What Constitutional law is about?

• It is the balancing of state power against the individual’s rights and deals with the Limitation of
Political Power.
• There exists an internal conflict between 1) Police Power, Eminent Domain and Taxation against 2)
the Rights of Individual to Life, Liberty and Property
• Positive rights – what state ought to do
• Negative rights – what state ought not to do

What are the various approaches to resolve the conflict?

1. Balancing
2. Preferred Freedom Approach
• There are freedoms that are Inherent (ex. freedom of speech, assembly and freedom to assemble
for grievance.)
• The Preferred freedom doctrine is a hierarchy: 1) the preferred freedom 2) freedom of belief and
conscience and 3) right to property.
3. Absolutist Approach
• Some freedoms are considered absolute that no balancing is necessary or permissible (ex speech)
and the absolute rights may override preferred
freedoms

1. Due Process in General

• “the embodiment of the sporting idea of fair play” - Justice Frankfurter
• kinds: 1) substantive
2) procedural
3) administrative
• The Due Process Clause ONLY embraces
1. L I F E
2. L I B E R T Y
3. P R O P E R T Y
• Person – includes both natural (citizens and aliens alike) and artificial persons. But for artificial
persons, only their property rights are constitutionally guaranteed since their life and liberty are
created by law and thus subject to the legislature
• Life- integrity of the physical person and the enjoyment of all God-given faculties that makes one’s
life worth living.
• Liberty- freedom to enjoy all of his faculties tempered by reasonable regulations and prohibitions
imposed in the interest of the community.
ELEMENTS (LAUREL):
1) Right to Labor
2) Right to Contract
3) Right to choose one’s employment
4) Right to Locomotion
• Property – anything that can come under the right of ownership and be subject of a contract. It
includes all things within the commerce of men.

A. Hierarchy of Rights
• It is an erroneous impression that the Constitution gives the same degree and quality of protection
that it gives to life and liberty.
• This is not to say, however, that the right to property is not a basic right. Property has an intimate
relation with life and liberty (ex. for the poor, regard property the same way as life and liberty).
 • Property is more closely regulated not in order to oppress the owner but in order to impress
upon him the social character of what he holds; Thus it is that property must also enjoy the protection
of the due process clause.

B. Substantive Due Process

• The due process clause must be interpreted both as a procedural and substantial guarantee. It
must be a guarantee against the exercise of arbitrary power
even when the power is exercised according to proper forms and procedure.
• requisites:
1. VALID OBJECTIVE-the law must have a valid governmental objective
2. LAWFUL MEANS- the objective must be pursued in a lawful manner.
• It originated from the concept of laissez-faire, it was translated by the court into freedom of
contract protected by the Constitution under due process.
• In laissez-faire, freedom of contract was upheld over police power since there was an assumption
of equality between contracting parties.
• In a welfare state, the wealth and power have become concentrated to those who have the capital.
Legal realism woke up to this reality. When parties are not in equal footing, there is no real freedom of
contract and the concept of equality becomes an illusion. The state was given the mandate to equalize
the bargaining power of the parties within its territory. During this time, the freedom of contract was
limited by the state’s police power.
• From the very beginning, the Phil. S.C. gave generous latitude to designation to promote public
health, public safety, or public welfare.
• The Court clearly considers itself as competent arbiter of the objective reasonableness of legislative
action, but it also allowed such competency to be limited by the recognition of the presumptive
reasonableness of governmental action (principle of presumptive validity of official action)
• In substantive due process, be aware of the social context, economic dogma and prevailing
ideologies since these usually influence judges on what is reasonable or unreasonable restrictions.

C. Procedural Due Process

• The right to be heard in a court of law
• ELEMENTS: 1) NOTICE & 2) HEARING
• REQUIREMENTS:
1. IMPARTIAL & COMPETENT COURT
• every litigant is entitled to the cold neutrality of an impartial judge
• a competent court is one vested with jurisdiction over a case as conferred upon it by law

2. JURISDICTION
• In actions in personam, the court acquires jurisdiction over the defendant by its voluntary appearance
or through service of summons upon him/her.
• In actions in rem or quasi in rem, the jurisdiction of the court is derived from the power it may
exercise over property.
• It refers to:
1. Authority of the court to entertain a particular kind of action or to administer a particular kind of
relief
2. Power of the court over the parties
3. Power of the court over properties that is subject of the litigation.
3. HEARING
• Notice to a party is essential to enable it to adduce its own evidence and to meet and refute the
evidence submitted by the other party.
 • A judicial decision without a hearing is null and void ab initio and may be attacked directly or
collaterally
• However, due process is not violated where is a person is not heard because he has not chosen to
be heard.
• One may be heard through pleadings; A full-blown trial is not necessary

• EXCEPTIONS: 1) Nuisance per se and 2) Presumptions of law.

4. JUDGMENT
• “no judgment shall be rendered by any court without expressing therein clearly and distinctly the
facts and the law on which it is based
(Art VIII Sec.14) ”
• It was understood in the early American constitutional law to relate chiefly to the mode of
procedure which government agencies must follow.
• Among early decisions in Philippine jurisprudence, many of them are generalized definitions which
fuse together the elements of both procedural and substantive due process as well as elements of
equal protection.
• However, this concept was not a fixed and static one was clearly acknowledged
• Due process, however is not always judicial process since it includes quasi-judicial bodies of
administrative agencies. Although these agencies are not always bound by the finer points of judicial
due process, it is bound by the due process clause.

D. Administrative Due Process

• The power of administrative agencies are regulatory in nature
• Due Process was introduced in administrative agencies, specifically its administrative tribunal, so
that they do not exceed their regulatory power.
• Due Process applies only in adjudicative/quasi-judicial functions of the administrative agencies.
• In its regulatory function, procedural due process does not apply; however, substantive due
process may come into play in its regulatory functions.
• REQUISITES: (Ang Tibay vs CIR)
1. The right to a hearing, which includes the right to present one’s case and submit evidence in
support thereof
2. Tribunal must consider the evidence presented
3. The decision must have something to support itself
4. Evidence must be substantial, meaning “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 hearing, or at least contained in the
record and disclosed to the affected parties
6. The tribunal or any of its judges must act on its own independent consideration of the law and the
facts of the controversy
7. The tribunal should, in all controversial questions render its decision in such manner that the parties to
the proceedings can know the various issues involved, and the reason for the decision rendered.
2. Equal Protection Clause
• Equal Protection simply requires that all persons or things similarly situated should be treated
alike, both as to rights conferred and responsibilities imposed.
• Similar subjects should not be treated differently, so as to give undue favor to some and unjustly
discriminate against others
• It also requires that the law be enforced and applied equally.
• Every person, both natural and juridical can avail of the equal protection clause; however, artificial
persons are entitled ONLY to protection of their property since they are legislative creations.
 CLASSIFICATION:
1. The equal protection clause DOES NOT REQUIRE UNIVERSAL APPLICATION OF LAWS since it could
result to unequal protection.
2. The law is NOT required to provide for equality among all persons if they are not similarly situated.
3. Classification has been defined as the grouping of persons or things similar t o each other in certain
particulars and different from all others in these particulars
• EXCEPTIONS: 1) Nuisance per se and 2) Presumptions of law.
4. JUDGMENT
• “no judgment shall be rendered by any court without expressing therein clearly and distinctly the
facts and the law on which it is based
(Art VIII Sec.14) ”
• It was understood in the early American constitutional law to relate chiefly to the mode of
procedure which government agencies must follow.
• Among early decisions in Philippine jurisprudence, many of them are generalized definitions which
fuse together the elements of both procedural and substantive due process as well as elements of
equal protection.
• However, this concept was not a fixed and static one was clearly acknowledged
• Due process, however is not always judicial process since it includes quasi-judicial bodies of
administrative agencies. Although these agencies are not always bound by the finer points of judicial
due process, it is bound by the due process clause.

D. Administrative Due Process

• The power of administrative agencies are regulatory in nature
• Due Process was introduced in administrative agencies, specifically its administrative tribunal, so
that they do not exceed their regulatory power.
• Due Process applies only in adjudicative/quasi-judicial functions of the administrative agencies.
• In its regulatory function, procedural due process does not apply; however, substantive due
process may come into play in its regulatory functions.
• REQUISITES: (Ang Tibay vs CIR)
1. The right to a hearing, which includes the right to present one’s case and submit evidence in
support thereof
2. Tribunal must consider the evidence presented
3. The decision must have something to support itself
4. Evidence must be substantial, meaning “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 hearing, or at least contained in the
record and disclosed to the affected parties
6. The tribunal or any of its judges must act on its own independent consideration of the law and the
facts of the controversy
7. The tribunal should, in all controversial questions render its decision in such manner that the parties to
the proceedings can know the various issues involved, and the reason for the decision rendered.
2. Equal Protection Clause
• Equal Protection simply requires that all persons or things similarly situated should be treated
alike, both as to rights conferred and responsibilities imposed.
• Similar subjects should not be treated differently, so as to give undue favor to some and unjustly
discriminate against others
• It also requires that the law be enforced and applied equally.
• Every person, both natural and juridical can avail of the equal protection clause; however, artificial
persons are entitled ONLY to protection of their property since they are legislative creations.
CLASSIFICATION:
1. The equal protection clause DOES NOT REQUIRE UNIVERSAL APPLICATION OF LAWS since it could
result to unequal protection.
2. The law is NOT required to provide for equality among all persons if they are not similarly situated.
3. Classification has been defined as the grouping of persons or things similar t o each other in certain
particulars and different from all others in these particulars
4. Classification must not be arbitrary. For it to be reasonable, it must conform to the ff requirements:

REQUIREMENTS OF A VALID CLASSIFICATION

1. It must be based on substantial distinctions
2. It must be germane to the purpose of the law
3. It must not be limited to the existing conditions only
4. It must apply equally to all members of the class
• Substantial Distinction should be:
1. Natural or a substantive difference
2. Reasonable
• There are two equalities under the Equal Protection Clause:
1. Procedural – equality in the eyes of the law
2. Substantive – intrinsic equality between 2 classes
• Affirmative action is taken by the government to balance unequal footing.
3. SEARCHES & SEIZURES
Section 2. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects
against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be
inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be
determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant
and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the
persons or things to be seized.
Section 3. 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.
Any evidence obtained in violation of this or the preceding section shall be inadmissible for any purpose
in any proceeding.

• This right against unreasonable search and seizure is PERSONAL and may be INVOKED ONLY BY THE
PERSON ENTITLED TO IT.
• Simply put, unreasonable searches and seizures are constitutionally prohibited and the evidence
from the search is generally inadmissible, except when the accused did not raise its inadmissibility
because it was the fruits of an illegal seizure. This omission is considered a waiver of the protection
granted by Art.
III sec. 3(2) (see Hizon vs. CA).
• So what is an unreasonable search and seizure? As a general rule, whenever there is an arrest o
search and seizure, if there is NO validly issued search warrant or warrant of arrest, the search and
seizure is unreasonable. (exception: warrantless search and seizure, which will be tackled later on.)
• When does a search warrant or an arrest warrant become validly issued? A validly issued
warrant presupposes the existence of PROBABLE CAUSE.
(which is also one of the requirements for the narrowly drawn instances for warrantless search and
seizure)
• What then is probable cause? Probable cause must be defined in relation to the action it justifies.
Probable cause for an arrest or for the issuance of an arrest warrant would mean such facts and
circumstances which would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent person to believe that an
offense has been committed by the person sought to be arrested. Probable cause for a search
would mean such facts and circumstances which would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent
 man to believe that an offense has been committed and that the objects sought in connection with
the offense are in the place sought to
be searched. In either case, what is required is probable cause and not proof beyond doubt.
• What are the elements of probable cause?
• Reasonable ground of suspicion
• Such suspicion is supported by facts and circumstances strong enough to warrant a cautious
man in believing accused to be committing the offense or to be
guilty of the offense.

DETERMINATION OF PROBABLE CAUSE

• Who then determines probable cause? Judge PERSONALLY determines; However, the Immigration
Commissioner may order the arrest of an alien in order to carry out a deportation order that has
become final. (note: judge is NOT required to personally examine witnesses and the complainant
[Soliven vs.
Makasiar])
• On what basis should the judge determine probable cause?
• Prosecutor’s report
• If on the basis of the report, he finds no probable cause, he can disregard it and require the
submission of witnesses’ supporting affidavits to aid him in arriving at a certain conclusion, possibly to
the existence of probable cause.
• According to Rule 126, Sec. 4 of the Revised Rules of Court (2001), a search warrant can only be
issued if probable cause in connection with ONE OFFENSE is personally determined by the judge.
• Obiter1: The prosecutor determines whether there is reasonable ground to believe that the accused is
guilty and should be held for trial and NOT probable cause.
• Obiter2: This constitutional prohibition is for arrest orders in the exercise of judicial power as a step
preliminary or incidental to prosecution or proceedings for a given offense or administrative action,
NOT as a measure indispensable to carry out a valid decision of a competent official. (EX. Carrying out a
SC decision)
EXAMINATION OF COMPLAINANT

• According to Rule 126, Sec. 5 RROC (2001), judges must personally examine in the form of searching
questions and answers, in writing and under oath, the complainant and the witnesses he may produce
on facts personally known to them and attach to the record their sworn statements, together with the
affidavits submitted.

PARTICULARITY OF DESCRIPTION
Section 2 ”… and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be
seized.”
• Failure to fulfill this constitutional requirement may result in an erroneous or arbitrary enforcement of
the warrant. (ex. police searching you or your house using a general warrant)
• General Rule 1: Person to be seized should be identified by name
Exception: If there is some descriptio personae that will enable the accused to be identified by the
officer. (ex. may paa sa noo ang suspek!)
• General Rule 2: Place to be searched should be particularly described, which includes the exact
address
Exception: A description of the place is deemed sufficient if the officer with the warrant can with
reasonable effort, ascertain and identify the place to be search. [ex. ang gingerbread house ng witch
(yung kumidnap kay Hansel at Gretel) sa loob ng gubat ]
Obiter: Only the articles particularly described in the search warrant can be seized, and no other
property can be taken unless the law allows it. But not all illegally seized objects shall be returned to its
owner.
• Under Rule 126, Sec. 3 RROC (2001), a search warrant may be issued for the search and seizure of
PERSONAL PROPERTY:
1. Subject of the offense
2. Stolen or embezzled and other proceeds or fruits of the offense
3. Property used or intended to be used as means of committing an offense
 • To make things very simple and easier to remember, see requisites below: REQUISITES OF A VALID
SEARCH WARRANT [Rule 126, Sec. 4 RROC (2001)]
1. Based on Probable Cause
2. Probable Cause was personally determined by the judge
3. Judges determination was made after the examination under oath or affirmation of the
complainant and the witnesses he may produce
4. Particularity of description of the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.
• However, there are exceptions: EXCEPTIONS TO WARRANT REQUIREMENT OF SEARCHES AND
SEIZURES:
1. Search incidental to arrest
• Rule 126 sec. 13, RROC (2001) A person lawfully arrested may be searched for dangerous weapons
or anything which may have been used or constitute proof in the commission of an offense without
a search warrant
2. Search of moving vehicles (see People vs. Malmstedt)
3. Seizure of evidence in plain view (see California vs. Ciraolo)
4. Customs searches (ex. sea-going vessels docked at seaports checked for contraband)
5. Waiver of the right against unreasonable search and seizure. (see Hizon vs. CA)
Obiter: Agabin includes the following as exceptions to the warrant requirement:
1) Stop and Frisk search limited to:
a) the protective search for concealed weapons [see Terry vs. Ohio]
b) the search within the permissible area of search or the place with the immediate control of the
accused to prevent the destruction or loss of evidence [see Cupp vs. Murphy]
2) Abandoned property (see California vs. Greenwood)
3) Administrative searches (ex. those conducted by public health officers)

ARRESTS
• While an arrest is a seizure, not all seizures are arrests. An arrest “is the taking of a person into
custody in order that he may be bound to answer for the commission of an offense” [Rule 113,
sec.1 RROC 2001]
• Warrants of arrest must satisfy the same requirements imposed on search warrants. Hence, what
has been said about probable cause, its determination, the examination of complainant and
particularity of description in the discussion of search warrants can with equal truth be said of
arrest warrants.
• As with search warrants, there are exceptions to the warrant requirement to arrests: EXCEPTION
TO THE WARRANT REQUIREMENT: (Rule 113, sec. 5 RROC 2001)
1. When, in the presence of a peace officer or a private person, the person to be arrested has
committed, is actually committing or is attempting to
commit an offense; [a.k.a. IN FLAGRANTE DELICTO RULE]
2. When an offense has just been committed and he has probable cause to believe based on
PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE of facts and circumstances that the person to be arrested has committed;
and
3. When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal establishment or
place where he is serving final judgment or is temporarily confined while his case is pending, or has
escaped while being transferred from one confinement to another

A common application of the in flagrante delicto rule is the buy-bust operations to enforce the
Dangerous Drugs Act; It is also applied, albeit controversially, to continuing crimes like
rebellion. In continuing crimes, the offender is assumed to still be committing the offense, even
if he is fornicating. Thus, he could be arrested for rebellion while in the act of fornication.
 • A person may waive his right to be arrested by warrantless arrest PROVIDED that he enters a
plea without having challenged the validity of the arrest
(assuming of course he knew he had that right and actually intended to relinquish it).
• Note, too that in the prosecution of peace officers for illegal detention or arrest the defense of
good faith is frequently used by peace officers and liberally applied by the courts.

PRIVACY OF COMMUNICATION & CORRESPONDENCE

Section 3. 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.

• Invasion of communication and correspondence is one kind of search

• In the Olmstead case, the doctrine formulated was that search and seizure did not prohibit wire-
tap that did not trespass. In this case, there is no actual trespass there is no search, and where the
object is not tangible it cannot be seized. (Tangibles only rule: house, persons, papers and effects
were the tangibles). This doctrine has been overruled in Katz vs. U.S. which placed wiretapping per
se under the ban of the search and seizure clause

Exclusionary rule

Section 3(2) Any evidence obtained in violation of this or the preceding section shall be inadmissible for
any purpose in any proceeding.

• This exclusionary rule bars admission of illegally obtained evidence and is applicable to evidence
under sections 2 and 3(1). The inadmissibility of the evidence, however, does not mean that it must
be returned where it came from.(ex contraband).
4. FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION
Section 4 No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press, or
the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the Government for redress of grievances.
Section 8. The right of the people, including those employed in the public and private sectors, to
form unions, associations, or societies for purposes not contrary to law shall not be abridged.

Section 18. (1) No person shall be detained solely by reason of his political beliefs and aspirations.

Freedom of expression consists of cognate rights to insure free and effective communication of ideas to
enhance intelligent political decision-making in society. It is available insofar as it is exercised in the
discussion of public matters (Besides, it’s difficult to externally control private thoughts). It is
important to safeguard such freedom because sovereignty, which supposedly resides in the people,
would be all for naught if the people would be denied their right to participate in public matters.

The freedom of expression is not limited to ideas which is acceptable to the majority, or to the powers-
that-be, for this freedom is meant to invite fomenting and discussing of different ideas in the public
arena.
Modes of expression : 1) Verbal& Written Language 2) Symbols
Elements:
1) Freedom from prior restraint/censorship
• Prohibits the unlawful curtailment of the of the flow of ideas
• Prohibits censor from applying it own subjective standards in determining what’s good or not
 • There need no be a total suppression; even the restriction of circulation is an unconstitutional
restraint
2) Freedom from subsequent punishment
• This freedom is included and as important like the first, for it would be absurd that one can be
allowed to express yet be held liable for such expression;
however, it is subject to certain limitations as discussed below. Limitations of Freedom of Expression
1. Subject to POLICE POWER and can be regulated to protect public interest
2. Does not include ideas offensive to public order or decency, or reputation of persons

To be able to know whether or not an expression is protected or not, certain tests have been
developed by the courts:

1. CLEAR & PRESENT DANGER TEST-liberty over authority

• If the words or utterances used are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they
will bring about substantive evils that the state has the right to prevent, such utterance is not
protected.
• Thus, it is a question of proximity and degree since “Clear” means that there must be a causal
connection between danger and the utterance while “Present”
refers to time in relation to “Danger” that is extremely serious and highly imminent.
• This gives way to State’s right to self-preservation
• Differs from Dangerous Tendency with regards to proximity
2. DANGEROUS TENDENCY TEST-authority over liberty
• Also known as Clear and Probable Danger
• If the words or utterances create a dangerous tendency that the state has a right to protect, such
utterance is punishable. It is sufficient if the natural tendency and probable effect of the utterance is
to bring about the substantive evil that the legislative body seeks to prevent.

3. BALANCING OF INTEREST TEST-liberty or authority

• When a specific act or conduct is regulated in the interest of public order but such regulation results in
an indirect, conditional and partial abridgment of expression, it is the court’s duty to determine which
of the two conflicting interest it should protect. It resolves the issue in light of the peculiar
circumstances of the case. It has an inherent weakness in that it allows the courts freedom to choose
which interest to protect.

Criticism of Official Conduct

• People have the right to criticize or commend the conduct of elected officials since the public servant’s
acts are legitimate subjects of public discussion. As long as the comments are made in good faith and
with justifiable ends (ex. better public service), such comments are protected. This rule is applicable to
both public officers and public figures (ex. Joyce Jimenez or Tom Welling). However, such criticism must
always be in respectful language
Art & Obscenity
• Obscenity is not constitutionally protected, but the problem is, what the hell obscenity means. There
have been various tests enunciated in the cases in freedom of the press of this compilation.

ASSEMBLY & PETITION FOR REDRESS

• The right to lawful assembly is important because there are certain issues better resolved after
exchanging views in a meeting for that purpose. Such public meeting is effective in airing ideas or
concerns affecting the public.
• This right is not subject to prior restraint (ex. the need for a permit) unless the meeting takes place in a
public area (ex. Rizal Park).
Tests for a lawful assembly:
1. Lawful purpose
2. The group/association holding the meeting is not illegal (ex.ElShaddai)
An untoward incident (ex. riot) in a lawful assembly does not make the assembly unlawful, only unruly.
However, the law-enforcers can intervene in such
incidents in name of public safety.

5. FREEDOM OF & FREEDOM FROM RELIGION

Section 5. No law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise
thereof. The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or
preference, shall forever be allowed. No religious test shall be required for the exercise of civil or
political rights.
2 Aspects:
1) Freedom to Believe (or Disbelieve)- However absurd one’s belief is, even if it is deemed by society as
heretical or hostile it cannot be punished as long as it remains in the realm of thought.
2) Freedom to Act on One’s Belief – As soon as one externalizes his belief, his/her freedom becomes the
subject of State’s inherent police power if it the exercise of police power is inimical or beneficial to
society (ex. Prevention of a cult’s mass suicide)

6. LIBERTY OF ABODE AND TRAVEL

Section 6. The liberty of abode and of changing the same within the limits prescribed by law shall not be
impaired except upon lawful order of the court.
Neither shall the right to travel be impaired except in the interest of national security, public safety, or
public health, as may be provided by law.
The purpose of this right is to further emphasize individual liberty as safeguarded in the general terms of
the due process clause. This right includes the right
to choose one’s residence, leave it whenever he/she pleases , and travel where he wants.
This right, as in all rights have limitations; This is limited by a lawful order of the court and can be
impaired in the interest of public safety, security, health as provided by law.

Obiter: The Marcos v. Manglapus Case is unique & is not a precedent for “normal”cases, kung baga pan-
diktador lang.
7. ACCESS TO PUBLIC INFORMATION
Section 7. The right of the people to information on matters of public concern shall be recognized. Access
to official records, and to documents, and papers pertaining to official acts, transactions, or decisions, as
well as to government research data used as basis for policy development, shall be afforded the
citizen, subject to such limitations as may be provided by law.

Access to public info is essential in the exercise of freedom of expression, for every citizen has a right to
know what is happening in his/her country and his/her gov’t so that he/she can express her views
intelligently. It can be limited if the info being sought would endanger national interest or security (ex.
The plan of attack against Abu Sayyaf)

As enunciated in the Tanda v. Tuvera case, a law will only be effective upon publication in the Official
Gazette, or alternatively in 2 newspapers of general
circulation.

8. FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION
Section 8. The right of the people, including those employed in the public and private sectors, to form
unions, associations, or societies for purposes not
contrary to law shall not be abridged.

RIGHT TO ASSOCIATION
• It is deemed embraced in the freedom of expression because a lawful association or organization can
be used as a vehicle to express views that affect the public, which can be more effectively disseminated
by an organization.
• Art. 3 Sec 8 guarantees private and public employees the right to form unions so long as it is lawful.
However in the SSS vs. SSSEA, gov’t employees were not allowed to strike.

9. EMINENT DOMAIN
Section 9. Private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation.
Also known as the power of expropriation (that is gov’t buying private property to be used publicly), it is
primarily lodged in the national legislature. But can be validly delegated and exercised to other gov’t
entities (President, local legislative bodies, certain public corporations, like NAPOCOR) even private
companies serving essential public needs or operates public utilities (PLDT or Bayantel)

Eminent Domain is different from destruction from necessity in that the latter:
1) property may be taken by private individuals;
2) no need to convert taken property to public use;
3) there is no requirement for just compensation

Questions of necessity or wisdom of the exercise of the power of expropriation are essentially political
and not usually subject to judicial review. But when these questions are decided by a delegate of the
national legislature (ex. Local city council), the Supreme Court has assumed the power to inquire into it,
whether the delegated authority has been correctly or properly exercised, by looking into the wisdom or
necessity of the expropriation.
All real and personal, tangible and intangible properties can be subject to expropriation except money
and choses in action (Choses in action- personal right not reduced into possession but recoverable by a
suit at law ex.( Right to demand & recover a debt). Property already devoted to public use is still subject
to expropriation, as long as it is done by Congress or under a specific grant of authority to the delegate.
It should be observed that the to-be expropriated property must be by its nature and condition
wholesome, as it is intended for public use. This differs from property taken under police power,
because the property destroyed, or sought to be destroyed is noxious to the general welfare.

Just compensation- a full and fair equivalent of the property taken from the private owner by the
expropriator. The property taken is assessed as to the time of the taking , which usually coincides with
the commencement of the expropriation proceedings. Only the judiciary has the right to ascertain
whether or not the compensation was just (see EPZA vs. Dulay)

10. CONTRACTS CLAUSE

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

The purpose of the impairment clause is to safeguard the integrity of valid contractual agreements
against unwarranted interference by the State. The degree of diminution is immaterial. As long as the
original rights of either parties are changed to his/her prejudice, there is an impairment of the obligation
of the contract. This clause, however, is not absolute. If the law is a proper exercise of police power, a
contract valid at the time of its execution can be completely invalidated or modified.

11. EXPOST FACTO LEGISLATION

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

EX POSTO FACT LAW- operates retroactively to affect antecedent facts.

Characteristics:
1) Refers to Criminal matters;
2) Retroactive application;
3) Prejudicial to Accused.

BILL OF ATTAINDER-legislative act inflicting punishment without trial. A statue that applies either to
named individuals or easily ascertainable
members of a group in such a way as to inflict punishment without trial.

12. NON-IMPRISONMENT FOR DEBT

Section 20. No person shall be imprisoned for debt or non-payment of a poll tax.
Although a debtor cannot be imprisoned for the failure to pay his debt, he can still be punished in a
criminal case if he contracted his debt through fraud.
In such case, the act he is being penalized is the fraud employed to secure the debt not in the default of
payment.
13. INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE
Section 18. (2) No involuntary servitude in any from shall exist except as punishment for a crime whereof
the party shall be duly convicted.

The concept includes slavery (absolute power of one over the other in their civil relation) and peonage
(condition of enforced servitude in which one is compelled to labor in liquidation of some debt against
his will.).

Exceptions:
1) Punishment for a crime where one is duly convicted;
2) Compulsory Military Training

14. WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

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

It is the prerogative writ of liberty employed to test the validity of a person’s detention. The petition for
habeas corpus must be acted upon immediately. It isthe privilege itself, and not the writ, which may be
suspended.

It is available when he is subject to:

1) physical or moral restraint;
2) sentenced to a longer penalty than that is subsequently meted out to another for the same
offense;
3) questions court’s jurisdiction;
4) unlawful denial of bail.

Procedure: As soon as application is filed and the court finds it in the proper form, the issuance of the
writ follows. It is only when the person in custody is being held for a crime mentioned in the
proclamation suspending the privilege of the writ and in a place where it is effective such petition is
denied. In the absence of invasion or rebellion, when public safety requires it, privilege of the writ
cannot be suspended.
The President has the power to suspend the privilege of the writ and the SC has the power to annul such
suspension if not based on the 2 grounds (Art7, Sec.18).

15. RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED

Sec. 11 Free access to the courts and quasi-judicial bodies and adequate legal assistance shall not be
denied to any person by reason of
poverty.
Sec. 12 (1) Any person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have the right to be
informed of his right to remain silent and to have
competent and independent counsel preferably of his own choice. If the person cannot afford the
services of counsel, he must be provided with one. These rights
cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of counsel.
(2) No torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation, or any other means which vitiate the free will shall be
used against him. Secret detention places,
solitary, incommunicado, or other similar forms of detention are prohibited.
(3) Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this or Sec. 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 and rehabilitation of victims of
torture or similar practices, and their families.
Section 14. (1) No person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense without due process of law.
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved, and
shall enjoy the right to be heard by himself and
counsel, to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him, to have a speedy,
impartial, and public trial, to meet the witnesses face to face,
and to have compulsory process to secure the attendance of witnesses and the production of evidence in
his behalf. However, after arraignment, trial may
proceed notwithstanding the absence of the accused provided that he has been duly notified and his
failure to appear is unjustifiable
Sec. 16 All persons shall have the right to a speedy disposition of their cases before all judicial, quasi-
judicial or administrative bodies.

A. COLD NEUTRALITY
Accused must be tried in an impartial and competent court in accordance with the rules on criminal
procedure; His/her constitutional rights must be observed
at all applicable times. The basic ingredient is that the trial be conducted in accordance with the
rudiments of fair play.
B. AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION
Section 17. No person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.

2 Fold Purpose:

1) Humanitarian – to prevent the State, using its coercive power, from extracting from the suspect
testimony which would “furnish the missing evidence necessary for his conviction.”

2) Practical-Suspect would usually be under the compulsion to commit perjury to protect himself.
This rule is mandatory and applicable in all other government proceedings. It can also be claimed by any
witness to whom an incriminating question is addressed. If it is the accused himself/herself, s/he can
refuse at the outset to take the stand as a prosecution witness, on the reasonable presumption that
Interrogation’s purpose is to incriminate him.

The right is limited to a prohibition against compulsory testimonial self-incrimination, and thus excludes
urine, hair and blood samples, even ocular inspection of the suspect’s body on the proviso that force
and torture was not used.
This right can be validly waived if the waiver is certain, unequivocal and made by the accused willingly,
intelligently and understood the consequences of his action.
C. RIGHT TO COUNSEL
The right to competent and independent counsel, preferably choice of accused can be waived so long as
it is written and upon counsel’s presence and advice of the consequences of his action. Such right
attaches upon the start of the investigation, when officer asks questions that elicit information,
confession or admissions of the accused thus has begun to focus on a particular suspect.
(please read RA 7438 and the 2001 Rules on Criminal Procedure)
D. RIGHT TO BE INFORMED OF ACCUSATION
This necessarily includes the prohibition of changing crime charged in the information without court
approval. The information filed must necessarily
include the specific crime committed and the acts/evidences which tends to show the one’s guilt.

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

F. CRUEL PUNISHMENTS
Section 19. (1) Excessive fines shall not be imposed, nor cruel, degrading or inhuman punishment
inflicted. Neither shall death penalty be imposed,
unless, for compelling reasons involving heinous crimes, the Congress hereafter provides for it. Any death
penalty already imposed shall be reduced to reclusion
perpetua.
The employment of physical, psychological, or degrading punishment against any prisoner or detainee or
the use of substandard or inadequate penal
facilities under subhuman conditions shall be dealt with by law.
Mere fines and imprisonment are not violative unless the penalty is barbarous or shocking to the senses
or conscience and such cruelty is inherent in the penalty. But where an unforeseeable event adds to
convict’s suffering, penalty is still valid.

G. AGAINST DOUBLE JEOPARDDY

Section 21. No person shall be twice put in jeopardy of punishment for the same offense. If an act is
punished by a law and an ordinance, conviction or
acquittal under either shall constitute a bar to another prosecution for the same act.
It prohibits the prosecution again of any person for a crime which he has been previously acquitted or
convicted.

Requisites:
• Valid complaint
• complaint filed before competent court
• Complaint to which defendant had pleaded
• Of which he had been previously acquitted or convicted or otherwise terminated without his consent
Crimes covered
• Doctrine of supervening event-accused may be prosecuted for another offense if a subsequent
development changes the character of the 1st indictment which he may have been charged or convicted.
• Doctrine of inseparable offense-when one offense is inseparable from another and proceeds from the
same act, they cannot be subject of separate prosecutions. However, it is possible for 1 act to give rise to
several crimes, in which case separate prosecutions for each crime may be filed, provided that
the elements of the several crimes are not identical.
16. CITIZENSHIP
ARTICLE IV
Citizenship
Section 1. The following are citizens of the Philippines :
Those who are citizens of the Philippines at the time of the adoption of this Constitution;
Those whose fathers or mothers are citizens of the Philippines;
Those born before January 17, 1973, of Filipino mothers, who elect Philippine citizenship upon reaching
the age of majority; and
Those who are naturalized in accordance with law.
Section 2. Natural-born citizens are those who are citizens of the Philippines from birth without having to
perform any act to acquire or perfect their
Philippine citizenship. Those who elect Philippine citizenship in accordance with paragraph (3), Section 1
hereof shall be deemed natural-born citizens.
Section 3. Philippine citizenship may be lost or reacquired in the manner provided by law.
Section 4. Citizens of the Philippines who marry aliens shall retain their citizenship, unless by their act or
omission they are deemed, under the law, to
have renounced it.
Section 5. Dual allegiance of citizens is inimical to the national interest and shall be dealt with by law.
Citizenship