CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II I. Nature of the Constitution Purposes of the Constitution: 1.

to prescribe the framework of a system of government


to assign to the several departments their respective powers and duties to establish certain fixed principles on which government is founded

Classification of the Constitution: 1. written


conventional (or enacted) rigid

Essential Qualities of the Written Constitution: 1. broad 2. brief 3. clear Essential Parts of the Written Constitution: 1. constitution of liberty 2. constitution of government 3. constitution of sovereignty 2 steps in the amendment or revision of our Constitution: 1. Proposal

1. 2. 3.

Constituent Assembly (vote of ¾ of Congress) Constitutional Convention (call by 2/3 vote of Congress, or thrown to people by majority vote of Congress)


People's Initiative [Amendment only] (12% of registered voters with 3% of registered voters in each legislative district) Ratification (majority of the votes cast in the plebiscite; 60-90 days)

Judicial Review of Amendments The amending process, both as to proposal and ratification, raises a judicial question (Sanidad vs COMELEC) 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 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. 2. 3.

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 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 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: Diory Rabajante ©

1. 2. 3. 4.

in criminal case – can be raised any time in the discretion of court in civil case - can be raised at any stage if necessary to the determination of the case 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

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 • 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 III. The Fundamental Powers of the State • Police Power • Power of Eminent Domain • Power of Taxation Similarities:

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

they are inherent in the State they are necessary and indispensable they are methods by which the State interferes with private rights they presuppose an equivalent compensation they are execised primarily by the legislature

Differences: DIFFERENCES As to regulation As to who may exercise As to the property taken POLICE POWER regulates both liberty and property only the government destroyed because it is noxious or intended for noxious purpose intangible altruistic feeling that the person has contributed to the general welfare EMINENT DOMAIN regulates property rights only government and some private entities -wholesome -taken for a public use or purpose TAXATION regulates property rights only only the government -wholesome -taken for a public use or purpose

As to Compensation

full and fair equivalent of the protection and public property expropriated improvements for the taxes paid

Limitations: Bill of Rights 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 Diory Rabajante ©

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. 2. 3.
4. 5.

cannot be bargained away through the medium of a treaty or contract (Stone v Mississippi) may use taxing power as its implement (Tio vs Videogram Regulatory Board) may use eminent domain as its implement (Assoc. of Small Landowners vs Sec. of Agrarian Reform) could be given retroactive effect and may reasonably impair vested rights or contracts (police power prevails over contract) 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): • 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) Eminent Domain vs. Destruction from Necessity EMINENT DOMAIN - 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 DESTRUCTION FROM NECESSITY - 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 self-preservation - 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

Diory Rabajante ©

Jurisdiction over a complaint for eminent domain Regional Trial Court (RTC) Requisites of Eminent Domain [NP-TPJ]:


3. 4. 5.


[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] 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]:

[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 the prejudice suffered by the individual property owner is shared in common with the rest of the community EMINENT DOMAIN the individual suffers more than his aliquot part of the damages, i.e. a special injury above that sustained by the rest of the community

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

[E] expropriator must enter a private property [M] entry must be for more than a momentary period [L] entry must be under the warrant of legal authority [P] entry is for public use

- where there is taking in the constitutional sense, the property owner need not file a claim for just compensation with the Commission on 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 [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

Diory Rabajante ©

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 - to raise revenues LICENSE - 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 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. 2. 3.

[D] Due Process of Law [E] Equal Protection [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. Diory Rabajante ©

[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): [SCAE]

1. 2. 3. 4.
− −

[S] standards that are used are substantial and not arbitrary [C] categorization is germane to achieve the legislative purpose [A] the law applies, all things being equal, to both present and future conditions [E] 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


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 of reason, obedience to the dictates of justice − embodiment of sporting idea of 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 − 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 Diory Rabajante ©

• •

However, one cannot have a vested right to a public office as this is not regarded as property. If created by statute, 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: [IJHJ]

1. 2. 3.

[I] Impartial and Competent Court [J] Jurisdiction lawfully acquired over the person of t he defendant and/or property [H] 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


cancellation of passport of a person sought for the commission of a crime statutory presumptions


[J] Judgment rendered upon lawful hearing Administrative Due Process REQUISITES [HEDSPIK]:

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

[H] Right to a hearing [E] Tribunal must consider the evidence presented [D] Decision must have something to support itself [S] Evidence must be Substantial [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 [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 [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 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 Diory Rabajante ©


- must be enforced as long as the problem sought to be corrected exists 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 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 issued 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: the item to be searched was within the arrestee's custody or area of immediate control 2. the search was contemporaneous with the arrest searches of moving vehicles 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 evidence is immediately apparent 4. there is no further search enforcement of customs law consented searches stop and frisk (limited protective search of outer clothing for weapons) routine searches at borders and ports of entry searches of businesses in the exercise of visitorial powers to enforce police regulations WARRANTLESS ARREST: in flagrante delicto hot pursuit the offender escaped from the penal establishment


2. 3.


4. 5. 6. 7. 8. - VALID 1. 2. 3.

Requisites of a valid warrant: REQUISTES 1. Probable Cause - must refer to 1 specific offense ARREST WARRANT such facts and circumstances which would lead a reasonably prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed and the person sought to be arrested had committed it the judge personally determines the existence of probable cause; it is not necessary that he should personally examine the complainant and his witnesses (Soliven vs Makasiar) SEARCH WARRANT 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

2. Personal determination of probable cause by the judge

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 -procedure; (1) personally evaluate the statements and affidavits. fiscal's report, or (2) if [1] is (Silva vs Presiding Judge) insufficient, disregard it and require the Diory Rabajante ©

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 oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce 4. Particularity of description not merely routinary but must be probing and exhaustive 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 not merely routinary but must be probing and exhaustive 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 the idea of eternal. Money, power, etc. belong to the ephemeral and perishable. The respondents were justified in requiring the members of certain non-Christian tribes to reside in a reservation, for their better education, advancement and protection. The measure was a legitimate exercise of police power. Prostitutes, despite being in a sense lepers, are not chattels but Philippine citizens, protected by the same constitutional guarantee of freedom of abode. They may not be compelled to change their domicile in the absence of a law allowing such. the case became moot and academic when the permit to travel abroad was issued before the case could be heard. Laws for the segregation of lepers have been provided the world over and is supported by high scientific authority. Such segregation is premised on the duty to protect public health. Bail posted in a criminal case, is a valid restriction on the right to travel. By its nature, it may serve as a prohibition on an accused from leaving the jurisdiction of the Philippines where orders of Philippine courts would have no binding force. The liberty of abode and the right to travel includes the right to leave, reside and travel within one’s country but it does not include the right to return to one’s country. NOTE: Court warned that this case should not create a precedent because Marcos was a class in himself. 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.

Rubi vs Provincial Board of Mindoro 1919 Villavicencio vs Lukban 1919 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

Diory Rabajante ©

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 1. 2. 3.

Cruz: there is no violation of this clause if: the statute has a secular purpose its prinipal effect is one that neither advances nor inhibits religion; and 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 [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 o

to delineate boundaries between the 2 institutions; and to avoid encroachment by one against the other. [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 from politics. Diory Rabajante ©

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 schoolchildren Education without discrimination, including those attending parochial schools Board of Education vs US Supreme Court sustained the law requiring the petitioner to lend textbooks free of Allen 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 Seng in line with the constitutional principle of equal treatment of all religions, the State Gee recognizes the validity of marriages performed in conformity with the rites of Mohammedan religion Rubi vs Provincial Board the expression “non-Christian” in “non-Christian tribes” was not meant to discriminate. It refers to degree of civilization, not to the religious belief. Islamic Da'wah Council of by arrogating to itself the task of issuing halal certifications, the State has, in effect, forced the Philippines vs Office of Muslims to accept its own interpretation of the Qur'an and Sunna on halal food. Exec. Sec.

• Intramural Religious Dispute = outside the jurisdiction of the secular authorities Gonzales vs Archbishop of where a civil right depends upon some matter pertaining to ecclesiastical affairs, the civil Manila 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 courts may assume jurisdiction.

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 the right of Superintendent of Schools petitioners to refute to salute the Philippine flag on account of of Cebu 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 Rope SC upheld the validity of RA 3350, exempting members of a Workers Union religious sect from being compelled to join a labor union American Bible Society vs the constitutional guarantee of free exercise carries with it the City of Manila right to disseminate information, and any restraint of such right can be justified only on the ground that there is a clear and present danger of an evil which the State has the right to prevent; Hence, City ordinance imposing license fees to on sale is inapplicable to the society Tolentino vs Sec. of Finance the free exercise clause does not prohibit imposing a generally applicable sales and use tax on the sale of religious materials; the registration fee is not imposed for the exerise of a privilege, but only for the purpose of defraying part of the cost of registration

Diory Rabajante ©

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 VillalonPornillos]


Purpose: to stop government's clandestine attempts to prevent a person from exercising his civil or 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

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 Diory Rabajante ©

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 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. 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.

Mutuc vs COMELEC Sanidad vs COMELEC

But... Gonzales vs COMELEC

Iglesia ni Cristo vs CA

Primicias vs Fugosos National Press COMELEC Club vs

Osmeňa vs COMELEC

Adiong vs COMELEC

Gonzales vs katigbak

[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) Diory Rabajante ©

- 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 halfclad 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:  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 Vda. the Court granted the petition to restrain the public exhibition of the movie de Gonzales “Moises Padilla Story,” because it contained fictionalized embellishments. Being a public figure does not destroy one's right to privacy. Ayer Productions vs Judge the tribunal upheld the primacy of freedom of expression over Enrile's “right to Capulong 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, corruption and Sandiganbayan 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)

Diory Rabajante ©

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


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 vs Fugosos

Navarro vs Villegas

Reyes vs Bagatsing


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 vs Fernandez 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


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. DANGEROUS TENDENCY RULE Authority is preferred BALANCE OF INTEREST RULE the issue is resolved in the light of the peculiar circumstances obtaining in each particular case Diory Rabajante ©

CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER RULE liberty is preferred

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 (Public Assembly Act) Tanada vs Bagatsing Malabanan vs Ramento 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 re-enroll 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-tosemester 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.

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.

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

The people have a right to access official records but they cannot 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 Diory Rabajante ©

rights. Legaspi v Civil Service Commission 1987 Chavez v PCGG 1998 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.

Echegaray case

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 − 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 v Nolting 1922 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 Diory Rabajante ©

Charles Bridge v

River Warren

Bridge 1837 Home Building Loan Assoc. Blaisdell 1934 & v

power of the state to provide for the improvement of an important line of travel.

The legislature can’t 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.

Stone v Mississippi 1879 Manila Reyes 1935 Trading v

Rutter v Esteban 1953

Ilusoria v CAR 1966

Ortigas Bank 1979



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…

Conference of Maritime Manning Agencies v POEA 1995

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) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) One which makes an action done before the passing of the law, and which was innocent when done, criminal, and punishes such action. One which aggravates the crime or makes it greater than when it was committed. One which changes the punishment and inflicts a greater punishment than that which the law annexed to the crime when it was committed. 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. 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. 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 Diory Rabajante ©

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 Δ 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.


There is a direct imposition of penal burden without judicial trial.

XV. NON-IMPRISONMENT FOR DEBT  Art. III, Sec. 20 of the Constitution

For HUMANITARIAN reasons… an added guaranty of the liberty of persons against their incarceration for the enforcement of purely private debts because of their misfortune of being poor

Debt 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


Sec. 18, Art III, Constitution

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. 2.

Slavery –civil relation in which one man has absolute power over the life, fortune and liberty of another 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)


US vs Pompeya

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) Return to work order in industries affected with public interest (Kapisanan ng Manggagawa sa Kahoy vs Gotamco) 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) 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 • at a designated time and place • with the day and cause of his caption and detention  to do, to submit to, and receive whatever the court or judge awarding the writ shall consider in Diory Rabajante ©

his behalf *** The writ is a prerogative writ employed to test the validity of detention *** to secure the detainee’s release *** The action shall take precedence in the calendar of the court and must be acted upon immediately When available (enumeration not exclusive)

restoration of liberty of an individual subjected to physical restraint may be availed of where, as a consequence of a judicial proceeding: 1. there has been deprivation of a constitutional right resulting in the restraint of the person 2. the court has no jurisdiction to impose the sentence, or 3. an excessive penalty has been imposed, since such sentence is void as to the excess. May be extended to cases by which rightful custody of any person is withheld from the person entitled thereto When moral restraint is exerted (Caunca vs Salazar) Right was accorded a person was sentenced to a longer penalty than was subsequently meted out to another person convicted of the same offense. (Gumabon vs Director of Prisons) Unlawful denial of bail

 

When not available (enumeration not exclusive)  the person alleged to be restrained is in the custody of an officer under a process issued by the court which has jurisdiction to do so  desaparecidos (disappeared persons) – persons could not be found; remedy is to refer the matter to Commission on Human Rights Procedure Need to comply with writ; disobedience thereof constitutes contempt Who may suspend the privilege The President Grounds for Suspension of the privilege 1. invasion or rebellion 2. when public safety requires it -- read Article VII, Sec. 18 of the Constitution Lansang doctrine (Lansang vs Garcia) • SC has the power to inquire into the factual basis of the suspension of the privilege of the writ • Constitutionalized in Article VII, Sec. 18 of the Consti.

XVIII. SPEEDY DISPOSITION OF CASES • 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 Periods for decision for courts (Sec. 15, Art. VIII)

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

• • • •

SC: 24 months from submission All lower collegiate courts: 12 months unless reduced by SC All other lower courts: 3 months

Periods for decision for Constitutional Commissions (Sec 7, Art. IX-A) 60 days from date of submission for decision or resolution

Factors considered in determining whether the right is violated 1. Length of delay Diory Rabajante ©

2. 3. 4.

Reason of delay Assertion of the right or failure to assert it 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 a) b) c) process includes: Investigation prior to the filing of charges Preliminary examination and investigation after charges are filed 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 When a law not published and a person is impleaded for violation of such law --– violation of due process When 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. 2.

ACCUSED – at all times; there is a reasonable assumption that the purpose of his interrogation will be to incriminate him 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:


The question is relevant and otherwise allowed even if the answer may tend to incriminate him or subject him to civil liability b) the question relates to past criminality for which the witness can no longer be prosecuted c) he has been previously granted immunity under a validly enacted statute 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 Diory Rabajante ©


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: a) Either: Directly, or 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


To be informed of right to remain silent and to counsel To be reminded that if he waives his right to remain silent, anything he says can and will be used against him To remain silent To have competent and independent counsel preferably of own choice To be provided with counsel if the person cannot afford the services of one No torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation or any other means which vitiate the free will shall be used against him Secret detention places, solitary, incommunicado, or other similar forms of detention are prohibited Confessions or admissions obtained in violation of these rights are inadmissible as evidence (exclusionary rule)

c) d) e)
f) g)


- 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 Diory Rabajante ©


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

- HEARSAY EXCEPTION: any of several deviations from the hearsay rule; allowing the admission of otherwise - 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. inadmissible statements because the circumstances surrounding the statements provide a baiss for considering the statements reliable.

- 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

a) b) c) d) Corporate Surety Property Bond Cash Deposit Recognizance

- 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 12. Whether accused was a fugitive from justice when arrested 13. 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. Diory Rabajante ©


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 (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. Diory Rabajante ©




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 covers the period from ARRAIGNMENT to PROMULGATION of sentence.

• • •

• •

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 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.


There is also Promulgation in Absentia (only in cases of light offenses)

• 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 Diory Rabajante ©

• To afford the accused an opportunity to cross-examine the witness • To allow the judge the opportunity to observe the deportment of the witness
• 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. • • 1. 2. • 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 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.


• •

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. • 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:


When a person is put twice in jeopardy of punishment for the same offense (1st sentence of Section 21) Diory Rabajante ©


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) 2) 3) 1) 2) 3) 4) 5)

[A] First jeopardy must have attached prior to the second. [T] The first jeopardy must have terminated. [S] The second jeopardy must be for the same offense as that in the first.

When does jeopardy ATTACH: (1st requisite) [CICAV] [C] A person is charged [I] Under a complaint or information sufficient in form and substance to sustain a conviction [C] Before a court of competent jurisdiction [A] After the person is arraigned [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 self-defense, 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)Acquittal 2)Conviction 3)Dismissal W/O the EXPRESS consent of the accused 4)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) 3) 4)

Dismissal based on a demurrer to evidence. This is a dismissal on the merits.

Dismissal on motion of the prosecution, subsequent to a motion for reinvestigation filed by the accused. 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. (Certiorari is applicable only when correcting errors of jurisdiction, but not in order to correct findings or conclusions of the court)

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 Diory Rabajante ©

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

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



Sec. 11, Art. III Social Justice Provision, implemented by the Rules of Court provision allowing “pauper suits” Additional guarantee: Adequate legal assistance

XXI. CITIZENS OF THE PHILIPPINES Who are citizens of the Philippines? 1) 2) 3) 4) Those who are citizens of the Philippines at the time of the adoption of the 1987 Constitution Those whose fathers or mothers are citizens of the Philippines. Those born before January 17, 1973 of Filipino mothers, who elect Philippine citizenship upon reaching the age of majority. Those who are naturalized in accordance with law.

Modes of acquiring citizenship: 1) 2) 3) Jus Soli – acquisition of citizenship on the basis of place of birth Jus Sanguinis – acquisition of citizenship on the basis of blood relationship 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.

Diory Rabajante ©

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) 2) Citizens of the Philippines from birth who do not need to perform any act to acquire or perfect their Philippine citizenship. Those who elect Philippine citizenship under Art. IV, Sec. 1(3) of 1987 Constitution.

Marriage of Filipino with an alien:

1) 2)
1) 2)

General Rule: The Filipino RETAINS Philippine citizenship Exception: If, by their act or omission they are deemed, under the law, to have renounced it.

Examples of renunciation of Philippine citizenship: Voluntarily obtaining foreign passport 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 one’s country

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

Diory Rabajante ©

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful

Master Your Semester with Scribd & The New York Times

Special offer for students: Only $4.99/month.

Master Your Semester with a Special Offer from Scribd & The New York Times

Cancel anytime.