CONSTITUTIONAL LAW

Page 1 of 37
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 (SECTIONS 4 20) LECTURES OF ATTY. ZENY CONCEPCION FERROLINO TRANSCRIBED BY GAMEL DEAN, COR JESU LAW STUDENT
SEC 4. FREEDOM OF SEPAP (Speech, Expression, Press, Assembly and Petition) No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances. OTHER RELATED SPECIAL LAW: RA 53, as amended by RA 1477 An act to exempt the publisher editor, columnist or reporter of any publication from revealing the source of published news and information obtained in confidence. PARTICLE of SOVEREIGNTY: Every citizen has a right to offer his views and suggestions in the discussion of the common problems of the community. SCOPE: The ideas that may be expressed under this freedom are not confined only to those that are sympathetic or acceptable to the majority. MODES OF EXPRESSION: Freedom of expression is usually exercised through: a. LANGUAGE b. ORAL c. WRITTEN d. SYMBOLISMS ELEMENTS of FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION: 1. Freedom from PREVIOUS restraint or censorship. 2. Freedom from SUBSEQUENT punishment. VALID PRIOR RESTRAINT (Exceptions): a. Movie censorship b. Movie regulation c. Injunction against xxx d. Decency that may be enforced to acts which are obscene e. Seditious speeches f. Enforcement of military xxx A. PRIOR RESTRAINT 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; all others are restricted or suppressed. Government carries the burden. CASES (Prior Restraint): There should be a preservation of status quo (Freedman vs. Maryland, 380 US 51, 1965). Intrusion of a person is permissible IF such person is a public figure (Aver Productions vs. Capulong, 160 SCRA 865, 1988). Radio and Television Broadcasting has LESSER PROTECTION scope because their information is widely accessible even to the non-educated ones unlike in Newspapers and Publications since only few people can take hold or read such papers (Far Eastern Broadcasting vs. Dans, Jr., 137 SCRA 628, 1985). Print Media enjoy the widest protection of Freedom BUT Broadcast Media enjoy least protection since information in Broadcast
Media can always be made available to children. Hypothetical fear is not enough (Alexander vs. US, 113 S. Ct. 2766, 1993).
B. SUBSEQUENT PUNISHMENT 3 Major Criteria. Liability of an individual for ideas expressed by him: 1. Clear and Present Danger Rule the evil consequence must be extremely serious and the degree of imminence must be extremely high before utterance can be punished. Causal connection between the utterance and the danger or substantive evil arising It must be imminent or immediate inevitable. Dili na gyud mapugngan. It is NOT PROBABLE (Basin ingon-ani ang mahitabo no?) Legal Forms of Suppression TEST: a. The fear that serious evil will result when the right is exercised. b. Brings about the evil or danger. c. To believe that the danger apprehended is imminent and serious. d. There must be a probability or serious injury to the State. e. There has to be a causal connection between the utterance and the danger. 2. Dangerous Tendency Doctrine natural tendency to bring about evil which the Congress has the right to prevent. NO longer applicable/controlling. 3. Balancing-of-Interest Test in lieu of the Clear and Present Danger rule There is the presence of a LEGITIMATE state interest which is weighed against the freedom of expression of a person or group of persons. Ex. Waging WAR against the Govt. Sige mag-rebelde na ta. Sulong mga kapatid! The expression made is NOT ABSOLUTE. Duty of the Court: DETERMINE CONFLICTING IDEAS particular conduct is regulated in interest of public order BUT results in abridgement of speech. CASES (Subsequent Punishment): GONZALES vs COMELEC (27 SCRA 835, 1969) The clear and present danger rule was being applied. The law that was being discussed which involve the prevention of the debasement of electoral process. SC said that there was a justification of the prevention. PEOPLE vs PEREZ (45 PHIL 599, 1923) Discusses about the Dangerous Tendency Rule. I do not discuss this one to you anymore because this is not anymore controlling. DENNIS vs US (341 US 494, 1951)
Page 1 of 37
Page 2 of 37
Illustrates the Clear and Present Danger Rule. SC said the question in every case is whether the words are used in such a circumstance in such nature as to create a clear and present danger that will bring about substantive evil, Congress has the right to prevent. Its all about the proximity and the degree of a substantive evil that Congress has a right to prevent. IN RE EMIL JURADO (Adm. Matter 93-2-037, 243 SCRA 299, 1995) SC said that the Constitutional right of Freedom of Expression MAY NOT BE AVAILED to broadcast TRUTH and HALF-TRUTHS. Kana bitawng murag tinood, murag dili tinood.
SC said that it does not endanger any substantial Government interest. Theres no evil that Congress may protect or prevent. But, before Adiong vs COMELEC, it was prohibited. Except for Government Employees because they are prohibited by the CSC Law re: Electioneering. Government Employee must be apolitical.
COMMERCIAL SPEECH A communication which no more than proposes a commercial transaction. PROTECTION: Must not be false or misleading. RUBIN vs COORS BREWING CO. (131 L.Ed.2d 532, 1995) TEST on the determination that a commercial speech maybe regulated by the Government: 1. If Government has substantial interest to protect. 2. Regulation must directly advance that interest that the Government wants to protect. 3. The END GOAL is just protection of the interest. It can NEVER be EXTENDED. CITY OF LADUE vs GILLEO (129 L.Ed.2d 36, 1994) Gilleo displayed an Anti-War Sign in her house. City Ordinance: signs are prohibited to be placed in house windows. Held: City Ordinance violated Gilleos right to free speech as protected by the First Amendment. Although acknowledging Ladues Police Power to minimize visual clutter associated with signs, the Court ruled that the law almost completely foreclosed a venerable means of communication that is both unique and important. The Court held a SPECIAL RESPECT for an individuals right to convey messages from her home. Ex. SIGN: No to Contraception. Meaning you are a LIFE ADVOCATE. Nobody can ever question what is your stand for a particular issue nga pwede nimo ibutang sa imong balay.
CASES (Political Advertisement): SANIDAD vs COMELEC (181 SCRA 529, 1990) SC said that enactment that serves as a Prior Restraint to the exercise of a Constitutional right of Freedom of Expression must be struck down as UNCONSTITUTIONAL. NATIONAL PRESS CLUB vs COMELEC (207 SCRA 1, 1992) Suppression of Airtime in Broadcast Media and print spaces in print Media. SC said that it is VALID because the objective of the law is to equalize the situation between the rich and poor candidates by preventing the rich candidate from enjoying an undue advantage by huge campaign funds. Because dili nila gusto mahitabo nga kato lang mga dato nga mga kandidato mao ray sige-sige ug pa advertise kay mas daghan man sila ug campaign funds. But, this time EMILIO OSMEA vs COMELEC (288 SCRA 447, 1998) Talks about the petition to be examined the NPC VS COMELEC Case re: Suppression of Air time and Print Spaces for running candidates during the Election. SC ruled UNCONSTITUTIONAL because it infringes the freedom of speech of the persons being suppressed. It is an oppression of the Freedom of Expression. TELECOM & BROADCAST ATTORNEYS vs COMELEC (289 SCRA 337, 1998) The law prohibits Mass Media from selling or donating free space or airtime to Broadcast or Print Medias to candidates. COMELEC will provide for them. SC said TELECOM has no standing to sue. ADIONG vs COMELEC (207 SCRA 712, 1992) Law prohibiting the posting of decals and stickers is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. It infringes the right of free speech.
LIBEL Is a public and malicious imputation of a crime, or of a vice, or defect, real or imaginary, or any act, omission, condition, status or circumstance tending to cause the dishonor, discredit, or contempt of a natural or juridical person, or to blacken the memory of one who is dead. BASIS: As long as it injures the one being defamed. Distinguished in 2: 1. Written - LIBEL 2. Oral - SLANDER In the RPC, it is only referred to and defined as Libel. Legal Exception of Subsequent Punishment: 1. Libel defamatory statements 2. Obscenity obscene materials 3. Contempt Court contempt
Page 2 of 37
Page 3 of 37
Under the RPC (Art 353), every DEFAMATORY statement is presumed to be MALICIOUS EVEN if its TRUE, IF theres NO GOOD INTENTION. EXCEPT for the following: 1. A private communication made by any person to another in the performance of any legal, moral or social duty. It is not libelous. 2. A Fair and True report, made in good faith, (Ex. DJ of Charm criticize public officials) without any comments or remarks, of any judicial, legislative, or other official proceedings, or of any other act performed by public officers in the exercise of their functions. ORDINARY CITIZENS should be allowed MORE PROTECTION from libelous statements than individuals in the PUBLIC eye. SC said that if it is made in GOOD FAITH, exception to Subsequent Punishment if the report is VALID and TRUE. GOOD FAITH is the Qualified Privilege. IF it is against PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS: it is always presumed that it has Malice. IF it is against PUBLIC OFFICIALS: o VALID if pertaining to the public responsibilities Ex. Construction of the sports complex. Lesser and protection. o SUBJECT to CRITICISMS - IF pertains to official acts of the Public Official. o If it talks about the using of public funds by virtue of official acts always subject to Criticism. o If it talks about physical, mental and moral fitness, the statement is protected if it tells only the circumstance Ex. Mayor Peas is hospitalized due to some illness --- DO NOT ADD other circumstances other than the true one. Ex. Na-hospital kay na HIV kay nanguan ug burikat. o IF it talks about the PRIVATE LIFE of Public Official --- almost the same to private individual Ex. Congressman nag date-date. Unsa maning bayhana ni, moral ba ni o immoral ba ni? HOWEVER if it is susceptible to PUBLIC CONCERN it may have a NARROWER Protection. Ex. Congressman nag date-date. Unya public funds ang gigamit sa pag date-date. Susceptible to public concern. The evil sought be punished by the provisions on Libel is not a disturbance to public order caused by the defamatory statement or language but there is a tendency INJURE the person regardless of the effect upon the public. Public Clamor does not matter, what is important is that theres a TENDENCY OF INJURY to the Person being DEFAMED.
If the subject is the persons moral, mental and physical aspects: they may be subject to comments and criticisms BUT such is only privilege IF it tells about the circumstance. It takes about FAIRPLAY. Mao ray ibroadcast. The statement must be true. PRIVILEGE COMMUNICATION Fair and due report. It involves performance of duty. It is made against public life of a public officer or public figure and NOT a Private Life. If there is actual MALICE, there is LIBEL if he knew that such is FALSE. So, libelous. A Public figure may not recover from for the intentional infliction of emotional distress without showing that the offending publication contained a false statement of fact which was made with actual malice. CASES (Libel): POLICARPIO vs MANILA TIMES (L-16027, May 30, 1962) SC said that exception to the presumption that every defamatory imitation is malicious is a private communication made by any person to another in the performance of an official proceeding which is not confidential in nature. But to enjoy immunity, a publication containing derogatory information must not only TRUE but must be FAIR and made in GOOD FAITH without comments or remarks. LOPEZ vs CA (34 SCRA 116, 1970) There must be an ACTUAL MALICE but if wala so NO VIOLATION! But if you know that it is FALSE, then theres ACTUAL MALICE because of such knowledge. There was a reckless disregard if it was published whether you are NOT SURE if such is false or not. Facts should be verified. NEW YORK TIMES vs SULLIVAN (376 US 254, 1964) The statement must have an actual malice. You have to prove the statement is made with malice. Knowledge that it is false VIOLATED! Disregard recklessly whether it is false or not VIOLATED! A public official for that matter cannot ask for a protection whatever damages due to him. OBSCENITY Test of Obscenity: 1. Whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest. 2. Whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable law. 3. Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value.
Page 3 of 37
WHAT ARE THE ALLOWABLE LIMITS WHEN PUBLIC OFFICIALS AS TO CRITICISMS? Public acts: it may be subject to criticism IF made in Good Faith: they are qualified privilege.
Page 4 of 37
SEC 5. FREEDOM OF RELIGION 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. 3 CLAUSES: 1. Non-Establishment of Religion 2. Free Exercise of Religion 3. No Religious Test 1. NON-ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE (NEC): The State must forever be neutral in the affairs of Faith/Religion. - The State cannot setup its own church - It should not favor any church or any sect - It must not pass any law which aid any religion or which prefers one religion over the other - It must not openly or secretly participate in any affairs that involves any religion, sect or any groups of religion In short, it calls for the separation of Church and State. It talks about equal non-treatment at all. The determination whether the State is involved with the establishment of religion is only thru a judicial determination. Even if the State recognizes the influence of a particular sect or religion, this does not mean a wall of neutrality. It has to be equal nontreatment. OTHER RELATED PROVISION OF THE CONSTITUTION WHICH SUPPORTS AND GIVES A STRONG FOUNDATION ON THE NON-ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE: Art. VI Sec. 29 (2) - No public money or property shall ever be appropriated, applied, paid or used, directly or indirectly, for the use, benefit or support of any sect, church, denomination, sectarian institution or system of religion, or for the use, benefit or support of any priest, preacher, minister or other religious teacher or dignitary as such - Exceptions: If such priests, preacher, minister, or dignitary is assigned to: o AFP o Penal Institution o Government Orphanage o Leprosarium Art. II Sec. 6 The separation of Church and State shall be inviolable. Art. IX (C) Sec. 2 (5) Prohibition of religious denominations and sects from being registered as political parties or organizations. PURPOSE OF THE NON-ESTABLISHMENT: Protect voluntarism and the installation of a political process from inter-faith discussion
It gives streamlines, the State as a separate entity from that of the Church or any other religious denominations or sects. EXCEPTIONS OF NEC: Art. VI Sec. 28 (3) Charitable institutions, churches and parsonages or convents appurtenant thereto, mosques, non-profit cemeteries, and all lands, buildings, and improvements, actually, directly, and exclusively used for religious, charitable, or educational purposes shall be exempt from taxation. Art. XIV Sec. 3 (3) At the option expressed in writing by the parents or guardians, religion shall be allowed to be taught to their children or wards in public elementary and high schools within the regular class hours by instructors designated or approved by the religious authorities of the religion to which the children or wards belong, without additional cost to the Government. KINDS OF SUPPORT THAT ARE VIOLATIVE OF THE NEC: Sponsorship of particular activities Financial support Active involvement of the Sovereign or State in any religious activity 3 REQUISITES AS EXCEPTIONS THAT THE STATE MAY VALIDLY EXTEND SUPPORT TO SECTS OR RELIGIOUS DENOMINATIONS: A. Statute must have a secular legislative intent (It is just an incidental effect) Ex. The Brothers of the Polycarp Foundation. The Government can extend support, donations or financial assistance to such Foundation because the mere objective of the Foundation is not for a religious purpose but such support, financial assistance or donations are given to the indigent constituents of the Province. Ex. Gov. Cagas approved road concreting project at the Benedictine Nuns. It is not connected to any religion. Its just a basic delivery of services of the Government and not merely for a religious purpose. Government ought to give it back to the people. Its just incidental that such road the constituents use is the road going to the Benedictine Nuns. B. It must have principal effects does not advance nor inhibit religion (Means its not the incidental effect. But it advances the delivery of basic services for the people but not for the worshippers or the Roman Catholics going to the chapel of the Benedictine Nuns) C. Theres no excessive entanglement between the Government and the Church (Walay connection at all which means it is merely incidental hence a valid ground to extend support)
Page 4 of 37
Page 5 of 37
(Murag na connect ka or na-intertwined ka or tali ka o na-priso ka o na-entangle ka between the Government and the religion) (Ex. The concreting of road is what the Government intended which is for the basic delivery of services for the people) When can we say that there is no excessive entanglement between religion and the Government? It can be determined through: Character and purpose of the Institution benefited Nature of aid for which the State provides Resulting relationship between the Government and the religious authority CASES (Non-Establishment Clause): AGLIPAY vs RUIZ (64 PHIL 201, 1937) Stamps with church of Aglipay image Talks about those who are fond of collecting stamps RA 4052 which gives the Director of Post a discretionary power to determine when the issuance of the special postage stamps would be advantageous to the Government. Gi-establish nila ang relihiyon ni Aglipay kay giapil nila sa stamps. In effect or in exchange there has to be money nga mosulod sa Government. SC said NO IT DOES NOT VIOLATE. The only purpose in issuing the stamps was to advertise the Philippines and to attract more tourists to the country. Meaning to say, it has a secular purpose: advertisement of the Philippines throughout the world, tourism purposes and to attract tourists to the country. It is only incidental that theres a religious sect benefitted out of the distribution of the special postage stamps. What is being guaranteed by our Constitution is religious liberty not mere religious toleration. Religious freedom is not a prohibition of a profound reverence to a religion. GARCES vs EXTENZO (104 SCRA 510, 1981) Purchase of a RELIGIOUS IMAGE by the Public Officials SC said IT DOES NOT VIOLATE since the money was used in the purchase is not a tax money but it involves a private funds. Waiting shed construction: Theres a Resolution donating such waiting beside the church. Contention: Ahh ang maka benefit ana kay ang mga nanimba. It promotes the Roman Catholic at the expense of public funds. SC said it is ENTIRELY FOR A SECULAR PURPOSE: To provide the waiting shed to provide a shade for sunny or rainy weather. It does not favor or interfere with any religious matter because it is has a mere secular purpose. DOES NOT VIOLATE THE NEC. SCHOOL DISTRICT vs SCHEMPP (374 SCRA 203, 1963) Pennsylvania Statute which requires at least 10 VERSES from the Bible be read daily.
HELD: It is a religious exercise or constituted a religious observance which violates the NEC. The ceremony must BOARD OF EDUCATION vs ALLEN (392 US 236, 1968) Law which requires the petitioner to lend books free of charge to all students from Grade 7 to 12 including private schools students. HELD: Does NOT VIOLATE since the statute merely made available to all children the benefit of a general program to lend school books free of charge. Further, the books are furnished at the request of the pupils and students and the ownership of such books remains with the State. Di ba kng nay donation, maka MR mana. So, even if it is already donated but the original ownership still remains with the Government and is not transferred to the pupils and students. The benefit goes straight to the parents and their children but not to parochial schools. Only secular books and not religious books are lent to the children. Meaning SECULAR not connected to any religion. So, books must be dictionaries, thesaurus, encyclopedias, etc but not religious books. LEMON vs KURTZMAN (403 us 672, 1971) A statute which provides for financial assistance or salaries of teachers at Church-related Education Institution VIOLATED! 3 Requisites were laid down: o Statute must have a SECULAR PURPOSE. o It must have principal effects which neither advances nor inhibit religion. o It must not foster excessive Government entanglement with religion. COUNTY OF ALLEGHENY vs ACLU (57 LW 5045, 1989) Public display outside the City County Bldg of (a) Nativity and (b) Menorah (a) Nativity UNCONSTITUTIONAL since it is capable of communicating a religious message the birth of Jesus in Bethlehem. It advances or favors a particular religion which believes that Christ is born. Because there are religions which do not believe that Christ is born in a manger. (b) Menorah (Candle dcor) CONSTITUTIONAL since the message is not exclusively religious. It may be a symbol of an art. MOOSCA vs CA (252 SCRA 412) Talks about a marker being setup for the late Felix Manalo of the INC. Contention: Ahh nay favor2 sa INC over other religions. SC said that the purpose in setting up the marker is to recognize the distinctive contributions of the late Felix Manalo in the Culture of the Philippines rather to commemorate his founding and leadership to the INC. The practical reality that the religious aspect is merely incidental or secondary in nature.
Page 5 of 37
Page 6 of 37
Similar to Aglipay vs Ruiz Case (FAVORITE BAR QUESTIONS) 2. FREE EXERCISE CLAUSE. Two Aspects: 1. Freedom to believe and Freedom not to believe 2. Freedom to act to ones belief The determination of these aspects is beyond the jurisdiction or competence of any Government authority. The Government cannot stop us from believing something specifically to the Roman Catholics that we believe in One God. The Government cannot say that No! You have to believe that there are 3 Gods. They cannot insinuate us to which God to believe in whether Jehovah, Yahweh, Cristo, Allah, that Saturday is the Sabbath Day or is it Sunday the Sabbath Day. HOWEVER, if our BELIEFS are being translated into CONCRETE ACTIONS, then the State may use its POLICE POWER to curtail or to stop us against inimical actions against the society. Mao nay hinungdan nga away between sa Muslim and Christians. CASES (Free Exercise Clause): US vs BALLARD (322 US 78, 1944) Ballard believed that he has the power to heal incurable diseases. So, he sent mails soliciting contributions for his healing services. Government claimed that Ballards claims were false and he used them to defraud others. Hence, he was charged with FRAUD. Whether or not the Court or the Government have the right to evaluate religious beliefs of a citizen or group. The jury based its decision on the sincerity of Ballards beliefs. The decision prevented juries from being asked to consider whether a persons religious beliefs were ever true. All that mattered was that the person accept them in good faith, NO GOVERNMENT IS ALLOWED TO ATTEMPT TO DETERMINE IF THEY ARE LOGICAL, VALID OR ACCURATE. Gives birth to two (2) Concepts: 1. Freedom to believe and not to believe = ABSOLUTE! - Something that the State may not interfere. 2. Freedom to act on ones belief = NOT ABSOLUTE! Hence, it may be regulated by the Sate. If one could be sent in jail because the jury in a hostile environment found that such faith is false, then there will be nothing left to religious freedom.
Religious Corp sells Bibles and other religious articles which required to obtain a License and pay corresponding fees in the sale of merchandise. VIOLATES the right to disseminate religious information or articles TOLENTINO vs SEC OF FINANCE, SUPRA VAT is imposed on the printing of religious articles/materials. SC said that Vat is not a license TAX as it is generally applicable to all whether you are a religious sect, business sector or a private individual. EBRALINAG vs SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS (219 SCRA 256, 1993) FLAG SALUTE Members of the Jehovahs Witnesses believed that they should not salute the FLAG because it was an IMAGE to which the Bible prohibited them from rendering obeisance. Dili mi mosaludo sa FLAG ka yang GINOO lang gyud among saludohan. It is offensive sa ila nga mosaludo sa flag. In the 1993 Case, there was a RULING that they ought to follow the Schools rules and regulations. In the 1995 Case, SC said that such regulation offend the Constitutional requirement of Governmnetal neutrality if it unduly burdens the Free Exercise of Religion. The view of the flag is not a religious but a symbol of our patriotism as Filipino citizens, it is the EXPRESSION OF THE MAJORITY. SC said that the view that the flag is a neutral, a secular symbol, it is not connected to any religion at all. Its just an expression coming from the majoritarian view. But, for the Jehovahs, it is offensive for them because they believed that they should not be forced to salute the flag. SC said that saluting the flag is sometimes offensive to others to be worth giving up the religion which is a Constitutional right, THEN IT SHOULD BE RESPECTED. Laliman ka ma-expel sila kay wala lang nisaludo sa falg. So, two rights ang mawala sa ila which are the Right to Education and the Freedom of Religion. Hence, SC said that members of the Jehovahs should be EXEMPTED from the FLAG CEREMONY. PAMIL vs TELERON (86 SCRA 413, 1978) Priest running for a public office. CONSTITUTIONAL because of the NORELIGIOUS TEST under the Constitution. 2 Fundamental Rights of the Priests: Civil and Political Rights. Public Office should be left to the good sense of the people. It is not the State who determines whether this particular Priest is suited to be placed in a public office.
AMERICAN BIBLE SOCIETY vs CITY OF MANILA (101 PHIL 386, 1957)

Page 6 of 37
Page 7 of 37
McDANIEL vs PATTY (435 SCRA 618, 1978) Ordained Minister barred from serving the Constitutional Convention. Because a statute prevented Ministers, Priests, etc to take part VIOLATED the First Amendment Rights because it prevents petitioner to exercise his TWO (2) FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS: CIVIL AND POLITICAL. Disqualifying a Clergyman from participating any of the Constitutional process or running for a political position, then you are PUNISHING a particular RELIGION or Religious Profession, otherwise, wala nay mag-pari o mag-madre. This is deprivation of a Civil and Political Rights of a person. LAMBS CHAPEL vs SCHOOL DISTRICT (No. 91-2024, 1994) Film Exhibit. Not done during school hours. Open to the public. Court said NO VIOLATION because the film exhibit is not done during schools hours and it is not open to students alone but open to the public in general. Whatever benefit that any religion may have is only INCIDENTAL or SECONDARY.
Page 7 of 37
Page 8 of 37
SEC 6. LIBERTY OF ABODE AND TRAVEL 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. WHAT ARE THE LIBERTIES GUARANTEED UNDER SEC 6? Freedom to choose ones place of abode Freedom to change ones place of abode Freedom to travel within the Country and outside the Country Not synonymous with the Right to return into ones Country? (Marcos vs Manglapus) NO! - The Authority there is the Declaration of Human Rights and the International Convention - SC said the Covenant of Human Rights have separate guarantees of the right to travel and liberty of abode. - The right to return to ones country is not covered by specific right to travel and right to liberty of abode. - Basis, this is not a Fundamental Law but of International Law. The Court has the sole determination of the right to travel if due to national security, public safety and public health. Subject to regulation under Police Power but with Due Process.
MARCOS vs MANGLAPUS (177 SCRA 668, 1989) The right to return to ones country is not among the rights specifically guaranteed under the Bill of Rights. It is the Supreme Courts well-considered view that the right to return may be considered not as a Constitutional guarantee or a Fundamental Law but as a generally accepted Principle of International Law which is part of the Law of the Land. However, SC further said that the right to return to ones country is distinct from the right to travel and it enjoys a different protection under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Furthermore, the Court held that the President did not act arbitrarily or with grave abuse of discretion since the return of the Marcoses poses a serious threat to national interest and welfare. Pres Aquino has determined that the destabilization caused by the return of the Marcoses would wipe away the gains achieved during the past few years after the Marcos regime.
Page 8 of 37
Page 9 of 37
SEC 7. RIGHT TO INFORMATION 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. Remembers, Angelo Reyes died because of Sec 7. Sec 7 is the authority: The cause of the cause of the evil caused when Angelo Reyes committed suicide because of this Sec. WHAT ARE THE RIGHTS GUARANTEED UNDER SEC 7? Right to Information and matters of public concern Right to access of official records and documents (Corollary Right) - These are the rights available to CITIZENS ONLY but only to Sec 7 since other Sections of the Bill of Rights are guaranteed to citizens and aliens. - However, these rights are subject to LIMITATIONS. HOW ARE THESE RIGHTS REGULATED? 1. It must be determined whether or not the INFORMATION SOUGHT is a PUBLIC CONCERN. 2. By law, there should be exemptions to information for public scrutiny as to documents affecting public interest or national security. 3. The Officers with control or custody of official documents may regulate or may exercise discretion as to the manner of inspection or of examination or of the copying of the documents whether or not such information being sought is of public concern.
So, access to CSC Eligibility does not involve National Security, petition is GRANTED. VALMONTE vs BELMONTE (170 SCRA 256, 1989) Mandatory contribution to the GSIS of Government Employees. GSIS being a trustee of the contributions of Government Employees. GSIS is deemed to be the Administrator of Insurance Programs for the benefit of these employees. Since, it is a depository so the funds are now imbued with PUBLIC INTEREST and PUBLIC CHARACTER. Transform private funds into public funds and has a Public Character. SC said, considering the nature of the funds, GSIS is expected to manage its resources with utmost prudence and respect among its members. Any Government employees must be given an access to these public records because it is a matter of public interest and concern. Petitioners are entitled to access documents (loans, interests) but subject only to certain regulations as to the time and manner of inspection or examination (Dili man ka pwede moingon I have the right to access dapat karong als 12:00 sa gabii na nako kinahanglanon). GSIS cannot say NO! Dili ko pwede magpakita sa imo ani kay laborer lang ka, janitor lang ka sa Kapitolyo, ang dapat nay access ani ka yang mga Head of Office, mga treasurer, mga Governor, Executives. SC said No! Because it is a matter imbued with public interest and concern. AQUINO-SARMIENTO vs MORATO (203 SCRA 515, 1991) Voting slips of MTRCB (Kani angay ba ni ipasalida o dili o Rated X ba ni o Rated PG) SC said that the right to privacy belongs to the individual acting in their own individual private capacity and not to a Governmental agency or Officers or Staff acting in the discharge of their public duties. This is the right to privacy belonging to a particular Board acting on their own individual capacity. There can be no invasion of privacy here since what is sought is a product of action undertaken under the course of performing an official function. Example: Members of the Board ta. You can never be asked as to how you vote in your own capacity but you can be questioned as to how have you voted as a Collegial body for after all it is a product of action undertaken in the course of performing a valid official function.
CASES (Right to Information): LEGASPI vs CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION (150 SCRA 530, 1987) CSC Eligibility of a Sanitarian employee was being asked by the Petitioner. SC said the Constitutional right to information on matters of public concern is NOT ABSOLUTE. The Constitution guarantees such right but is subject to limitations as may be provided for by law. The law may exempt certain types of information from public scrutiny such as those affecting National Security. The right to access of official records must be circumscribed by the nature of the information sought: 1. Being of public concern 2. Not being exempted by law If the information sought is of public concern and that it is not among the exemptions of the law, so you as a Citizen may gain access to those information.
Page 9 of 37
Page 10 of 37
SEC 8. RIGHT TO FORM ASSOCIATIONS The right of the people, including those employed in the public and private sectors, to form unions, associations, or societies for purposes not contrary to law shall not be abridged. It is therefore an aspect of the general right to liberty form associations. It also attaches the corollary right NOT TO JOIN ASSOCIATIONS you can never be forced or compelled to join. In Labor Law, the right to join associations or organizations also accompanies the right not to join such associations or organizations. Could you imagine an employee is being dismissed just because of not joining? The right being guaranteed under Sec 8 is the right to join or to form associations. The freedom of association is an aspect of the freedom of expression and freedom to believe in objectives, mission or vision of a particular association. This right is subdued to the freedom of expression. However, this does not include the freedom to STRIKE. There are employees who are allowed to strike but there are also employees who not allowed. There are strikes that are not in accordance with law. OTHER RELATED PROVISION OF THE CONSTITUTION: ART XIII SEC 3 (2) The State shall guarantee the rights of all workers to self-organization, collective bargaining and negotiations, and peaceful concerted activities, including the right to strike in accordance with law (Labor Code) ART IX (B) SEC 2 (5) The right to selforganization shall not be denied to government employees. - It does not talk about the right to strike but only the right to self-organization among government employees. THE RIGHT TO FORM ASSOCIATION - Belongs to the people whether employed or not employed and whether employed in the government sector or in a private sector. - Meaning, this right is applicable to all people. - Note that the right to form association also includes the right to UNIONIZE. - However, in government employees, civil servants are restricted to the right to strike and to collective bargaining. - Employees in the GOCC under SEC may unionize, bargain collectively and may strike. However, all other civil servants may not unionize meaning to say they are not allowed to bargain collectively and they are not allowed to strike. CASES (Right to Form Associations) TUCP vs NHC (173 SCRA 33, 1989) TUCP, a labor organization under National Housing Corp (NHC), a GOCC, filed a petition for certification election.
The right to unionize or to form organizations is now explicitly recognized and guaranteed to employees in both the government and private sectors. If there is a Union, you are allowed to negotiate with the Management. Certification Election means kung kinsa tong Union mo-represent sa usa ka Kompanya. The workers and employees of the NHC have the right to form Unions or Employees Organizations. NHC is w/out original charter. GOCC incorporated under the Corp Code: under the Labor Code. So, has the right to strike. GOCC with original Charter: Under the CSC Law. So, not allowed to strike. Meaning, under the Labor Code, mostly are under the SEC. This happens to the GOCC which do not have original charters. So, they are incorporated under the Corporation Code. SSS EMPLOYEES vs CA (GR-85279, July 8, 1989) SSS Employees went on strike. Contention: Not allowed to strike because they are Government employees. SC said, as to the nature of the SSS employees, while the Constitution and the Labor Code are silent as to whether Government employees may strike, they are prohibited from striking. Basis of the prohibition from striking: Express provision of the Memorandum Circular 6-1987 of the CSC and as implied under EO 180. General Rule: They are allowed to form association; they are allowed to strike EXCEPT if there is an express prohibition in their charter that they are allowed to strike. If they have their own original charter, they are NOT ALLOWED TO STRIKE. SC said SSS employees are part of the CSC and are covered under CSC memorandum prohibiting their strike. SSS was formed WITH ORIGINAL CHARTER so they are governed under the CSC and not under the Labor Code. Hence, SSS employees are NOT ALLOWED TO STRIKE. MANILA PUBLIC SCHOOL TEACHERS ASSOC vs SEC OF EDUCATION (GR-95445, Aug 6, 1991) Mass action of teachers. What about teachers, do they have the right to strike? SC said that it is clear that teachers DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO STRIKE However, they have the right to form associations, organizations, Unions. They can express their grievances Provide outside of school hours but they do not have the right to STRIKE. They CAN DEMONSTRATE but they CANNOT engage in STRIKE. They can never delay the delivery of public service the right to education especially they are catering the public. JACINTO vs CA, SUPRA
Page 10 of 37
Page 11 of 37
Illegal strike because it resulted in non-holding of classes. SEC 9. EMINENT DOMAIN Private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation. The most favorite BAR topic in the BAR exams. WHAT IS THIS POWER OF EMINENT D? One of the inherent powers of the State. Ultimate right of the State to appropriate not only public but also private properties of all citizens FOR PUBLIC PURPOSE. It is the so-called HIGHEST FORM OF OWNERSHIP. So, you can never say no as long as your property is needed for public use. Ex. Theres no other way to construct the Provincial Capitol except in this property. This is also called as the EXPROPRIATION POWER. HISTORY OF EMINENT DOMAIN (REGALIAN DOCTRINE) - Before, everything within the State belongs to the King. - Anyone who will claim private ownership must first show evidence to the State or to the King that the State or the King has passed ownership or granted ownership to you and that would be the time such property belongs to you. - So, what has passed or granted by the State to an individual may also be taken back by the State. This power is exercised by the Congress - lodged in the Legislature. The Executive is vested with the power to initiate proceedings but such power is dormant until the Legislature sets into MOTION. This power maybe delegated also to the LOCAL GOVERNMENT UNITS pursuant to the law passed by the Legislature which is the Local Government Code of 1991. WHAT ARE THE REQUISITES OF THE POWER OF EMINENT DOMAIN? 1. There must be a TAKING OF Private PROPERTY. Taking imports a physical dispossession of the owner and is thus deprived of all beneficial use and enjoyment of his property. 2. The taking must be for PUBLIC USE. 3. Payment of JUST COMPENSATION. WHAT ARE THE PROPERTIES THAT MAYBE TAKEN? - It involves anything within the COMMERCE OF MEN hence it includes not limited only to real properties but also persona, tangible and intangible properties. - It includes: o Franchises o Churches and other religious properties notwithstanding the separation of Church and the State o Trade Secret o Patents and trademarks
o Books Exceptions: a. Money the expropriation of money would be a futile act because of the requirement for the payment of just compensation usually also in money. b. Choses of Action a personal right not reduced into possession but recoverable by a suit at law, a right to receive, demand or recover a debt, demand or damages on a cause of action ex contractu or for a tort or omission of duty. - Property already devoted to public use is still subject to expropriation Provided it is done directly by the National Legislature or under a specific grant of authority to the delegate. - It differs from property TAKEN UNDER THE POLICE POWER which is sought to be destroyed because it is noxious or intended for a noxious purpose. Ex. A building on the verge of collapse may be ordered demolished in the interest of public safety, and the owner will not be entitled to payment for the loss he has sustained even if he has been completely deprived of his property. WHAT DIFFERS POLICE POWER FROM EMINENT DOMAIN? - POLICE POWER o The property is regulated o It has no just compensation o Very broad and plenary and is supreme that it can go beyond regulation (Ex. Destruction of a particular property by reason of necessity) - Eminent Domain o The property is not regulated but the property is TAKEN o There is just compensation. Compensable taking o You can never destruct a property but just TAKE AWAY the property A. ELEMENTS THAT CONSTITUTE TAKING 1. The expropriator must ENTER the property. 2. The entry must not be for a momentary period only or a transitory period. 3. Must be under a want or warrant of color (Naa na gyuy tumong ug tinguha mahitungod sa usa ka property kung para unsaon sa Gobyerno). 4. The property must be devoted for a PUBLIC USE. 5. The public use must always amount to a DEPRIVATION of the benefits of the owner (Ex. Gikuha lagi sa Government pero naa lang gihapon ka mura gihapon kag tag-iya, ikaw gihapoy mag buot). ? How about kung na-lessen lang ang deprivation sa owner Thats under the case of US vs Causby. CASES (Eminent Domain): US vs CAUSBY (328 US 256, 1946) Chickens commit suicide every time a jet passes by over Causbys property.
Page 11 of 37
Page 12 of 37
Emphasis of this case is all about ENJOYMENT but not the death of the chickens when they bang themselves on the wall or cage while an airplane flies over the area. SC said that even if air space is a public highway but land owner must have full control of the immediate reaches of his property including its enveloping atmosphere in order to have a full enjoyment of said property. SC said the flight of airplanes which is over the surface but do not touches on the land have much appropriation of the use of the land as a more conventional entry upon it. Government must suppose to pay even without actual invasion of the land. REPUBLIC vs VDA. DE CASTELLVI (58 SCRA 336, 1974) Its all about the LEASE CONTRACT WITH AFP SC said the ENTRY is NOT PERMANENT because this is just a LEASE of the land. The contract is one of a LEASE which is renewable every year. SC said, theres NO TAKING because of one of the elements: The ENTRY must NOT ONLY FOR A MOMENTARY or TRANSITORY PERIOD. The use of the Government of the property DOES NOT AMOUNT the DEPRIVATION of the owner of the land of the benefits of the property. She still receives the benefits or fruits in the form of payment of RENT. GARCIA vs CA (102 SCRA 597, 1981) This talk about NPC Steel Towers constructed on a certain land. SC said theres was NO TAKING because the intention is for the landowner to provide a RIGHT OF WAY or EASEMENT. Nihatag lang ang landowner ug gamay nga right of way for the NPC Steel tower to be constructed. There was no intention to condemn the property. CITY GOVERNMENT vs JUDGE ERICTA (122 SCRA 759, 1983) There was an Ordinance gipasa sa City Government asking owners of private cemeteries for a 6% cemetery space allotted to paupers and indigents. SC said NO the ORDINANCE IS VOID. There is no relation or connection between the setting aside of 6% of the total area of a private cemetery and the general welfare. The POWER TO REGULATE DOES NOT INCLUDE the POWER TO CONFISCATE unless there is a NECESSITY TO DESTROY IT. This amounts to taking without just compensation instead of building a public cemetery by providing a city-owned land, it passes the burden to private-owned cemeteries. PEOPLE vs FAJARDO, SUPRA
A certain BUILDING which DESTROYS the VIEW of the PUBLIC PLAZA. Gusto nila ipa wala or ipa-bungkag. SC said the Ordinance operates to permanently DEPRIVE THE OWNER of the use of the property without just compensation. The property right essentially includes the full use of the property while the State may regulate property for the general welfare and not permanently divest the owner of the benefits of the property unless there is just compensation. REPUBLIC vs PLDT (26 SCRA 620, 1969) PLDT holds a franchise to operate a telephone system. Remember that franchise is a property right. Plaintiff is a political entity thru its branch, Bureau of Telecommunications. BOT set up its own government telephone system renting trunk lines of the PLDT. BOT entered into agreement with RCA Communications for joint overseas telephone service which PLDT contends that it is a competition of their business and that BOT has violated their agreement in using PLDTs trunk lines for government-use only. BOT filed petition asking the Court to compel PLDT to execute a contract with BOT for the use of its facilities throughout the country. SC said that the State, may, in the interest of national welfare, transfer utilities of PLDT to public ownership UPON PAYMENT OF JUST COMPENSATION. Dili pwede mag thank you na lang ang BOT in their connection and usage of PLDTs trunk lines. There is no reason why the State may not require a public utility to render services in the general interest PROVIDED JUST COMPENSATION IS PAID. MERALCO vs PINEDA (206 SCRA 196, 1992) Talks about the Malaya Power Plant. In an expropriation case where the principal issue is the determination of just compensation, a trial before the Commissioners is indispensable to allow the parties to present evidence on the issue of just compensation. The appointment of at least 3 competent persons as commissioners to ascertain just compensation for the property sought to be taken is a mandatory requirement in expropriation cases. There must be a trial to determine proof of valuation of properties. The judges act of determining and ordering the payment of just compensation without the assistance of a Board of Commissioners is a flagrant violation of MERALCOs constitutional right to due process and is a gross violation of the mandated rule established by the Revised Rules of Court. NPC vs JOCSON (GR-94193-99, Feb 25, 1992) SC said the act of the Judge in increasing the amount of the provisional value for the purpose of issuing a Writ of Possession is a GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION.
Page 12 of 37
Page 13 of 37
There has to be a hearing. Dili pwede mag buot2 ang Judge. There has to be a judicial determination.
PHIL PRESS INST vs COMELEC (244 SCRA 272, 1995) SC said there is a taking of property without just compensation in providing space (Newspapers, Radios and televisions) for the COMELEC. BENNIS vs MICHIGAN, SUPRA BF and GF caught doing sex in a car. The car was confiscated. Contention: private property taken by the Government must be just compensated. SC said the Government is not required to compensate because prosecution declared a PUBLIC NUISANCE. Hence, you can never ask for a just compensation. PENN CENTRAL TRANSPORTATION vs NEW YORK CITY (438 US 104, 1978) Grand Central Terminal to be made by the Government as a Landmark. SC said that it constitutes taking of a private property and should be just compensated. RUCKLESHAUS vs MONSANTO CO (467 SCRA 986, 1984) Talks about the SECRET FORMULA of a PESTICIDE. TRADE SECRETS is a protected property right. Hence, there can be no taking without just compensation even if its for regulation purposes because the Government wanted to know kung naa bay lahi sagol.. shabu.. Marijuana. SC said that it involves taking of property and it must be just compensated. B. PUBLIC USE - The concept of public use is the taking of properties which are open for the use of public in general. - Anyone can use them anytime. - However, in the advent of the new cases, a broader construction of this concept is being followed. Apparently, even if the taking of the property is not for public use in general but it benefits the public, such purpose is sufficient. CASES (Public Use): SUMULONG vs GUERRERO (154 SCRA 461, 1987) Expropriation of land for socialized housing. Socialized housing now constitutes PUBLIC USE. Contention: Gamay ra man ang maka benefit ana. Kato ra mang mga beneficially employed Even if the purpose does not cater the public in general but as long as for the benefit of the public then it can pass to the standard of public use.
C. JUST COMPENSATION - MEASURE of the OWNERS LOSS and not the TAKERS GAIN. - Computation: Market Value + Consequential Damages Consequential Benefits = JUST COMPENSATION. CASES (Just Compensation): EPZA vs DULAY (149 SCRA 305, 1987) A favorite BAR question case. PD 1533 Export Processing Zone private lands are expropriated in the process for such establishment. SC said PD 1533 is UNCONSTITUTIONAL because the law provides that just compensation for expropriated land shall not exceed the value declared by the owner or the value declared by the assessor whichever is lower. Nagsabot-sabot na ang owner u gang Government but it is not sufficient. SC said the determination of JUST COMPENSATION is a JUDICIAL FUNCTION. CITY OF MANILA vs ESTRADA (25 PHIL 208, 1913) Expropriation of land for the construction of a PUBLIC MARKET. In determining just compensation, prices of paid for other lands adjacent to the proposed expropriated land is admissible. While the report of the Commissioner is important BUT the Court may modify the report or substitute its own estimated value where: - The Commissioners have applied illegal principles - The Commissioners disregarded a clear preponderance of evidence - And that they have used an improper rules of assessment MUNICIPALITY OF DAET vs CA (93 SCRA 503, 1979) This involves a public park and street widening project. SC said the basis of the value or amount of just compensation must be based on the fair market value of the property on the time of the taking. Essence: Motaas ang market value as tim goed by. Ex. They took the property 1990 but in 2010 lang gi-institute ang Expropriation proceedings. NPC vs CA (129 SCRA 665, 1984) It talks about the access road constructed on a private property. SC said that just compensation is based on the taking of the property and not at the building of a potential building site. Determination of the fair market value is at the time of taking which means that if during the taking said property is classified as Agricultural, the purpose of the expropriation,
Page 13 of 37
Page 14 of 37
for example making such property is to be constructed with a Hydro Electric Power Plant, hence Industrial, does not affect such classification at the time of the taking. Agricultural lang gyud gihapon. D. JUDICIAL REVIEW - Extent of Judicial Review in Eminent Domain cases? - The recognition of the power of the Congress to designate a particular property to be taken in the exercise of the power of Expropriation is still a JUDICIAL QUESTION. - The Government may not capriciously choose whatever property may be taken in the exercise of its power (De Knecht Case). - Theres no such thing as AUTOMATIC EXPROPRIATION or SUMMARY EXPROPRIATION. There has to be a Judicial Determination to that effect (Manotok vs NHA, 150 SCRA 89, 1987).
Page 14 of 37
Page 15 of 37
SEC 10. NON-IMPAIRMENT OF CONTRACTS No law impairing the obligation of contracts shall be passed. PURPOSE OF THIS PROVISION - To safeguard the integrity of valid contractual agreements against unwarranted interference by the State. - However, such PROTECTION is NOT ABSOLUTE. There are instances when contracts valid at the time of their conclusion may become invalid, or some of their provisions may be rendered inoperative or illegal, by virtue of supervening legislation. CONTRACT - Any lawful agreement on property or property rights. - It does not cover LICENSES grants of privileges which are revocable. - It does not also cover marriage contracts. - It does not also cover public office because it is not a property right. Can never be a subject of a contract. - The right to claim an unpaid salary is a vested right. OBLIGATION - Vinculum juriis. - The tie that binds the parties to each other - Is the law or duty which binds the parties to perform their undertaking or agreement according to its terms and intent. WHAT IS IMPAIRMENT? - Is something that diminishes the efficacy of the contract. - The degree of the diminution is immaterial. - There will be no impairment if the law is made to operate PROSPECTIVELY. - Is impairment clause SUPERIOR to RELIGIOUS FREEDOM? NO! LIMITATIONS - A contract valid at the time of its execution may be legally modified or even completely invalidated by a SUBSEQUENT LAW. - IF the LAW is the proper exercise of POLICE POWER. - As long as the agreement deals with a matter affecting the PUBLIC WELFARE. - Contracts which contravene PUBLIC POLICY are NOT LAWFUL (Lozano vs Martinez, 146 SCRA 323). - A contract is property and, like any other property, may be taken for public use subject to the rule of just compensation (Long Island Water Supply Co. vs Brooklyn, 166 US 685). CASES (Non-Impairment Clause): HOME BLDG LOAN ASSOC vs BLAISDELL (290 US 398, 1934)
Talks about the Moratorium Law which increase the period within which to redeem the property that is being foreclosed. The case arose during the great depression period. SC said the Obligation and Contract is the law that binds between the parties to perform the agreement. The law that subsists at the time and place of the making of the contract are as if there expressed and its being expressed as being incorporated in the term. SC said the remedy under the contract may be altered or modified by the Legislature provided that there can never be any substantial right secured by the contract that could be impaired. It can be altered by the Legislature provided there can never be impairment of a substantial right. In this case, the modification of the remedy for the enforcement of the mortgage obligation was reasonable because the interests of the mortgagor-purchaser during the extended period are being safeguarded. As long as the rights of the parties are safeguarded, you can never say that the contract is being impaired. RUTTER vs ESTEBAN (93 PHIL 68, 1953) There was a Moratorium Law for Pre-War Debts that totaled to 12 years. SC said that the 12-year period for the satisfaction of the Pre-War Debt is not oppressive but it is UNREASONABLE. Imagine, the obligation cannot be paid until the 12-year period will last it is IMPAIRMENT of the obligations and contracts between the parties. SC also took into consideration that the debts are NOT INTEREST-BEARING during the Moratorium period this is very UNREASONABLE. SC also discussed that the Moratorium Law provides INJUSTICE to Creditors especially that the creditors are left at the mercy of the debtors. The TRUE TEST of the Moratorium Law lies in the determination of the period of the suspension of the remedy and also lies on the safeguard on the part of the creditors. SC said that the SUSPENSION of the payment of debts can only be VALID if it is DEFINITE. There must be a definite date and it must not oppressive. Dili siya taas kayo, sakto-sakto lang. That is it should be practical. Aside from the requisite that it must be definite, the Moratorium period must also be REASONABLE. Because if it becomes unreasonable, therefore, it is VIOLATIVE of the provisions of the 1987 Constitution.
ABELLA vs NLRC (152 SCRA 140, 1987) The employer dismissed the workers because the lease of the land of which the Company has been occupying was not being renewed.
Page 15 of 37
Page 16 of 37
Renewal of the Lease is beyond the control of the employer. SC said the RIGHT OF THE WORKERS should always be GUARANTEED. SC said exercise of POLICE POWER for the improvement of the welfare of LABOR Legislature may modify contracts already written. SC said that to go beyond the Constitutional prohibition, the law must effect a change on the rights of the parties, say the Lessor and the Lessee, with reference to each and NOT with the reference to NON-PARTIES. Just imagine employees are dismissed and there can never be an ILLEGAL DISMISSAL kay tungod wala lang na renew ang Lease. They should have had anticipated that there is a Lease contract also which can be modified. SC said the workers can never XXX into a contractual obligation between the Lessee and the Employer with that of the Lessor-Lessee relationship because they are not part of the contract. SC said that the workers must NOT SUFFER to this kind of arrangement. SC gives a preference for the enactment of legislation to safeguard the interest to modify or abrogate the contracts already written. PHIL VETERANS BANK EMPLOYEES vs PVB (189 SCRA 14, 1990) It talks about a bank which suffers financial reimburses which had to be liquidated WITHOUT the CONSENT of the stockholders of the Bank. In the usual practice in the banking industry, should there be any liquidation proceedings, it has to be with the consent of the stockholders of the bank. There has to be a particular voting requirement from the stockholders. But in this case, SC said even if there is a contract between the stockholders and that of the banking institution which was being previously agreed upon, the contract of the charter bank must also XXX between the contracts to that of the stockholders. It does not follow that the relationship may be altered after all. SC said, every contract is susceptible to changes whenever required by PUBLIC INTEREST. This is a VALID EXERCISE of the POLICE POWER. SC said, by virtue of the Police Power, such power can be validly asserted to make a change to meet any of the great public needs. The need of the liquidation of that bank is no less compelling which is the preservation of the integrity. The police power is deemed exercise in order to preserve the integrity and stability of the banking system. It is the duty of the Central Bank in the event of the depletion of funds with mismanagement and irregularities to step into to salvage the remaining resources of the bank unless adequate efforts are taken, public faith in the banking system is certain to deteriorate to the
prejudice of the national economy one exercise of the police power of the State. ORTIGAS & CO vs FEATI BANK (94 SCRA 533, 1979) This is all about a DEED OF SALE which restricted the buyer of the land in a manner that will only be limited to be used for residential purposes. Ex. Nipalit kag yuta, there is a provision there nga dapat once you buy this land, the use of such land will only be for residential purposes. Dili nimo pwede tukoran ug any Commercial building. After the execution of the Deed of Sale, there is this so-called Zoning Ordinance which was passed declaring the area as an Industrial or Commercial district. It was contended that such Zoning Ordinance which impairs the contract made by the parties re: use of land limited only for residential purposes. Which will prevail? SC said while non-impairment of contracts is constitutionally guaranteed, the rule is NOT ABSOLUTE since it has to reconcile with the legitimate exercise of Police Power. Having expressly exercised the police power to adopt the Zoning Ordinance regulation, the Municipal Council is reasonably justified under the circumstances in passing of such Ordinance even if there is a contract between the parties. JUAREZ vs CA (GR-93474, Oct 9, 1992) This is an issue wherein A & B entered into a Lease Contract re: Bldg rental but C, the daughter of B, SUB-LEASED such property to D. A, the Lessor, who is still the owner, sold the property, which is subject to Lease, to E who sued B & C for having sub-leased the property without the consent of A which is E is now the owner. Gi-kasohan ni E. Ngano man ka imong mang gi-sub lease and property nga dili man ka part sa agreement? In order for this to be valid, there has to be consent between the parties which is under the Civil Code: OBLICON which the Legislature had passed regulating the unconscionable contracts. SC said there is no impairment in this case pursuant to OBLICON because C was unduly profiting or unjustly enriching herself at the expense of another from the sub-lease arrangement since she had sub-leased the property in the amount more than A, the true owner, had credited or is receiving from B. Mas dako pag income si C kaysa kang A nga maoy original owner sa property. SC said, if the contract becomes unconscionable, pwede mo-interfere ang State. So, the law was passed re: OBLICON. REPUBLIC PLANTERS BANK vs AGANA (269 SCRA 1, 1997) A, a corporation, obtained a loan from B, a bank, in a form of shares of stocks but can only be redeemed after 2 years from the date of issue.
Page 16 of 37
Page 17 of 37
SC said there is no impairment of contract in this case. The 2-year issue is embodied in the directive and was issued by the Central Bank Governor to preserve the status quo and to prevent the financial xxx of banking institution to lend out funds. The directive there is to limit the exercise of a right granted by law to a corporate entity to redeem particular shares of stocks is considered a valid exercise of Police Power. Bottom line: There can only be a valid impairment of contractual obligations when it is the State exercises its Police Power. Basta the importance of Police Power is that there is a higher degree of a welfare that the State has the right to prevent.
Page 17 of 37
Page 18 of 37
SEC 11. FREE ACCESS TO COURTS AND QUASI-JUDICIAL BODIES Free access to the courts and quasi-judicial bodies and adequate legal assistance shall not be denied to any person by reason of poverty. The Commission on Human Rights is being formed or crafted because of this provision.
Page 18 of 37
Page 19 of 37
SEC 12. RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED UNDER CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION (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. It 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 and rehabilitation of victims of torture or similar practices, and their families. The subject of so many BAR questions! WHAT ARE THE RIGHTS BEING GUARANTEED BY SEC 12? 1. Right to remain silent. 2. Right to have a competent and independent counsel preferably of his own choice. 3. Right to waive his rights BUT only in writing and in the presence of a counsel. And if the person cannot afford to have a counsel, he must be provided with one. 4. Right to be informed of those rights. 5. Right against being subjected to torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation or any other means which vitiate the free will. 6. Right against being detained in secret detention places, solitary, incommunicado. This provision is a guarantee that what happened to Ninoy Aquino can never be happened again just because Ninoy was being very vocal against the Government. Especially Cory did not know asa na gibutang si Ninoy. This provision has been crafted to put a stop to that practices of the State Officers. 7. Right for the inadmissibility as evidence of any confession or admission obtained in violation of Sec 12 and Sec 17 No person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself. WHAT IS THE SIGNIFICANCE WHY THIS SHOULD BE SERVED? To make him aware of it. To overcome the inherent pressure of the interrogating atmosphere. To show the individual that his interrogators are prepared to recognize his privilege should he choose to invoke his right. To warn him of the consequences of waiving his right to remain silent.
To make him aware that this is an adversary system and that the police are not acting in his interest. To mitigate the dangers of untrustworthiness in his testimony since the inherent pressures initially overcome by the right to remain silent may again run unless coupled with the right to counsel. To lessen the possibility of coercion by the police. To inform him that if he does not have a counsel or cannot afford to have one, he does not have to defend himself alone. To inform him that his poverty is no reason why he should lose his right to counsel. MIRANDA vs ARIZONA (384 US 436, 1966) Favorite topic of the BAR! Talks about custodial investigation when the investigation focuses on the guilt of a person such that he is no longer allowed to leave the premises, it is at this stage that the Miranda ruling is necessary since the purpose of the interrogation is to evince evidence that can be used to prosecute a person. The officers succeeded in getting a written confession signed by Miranda as the evidence against him. SC said it was obvious that Miranda had never been told in any form of his right to counsel, or his right to have one during his questioning. He was also never informed of his right not to be compelled to incriminate himself. SC said that all statements of Miranda were INADMISSIBLE. The process of interrogation is intimidating by its very nature and that a suspect must be READ of his RIGHTS to counteract this intimidation. The reading of the rights must not be a mere mechanical reading only but there must be an exchange of conversation in which the suspect must understand his rights which must be explained by the arresting officer. SC further said that when the defendant is thrust into an unfamiliar atmosphere and run through menacing police interrogation procedures, where compulsion is forcefully potential and his will is likely to be subjugated, the officers must undertake to afford proper SAFEGUARDS by the reading of the Miranda Rights at the outset of the investigation to ensure that the statements made are truly the product of free choice (the choice of the accused to speak or to remain silent). The defendant may waive his rights HOWEVER, that the waiver must be made in writing and in the presence of the counsel: a. VOLUNTARILY b. KNOWINGLY c. INTELLIGENTLY There can be no questioning of the defendant in any case and in any manner if the latter insist for the presence of his Attorney whom he personally chooses unless the person under custodial investigation concedes that another Lawyer who is available will appear before him. MAGTOTO vs MAGUERRA (63 SCRA 4, 1997)
Page 19 of 37
Page 20 of 37
In this case, Magtoto was made to confess without being warned of his Miranda rights while in custody of the Constabulary. SC ruled that the Miranda rule applies only to confessions obtained after the effectivity of the 1973 Constitution. Confessions obtained prior to the effectivity of the 1973 Constitution without reading the Miranda rights, so long as otherwise VOLUNTARY, are ADMISSIBLE evidence, even if they are actually used after the effectivity date of the 1973 Constitution. SC said further that this only conferred on the accused the right to be informed of the charge against him and not the right to counsel.
1. WHAT ARE THESE RIGHTS? RIGHTS BECOME AVAILABLE?
WHEN
PEOPLE vs MARCOS (147 SCRA 204, 1987) The accused was charged of kidnapping. He made a statement before an NBI agent without the assistance of a counsel. SC said when the accused gave the sworn statement to the NBI agent, he was not under police custody, and he was merely invited for questioning so that he can SHED LIGHT on the kidnapping incident. He was even allowed to go home after the investigation. SC said it is ADMISSIBLE hence; the statement can be used against him. It is very important to know kanus-a siya naay custodial investigation. Kung gipangutana lang ka for questioning purposes, wala pa siya under a custodial investigation because you were not yet accused of a crime. PEOPLE vs JUDGE AYSON (175 SCRA 216, 1989) Employees of a sales ticket. An employee was being accused of irregularities in the issuance of PAL tickets. There was an investigation conducted by the Employer thru a committee to conduct the investigation whether or not that employee has committed any irregularities. 2 months later, the employee was charged of Estafa. The employee was not at any sense under custodial investigation. So, ADMISSIBLE. Even then that the inquiry was not done in the presence of a counsel, the right was waived because the investigation was conducted by the Employer. MANUEL vs NC CONSTRUCTION SUPPLY (282 SCRA 328, 1997) Talks about security guards who stole some goods from the Employer. Counsel of the Employer, house lawyer of the company, conducted an investigation and with this, the security guards admitted the crime without the presence of a counsel. ADMISSIBLE because the security guards were not under custodial investigation as they were not charged of a commission of a crime. The investigation was merely ADMINISTRATIVE so custodial investigation does not take place yet. However, the investigation was conducted at the police station. SC said, the fact that said investigation was done at a police station was merely INCIDENTAL. The right to counsel attaches only upon the start of the custodial investigation. PEOPLE vs MARRA (236 SCRA 565, 1994) The accused was charged of murder. The policeman received information that the murderer of the deceased wore a security guard uniform. The policeman then approached the one wearing a security guard uniform and asked him: Naa ba
Page 20 of 37
PEOPLE vs TAYLARAN (108 SCRA 373, 1981) The accused surrendered himself and declared the reason of his surrender. SC said IT IS ADMISSIBLE. In this case, there was no written confession which was sought as a result of a formal custodial investigation. What was being testified only is the reason why he surrendered to the police. However, that person voluntarily admits as to the killing, it was precisely because he surrendered to admit the killing and NOT because he was BEING ASKED about the crime against him. The Constitution safeguards only of the rights of silence and of counsel only DURING custodial investigation when there would be a question and answer portion. Such statement by the accused is ADMISSIBLE and shall be used against him because his admission as to the killing was not made in a formal custodial investigation in which case you are NOT being COMPELLED to say something. That information was voluntarily given by virtue of his surrendering to the police. SC said the guarantees of the rights in this case are not yet available when the accused only surrender and gives voluntarily such information to the police officers. GALMAN vs PAMARAN (138 SCRA 294, 1985) During at the height of the death of Ninoy, there was an effort to form Agrava Fact Finding Board to determine who are these people responsible for the death of benign Aquino. Without the rights being read to the accused before they give their manifestations. There was no effort to warn them of their rights guaranteed by the Constitution. INADMISSIBLE. SC said that the questions of the Board were not meant to determine the surrounding facts and circumstances of the assassination. The witnesses who were called in the witness stand to determine their probable involvement of the crime being investigated. SC said the exclusionary rule applies not only to confessions but also to admissions whether during any court proceedings or any custodial investigation.
Page 21 of 37
kay pusil? The accused admitted Yes! The policeman further asked: Ikaw ba nagpatay sa decease? Yes! Nitubag siya tanan ug YES! SC said such statements were ADMISSIBLE because he was not yet under custodial investigation. Bahala nag pulis ba nang nangutana nimo. His declaration of the offense committed may be made evidence against him because he was not yet accused of anything. PEOPLE vs MAQUEDA (SUPRA) Accused was charged of robbery with homicide and serious physical injuries. He made a Sinumpaang Salaysay before a police officer without being told of his Constitutional rights. At the same time, he also made an Extra Judicial Confession before a certain prosecutor as to the crimes. SC said, the Sinumpaang Salaysay is INADMISSIBLE because he was not informed of his Miranda rights and that it was made without the presence of his counsel. However, the Extra Judicial Admission made to the prosecutor was not made in the course of a custodial investigation; hence, it is ADMISSIBLE even without the presence of a counsel. Such Extra Judicial Admission was ADMISSIBLE because it was given to a private individual or person. But rather the plea of the accused could be utilized as State Witness. NOTE: That EXTRA JUDICIAL ADMISSION is not part of the Exclusionary Rule under the Bill of Rights. PEOPLE vs BALISTEROS (237 SCRA 499, 1994) There are 3 accused charged with Murder. A executed a statement without the presence of a counsel: Yes! Ako nagpatay ato. The prime suspect categorically admits his guilt. B, another accused, invoked his Constitutional rights saying that the statement is INADMISSIBLE since the statement was made by A without a counsel and that B and C were not yet accused and asked of the crime. SC said it is ADMISSIBLE. B cannot invoke the right of A, which only A has the right to invoke because it is personal in nature. SC, by the phrase that it is admissible against A, the law is said to be against the confessant whose right is violated. Ikaw nga nag-confess, it is admissible as to your own person because you are the confessant and your rights have been violated because wala presence sa counsel, wala ka gbasahan sa imong rights. A was not being guarded with the rights that are due to him. Moreover, SC said, A repeated his admission in Court converting it to a judicial confession. If you go to court, even without the presence of a counsel, when you say it, the right to have a counsel is being eliminated already. NOTE: That Sec 12 meant only the right of the accused during a custodial investigation. SO, only personal to the confessant and not to another person.
PEOPLE vs ANDAN (269 SCRA 95, 1997) The accused was being charged for rape and murder. He made 3 admissions: 1. Yes, akoy nag-rape ako poy nagpatay. Nikanta siya sa pulis 2. Exposed to the media after the same admission was made to the media personnel. 3. He confessed the same to the Municipal Mayor. You have to qualify: 1. INADMISSIBLE with regards to the police because the statement was taken without the presence of a counsel and without being informed of his rights. The accused was also under custodial investigation at the time because there are already charges against him. 2. ADMISSIBLE as evidence which was captured by mass media. 3. Admission to the Mayor is ADMISSIBLE even without the presence of a counsel because the Mayor is not a law enforcer and the situation was free from police influence during the admission and that the Mayor did not ask any question from you. 2. POLICE LINEUPS The right to counsel does NOT EXTEND to Police Lineups because it is NOT PART of the CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION. In Police Lineups, the process has not yet been shifted from investigatory to accusatory. Giinvestigate lang ka. Wala pa ka gi-charge. However, after the start of a custodial or police investigation, any identification of a non-counsel accused shall be INADMISSIBLE because custodial investigation has already been started. General rule: Dili part ang right to counsel sa police lineup however kung nagsugod na ang custodial investigation diha pa ang police lineup, any identification is inadmissible because there is already a custodial investigation. In resolving the admissibility and of relying an out-of-court identification of suspects, the Court has adopted a particular rule, the totality of circumstances rule, it has the following factors: 1. The witness opportunity to view the lineup of criminals. 2. The witness degree of attention. 3. The accuracy. 4. The level of certain xxx demonstrated by the witness. 5. The suggestiveness of the identification procedure. GAMBOA vs JUDGE CRUZ (162 SCRA 675, 1988) The accused was being arrested and was being charged with vagrancy. He was imprisoned because of that. The next day, there was a police lineup for identification. He was identified by the witness and thereafter charged with robbery. SC said the right to counsel has not yet attached because it has not yet shifted from investigatory to accusatory even if he had already been charged with vagrancy since the identification is not part of the custodial investigation.
Page 21 of 37
Page 22 of 37
SC said it is ADMISSIBLE because vagrancy case is different from the robbery case. The mere fact that he was identified for robbery and not for vagrancy, the right to counsel could not be invoked by him because police lineup is not a part of a custodial investigation. PEOPLE vs LOVERIA (187 SCRA 47, 1990) The accused was being charged with robbery A and robbery B. But he was detained because of robbery B. The driver in robbery A witnessed the incident and identified the accused in a police lineup without counsel. SC said, at the time of the identification, the accused was not yet charged of robbery A so he could not invoke yet his right to counsel. PEOPLE vs DIMAANO (209 SCRA 819, 1992) Naay nangawat didto sa balay unya ang owner sa house niingon nga mo-identify siya during the police lineup. SC said that dili ma-violate ang right kay wala pa naka attach ang right to counsel and the police lineup is not part of the custodial investigation. PEOPLE vs HATTON (210 SCRA 1, 1992) Accused was charged with murder. Theres no reason to doubt the regularity of the police lineup. During the proceedings in the police station, police lineup was being conducted. The person who identified the accused could not have been certain of the implication. Because lets say puro negro ang gibutang didto unya si Hatton ra ang gibutang nga mistiso nya ang naka charge nga maoy nagpatay kay mistiso. Siya ra isa kabook didto nga mistiso. SC said while technically wala pa is not yet under custodial investigation, the identification of the accused was suggested by the police and this is HIGHLY OBJECTIONABLE. This is the only time SC said in a police lineup that it is INADMISSIBLE because it is clear that the police lineup is SCRIPTED. PEOPLE vs FRAGO (232 SCRA 653, 1994) The accused was suspected for rape. He was identified in a police lineup. SC said the right to counsel is not yet attached during a police lineup. Custodial investigation is when police officers start to ask questions from the accused to elicit information, confessions or admissions. PEOPLE vs GAMBOA (GR-91374, Feb 25, 1991) (PARAFFIN TEST!) The accused was charged with murder and was subjected to a PARAFFIN TEST without counsel. SC said the right to counsel is only afforded to a person under custodial investigation whose confession or admission is to be taken. The right to counsel extends only to testimonial compulsion and not in this case where his body is made subject to a paraffin test. ADMISSIBLE in a Paraffin Test.
3. PEOPLE vs DE LAS MARIAS (196 SCRA 504, 1991) (CEASED PROPERTY RECEIPT!) Illegal possession of firearms and were confiscated by enforcers. When same will be taken away by the law enforcement officers, tagaan gyud ka ug resibo kung pila kabook firearms nakuha, mga bala, ug uban pa. He was then compelled to sign the receipt without the presence of a counsel. SC said it is INADMISSIBLE because the effect of signing the receipt was made to admit the commission of the crime without being informed of his rights. It has the effect of an EXTRA JUDICIAL CONFESSION made without counsel. The police officers who made the seizure should be the one to sign the receipt. PEOPLE vs ENRIQUE (204 SCRA 64, 1991) Accused was caught during a BUY-BUST OPERATION and was made to sign marijuana sticks without being informed of his rights. SC said it is INADMISSIBLE. The accused without the presence of his counsel was made to sign marijuana sticks. The officers failed to inform him of his rights. The signing of the marijuana sticks amounted to admission and worsts an effect of an Extra Judicial Confession. 4. PEOPLE vs BANDIN (226 SCRA 299, 1993) (BOOKING SHEET!) Accused was caught during a buy-bust operation of selling marijuana. Accused was arrested and made to sign a BOOKING SHEET without a counsel. Booking sheet is not a ceased property receipt. SC said the signing of the booking sheet DOES NOT AMOUNT TO CONFESSION. The booking sheet is merely a report in which the accused is being booked and other incidents of the arrest. It is a police report used by the police officers but it is NOT an EXTRA JUDICIAL STATEMENT. 5. PEOPLE vs LINSANGAN (GR-88589, Apr 16, 1991 (MARKED BILLS!) The accused was caught in a BUY-BUST OPERATION using a MARK MONEY. After that, the accused was made to SIGN his initials in the MARK MONEY. SC said he was made to sign his initials without a counsel; it is ADMISSIBLE because the accused was not denied of his right to counsel when he initialed the marked bills. Mere POSSESSION of the MARKED BILLS does NOT CONSTITUTE a Crime but the actual selling of the drugs. Wala siya na-prosecute sa paggunit niya sa mark money pero na-prosecute siya of his actual selling of illegal drugs.
6. RIGHT TO COUNSEL ESTACIO vs SANDIGANBAYAN (GR-75362, Mar 6, 1990) (COUNSEL IN OR OUT!) The counsel arrived at the start of the custodial investigation but was gone while the custodial
Page 22 of 37
Page 23 of 37
investigation proceeded and came back at the time the investigation is closing and read the statements of the accused and other circumstances and the results of the investigation and he talked and explained everything to the accused before the latter signed such investigation result. SC said the right to counsel is substantially complied when the lawyer of the accused arrived only at the beginning but was gone during the height of the investigation. SC said the accused had the choice of not signing the statements, therefore, it is valid. There was a substantial compliance of the presence of a counsel even then the counsel was PARTLY PRESENT during the investigation. Hence, there is still potential compliance with the right to counsel. So, ADMISSIBLE. PEOPLE vs BOLANOS (211 SCRA 262, 1992) (POLICE VEHICLE!) The accused was being arrested for murder. While on-board the police vehicle, nag-yawyaw siya. He said: Ako gyuy nagpatay Tsip! SC said that the right to counsel is already attached even not yet in the police station since he was already under police custody when he made the confession. It has already shifted from investigatory to compulsory. He made the same without being read of his rights to him, Therefore, INADMISSIBLE in eveidence. PEOPLE vs DE JESUS (213 SCRA 345, 1992) (COUNSEL THE DAY AFTER!) The accused was investigated for murder. The interrogation was made without a counsel but the day after the investigation, a lawyer was fetched by the police. The accused were made to sign the investigation report, this time, with the counsel. SC said the statements are INADMISSIBLE bisan pa nitungha si Torney kay wala gyuy pulos ang presence ni Torney. According to the SC, even if the investigation report was made to be signed with the presence of a counsel but the FACT REMAIN that the investigation itself was done without the counsel which was the day before the counsel appeared. PEOPLE vs DANIEGA (251 SCRA 626, 1995) (COUNSEL SIGNING PRESENT!) SC said while the 2 IBP Lawyers present at the time of the signing of the documents but they were not present during the actual custodial investigation, therefore, the statements are still INADMISSIBLE. SC said there is NO SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE. PEOPLE vs LUCERO (GR-97936, May 29, 1995) (KIND OF COUNSEL!) SC said, the requirement of counsel in this case was not substantially subscribed because the counsel left at the start and came back only on the 2nd night of the detention of the accused. SC said, kind of counsel does not matter. Bahala nag ikaw pa ang highest paid nga Lawyer, as long as your presence should be during the
custodial investigation of the accused in order to suffice the right to counsel requirement. Not just an ordinary counsel required by law but the counsel must be effective and vigilant. How can you be effective and vigilant if you were not there during the investigation? So, you do not have any personal knowledge of the investigation. PEOPLE vs AGUSTIN (240 SCRA 541, 1995) (INDEPENDENT COUNSEL!) The counsel in this case is an Associate of the Law Firm of the private prosecutor, a private Lawyer who appeared as a private prosecutor. SC said Counsel of the accused in this case was not an independent counsel because there existed a CONFLICTING INTEREST between the private prosecutor in behalf of the complainant and the defense lawyer in behalf of the accused. SC said the Associate of the Private Prosecutor is NOT an INDEPENDENT COUNSEL being contemplated. The counsel must not be a special counsel, a private or public prosecutor (because its interest is for the State), counsel for the police, Municipal Legal Officer. PEOPLE vs JANUARIO (267 SCRA 608, 1997) (NBI COUNSEL!) SC said that Counsel in this case is not deemed to be a competent and an independent counsel because he is an applicant of an NBI Position. In fact, he was actually employed in the NBI months after he represented as counsel of the accused. The loyalty to the accused and the independence of the counsel is doubtful. (COUNSEL NOT MY CHOICE!) The accused was provided with a counsel and was accepted by him. SC said there was no objection, therefore, he cannot complain for the first time especially already during the trial of the case. It was too late to complain nga dili diay of his own choice and Lawyer. (ANY COUNSEL CONSENT!) While the counsel being appointed by the investigators with the conformity of the accused, the confession taken from the accused is valid. Sige sugot ko kaysa mobayad pa ko kana pa para ma-libre ko. So, he deemed to have chosen such counsel even if he was appointed by the investigators. Hence, you cannot invoke that that is not your choice because it was just provided to you by the investigators but because you have ceded hence, such counsel automatically becomes your defense counsel.
7. PROPER COUNSELING That the accused under custodial investigation must be continuously and consistently assisted by a counsel from the start. Improper counseling would be failure to object to the illegal arrest.
Page 23 of 37
Page 24 of 37
Important is the advisory of the counsel to the accused as to the consequences of his confessions made during the investigation. There is no custodial investigation should be conducted unless in the presence of a counsel engaged by the person arrested or in his behalf appointed by the court by anyone in his behalf. If a counsel is provided, the accused must conform and accede. 8. RIGHT TO BE INFORMED The right to be Informed has been substantially complied with: - SC said that a mere perfunctory or mechanical statement of the right does not meet the Constitutional standards. Basta pro-forma ra. POPLE vs PINLAC (165 SCRA 675, 1988) Accused was arrested without warrant for robbery and was convicted. SC acquitted the accused because the only fatal evidence against him was an extra judicial admission which was ADMISSIBLE. When the court reports a person under custodial investigation, it must be presumed to contemplate a TRANSMISSION OF MEANINGFUL INFORMATION rather than just ceremonial presentation of the abstract xxx principle. As a rule, it is not sufficient for the police officer to just repeat to the person the provisions of the Constitution, he must also explain the effects in practical terms possible and contemplates and effective communication. Short of the meaningful conversation and effective communication, SC said that there is DENIAL of the right to be informed. PEOIPLE vs TAN (286 SCRA 675, 1988) SC said the Constitutional right of the appellant particularly to the right to counsel are impregnable from the start he is investigated.
The accused shall be at all the time assisted with a counsel. The officer shall ask in the language known and understood by the person. An extra judicial confession made by the person shall be reduced into writing signed by him in the presence of a counsel or in his absence, upon a valid waiver, in the presence of any of the parents, brothers or sisters, spouse, Mayor. Waiver under Art 125 RPC In every case, the person detained shall be informed of the cause of his detention and shall be allowed, upon his request, to communicate and confer at any time with his attorney or counsel. Guarantee under a special law: A person arrested or detained shall be allowed visits by his immediate family, a medical doctor, a priest or a counsel. SANCHES vs DEMETRIOU (227 SCRA 627, 1993) Talks about the absence of a preliminary investigation were held that it does not impair the validity of the information or otherwise render the information defective. SC said that in this case Mayor Sanches was already assisted xxx
9. WAIVER Must have to be in writing Must be with the presence of the counsel Even assuming there is waiver, the law requires that it must be in writing and in the presence of a counsel. Must be made VOLUNTARILY, KNOWINGLY and INTELLIGENTLY. PEOPLE vs ROUS (GR-75362, Mar 6, 1990) The fact that the counsel of the accused arrived after the investigation had begun and left before it concluded does not negate the validity of said confession for the reason that the confession was put into writing, the accused and the investigating officer proceeded to the office of the counsel.
10. RA 7438 RIGHTS OF PERSONS ARRESTED, DETAINED OT UNDER CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION AS WELL AS DUTIES OF THE ARRESTING, DETAINING AND INVESTIGATING OFFICERS.
Page 24 of 37
Page 25 of 37
SEC 13. RIGHT TO BAIL A BAIL is a security given for the release of a person in custody furnished by him or by a bondsman in the condition upon the appearance before any court as required by law. Recognizance an obligation of record entered into by a court guarantying the appearance of the accused in a court trial. Dili siya kailangan ug kwarta. This is a nature of contract between a surety and the State. WHO HAS THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO BAIL? The law provides that all persons actually detained except those charged with offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua when the evidence of guilt is strong. Before conviction, it may be bailable by sufficient sureties. After conviction, it is discretionary upon the courts. LIMITATIONS ON THE RIGHT TO BAIL The person claiming the right must be under detention. The right is available to criminal proceedings only. The person bailed cannot leave the country; it is a necessary consequence of the bail. The accused shall be available when needed by the court. WHY DOES CONSTITUTION PROHIBIT EXCESSIVE BAIL? The requirement of an excessive bail is tantamount to a denial of bail. Dapat sakto-sakto lang gyud siya. FACTORS TO BE CONSIDERED IN DETERMINING THE AMOUNT OF BAIL? Ability of the accused to post bail. Financial capacity. Nature of the offense. Penalty imposed. Character or reputation of the accused. Ex. something noted na nga criminal. Tagaan pa ba ni ug bail? Health of the accused. Strength of the evidence. Probability of appearing in trials. When the accused is a fugitive from justice when arrested must be high on bail. PEOPLE vs NITCHA (GR-113517, Jan 19, 1995) Bail must not be granted to the accused during the pendency of the appeal.
Page 25 of 37
Page 26 of 37
SEC 14. RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED (1) No person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense without due process of law. (2) In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved, and shall enjoy the right to be heard by himself and counsel, to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him, to have a speedy, impartial, and public trial, to meet the witnesses face to face, and to have compulsory process to secure the attendance of witnesses and the production of evidence in his behalf. However, after arraignment, trial may proceed notwithstanding the absence of the accused provided that he has been duly notified and his failure to appear is unjustifiable. - Is a very light topic. It may or may not come out in the BAR. Tackles about CRIMINAL DUE PROCESS in particular. TRIAL IN ABSENTIA trial may proceed notwithstanding the absence of the accused, Provided: 1. Accused has been duly notified 2. Such failure to appear is unjustifiable CRIMINAL DUE PROCESS - As summarized in the cases: - Requires that the accused must be tried in an impartial and competent court in accordance with the criminal procedure. PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION - Such right is not a constitutional right - Is purely statutory. - However, even then, not having this right, there is a VIOLATION of criminal due process except if there is a VALID WAIVER. - If there is a waiver but is not a valid waiver, there is therefore a DENIAL of criminal due process. DUE PROCESS - Right to a hearing before one is condemned. - It is satisfied if the accused has been informed as to why he is proceeded against and as to what charge he had committed. - With his conviction being made to rest evidence that is not tainted with falsity after full opportunity for him for rebutting and the sentence they impose in accordance with law. - He has to be informed. - He has to be given his right to meet the charges against him. - He has to be given an opportunity afforded to him to rebut whatever charges he is facing. Basic Ingredient of Criminal Due Process - There has to be a TRIAL in accordance with the ruddiness of FAIR PLAY. MILITARY TRIBUNAL - During the Marcos Regime, dili open ang mga courts. Olaguer vs Military Commission (150 SCRA 144, 1987) - Petitioners are civilians charged with subversion committed during the Martial Law. - While the case was pending in a Military Tribunal, Marcos issued a PROCLAMATION lifting the Martial Law and dissolving the Military Commissions. - SC said that trial being contemplated by the Due Process Clause is a trial by JUDICIAL process and not by Executive or Military Process. - Military Tribunals are NOT Courts within the Philippine Judicial System no matter how regularly enacted the law establishing such courts. - SC said that if a particular court being established by the Executive Branch of the Government ex. Military Courts is simply the instrumentality of the Executive Power. - This is not the court being contemplated under the law. - Even if courts at that time were not open, and other courts were established for such purpose, such newly established courts cannot try or exercise whatever jurisdiction recognizable by the so-called civil courts. Tan vs Barrios (190 SCRA 685, 1990) - There is a Military Tribunal. - After the trial in a Military Tribunal, there is another case in the DOJ and Tan said ahh di nana pwde kay human naman to ang case sa Military Tribunal. Wala man ko na-convict didto, ngano inyo man ning gi-resurrect? - SC said that whatever decisions in the Military Tribunal are only for those who are parties of the case. - If there is a re-prosecution, and that the one prosecuted was not part of the earlier case in the Military Tribunal, such re-prosecution is not violative of the right to criminal due process coz wala man ka na-apil sa previous. PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE - The Principal Effect of the guarantee is that No person shall be convicted unless the prosecution must prove him guilty beyond reasonable doubt. - Conviction shall only be given if the prosecution has proven that the accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt. - In Civil Case, preponderance of evidence. - In Administrative Case, substantial evidence. US vs Luling (34 PHIL 725, 1916) - Lulling was a watch man employed in the Customs Service. - He was criminally charged for soliciting and receiving P100 to secure the importation and delivery of certain rolls of paper where opium was hidden. - SC said that the State has a right to determine or declare what acts are criminal with a certain well-defined LIMITATIONS. Even if the State is already powerful that it has the capacity to determine which acts are criminal or not which
Page 26 of 37
Page 27 of 37
could arise to a particular criminal action, it still has its own limitations: 1. The State must testify what acts shall constitute a crime. It has to be very specific if you could see in your criminal law naa gyud siyay elements. If one element is missing, it does not anymore constitute a crime or it could be another crime. Ex. Bisan pag nay namatay as long as there was no intent to kill, it is only homicide but not murder. 2. What proof constitutes a prima facie evidence of guilt? 3. The defendant must have the burden of showing that such act or acts are innocent and not committed with any criminal intent. People vs Mingoa (92 PHIL 856, 1953) - See Art. 217 of the RPC Malversation. The failure of a public officer to have duly forthcoming any public funds or property with which he is chargeable, upon demand by any duly authorized officer, shall be prima facie evidence that he has put such missing funds or property to personal uses. - Mingoa is an Accountable Officer. - A public fund held by Mingoa was lost when he attended a show. Mingoa said wala man koy sala ato, wala man koy intention nga i-corrupt nako, nga kawaton nako. - SC said that the fact presumed is but a natural inference from the fact proved which is the failure to produce. - But it also gives the accuse opportunity to present evidence to rebut the charge or the presumption that you have misused the public fund. - Even if there is already a prima facie evidence against you, you are still presumed to be innocent until your guilt is proved beyond reasonable doubt. Dumlao vs COMELEC (95 SCRA 392, 1980) - BP 52 Sec 4 provides for a disqualification of a running candidate if he has been filed with any criminal or civil charges after Preliminary Investigation shall be a prima facie evidence of such fact. - Once ma-filan kag kaso, then it is already a prima facie evidence, then you are disqualified in running. - Unlike in ART. 217 of the RPC, you are still given the opportunity to present evidence to rebut the charges against you. - In this case, SC said that the provision of the law violates the guarantee of Presumption of Innocence. - Because although the filing of the charges is a prima facie evidence and may be rebutted, the proximity of the Elections and the consequence of not having time to rebut, the prima facie evidence to that effect makes the person charged suffer as if he is already guilty of the crime charged against him. Imagine gamay lang ang time in filing, unya wala kay time to rebut, so wala na kay choice to run for a candidacy.
RIGHT TO COUNSEL - SC said it is guaranteed under the Bill of Rights because this is a realistic recognition that the defendant does not have the professional skill. Bisag unsa pa nimo ka bright but if you do not have the capacity or the training of that of the Lawyers, the SC gives a realistic recognition of that the average defendant does not have the professional skill to protect himself when brought before a criminal power to take his life, liberty and property wherein the prosecution is represented by a very experienced and learned counsel. - Requisite to become a Public Prosecutor in that the lawyer must be engaged in the practice of law for quite some time. People vs Holgado (85 PHIL 752, 1950) - The accused was charged with slight illegal detention. - The court asked him: Do you have an Attorney or are you going to plead guilty? - SC said that the accused was NOT given the Right to Counsel. The proceeding was irregular from the very start. - The rules of court provides that: 1. The accused must be informed of his right of an Attorney. 2. The court should ask him if he desires one. 3. If the accused so desires, but the accused cannot employ one, the court should provide him with a counsel de oficio. 4. If the accused wants a counsel of his own, the court should grant him reasonable time so that he can provide his own counsel. US vs Ash (413 US 300, 1973) - The accused was charged for robbing a bank. - In preparing for the trial, with an FBI Agent, the Prosecutor presented 5 colored photos including Ashs photo to the 4 witnesses to determine whether or not they were the ones who robbed the bank. This is the so-called in-court identification. - SC said that the Right to Counsel is not granted on photographic displays conducted for the purpose of allowing the witness to attempt to identify the ID of the offender. - SC said that the Right to Counsel before trial extends only critical stages of the pre-trial proceedings. Dans vs People (285 SCRA 504, 1998) - The accused has been charged of Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act with Imelda. - When arraigned, Dans moved for the advance examination of the defense witness. - They were convicted. - They were questioning why the court questions more than the counsel has. Dapat trabaho nana sa counsel dili dapat mag apil-apil ang Judge kay Presiding lang sila. - BUT, SC said that the record show that the court may have participated more actively than the usual examination in order to elicit from him information that could nail down the prosecutions basic theory.
Page 27 of 37
Page 28 of 37
- SC said that if a court executes the Q & A instead it should be a job left to the lawyers. Judge must not be bias. - But in this case, the SC gives a relax application of their previous judgment because this is all about the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act together with Imelda. - That is why they want to elicit more information that would bolster the theory of the prosecution. - There is a public interest which is being served in this case since such public funds should have been given to the people but why is it used by only few persons instead of the public in general.
- It has to be determined by a lot of FACTORS: 1. Length of the delay. 2. Reason for the delay. 3. Effort of the defendant to assert or invoke his right. 4. Prejudice cause to the defendant. Conde vs Rivera (45 PHIL 650, 1924) - A Municipal Midwife was made to respond five (5) information against her for various crimes of misdemeanors. - On 8 different occasions, she appeared with her witnesses and counsel only to find out cge lag ka postponed ang hearing. - SC said where a prosecuting officer without good cause secures postponement (for than a year) of the trial of the defendant against his protest beyond a reasonable time, the accused is entitled for a relief to ask for a MANDAMUS to compel for the dismissal of the information or if he had been restrained of his liberty, he can also file for a writ of HABEAS CORPUS to obtain freedom. - Basis: there is a violation of the right to speedy trial. Nepomuceno vs Sec of National Defense (108 SCRA 658, 1981) - The accused complained ngano gidugay-dugay iyang kaso. - SC said in order to constitute a denial of speedy trial, the delay must be CAPRICIOUS. Kanang tinuyoan na gyud. - The delay must be attributed to the Petitioners.
RIGHT TO BE INFORMED What are the objects of a written accusation? 1. To furnish the accused with such a description of the charge against him to enable the accused to make his defense. 2. On the part of the accused, to avail himself of his conviction or acquittal for protection against further prosecution of the same cause. 3. To inform the courts of the facts alleged so that it may decide whether they are sufficient in law to support a conviction of the accused. - There has to be a SPECIFIC allegation. Dili pwde general. People vs Regala (113 SCRA 613) - Regala was being charged with murder with assault upon agent of a person in authority. - They were convicted. - Here, they questioned the conviction alleging a defect to the essential elements of assault one of the elements is not being alleged. - SC said one cannot be convicted of a crime not properly alleged in the information because that would be a VIOLATION of the Constitutional Right. - The fact that the crime was established by the evidence of the prosecution without any objection from the accused cannot cure the defect with the information so as to validly convict the accused. - When you become Lawyers, you have to charge with the higher offense or crime kay pwde pa siya ma-lower down kung dili gyud ma kaya ang taas nga alleged crime or offense. - Even then if the other party failed to object, still it cannot cure the defect because it is guaranteed by the Constitution that the accused must be informed of crime the charge against him. Enrile vs Salazar (186 SCRA 217, 1990) - This is all about Rebellion with multiple frustrated murders. - SC said that Rebellion is not complex with Murder. Pencho vs People (262 SCRA 518, 1996) - This is the authority when I talk about the OBJECT OF THE WRITTEN ACCUSATION.
RIGHT TO IMPARTIAL TRIAL - Sometimes the Judge is being bias about the way how you presented the case. - How can you say that the Judge is impartial: when the Judge is no longer acting as a Magistrate or a Judge. - Judge is already acting a DUAL ROLE as a Magistrate and Advocate. Unsa man gyud na siya murag huwes, murag Abogado? - Not only should the Judge be limited to asking any clarificatory questions, the rule is that the court should stay out of it as much as possible neither the court should not interfere or intervene in the conduct of the trial. - The judge is there to just preside. - Judge should not give any comment or discuss. Webb vs People (276 SCRA 243, 1997) - Webb has been charged with the crime of rape and homicide. - They complained because whatever motion they filed, Judge denies. - Issue: Whether the respondent Judge should inhibit from hearing the case on the ground of BIAS and PREJUDICE. - Because the lower court is always consistent in denying any motions filed by the defendant. - SC said the alleged adverse and erroneous rulings of the respondent Judge on the motions do not sufficiently prove bias and prejudice to disqualify the Judge.
Page 28 of 37
RIGHT TO SPEEDY TRIAL
Page 29 of 37
- To be disqualifying, the bias and prejudice must be shown to have stem from an extra-judicial source (outside the court) can result in an opinion on the merits on some basis other than what the Judge learned from his participation during the conduct of the case. - General Rule: No matters how erroneous and vigorously expressed are not a basis for disqualification of the Judge on the grounds of bias and prejudice. - Basis: Extrinsic evidence is required to establish BIAS, bad faith, malice, corrupt or in addition to the palpable error which may be incurred to the decisions. - The only exception is when the ERROR is so GROSS and PATENT so as to produce bad faith and malice.
- But this provision was being expanded in the 1973 and 1987 Constitution adding the right to have compulsory process to secure the production of evidences and witnesses on behalf of the accused. TRIAL IN ABSENTIA - Trial may proceed in the absence of the accused. - After arraignment, trial in absentia may be proceeded, provided The accused has been notified. The failure of the accused to be present is unjustifiable. - But, if the absence of the accused is JUSTIFIABLE, then trial in absentia is invalid. - Take note that in order that trial in absentia takes place, there should be an ARRAIGNMENT. - Why is it that arraignment is a pre-requisite in order that trial in absentia may take place: Because it is only during the arraignment that the accused is informed of the nature and the cause of the accusation against him. - It boils down to the right of information. - Arraignment is a must while in preliminary investigation; there are some cases which do not require preliminary investigation. Carredo vs People (183 SCRA 273, 1990) - In this case, there were charges of malicious mischief. - After arraignment, the accused waived his presence and stipulated that he could be identified by witnesses of the prosecution. - But however, the court ordered him to appear during the trial for identification of the principal witness. - SC said that in order for him to be excused completely from the appearance, it is not enough that he allows himself to be identified by the witnesses in his absence, nga mosugot na lang siya nga i-identify siya in his absence, dapat gyud that there must be a clear streamline that he must further and qualify admits that every time a witness mentions a name by which he is known, the witness is to be understood as referring to him. - In this case, the waiver only means that the accused only waives his right to meet the witness face to face. - It does not mean a release from his obligation to appear in court during hearings. - When he waived and he did not make an UNQUALIFIED waiver, SC said that he only waive the right to meet the witnesses personally. - He did not waive his right to appearance during trials. Alonte vs Savellano (287 SCRA 245, 1998) - Discusses due process in criminal proceedings. - What are the requisites of due process in criminal proceedings: 1. That the court should be properly clothed with judicial power to hear and determine the matter before it. 2. That the jurisdiction is lawfully acquired by the person of the defendant.
Page 29 of 37
RIGHT TO PUBLIC TRIAL - Purpose: is to safeguard against any attempt or danger of the conduct of such trial in an illegal and unjust manner. - When can we say that the trial is made in PUBLIC: SC said it does not matter as long as it is proved that the attendance is open to all irrespective of the relationship to the defendant hence, the compliance of a Public Trial is being complied with. - Exception: When the evidence to be presented is offensive to Public Morals, the proceeding may be limited to friends, relatives and the Counsel (ex. Rape Case). In re Oliver (333 US 257, 1948) - There is a Michigan Statute which authorizes a Judge to seat as one-man Jury. - Under the Statute, a witness was summarily committed contempt due to the inconsistencies of his testimonies with that of other witness. - Wala nay hearing-hearing. Deretso na ang judge sa summary proceeding. - SC said that there is a violation of the right of the accused to public trial. - The summary commitment constituted a denial of due process on the ground: 1. Secrecy of proceedings. 2. Lack of reasonable opportunity to be heard. Garcia vs Domingo (L-30104, Jul 25, 1973) - The accused were made to respond the indictments against them. - There were 14 trial dates and were being set on Sunday (aron mag-abot ang tanan parties). - Hearings were conducted in the Chamber of Judge Garcia. - SC said such trials and hearing DID NOT violate the right of an accused to public trial (even on Sundays) because there was no showing that the public is excluded.
COMPULSORY PROCESS - In the 1935 Constitution, ang naa lang didto is the right to secure the attendances of witnesses in behalf of the accused.
Page 30 of 37
3. That the accused is given the opportunity to be heard. 4. That the judgment is rendered only upon lawful hearing. - SC said that there will be NO SHORTCUT with the legal process and there can be no excuse for not affording the accused his full day in court. - In this case, the case was remanded since the 4 requisites were served.
Page 30 of 37
Page 31 of 37
SEC 15. PRIVILEGE OF THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS 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. Two situations when the writ of habeas corpus may be suspended: 1. Invasion 2. Rebellion What is therefore this writ of habeas corpus? - It is a writ directed to a person who detains another person commanding such person to produce the body of the prisoner at a designated time and place. - With the day and cause of his caption and detention, to do, to submit to, and receive whatever the court or Judge awarding the writ shall consider in his behalf. - It is a high prerogative common law writ of ancient origin the great object of which is the liberation of those who may be in prison without sufficient cause. Ex. The case of Ninoy when he was unlawfully detained by Pres. Marcos and his whereabouts were not known by his family. What is the privilege? - The right of an immediate determination of the legality of the deprivation of the physical liberty. - There should be a legal basis of the deprivation of ones liberty. 1. What covers the suspension? - The writ is never suspended. - What is being suspended is the privilege of the writ. - Once the detaining officer shows a legal basis in detaining such person which is covered in the suspension, the Court may not require any further. 2. Who will suspend the writ? - The President is entrusted the power to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus. - The Authority is Art. VII, Sec. 18 of the 1987 Constitution: The President shall be the Commander-inChief 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 and rebellion. In case of invasion or rebellion, when the public safety requires it, he may, for a period not exceeding 60 days, suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus or place the Philippines or any part thereof under martial law. Within 48 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 24 hours following such proclamation or suspension, convene in accordance with its rules without the need of a call. The Supreme Court may review, in an appropriate proceeding filed by any citizen, the sufficiency of the factual basis of the proclamation of martial law or the suspension of the privilege of the writ or the extension thereof, and must promulgate its decision thereon within 30 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 3 days, otherwise he shall be released. - The suspension by the President is subject to Judicial Review for as long as there is an appropriate proceeding filed by any person. 3. What is the effect of the suspension of the Right to Bail? - Suspension of the writ does not include the suspension of the Right to Bail. - The Constitution provides that the Right to Bail shall not be impaired even when the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is suspended (Art. III, Sec. 13).
Page 31 of 37
Page 32 of 37
SEC 16. RIGHT TO SPEEDY DISPOSITION OF CASES All persons shall have the right to a speedy disposition of their cases before all judicial, quasijudicial, or administrative bodies. This is synonymous to Sec. 14. However, Sec. 14 only covers criminal prosecution. But, Sec. 16 covers all cases: judicial, quasijudicial and administrative proceedings. Factors to be considered in the determination whether or not the right of to Speedy Disposition of Trial has been violated? - Same with Sec. 14. 1. Length of the delay. 2. Reason for the delay. 3. Effort of the defendant to assert or invoke his right. 4. Prejudice cause to the defendant. Take note that this should be read hand in hand with another provision of the Constitution Art. VIII, Sec. 15 (1) which provides the periods for the decision or resolution of cases: 1. All lower courts 3 months. 2. All lower collegiate courts 12 months. 3. Supreme Court 24 months from the date of submission. Angchangco vs Ombudsman (268 SCRA 301, 1997) - The Deputy Sheriff was being of charged with Graft and Corruption, Estafa and Malversation. - Retirable na siya. Niabot nlng ug 6 years wala gihapon na-resolve sa Ombudsman ang case. Sige lag ka-pending, pending even if he had already requested the speedy resolution of the case. - The Ombudsman failed to discharge his duty promptly and act to the charges. - SC said failure to resolve the case for more than 6 years thereby transgressive on part of the accused of his right for a speedy disposition of trial. - The Ombudsman was ordered by the SC to issue the clearance to the accused since there has a violation of his right to a speedy disposition of his case. Abarquez vs Rebbosura (285 SCRA 109, 1998) - The respondent Judge concealed the fact of the delay of the case since nagtinamad si Judge, sige lag lakwatsa si Judge. - SC said that a Judge is mandated to render a decision for not more than 90 days from the time the case was submitted for decision. - SC said that the failure to decide a case within the required period is not excusable and it constitute gross inefficiency. - The Code of Judicial Conduct admonishes all Judges to dispose the courts business promptly and decide cases in the period fixed by law.
- In this case, the Judge was being dismissed from service and his recurrent benefits were all forfeited and he was precluded from Government employment. - Ingon ana ka harsh ang judgment sa SC.
Page 32 of 37
Page 33 of 37
SEC 17. RIGHT INCRIMINATION
AGAINST
SELF-
be prosecuted since he has been acquitted or convicted in the past. What is the consequence of violating this right? The same in all other violations of the Bill of Rights because whatever evidence obtained against you, it will be inadmissible as evidence in court against the accused. What is the reason behind this? SC held in number of cases that the essence of the privilege if the prohibition of testimonial compulsion. The right against self-incrimination should not be construed to mean an exclusion of one valid evidence if it is material to a particular case. US vs Tan Teng (3 PHIL 143, 1904) - All evidences that are being taken from the accused are all admitted in court. - Accused was being charged of Acts of Lasciviousness and the rape of a 7-year old girl. - So, the accused was being asked by the court a portion of a substance emitting from the accused body for scientific analysis. - There was a positive result out of that substance of his body: Gonorrhea. - SC said, the portion of that substance from the accused body or asking your body to be part of an examination is not a violation of the accused right. - At a first glance, it is a violation of the right to self-incrimination. - But, SC said that it is not a violation of selfincrimination asking the accused a portion of a substance emitting from his body. US vs Ong Siu Hong (36 PHIL 735, 1917) - Charged with the possession of morphine. - The accused place the morphine in his mouth to hide them. - SC said, if your are asked to produce that morphine in your mouth, the accused was not being compelled to be a witness against himself. Because it is not a testimonial compulsion. - You are not producing evidence against your own self because it was already there, gipagawas lang sa imong body. - You are not being pressured because the even in the presence of the Police Officers, the substance is in your body. Villaflor vs Summers (41 PHIL 62, 1920) - The woman was being charged of Adultery. - In this case, the SC rendered that submitting a woman accused of Adultery to the indignity of being tested for pregnancy is VALID. - It is not tantamount to compelling the accused to be a witness against his own. - Because it does not exclude the body as evidence if material in the case. - What is being violated when it talks about testimonial compulsion. In other instances: - SC said that it is not incriminating and therefore ADMISSIBLE.
Page 33 of 37
No person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself. What is therefore this right? Has its roots in common law and is based on Humanitarian and Practical considerations. Humanitarian because it is intended to prevent the State, with all its coercive powers, from extracting from the suspect testimony that may convict him. Practical because a person subjected to such compulsion is likely to perjure himself for his own protection. When is this right available? Available in all Government proceedings which includes criminal, civil, administrative actions and legislative investigations. Who can claim this right? This right may be claimed not only by the person accused of an offense but by any witness to whom an incriminating question is asked. Chavez vs CA (L-29169 Aug 19, 1968) SC said that a PERSON ACCUSED of a crime may invoke the right by refusing to take the witness stand. The reason is the assumption that the purpose of the interrogation is to incriminate you. The purpose of soliciting questions that may be pointed back to you. Murag ikaw ra gihapon ang mahimong makasasala sa imong mga statements. However, as to the WITNESSES, both in civil and criminal cases, such witnesses may only invoke their rights every time an incriminating question is being asked. Because there is no other way for that witness to know in advance the nature of the pointing of question which is being asked to you. For NATURAL persons, they avail of this right. However, as to ARTIFICIAL persons (Partnerships, Corporations etc), they cannot invoke this right. Because according to this case, Artificial Persons must submit to the investigative powers of the State at all times being mere creatures of the State. Can there be a waiver of this right? YES! Either directly or by a failure to invoke it. Provided the waiver is: 1. Certain. 2. Unequivocal. 3. Intelligently, understandingly and willingly made. When is this right inapplicable? When there is a valid waiver. When the accused is immune from suit. When the question asked relates to a past criminality for which the witness can no longer
Page 34 of 37
- Examples (which is not considered as incriminating): a. To wear a pair of pants if it were of your size. b. Paraffin Test. c. Voice identification because voice does not change. d. Blood sampling. e. DNA sampling. - However, how about HANDWRITING. It is produced by the body. But SC said that: Writing is something more than moving the body, or the hand, or the fingers, writing is not a purely mechanical act, because it requires the application of intelligence and attention. - Hence, in a case of Falsification, the accused is compelled to write to furnish a means to determine whether or not he is the falsifier. - In other parts of the body, it is already given while in writing, it is not yet given. Beltran vs Samson (53 PHIL 570, 1929) - SC said that while the evidences are not testimonial in character, they were made admissible before the court. - Theres a charge of Falsification of documents. - The petitioner was made to appear before the fiscal to take dictation of your own handwriting. - SC said there is a similarity between one who is compelled to produce a document and one who is compelled to produce a specimen of his own handwriting. In both cases, the witness is required to furnish evidence against himself. The latter is more serious than the former since, in the present case, the witness is compelled to write which creates evidence which does not exist at the moment. US vs Navarro (3 PHIL 143, 1904) - There was one instance that a Penal Law was being set aside by the SC for being violative of the right against self-incrimination. - Because the Penal Law forcing a defendant to be a witness against himself para the burden of providing the evidence may grant you a lesser penalty. - Such law made the accused to choose to be a witness against himself which shall mitigate his penalty OR not to be a witness and take a more serious punishment. - In this case, there is a crime of illegal detention. - SC said that the very statement of the accused of the whereabouts of the victims amounts the confession that the accused unlawfully detain the person. HYBRID CASES: Cabal vs Kapunan, Jr. (L-19052 Dec. 29, 1962) - A case about Graft and Corruption. - The accused is made to face an investigative committee to shed light on the issue of unexplained wealth. - SC said even if its not civil or criminal in nature kay gipaadto lang ka didto to shed light or something, SC said that you can validly invoke your right against self-incrimination before the Committee because there will be a forfeiture
proceeding which will take place SC said it is deemed criminal or penal in nature, therefore, the exemption of the accused of being a witness against himself is applicable. - Because forfeiture of property is in substance a criminal procedure and in a nature of punishment. Pascual vs Board of Medical Examiners (L-25018 May 26, 1969) - Forfeiture of property is similar to that of criminal proceeding. - This is all about MALPRACTICE. - SC said once you are subjected into something into particular statements that will point a finger against you, the Petitioner may suffer a forfeiture of property in a form of revocation of license as medical practitioner. - Once you are called by the Board of Medical Examiners, you can invoke your right against self-incrimination. - The penalty suffered is revocation is more than just an imprisonment.
Page 34 of 37
Page 35 of 37
SEC 18. DETENTION BY REASON OF POLITICAL BELIEFS AND ASPIRATIONS & RIGHT AGAINST INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE (1) No person shall be detained solely by reason of his political beliefs and aspirations. (2) No involuntary servitude in any form shall exist except as a punishment for a crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted. Brought about by what Ninoy Aquino has suffered during the Martial Law. You can never be detained whatever political colors and whatever beliefs you may have. What is Involuntary Servitude? - Is 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. - Concept includes: 1. Slavery the civil relation in which one man has absolute power over the life, fortune and liberty of another. 2. Peonage a condition of enforced servitude by which the servitor is restrained of his liberty and compelled to labor in liquidation of some debt or obligation, real or pretended, against his will. - EXCEPTIONS: Punishment for a crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted. Art. II, Sec. 4 of the Constitution: All citizens may be required, under conditions provided by law, to render personal military or civil service. Naval enlistment crew may be compelled to remain in such service until the end of the voyage for which he is contracted. Posse Comitatus for the apprehension of criminals commands all male of a certain age to assist them. Justified under the Police Power. Striking workers in industries affected with public interest may be required to return to work pending settlement of the labor dispute to prevent disruption, to the detriment of the public, of essential services being performed by the strikers. Ex. Teachers who strike curtail the right to education of students. Unemancipated minors under the patria potestas are obliged to obey their parents so long as they are under parental power, and to observe respect and reverence toward them always.
Page 35 of 37
Page 36 of 37
SEC 19. PROHIBITION AGAINST CRUEL, DEGRADING AND INHUMAN PUNISHMENTS (1) Excessive fines shall not be imposed, nor cruel, degrading or inhuman punishment inflicted. Neither shall death penalty be imposed, unless for compelling reasons involving heinous crimes, the Congress hereafter provides for it. Any death penalty already imposed shall be reduced to reclusion perpetua (2) The employment of physical, psychological, or degrading punishment against any prisoner or detainee or the use of substandard or inadequate penal facilities under subhuman conditions shall be dealt with by law. Talks about EXCESSIVE PENALTY when it is flagrantly oppressive or disproportionate to the nature of the offense as to SHOCK the moral sense of the community. Ex. Nangawat ka, life sentence dayon ang penalty, nga pwde man unta mabayaran lang ang gikawat sa gamay nga kantidad o punishment. Factors to be considered: 1. Nature and seriousness of the offense. 2. Moral depravity of the accused. 3. Purpose of the law. When penalty is cruel? - When it includes degrading punishment. - One which exposes the accused to a disgrace. - It is beyond the law. - Shocking to the moral public sense. People vs Echegaray (267 SCRA 682, 1997) - Accused was convicted of raping his 10-year-old daughter. - SC held Death penalty is penalty is imposed to heinous crimes because the perpetrator hereof has committed unforgivable acts that have deeply dehumanized a person. - Rape is an outrage against decency and dignity. People vs Derilo (271 SCRA 633, 1997) - Ex. There a law. The crime was being given before the law has been passed. And it is disadvantageous to the accused. - What should be followed is the old law which is favorable to the accused. - The law must be prospective. - However, if it is advantageous to the accused, then the new law could be invoked in favor of the accused.
Page 36 of 37
Page 37 of 37
SEC 20. PROHIBITION IMPRISONMENT FOR DEBT
AGAINST
No person shall be imprisoned for debt or nonpayment of a poll tax. What is the purpose of this provision? - To added guaranty of the liberty of persons against their incarceration for the enforcement of purely private debts because only of their misfortune of being poor. - Can you just imagine tungod lang sa iyang kapobre, ma-priso kay dili makabayad sa utang. Debt - A civil obligation expressed or implied.
arising
from
contract,
Poll Tax - A specific fixed sum levied upon every person belonging to a certain class without regard to his property or occupation. Ex. Cedula. - However, a TAX is NOT a debt since it arises from the obligation of the person to contribute his share in the maintenance of the government, failure to pay the same can be validly punished with imprisonment. - It is adopted pursuant to the social justice policy, reflects the tender regard of the law for the millions of our impoverished masses who cannot afford even the nominal cost of a poll tax like the basic community tax certificate. Crime - But although the debtor cannot be imprisoned for his failure to pay his debt, he can be validly punished in a criminal action if he contracted his debt through FRAUD. - In such a case, the act for which he is penalized is the deception he employed in securing the debt, not his default in paying it. Lozano vs Martinez (146 SCRA 323, 1986) - If the debt constitutes ESTAFA, the accused can be convicted. - If it arises ex contractu, the accused cannot be imprisoned. Ex. Debtor and Creditor. - BUT, if it arises ex delicto, a product of a particular wrong doing, the accused can be IMPRISONED. - SC said, the gravamen of the offense punished by BP 22 is the act of making and issuing a worthless check or a check that is dishonored upon its presentation for payment. It is not the payment which the law punishes The law punishes the act not as an offense against property, but an offense against public order. - The law is not intended or designed to coerce a debtor to pay his debt. - The thrust of the law is to prohibit, under pain of penal sanctions, the making of worthless checks and putting them in circulation because of its deleterious effects on the public interest, hence, it is proscribed by the law. - The accused is penalized for the deception in securing the debt and not because of the default in paying the debt.
Page 37 of 37

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Page 1 of 37

AMERICAN BIBLE SOCIETY vs CITY OF MANILA (101 PHIL 386, 1957)

1. WHAT ARE THESE RIGHTS? RIGHTS BECOME AVAILABLE?

RIGHT TO SPEEDY TRIAL

SEC 17. RIGHT INCRIMINATION

SEC 20. PROHIBITION IMPRISONMENT FOR DEBT

You might also like