CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II

Nature of the Constitution Constitutional Law is the study of t he maintenance of the proper balance between authority as represented by the three inherent powers of the State and liberty as guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. the true role of Constitutional Law is to effect an equilibrium between authority and liberty so that rights are within the framework of the law and the laws are enacted with due deference to rights. Constitution - According to Cooley, is that body of rules and maxims in accordance with which powers of sovereignty are habitually exercised. (this definition is comprehensive enough to cover the written and the unwritten Constitution) - According to Justice Malcolm, the written instrument enacted by direct action of the people by which the fundamental powers of the government are established, limited and defined, and by which those powers are distributed among the several departments for their safe and useful exercise for the benefit of the body politic. (more appropriate description of the Phil. Constitution) Purpose: to prescribe the permanent framework of a system of government, to assign to the several departments their respective powers and duties, and to establish certain first principles on which government is founded.

Note: the Constitution is not the origin of private rights; it is not the fountain of law nor the incipient state of government; it is not the cause but the consequence or personal and political freedom. Supremacy of the Constitution: The Constitution is the basic and paramount law to which all other laws must conform and to which all person, including the highest officials of the land, must defer. No act shall be valid, however noble its intentions, if it conflicts with the Constitution. Fundamental Powers of the State 1. Police Power 2. The Power of Eminent Domain 3. The Power of Taxation *Among the safeguards in the Bill of Rights 1. The Right to due process and equal protection 2. The prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures 3. Freedom of expression 4. The impairment clause 5. The guarantees against injustice to the accused
*they have a common objective: co-existence *their ultimate goal is the same: a well-ordered society based on the inviolability of rights which, although they may not curtailed arbitrarily, may nevertheless be regulated for the common good.

Purposes of the Constitution: 1. to prescribe the framework of a system of government 2. to assign to the several departments their respective powers and duties 3. to establish certain fixed principles on which government is founded Classifications of the Constitution 1. Written constitution is one whose precepts are embodied in one document or set of documents 2. Unwritten constitution consists of rules which have not been integrated into a single, concrete from but are scattered in various sources, such as statutes of a fundamental character, judicial decisions, commentaries of publicists, customs and traditions, and certain common law principles 3. Conventional constitution is an enacted constitution, formally struck off at a definite time and place following a conscious or deliberate effort taken by a constitution body or ruler.
Diory Rabajante

4. Cumulative constitution the result of political evolution, not inaugurated at any specific time but changing by accretion rather than by any systematic method 5. Rigid constitution is one that can be amended only by a formal and usually difficult process 6. Flexible constitution is one that can be changed by ordinary legislation Note : the constitution of the Phil. is written, conventional and rigid Essential Qualities of the Written Constitution: 1. broad 2. brief 3. clear A good written constitution must be broad, brief and definite. It must be broad not only because it provides for the organization of the entire government and covers all persons and things within the territory of the State but more so because it is supposed to embody the past, to reflect the present and to anticipate the future. The Constitution must be comprehensive enough to provide for every contingency. It has been said that the constitution is not only the imprisonment of the past but the unfolding of the future, to which it may be added that it is also the fulfillment of the present. It must be brief and confine itself to basic principles to be implemented with legislative details more adjustable to change and easier to amend. It must be clear or definite lest ambiguity in its provisions result in confusion and divisiveness among the people and perhaps even physical conflict. The exception is found only in those cases where the rules are deliberately worded in vague manner, like the due process clause, to make them more malleable to judicial interpretation in the light of new conditions and circumstances. Essential Parts of the written Constitution 1. The constitution of liberty consists of a series of setting forth the fundamental civil and political rights of the citizens and imposing limitations on the powers of government as a means of securing the enjoyment of those rights. 2. The constitution of government consists of a series of provisions outlining the organization of the government, enumerating its powers, laying down certain rules relative to its administration and defining the electorate. 3. The constitution of sovereignty consists of the provisions pointing out the mode or procedure in accordance with which formal changes in the fundamental law may be brought about Permanence of the Constitution One advantage of the written, conventional and rigid constitution is its permanence, or its capacity to resist capricious or whimsical change dictated not by legitimate needs but only by passing fancies, temporary passions or occasional infatuations of the people with ideas or personalities. But the virtue of permanence may at the same time be a disadvantage where the written constitution is unable to adjust to the need for change justified by new conditions and circumstances. The difficulty itself of the amending process may be responsible for the delay in effecting the needed change and thus cause irreparable injury to the public interest. Interpretation The Constitution, like statutory enactments, should be read in accordance with the usual rules on interpretation and construction. Chief among these is the canon that it should be interpreted in such a way as to give effect to the intendment of the framers. This intention is discoverable either in the document itself or through the use of extrinsic aids, such as the records of the constitutional convention. Whether the constitution should be interpreted only in the light of conditions obtaining at the time of its adoption or according to the changes inevitably transpiring in the history of the nation? Should the constitution be petrified or progressive? the constitution must change with the changing times lest it impede the progress of the people with antiquated rules grown ineffective in a modern age. Of particular importance also is the rule that, in case of doubt, the constitution should be considered self-executing rather than non-self-executing; mandatory rather than directory; and prospective rather than retrospective.
Diory Rabajante

Self-executing provision is a rule that by itself is directly or indirectly applicable without need of statutory implementation. (ex. Provisions in the Bill of Rights, which may be invoked by proper parties independently of or even against legislative enactment. Collector of Customs v. Villaluz The Supreme Court held that judges derive directly from Art. III, Sec. 2 of the Constitution the authority to conduct preliminary investigations to determine probable cause for the issuance of a search warrant or warrant of arrest, which power may not be withdrawn or restricted by the legislature. Non-self executing provision is one that remains dormant unless it is activated by legislative implementation. (ex. Art. III, Sec. 4, Art. VI, Sec. 3) Art. III, Sec. 4 : provides that in the fulfillment of the prime duty of defending the State all citizens may be required under conditions provided by law to render personal military or civil service. Art. VI, Sec. 3 : provides that Philippines citizenship may be lost or reacquired in the manner provided by law. Note: Unless the contrary is clearly intended, the provisions of the Constitution should be considered self-executing, as a contrary rule would give the legislature discretion to determine when, or whether, they shall be effective. Note: In the absence of a clear showing of a contrary intention, the provisions of the constitution should be regarded as mandatory. Otherwise, the fundamental law would have no more force and prestige than a set of directions which the government and the people would be free to disregard. Note: As a rule, whenever the language used in the Constitution is prohibitory, it is to be understood as intended to be a positive and unequivocal negation; and whenever the language contains a grant of power, it is intended as a mandate, not a mere direction. Note: The provisions of the constitution should be given only a prospective application unless the contrary is clearly intended. Amendment or Revision People v. Pomar (decided in 1924) Supreme Court declared unconstitutional a law granting maternity leave privileges to female employees on the ground that it impaired the obligation of contracts. (at present however, although the impairment clause has not undergone any change in language since then, such privileges are a commonplace. Social Legislation has been sustained under the expanded concept of the police power as a valid limitation of the freedom of contract. *there are provisions of the Constitution, though, which are not as malleable to judicial interpretation, what Cooley calls the iron rules, because they cannot be altered except by formal amendment. (ex. Provisions for the age qualifications of certain officers or their term of office, the composition of the Commission Audit cannot be reduced or increased by mere court decision) Amendment means isolated or piecemeal change only Revision a revamp or rewriting of the whole instrument 2 steps in the amendment or revision of our Constitution: 1. Proposal 1. Constituent Assembly (vote of of Congress) 2. Constitutional Convention (call by 2/3 vote of Congress, or thrown to people by majority vote of Congress) Occena v. Comelec At any rate, whatever the nature of the change contemplated, the choice of the method of proposal is discretionary upon the legislature. Imbong v. Comelec The Congress, acting as a constituent body, may with the concurrence of 2/3 of all the members call a constitutional convention in general terms only. Thereafter, the same Congress, acting this time as a legislative body, may pass the necessary implementing law providing for the details of the constitutional
Diory Rabajante

convention, such as the number, qualifications, and compensation of its members. This statute maybe enacted in accordance with the ordinary legislative process.

3. People's Initiative [Amendment only] (12% of registered voters with 3% of

registered voters in each legislative district) Art. VII, Sec 2: Amendments to this Constitution may likewise be directly proposed by the people through initiative upon petition of at least 12% of the total number of registered voters, of which every legislative district must be represented by at least 3% of the registered voters therein. No amendment under this section shall be authorized within 5 years ff. the ratification of this Constitution nor oftener than once every five years thereafter. The Congress shall provide for the implementation of the exercise of this right. 3 theories on the relative position of the constitutional convention vis--vis the regular depts. Of the govt 1. Theory of Conventional Sovereignty - As announced in Loomis v. Jackson, holds that the constitutional convention is supreme over the other departments of the government because the powers it exercise are in the nature of sovereign powers. 2. As announced in Woods Appeal, considers the constitutional convention inferior to the other departments of the government since it is merely a creation of the legislature 3. As announced in Frantz v. Autry, declares that as long as it exists and confines itself within the sphere of its jurisdiction, the constitutional convention must be considered independent of and co-equal with the other depts. Of the government.

2. Ratification (majority of the votes cast in the plebiscite; 60-90 days)

The Constitution provides that any amendment to or revision shall be valid when ratified by a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite held not earlier than 60 days nor later than 90 days after the approval of such change by the Congress or the constitutional convention or after the certification by the Comelec of the sufficiency of the petition under Sec. 2. -it involves people themselves in the sovereign act of drafting or altering the fundamental law. **in the case of a mere statute, it suffices that it is enacted by their chosen representatives pursuant to their mandate. But where it is a constitution that is being framed or changed, it is imperative and proper that approval come directly from the people themselves. Note : Proposals to amend the Constitution must be ratified within a reasonable time after they made because they are intended to answer present needs or correct current problems. Gonzales vs. Comelec One of the issues raised was the validity of the submission of certain proposed constitutional amendments at a plebiscite scheduled on the same day as the regular elections. Petitioners argued that this was unlawful as there would be no proper submission of the proposal to the people who would be more interested in the issues involved in the election campaign. The Supreme Court, however, declared, in interpreting Art. XV of the 1935 Constitution: there is in this provision nothing to indicate that the election therein referred to is a special, not a general election. The circumstance that the previous amendment to the Constitution had been submitted to the people for ratification in special elections merely shows that Congress deemed it best to do so under the circumstances then obtaining. It does not negate its authority to submit proposed amendments for ratification in general elections. Judicial Review of Amendments The amending process, both as to proposal and ratification, raises a judicial question (Sanidad vs COMELEC) *from what has already been observed, it is clear that the question of the validity of the adoption of amendments to the Constitution is regarded now as subject to judicial review.
Diory Rabajante

Mabanag v. Lopez Vito The question of whether or not the Parity proposal had been validly adopted in Congress was political in In nature has been rejected. Tanada v. Cuenco The present doctrine allows the courts to inquire into whether or not the prescribed procedure for amendment has been observed. Sanidad v. Comelec The Supreme Court assumed jurisdiction over the Solicitor Generals contention that the amendment of the Constitution was a political question, holding through Justice Martin as ff: the Solicitor General would consider the question at bar as pure political one, lying outside the domain of judicial review. We disagree. The amending process, both as to proposal and ratification, raises a judicial question. This is specially true in cases where the power of the Presidency to initiate the amending process by proposals of amendments, a function normally exercised by the legislature, is seriously doubted. *thus, the judiciary may declare invalid a proposal adopted be less than of the members of the Congress, or a call for a constitutional convention by less than 2/3 The 1987 Constitution - the 4th fundamental law to govern the Phil. since it became independent on July 4, 1946. Commonwealth Constitution the 1st, adopted in 1935, which continued by its provisions to be operative after the proclamation of the Republic of the Phils. 1973 Constitution 2nd Constitution, were enforced during the Marcos regime following its dubious approval and ratification at a time when the country was already under martial law. Freedom Constitution 3rd Constitution, proclaimed by Pres. Aquino, which was to be effective pending the adoption of a permanent constitution aimed at correcting the shortcomings of the previous constitutions and specifically eliminating all the iniquitous vestiges of the past regime. Doctrine of Proper Submission Amendments cannot be submitteed to the people in a piecemeal fashion wherein the other amendments are to follow. The people should have a frame of reference from which to read the amendments being proposed. (Tolentino vs COMELEC) II. The Constitution and The Courts Voting on en banc cases majority of the members who actually took part in the deliberation on the issues in the case and voted thereon Art. VIII, Sec. 4 on en banc cases, (2): all cases involving the constitutionality of a treaty, International or executive agreement, or law, which shall be heard by the Supreme Court en banc, and all other cases which under the Rules of court are required to be heard en banc, including those involving the constitutionality, application, or operation of presidential decrees, proclamations, orders, instructions, ordinance, and other regulations, shall be decided with the occurrence of a majority of the Members who actually took part in the deliberations on the issues in the case and voted thereon. Doctrine of Purposeful Hesitation - symbolic function of the court - the court would not decide on matters which are considered political questions Requisites of Judicial Inquiry: [APE-N] 1. ACTUAL CASE - there must be an actual case or controversy Actual case- conflict of legal rights, an assertion of opposite legal claims susceptible of judicial adjudication * A request of advisory opinion cannot come in the category of an actual case or
Diory Rabajante

controversy since the issue raised does not involve any conflict in law that has assumed the proportions of a full-blown dispute. PACU v. Secretary of Education the petitioners challenged a regulation of the respondent requiring all private colleges and universities to first obtain a permit from the department of Education before they could open and operate. It appeared, however that all petitioners had previously obtained the required permit and that they were questioning the regulation only because of the possibility that such permit might be denied them in the future. The Supreme Court declared that the case was premature as there was no showing at the time of any conflict of legal rights that would justify assumption of jurisdiction by the judiciary. The Court said that mere apprehension that the Secretary of Education might, under the law, withdraw the permit of one of the petitioners does not constitute a justiciable controversy. PHILCONSA v. Villareal was a petition to compel the Speaker of the House of Representatives to produce the books of accounts of that body in which were recorded the amounts of appropriated by the legislators for their allowances. Before the case could be decided, however, the 1973 Constitution became effective and the Congress of the Philippines was consequently abolished. The Supreme Court thereupon dismissed the petition, holding that the same had already become moot and academic. Perez v. Provincial Board it was held that the petitioners claim to an appointive office was rendered moot and academic when he filed a certificate of candidacy for an elective office. Morlos v. Dela Rosa an election protest will have to be dismissed upon the expiration of the protested officials term.

2. PROPER PARTY - the question of constitutionality must be raised by the proper party

Proper party one who has sustained or is in immediate danger of sustaining an injury as a result of the act complained of.

Tileston v. Ullmann a physician questioned the constitutionality of a law prohibiting the use of contraceptives, upon the ground that it might prove dangerous to condition would not enable them to bear the rigors of childbirth. The Court dismissed the challenge, holding that the patients of the physician and not the physician himself were the proper parties. Cuyegkeng v. Cruz the petitioner challenged in a quo warranto proceeding the title of the respondent who he claimed, had been appointed to the Board of Medical Examiners in violation of the Medical Act of 1959. the Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that Cuyegkeng had not made a claim to the position held by Cruz and therefore could not be regarded as a proper party who had sustained an injury as a result of the questioned act. Ex Parte Levitt the petitioner, an American taxpayer and member of the bar, filed a motion for leave to question the qualifications of Justice Black who, he averred, had been appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court in violation of the Constitution of the U.S. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that Levitt was not a proper party since he was not claiming the position held by Justice Black. People v. Vera the Court held that the Government of the Phil. was a proper party to challenge the constitutionality of the Probation Act because, more than any other, it was the Government itself that should be concerned over the validity of its own laws. Custodio v. Senate President (the rule before was that an ordinary taxpayer did not have the proper party personality to question the legality of an appropriation law, since his interest in the
Diory Rabajante

sum appropriated was not substantial enough.) a challenge y an ordinary taxpayer to the validity of a law granting back-pay to members of Congress during the period corresponding to the Japanese Occupation was dismissed as having been commenced by one who was not a proper party. 1st Emergency Powers Case in this case however, the rule has been changed and it is now permissible for an ordinary taxpayer, or a group of taxpayers, to raise the question of the validity of an appropriation law. As the Supreme Court then put it, the transcendental importance to the public of these cases demands that they be settled promptly and definitely, brushing aside, if we must, technicalities of procedure. Tolentino v. Comelec it was held that a senator had the proper party personality to seek the prohibition of a plebiscite for the ratification of a proposed constitutional amendment. PHILCONSA v. Gimenez an organization of taxpayers and citizens was held to be a proper party to question the constitutionality of a law providing for certain special retirement benefits for members of the legislature. Oposa v. Factoran a number of minors, represented by their parents, sued the Secretary of Environment and Natural Resources to prevent the misappropriation or impairment of Philippines rainforests and arrest the unabated hemorrhage of the countrys vital life-support systems and continued rape of Mother Earth. The case was dismissed by the lower court on the ground inter alia that the plaintiffs were not proper parties. The Supreme Court reversed through Justice Davide Jr., thus: Petitioners minors assert that they represent their generation as well as generations yet unborn. We find no difficulty in ruling that they can, for themselves, for others of their generation, and for succeeding generations, to file a class suit. Their personality concept of intergenerational responsibility insofar as the right to a balanced and healthful ecology is concerned. Sanidad v. Comelec the Supreme Court upheld the petitioners as proper parties, thus- As a preliminary resolution, We rule that the petitioners in L-44640 (Pablo Sanidad and Pablito V. Sanidad) possess locus standi to challenge the constitutional premise of Presidential Decree Nos. 991, 1031, and 1033. It is now an ancient rule that the valid source of a statue-Presidential Decrees are of such nature-may be contested by one who will sustain a direct injury as a result of its enforcement. At the instance of taxpayers, laws providing for the disbursement of public funds may be enjoined, upon the theory that the expenditure of public funds by an officer of the State for the purpose of executing an unconstitutional act constitutes a misapplication of such fund. The breadth of Presidential Decree No. 991 carries an appropriation of P5M for the effective implementation of its purposes. Presidential Decree No. 1031 appropriates the sum of P8M to carry out its provisions. The interest of the aforenamed petitioners as taxpayers in the lawful expenditure of these amounts of public money sufficiently clothes them with that personality to litigate the validity of the Decrees appropriating said funds. Moreover, as regards taxpayers suits, this Court enjoys that open discretion to entertain the same or not. For the present case, We deem it sound to exercise that discretion affirmatively so that the authority upon whichs sthe disputed Decrees are predicated may be inquired into. Macalintal v. Comelec in this case, a lawyer questioned the Overseas Absentee Voting Act was accepted as a proper party thus: Taxpayers, such as herein petitioner, have the right to restrain officials form wasting public funds through the enforcement of an unconstitutional stature. The Court has held that they may assail the validity of a law appropriating public funds because expenditure of public funds by an officer of the State for the purpose of executing an unconstitutional act constitutes a misapplication of such funds. The challenged provision of law involves a public right that affects a great number or citizens. The Court has adopted the policy of taking jurisdiction over cases whenever the petitioner has seriously and convincingly presented an issue of transcendental significance to the Filipino people.
Diory Rabajante

Lozada v. Comelec in this case, a petition to compel the respondent to call special elections to fill 12 vacancies in the interim Batasang Pambansa was dismissed on the ground inter alia that the petitioners were not proper parties as they had only what the Supreme Court called a generalized interest shared with the rest of the people. Guazon v. De Villa a similar ruling was rendered (Lozada v. Comelec), wehere well-meaning citizens with only second-hand knowledge of the events: were not considered proper parties to challenge the saturation drives or zonas being conducted by the military. Kilosbayan v. Morato the original ruling in this case admitted the petitioner, a group of concerned citizens and taxpayers, as a proper party to question the contract providing for the holding of the lotto or a national lottery. In the subsequent case involving the same parties, however, the Supreme Court, with a changed membership, held the petitioner to be without legal standing to question that contract. Osmea v. Comelec a similar conclusion was reached (Kilosbayan v. Morato), on the ground that the petitioner, a presidential candidate, did not show that he had been injured as a result of the ban on political commercials on radio and television. Telecommunications and Broadcast Attorneys of the Phils, Inc. v. Comelec the same reason was applied against the petitioners who were questioning the law requiring television and radio stations to allocate free time to the respondent agency. *Significantly, Art. VII, Sec 18, of the Constitution now allows any citizen to challenged the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus or the proclamation of martial law.

3. EARLIEST OPPORTUNITY - the constitutional question must be raised at the earliest

possible opportunity what is not alleged cannot be proven if question is not raised in the pleadings, it could not be raised at the trial, except: 1. in criminal case can be raised any time in the discretion of court 2. in civil case - can be raised at any stage if necessary to the determination of the case 3. in every case (except when there is estoppel) - can be raised at any stage if it involves jurisdiction of the court NECESSITY OF DECIDING CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION - the decision of the constitutional question must be necessary to the determination of the case itself as long as there is some other basis that can be used by the courts for its decision, the constitutionality of the challenged law will not be touched and the case will be decided on other available grounds. The reason why the courts will as much as possible avoid the decision of a constitutional question can be traced to the doctrine of separation of powers, which enjoins upon each department a proper respect for the acts of the other departments. In line with this policy, courts indulge the presumption of constitutionality and go by the maxim that :to doubt is to sustain. The theory is that, as the joint act of the legislative and executive authorities, a law is supposed to have been carefully studied and determined to constitutional before it was finally enacted. Laurel v. Garcia the Court will not pass upon a constitutional question although properly presented by the record if the case can be disposed of on some other ground such as the application of a statute of general law. (the same ruling in Lalican v. Vergara) Zandueta v. De la Costa in this case, Jusice Laurel declared that such a policy did not manifest a shirking
Diory Rabajante

4.

of judicial duties. In fact, he continued, if there should be no other ground available to the court for the decision of the case, then would be the time to let the hammer fall, and heavily. In this case, the petitioner, an incumbent judge, had accepted an ad interim appointment to a new court created under a law that had reorganized the judiciary by abolishing some judgeships and creating others. When his appointment was bypassed, he returned to his former courting Manila but found that the respondent had already been appointed thereto. Zandueta thereupon filed quo warranto proceedings against De La Costa, arguing that he had not abandoned his old court in Manila by his acceptance of the new court in Palawan. His reason was that the law creating the latter court was unconstitutional because it violated judicial security of tenure. Although the constitutional question had been raised squarely, the Supreme court did not find it necessary to resolve it. Its justification was another ground available to it for its decision, to wit, the common law principle of estoppel. Since under this rule a person cannot question the validity of a law under which he had previously accepted benefits, the Supreme Court held that Zandueta was estopped from impugning the constitutionality of the judiciary reorganization law. **But when in 1955 a similar law was passed by Congress and was also later assailed on the ground that it violated judicial security of tenure, the SC violated judicial security of tenure, the Supreme Court could not avoid ruling on the constitutional question raised. The petitioners in this case, unlike Zandueta had not accepted new positions created by the law after it had legislated them out of their former courts. The principle of etoppel could therefore not be applied to them and the SC consequently had to decide categorically whether or not the challenged law was constitutional. Similar action was taken in the later case of De la Llana v. Alba Effects of Declaration of Unconstitutionality, 2 views: ORTHODOX VIEW an unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights, imposes no duties, and affords no protection; it creates no office; it is, in legtal contemplation, inoperative, as if it had not been passed. (as it announced in Norton v. Shelby) - expressed in Art. 7 of the Civil Code, providing that when the courts declare a law to be inconsistent with the Constitution, the former shall be void and the latter shall govern. Manila Motors Co. v. Flores the plaintiff filed a complaint for the recovery of installments which fell due in 1941. the defendant pleaded prescription, 13 years having elapsed since the due date. The plaintiff argued that the prescriptive period had been suspended by the Moratorium Law, but the defendants averred that the law had been declared unconstitutional and therefore no rights could be built upon it. The Supreme Court rejected this contention and applying considerations of equity, relaxed the operation of the general rule.

MODERN VIEW [OPERATIVE FACT DOCTRINE] the court does not annul or repeal the statute it finds in conflict with the Constitution; it simply refuses to recognize it; the decision affects the parties only and there is no judgment against the statue; the actual existence of the statute prior to its declaration of unconstitutionality was an operative fact and might have consequences which could not justly be ignored <more realistic approach>

Partial Unconstitutionality, when valid (2 conditions): 1. the legislature is willing to retain the valid portions even if the rest of the statute is declared illegal; and 2. the valid portions can stand independently as a separate statute **the legislative will to this effect may be expressed in what is known as the separability clause this is usually provides that if for any reason any section or provision of this Act is declared invalid or unconstitutional, the remainder of the Act shall not be affected by such declaration. But even without such separability clause, it has been held that if the valid portion is so far independent of the valid portion, it may be fair to presume that the legislature would have enacted it by itself it it had supposed that it could constitutionally do so. Bar Flunkers Case this case provides for an illustration of a law that was declared partly unconstitutional. The law was sustained in so far as it amended the Rules of Court
Diory Rabajante

prospectively. But the portion thereof which retroactively reduced the passing average in the bar examinations was declared unconstitutional for being an encroachment upon judicial functions. Macalintal Case the Supreme Court, while sustaining the Overseas Absentee Voting Act, declared as unconstitutional that part of the law giving Congress the power to supervise its implementation by the Commission on Elections as inimical to the independence of the electoral body. III. The Fundamental Powers of the State Police Power Power of Eminent Domain Power of Taxation Similarities: 1. they are inherent in the State 2. they are necessary and indispensable 3. they are methods by which the State interferes with private rights 4. they presuppose an equivalent compensation 5. they are execised primarily by the legislature Differences: DIFFERENCES As to regulation As to exercise As to taken who the

POLICE POWER

EMINENT DOMAIN

TAXATION property

regulates both liberty regulates and property rights only may only the government

property regulates rights only

government and some only the government private entities

property destroyed because it is -wholesome -wholesome noxious or intended for -taken for a public use -taken for a public use noxious purpose or purpose or purpose intangible altruistic full and fair equivalent protection and public feeling that the person of the property improvements for the has contributed to the expropriated taxes paid general welfare

As to Compensation

Limitations: Bill of Rights. The presumption in libertarian societies is in favor of private rights and against attempts on the part of the State to interfere them. Constitutional provisions for the security of persons and property should be liberally construed. Hence, the exercise of these fundamental powers is subject at all times to the limitations and requirements of the Constitution and in proper cases be annulled by the courts of justice.

Diory Rabajante

IV. Police Power -power of promoting the welfare by restraining and regulating the use of liberty and property Characteristics: most pervasive, least limitable and most demanding of the 3 powers Justification: Salus populi est suprema lex the welfare of the people is the supreme law Sic utere tuo ut alienum non laedas a person must use his own property so as not to injure another Scope: 1. cannot be bargained away through the medium of a treaty or contract (Stone v Mississippi) 2. may use taxing power as its implement (Tio vs Videogram Regulatory Board) 3. may use eminent domain as its implement (Assoc. of Small Landowners vs Sec. of Agrarian Reform) 4. could be given retroactive effect and may reasonably impair vested rights or contracts (police power prevails over contract) 5. dynamic, not static, and must move with the moving society it is supposed to regulate Who may exercise Police Power the Legislature (inherent) President (by delegation) administrative boards (by delegation) lawmaking bodies on all municipal levels, including barangay (by delegation) Municipal governments / LGU's (conferred by statute general welfare clause of RA 7160) Tests (Limitations): 1. LAWFUL SUBJECT interests of the public generally, as distinguished from those of a particular class, require the exercise of police power 2. LAWFUL MEANS the means employed are reasonably necessary for the accomplishment of the purpose and not unduly oppressive upon individuals Additional limitations (when exercised by delegate) [Nachura Reviewer]: express grant by law (e.g. RA 7160) within territorial limits (for LGU's) must not be contrary to law (City Government of Quezon City vs Ericta) for municipal ordinances 1. must not contravene the Constitution or any statute 2. must not be unfair and oppressive 3. must not be partial and discriminatory 4. must not prohibit, but may regulate, trade 5. must not be unreasonable 6. must be general in application and consistent with public policy V. Power of Eminent Domain - a.k.a. Expropriation; Condemnation use of the government of its coercive authority, upon just compensation, to forcibly acquire the needed property in order to devote the same to public use (see Rule 67, Rules of Court and Sec. 9, Art III, Constitution) Who may Exercise 1. The Congress (inherent) 2. President 3. various local legislative bodies 4. certain public corporations (e.g. National Housing Authority) 5. Quasi-public corporations (e.g. PLDT)
Diory Rabajante

Eminent Domain vs Destruction from Necessity EMINENT DOMAIN DESTRUCTION FROM NECESSITY - public right - arises from the laws of society and is vested in the state or grantee, acting under the right and power of the state or benefit of the state - private right vested in every individual with which the right of state or state necessity has nothing to do - comes under the right of necessity, of selfpreservation - arises under the laws of society or society itself - cannot require the conversion of the property taken to public use, nor is there any need for the payment of just compensation

Jurisdiction over a complaint for eminent domain Regional Trial Court (RTC) Requisites of Eminent Domain [NP-TPJ]: 1. [N] NECESSITY OF EXERCISE 2. [P] PRIVATE PROPERTY 3. [T] TAKING 4. [P] PUBLIC USE 5. [J] JUST COMPENSATION [N] Necessity of Exercise - genuine necessity, and - must be of public character When exercised by legislature political question When exercised by a delegate justiciable question determine the: (a) adequacy of compensation; (b) necessity of taking; and (c) public use character [P] Private Property GENERAL RULE: anything that can come under the dominion of man is subject to expropriation EXCEPTIONS: money and chose in action (personal right not reduced into possession, i.e. the right to bring an action to recover debt, money or thing) Private property already devoted to public use cannot be expropriated by a delegate acting under a general grant of authority (City of Manila vs Chinese Community) [T] Taking - REQUISITES (Republic vs Castellvi) [EM-LPD]: 1. [E] expropriator must enter a private property 2. [M] entry must be for more than a momentary period 3. [L] entry must be under the warrant of legal authority 4. [P] entry is for public use 5. [D] the owner is deprived of enjoying his property - if taking is under police power, it is not compensable TAKING UNDER EMINENT DOMAIN vs TAKING IN POLICE POWER : POLICE POWER EMINENT DOMAIN the prejudice suffered by the individual the individual suffers more than his aliquot part property owner is shared in common with the of the damages, i.e. a special injury above that rest of the community sustained by the rest of the community - where there is taking in the constitutional sense, the property owner need not file a claim for just compensation with the Commission of Audit; he may go directly to the court to demand payment. Arbitrary action of the government shall be deemed a waiver of its immunity from suit (Amigable vs Cuenca) [P] Public Use whatever may be beneficially employed for the general welfare (Heirs of Ardona vs Reyes) includes both direct or indirect benefit or advantage to the public
Diory Rabajante

[J] Just Compensation full and fair equivalent of the property taken from the property owner by the expropriator that sum of money which a person, desirous but not compelled to buy, and an owner, willing but not compelled to sell, would agree on as a price to be given and received therefor

WHERE ONLY PART OF HE PROPERTY IS EXPROPRIATED : entitlement to consequential damages, if any + consequential benefits must be deducted from the total compensation provided consequential benefits does not exceed consequential damages Payment of the correct amount + Payment within a reasonable time FORM OF COMPENSATION : * money (However, in Assoc. of Small Landowners vs Sec. of Agrarian Reform, payment is allowed to be made partly in bonds because it deals with a revolutionary kind of expropriation) TRANSFER OF TITLE - Payment of just compensation before title is transferred RECKONING POINT OF MARKET VALUE OF PROPERTY : - either as of the date of taking or filing of the complaint, whichever comes first ENTITLEMENT TO INTEREST : General Rule: when there is delay, there must be interest by way of damages (Art. 2209, CC) Exception: when waived by not claiming the interest PAYMENT OF TAXES : - Taxes paid from the time of the taking until the transfer of the title, during which the owner did not enjoy any beneficial use of the property, are reimbursable by the expropriator. RIGHT OF LANDOWNER IN CASE OF NON-PAYMENT General Rule: landowner is not entitled to recover possession of the property, but only to demand payment Exception: when the government failed to pay just compensation within 5 years from the finality of judgment in expropriation proceedings, there is a right to recover property

VI. Power of Taxation method by which contributions are exacted from persons and property for the support of government and for all public needs. obligation to pay taxes is a duty TAXES vs LICENSES TAX LICENSE - to raise revenues - for regulatory purpose only - justified under police power - amount of fees required is usually limited to the cost of regulation

Scope all income earned in the taxing state, whether by citizens or aliens, and all immovable and tangible personal properties found in its territory, as well as tangible personal property owned by persons domiciled therein Power to Tax Includes Power to Destroy when used validly as an implement of the police power in discouraging and in effect ultimately prohibiting certain things or enterprises inimical to public welfare Power to Tax Does Not Include Power to Destroy - where the tax is used solely for the purpose of raising revenues Who May Exercise
Diory Rabajante

1. Legislature / Congress (inherent) 2. President (by delegation / tariff powers [Sec. 28 (2), Art. VI, Consti]) 3. local legislative bodies (conferred by direct authority [Sec. 5, Art. X, Consti]) Limitations of Taxation [DEP]: 1. [D] Due Process of Law 2. [E] Equal Protection 3. [P] Public Purpose [D] Due Process A. Substantive : tax should not be confiscatory except when used as an implement of police power B. Procedural : * due process does not require previous notice and hearing before a law prescribing specific taxes on specific articles may be enacted. * However, where the tax to be collected is to be based on the value of the taxable property, the taxpayer is entitled to be notified of the assessment proceedings and to be heard therein on the correct valuation of the property. [E] Equal Protection embodied in Sec. 28 (1), Art. VI, 1987 Constitution (The rule of taxation shall be uniform and equitable. The Congress shall evolve a progressive system of taxation.)

UNIFORMITY persons or things belonging to the same class shall be taxed at the same rate * REQUISTES (Tan vs Del Rosario): 1. standards that are used are substantial and not arbitrary 2. categorization is germane to achieve the legislative purpose 3. the law applies, all things being equal, to both present and future conditions 4. classification applies equally well to all those belonging to the same class EQUITABLE TAXATION based on the capacity to pay * EQUALITY IN TAXATION tax shall be strictly proportional to the relative value of the property PROGRESSIVE SYSTEM OF TAXATION the rate increases as the tax base increases

[P] Public Purpose whatever may be beneficially employed for the general welfare Double Taxation / Direct Duplicate Taxation when additional taxes are laid on the same subject by the same taxing jurisdiction during the same taxing period and for the same purpose. despite the lack of specific prohibition, double taxation will not be allowed if it results in a violation of the equal protection clause. Tax Exemptions -may either be: 1. constitutional - Art. Vi, Sec. 28 (3) : when lands, buildings and improvements are actually, directly and exclusively [ADE] for religious, charitable or educational purposes entitled to exemption 2. statutory- discretion of legislature VII. Due Process of Law no precise definition because it might prove constricting and prevent the judiciary from adjusting it to the circumstances of particular cases responsiveness to the supremacy oof reason, obedience to the dictates of justice embodiment of sporting idea on fair play guaranty against any arbitrariness on the part of the government Protection of Person Covers Natural (citizen and alien) and Artificial Persons. As to the latter, with respect only to property because its life and liberty are derived from and subject to control of legislature Deprivation (in Sec. 1, Art. III) connotes denial of right to life, liberty or property
Diory Rabajante

not unconstitutional. what is prohibited is deprivation without due process of law.

Life connotes integrity of the physical person not mere animal existence; embraces the enjoyment by the individual of God-given faculties that can make his life worth living. Liberty freedom to do right and never wrong (Mabini) right to be free from arbitrary personal restraint or servitude Property anything that can come under the right of ownership and be the subject of contract all things within the commerce of man However, one cannot have a vested right to a public office as this is not regarded as property. If created by statue, it may be abolished by the legislature at any time. Mere privileges are not property rights and are therefore revocable at will Substantive Due Process requires intrinsic validity of the law in interfering with the rights of the person to his life, liberty or property REQUISITES 1. Lawful Subject 2. Lawful Means Procedural Due Process - restriction on actions of judicial and quasi-judicial agencies of government - Notice + Hearing (...hears before it condemns, which proceeds upon inquiry and renders judgment only after trial) 1. Judicial Due Process Requisites: 1. Impartial and Competent Court 2. Jurisdiction lawfully acquired over the person of t he defendant and/or property 3. Hearing - not necessarily trial-type hearing; submission of position papers is enough - right of a party to cross-examine the witness against him in a civil case is an indispensable part of due process - the filing of a motion for reconsideration cures the defect of absence of a hearing - Cases in which notice and hearing may be dispensed with without violating due process: a) abatement of nuisance per se b) preventive suspension of a civil servant facing admin. charges c) cancellation of passport of a person sought for the commission of a crime d) statutory presumptions 4. Judgment rendered upon lawful hearing 2. Administrative Due Process REQUISITES [HEDSPIK]: 1. [H] Right to a hearing 2. [E] Tribunal must consider the evidence presented 3. [D] Decision must have something to support itself 4. [S] Evidence must be Substantial 5. [P] Decision must be rendered on the evidence presented at the hearing, or at least contained in the record and disclosed to the parties affected 6. [I] Tribunal, body, or any of its judges must act on its or his own independent consideration of the facts and law of the controversy 7. [K] Decision is rendered in such a manner that the parties to the proceeding can know the various issues involved, and the reason for the decision rendered VIII. Equal Protection embraced in the concept of due process embodied in a separate clause to provide for a more specific guaranty against undue favoritism or hostility from the government DUE PROCESS CLAUSE attacks ARBITRARINESS in general EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE attacks UNWARRANTED PARTIALITY OR PREJUDICE
Diory Rabajante

SUBSTANTIVE EQUALITY all persons or things similarly situated should be treated alike, both as to rights conferred and responsibilities imposed. EQUALITY IN ENFORCEMENT OF THE LAW law be enforced and applied equally A law which denies equal protection is the same with a law which permits such denial. (read People vs Vera) Requisites: 1. it must be based on substantial distinctions 2. it must be germane to the purposes of the law 3. it must not be limited to existing conditions only - must be enforced as long as the problem sought to be corrected exists 4. it must apply equally well to all members of the class - both as to rights conferred and obligations imposed IX. Searches and Seizures Section 2, Article III deals with tangibles; embodies the castle doctrine (a man's house is his castle; a citizen enjoys the right against official intrusion and is master of all the surveys within the domain and privacy of his own home.) Section 3 (1), Article III deals with intangibles Section 3 (2), Artivle III Exclusionary Rule (which embodies the Doctrine of the Fruit of the Poisonous Tree)

available to natural and artificial persons, but the latter's books of accounts may be required to open for examination by the State in the exercise of police power or power of taxation The right is personal (Stonehill vs Diokno) may be invoked only against the State (People vs Marti) Only a judge may issue a warrant. EXCEPTION: orders of arrest may be issues by administrative authorities but only for the purpose of carrying out a final finding of a violation of a law VALID WARRANTLESS SEARCHES [NOTE: each of these requires probable cause, except stop and frisk] 1. searches incidental to lawful arrest (rule 126, Rules of Court) for dangerous weapons or anything that may have been used or constitute in the commission of an offense Requisites: 1. the item to be searched was within the arrestee's custody or area of immediate control 2. the search was contemporaneous with the arrest 2. searches of moving vehicles 3. searches of prohibited articles in plain view Requisites: 1. prior valid intrusion to a place 2. evidence was inadvertently discovered by the police who has the right to be there 3. evidence is immediately apparent 4. there is no further search 4. enforcement of customs law 5. consented searches 6. stop and frisk (limited protective search of outer clothing for weapons) 7. routine searches at borders and ports of entry 8. searches of businesses in the exercise of visitorial powers to enforce police regulations

- VALID WARRANTLESS ARREST: 1. in flagrante delicto 2. hot pursuit 3. the offender escaped from the penal establishment Requisites of a valid warrant: REQUISTES ARREST WARRANT SEARCH WARRANT
Diory Rabajante

1. Probable Cause such facts and circumstances - must refer to 1 specific which would lead a reasonably offense prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed and the person sought to be arrested had committed it

such facts and circumstances which would lead a reasonably prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed and the objects sought in the connection of the offense are in the place sought to be searched the judge must personally examine in the form of searching questions and answers... in writing and under oath... the complainants and his witnesses... on facts personally known to them... and attach to the record their sworn statements and affidavits. (Silva vs Presiding Judge)

2. Personal determination of the judge personally probable cause by the judge determines the existence of probable cause; it is not necessary that he should personally examine the complainant and his witnesses (Soliven vs Makasiar) -procedure; (1) personally evaluate the fiscal's report, or (2) if [1] is insufficient, disregard it and require the submission of supporting affidavits of witnesses *PRELIMINARY INQUIRY (task of the judge) determination of probable cause for the issuance of warrant of arrest *PRELIMINARY IVESTIGATION PROPER (task of the prosecutor) ascertainment whether the offender should be held for trial or be released

3. After examination under not merely routinary but must not merely routinary but must oath or affirmation of the be probing and exhaustive be probing and exhaustive complainant and the witnesses he may produce 4. Particularity of description GENERAL RULE: it must contain the name/s of the persons to be arrested EXCEPTION: if there is some descriptio personae which will enable the officer to identify the accused GENERAL RULE: when the description therein is as specific as the circumstances will ordinarily allow. EXCEPTION: when no other more accurate and detailed description could have been given.

X. Liberty of Abode and Travel Purpose of the Provision (Art. III, Sec. 6): to further emphasize the individual's liberty as safeguarded in general terms by the due process clause. Liberty under that clause includes the right to choose one's residence. Limitations 1. LIBERTY OF ABODE - upon lawful order of the court 2. RIGHT TO TRAVEL - national security, public safety or public health as may be provided by law Caunca vs Salazar 82 Phil 851 Whether a maid had the right to transfer to another residence even if she had not paid yet the amount advances by an employment agency: Yes. The fortunes of business cannot be controlled by controlling a fundamental human freedom. Human dignity and freedom are essentially spiritual inseparable from
Diory Rabajante

Rubi vs Provincial Board of Mindoro 1919 Villavicencio Lukban 1919 vs

Salonga vs Hermoso 97 SCRA 121 Lorenzo vs Dir. of Health 1927 Manotok vs CA 1986

Marcos vs Manglapus 1989

Philippine Association of Service Exporters vs Drilon 1988

the idea of eternal. Money, power, etc. belong to the ephemeral and perishable. The respondents were justified in requiring the members of certain nonChristian tribes to reside in a reservation, for their better education, advancement and protection. The measure was a legitimate exercise of police power. Prostitutes, despite being in a sense lepers, are not chattels but Philippine citizens, protected by the same constitutional guarantee of freedom of abode. They may not be compelled to change their domicile in the absence of a law allowing such. the case became moot and academic when the permit to travel abroad was issued before the case could be heard. Laws for the segregation of lepers have been provided the world over and is supported by high scientific authority. Such segregation is premised on the duty to protect public health. Bail posted in a criminal case, is a valid restriction on the right to travel. By its nature, it may serve as a prohibition on an accused from leaving the jurisdiction of the Philippines where orders of Philippine courts would have no binding force. The liberty of abode and the right to travel includes the right to leave, reside and travel within ones country but it does not include the right to return to ones country. NOTE: Court warned that this case should not create a precedent because Marcos was a class in himself. Right to travel may be impaired in the interest of national security, public health or public order, as may be provided by law. An order temporarily suspending the deployment of overseas workers is constitutional for having been issued in the interest of the safety of OFWs, as provided by the Labor Code.

XI. FREEDOM OF RELIGION Religion defined any specific system of belief, worship, conduct, etc., often involving a code of ethics and philosophy (definition ni Cruz) The aforesaid definition is comprehensive than that given in Aglipay vs Ruiz (a profession of faith to an active power that binds and elevates man to his Creator). This is because there are religions, which do not make reference to a God, e.g Buddhism, Atheism, etc. (comment ko: The definition is too vague. It is too broad that it can even cover systems of belief that we do not consider as religions. If we are to accept the definition, it would be tantamount to calling different schools of thought, e.g. Analytic tradition, Existentialism, as religions.) TWO GUARANTEES CONTAINED IN SEC. 5: 1. Non-establishment clause 2. Free exercise of religious profession and worship [1] NON-ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE

as stated by Cruz: there is no violation of this clause if: 1. the statute has a secular purpose 2. its prinipal effect is one that neither advances nor inhibits religion; and 3. it does not foster an excessive government entanglement with religion

reinforces Sec. 6, Art. II on the separation of church and State other provisions which support this: Sec 2(5), Art. IX-C [a religious sect or denomination cannot be registered as a political party], Sec 5(2), Art. VI [no sectoral representative from the religious sector], and Sec 29 (2), Art. VI [prohibition against the use of public money or property for the benefit of any religion, or of any priest, minister or ecclsiastic], Sec. 28 (3), Art. VI [exemption from taxation of properties actually, directly and exclusively used for religious purposes, Sec 4(2), Art XIV
Diory Rabajante

[citizenship requirement of ownership of educational institutions except those owned by religious groups], Sec 29(2), Art VI [appropriation allowed where the minister is employed in the armed forces, penal institution or government-owned orphanage or leprosarium]

Scope: the state cannot set up a church, nor pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religion, or prefer one religion... Rationale: o to delineate boundaries between the 2 institutions; and o to avoid encroachment by one against the other. o [Strong fences make good neighbors; Render unto Ceasar the things that are Ceasar's and unto God the things that are God's.] A union of Church and State would either: o tend to destroy government and to degrade religion; or o result in a conspiracy because of its composite strength separation of church and state is not a wall of hostility The Government is neutral. It protects all, but prefers none and disparages none. Freedom of religion includes freedom from religion; the right to worship includes right not to worship

- Two values sought to be protected by the non-establishment clause: (a) Voluntarism the growth of a religious sect as a social force must come from the voluntary support of its members because of the belief that both spiritual and secular society will benefit if religions are allowed to compete on their own intrinsic merit without benefit of official patronage. (b) Insulation of the political process from interfaith dissension voluntarism cannot be achieved unless the political process is insulated from religion and unless religion is insulated politics.

Engel vs Vitale

recitation by students in public schools in New York of a prayer composed by the Board of Regents was unconstitutional Everson vs Board of US Supreme Court sustained the law providing free transportation for all Education schoolchildren without discrimination, including those attending parochial schools Board of Education US Supreme Court sustained the law requiring the petitioner to lend vs Allen textbooks free of charge to all students from grades 7-12, including those attending private schools In Everson and Allen, the government aid was given directly to the student and parents, not to the church-related school Adong vs Cheong in line with the constitutional principle of equal treatment of all religions, Seng Gee the State recognizes the validity of marriages performed in conformity with the rites of Mohammedan religion Rubi vs Provincial the expression non-Christian in non-Christian tribes was not meant to Board discriminate. It refers to degree of civilization, not to the religious belief. Islamic Da'wah by arrogating to itself the task of issuing halal certifications, the State Council of the has, in effect, forced Muslims to accept its own interpretation of the Philippines vs Office Qur'an and Sunna on halal food. of Exec. Sec. Intramural Religious Dispute = outside the jurisdiction of the secular authorities Gonzales vs where a civil right depends upon some matter pertaining to ecclesiastical Archbishop of Manila affairs, the civil tribunal tries the civil right and nothing more. Fonacier v CA where the dispute involves the property rights of the religious group, or the relations of the members where the property rights are involved, the civil courtws may assume jurisdiction.

[2] FREE EXERCISE CLAUSE

Diory Rabajante

2 aspects: 1. FREEDOM TO BELIEVE absolute includes not to believe everyone has a right to his beliefs and he may not be called to account because he cannot prove what he believes 2. FREEDOM TO ACT ACCORDING TO ONE'S BELIEFS happens when the individual externalizes his beliefs in acts or omissions subject to regulation; can be enjoyed only with proper regard to rights of others Justice Frankfurter: the constitutional provision on religious freedom terminated disabilities, it did not create new privileges... its essence is freedom from conformity to religious dogma, not freedom from conformity to law because of religious dogma German vs Barangan SC found that petitioners were not sincere in their profession of religious liberty and were using it merely to express their opposition to the government Ebralinag vs division SC reversed Gerona vs Sec. of Educ. , and upheld Superintendent of the right of petitioners to refute to salute the Schools of Cebu Philippine flag on account of their religious scruples. People vs Zosa invocation of religious scruples in order to avoid military service was brushed aside by the SC Victoriano vs Elizalde SC upheld the validity of RA 3350, exempting Rope Workers Union members of a religious sect from being compelled to join a labor union American Bible the constitutional guarantee of free exercise Society vs City of carries with it the right to disseminate Manila information, and any restraint of such right can be justified only on the ground that there is a clear and present danger of an evil which the State has the right to prevent; Hence, City ordinance imposing license fees to on sale is inapplicable to the society Tolentino vs Sec. of the free exercise clause does not prohibit Finance imposing a generally applicable sales and use tax on the sale of religious materials; the registration fee is not imposed for the exerise of a privilege, but only for the purpose of defraying part of the cost of registration

Compelling State Interest test [Estrada vs Escritor] the constitution's religion clause's prescribe not a strict bu a benevolent neutrality (which recognizes that government must pursue its secular goals and interests, but at the same time, strive to uphold religious liberty to the greatest extent possible within flexible constitutional limits benevolent neutrality could allow for accomodation morality based on religion provided it does not offend the compelling state interest test. two steps (as regards the test): 1. inquire whether respondent's right to religious freedom has been burdened; and 2. ascertain respondent's sincerity in her religious belief. solicitiations for religious purposes requires not a prior permit from DSWD as it is not included in solicitations for charitable or public welfare purposes. [Centeno vs Villalon-Pornillos]

RELIGIOUS TESTS Purpose: to stop government's clandestine attempts to prevent a person from exercising his civil of political rights because of his religious beliefs.

People vs Zosa

invocation of religious scruples in order to avoid military service was brushed aside by the SC
Diory Rabajante

XII. FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION Freedom of Speech at once the instrument and the guaranty and the bright consummate flower of all liberty. (Wendell Philips) Scope

Freedom of Expression is available only insofar as it is exercised for the discussion of matters affecting the public interest. Purely private interest matters do not come within the guaranty (invasion of privacy is not sanctioned by the Constitution). covers ideas that are acceptable to the majority and the unorthodox view. (One of the functions of this freedom is to invite dispute US Supreme Court; I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. - Voltaire) The freedom to speak includes the right to silent. (This freedom was meant not only to protect the minority who want to talk but also to benefit the majority who refuse to listen. - Socrates)

Importance The ultimate good desired is better reached by a free trade in ideas that the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market; and that truth is the only ground upon which their wishes safely can be carried out. Modes of Expression Oral and written language Symbolisms (e.g. bended knee, salute to the flag, cartoons) ELEMENTS: Freedom from previous restraint or censorship Freedom from subsequent punishment [1] FREEDOM FROM PREVIOUS RESTRAINT OR CENSORSHIP embodied in Art. III, Sec. 4 [No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press, or the right of the people peacably to assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances.]

CENSORSHIP conditions the exercise of freedom of expression upon the prior approval of the government. Only those ideas acceptable to it are allowed to be disseminated.

CENSOR, therefore, assumes the role of arbiter for the people, usually applying his own subjective standards in determining the good and the not. Such is anathema in a free society.

Grosjean vs American Press Co. Burgos vs Chief of Staff Mutuc vs COMELEC

Sanidad vs COMELEC

There need not be total suppression; even restriction of circulation constitutes censorship the search, padlocking and sealing of the offices of Metropolitan Mail and We Forum by military authorities, resulting in the discontinuance of publication of the newspapers, was held to be prior restraint the COMELEC prohibition against the use of taped jingles in the mobile units used in the campaign was held to be unconstitutional, as it was in the nature of censorship the Court annulled the COMELEC prohibition against radio commentators or newspaper columnists from commenting on the issues involved in the scheduled plebiscite on the organic law creating the Cordillera Autonomous Region as an unconstitutional restraint on freedom of expression the Court upheld the validity of the law which prohibited, except during the prescribed election period, the making of speeches, announcements or commentaries for or against the election of any party or candidate for public office. JUSTIFICATION: the inordinate preoccupation of the people with politics tended toward the neglect of the other serious needs of the nation and the pollution of its suffrages.
Diory Rabajante

But... Gonzales COMELEC

vs

Iglesia ni Cristo vs CA

Primicias vs Fugosos National Press Club vs COMELEC

Osmea vs COMELEC

Adiong vs COMELEC

Gonzales vs katigbak

The Board of Review for Motion Pictures and Television (BRMPT) has the authority to review the petitioner's television program. However, the Board acted with grave abuse of discretion when it gave an X-rating to the TV program on the ground of attacks against another religion. Such a classification can be justified only if there is a showing that the tv program would create a clear and present danger of an evil which the State ought to prevent. The respondent mayor could only reasonably regulate, not absolutely prohibit, the use of public places for the purpose indicated. the Supreme Court upheld the validity of Sec. 11(b), RA 6646, which prohibited any person making use of the media to sell or to give free of charge print space or air time for campaign or other political purposes except to the COMELEC. This was held to be within the power of the COMELEC to supervise the enjoyment or utilization of franchises for the operation of media of communication and information, for the purpose of ensuring equal opportunity, time and space, and the right to reply, as well as uniform and reasonable rates of charges for the use of such media facilities. SC reaffirmed validity of RA 6646 as a legitimate exercise of police power. The regulation is unrelated to the suppression of speech, as any restriction on freedom of expression occasioned thereby is only incidental and no more than is necessary to achieve the purpose of promoting equality. NOTE: This is not inconsistent with the ruling in PPI vs COMELEC, because in the latter, SC simply said that COMELEC cannot procure print space without paying just compensation. COMELEC's resolution prohibiting the posting of decals, and stickers in mobile units like cars and other moving vehicles was declared unconstitutional for infringmenet of freedom of expression. Besides, the constitutional objective of giving the rich and poor candidates' equal opportunity to inform the electorate is not violated by the posting of decals and stickers on cars and other vehicles. Overbreadth doctrine = prohibits the government from achieving its purpose by means that weep unnecessarily broadly, reaching constitutionally protected as well as unprotected activity; the government has gone too far; its legitimate interest can be satisfied without reaching so broadly into the area of protected freedom. petitioner questioned the classification of the movie as for adults only. the petition was dismissed because the Board did not commit grave abuse of discretion.

[2] FREEDOM FROM SUBSEQUENT PUNISHMENT embodied in Art. III, Sec. 18 (1) [No person shall be detained solely by reason of his political beliefs and aspirations]

without this assurance, the individual would hesitate to speak for fear that he might be held to account for his speech, or that he might be provoking the vengeance of the officials he may have criticized.

not absolute; subject to police power and may be regulated (freedom of expression does not cover ideas offensive to public order)

- Obscenity US vs Kottinger

People vs Go Pin

Pita vs CA Miller vs California

SC acquitted accused who was charged of having offered for sale pictures of half-clad members of non-Christian tribes, holding that he had only presented them in their native attire Accused was convicted for exhibiting nude paintings and pictures, notwithstanding his claim that he had done so in the interest of art. SC, noting that he has charged admission fees to the exhibition, held that his purpose was commercial, not merely artistic. SC declared that the determination of what is obscene is a judicial function. Test of Obscenity:
Diory Rabajante

whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest whether the work depicts, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable law whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value

Justice Douglas, dissent: I do not think we, the judges, were ever given the constitutional power to make definitions of obscenity. Obscenity is a hodgepodge. - The Courts should not apply a national standard but the standard of the community in which the material is being tested. - Criticism of Official Conduct Lagunzad vs Sotto the Court granted the petition to restrain the public exhibition of Vda. de Gonzales the movie Moises Padilla Story, because it contained fictionalized embellishments. Being a public figure does not destroy one's right to privacy. Ayer Productions vs the tribunal upheld the primacy of freedom of expression over Judge Capulong Enrile's right to privacy, because Enrile was a public figure and a public figure's right to privacy is narrower than that of an ordinary citizen. Besides, the movie Four Days of Revolution (sabi ni Cruz) / A Dangerous Life (sabi ni Nachura) / The Four Day Revolution (sabi sa case) would not be historically faithful without including therein the participation of Enrile in the EDSA revolution. US vs Bustos SC compared criticism of official conduct to a scalpel that relieves the abscesses of officialdom People vs Alarcon newspaper publications tending to impede, obstruct, embarrass or influence the courts in administering justice in a pending suit or proceeding constitutes criminal contempt which is summarily punishable by the courts. In re Jurado a publication that tends to impede, embarrass or obstruct the court and constitutes a clear and present danger to the administration of justice is not protected by the guarantee of press freedom and is punishable by contempt. It is not necessary that publication actually obstructs the administration of justice, it is enough that it tends to do so. In re Sotto a senator was punished for contempt for having attacked a decision of SC which he called incompetent and narrow-minded, and announcing that he would file a bill for its reorganization In re Tulfo Tulfo's Sangkatutak na Bobo column was held contumacious. Freedom of the press is subordinate to the decision, authority and integrity of the judiciary and the proper administration of justice. In re Laureta a lawyer was held in contempt and suspended from the practice of law for wrting individual letters to members of the SC division that decided a case against his client, arrogantly questioning their decision Zaldivar vs a member of the Bar who imputed charges of improper influence, Sandiganbayan corruption and other misdeeds to members of the Supreme Court was suspended from the practice of law as neither the right of free speech nor the right to engage in political activities can be so construed or extended as to permit any such liberties to a member of the bar. Right of students to free speech in school premises not absolute. GENERAL RULE: a student shall not be expelled or suspended solely on the basis of articles he has written EXCEPTION: when the article materially disrupts class work or involves substantial disorder or invasion of rights of others, the school has the right to discipline its students (in such a case, it may expel or suspend the student)

Tests of valid governmental interference (criteria in determining the liability of the individual for ideas expressed by him) :

Diory Rabajante

6.

Clear and Present Danger Rule - most libertarian - whether the words are used in such circumstances and of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that the State has the right to prevent. - the substantive evil must be extremely serious and the degree of imminence extremely high before utterances can be punished - CLEAR = causal connection with the danger of the substantive evil arising from the utterance - PRESENT = time element; imminent and immediate danger (the danger must not only be probable but also inevitable) Terminiello vs City of Chicago (speech inside an auditorium with 800 persons) speech is often provocative and challenging. hence, fighting words are not sufficient to convict a person absent a clear and present danger of a serious substantive evil The respondent mayor could only reasonably regulate, not absolutely prohibit, the use of public places for the purpose indicated. the condition of Manila at that time did not justify the mayor's fears. there was no clear and present danger. decided in 1947 (compare with Primicias case) SC sustained respondent mayor's act of refusing to issue a permit enabling students to hold a public rally. Mayor feared the rally would result to public disorder. - decided in 1970 the denial of a permit to hold a public rally was invalid as there was no showing of the probability of a clear and present danger of an evil that might arise as a result of the meeting. The burden of proving such eventually rests on the Mayor.

Primicias Fugosos

vs

Navarro Villegas

vs

Reyes Bagatsing

vs

7.

Dangerous Tendency Doctrine - if the words uttered create a dangerous tendency of an evil which the State has the right to prevent, then such words are punishable. - Justice Holmes, critique of this doctrine: Every idea is an incitement. If believed, it is acted on unless some other belief outweighs it, or some failure of energy stifles the movement at its birth. Bayan vs Executive Secretary Ermita Cabansag Fernandez vs 6. the Calibrated Pre-emptive Response Policy is null and void. Respondents are enjoined from using it and to strictly observe the requirements of maximum tolerance. It is not necessary that some definite or immediate acts of force or violence be advocated. It is sufficient that such acts be advocated in general terms. A mere tendency toward the evil was enough. Accused declared: The Filipinos like myself must use bolos for cutting off (Governor-General) Wood's head for having recommended a bad thing for the Filipinos, for he has killed our independence. He was sentenced to jail.

People vs Perez

8.

Balance of Interest Test - when particular conduct is regulated in the interest of public order, and the regulation results in an indirect, conditional, partial abridgment of speech, the duty of the courts is to determine which of the two conflicting interests demands the greater protection under the circumstances presented. - Justice Black, critique: it, in effect, allows the courts to decide that this freedom may not be enforced unless they believe it is reasonable to do so. AND PRESENT DANGEROUS TENDENCY BALANCE OF INTEREST

CLEAR

Diory Rabajante

DANGER RULE liberty is preferred

RULE Authority is preferred

RULE the issue is resolved in the light of the peculiar circumstances obtaining in each particular case

Assembly and Petition public issues are better resolved after an exchange of view among citizens meeting with each other for the purpose. not subject to previous restraint or censorship regulated by BP 880 Tanada Bagatsing Malabanan Ramento vs SC sustained the petitioner's motion compelling the mayor of Manila to issue a permit to hold a rally, but changed the meeting place to Ugarte Field, a private park (several students were suspended for 1 year for conducting demonstration in the premises of a university outside the area permitted by the school authorities) SC emphasized that the students did not shed their constitutional rights to free speech at the schoolhouse gate, and permitted the students to reenroll and finish their studies. (several students were barred from re-enrollment for participating in demonstrations) while the Court upheld the academic freedom of institutions of higher learning, which includes the right to set academic standards to determine under what circumstances failing grades suffice for expulsion of students, it was held that this right cannot be utilized to discriminate against those who exercise their constitutional rights to peaceful assembly. SC abandons its ruling in Alcuaz vs PSBA (that enrolment of a student is a semester-to-semester contract and the school may not be compelled to renew the contract) upholding the primacy of freedom of expression, because the students do not shed theur constitutionally protected rights at the school gate. right to free assembly and petition prevails over economic rights.

vs

Villar vs TIP

Non vs Dames

PBM Employees Assoc vs PBM

Tests of a lawful assembly Purpose Test - ideally, the test should be the purpose for which the assembly is held, regardless of the auspices under which it is organized Auspices Test - Evengelista vs Earnshaw: the mayor of Manila prohibited the members of the Communist Party from holding any kind of meeting, revoking all permits previously granted by him on the ground that the party had been found (by the fiscal's office) to be an illegal association.

Right of Association

Art. III, Sec. 8 deemed embraced in freedom of expression because the organization can be used as a vehicle for the expression of views that have a bearing on public welfare. SSS Employees Assoc vs CA Victoriano vs Elizalde Rope Workers' Union Occena vs COMELEC In re Edillon right to organize does not carry with it right to strike

right of association was not violated where political parties were prohibited from participating in the barangay elections to insure the non-partisanship of the candidates. Bar integration does not compel the lawyer to associate with anyone. Integration does not make a lawyer a member of any group of which he is not already a member.
Diory Rabajante

Access to Information - the citizenry has a right to know what is going on in the country and in his government so he can express his views thereon knowledgeably and intelligently

Valmonte v Belmonte 1989 Baldoza v Dimaano 1976 Legaspi v Civil Service Commission 1987 Chavez v PCGG 1998

Echegaray case

The people have a right to access official records but they cant compel custodians of official records to prepare lists, abstracts, summaries and the like, such not being based on a demandable legal right. Judges cannot prohibit access to judicial records. However, a judge may regulate the manner in which persons desiring to inspect, examine or copy records in his office, may exercise their rights. Personal interest is not required in asserting the right to information on matters of public concern. What matters constitute public concern should be determined by the court on a case to case basis. Public concern (def.) writings coming into the hands of public officers in connection with their official functions Ill-gotten wealth is, by its nature, a matter of public concern. Privileged communication: (1) national security, (2) trade secrets, (3) criminal matters pending in court, SC held that making the Lethal Injection Manual inaccessible to the convict was unconstitutional.

XIII. THE IMPAIRMENT CLAUSE Art. III, Sec. 10 of the Constitution Purpose - to safeguard the integrity of valid contractual agreements against unwarranted interference by the State. Contract defined - any lawful agreement on property or property rights, whether real or personal, tangible or intangible. - does not cover: (a) License (merely a permit or privilege to do what otherwise would be unlawful and is not a contract with the government (b) Marriage contract (regarded as social institution subject at all times to regulation by the legislature and to change of the original conditions). (c) Public office (public office is a public trust). EXCEPTION: where the salary has already been earned, in which case it will be deemed a vested property right that cannot be withdrawn or reduced. Impairment - retroactive - anything that diminishes the efficacy of the contract - right of a party is changed to his prejudice - when a law: (a) Changes the terms of a contract between parties (b) Imposes new conditions (c) Dispenses those expressed (d) Authorizes for its satisfaction something different from that provided in its terms. ** A mere change in PROCEDURAL REMEDIES which does not change the substance of the contract, and which still leaves an efficacious remedy for enforcement does NOT impair the obligation of contracts. Limitations Police Power - when a contract suffers from congenital infirmity, i.e. a contract which affects the public welfare Eminent Domain

Diory Rabajante

Power of Taxation - Tax exemptions are not contractual and so may be revoked at will by the legislature. EXCEPTION: where a law grants a tax exemption in exchange for valuable consideration, such exemption is considered a contract and cannot be repealed because of the impairment clause.

Clemons Nolting 1922

Charles River Bridge v Warren Bridge 1837 Home Building & Loan Assoc. v Blaisdell 1934

The following impair the obligation of a contract: 1. A law which changes the terms of a legal contract with respect to: a. time or mode of performance b. conditions that which imposes new or dispenses with expressed conditions 2. A law which authorizes for the satisfaction of a contract something different from that provided in its terms A law which compels a creditor to accept Philippine pesos when a debt in US currency is owing impairs the obligation of the contract. The state is never presumed to surrender its police power. A franchise granted to a company to collect tolls from a bridge is subject to the duty and power of the state to provide for the improvement of an important line of travel. The legislature cant bargain away public health, morals & safety. The police power is considered a reserved power. The legislature may not impair the obligation of a contract but may modify, according to its wisdom, the remedy with which the obligations may be enforced. remedy modes of proceeding and forms to enforce the contract provided it does not seriously impair the value of the right The reservation of state authority is read into and deemed part of contracts. A statute which subsequently outlaws gambling does not impair the obligation of contract. A lottery charter is only a privilege which may be revoked by the exercise of the police power of the state, gambling being an appropriate subject of regulation. There is no vested right in remedies or modes of procedure. The legislature may modify particular remedies for the enforcement of a contract without interfering with the obligation of the contract. Police power may only be invoked against the impairment of contracts if: 1. justified by an emergency furnished the proper occasion for the exercise of the reserved power of the state 2. temporary in nature operation limited to the exigency which called it forth, which period may be reduced by the court 3. exercised upon reasonable conditions 4. impairment refers only to remedy and not to substantive right 5. addressed to a legitimate purpose the protection of the basic interests of society The prohibition in the Constitution refers only to contracts with respect to property. It does not apply to statutes relating to public subjects within the domain of the general legislative powers of the state and involving the right and public welfare of the entire community affected by it. A law which allows tenants to change their contracts from tenancy to leasehold system does not impair the obligation of contracts because it was enacted pursuant to social justice precepts of the constitution. Zoning laws, promulgated in the exercise of police power, justify nullification of contractual obligations. Contracts of labor are explicitly subject to the police power. CC1700: Relations between capital and labor are not merely contractual but are impressed with public interest and must yield to the common good

Stone Mississippi 1879

Manila Trading v Reyes 1935 Rutter v Esteban 1953

Ilusoria v CAR 1966

Ortigas v Feati Bank 1979 Conference of Maritime Manning Agencies v POEA 1995

Diory Rabajante

XIV. EX POST FACTO LAWS Art. III, Sec. 22 of the Constitution Prohibition against Ex Post facto Laws - the equivalent of the impairment clause in criminal matters Kinds 1) One which makes an action done before the passing of the law, and which was innocent when done, criminal, and punishes such action. 2) One which aggravates the crime or makes it greater than when it was committed. 3) One which changes the punishment and inflicts a greater punishment than that which the law annexed to the crime when it was committed. 4) One which alters the legal rules of evidence and receives less testimony than the law required at the time of the commission of the offense in order to convict the accused. 5) One which assumes to regulate civil rights and remedies only BUT, in effect, imposes a penalty or deprivation of a right, which, when done, was lawful. 6) One which deprives a person accused of a crime of some lawful protection to which he has become entitled such as the protection of a former conviction or acquittal, or a proclamation of amnesty. Characteristics [CPR] [C] must refer to criminal matters [P] prejudicial to the accused [R] retroactive in application BILL OF ATTAINDER A legislative act that inflicts punishment without trial. Essence is the substitution of legislative fiat for a judicial determination of guilt BA EPF BA= Bill of Attainder; EPF = Ex Post Facto Law (All Bills of Attainder are Ex Post Facto Laws) Elements of Bill of Attainder 1. There must be a law. 2. The law imposes a penal burden on a named individual or easily ascertainable members of a group. 3. There is a direct imposition of penal burden without judicial trial. XV. NON-IMPRISONMENT FOR DEBT Art. III, Sec. 20 of the Constitution For HUMANITATIAN reasons an added guaranty of the liberty of persons against their incarceration for the enforcement of purely private debts because of their misfortune of being poor Debt defined Any civil obligation arising from a contract Expressed or implied Resulting in any liability to pay in money

Scope of guaranty against imprisonment for non-payment of debt ** If an accused fails to pay the fine imposed upon him, this may result in his subsidiary imprisonment because his liability is ex delicto and not ex contractu.

Diory Rabajante

** A FRAUDULENT debt may result in the imprisonment of the debtor if: 1. The fraudulent debt constitutes a crime such as estafa and 2. The accused has been duly convicted. POLL TAX GENERAL RULE: Non-payment of taxes is punishable with imprisonment. EXCEPTION: Failure to pay a poll tax Poll tax defined A specific sum levied upon every person belonging to a certain class without regard to his property or occupation XVI. INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE Sec. 18, Art III, Consti Involuntary Servitude defined 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. Includes: 1. Slavery 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 General Rule No involuntary service in any form shall exist. Exceptions 1. Punishment for a crime for which the party shall have been duly convicted (Sec. 18, Art. III) 2. Personal military or civil service in the interest of national defense (Sec. 4, Art. II) 3. Naval enlistment remain in service until the end of voyage so that the crew would not desert the ship, making it difficult for the owners to recruit new hands to continue the voyage (Robertson vs Baldwin) 4. Posse comitatus in pursuit of persons who might have violated the law, the authorities might command all male inhabitants of a certain age to assist them (US vs Pompeya) 5. Return to work order in industries affected with public interest (Kapisanan ng Manggagawa sa Kahoy vs Gotamco) 6. Patria Potestas unemancipated minors are obliged to obey their parents so long as they are under parental power and to observe respect and reverence to them always (Art. 311, Civil Code) US vs Pompeya An Act providing for the method by which the people of the town may be called upon to render assistance for the protection of the public and the preservation of peace and good order is constitutional. It was enacted in the exercise of the police power of the state and does not violate the constitutional prohibition on involuntary servitude. No indebtedness warrants a suspension of the right to be free from compulsory service, and no state can make the quitting of work any component of a crime, or make criminal sanctions available for holding unwilling persons to labor.

Pollock vs Williams

XVII. THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS Sec. 15, Art. III Writ of Habeas Corpus defined A writ issued by a court directed to a person detaining another commanding him to produce the body of the prisoner
Diory Rabajante

1. at a designated time and place 2. 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 *** The writ is a prerogative writ employed to test the validity of detention *** to secure the detainees release *** The action shall take precedence in the calendar of the court and must be acted upon immediately When available (enumeration not exclusive) restoration of liberty of an individual subjected to physical restraint may be availed of where, as a consequence of a judicial proceeding: 1. there has been deprivation of a constitutional right resulting in the restraint of the person 2. the court has no jurisdiction to impose the sentence, or 3. an excessive penalty has been imposed, since such sentence is void as to the excess. May be extended to cases by which rightful custody of any person is withheld from the person entitled thereto When moral restraint is exerted (Caunca vs Salazar) Right was accorded a person was sentenced to a longer penalty than was subsequently meted out to another person convicted of the same offense. (Gumabon vs Director of Prisons) Unlawful denial of bail When not available (enumeration not exclusive) the person alleged to be restrained is in the custody of an officer under a process issued by the court which has jurisdiction to do so desaparecidos (disappeared persons) persons could not be found; remedy is to refer the matter to Commission on Human Rights Procedure Need to comply with writ; disobedience thereof constitutes contempt Who may suspend the privilege The President Grounds for Suspension of the privilege 1. invasion or rebellion 2. when public safety requires it -- read Article VII, Sec. 18 of the Constitution Lansang doctrine (Lansang vs Garcia) 3. SC has the power to inquire into the factual basis of the suspension of the privilege of the writ 4. Constitutionalized in Article VII, Sec. 18 of the Consti.

XVIII. SPEEDY DISPOSITION OF CASES 5. Sec. 16, Art. III

Related concepts and provisions Right to speedy trial (Sec. 14, Art. III) Speedy trial Refers to trial phase only Criminal cases only

Speedy disposition of cases Refers to disposition of cases (All phases) Judicial, quasi-judicial or admin. Proceedings

Periods for decision for courts (Sec. 15, Art. VIII) 6. SC: 24 months from submission 7. All lower collegiate courts: 12 months unless reduced by SC
Diory Rabajante

8. All other lower courts: 3 months

Periods for decision for Constitutional Commissions (Sec 7, Art. IX-A) 9. 60 days from date of submission for decision or resolution Factors considered in determining whether the right is violated 1. Length of delay 2. Reason of delay 3. Assertion of the right or failure to assert it 4. Prejudice caused by delay Remedy in case there has been unreasonable delay in resolution of a case Dismissal through mandamus

XIX. RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED Criminal process includes: a) Investigation prior to the filing of charges b) Preliminary examination and investigation after charges are filed c) Period of trial CRIMINAL DUE PROCESS Sec. 14, paragraph 1 of Art. III REQUIRES: 1. Impartial and competent court in accordance with procedure prescribed by law 2. Proper observance of all the rights accorded the accused under the Constitution and the applicable statutes (example of statutory right of the accused: right to Preliminary investigation)

- MISTRIAL may be declared if shown that proceedings were held under circumstances
as would prevent the accused from freely making his defense or the judge from freely arriving at his decision

- Law not published and a person is impleaded for violation of the law -- violation of
due process

- Appeal is permitted by law but there is denial thereof -- violation of due process
SELF-INCRIMINATION - Sec. 17, Art. III - Based on: 1. HUMANITARIAN reasons it is intended to prevent the State, with all its coercive powers, from extracting from the suspect testimony that may convict him 2. PRACTICAL reasons a person subjected to such compulsion is likely to perjure himself for his own protection - AVAILABLE TO: - Criminal prosecutions, government proceedings, including civil actions and administrative or legislative investigations - MAY BE CLAIMED BY: 1. ACCUSED at all times; there is a reasonable assumption that the purpose of his interrogation will be to incriminate him 2. WITNESS only when an incriminating question is asked, since the witness has no way of knowing in advance the nature or effect of the question to be put to him - He cannot invoke right to self-incrimination when: a) The question is relevant and otherwise allowed even if the
Diory Rabajante

answer may tend to incriminate him or subject him to civil liability b) the question relates to past criminality for which the witness can no longer be prosecuted c) he has been previously granted immunity under a validly enacted statute Only natural persons can invoke this right. Judicial persons are subject to the visitorial powers of the state in order to determine compliance with the conditions of the charter granted to them.

- SCOPE: Testimonial Compulsion Production of Documents, Papers and Chattels. EXCEPTION: when books of accounts are to be examined in the exercise of police power and power of taxation. - What is PROHIBITED is the use of physical or moral compulsion to extort communication from the witness or to otherwise elicit evidence which would not exist were it not for the actions compelled from the witness. - The right does NOT PROHIBIT the examination of the body of the accused or the use of findings with respect to his body as physical evidence. Hence, the fingerprinting of an accused would not violate the right against self-incrimination. However, obtaining a sample of the handwriting of the accused would violate this right if he is charged for falsification. - The accused cannot be compelled to produce a private document in his possession which might tend to incriminate him. However, a third person in custody of the document may be compelled to produce it. - WAIVER: Either: a) Directly, or b) By failure to invoke it PROVIDED the waiver is certain and unequivocal and intelligently and willingly made.

CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION - Sec. 12, Art. III - called the Miranda Doctrine (Miranda vs Arizona) - CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION defined - Any questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way. - BEGINS as soon as the investigation is no longer a general inquiry unto an unsolved crime, and direction is then aimed upon a particular suspect who has been taken into custody and to whom the police would then direct interrogatory questions which tend to elicit incriminating statements. - Shall include the practice of issuing an INVITATION to a person who is investigated in connection with an offense he is suspected to have committed, without prejudice to the liability of the inviting officer for any violation of law. - EXTRAJUDICIAL CONFESSION IS ADMISSIBLE when: a) Voluntary b) With assistance of counsel c) In writing, and d) Express - RIGHTS UNDER CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION a) To be informed of right to remain silent and to counsel b) To be reminded that if he waives his right to remain silent, anything he says can and will be used against him c) To remain silent d) To have competent and independent counsel preferably of own choice
Diory Rabajante

e) To be provided with counsel if the person cannot afford the services of one
f) No torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation or any other means which vitiate the free will shall be used against him g) Secret detention places, solitary, incommunicado, or other similar forms of detention are prohibited h) Confessions or admissions obtained in violation of these rights are inadmissible as evidence (exclusionary rule) - WHAT RIGHTS MAY BE WAIVED [*** waiver must be in writing and in the presence of counsel] a) Right to remain silent b) Right to Counsel - WHAT RIGHTS CANNOT BE WAIVED a) Right to be informed of his right to remain silent and to counsel b) Right to counsel when making the waiver of the right to remain silent or to counsel - Right to counsel de parte is not unlimited. Accused cannot repeatedly ask for postponement. He must be provided with counsel de oficio. - RA 7309: victims of unjust imprisonment may file their claims with the Board of Claims under DOJ

- RES GESTAE: The declaration of the accused acknowledging guilt made to the police
desk officer after the crime was committed may be given in evidence against him by the police officer to whom the admission was made, as part of the res gestae.

- TERMINATION OF RIGHTS UNDER CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION: When Charges are filed

against the accused (in such case, Sections 14 and 17 come into play). BAIL - Sec. 13, Art. III - BAIL defined - Security given for the release of a person in custody of law, furnished by him or a bondsman, to guaranty his appearance before any court as may be required - KINDS: a) Cash bond b) Security bond - WHO MAY INVOKE: a person under detention even if no formal charges have yet been filed (Rule 114, Rules of Court) - WHO ARE NOT ENTITLED 1) Persons charged with offenses PUNISHABLE by RECLUSION PERPETUA or DEATH, when evidence of guilt is strong 2) Persons CONVICTED by the trial court. Bail is only discretionary pending appeal. 3) Persons who are members of the AFP facing a court martial. - OTHER RIGHTS IN RELATION TO BAIL 1) The right to bail shall NOT be impaired even when the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is suspended. 2) Excessive bail shall not be required. - FACTORS IN FIXING AMOUNT OF BAIL 4. Ability to post bail 5. Nature of the offense 6. Penalty imposed by law 7. Character and reputation of the accused 8. Health of the accused 9. Strength of the evidence 10. Probability of appearing at the trial 11. Forfeiture of previous bail bonds
Diory Rabajante

12. 13.

Whether accused was a fugitive from justice when arrested If accused is under bond in other cases

- IMPLICIT LIMITATIONS ON THE RIGHT TO BAIL 1. The person claiming the right must be in actual detention or custody of the law. 2. The constitutional right is available only in criminal cases, not, e.g. in deportation and extradition proceedings. - Note: 1. Right to bail is not available in the military. 2. Apart from bail, a person may attain provisional liberty through recognizance. PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE - Sec. 14 - Burden of proof to establish the guilt of the accused is with the prosecution. - Conviction depends on the strength of prosecution, not on the weakness of the defense - The presumption may be overcome by contrary presumption based on the experience of human conduct. (e.g unexplained flight may lead to an inference of guilt, as the wicked flee when no man pursueth, but the righteous are as bold as a lion.) The constitutional presumption will not apply as long as there is some rational connection between the fact proved and the ultimate fact presumed, and the inference of one fact from proof of another shall not be so unreasonable as to be a purely arbitrary mandate. Cooley - No inference of guilt may be drawn against an accused for his failure to make a statement of any sort.

- EQUIPOISE RULE evidence of both sides are equally balanced, in which case the
constitutional presumption of innocence should tilt the scales in favor of the accused. RIGHT TO BE HEARD BY HIMSELF AND COUNSEL - Indispensable in any criminal prosecution where the stakes are the liberty or even the life of the accused - ASISTANCE OF COUNSEL begins from the time a person is taken into custody and placed under investigation for the commission of a crime. - This is not subject to waiver. Right to counsel means the right to EFFECTIVE REPRESENTATION. If the accused appears at arraignment without counsel, the judge must: Inform the accused that he has a right to a counsel before arraignment Ask the accused if he desires the aid of counsel If the accused desires counsel, but cannot afford one, a counsel de oficio must be appointed If the accused desires to obtain his own counsel, the court must give him a reasonable time to get one. NATURE AND CAUSE OF ACCUSATION - Sec. 14 - PURPOSES OF THE RIGHT 1) To furnish the accused with a description of the charge against him as will enable him to make his defenses 2) To avail himself of his conviction or acquittal against a further prosecution for the same cause 3) To inform the court of the facts alleged. - CONTROLLING FACTOR The description and not the designation of the offense is controlling
Diory Rabajante

(The real nature of the crime charged is determined from the recital of facts in the information. It is not determined based on the caption or preamble thereof nor from the specification of the provision of law allegedly violated.) - If the information fails to allege the material elements of the offense, the accused cannot be convicted thereof even if the prosecution is able to present evidence during the trial with respect to such elements.

- VOID FOR VAGUENESS RULE accused is denied the right to be informed of the
charge against him and to due process as well, where the statute itself is couched in such indefinite language that it is not possible for men of ordinary intelligence to determine therefrom what acts or omissions are punished and hence, shall be avoided. Estrada vs Sandiganbayan: the doctrine merely requires a reasonable degree of certainty and not absolute precision or mathematical exactitude.

THE TRIAL FACTORS IN DETERMINING WHETHER THERE IS VIOLATION 1) Time expired from the filing of the information 2) Length of delay involved 3) Reasons for the delay 4) Assertion or non-assertion of the right by the accused 5) Prejudice caused to the defendant. EFFECT OF DISMISSAL BASED ON VIOLATION OF THIS RIGHT

If the dismissal is valid, it amounts to an acquittal and can be used as basis to claim double jeopardy. This would be the effect even if the dismissal was made with the consent of the accused REMEDY IF THE RIGHT IS VIOLATED 1. He can move for the dismissal of the case. 2. If he is detained, he can file a petition for the issuance of writ of habeas corpus. SPEEDY TRIAL Free from vexatious, capricious and oppressive delays To relieve the accused from needless anxieties before sentence is pronounced upon him IMPARTIAL TRIAL The accused is entitled to the cold neutrality of an impartial judge. It is an element of due process. PUBLIC TRIAL The attendance at the trial is open to all irrespective of their relationship to the accused. However, if the evidence to be adduced is offensive to decency or public morals, the public may be excluded. The right of the accused to a public trial is not violated if the hearings are conducted on Saturdays, either with the consent of the accused or if failed to object thereto. RIGHT TO BE PRESENT AT TRIAL A. The right to be present PROMULGATION of sentence. covers the period from ARRAIGNMENT to

B. Trial may proceed notwithstanding absence of accused, provided 3 requisites are

met. Note, that TRIAL IN ABSENTIA is allowed only if the accused has been validly arraigned. 1. Accused has already been arraigned 2. Accused has been duly notified of the trial; and 3. His failure to appear is unjustifiable.

C. The accused may waive the right to be present at the trial by not showing up.
However, the court can still compel the attendance of the accused if necessary for identification purposes. EXCEPTION: If the accused, after arraignment, has stipulated that he is indeed the person charged with the offense and named in the
Diory Rabajante

information, and that any time a witness refers to a name by which he is known, the witness is to be understood as referring to him. D. Trial in Absentia is mandatory upon the court whenever the accused has been arraigned.

E. There is also Promulgation in Absentia

While the accused is entitled to be present during promulgation of judgment, the absence of his counsel during such promulgation does not affect its validity The trial in absentia does not abrogate the provisions of the Rules of Court regarding forfeiture of bail bond if the accused fails to appear at his trial. A court has the power to prohibit a person admitted to bail from leaving the Philippines as this is a necessary consequence of the nature and function of a bail bond THE RIGHT OF CONFRONTATION To meet the witnesses face to face
To afford the accused an opportunity to cross-examine the witness To allow the judge the opportunity to observe the deportment of the witness

PURPOSES OF THE RIGHT

FAILURE OF THE ACCUSED TO CROSS-EXAMINE A WITNESS If the failure of the accused to cross-examine a witness is due to his own fault or was not due to the fault of the prosecution, the testimony of the witness should be excluded. WHEN THE RIGHT TO CROSS-EXAMINE IS DEMANDABLE It is demandable only during trials. Thus, it cannot be availed of during preliminary investigations. PRINCIPAL EXCEPTIONS TO THIS RIGHT The admissibility of dying declarations Trial in absentia under Section 14(2) With respect to child testimony

1. 2.

Testimony of witness who was not cross-examined is not admissible as evidence for being hearsay. If a prosecution witness dies before his cross-examination can be completed, his direct testimony cannot be stricken off the record, provided the material points of his direct testimony had been covered on cross. The right to confrontation may be waived.

COMPULSORY PROCESS The accused is entitled to the issuance of subpoena ad testificandum and subpoena duces tecum for the purpose of compelling the attendance of witness and the production of evidence that he may need for his defense. Failure to obey punishable as contempt of court. There are exceptional circumstances when the defendant may ask for conditional examination, provided the expected testimony is material of any witness under circumstances that would make him unavailable from attending the trial. PROHIBITED PUNISHMENTS When is a penalty cruel, degrading and inhuman? 1. A penalty is cruel and inhuman if it involves torture or lingering suffering. Ex. Being drawn and quartered. 2. A penalty is degrading if it exposes a person to public humiliation. Ex. Being tarred and feathered, then paraded throughout town.
Diory Rabajante

STANDARDS USED 1. The punishment must not be so severe as to be degrading to the dignity of human beings. 2. It must not be applied arbitrarily. 3. It must not be unacceptable to contemporary society 4. It must not be excessive, i.e. it must serve a penal purpose more effectively than a less severe punishment would.

EXCESSIVE FINE A fine is excessive, when under any circumstance, it is disproportionate to the offense. Note: Fr. Bernas says that the accused cannot be convicted of the crime to which the punishment is attached if the court finds that the punishment is cruel, degrading or inhuman. Reason: Without a valid penalty, the law is not a penal law.

DOUBLE JEOPARDY *** 2 Kinds of Double Jeopardy: 1. When a person is put twice in jeopardy of punishment for the same offense (1st sentence of Section 21) 2. When a law and an ordinance punish the same act (2nd sentence of Sec. 21) I. SAME OFFENSE

Requisites for a valid defense of double jeopardy: [ATS] 1) [A] First jeopardy must have attached prior to the second. 2) [T] The first jeopardy must have terminated. 3) [S] The second jeopardy must be for the same offense as that in the first. When does jeopardy ATTACH: (1st requisite) [CICAV] 1) [C] A person is charged 2) [I] Under a complaint or information sufficient in form and substance to sustain a conviction 3) [C] Before a court of competent jurisdiction 4) [A] After the person is arraigned 5) [V] Such person enters a valid plea. When does jeopardy NOT attach: 1) If information does not charge any offense 2) If, upon pleading guilty, the accused presents evidence of complete selfdefense, and the court thereafter acquits him without entering a new plea of not guilty for accused. 3) If the information for an offense cognizable by the RTC is filed with the MTC. 4) If a complaint filed for preliminary investigation is dismissed. When does first jeopardy TERMINATE: (2ND REQUISITE) 1) 2) 3) 4) Acquittal Conviction Dismissal W/O the EXPRESS consent of the accused Dismissal on the merits.

Examples of termination of jeopardy:

1) Dismissal

based on violation of the right to a speedy trial. This amounts to an acquittal. 2) Dismissal based on a demurrer to evidence. This is a dismissal on the merits. 3) Dismissal on motion of the prosecution, subsequent to a motion for reinvestigation filed by the accused.
Diory Rabajante

4)

Discharge of an accused to be a state witness. This amounts to an acquittal.

When can the PROSECUTION appeal from an order of dismissal:

If dismissal is on motion of the accused. Exception: If motion is based on violation of

the right to a speedy trial or on a demurrer to evidence. If dismissal does NOT amount to an acquittal or dismissal on the merits If the question to be passed upon is purely legal. If the dismissal violates the right of due process of the prosecution. If the dismissal was made with grave abuse of discretion.

What are considered to be the SAME OFFENSE: 1) Exact identity between the offenses charged in the first and second cases. 2) One offense is an attempt to commit or a frustration of the other offense. 3) One offense is necessarily included or necessary includes the other. Note: where a single act results in the violation of different laws or different provisions of the same law, the prosecution for one will not bar the other so long as none of the exceptions apply. II. SAME ACT

Double jeopardy will result if the act punishable under the law and the ordinance are the same. For there to be double jeopardy, it is not necessary that the offense be the same.

SUPERVENING FACTS 1) Under the Rules of Court, a conviction for an offense will not bar a prosecution for an offense which necessarily includes the offense charged in the former information where: a) The graver offense developed due to a supervening fact arising from the same act or omission constituting the former charge. b) The facts constituting the graver offense became known or were discovered only after the filing of the former information. c) The plea of guilty to the lesser offense was made without the consent of the fiscal and the offended party. 2) Under (1)(b), if the facts could have been discovered by the prosecution but were not discovered because of the prosecutions incompetence, it would not be considered a supervening event. Effect of appeal by the accused: If the accused appeals his conviction, he WAIVES his right to plead double jeopardy. The whole case will be open to review by the appellate court. Such court may even increase the penalties imposed on the accused by the trial court.

XX. FREE ACCESS TO THE COURTS

XXI. CITIZENS OF THE PHILIPPINES Who are citizens of the Philippines? 1) Those who are citizens of the Philippines at the time of the adoption of the 1987 Constitution 2) Those whose fathers or mothers are citizens of the Philippines.
Diory Rabajante

3) Those born before January 17, 1973 of Filipino mothers, who elect Philippine citizenship upon reaching the age of majority. 4) Those who are naturalized in accordance with law. Modes of acquiring citizenship: 1) Jus Soli acquisition of citizenship on the basis of place of birth 2) Jus Sanguinis acquisition of citizenship on the basis of blood relationship 3) Naturalization the legal act of adopting an alien and clothing him with the privilege of a native-born citizen. Note: The Philippines follows (2) and (3) Election of citizenship under the 1987 Constitution: Prior to the 1973 Constitution, if a Filipina married an alien, she lost her Filipino citizenship. Hence, her child would have to elect Filipino citizenship upon reaching the age of majority. Under the 1973 Constitution, however, children born of Filipino mothers were already considered Filipinos. Therefore, the provision on election of citizenship under the 1987 Constitution only applies to those persons who were born under the 1935 Constitution. In order for the children to elect Filipino citizenship, the mothers must have been Filipinos at the time of their marriage. So, if your mother was a Filipina who married an alien under the 1935 constitution and you were born before January 17, 1973, you can elect Filipino citizenship upon reaching the age of majority. When must the election be made: The election must be made within a reasonable period after reaching the age of majority. Effects of naturalization: The legitimate minor children of the naturalized father become Filipinos as well. The wife also becomes a Filipino citizen, provided that she does not have any disqualification which would bar her from being naturalized.

Natural-born citizens: 1) Citizens of the Philippines from birth who do not need to perform any act to acquire or perfect their Philippine citizenship. 2) Those who elect Philippine citizenship under Art. IV, Sec. 1(3) of 1987 Constitution. Marriage of Filipino with an alien:

1) General Rule: The Filipino RETAINS Philippine citizenship 2) Exception: If, by their act or omission they are deemed, under the law, to have renounced
it. Examples of renunciation of Philippine citizenship: 1) Voluntarily obtaining foreign passport 2) Pledging allegiance to another country (ex. by becoming a naturalized citizen of another country) Re-acquisition of citizenship Natural-born Filipinos who are deemed to have lost their citizenship may re-acquire the same via repatriation proceedings. This involves taking an oath of allegiance and filing the same with the civil registry. How may one lose citizenship:

By By By By By

naturalization in a foreign country express renunciation of citizenship subscribing oath or allegiance to a foreign Constitution serving in the armed forces of an enemy country being a deserter of the armed forces of ones country

Diory Rabajante

How may one reacquire citizenship: 1. By direct act of Congress 2. By naturalization 3. By repatriation

Diory Rabajante