Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Tupas v. CA
Observance of both substantive and procedural rights is equally guaranteed by due process.
Government of HK v. Olalia
The applicable standard of due process, however, should not be the same as that in criminal proceedings. In the latter, the standard of due process is premised on the presumption of innocence of the accused. As Purganan correctly points out, it is from this premise that the ancillary presumption in favor of admitting to bail arises. Bearing in mind the
ADMU v. Capulong
Guidelines: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 1. 2. 3. 4. inform the student in writing Right to answer with counsel assistance Informed of evidence against them Right to present own evidence Evidence must be duly considered by investigating committee who may teach what may be taught how shall it be taught who may be admitted to study
Academic Freedom:
Lao Gi v. CA
The power to deport an alien is an act of the State. It is a police measure against undesirable aliens whose presence in the country is found to be injurious to the public good and domestic tranquility of the people. A deportation proceeding affects freedom and liberty of a person. The Rules of Criminal Procedure is applicable in deportation proceedings. Procedure: 1. 2. 3. 4. Inform about the threat of arrest Allow to answer charges against them Warrant of arrest can only be issued against them thereafter with cause No private prosecutor because its a summary proceeding
Maceda v. ERB
Price fixing is considered as exercising quasi-legislative function.
People v. Nazario
A vague statute is one that lacks comprehensible standards that men of common intelligence must guess at its meaning. It is repugnant to the constitution if it:
Estrada v. Sandiganbayan
When a statute lacks comprehensible standards, it violates due process for failure to accord persons, especially persons targeted by it, fair notice of conduct to avoid, and it leaves law enforcers unbridled discretion in carrying out its provisions and becomes arbitrary flexing of government muscles.
CB v. CA
Prior notice and hearing are not required before placement of bank under receivership.
People v. Fajardo
Fajardo was the incumbent mayor when Ordinance 7 was passed requiring all persons to first secure a construction permit from the mayor before commencing any construction or repairs. He and his son in law requested for a permit to construct a building (after his term) on a parcel of land which they owned. They were denied several times
Ermita-Malate Hotel and Motel Operators Association, Inc. v. City Mayor of Manila
Police power measures aimed to safeguard public morals is immune from imputation of nullity resting purely on conjecture unsupported by substantial evidence Power to exact a fee is a part of the power to license and regulate The right of the individual is necessarily subject to reasonable restraint by general law for the common good
Natinal Development Co and New Agrix v. Phil Vet. Bank ACCFA v CUGCO
SUMMARY: ACCFA (later renamed ACA) was charged with violation of CBA and unfair labor practice by the CIR. The ACCFA/ACA appealed to the Supreme Court arguing that it is now performing governmental function by virtue of Agricultural Land Reform Code and so the union cannot be certified. SC ruled in favour of ACCFA/ACA. DOCTRINE: related to social justice The exercise by the state of POLICE POWER necessarily contradicts the laissez-faire system. Our jurisdiction therefore favours Police Power because the government enjoys a much wider latitude of action as to the means it chooses to cope with grave social and economic problems that urgently press for solution and it is clear that their legitimacy cannot be challenged on the ground alone of their being offensive to the implications of the laissez-faire concept. Read concurring opinion of JUSTICE FERNANDO
Dans v People
Penal statutes may use imprecise language as long as it sets the boundaries of the crime involved. It must answer the question: What is the violation?
Ople v Torres
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 and a compelling interest justify such intrusions. Intrusions into the right must be accompanied by proper safeguards and well-defined standards to prevent unconstitutional invasions. Any law or order that invades individual privacy will be subjected by the court to strict scrutiny.
Montesclaros v Comelec
Staturory rights may be amended or withdrawn by an act of Congress; constitutional rights are vested rights, which are not subject to legislative action Requisites for judicial review: 1. Actual and appropriate case or controversy 2. Locus standipersonal and substantial interest 3. Brought at the earliest opportunity 4. The consitutional question must be the lis mota of the case The following acts of Congress are not subject to judicial restraint (in short, the internal processes of the Congress): 1. Filing of bills by any member of Congress 2. Approval of the bills by the members of Congress 3. Reconciliation by the Bicameral conference committee 4. Approval of the reconciled bill by each chamber of Congress Separation of powers o SC cannot dictate on the Congress on the subject of legislation o Congress cannot pass laws which are incapable of amendment or repeal; that would encroah upon its plenary powers o Intenral acts of Congress are independent of Court
Smith Kline v CA
The granting of the license was a valid exercise of police power. With the more widespread use of Cimetidine, medications will be more available, and at lower prices. Thus, it is beneficial to the general public. The payment of royalties to Smith Kline ensures that there is no deprivation of property rights (in the form of intellectual property). Furthermore, it prevents the buildup of monopolies for those who own patents to certain inventions.
Chavez v Romulo
Right to bear arms is not a constitutional right but merely a statutory privilege License is not a contract, and a revocation of it does not deprive the defendant of any property, immunity, or privilege within the meaning of these words in the declaration of rights1 - this case talked about firearm license Laws regulating the acquisition or possession of guns have frequently been upheld as reasonable exercise of the police power SUMMARY: PNP chief issued guidelines to suspend firearms permit. Chavez assailed the Guidelines saying that it is a citizens right to carry firearms, citing US cases. SC denied petition of Chavez, see above for the Ratio.
Commonwealth v Kinsley
Romualdez v. Sandiganbayan
Summary: Romualdez, relative of Pres. Marcos, was charged with a violation R.A. 3019 due to him intervening in a contract involving the government (a GOCC). The due process violations he raised were (1) RA 3019 was void for being vague, and (2) there was a violation of the preliminary investigation because it was conducted by a biased and partial body. For the first issue, the court said that the vagueness and overbreadth doctrines only apply to freespeech cases and not to penal statutes. For the second issue, the court said that the reinvestigation conducted by the Ombudsman cures the biased investigation of the PCGG. Doctrine: Vagueness and Overbreadth doctrines do not apply with regard to penal statutes
Chavez v. COMELEC
COMELEC issued a resolution that candidates appearing in various propaganda materials such as billboards, posters or ads must immediately remove them, or else these appearances shall constitute a ground for disqualification. Petitioner, as a candidate for the position of senator, assails the constitutionality of the resolution as the same is allegedly an invalid exercise of police power because mere product endorsements and not election propaganda subject to COMELEC rules. It was held that non-impairment clause must yield to the loftier purposes targeted by the Government (public welfare). COMELEC is expressly authorized to supervise or regulate the enjoyment or utilization of all media communication or information to ensure equal opportunity, time, and space, all aimed at the holding of free, orderly, honest, peaceful, and credible elections.
o Lawful subject (public interest) - to prohibit premature campaigning and to level the playing field for candidates of public office, to equalize the situation between popular or rich candidates, on one hand, and lesser-known or poorer candidates o Lawful means (reasonable means) - by preventing the former from enjoying undue advantage in exposure and publicity on account of their resources and popularity. Beltran v Sec of Health
Delegation of legislative power o Policy complete in itself o Adequate standards for implementation EPC o Substantial distinction o Serves germane purpose of the law o Applies to present and future conditions o Applies equally to all members of the same class Police power o Lawful subject o Lawful method
KMU v Dir Gen Mirasol v DPWH Three orders were issued by DPWH. These orders seek to ban motorcycles along limited access facilities. This is invalid because it is the DOTC, and not DPWH, that has the power to do so. The use of public highways by motor vehicles is subject to regulation as an exercise of the police power of the state.
The sole standard in measuring its exercise is reasonableness. What is "reasonable" is not subject to exact definition or scientific formulation. The SC thus held that AO 1 was not unreasonable. To assure that the general welfare be promoted, a regulatory measure may cut into the rights to liberty and property.
Parreo v COA
SUMMARY: Parreo retired in 1982 from the AFP-Phil Constabulary. He availed his AFP pension. He migrated to Hawaii and became a US citizen. Jan 2001, AFP stopped the payment of Parreos Pension citing PD 1638 (1979) which says that once a retiree loose his Filipino citizenship, he wont get his retirement benefit anymore. Parreo
BF v City Mayor
Summary: Ordinances were passed by the Municipal Council of Paranaque reclassifying certain parts of BF Homes to commercial zones. Petitioners questioned the constitutionality of the said laws by saying that the reclassification amounts to impairment of contracts (it was provided in their titles that property in the village shall be used for residential purposes only). However, the court said that the governments exercise of police power trumps the nonimpairment clause. Given the increasing number of homeowners, addition of commercial zones became a necessity. Doctrine: Police Power trumps the non-impairment clause. Contractual restrictions on the use of property could not prevail over the reasonable exercise of police power through zoning regulations.
St Lukes v NLRC
While the right of workers to security of tenure is guaranteed by the Constitution, its exercise may be reasonably regulated pursuant to the police power of the State to safeguard health, morals, peace, education, order, safety, and the general welfare of the people. While our laws endeavor to give life to the constitutional policy on social justice and the protection of labor, it does not mean that every labor dispute will be decided in favor of the workers. The law also recognizes that management has rights which are also entitled to respect and enforcement in the interest of fair play.
DND v Manalo
The right to security is the right to enjoyment of life. The continuing threat on the life of the Manalo brothers is apparent. This threat vitiates their free will because they are forced to limit their movements and activities. Threats to liberty, security, and life are actionable through a petition for a writ of amparo. Only substantial evidence is required in an Amparo proceeding
SJS v DDB
Pimentel Petition Legislative power remains limited in the sense that it is subject to substantive (Bill of Rights) and constitutional limitations. Legislative power remains limited in the sense that it is subject to substantive (Bill of Rights) and constitutional limitations. SJS and Laserna Petitions Legislative power remains limited in the sense that it is subject to substantive (Bill of Rights) and constitutional limitations. Mandatory but random drug test prescribed by Sec. 36 of RA 9165 for officers and employees of public and private offices is justifiable, albeit not exactly for the same reasons (Petitioners SJS and Laserna failed to justify how Section 36 (c) and (d) violates the right to privacy and constitutes unlawful and/or unconsented search under Art. III, Secs. 1 and 2 of the Constitution. Mandatory but random drug test prescribed by Sec. 36 of RA 9165 for officers and employees of public and private offices is justifiable, albeit not exactly for the same reasons (Petitioners SJS and Laserna failed to justify how Section 36 (c) and (d) violates the right to privacy and constitutes unlawful and/or unconsented search under Art. III, Secs. 1 and 2 of the Constitution.
Banat v Comelec
RA 9369 was passed, giving the poll watchers rights to per diems. It also gave to Congress and Comelec the authority to determine the authenticity of the certificates of canvass, and to Comelec the power to hear pre-proclamation controversies. Petitioners assail the constitutionality of the law, specifically the section regarding per diems because it violated section 1. SC held that it was a valid law. The law was passed before the poll watchers were hired. Thus, the poll watchers contracts were not yet enforced when the law passed. They did not have any obligation yet. Thus, there was no impairment at all. Police power is superior to the non-impairment [of contracts] clause. The regulation of the per diem of the poll watchers of the dominant majority and minority parties is a valid exercise of police power.
People v Siton
SUMMARY: Siton and Sagarano, after being under surveillance by the police, were arrested for violating Art 202 (2), the anti-vagrancy law. Siton claimed he law is vague and provides opportunity for police to discriminate and abuse their authority. SC denied Sitons petition saying that the law is clear as it is qualified by without visible means of support. The only requirement is probable cause, and since police conducted prior surveillance it is deemed to have been complied with. This law was also held to be valid since this will protect the public and promote public order. DOCTRINE o Probable cause as the minimum requirement and provides an acceptable limit on police or executive authority that may otherwise be abused o Art 202 is a public order law. To protect the public.
Dangerous groups wander around, casing homes and establishments for their next hit. The streets must be made safe once more. Though a mans house is his castle, outside on the streets, the king is fair game. The dangerous streets must surrender to orderly society.
CREBA v Romulo
Meralco v. Lim
Stonehill v Diokno
Summary: Respondents filed 42 search warrants against the respondents due to their alleged violation of several laws. The warrants were issued against both the residences and the offices of the petitioners. The petitioners contested the warrants saying that they were null on void due to lack of particularity. Court said that two requisites of warrants were not complied with: (1) there was no probable cause because no specific offense was alleged (violations of central bank laws, etc.) and (2) the items to be seized were not described with particularity. Also, the warrant is void because under the rules of court, no search warrant shall be issued for more than one specific offense. Now, relying on jurisprudence, respondents said that they can still use the evidence taken against the petitioners. The court said that that thinking should now be abandoned we should now follow the exclusionary rule which says that evidence taken from a void search and seizure are inadmissible. Doctrines: (1)Isa-isang offense per search warrant lang boys and girls. (2)Exclusionary rule: all evidence obtained from illegal searches and seizures are deemed inadmissible.
Corro v Lising
In order for probable cause to exist, the statements of the witnesses must be specific and proven with evidence. Mere statements as articles which tend to incite distrust and hatred of the Government without showing any proof are insufficient.
Allado v Diokno
Summary: Petitioners have been accused with kidnapping with murder due to the alleged killing of a German national. The focal source of the allegation was the sworn statement of Escolastico Umbal, a certain security guard who allegedly was part of the plan to kill. The Presidential Anti Crime Commission, armed with search warrants, separately raided 2 dwellings of one of the alleged murders. Several evidence were gathered. Petitioners, having been charged with the crime, asked for certain documents for them to prepare their defense (documents were never given). After a while, respondent issued an arrest warrant against the petitioners. Petitioners alleged that the respondent acted with GADALEJ as there is no probable cause against them. The court believes that there is no probable cause. PACC relied heavily on the sworn statement of Umbal who was found to have given a testimony with a lot of inconsistencies. Also, there is still doubt as to the death of the victim as no corpus delicti has been found. Respondent also committed GADALEJ in issuing the warrant without personally examining the evidence and communicating to the complainant and witness. He merely relied on the certification of the prosecutors that there was probable cause. Doctrine: Judge must personally determine probable cause. Probable cuse may not be established simply by showing that a judge subjectively believes that he has good grounds for his action
Webb v De Leon
Petitioners contend that the sworn statement of Jessica Alfaro (witness) is weak, uncorroborated and inconsistent, hence is insufficient to warrant the existence of a probable cause to arrest the accused. It was held that the DOJ Panel correctly adjudged that enough evidence (from sworn statements and material evidences) had been adduced to establish probable cause and clarificatory hearing was unnecessary. Preliminary investigation need not be conclusive. Petitioners were not denied of due process when they were not allowed to cross examine all evidences. Section 1 of Rule 112 provides that a preliminary investigation should determine "whether there is a sufficient ground to engender a well-grounded belief that a crime has been committed and that the respondent is probably guilty thereof, and should be held for trial."
Roberts v CA
The SCs duty in these cases is confined to the issue of whether the executive or judicial determination, as the case may be, of probable cause was done with GADALEJ.
general rule: criminal prosecution may not be stayed by injunction. But it admits of exceptions, such as when necessary for the orderly administration of justice or avoid oppression or multiplicity of actionssuch as in this case.
People v Francisco
SUMMARY: Police searched and seized shabu in no. 120 Hizon. The warrant applied for was for 122 Hizon. Francisco contends that search was invalid and materials searched cannot be used against her. SC ruled in favour of defendant. DOCTRINE: The controlling subject of search warrant is the place indicated in the warrant itself and not the place identified by the police.
Al-Ghoul v CA PICOP v. Asuncion - place to be searched cannot be changed, enlarged nor amplified by the police
Law does not require that the things to be seized must be described in precise and minute details as to leave no room for doubt on the part of the searching authorities, otherwise, it would be virtually impossible for the applicants to obtain a search warrant as they would not know exactly what kind of things they are looking for People v. Rubio While it is true that the property to be seized under a warrant must be particularly described therein and no other property can be taken thereunder, yet the description is required to be specific only in so far as the circumstances will ordinarily allow it is not required that a technical description be given Two-witness requirement under Section 10, Rule 126 of the Revised Rules of Court: o two-witness rule applies only in the absence of the lawful occupants of the premises searched. o petitioners were present when the search and seizure operation was conducted by the police at Apartment No. 2.
Uy v BIR Vallejo v CA
The Registry of Deeds in Cagayan was allegedly issuing fake land titles and other fake documents. A search warrant was issued, ordering the confiscation of an undetermined number of fake land titles, etc. The warrant alleged two offenses committed by the Registry: graft and falsification. SC held that the warrant was void, because the specific property to be searched for should be so particularly described as to preclude any possibility of seizing any other property. The warrant is a SCATTER-SHOT warrant, wherein two offenses were alleged in a single warrant. Scatter-shot warrants are void
People v CFI
An undisclosed informer told authorities that dutiable goods will be transported from Angeles to Manila. Agents Manuel and Sabado waited in the North Diversion Road tollgate, chased and stopped the car containing said goods. The Bureau of Customs issued a Warrant of Seizure and Detention against the articles and the car. Seizure proceedings were instituted and a certain DEL ROSARIO intervened and claimed ownership of the said items. He claims to have bought it, showing a receipt as proof, and asked MEDINA to deliver the said. It was held that the articles were NOT subject of forfeiture. Meanwhile, the City Fiscal after doing its own PI found prima facie evidence to convict HOPE and MEDINA for being guilty of smuggling. Respondents contend that the watches found in the box cannot be used as evidence against them because the Collector of Customs already said that they were not subject to forfeiture and that the warrantless search was invalid. SC ruled that the search was valid under the Tariff and Customs Code. Said items may also be used in a criminal proceeding which is distinct from seizure proceeding. The Tariff and Customs Code grants persons duly commissioned to do warrantless searches if there is reason to suspect that the code being violated. A seizure case is a CIVIL and ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING which is different and independent from a criminal proceeding.
Roan v Gonzales
Summary: Petitioner claims that he was a victim of an illegal search and seizure. His house was searched however, none of the articles in the warrant were found. The authorities just confiscated a Colt Magnum and 18 live bullets which are now the bases against the petitioner. Petitioner claims that the warrant is void because there has to be examination of the applicant (3rd requisite for a valid warrant). Court agrees with petitioner. In this case, no deposition of the complainant was taken only his affidavit was examined. Mere affidavits of the complainant are not sufficient. The examining judge has to take depositions. Also, examination must be probing and exhaustive. Even if depositions were taken from witnesses, the examination was found to be just routinary where the judge unquestioningly received the statements. Plain view rule also will not apply because the authorities actually searched for the evidence they found. Doctrines: (1) mere affidavits of complainant are not sufficient, the examining judge has to examine through taking depositions (2) examination must be probing and exhaustive, not merely exhaustive (3) when authorities search for the evidence found, plain view rule does not apply
Nolasco v Pao
Aguilar-Roque was one of the accused for Rebellion in People v. Jose Ma. Sison et al. She has been long wanted by the military for being a high ranking officer of the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP). On August 6, 11:30am,
Papa v Mago
Powers and duties of the Bureau of Customs: 1. to assess and collect all lawful revenues from imported articles , and all other dues, fees, charges, fines and penalties, accruing under the tariff and customs laws; 2. to prevent and suppress smuggling and other frauds upon the customs; and 3. to enforce tariff and customs laws Pacis v. Averia: jurisdiction over seizure and forfeiture proceedings are vested exclusively with the Bureau of customs and the court of Tax Appeals, and the court must yield. The Tariff and Customs Code authorizes persons having police authority to effect search and seizures without a search warrant, except in the case of searching a dwelling house. Caroll v. US: There is a necessary difference between a search of a dwelling house or other structure and search of a moving vehiclethe latter can easily be moved out of the jurisdiction of the place where the warrant must be sought, so its not practicable to require a search warrant.
Posadas v CA
A Stop and frisk situation is a valid exception to Sec. 2, Art. III (valid warrantless search)
Aniag v Comelec
A valid search must be authorized by a search warrant duly issued by an appropriate authority. o Some exemptions to this rule: a search incident to a lawful arrest search of moving vehicles seizure of evidence in plain view search conducted at police or military checkpoints which we declared are not illegal per se, and stressed that the warrantless search is not violative of the Constitution for as long as the vehicle is neither searched nor its
Asuncion v CA
Summary: While patrolling, Malabon Police- Anti Narcotics Unit flagged a gray Nissan Sentra driven by Asuncion upon an informants tip that the occupant of said car had drugs in his possession. Asuncion ha d a previous encounter with police but he was able to evade them. Police asked if they can inspect the car and the petitioner voluntarily acceded to it. Police found a plastic packet suspected to contain shabu under the driver seat. Petitioner claimed he just borrowed the car. Police brought him to the station and when frisked they found another plastic packet with shabu in his underwear. In a press conference, Petitioner admitted that the shabu found was for his personal use in his shooting. Petitioner later claimed it was a frame up and also claimed search was illegal because there was no warrant. However, SC affirmed RTC and CAs decision saying that he committed a crime under the dangerous drug Act. SC said that searching a moving vehicle is one of the exceptions - that it did not need warrant to be search because it is not practicable (time is of the essence) for they could just easily get away to another locality or court jurisdiction if police would wait for a warrant to be issued. Doctrine: For practicality search upon a moving vehicle dont need a warrant, especially if enough facts (e.g. name, type of vehicle/location) are not available.
People v Canton
Canton was a departing passenger bound for Saigon, Vietnam. She passed through a metal detector which emitted a beeping sound. Cabunoc and the frisker on duty called her attention and checked Canton. Cabunoc felt something bulging in several parts of Canton. The packages turned out to be SHABU. RTC found Canton guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Dangerous Drugs Act. Canton contends that such search was violative of her constitutional rights but the SC held otherwise. The search was not incidental to her arrest because it was done prior to said arrest. Furthermore, the airport security procedure allows for the search done to her. She was also caught in flagrante delicto, hence she was lawfully arrested.
OTHER WARRANTS
Harvey v Defensor Santiago People v Aminnudin
SUMMARY: The PC officers received a tip from an informant that Amminnudin was bound for Iloilo onboard MV WILCOM 9 carrying marijuana. Aminnudin was searched and arrested after disembarking from the vessel. The PC officers found 3 kilos of marijuana in his bag. He was charged and found guilty of illegally transporting marijuana by the CFI of Iloilo. The decision was appealed to the SC. The SC ruled that there was no valid search and arrest so the evidence against him was inadmissible. He was acquitted. After this, he watched JT Taylo dance to the tune of All I Want for Christmas is You at the Ateneo Law School and thereupon swore never to sell marijuana again. DOCTRINE: (1) person must be caught in flagrante delicto, or about to commit a crime, or had just committed a crime to justify warrantless search.
Go v CA People v Mengote
Mengote was arrested by policemen on the basis that he looked suspicious because he was looking from side to side and that he was holding his abdomen. After a body search, it was found that he had a revolver in his possession. Said revolved was alleged to have belonged to a man named Danganan, whom Mengote allegedly robbed earlier. Mengote defended that his arrest was unlawful. The Supreme Court ruled that in order for a warrantless arrest to be valid, the arresting officers must have personal knowledge that the person arrested has committed, is committing or will be committing an offense. There should also be probable cause for the warrantless arrest. In this case, since the arresting officers had no knowledge that Mengote robbed Danganan earlier or that Mengote was illegally possessing a firearm, and since looking from side to side on holding ones abdomen cannot seriously be considered probable cause, the warrantless arrest of Mengote was unlawful. He was, therefore, acquitted.
Doctrine: stop and frisk is another exception to the warrant rule (art 3 sec 2). What is only required is that the police, based on his
experience, must have probable cause to stop and frisk a person.
PRIVACY (SECTION 3)
KMU v NEDA
This is the case about the uniform ID system within the executive offices The president by executive or administrative order may direct the government entities to adopt this uniform ID system pursuant to Art. VII, Sec. 17power of control over the executive department and faithful execution of the laws clause, as in the case at bar o Power of controlpresident may direct the government entities in the executive department to adopt this uniform system. That power is self-executing and not requiring legislation. It is limited to the executive branch and does not include the 2 others. o Faithful executionthere are several laws mandating government entities to reduce costs, increase efficiency and improve public services (i.e. Revised Administrative Code); ergo, the directive to adopt a uniform ID system is pursuant to the faithful execution of the laws. Legislation would be required in the following cases: o When the implementation requires special appropriation because there is no existing appropriation for the purpose o When compulsory on all branches or citizens o When it requires collection of data beyond what is routinely or usually required for the purpose Right to privacy is protected because there are reasonable safeguards
Adiong v Comelec Summary: Jan 13 1992, Comelec Resolution No. 2347 was promulgated providing that campaign materials (stickers,
printed materials, decals, leaflets etc.. ) may be posted only in authorized posting areas. Said resolution also prohibited the display of election propaganda in any places including mobile or stationary private/public except those in the allowable areas. Petitioner assailed the resolution as violative of the Omnibus election code and RA 6646. SC declared the resolution as null and void on constitutional grounds, more specifically, art 3 sections 1 and 4. SC said that the prohibition of posting of stickers etc... on an individuals property does not only deprive the said individual from the use of his property -since owner is not allowed to place campaign materials on his property- but also deprive him of his right to free speech and information - since posting/placing such material or property reflects/expresses his political views or the candidates he believes in. DOCTRINE: Prohibiting a citizen to place/post/use campaign materials on his property not only deprive him from the use of his property but also deprive him of his right to free speech and information