor) – search and seizure clause. It stated that in arriving at a conclusion as to the existence of
ascertainment whether the existence of probable cause, what is required is personal determination and not personal
offender should be held for trial examination.
or be
· In Lim v. Felix, the Court held that the judge in issuing a warrant of arrest cannot rely
3. After Not merely routinary but must Not merely routinary but must solely on the certification or recommendation of a prosecutor that probable cause exists.
examination be probing and exhaustive be probing and exhaustive The judge must look at the report, the affidavits, the transcripts of stenographic notes (if
under oath or any), and all other supporting documents behind the Prosecutor's certification.
affirmation of the
complainant and · In Stonehill v. Diokno, the Court held that the following description is insufficient for it
the witnesses he amounts to a general warrant authorizing the officer to pick up anything he pleases: “
may produce Book of accounts, financial records, vouchers...and other documents showing all
4.Particularity of General Rule: it must contain the General Rule: when the business transactions....” The Court further held that the objection to an unlawful search
description name/s of the persons to be description therein is as specific or seizure and to evidence obtained thereby is purely personal and cannot be availed
arrested as the circumstances will by third parties.
Exception: if there is some ordinarily allow.
descriptio personae which will Exception: when no other more III. PRIVACY OF COMMUNICATION AND CORRESPONDENCE
enable the officer to identify the accurate and detailed
accused description could have been Section 3(1), Art. III. The privacy of communication and correspondence shall be inviolable
given. except upon lawful order of the court, or when public safety or order requires otherwise, as
prescribed by law.
· In Valmonte v. Gen. De Villa, the Court held that not all searches and seizures are
prohibited. Those which are reasonable are not forbidden. A reasonable search is not to Section 3 (1), Art. III – deals with intangibles
be determined by any fixed formula but is to be resolved according to the facts of the
case. Checkpoints are not illegal per se... Routine inspection and few questions do not Forms of Correspondences and Communication Covered
constitute unreasonable searches. If the inspection becomes more thorough to the 1. letters
extent of becoming a search, this can be done when there is deemed to be probable 2. messages
cause. In the latter situation, it is justifiable as a warrantless search of a moving vehicle. 3. telephone calls
4. telegrams, and
Probable Cause – facts and circumstances antecedent to the issuance of a warrant that are 5. the likes
in themselves sufficient to induce a cautious man to rely upon them.
Intrusion into the Privacy of Communication May Be Allowed
1. Upon lawful order of the court, or
2. When public safety or order requires otherwise as prescribed by law.
· When intrusion is made without a judicial order, it would have to be based upon a
government official's assessment that public safety and order demand such intrusion.
Public Order and Safety – the security of human lives, liberty, and property against the
activities of invaders, insurrectionists, and rebels.
· RA No. 4200 known as the Anti-Wiretapping Law provides penalties for specific
violations of private communication. Under Sec. 3 of the Act allows court-authorized
taps, under specific conditions for the crimes of treason, espionage, provoking war
and disloyalty in case of war, piracy, mutiny in the high seas, rebellion, conspiracy
and proposal to commit rebellion, inciting rebellion, sedition, conspiracy to commit
sedition, inciting to sedition, kidnapping.
Exclusionary Rule – evidence obtained in violation of Sec. 2, Art.III, shall be inadmissible for
any purpose in any proceeding (Fruit of Poisonous Tree Doctrine). (Stonehill v. Diokno)
· available to natural and artificial persons, but the latter's books of accounts may be
required to open for examination by the State in the exercise of police power or power
of taxation The right is personal (Stonehill vs Diokno)
· Section 3 (2), Art. III – Exclusionary Rule (which embodies the Doctrine of the Fruit of the
Poisonous Tree)
IV. FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION
Freedom of Speech – “at once the instrument and the guaranty and the bright consummate
flower of all liberty.” (Wendell Philips)
Scope
· Freedom of Expression is available only insofar as it is exercised for the discussion of
matters affecting the public interest. Purely private interest matters do not come within
the guaranty (invasion of privacy is not sanctioned by the Constitution).
· covers ideas that are acceptable to the majority and the unorthodox view. (One of the
functions of this freedom is “to invite dispute” – US Supreme Court; “I may not agree with
what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” - Voltaire)
· The freedom to speak includes the right to silent. (This freedom was meant not only to
protect the minority who want to talk but also to benefit the majority who refuse to listen.
- Socrates)
Importance
The ultimate good desired is better reached by a free trade in ideas – that the best test of
truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market; and
that truth is the only ground upon which their wishes safely can be carried out.
Modes of Expression
(a) Oral and written language
(b) Symbolisms (e.g. bended knee, salute to the flag, cartoons)
Elements of Freedom of Expression
(1) Freedom from prior restraint or censorship
(2) Freedom from subsequent punishment
Freedom From Previous Restraint or Censorship
Section 4, Art. III. 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.
Censorship – conditions the exercise of freedom of expression upon the prior approval of the
government. Only those ideas acceptable to it are allowed to be disseminated.
· Censor, therefore, assumes the role of arbiter for the people, usually applying his own
subjective standards in determining the good and the not. Such is anathema in a free
society.
· In New York Times v. United States, the Court held that prohibition of “prior restraint” is not
absolute, although any system of prior restraint comes to court bearing a heavy
presumption against its constitutionality.
· In Near v. Minnesota, the exceptions to the prohibition of “prior restraint is enumerated by
the Court, thus: “When a nation is at war, many things that might be said in time of
peace are such a hindrance to its effort .... No one would question but that government
might prevent actual obstruction to its recruiting service or the publication of sailing
dates of transports or the number or location of troops.... The security of the community
life may be protected against incitements to acts of violence and the overthrow by
force of orderly government.”
· In SWS v. Comelec, Sec. 1 of RA No. 9006, the Fair Election Act says that surveys affecting
national candidates shall not be published fifteen(15) days before an election and
surveys affecting local candidates shall not be published seven days before an election.
The provision is challenged as violative of freedom of expression. The Court held that as
prior restraint, the rule is presumed to be invalid. The power of the Comelec over media
franchises is limited to ensuring “equal opportunity, time, space and the right to reply” as
well as to reasonable rates of charges for the use of media facilities for “public
information and forums among candidates.” Here the prohibition of speech is direct,
absolute and substantial. Nor does the rule pass the O'Brien test for content related
regulation because (1) it suppresses one type of expression while allowing other types
such as editorials, etc. and (2) the restriction is greater than what is needed to protect
government interest because the interest can be protected by narrower restriction such
as subsequent punishment.
· In Re: Request for Radio-TV Coverage of the Estrada Trial, the Court held that the
propriety of the Estrada trial involves the weighing out of the constitutional guarantees of
freedom of the press and the right to public information, on the one hand, and the
fundamental rights of the accused, on the other hand, along with the constitutional
power of a court to control its proceedings in ensuring a fair and impartial trial... With the
possibility of losing not only the precious liberty but also the very life of an accused, it
behooves all to make absolutely certain that an accused receives a verdict solely on the
basis of a just and dispassionate judgment...”
· The doctrine of freedom of speech was formulated primarily for the protection of “core
speech,” i.e., speech which communicates political, social or religious ideas.
Commercial speech, however, does not.
Grosjean vs American Press Co. There need not be total suppression; even restriction of
circulation constitutes censorship
Burgos vs Chief of Staff the search, padlocking and sealing of the offices of
Metropolitan Mail and We Forum by military authorities,
resulting in the discontinuance of publication of the
newspapers, was held to be prior restraint
Mutuc vs COMELEC the COMELEC prohibition against the use of taped
jingles in the mobile units used in the campaign was
held to be unconstitutional, as it was in the nature of
censorship
Sanidad vs COMELEC the Court annulled the COMELEC prohibition against
radio commentators or newspaper columnists from
commenting on the issues involved in the scheduled
plebiscite on the organic
law creating the Cordillera Autonomous Region as an
unconstitutional restraint on freedom of expression
But...
Gonzales vs COMELEC the Court upheld the validity of the law which
prohibited, except during the prescribed election
period, the making of speeches, announcements or
commentaries for or against the election of any party or
candidate for public office.
JUSTIFICATION: the inordinate preoccupation of the
people with politics tended toward the neglect of the
other serious needs of the nation and the pollution of its
suffrages.
Iglesia ni Cristo vs CA The Board of Review for Motion Pictures and Television
(BRMPT) has the authority to review the petitioner's
television program. However, the Board acted with
grave abuse of discretion when it gave an “X-rating” to
the TV program on the ground of “attacks against
another religion.” Such a classification can be justified
only if there is a showing that the tv program would
create a clear and present danger of an evil which the
State ought to prevent.
Primicias vs Fugosos The respondent mayor could only reasonably regulate,
not absolutely prohibit, the use of public places for the
purpose indicated.
National Press Club vs COMELEC the Supreme Court upheld the validity of Sec. 11(b), RA
6646, which prohibited any person making use of the
media to sell or to give free of charge print space or air
time for campaign
or other political purposes except to the COMELEC. This
was held to be within the power of the COMELEC to
supervise the enjoyment or utilization of franchises for
the operation of
media of communication and information, for the
purpose of ensuring equal opportunity, time and space,
and the “right to reply,” as well as uniform and
reasonable rates of charges for the use of such media
facilities.
Osmeňa vs COMELEC SC reaffirmed validity of RA 6646 as a legitimate
exercise of police power. The regulation is unrelated to
the suppression of speech, as any restriction on
freedom of expression occasioned thereby is only
incidental and no more than is
necessary to achieve the purpose of promoting
equality.
NOTE: This is not inconsistent with the ruling in PPI vs
COMELEC, because in the latter, SC simply said that
COMELEC cannot procure print space without paying
just compensation.
Adiong vs COMELEC COMELEC's resolution prohibiting the posting of decals,
and stickers in mobile units like cars and other moving
vehicles was declared unconstitutional for infringement
of freedom of
expression. Besides, the constitutional objective of
giving the rich and poor candidates' equal opportunity
to inform the electorate is not violated by the posting of
decals and stickers on cars and other vehicles.
“Overbreadth doctrine” = prohibits the government
from achieving its purpose by means that weep
unnecessarily broadly, reaching constitutionally
protected as well as unprotected activity; the
government has gone too far; its legitimate interest can
be satisfied without reaching so broadly into the area of
protected freedom.
Gonzales vs petitioner questioned the classification of the movie as
katigbak “for adults only.” the petition was dismissed because
the Board did not commit grave abuse of discretion.
Freedom From Subsequent Punishment
Section 18(1), Art. III. No person shall be detained solely by reason of his political beliefs and
aspirations.
· Without this assurance, the individual would hesitate to speak for fear that he might be
held to account for his speech, or that he might be provoking the vengeance of the
officials he may have criticized.
· Not absolute; subject to police power and may be regulated (freedom of expression
does not cover ideas offensive to public order)
Right of students to free speech in school premises not absolute
SC sustained respondent mayor's act of refusing to issue a permit
enabling students to hold a public rally. Mayor feared the rally
would result to public disorder.
- decided in 1970
Reyes vs Bagatsing the denial of a permit to hold a public rally was invalid as there
was no showing of the probability of a clear and present danger
of an evil that might arise as a result of the meeting. The burden of
proving such eventually rests on the Mayor.

General Rule: a student shall not be expelled or suspended solely on the basis of articles he
has written
Exception: when the article materially disrupts class work or involves substantial disorder or
invasion of rights of others, the school has the right to discipline its students (in such a case, it
may expel or suspend the student)
Tests of valid governmental interference
(criteria in determining the liability of the individual for ideas expressed by him) :
1. Clear and present danger rule
2. Dangerous tendency doctrine
3. Balance of interest test
1. Clear and Present Danger Rule – when words are used in such circumstance and of such
nature as to create a clear and present danger that will bring about the substantive evil that
the State has a right to prevent. (As formulated by Justice Holmes in Schenck v. United States)
Clear – causal connection with the danger of the substantive evil arising from the utterance
2. Dangerous Tendency Doctrine – if the words uttered create a dangerous tendency of an
evil which the State has the right to prevent.(Cabansag v. Fernandez)
· Justice Holmes, critique of this doctrine: Every idea is an incitement. If believed, it is acted
on unless some other belief outweighs it, or some failure of energy stifles the movement
at its birth.
Bayan vs Executive Secretary (f) the Calibrated Pre-emptive Response Policy is null and
Ermita void. Respondents are enjoined from using it and to strictly
observe the requirements of maximum tolerance.
Cabansag vs Fernandez It is not necessary that some definite or immediate acts of
force or violence be advocated. It is sufficient that such
acts be advocated in general terms. A mere tendency
toward the evil was enough.
People vs Perez Accused declared: “The Filipinos like myself must use bolos
for cutting off (Governor- General) Wood's head for having
recommended a bad thing for the Filipinos, for he has killed
our independence.” He was sentenced to jail.

Present – time element; imminent and immediate danger (the danger must not only be 3. Balance of Interest Test – when particular conduct is regulated in the interest of public
probable but also inevitable). (Gonzales v. Comelec) order, and the regulation results in an indirect, conditional, partial abridgment of speech, the
duty of the courts is to determine which of the two conflicting interests demands the greater
· In ABS-CBN v. Comelec, the Comelec banned “exit polls” in the exercise of its authority protection under the circumstances presented. (American Communications Association v.
to regulate the holders of media franchises during the lection period. It contends that Douds)
“an exit poll has the tendency to sow confusion considering the randomness of selecting
interviewees.... However, the Court said that exit polls constitute an essential part of the CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGEROUS TENDENCY RULE BALANCE OF INTEREST RULE
freedoms of speech and of the press. Hence, the Comelec cannot ban totally in the DANGER
guise of of promoting clean, honest, orderly and credible elections. The ban does not RULE
satisfy the clear and present danger rule because the evils envisioned are merely
liberty is preferred Authority is preferred the issue is resolved in the
speculative.
light of the peculiar
circumstances obtaining in
Terminiello vs City of · (speech inside an auditorium with 800 persons) each particular case
Chicago · speech is often provocative and challenging. hence, “fighting
words” are not sufficient to convict a person absent a clear and
· In Mutuc v. Comelec, the preferred freedom of expression calls all the more the utmost
present danger of a serious substantive evil
respect when what may be curtailed is the dissemination of information to make more
Primicias vs Fugosos The respondent mayor could only reasonably regulate, not meaningful the equally vital right of suffrage.
absolutely prohibit, the use of
public places for the purpose indicated. When faced with border line situations where freedom (of expression) to speak & freedom to
· the condition of Manila at that time did not justify the mayor's know (to information) are invoked against (vs.) maintaining free and clean elections- the
fears. there was no clear and present danger. police, local officials and COMELEC should lean in favor of freedom.
· decided in 1947
Navarro vs Villegas (compare with Primicias case)
For in the ultimate analysis, the freedom of the citizen and the State’s power to regulate are
NOT ANTAGONISTIC.
There can be no free and honest elections if in the efforts to maintain them, the freedom to
speak and the right to know are unduly curtailed.
We examine the limits of regulation. J. Feliciano shows that regulation of election campaign
activity may not pass the test of validity if:
· It is too general in its terms
· Not limited in time and scope in its application
· It if restricts one’s expression of belief in a candidate or one’s opinion of his or her
qualifications,
· If it cuts off the flow of media reporting
· If the regulatory measure bears no clear and reasonable nexus with the constitutionally
sanctioned objective.
The regulation strikes at the freedom of an individual to express his preference and, by
displaying it on his car, to convince others to agree with him. A sticker may be furnished by a
candidate but once the car owner agrees to have it placed in his private vehicle, the
expression becomes a statement by the owner, primarily his own and not of anybody else.
· The general rule for a speech to be considered libelous or defamatory is:
Libel = falsity + actual malice (uttered in full knowledge of its falsity or with reckless disregard)
Exemption: When the subject of the supposed libelous or defamatory material is a public
officer. Defamatory words may be uttered against them and not be considered libelous. The
reason is that 1) they asked for it (“they voluntarily thrust themselves into the public eye and
therefore should not be thin-skinned”); 2) it’s a matter of public interest; and 3) public figures
have the opportunity and resources to rebut whatever is said against them. (Policarpio vs
Manila Times); ( New York Times vs Sullivan)
· In New York Times v. Sullivan, The New York Times is protected under the freedom of
speech in publishing paid advertisement, no matter if it contained erroneous claims and
facts. Said publication was not “commercial” in the sense that it communicated
information, expressed opinion, recited grievances, protested claimed abuses, and
sought a financial support on behalf of a movement. That the Times was paid for
publishing the advertisement is as immaterial as the fact that newspapers and books are
sold.
Newspapers do not forfeit the protection they enjoy under speech freedom just because
they publish paid advertisements. Otherwise, newspapers will be discouraged from carrying
“editorial advertisements” and so might shut off an important outlet for the promulgation of
information and ideas by persons who do not themselves have access to publishing facilities.
On errors: “Some degree of abuse is inseparable from the proper use of every thing; and in
no instance is this truer than that of the press.” Erroneous statement is inevitable in free
debate.
Moreover, criticism of official conduct does not lose its constitutional protection merely
because it effective criticism and hence diminishes their official reputations. Presence of
clear and present danger of substantive evil must be proved. Actual Malice needs to be
proved if a public official wants to recover damages for a defamatory falsehood relating to
his official conduct. “Even a false statement may be deemed to make a valuable
contribution to public debate since it brings about the clearer perception and livelier
impression of truth, produced by its collision with error.”
· In Gonzales v. Kalaw-Katigbak, Kapit sa Patalim was classified as “For Adults Only” by the
MTRCB and was suggested to have certain portions cut/ deleted.
Held: MTRCB do not have the power to exercise prior restraint. The power of the MTRCB is
limited to the classification of films.
The test to determine whether a motion picture exceeds the bounds of permissible exercise
of free speech and, therefore should be censored, is the clear and present danger test.
Assembly and Petition
· The right to assemble is not subject to prior restraint and may not be conditioned upon
the prior issuance of a permit or authorization from the government authorities. However,
the right must be exercised in such a way that it will not prejudice the public welfare. (De
la Cruz v. Court of Appeals)
· If assembly is to be held at a public place, permit for the use of such place, and not for
the assembly itself, may be validly required. Power of local officials is merely for
regulation and not for prohibition. (Primicias v. Fugoso)
· Permit for public assembly is not necessary if meeting is to be held in: a private place; the
campus of a government-owned or operated educational institution; and freedom park.
(B.P. Blg. 880 - “The Public Assembly Act of 1985')
· In JBL Reyes v. Bagatsing, retired J. JBL Reyes sought a permit from the City of Manila to
hold a march and rally on Oct 26, 1983 2-5pm from Luneta to gates of US Embassy, and
was denied by the Mayor due to Vienna Convention Ordinance and fear of subversives
may infiltrate the ranks of the demonstrators.
Held: no justifiable ground to deny permit because Bill of Rights will prevail over Vienna
Ordinance should conflict exist (none proven because 500m not measured from gate to US
Embassy proper) and fear of serious injury cannot alone justify suppression of free speech and
assembly- only clear and present danger of substantive evil.
Notes: the Court is called upon to protect the exercise of the cognate rights to free speech
and peaceful assembly…
Tanada vs SC sustained the petitioner's motion compelling the mayor of Manila to
Bagatsing issue a permit to hold a rally, but changed the meeting place to Ugarte
Field, a private park
Malabanan vs (several students were suspended for 1 year for conducting
Ramento demonstration in the premises of a university outside the area permitted
by the school authorities) SC emphasized that the students did not shed
their constitutional rights to free speech at the schoolhouse gate, and
permitted the students to re-enroll and finish their studies.
Villar vs TIP (several students were barred from re-enrollment for participating in Victoriano vs Elizalde
demonstrations) while the Court upheld the academic freedom of Rope Workers' Union
institutions of higher learning, which includes the right to set academic Occena vs COMELEC right of association was not violated where political parties were
standards to determine under what circumstances failing grades suffice prohibited from participating in the barangay elections to insure
for expulsion of students, it was held that this right cannot be utilized to the non-partisanship of the candidates.
discriminate against those who exercise their constitutional rights to In re Edillon Bar integration does not compel the lawyer to associate with
peaceful assembly. anyone. Integration does not make a lawyer a member of any
Non vs Dames SC abandons its ruling in Alcuaz vs PSBA (that enrolment of a student is a group of which he is not already a member.
semester-to-semester contract and the school may not be compelled to
renew the contract) upholding the primacy of freedom of expression, OBSCENITY CASES
because the students do
not shed theur constitutionally protected rights at the school US vs Kottinger SC acquitted accused who was charged of having
gate. offered for sale pictures of half-clad members of
PBM Employees right to free assembly and petition prevails over economic rights. non-Christian tribes, holding that he had only
Assoc vs PBM presented them in their native attire
People vs Go Pin Accused was convicted for exhibiting nude
paintings and pictures, notwithstanding his claim
Tests of a lawful assembly that he had done so in the interest of art. SC,
noting that he has charged admission fees to the
(1) Purpose Test exhibition, held that his purpose was commercial,
not merely artistic.
· ideally, the test should be the purpose for which the assembly is held, regardless of the Pita vs CA SC declared that the determination of what is
auspices under which it is organized obscene is a judicial function.
Miller vs California Test of Obscenity:
(2) Auspices Test · whether the average person, applying
contemporary community standards, would
· Evengelista vs Earnshaw: the mayor of Manila prohibited the members of the Communist find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient
Party from holding any kind of meeting, revoking all permits previously granted by him on interest
the ground that the party had been found (by the fiscal's office) to be an illegal · whether the work depicts, in a patently
association. offensive way, sexual conduct specifically
defined by the applicable law
· In People v. Bustos, Bustos and several people sent complaint letters via counsel against · whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks
Justice of Peace Roman Punsalan, who charged them with libel. serious literary, artistic, political or scientific
value
Held: Bustos and the others were acquitted, Justice Douglas, dissent: I do not think we, the
Ratio: the guarantees of free speech and a free press include the right to criticize judicial judges, were ever given the constitutional power to make
conduct. And these people did so in proper channels without undue publicity, believing they definitions of obscenity. Obscenity is a
were right. hodgepodge.
- The Courts should not apply a national standard but the standard of the
Right of Association community in which the material is being tested.
Section 8, Art. III. The right of the people, including those employed in the public and private
sectors, to form unions, associations, or societies for purposes not contrary to law shall not be · In Reno v. ACLU, Communications Decency Act seek to protect minors from obscenity on
abridged. the internet.
· Held: overbroad, vague, unconstitutional.
The Right of Association is deemed embraced in freedom of expression because the · Notes: Sexual expression which is indecent but not obscene is protected by the First
organization can be used as a vehicle for the expression of views that have a bearing on Amendment.
public welfare.
The internet is not an “invasive” medium because it requires a series of affirmative steps more
SSS Employees Assoc vs right to organize does not carry with it right to strike deliberate and directed than merely turning a dial (tv or radio).
CA
There is no effective way to determine the identity or the age of a user who is accessing present danger to the administration of justice is
material through email, mail exploders, newsgroups or chat rooms. not protected by the guarantee of press freedom
and is punishable by contempt. It is not necessary that publication
The Community Standard as applied to the internet means that any communication actually obstructs the administration of justice, it is enough that it
available to a nationwide audience will be judged by the standards of the community most tends to do so.
likely to be offended by the message. The effect of CDA is such that when a site is blocked In re Sotto a senator was punished for contempt for having
for being “indecent” or “patently offensive” the remaining content even if not indecent attacked a decision of SC which he called
cannot be viewed anymore. Imposition of requirements (adult identification number or credit incompetent and narrow-minded, and announcing
card) would bar adults who do not have a credit card and lack the resources to obtain one that he would file a bill for its reorganization
from accessing any blocked material. It burdens communication among adults. In re Tulfo Tulfo's “Sangkatutak na Bobo” column was held
contumacious. Freedom of the press is subordinate to the decision,
The CDA is punitive, a criminal statute. The CDA is a content- based blanket restriction on authority and integrity of the judiciary and the proper administration
speech, and as such, cannot be properly analyzed as a form of time, place and manner of justice.
regulation. In re Laureta a lawyer was held in contempt and suspended
from the practice of law for wrting individual letters to members of
· The CDA was replaced with Child Online Protection Act, 1. The scope had been limited the SC division that decided a case against his client, arrogantly
to material displayed only on the world wide web. Chat and email were not included. questioning their decision
The classification of content was limited as “harmful to minors” using the Miller V Zaldivar vs a member of the Bar who imputed charges of
California Test. So, it was upheld by the Supreme Court. Sandiganbayan improper influence, corruption and other misdeeds to members of
the Supreme Court was suspended from the practice of law as
Notes: the Court’s Jurisprudence teaches that it is the publisher’s responsibility to abide by “neither the right of free speech nor the right to engage in political
that community’s standards. activities can be so construed or extended as to permit any such
liberties to a member of the bar.”
The fact that distributors of allegedly obscene materials may be subjected to varying
community standards in the various federal judicial districts into which they transmit the V. FREEDOM OF RELIGION
materials does not render a federal statute unconstitutional.
Section 5, Art. III. No law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting
- Criticism of Official Conduct the free exercise thereof. The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and
Lagunzad vs Sotto the Court granted the petition to restrain the public exhibition of the worship, without discrimination or preference, shall forever be allowed. No religious test shall
Vda. de Gonzales movie “Moises Padilla Story,” because it contained fictionalized be required for
embellishments. Being a public figure does not destroy one's right to the exercise of civil or political rights.
privacy.
Ayer Productions vs the tribunal upheld the primacy of freedom of Religion defined
Judge Capulong expression over Enrile's “right to privacy,” because
Enrile was a public figure and a public figure's right · “any specific system of belief, worship, conduct, etc., often involving a code of ethics
to privacy is narrower than that of an ordinary and philosophy” (defined by Cruz)
citizen. Besides, the movie “Four Days of Revolution (sabi ni Cruz)” /
“A Dangerous Life · In Aglipay vs Ruiz religion is defined as “a profession of faith to an active power that
(sabi ni Nachura)” / “The Four Day Revolution binds and elevates man to his Creator.
(sabi sa case)” would not be historically faithful
without including therein the participation of Enrile in the EDSA Two Guarantees Contained Section 5, Art. III of the Constitution
revolution.
US vs Bustos SC compared criticism of official conduct to a (1) Non-establishment clause
“scalpel that relieves the abscesses of officialdom” (2) Free exercise of religious profession and worship
People vs Alarcon newspaper publications tending to impede,
obstruct, embarrass or influence the courts in 1. Non-establishment Clause
administering justice in a pending suit or proceeding constitutes
criminal contempt which is · reinforces Sec. 6, Art. II on the separation of church and State
summarily punishable by the courts.
In re Jurado a publication that tends to impede, embarrass or · other provisions which support this: Sec 2(5), Art. IX-C [a religious sect or denomination
obstruct the court and constitutes a clear and cannot be registered as a political party], Sec 5(2), Art. VI [no sectoral representative
 from the religious sector], and Sec 29 (2), Art. VI [prohibition against the use of public all religions, the State recognizes the validity of marriages
money or property for the benefit of any religion, or of any priest, minister or ecclsiastic], performed in conformity with the rites of Mohammedan
Sec. 28 (3), Art. VI [exemption from taxation of properties actually, directly and religion
exclusively used for religious purposes, Sec 4(2), Art XIV [citizenship requirement of Rubi vs Provincial Board the expression “non-Christian” in “non-Christian tribes” was
ownership of educational institutions except those owned by religious groups], Sec 29(2), Art not meant to discriminate. It refers to degree of civilization,
VI [appropriation allowed where the minister is employed in the armed forces, penal not to the religious belief.
institution or government-owned orphanage or leprosarium] Islamic Da'wah Council of by arrogating to itself the task of issuing halal
the Philippines vs Office of certifications, the State has, in effect, forced Muslims to
Scope: The State Exec. Sec. accept its own interpretation of the Qur'an and Sunna on
halal food.
a. cannot set up a church;
b. cannot pass laws which aid one religion, all religions or prefer one over another;
c. cannot influence a person to go to or remain away from church against his will; nor · Intramural Religious Dispute – outside the jurisdiction of the secular authorities
d. force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion.
Gonzales vs Archbishop of where a civil right depends upon some matter pertaining to
Rationale: Manila ecclesiastical affairs, the civil tribunal tries the civil right and
· to delineate boundaries between the two institutions; and nothing more.
· to avoid encroachment by one against the other. Fonacier v CA where the dispute involves the property rights of the religious
group, or the relations of the members where the property
· A union of Church and State would either: rights are involved, the civil courts may assume jurisdiction.
◦ tend to destroy government and to degrade religion; or
◦ result in a conspiracy because of its composite strength 2. Free Exercise Clause

· separation of church and state is not a wall of hostility Two Aspects of Free Exercise Clause:
· The Government is neutral. It protects all, but prefers none and disparages none.
· Freedom of religion includes freedom from religion; the right to worship includes right not 1. Freedom to Believe
to worship
(a) absolute
Two values sought to be protected by the non-establishment clause: (b) includes not to believe
(c) “everyone has a right to his beliefs and he may not be called to account because he
(1) Voluntarism – the growth of a religious sect as a social force must come from the voluntary cannot prove what he believes”
support of its members because of the belief that both spiritual and secular society will
benefit if religions are allowed to compete on their own intrinsic merit without benefit of 2. Freedom to Act According to One's Beliefs
official patronage.
(a) happens when the individual externalizes his beliefs in acts or omissions
(2) Insulation of the political process from interfaith dissension – voluntarism cannot be
achieved unless the political process is insulated from religion and unless religion is insulated (b) subject to regulation; can be enjoyed only with proper regard to rights of others
politics.
(c) Justice Frankfurter: the constitutional provision on religious freedom terminated disabilities,
Engel vs Vitale recitation by students in public schools in New York of a it did not create new privileges... its essence is freedom from conformity to religious dogma,
prayer composed by the Board of Regents was not freedom from conformity to law because of religious dogma
unconstitutional
Everson vs Board of US Supreme Court sustained the law providing free German vs Barangan SC found that petitioners were not sincere in
Education transportation for all schoolchildren without discrimination, their profession of religious liberty and were
including those attending parochial schools using it merely to express their opposition to
Board of Education vs Allen US Supreme Court sustained the law requiring the the government
petitioner to lend textbooks free of charge to all students Ebralinag vs division SC reversed Gerona vs Sec. of Educ. , and
from grades 7-12, including those attending private schools Superintendent of Schools of upheld the right of petitioners to refute to
In Everson and Allen, the government aid was given directly to the student and parents, not Cebu salute the Philippine flag on account of their
to the church-related school religious scruples. To compel students to
Adong vs Cheong Seng Gee in line with the constitutional principle of equal treatment of take part in a flag ceremony when it is against

People vs Zosa
Victoriano vs Elizalde Rope
Workers Union
American Bible Society vs
City of Manila
Tolentino vs Sec. of Finance
· Compelling State Interest test [Estrada vs Escritor]
their religious beliefs will violate their religious
freedom.
invocation of religious scruples in order to avoid military
service was brushed aside by the SC
SC upheld the validity of RA 3350, exempting
members of a religious sect from being
compelled to join a labor union
the constitutional guarantee of free exercise
carries with it the right to disseminate information, and any
restraint of such right can be justified only on the ground that
there is a clear and present danger of an evil which the
State has the right to prevent; Hence, City ordinance
imposing license fees to on sale is inapplicable to the society
the free exercise clause does not prohibit imposing a
generally applicable sales and use tax on the sale of
religious materials; the registration fee is not imposed for the
exercise of a privilege, but only for the purpose of defraying
part of the cost of registration
People vs Zosa invocation of religious scruples in order to avoid military service
was brushed aside by the SC
VI. RIGHT TO TRAVEL
Section 6, Art. III. The liberty of abode and of changing the same within the limits prescribed
by law shall not be impaired except upon lawful order of the court. Neither shall the right to
travel be impaired except in the interest of national security, public safety, or public health,
as may be provided by law.
Liberty Guaranteed by Sec. 6 Art. III
1. freedom to choose and change one's place of abode; and
2. freedom to travel both within the country and outside
Limitations
· Liberty of Abode – “upon lawful order of the court”
· Right to Travel – “national security, public safety or public health as may be provided by
law”

· the constitution's religion clause's prescribe not a strict bu abenevolent neutrality (which
recognizes that government mustpursue its secular goals and interests, but at the same
time, strive to uphold religious liberty to the greatest extent possible within flexible
constitutional limits
· benevolent neutrality could allow for accomodation morality based on religion provided
it does not offend the compelling state interest test.
· two steps (as regards the test):
▪ inquire whether respondent's right to religious freedom has been burdened; and
▪ ascertain respondent's sincerity in her religious belief.
· In Centeno vs Villalon-Pornillos, the Court held that solicitiations for religious purposes
requires not a prior permit from DSWD as it is not included in solicitations for “charitable or
public welfare purposes.”
Religious Tests
· Purpose: to stop government's clandestine attempts to prevent a person from exercising his
civil of political rights because of his religious beliefs.
· In Pamil v. Teleron, Sec. 2175 of the Revised Adminsitrative Code is questioned whether or
not it is consistent with the religious clause of the Constitution. Said Code disqualifies an
“ecclesiastic” from being elected or appointed to a municipal office. Seven Justices
voted to consider this a prohibited “religious test.” Five justices said it is not a religious test
but a safeguard against the constant threat of union of Church and State that has
marked the Philippine history. (Hence, since the majority vote needed under the 1973
Constitution to nullify a statute was not reached, thedisqualification remains
enforceable.)
Caunca vs Salazar 82 Phil
851
Rubi vs Provincial Board of
Mindoro 1919
Villavicencio vs Lukban
1919
Salonga vs Hermoso 97
SCRA 121
Lorenzo vs Dir. of
Health1927
Manotok vs CA 1986
Marcos vs Manglapus 1989
Whether a maid had the right to transfer to another residence
even if she had not paid yet the amount advances by an
employment agency:
Yes. The fortunes of business cannot be controlled by
controlling a fundamental human freedom.
Human dignity and freedom are essentially spiritual –
inseparable from the idea of eternal. Money, power, etc.
belong to the ephemeral and perishable.
The respondents were justified in requiring the members of
certain non-Christian tribes to reside in a reservation, for their
better education, advancement and protection. The measure
was a legitimate exercise of police power.
Prostitutes, despite being in a sense lepers, are not
chattels but Philippine citizens, protected by the same
constitutional guarantee of freedom of abode. They may not
be compelled to change their domicile in the absence of a
law allowing such.
the case became moot and academic when the permit to
travel abroad was issued before the case could be heard.
Laws for the segregation of lepers have been provided the
world over and is supported by high scientific authority. Such
segregation is premised on the duty to protect public health.
Bail posted in a criminal case, is a valid restriction on the right
to travel. By its nature, it may serve as a prohibition on an
accused from leaving the jurisdiction of the Philippines where
orders of Philippine courts would have no binding force.
The liberty of abode and the right to travel includes the right to
 leave, reside and travel within one’s country but it does not
include the right to return to one’s country.
NOTE: Court warned that this case should not create a
precedent because Marcos was a class in himself.
Philippine Association of Right to travel may be impaired in the interest of national
Service Exporters vs Drilon security, public health or public order, as may be provided by
1988 law.
An order temporarily suspending the deployment of overseas
workers is constitutional for having been issued in the interest of
the safety of OFWs, as provided by the Labor Code.
VII. ACCESS TO PUBLIC INFORMATION
Section 7, Art. III. 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.
· the citizenry has a right to know what is going on in the country and in his government so
he can express his views thereon knowledgeably and intelligently.
Rights Guaranteed
1. Right to information on matters of public concern ; and
2. Corollary right of access to official records and documents.
· These are political rights that are available to citizens only (Bernas, Philippine Constitution, p.
85).
Limitations: “As may be provided by law”
Valmonte v Belmonte 1989 The people have a right to access official records but
they can’t compel custodians of official records to
prepare lists, abstracts, summaries and the like, such not
being based on a demandable legal right.
Then right to privacy belongs to the individual and must
be invoked by the individual. A public agency like the
GSIS cannot invoke the right to privacy.
Baldoza v Dimaano 1976 Judges cannot prohibit access to judicial records.
However, a judge may regulate the manner in which
persons desiring to inspect, examine or copy records in
his office, may exercise their rights.
Legaspi v Civil Service Personal interest is not required in asserting the right to
Commission information on matters of public concern. What matters
1987 constitute “public concern” should be determined by
the court on a case to case basis.
Chavez v PCGG 1998 Public concern (def.) – writings coming into the hands of
public officers in connection with their official functions
Ill-gotten wealth is, by its nature, a matter of public
concern. Privileged communication: (1) national
security, (2) trade
secrets, (3) criminal matters pending in court,
Echegaray case SC held that making the Lethal Injection Manual
inaccessible to the convict was unconstitutional.
VIII. MIRANDA RIGHTS
Section 12, Art. III.
1. Any person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have the
right to be informed of his right to remain silent and to have competent and
independent counsel preferably of his own choice. If the person cannot afford the
services of counsel, he must be provided with one. These rights cannot be waived
except in writing and in the presence of
counsel.
2. No torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation, or any other means which vitiate
the free will shall be used against him. Secret detention places, solitary,
incommunicado, or other similar forms of detention are prohibited.
3. Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this or Section 17 hereof shall
be inadmissible in evidence against him.
4. The law shall provide for penal and civil sanctions for violations of this Section as
well as compensation to the rehabilitation of victims of torture or similar practices,
and their families.
· called the “Miranda Doctrine” (Miranda vs Arizona)
Miranda Doctrine – prior to any questioning during custodial investigation, the person must be
warned that he has a right to remain silent, that any statement he gives may be used as
evidence against him, and that he has the right to the presence of an attorney, either
retained or appointed. The defendant may waive effectuation of these rights, provided the
waiver is made voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently.
Purpose of the Doctrine
In Miranda v Arizona, the US Supreme Court established rules to protect a criminal
defendant's privilege against self-incrimination from the pressures arising during custodial
investigation by the police. Thus, to provide practical safeguards for the practical
reinforcement for the right against compulsory self-incrimination, the Court held that “the
prosecution may not use statements, whether exculpatory or inculpatory, stemming from
custodial interrogation of the defendant unless it demonstrates the use of procedural
safeguards effective to secure the privilege against self-incrimination.
Requisites of the Miranda Doctrine
1) any person under custodial investigation has the right to remain silent;
2) anything he says can and will be used against him in a court of law;
3) he has the right to talk to an attorney before being questioned and to have his counsel
present when being questioned; and
4) if he cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided before any questioning if he so
desires.
Custodial investigation defined
· Any questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into
custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way.
· Begins as soon as the investigation is no longer a general inquiry unto an unsolved crime,
and direction is then aimed upon a particular suspect who has been taken into custody
and to whom the police would then direct interrogatory questions which tend to elicit
incriminating statements.
· Shall include the practice of issuing an invitation to a person who is investigated in
connection with an offense he is suspected to have committed, without prejudice to the
liability of the inviting officer for any violation of law.
Extrajudicial confession is Admissible when:
(a) Voluntary
(b) (b)With assistance of counsel
(c) In writing, and
(d) Express
Rights Under Custodial Investigation
(a) To be informed of right to remain silent and to counsel
· Carries the correlative obligation on the part of the investigator to explain and
contemplates effective communication which results in the subject understanding what
is conveyed. (People v. Agustin)
(b) To be reminded that if he waives his right to remain silent, anything he says can and will
be used against him
(c) To remain silent
(d) To have competent and independent counsel preferably of own choice
(e) To be provided with counsel if the person cannot afford the services of one
(f) No torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation or any other means which vitiate the free
will shall be used against him
(g) Secret detention places, solitary, incommunicado, or other similar forms of detention are
prohibited
(h) Confessions or admissions obtained in violation of these rights are inadmissible as
evidence (exclusionary rule)
Rights That May Be Waived
[waiver must be in writing and in the presence of counsel]
(a) Right to remain silent
(b) Right to Counsel
Rights That Cannot Be Waived
(a) Right to be informed of his right to remain silent and to counsel
(b) Right to counsel when making the waiver of the right to remain silent or to counsel
· Right to counsel de parte is not unlimited. Accused cannot repeatedly ask for
postponement. He must be provided with counsel de oficio.
· RA 7309: victims of unjust imprisonment may file their claims with the Board of Claims
under DOJ
· Res Gestae: The declaration of the accused acknowledging guilt made to the police
desk officer after the crime was committed may be given in evidence against him by the
police officer to whom the admission was made, as part of the res gestae.
· In People v. Galit, rights under custodial investigation may be waived. The Constitution
says; “These rights cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of counsel.”
In localities where there are no lawyers, the State must bring the individual to a place
where there is one.
· Termination of rights under custodial investigation: When Charges are filed against the
accused (in such case, Sections 14 and 17 come into play).
· In Gutang v. People, the Court held that urine sample is admissible. “What the
Constitution prohibits is the use of physical or moral compulsion to extort communication
from the accused, but not an inclusion of his body in evidence, when it may be material.
In fact, an accused may be validly compelled to be photographed or measured, or his
garments or shoes removed or replaced, or to move his body to enablke the foregoing
things to be done, without running afould of the proscription against testimonial
compulsion.
IX. RIGHT TO BAIL
Section 13, Art. III. All persons, except those charged with offenses punishable by
reclusion perpetua when evidence of guilt is strong, shall, 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.
Bail – is security given for the release of a person in custody of law, furnished by him or a
bondsman, to guaranty his appearance before any court as may be required
Kinds of Bail
(a) Cash bond
(b) Security bond
Who May Invoke?
A person under detention even if no formal charges have yet been filed (Rule 114, Rules of
Court)
Who Are Entitled?
(c) Persons charged with offenses punishable by Reclusion Perpetua or Death, when
evidence of guilt is strong
(d) Persons convicted by the trial court. Bail is only discretionary pending appeal.
(e) Persons who are members of the AFP facing a court martial.
· In Paderanga v. CA, all persons actually detained, except those charged with offenses
punishable by reclusion perpetua or death when evidence of guilt is strong, shall, before
conviction, be bailable but sufficient sureties. One is under the custody of the law either
when he has been arrested or has surrendered himself to the jurisdiction of the court, as
in the case where through counsel petitioner for bail who was confined in a hospital
communicated his submission to the jurisdiction of the court.
Other Rights in Relation to Bail
 · The right to bail shall NOT be impaired even when the privilege of the writ of habeas be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him, to have a
corpus is suspended. speedy, impartial, and public trial, to meet the witnesses face to face, and to have
· Excessive bail shall not be required. compulsory process to secure the attendance of witnesses and the production of
evidence in his behalf. However, after arraignment, trial may proceed
Factors in Fixing Amount of Bail notwithstanding the absence of the accused: Provided, that he has been duly
(a) Ability to post bail notified and his failure to appear is unjustifiable.
(b) Nature of the offense
(c) Penalty imposed by law The Rights of the Accused Include
(d) Character and reputation of the accused 1. Criminal due process;
(e) Health of the accused 2. Presumption of innocence;
(f) Strength of the evidence 3. Right to be heard by himself or counsel;
(g) Probability of appearing at the trial 4. Right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him;
(h) Forfeiture of previous bail bonds 5. Right to speedy, impartial and public trial;
(i) Whether accused was a fugitive from justice when arrested 6. Right to meet the witnesses face to face;
(j) If accused is under bond in other cases 7. Right to compulsory process to secure attendance of witnesses and production of evidence;
and
Implicit Limitations on the Right to Bail 8. trial in absentia

(a) The person claiming the right must be in actual detention or custody of the law. 1. Criminal Due Process
Criminal process includes
· In People v. Donato, charged with rebellion, a bailable offense, Salas nevertheless a) Investigation prior to the filing of charges
agreed “to remain in legal custody during the pendency of the trial of his criminal case.” b) Preliminary examination and investigation after charges are filed
The Court held that he does not have the right to bail, because bu his act he has waived c) Period of trial
his right.
Requirements of Criminal Due Process
(b) The constitutional right is available only in criminal cases, not, e.g. in deportation and
extradition proceedings. 1. Impartial and competent court in accordance with procedure prescribed by law;
2. Proper observance of all the rights accorded the accused under the Constitution and
Note: the applicable statutes (example of statutory right of the accused: right to Preliminary
(a) Right to bail is not available in the military. investigation)

· In Comendador v. De Villa, soldier under court martial does not enjoy the right to bail. It is
because of the disciplinary structure of the military and because soldiers are allowed the
fiduciary right to bear arms and can therefore cause great havoc... Nor can appeal be
made to the equal protection clause ebcause equal protection applies only to those
who are equally situated.
(b) Apart from bail, a person may attain provisional liberty through recognizance.
· Mistrial may be declared if shown that proceedings were held under circumstances as
would prevent the accused from freely making his defense or the judge from freely
arriving at his decision.
· There is violation of due process when law not published and a person is impleaded for
violation of such law.
· There is violation of due process when appeal is permitted by law but there is denial
thereof.

· In US v. Puruganan, the Court held that extradition is not a criminal proceeding. Hence, 2. Presumption of Innocence
since bail is available only in criminal proceedings, a respondent in an extradition · Burden of proof to establish the guilt of the accused is with the prosecution.
proceeding is not entitled to a bail. He should apply for a bail in the court where he will
be tried. · Conviction depends on the strength of prosecution, not on the weakness of the defense

X. RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED · The presumption may be overcome by contrary presumption based on the experience
of human conduct. (e.g unexplained flight may lead to an inference of guilt, as “the
Section 14, Art. III. wicked flee when no man pursueth, but the righteous are as bold as a lion.”)
1. No person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense without due process of
law. · The constitutional presumption will not apply as long as there is some rational connection
2. In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed innocent until the between the fact proved and the ultimate fact presumed, and the inference of one fact
contrary is proved, and shall enjoy the right to be heard by himself and counsel, to
 from proof of another shall not be so unreasonable as to be a purely arbitrary mandate.
– Cooley
· No inference of guilt may be drawn against an accused for his failure to make a
statement of any sort.
· In Dumlao v. Comelec, for the purposes of disqualification in an election, section 4 of BP
Blg. 52 says that” the filing of charges for the commission of such crimes before civil court
or military tribunal after preliminary investigation shall be prima facie evidence of such
fact (disqualification).” The Court held that this provision violates the guarantee of
presumption of innocence. Although filing of charges is only prima facie evidence and
may be rebutted, the proximity of elections and consequent risk of not having time to
rebut the prima facie evidence already in effect make him suffer as though guilty even
before trial.
Equipoise Rule – evidence of both sides are equally balanced, in which case the
constitutional presumption of innocence should tilt the scales in favor of theaccused.
3. Right to be Heard by Himself and Counsel
· Indispensable in any criminal prosecution where the stakes are the liberty or even the life
of the accused
· Assistance of counsel begins from the time a person is taken into custody and placed
under investigation for the commission of a crime.
▪ This is not subject to waiver.
· Right to counsel means the right to effective representation.
· If the accused appears at arraignment without counsel, the judge must:
(a) Inform the accused that he has a right to a counsel before arraignment;
(b) Ask the accused if he desires the aid of counsel;
(c) If the accused desires counsel, but cannot afford one, a counsel de oficio must
be appointed;
(d) If the accused desires to obtain his own counsel, the court must give him a
reasonable time to get one.
4. Nature and Cause of Accusation
Purpose for the Right to be informed of the Nature and Cause of Accusation
1. To furnish the accused with a description of the charge against him as will enable him to
make his defenses;
2. To avail himself of his conviction or acquittal against a further prosecution for the same
cause;
3. To inform the court of the facts alleged.
· The description and not the designation of the offense is controlling (The real nature of
the crime charged is determined from the recital of facts in the information. It is not
determined based on the caption or preamble thereof nor from the specification of the
provision of law allegedly violated.)
· If the information fails to allege the material elements of the offense, the accused
cannot be convicted thereof even if the prosecution is able to present evidence during
the trial with respect to such elements.
Void for Vagueness Rule – accused is denied the right to be informed of the charge against
him and to due process as well, where the statute itself is couched in such indefinite
language that it is not possible for men of ordinary intelligence to determine therefrom what
acts or omissions are punished and
hence, shall be avoided.
· In Estrada vs Sandiganbayan, the Court held that the Void for Vagueness Doctrine
merely requires a reasonable degree of certainty and not absolute precision or
mathematical exactitude.
5. The Trial
Factors in Determining Whether There Is Violation
(a) Time expired from the filing of the information
(b) Length of delay involved
(c) Reasons for the delay
(d) Assertion or non-assertion of the right by the accused
(e) Prejudice caused to the defendant.
· Effect of dismissal based on violation of this right: it amounts to an acquittal and can be
used as basis to claim double jeopardy. This would be the effect even if the dismissal was
made with the consent of the accused
Remedy if the Right is Violated
(1) He can move for the dismissal of the case;
(2) If he is detained, he can file a petition for the issuance of writ of habeas corpus.
Speedy trial -
1. Free from vexatious, capricious and oppressive delays
2. To relieve the accused from needless anxieties before sentence is pronounced upon him
Impartial trial – the accused is entitled to the “cold neutrality of an impartial judge”. It is an
element of due process.
· Public trial: The attendance at the trial is open to all irrespective of their relationship to
the accused. However, if the evidence to be adduced is “offensive to decency or
public morals”, the public may be excluded.
· The right of the accused to a public trial is not violated if the hearings are conducted on
Saturdays, either with the consent of the accused or if failed to object thereto.
· The right to be present covers the period from arraignment to promulgation of sentence.
· General Rule: the accused may waive the right to be present at the trial by not showing
up. However, the court can still compel the attendance of the accused if necessary for
identification purposes.

▪ Exception: If the accused, after arraignment, has stipulated that he is indeed the
person charged with the offense and named in the information, and that any time a
witness refers to a name by which he is known, the witness is to be understood as
referring to him.
· Trial in Absentia is mandatory upon the court whenever the accused has been
arraigned.
· There is also Promulgation in Absentia
· While the accused is entitled to be present during promulgation of judgment, the
absence of his counsel during such promulgation does not affect its validity
· The trial in absentia does not abrogate the provisions of the Rules of Court regarding
forfeiture of bail bond if the accused fails to appear at his trial.
· A court has the power to prohibit a person admitted to bail from leaving the Philippines
as this is a necessary consequence of the nature and function of a bail bond
6. The Right to Meet the Witnesses Face to Face
Purposes of the Right to Meet the Witnesses Face to Face
(1) To afford the accused an opportunity to cross-examine the witness
(2) To allow the judge the opportunity to observe the deportment of the witness
Principal Exceptions to this Right
(1) The admissibility of “dying declarations”
(2) Trial in absentia under Section 14(2)
· With respect to child testimony
· Testimony of witness who was not cross-examined is not admissible as evidence for being
hearsay.
· If a prosecution witness dies before his cross-examination can be completed, his direct
testimony cannot be stricken off the record, provided the material points of his direct
testimony had been covered on cross.
· The right to confrontation may be waived.
7. Compulsory Process
· The accused is entitled to the issuance of subpoena ad testificandum and subpoena
duces tecum for the purpose of compelling the attendance of witness and the
production of evidence that he may need for his defense.
· Failure to obey – punishable as contempt of court.
· There are exceptional circumstances when the defendant may ask for conditional
examination, provided the expected testimony is material of any witness under
circumstances that would make him unavailable from attending the trial.
8. Trial in Absentia
Trial in Absentia May Only Be Allowed If the Following Requisites Are Met:
(1) the accused has been validly arraigned;
(2) Accused has already been arraigned;
(3) Accused has been duly notified of the trial; and
(4) His failure to appear is unjustifiable.
XI. HABEAS CORPUS
Section 15, Art. III. The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended
except in cases of invasion or rebellion, when the public safety requires it.
Writ of Habeas Corpus – is a written order issued by a court, directed to a person detaining
another, commanding him to produce the body of the prisoner at a designated time and
place with the day and cause of his caption and detention.
Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus – the right to have an immediate determination of the
legality of the deprivation of physical liberty.
The President may suspend the privilege:
(1) in cases of invasion or rebellion
(2) when public safety requires it.
· Habeas corpus lies only where the restraint of a person's liberty has been judicially
adjudged to be illegal or unlawful (In re: Sumulong)
· The writ is a prerogative writ employed to test the validity of detention
· To secure the detainee’s release
· The action shall take precedence in the calendar of the court and must be acted upon
immediately
When available (enumeration not exclusive)
restoration of liberty of an individual subjected to physical restraint
may be availed of where, as a consequence of a judicial proceeding:
1. there has been deprivation of a constitutional right resulting in the restraint of the
person
2. the court has no jurisdiction to impose the sentence, or
3. an excessive penalty has been imposed, since such sentence is void as to the
excess.
May be extended to cases by which rightful custody of any person is withheld from the
person entitled thereto
When moral restraint is exerted (Caunca vs Salazar)
 Right was accorded a person was sentenced to a longer penalty than was subsequently
meted out to another person convicted of the same offense. (Gumabon vs Director of
Prisons)
Unlawful denial of bail
When not available (enumeration not exclusive)
the person alleged to be restrained is in the custody of an officer under a process issued by
the court which has jurisdiction to do so
desaparecidos (disappeared persons) – persons could not be found; remedy is to refer the
matter to Commission on Human Rights
Procedure
Need to comply with writ; disobedience thereof constitutes contempt
Who may suspend the privilege
The President
Grounds for Suspension of the privilege
1. invasion or rebellion
2. when public safety requires it
Section 18, Art. VII. The President shall be the Commander-in-Chief of all armed forces of the
Philippines and whenever it becomes necessary, he may call out such armed forces to
prevent or suppress lawless violence, invasion or rebellion. In case of invasion or rebellion,
when the public safety requires it, he may, for a period not exceeding sixty days, suspend the
privilege of the writ of habeas corpus or place the Philippines or any part thereof under
martial law. Within forty-eight hours from the 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 martiallaw 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.
Lansang doctrine (Lansang vs Garcia): SC has the power to inquire into the factual basis of
the suspension of the privilege of the writ. It is written in Article VII, Sec. 18 of the Constitution.
WRIT OF AMPARO
A.M. No. 07-9-12-SC
(25 September 2007)
THE RULE ON THE WRIT OF AMPARO
SECTION 1. Petition. The petition for a writ of amparo is a remedy available to any person
whose right to life, liberty and security is violated or threatened with violation by an unlawful
act or omission of a public official or employee, or of a private individual or entity.
The writ shall cover extralegal killings and enforced disappearances or threats thereof.
SEC. 2. Who May File. The petition may be filed by the aggrieved party or by any qualified
person or entity in the following order:
1. Any member of the immediate family, namely: the spouse, children and parents of the
aggrieved party;
2. Any ascendant, descendant or collateral relative of the aggrieved party within the fourth
civil degree of consanguinity or affinity, in default of those mentioned in the preceding
paragraph; or
3. Any concerned citizen, organization, association or institution, if there is no known member
of the immediate family or relative of the aggrieved party.
The filing of a petition by the aggrieved party suspends the right of all other authorized parties
to file similar petitions. Likewise, the filing of the petition by an authorized party on behalf of
the aggrieved party suspends the right of all others, observing the order established herein.
SEC. 3. Where to File. The petition may be filed on any day and at any time with the Regional
Trial Court of the place where the threat, act or omission was committed or any of its
elements occurred, or with the Sandiganbayan, the Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court, or
any justice of such courts. The writ shall be enforceable anywhere in the Philippines.
When issued by a Regional Trial Court or any judge thereof, the writ shall be returnable before
such court or judge.
When issued by the Sandiganbayan or the Court of Appeals or any of their justices, it may be
returnable before such court or any justice thereof, or to any Regional Trial Court of the place
where the threat, act or omission was committed or any of its elements occurred.
When issued by the Supreme Court or any of its justices, it may be returnable before such
Court or any justice thereof, or before the Sandiganbayan or the Court of Appeals or any of
their justices, or to any Regional Trial Court of the place where the threat, act or omission was
committed or any of its elements occurred.
SEC. 4. No Docket Fees. The petitioner shall be exempted from the payment of the docket
and other lawful fees when filing the petition. The court, justice or judge shall docket the
petition and act upon it immediately.
SEC. 5. Contents of Petition. The petition shall be signed and verified and shall allege the
following:
1. The personal circumstances of the petitioner;
2. The name and personal circumstances of the respondent responsible for the threat, act or
omission, or, if the name is unknown or uncertain, the respondent may be described by an
assumed appellation;
3. The right to life, liberty and security of the aggrieved party violated or threatened with
violation by an unlawful act or omission of the respondent, and how such threat or violation is
committed with the attendant circumstances detailed in supporting affidavits;
4. The investigation conducted, if any, specifying the names, personal circumstances, and
addresses of the investigating authority or individuals, as well as the manner and conduct of
the investigation,
together with any report;
5. The actions and recourses taken by the petitioner to determine the fate or whereabouts of
the aggrieved party and the identity of the person responsible for the threat, act or omission;
and
6. The relief prayed for. The petition may include a general prayer for other just and equitable
reliefs.
SEC. 6. Issuance of the Writ. Upon the filing of the petition, the court, justice or judge shall
immediately order the issuance of the writ if on its face it ought to issue. The clerk of court
shall issue the writ under the seal of the court; or in case of urgent necessity, the justice or the
judge may issue the writ under his or her own hand, and may deputize any officer or person
to serve it.
which to make a return of service. In case the writ cannot be served personally on the
respondent, the rules on substituted service shall apply.
SEC. 9. Return; Contents. Within seventy-two (72) hours after service of the writ, the respondent
shall file a verified written return together with supporting affidavits which shall, among other
things, contain the following:
1. The lawful defenses to show that the respondent did not violate or threaten with violation
the right to life, liberty and security of the aggrieved party, through any act or omission;
2. The steps or actions taken by the respondent to determine the fate or whereabouts of the
aggrieved party and the person or persons responsible for the threat, act or omission;
3. All relevant information in the possession of the respondent pertaining to the threat, act or
omission against the aggrieved party; and
4. If the respondent is a public official or employee, the return shall further state the actions
that have been or will still be taken:
i. to verify the identity of the aggrieved party;
ii. to recover and preserve evidence related to the death or disappearance of the
person identified in the petition which may aid in the prosecution of the person or
persons responsible;
iii. to identify witnesses and obtain statements from them concerning the death or
disappearance;
iv. to determine the cause, manner, location and time of death or disappearance
as well as any pattern or practice that may have brought about the death or
disappearance;
v. to identify and apprehend the person or persons involved in the death or
disappearance; and
vi. to bring the suspected offenders before a competent court.
The return shall also state other matters relevant to the investigation, its resolution and the
prosecution of the case.
A general denial of the allegations in the petition shall not be allowed.
SEC. 10. Defenses not Pleaded Deemed Waived. All defenses shall be raised in the return,
otherwise, they shall be deemed waived.

The writ shall also set the date and time for summary hearing of the petition which shall not SEC. 11. Prohibited Pleadings and Motions. The following pleadings and motions are
be later than seven (7) days from the date of its issuance. prohibited:

SEC. 7. Penalty for Refusing to Issue or Serve the Writ. A clerk of court who refuses to issue the 1. Motion to dismiss;
writ after its allowance, or a deputized person who refuses to serve the same, shall be 2. Motion for extension of time to file return, opposition, affidavit, position paper and other
punished by the court, justice or judge for contempt without prejudice to other disciplinary pleadings;
actions. 3. Dilatory motion for postponement;
4. Motion for a bill of particulars;
SEC. 8. How the Writ is Served. The writ shall be served upon the respondent by a judicial 5. Counterclaim or cross-claim;
officer or by a person deputized by the court, justice or judge who shall retain a copy on 6. Third-party complaint;
7. Reply;
8. Motion to declare respondent in default;
9. Intervention;
10. Memorandum;
11. Motion for reconsideration of interlocutory orders or interim relief orders; and
12. Petition for certiorari, mandamus or prohibition against any interlocutory order.
SEC. 12. Effect of Failure to File Return. In case the respondent fails to file a return, the court,
justice or judge shall proceed to hear the petition ex parte.
SEC. 13. Summary Hearing. The hearing on the petition shall be summary. However, the court,
justice or judge may call for a preliminary conference to simplify the issues and determine the
possibility of obtaining stipulations and admissions from the parties.
The hearing shall be from day to day until completed and given the same priority as petitions
for habeas corpus.
SEC. 14. Interim Reliefs. Upon filing of the petition or at anytime before final judgment, the
court, justice or judge may grant any of the following reliefs:
(a) Temporary Protection Order. The court, justice or judge, upon motion or motu proprio,
may order that the petitioner or the aggrieved party and any member of the immediate
family be protected in a government agency or by an accredited person or private
institution capable of keeping and securing their safety. If the petitioner is an organization,
association or institution referred to in Section 3(c) of this Rule, the protection may be
extended to the officers involved.
The Supreme Court shall accredit the persons and private institutions that shall extend
temporary protection to the petitioner or the aggrieved party and any member of the
immediate family, in accordance with guidelines which it shall issue.
The accredited persons and private institutions shall comply with the rules and conditions that
may be imposed by the court, justice or judge.
(b) Inspection Order. The court, justice or judge, upon verified motion and after due hearing,
may order any person in possession or control of a designated land or other property, to
permit entry for the purpose of inspecting, measuring, surveying, or photographing the
property or any relevant object or operation thereon.
The motion shall state in detail the place or places to be inspected. It shall be supported by
affidavits or testimonies of witnesses having personal knowledge of the enforced
disappearance or whereabouts of the aggrieved party.
If the motion is opposed on the ground of national security or of the privileged nature of the
information, the court, justice or judge may conduct a hearing in chambers to determine the
merit of the opposition.
The movant must show that the inspection order is necessary to establish the right of the
aggrieved party alleged to be threatened or violated.
The inspection order shall specify the person or persons authorized to make the inspection
and the date, time, place and manner of making the inspection and may prescribe other
conditions to protect the constitutional rights of all parties. The order shall expire five (5) days
after the date of its issuance, unless extended for justifiable reasons.
(c) Production Order. The court, justice or judge, upon verified motion and after due hearing,
may order any person in possession, custody or control of any designated documents,
papers, books, accounts, letters, photographs, objects or tangible things, or objects in
digitized or electronic form, which constitute or contain evidence relevant to the petition or
the return, to produce and permit their inspection, copying or photographing by or on behalf
of the movant.
The motion may be opposed on the ground of national security or of the privileged nature of
the information, in which case the court, justice or judge may conduct a hearing in chambers
to determine the merit of the opposition.
The court, justice or judge shall prescribe other conditions to protect the constitutional rights
of all the parties.
(d) Witness Protection Order. The court, justice or judge, upon motion or motu proprio, may
refer the witnesses to the Department of Justice for admission to the Witness Protection,
Security and Benefit Program, pursuant to Republic Act No. 6981.
The court, justice or judge may also refer the witnesses to other government agencies, or to
accredited persons or private institutions capable of keeping and securing their safety.
SEC. 15. Availability of Interim Reliefs to Respondent. Upon verified motion of the respondent
and after due hearing, the court, justice or judge may issue an inspection order or production
order under paragraphs (b) and (c) of the preceding section.
A motion for inspection order under this section shall be supported by affidavits or testimonies
of witnesses having personal knowledge of the defenses of the respondent.
SEC. 16. Contempt. The court, justice or judge may order the respondent who refuses to make
a return, or who makes a false return, or any person who otherwise disobeys or resists a lawful
process or order of the court to be punished for contempt. The contemnor may be
imprisoned or imposed a fine.
SEC. 17. Burden of Proof and Standard of Diligence Required. The parties shall establish their
claims by substantial evidence.
The respondent who is a private individual or entity must prove that ordinary diligence as
required by applicable laws, rules and regulations was observed in the performance of duty.
The respondent who is a public official or employee must prove that extraordinary diligence
as required by applicable laws, rules and regulations wasobserved in the performance of
duty.
The respondent public official or employee cannot invoke the presumption that official duty
has been regularly performed to evade responsibility or liability.
SEC. 18. Judgment. The court shall render judgment within ten (10) days from the time the
petition is submitted for decision. If the allegations in the petition are proven by substantial
evidence, the court shall grant the privilege of the writ and such reliefs as may be proper and
appropriate; otherwise, the privilege shall be denied. SEC. 27. Effectivity. This Rule shall take effect on October 24, 2007, following its publication in
three (3) newspapers of general circulation.
SEC. 19. Appeal. Any party may appeal from the final judgment or order to the Supreme
Court under Rule 45. The appeal may raise questions of fact or law or both. XII. RIGHT TO SPEEDY DISPOSATION OF CASES

The period of appeal shall be five (5) working days from the date of notice of the adverse Section 16, Art. III. All persons shall have the right to a speedy disposition of their cases before
judgment. all judicial, quasi-judicial, or administrative bodies.

The appeal shall be given the same priority as in habeas corpus cases. Speedy Trial vs. Speedy Disposition of Cases

SEC. 20. Archiving and Revival of Cases. The court shall not dismiss the petition, but shall Speedy trial Speedy disposition of cases
archive it, if upon its determination it cannot proceed for a valid cause such as the failure of Refers to trial phase only Refers to disposition of cases (All phases)
petitioner or witnesses to appear due to threats on their lives. Criminal cases only Judicial, quasi-judicial or admin. Proceedings

A periodic review of the archived cases shall be made by the amparo court that shall, motu · Periods for decision for courts (Sec. 15, Art. VIII)
proprio or upon motion by any party, order their revival when ready for further proceedings. · SC: 24 months from submission
The petition shall be dismissed with prejudice upon failure to prosecute the case after the · All lower collegiate courts: 12 months unless reduced by SC
lapse of two (2) years from notice to the petitioner of the order archiving the case. · All other lower courts: 3 months

The clerks of court shall submit to the Office of the Court Administrator a consolidated list of Periods for decision for Constitutional Commissions (Sec 7, Art. IX-A)
archived cases under this Rule not later than the first week of January of every year.  60 days from date of submission for decision or resolution

SEC. 21. Institution of Separate Actions. This Rule shall not preclude the filing of separate Factors considered in determining whether the right is violated
criminal, civil or administrative actions. 1. Length of delay
2. Reason of delay
SEC. 22. Effect of Filing of a Criminal Action. When a criminal action has been commenced, 3. Assertion of the right or failure to assert it
no separate petition for the writ shall be filed. The reliefs under the writ shall be available by 4. Prejudice caused by delay
motion in the criminal case.
Remedy in case there has been unreasonable delay in resolution of a case:
The procedure under this Rule shall govern the disposition of the reliefs available under the Dismissal through mandamus
writ of amparo.
XIII. RIGHT AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION
SEC. 23. Consolidation. When a criminal action is filed subsequent to the filing of a petition for
the writ, the latter shall be consolidated with the criminal action. Section 17, Art. III. No person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.

When a criminal action and a separate civil action are filed subsequent to a petition for a
writ of amparo, the latter shall be consolidated with the criminal action.
After consolidation, the procedure under this Rule shall continue to apply to the disposition of
the reliefs in the petition.
SEC. 24. Substantive Rights. This Rule shall not diminish, increase or modify substantive rights
recognized and protected by the Constitution.
SEC. 25. Suppletory Application of the Rules of Court. The Rules of Court shall apply
suppletorily insofar as it is not inconsistent with this Rule.
SEC. 26. Applicability to Pending Cases. This Rule shall govern cases involving extralegal
killings and enforced disappearances or threats thereof pending in the trial and appellate
courts.
Based on:
1. Humanitarian reasons – it is intended to prevent the State, with all its coercive powers, from
extracting from the suspect testimony that may convict him;
2. Practical reasons – a person subjected to such compulsion is likely to perjure himself for his
own protection
Applicable to:
· Criminal prosecutions, government proceedings, including civil actions and
administrative or legislative investigations
Transactional Immunity Statute – testimony of any person or whose possession of documents
or other evidence necessary or convenient to determine the truth in any investigation
conducted is immune from criminal prosecution for an offense to which such compelled Right May be Waived:
testimony relates. - Either:
a) Directly, or
Use and Fruit Immunity Statute – prohibits the use of the witness' compelled testimony and its b) By failure to invoke it PROVIDED the waiver is certain and unequivocal and
fruit in any manner in connection with the criminal prosecution for an offense to which such intelligently and willingly made.
compelled testimony relates.
Section 18 (1), Art. III. No person shall be detained solely by reason of his political beliefs and
May be Claimed by: aspirations.

1. Accused – at all times; there is a reasonable assumption that the purpose of his
interrogation will be to incriminate him
2. Witness – only when an incriminating question is asked, since the witness has no way of
knowing in advance the nature or effect of the question to be put to him
- He cannot invoke right to self-incrimination when:
a) The question is relevant and otherwise allowed even if the answer may tend to
incriminate him or subject him to civil liability
b) the question relates to past criminality for which the witness can no longer be
prosecuted
c) he has been previously granted immunity under a validly enacted statute
XIV. RIGHT AGAINST INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE
Section 18 (2), Art. III. No involuntary servitude in any form shall exist except as a punishment
for a crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted.
Involuntary Servitude – the condition of one who is compelled by force, coercion, or
imprisonment, and against his will, to labor for another, whether he is paid or not.
Involuntary Servitude Includes
(1) Slavery –civil relation in which one man has absolute power over the life, fortune and
liberty of another;

· Only natural persons can invoke this right. Judicial persons are subject to the visitorial (2) Peonage – a condition of enforced servitude by which the servitor is restrained of his
powers of the state in order to determine compliance with the conditions of the charter liberty and compelled to labor in liquidation of some debt or obligation, real or pretended,
granted to them. against his will

Scope: General Rule

No involuntary service in any form shall exist.
(1) Testimonial Compulsion
Exceptions
· In Villaflor v. Summers, since the “kernel of the privilege” was the prohibition of 1. Punishment for a crime for which the party shall have been duly convicted (Sec. 18, Art. III)
“testimonial compulsion”, the Court was willing to compel a pregnant woman accused
of adultery to submit to the indignity of being tested for pregnancy. Being purely a 2. Personal military or civil service in the interest of national defense
mechanical act, it is not a violation of her constitutional right against self-incrimination. (Sec. 4, Art. II)

(2) Production of Documents, Papers and Chattels. Exception: when books of accounts are
to be examined in the exercise of police power and power of taxation.
· What is prohibited is the use of physical or moral compulsion to extort communication
from the witness or to otherwise elicit evidence which would not exist were it not for the
actions compelled from the witness.
3. Naval enlistment – remain in service until the end of voyage so that the crew would not
desert the ship, making it difficult for the owners to recruit new hands to continue the voyage
(Robertson vs Baldwin)
4. Posse comitatus – in pursuit of persons who might have violated the law, the authorities
might command all male inhabitants of a certain age to assist them (US vs Pompeya)

· The right does not prohibit the examination of the body of the accused or the use of 5. Return to work order in industries affected with public interest (Kapisanan ng Manggagawa
findings with respect to his body as physical evidence. Hence, the fingerprinting of an sa Kahoy vs Gotamco)
accused would not violate the right against self-incrimination. However, obtaining a
sample of the handwriting of the accused would violate this right if he is charged for 6. Patria Potestas – unemancipated minors are obliged to obey their parents so long as they
falsification. are under parental power and to observe respect and reverence to them always (Art. 311,
Civil Code)
· The accused cannot be compelled to produce a private document in his possession
which might tend to incriminate him. However, a third person in custody of the US vs Pompeya An Act providing for the method by which
document may be compelled to produce it. the people of the town may be called upon
 to render assistance for the protection of the
public and the preservation of peace and
good order is constitutional. It was enacted in
the exercise of the police power of the state
and does not violate the constitutional
prohibition on involuntary servitude.
Pollock vs Williams No indebtedness warrants a suspension of the
right to be free from compulsory service, and
no state can make the quitting of work any
component of a crime, or make criminal
sanctions available for holding unwilling
persons to labor.
For humanitarian reasons… an added guaranty of the liberty of persons against their
incarceration for the enforcement of purely private debts because of their misfortune of
being poor
Debt – any civil obligation arising from a contract, expressed or implied, resulting in any
liability to pay in money.
Scope of guaranty against imprisonment for non-payment of debt
· If an accused fails to pay the fine imposed upon him, this may result in his subsidiary
imprisonment because his liability is ex delicto and not ex contractu.
A FRAUDULENT debt may result in the imprisonment of the debtor if:

XV. CRUEL AND INHUMAN PUNISHMENT 1. The fraudulent debt constitutes a crime such as estafa; and
2. The accused has been duly convicted.
Section 19, Art. III.
1. Excessive fines shall not be imposed, nor cruel, degrading or inhuman punishment inflicted. POLL TAX
Neither shall death penalty be imposed, unless, for compelling reasons involving heinous General Rule: Non-payment of taxes is punishable with imprisonment.
crimes, the Congress hereafter provides for it. Any death penalty already imposed shall be Exception: Failure to pay a poll tax
reduced to reclusion perpetua.
2. The employment of physical, psychological, or degrading punishment against any prisoner Poll tax – a specific sum levied upon every person belonging to a certain class without regard
or detainee or the use of substandard or inadequate penal facilities under subhuman to his property or occupation.
conditions shall be dealt with by law.
· A tax is not a debt since it is an obligation arising from law. Hence, its non-payment
When is a penalty “cruel, degrading and inhuman”? maybe validly punished with imprisonment.
(1) A penalty is cruel and inhuman if it involves torture or lingering suffering.
Ex. Being drawn and quartered. XVII. DOUBLE JEOPARDY

(2) A penalty is degrading if it exposes a person to public humiliation. Ex. Being tarred and Section 21, Art. III. No person shall be twice put in jeopardy of punishment for the same
feathered, then paraded throughout town. 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.
Standards Used
1. The punishment must not be so severe as to be degrading to the dignity of human Double jeopardy – when a person was charged with an offense and the case was
beings. terminated by acquittal or conviction or in any other manner without his consent, he cannot
2. It must not be applied arbitrarily. again be charged with the same or identical offense.
3. It must not be unacceptable to contemporary society
4. It must not be excessive, i.e. it must serve a penal purpose more effectively than a less Requisites of Double Jeopardy
severe punishment would. 1. valid complaint or information
2. filed before a competent court
Excessive Fine 3. to which defendant has pleaded, and
· A fine is excessive, when under any circumstance, it is disproportionate to the offense. 4. defendant was previously acquitted or convicted or the case dismissed or otherwise
terminated without his express consent.
Note: Fr. Bernas says that the accused cannot be convicted of the crime to which the
punishment is attached if the court finds that the punishment is cruel, degrading or inhuman. Two (2) Kinds of Double Jeopardy
Reason: Without a valid penalty, the law is not a penal law.
(1) When a person is put twice in jeopardy of punishment for the same offense (1st sentence
XVI. IMPRISONMENT FOR DEBT of Section 21)

Section 20, Art. III. No person shall be imprisoned for debt or non-payment of a poll tax. (2) When a law and an ordinance punish the same act (2nd sentence of
Sec. 21)
Same Offense
Requisites for a valid defense of double jeopardy:
(1) First jeopardy must have attached prior to the second.
(2) The first jeopardy must have terminated.
(3) The second jeopardy must be for the same offense as that in the first.
When does jeopardy ATTACH: (1st requisite)
(a) A person is charged
(b) Under a complaint or information sufficient in form and substance to sustain a conviction
(c) Before a court of competent jurisdiction
(d) After the person is arraigned
(e) Such person enters a valid plea.
When does jeopardy NOT attach:
(a) If information does not charge any offense
(b) If, upon pleading guilty, the accused presents evidence of complete selfdefense, and
the court thereafter acquits him without entering a new plea of not guilty for accused.
(c) If the information for an offense cognizable by the RTC is filed with the MTC.
(d) If a complaint filed for preliminary investigation is dismissed.
When does first jeopardy TERMINATE: (2ND REQUISITE)
1) Acquittal
2) Conviction
3) Dismissal W/O the EXPRESS consent of the accused
4) Dismissal on the merits.
Examples of termination of jeopardy:
(a) Dismissal based on violation of the right to a speedy trial. This amounts to an acquittal.
(b) Dismissal based on a demurrer to evidence. This is a dismissal on the merits.
(c) Dismissal on motion of the prosecution, subsequent to a motion for reinvestigation filed
by the accused.
(d) Discharge of an accused to be a state witness. This amounts to an acquittal.
When can the PROSECUTION appeal from an order of dismissal:
a) If dismissal is on motion of the accused. Exception: If motion is based on violation of the
right to a speedy trial or on a demurrer to evidence.
b) If dismissal does NOT amount to an acquittal or dismissal on the merits
c) If the question to be passed upon is purely legal.
d) If the dismissal violates the right of due process of the prosecution.
e) If the dismissal was made with grave abuse of discretion.
What are considered to be the “SAME OFFENSE”:
a) Exact identity between the offenses charged in the first and second cases.
b) One offense is an attempt to commit or a frustration of the other offense.
c) One offense is necessarily included or necessary includes the other.
· Note: where a single act results in the violation of different laws or different provisions of the
same law, the prosecution for one will not bar the other so long as none of the exceptions
apply.
Same Act
· Double jeopardy will result if the act punishable under the law and the ordinance are the
same. For there to be double jeopardy, it is not necessary that the offense be the same.
Supervening Facts
1) Under the Rules of Court, a conviction for an offense will not bar a prosecution for an
offense which necessarily includes the offense charged in the former information where:
(a) The graver offense developed due to a supervening fact arising from the same act or
omission constituting the former charge.
(b) The facts constituting the graver offense became known or were discovered only after
the filing of the former information.
(c) The plea of guilty to the lesser offense was made without the consent of the fiscal and
the offended party.
2) Under (1)(b), if the facts could have been discovered by the prosecution but were not
discovered because of the prosecution’s incompetence, it would not be considered a
supervening event.
Effect of appeal by the accused
· If the accused appeals his conviction, he WAIVES his right to plead double jeopardy. The
whole case will be open to review by the appellate court. Such court may even increase
the penalties imposed on the accused by the trial court.
· In Almario v. CA, the Court held that the delays were not unreasonable; hence, there
was no denial of the right to speedy trial. Second, the dismissal was with the consent of
the accused. Hence, reinstatement did not violate the right against double jeopardy.
XVIII. EX POST FACTO LAWS AND BILL OF ATTAINDER
Section 22, Art. III. No ex post facto law or bill of attainder shall be enacted.
Kinds of Ex Post Facto Laws
a. One which makes an action done before the passing of the law, and which was
innocent when done, criminal, and punishes such action.
b. One which aggravates the crime or makes it greater than when it was committed.
c. One which changes the punishment and inflicts a greater punishment than that which
the law annexed to the crime when it was committed.
d. One which alters the legal rules of evidence and receives less testimony than the law
required at the time of the commission of the offense in order to convict the accused.
e. One which assumes to regulate civil rights and remedies only BUT, in effect, imposes a
penalty or deprivation of a right, which, when done, was lawful.
f. One which deprives a person accused of a crime of some lawful protection to which he
has become entitled such as the protection of a former conviction or acquittal, or a
proclamation of amnesty. (In Re Kay Villegas Kami)
Characteristics of Ex Post Facto Law
a) Must refer to criminal matters
b) Prejudicial to the accused
c) Retroactive in application

· In Lacson v. Exec. Sec., the Court held that in general, ex post facto law prohibits
retrospectivity of penal laws. RA No. 8249 is not a penal law.... The contention that the
new law diluted their right to a two-tiered appeal is incorrect because “the right to
appeal is not a natural right but statutory in nature that can be regulated by law. RA
8249 pertains only to matters of procedure, and being merely an amendatory statute it
does not partake the nature of ex post facto law.”

· In Calder v. Bull, the Court said that when the law alters the legal rules of evidence or
mode of trial, it is an ex post facto law. Exception: (Beazell v. Ohio) unless the changes
operate only in limited and unsubstantial manner to the disadvantage of the accused.

· In Bayot v. Sandiganbayan, the accused was convicted by the Sandiganbayan for

estafa on May 30, 1980. Accused appealed. On March 16, 1982, BP Blg. 195 was passed
authorizing suspension of public officers against whom an information may be pending
at any stage. On July 22, 1982, the court suspended the accused. The Supreme Court
ruled that Art. 24 of the Revised Penal Code that suspension of an officer during trial shall
not be considered a penalty. The suspension in the case is merely a preventive and not a
penal measure which therefore does not come under the ex post facto prohibition.

BILL OF ATTAINDER
Bill of attainder – is a legislative act which inflicts punishment without judicial trial. If the
punishment be less than death, the act is termed a bill of pains and penalties.” (Cummings v.
Missouri)

(All Bills of Attainder are Ex Post Facto Laws)

Elements of Bill of Attainder

1. There must be a law.
2. The law imposes a penal burden on a named individual or easily ascertainable members
of a group.
3. There is a direct imposition of penal burden without judicial trial.