Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Constitutional Law 2 For Finals Self-Review
Constitutional Law 2 For Finals Self-Review
com
FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION
Importance: As individual particle of sovereignty, every citizen has a right to offer his views and
suggestion in the discussion of the common problems of the community or the nation that the ultimate
good desired is better reached by a free trade of ideas that the best test of truth is the power of the
thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market.
Scope: Includes articulation of even the unorthodox view
Includes the right to be silent
Mode of Expression:
Language oral or written
Symbolisms
Placards, graffiti, slogans, poems and lyrics, and others
ART III. SEC. 4
No law shall be passed the freedom of speech, of expression or of the press, or the right
of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the Government for redress of grievances.
ART III. SEC. 18 (1)
No person shall be detained solely by reason of his political beliefs and affiliations.
Elements of Freedom of Expression:
a. Freedom from previous restraint or Censorship
b. Freedom from subsequent punishment
1) FREEDOM FROM CENSORSHIP
-
Conditions the exercise of the freedom of expression upon prior approval of the government
Need not partake of total suppression; even restriction of circulation is UNCONSTITUTIONAL
CASES:
Iglesia ni Cristo v. CA
-
The criticisms did not create a clear and present danger requiring the prior restraint of the state.
Primicias v. Fugoso
-
The SC ordered the permit issued, holding that the respondent could only reasonably regulate, not
absolutely prohibit, the use of public places for the purpose indicated. Fear of serious injury cannot
alone justify suppression of free speech. To justify suppression of free speech, there must be
reasonable ground to fear that serious evil will result if free speech is practiced. There must be
reasonable ground to believe that the danger apprehended is imminent. There must be reasonable
ground to believe that evil to be prevented is a serious one.
Moreover, even imminent danger cannot justify resort to prohibition of these functions essential to
effective democracy, unless the evil apprehended is relatively serious. The fact that speech is likely
to result in some violence or in the destruction of property is not enough to justify its suppression.
There must be probability of serious injury to the state.
The condition of Manila at the dime did not justify the mayors fears.
Navarro v. Villegas
-
In 1970, Manila was in ferment, the people were edgy and the speeches planned to be delivered at
Plaza Miranda, the most sensitive place in the City, could, in the view of the Supreme Court, ignite
the turbulence the mayor wanted to prevent.
whether the words used are in such circumstances and are 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
A function of free speech under our system of government is to invite dispute. It may indeed best
serve its high purpose when it induces a condition of unrest, creates dissatisfaction with conditions
as they are or even stirs people to anger.
The conviction of a person under a statute forbidding speaking on the public streets with intent to
provoke a breach of the peace was affirmed.
I the words uttered create a dangerous tendency which the state has a right to prevent, then such
words are punishable. It is not necessary that some definite or immediate acts of force, violence or
unlawfulness be advocated. It is sufficient that such acts be advocated in general terms. Nor is it
necessary that the language used be reasonably calculated to incite persons to acts of force,
violence and unlawfulness. It is sufficient if the natural tendency and probable effect of the
utterance be to bring about the substantive evil which the legislative body seeks to prevent.
-
When a 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 particular circumstances
presented.
The official acts, and now even the private life, of a public servant are legitimate subjects of public
comment.
CASE:
People v. Alarcon
-
Public issues are better resolved after an exchange of views among citizens meeting with each
other for the purpose.
A permit for the holding of a public assembly shall not be necessary where the meeting is to be
held in a private place, in the campus of a government-owned and operational educational
institution or in a freedom park.
Denial must be justified clear and present danger to public order safety, convenience, morals or
health
Actions communicated to applicant within 24 hours, appeal must be decided within 24 hours
* TESTS (Lawful Assembly) a. purpose test the purpose of the meeting; b. auspices test relations
of the speakers
RIGHT OF ASSOCIATION
ART. III. SEC 8:
The right of the people, including those employed in the public and private sectors, to
form unions, associations or societies for purposes not contrary to law shall not be abridged.
-
ACCESS TO INFORMATION
Restrictions:
1.
2.
3.
4.
is one that would make a previous act criminal although it was not so at the time it was committed.
Where a law amending R.A. 3019 provided for the suspension pendente lite of any public officer or
employee accused of offenses involving fraudulent use of public funds or property, including those
charged earlier was not ex post facto even if applied retroactively because the suspension was not
punitive but merely preventive
P.D. No. 1606, creating the Sandiganbayan, was held to be not a penal law and therefore not ex
post fact.
People v. Vilo
-
The Supreme Court sustained the retroactive application to the accused of an amendatory law
allowing affirmation of the death sentence by only eight justices although unanimity was required
when the crime was committed by the defendant. The majority decided that the amendment was
merely procedural in nature and so did not partake of the nature of an ex post facto law.
People v. Ferrer
-
The Supreme Court rejected the argument that the Anti-Subversion Act was unconstitutional on the
ground inter alia that it punished past membership in the Communist Party and other similarlyoriented organizations. It declared that the prohibition applied only to acts committed after the
approval of this Act. Only those who knowingly, willfully and by overt acts affiliate themselves
with, become or remain members of the Communist Party of the Philippines and/or its successors
or of any subversive association after June 20, 1957, are punished.
Bill of Attainder
-
is a legislative act that inflicts punishment without trial, its essence being the substitution of
legislative fiat for a judicial determination of guilt. It is when a statute applies either to named
individuals or to easily ascertainable members of a group in such a way as to inflict punishment on
them without a judicial trial.
As long as the obligation to pay arises ex contractu, it is considered a private matter between the
creditor and the debtor and the punitive arm of the State cannot be employed in a criminal action
to enforce the formers right. The remedy in this case is a civil action only for the recovery of the
unpaid debt.
But although the debtor cannot be imprisoned for his failure to pay his debt, he can be validly
punished in a criminal action if he contracted his debt through fraud; In such a case, the act for
which he is penalized is the deception he employed in securing the debt, not his default in paying
it.
CASE:
Lozano Case
-
The gravamen of the offense punished by BP 22 is the act of making and issuing a worthless check
or a check that is dishonored upon its presentation for payment. It is not the nonpayment of an
obligation which the law punishes. The thrust of the law is to prohibit, under pain of penal
sanctions, the making of worthless checks and putting them in circulation. Because of its
deleterious effects on the public interest, the practice is proscribed by the law. The law punishes
the act not as an offense against property, but an offense against public order.
POLL TAX
-
Since a tax is not a debt but arises from the obligation of the person to contribute his share in the
maintenance of the government, failure to pay the same can be validly punished with
imprisonment. The only EXCEPTION is failure to pay a poll tax, which is defined as a specific fixed
sup levied upon every person belonging to a certain class without regard to his property or
occupation.
INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE
ART. III. SEC. 18
(1)No person shall be detained solely by reason of his political beliefs and aspirations.
(2)No involuntary servitude in any form shall exist except as a punishment for a crime
whereof the party shall have been duly convicted.
involuntary servitude the condition of one who is compelled by force, coercion, or imprisonment, and
against his will, to labor for another, whether he is aid or not.
slavery that 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.
EXCEPTIONS:
-
punishment for a crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted
Malefactors may be validly punished with imprisonment and compelled to work in atonement for
their crimes.
While a person may not as a rule be compelled to accept a public appointive office, he may not
refuse to do so if the position is intended for the defense of the State. Art. II, Sec. 4, of the
Constitution provides all citizens may be required, under conditions provided by law, to render
personal military or civil service.
Pursuit of persons who have violated the law, such as brigands, the authorities might command all
the male inhabitants of a certain age to assist them, this would be justified under the police power.
Unemancipated minors under the patria potestas and so are obliged to obey their parents so long
as they are under parental power, and to observe respect and reverence toward them always.
Striking workers in industries affected with public interest may be required to return to work
pending settlement of the labor dispute. The purpose of the compulsion is to prevent disruption,
to the detriment of the public, of essential services being performed by the strikers.
is directed to the 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 his
behalf
In the absence of the exceptional conditions mentioned, the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus
may not be suspended and the individual shall be entitled to the full protection of the writ against
any attempt to restrain him.
The Congress, if not in session, shall, within TWENTY-FOUR HOURS following such
proclamation or suspension, convene in accordance with its rules without need of a call.
The SUPREME COURT may review, in an appropriate proceeding filed by ANY citizen, the
sufficiency of the factual basis of the proclamation of martial law, or the suspension of the
privilege of the writ or the extension thereof, and must promulgate its decision thereon within
THIRTY DAYS from its filing.
A state of martial law does not suspend the operation of the Constitution, nor supplant
the functioning of the civil courts or legislative assemblies, nor authorize the conferment of
jurisdiction on military courts and agencies over civilians where civil courts are able to
function, nor automatically suspend the privilege of the writ.
The suspension of the privilege of the writ shall apply only to persons judicially charged
for rebellion or offenses inherent in or directly connected with invasion.
During the suspension of the privilege of the writ, any person thus arrested or detained
shall be judicially charged within THREE DAYS, otherwise he shall be released.
QUESTION:
Supposing that the suspension is based on the grounds prescribed by the constitution (invasion or
rebellion), will the Supreme Court have the competence to ascertain the existence of such grounds for the
purpose of determining the validity of the suspension?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The Supreme Court declared that it had the power to inquire into the factual basis of the suspension of the
privilege of the writ of habeas corpus. (Lansang v. Garcia; 42 SCRA 448)
AUTHORITY OF THE COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF:
1. He may call out the armed forces to prevent or suppress violence, invasion or rebellion only.
2. The grounds for the suspension of the privilege of the writ and the proclamation of martial law are
now limited to invasion or rebellion when the public safety requires it.
3. The duration of such suspension or proclamation shall not exceed sixty days, following which it
shall be automatically lifted.
4. Within forty-eight hours after such suspension or proclamation, the President shall personally or in
writing report his action to the Congress.
5. If not in session, Congress shall convene within 24 hours following the proclamation or suspension.
6. The Congress may, by a majority vote of all its members voting jointly, revoke his action. The
revocation may not be set aside by the President.
7. By the same vote and in the same manner, the Congress may, upon the initiative of the President,
extend his suspension or proclamation for a period to be determined by the Congress if the
invasion or rebellion shall continue and the public safety requires the extension.
8. The action of the President and the Congress shall be subject to review by the Supreme Court,
which shall have the authority to determine the sufficiency of the factual basis of such action. This
matter is no longer considered a political question and may be raised in an appropriate proceeding.
Moreover, the Supreme Court must decide the challenge within thirty days from the time it is filed.
9. The challenge may be filed by any citizen.
10. Martial law does not automatically suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus or the
operation of the Constitution. The civil courts and the legislative bodies shall remain open. Military
courts and agencies are not conferred jurisdiction over civilians where the civil courts are
functioning.
11. The suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall apply only to persons facing
charges of rebellion or offenses inherent in or directly connected with invasion.
12. Any person arrested for such offenses must be judicially charged therewith within three days.
Otherwise he shall be released.
THE ILAGAN CASE
May 10, 1985 Atty. Ilagan and Atty. Arellano were arrested
May 13, 1985 Atty. Risonar was also arrested
May 16, 1985 The writ of habeas corpus was issued but respondents contended that the
detainees were covered by a preventive detention action issued against them on
Jan. 25, 1985
May 27, 1985 information for rebellion was filed against the detained attorneys before the RTC
of Davao and a warrant of arrest as been issued against them
HELD: The petition herein has been rendered moot and academic by virtue of the filing of an
Information against them for Rebellion before the RTC of Davao City and the issuance of a
Warrant of Arrest against them. The remedy of habeas corpus no longer lies.
DISSENTS:
Justice Teehankee Petitioners must be granted their constitutional right to due process and the
right to preliminary investigation.
THE WRIT OF AMPARO AND HABEAS DATA
Writ of Amparo
the courts will be more diligent in the protection of the life liberty and security of the
desaparecido and can order the respondent to exert more and actual effort in locating
the missing person and showing that he is in good condition and has not been
maltreated by the authorities
Writ of Habeas data intended to insure human right to privacy by requiring the respondent to produce
the necessary information to locate the missing person or such data about him that
have been gathered in secret to support the suspicion that he has been taken into
custody in violation of his constitutional rights or, worse, has been salvaged without
benefit of lawful trial.
- to secure destruction of such secret information gathered in violation of the persons
right to privacy to justify summary action against him by the government or any
private entity.
Criminal due process requires the accused be tried by an impartial and competent court in
accordance with the procedure prescribed by law and with proper observance of all the rights
accorded him under the Constitution and the applicable statutes.
is a statutory rather than constitutional in its fundament, it is a component part of due process in
criminal justice
The right to have a preliminary investigation conducted before being bound over to trial for a
criminal offense and hence formally at risk of incarceration or some other penalty is not a mere
formal or technical right; it is a SUBSTANTIVE RIGHT. To deny the accuseds claim to a preliminary
investigation would be to deprive him of the full measure of his right to due process.
Salonga v. Pao
-
The court found the supposed evidence against him extremely tenuous; the testimony of the
prosecution witnesses was contradictory and incredible, if not at times exculpatory; a
photograph in which he and another accused appeared was rejected as evidence of subversion,
as so too was the claim that his house had been used as a contract point of the conspirators;
10
and certain remarks made by the petitioner which were critical of the Marcos administration
were considered protected by freedom of expression.
SELF-INCRIMINATION
ART. III. SEC. 17
No person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.
-
This right is
proceedings,
claimed not
incriminating
available not only in criminal prosecutions but also in all other government
including civil actions and administrative or legislative investigations. It may be
only by the person accused of an offense but by any witness to whom an
question is addressed.
The prohibition applies to the compulsion for the production of documents, papers and chattels
that may be used as evidence against the witness, except where the State has a right to
inspect the same, such as the books of accounts of corporations, under the police power.
Where a person charged with rape was examined for gonorrhea, which might have been
transmitted to the victim, the Supreme Court held the examination to be valid, saying it was no
different from examining his fingerprints or other parts or features of his body for identification
purposes.
Chavez v. CA
-
Convicted on the strength of testimony elicited from the accused as the star witness for the
prosecution, he filed a petition for habeas corpus which the Supreme Court granted. Accused is a
defendant in a criminal case. The purpose of calling an accused as a witness for the People would
be to incriminate him. The rule positively intends to avoid and prohibit the certainly inhuman
procedure of compelling a person to furnish the missing evidence necessary for his conviction.
WAIVER
-
The right against self-incrimination may be waived, either directly or by a failure to invoke it,
provided the waiver is certain and unequivocal and intelligently, understandingly and willingly
made.
CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION
ART. III. SEC. 12
(1) Any person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have the right
to be informed of his right to remain silent and to have competent and independent
counsel preferably of his own choice. If the person cannot afford the services of
counsel, he must be provided with one. These rights cannot be waived except in
writing and in the presence of counsel.
11
(2) No torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation or any other means which vitiate the
free will shall be used against him. Secret detention places, solitary, incommunicado,
or other similar forms of detention are prohibited.
(3) Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this or Section 17 hereof shall be
inadmissible in evidence against him.
(4) The law shall provide for penal and civil sanctions for violations of this section as well
as compensation to and rehabilitation of victims of torture or similar practices, and
their families.
-
Custodial investigation means 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.
R.A. 7438 custodial investigation 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.
The operative act of custodial investigation is when the police investigation is no longer a general
inquiry into an unsolved crime but has begun to focus on a particular suspect who has been taken
into custody by the police to carry out a process of interrogation that lends itself to eliciting
incriminatory statements.
Voluntary;
With assistance of counsel;
In writing; and
Express
BAIL
ART. III. SEC. 13
All persons, except those charged with offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua when
evidence of guilt is strong, shall, before conviction, be bailable by sufficient sureties, or be
released on recognizance as may be provided by law The right to bail shall not be impaired
even when the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is suspended. Excessive bail shall not be
required.
Bail
is the security given for the release of a person in custody of the law, furnished by him or a
bondsman, conditioned upon his appearance before any court as may be required.
Only person under detention may petition for bail, for the purpose of bail is to secure their
provisional release. It follows that one who is not in the custody of the law cannot ask for
bail.
12
PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE
ART. III. SEC. 14(a)
In all criminal prosecution, the accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is
proved
RIGHT TO BE HEARD
and shall enjoy the right to be heard by himself and counsel
NATURE AND CAUSE OF ACCUSATION
to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him
People v. Ramirez
-
It was held that a person charged with rape, of which he was later absolved, could not be
convicted of qualified seduction, which was not included in the information.
TRIAL IN ABSENTIA
Requisites:
1) The accused has already been arraigned
2) He has been duly notified of the trial
3) His failure to appear is unjustified
RIGHT TO CONFRONTATION
to meet the witnesses face to face
-
A person cannot be convicted by mere affidavits except otherwise provided for by law.
COMPULSORY PROCESS
and to have compulsory process to secure the attendance of witnesses and the
production of evidence in his behalf.
-
The accused is entitled under the Constitution to the issuance of subpoena and subpoena
duces tecum for the purpose of compelling the attendance of witnesses and the production
of evidence that he may need for his defense.
PROHIBITED PUNISHMENTS
SEC. 19
(1)
Excessive fines shall not be imposed, nor cruel, degrading or inhuman punishment
inflicted. Neither shall the death penalty be imposed, unless, for compelling reasons
13
involving heinous crimes, the Congress hereafter provides for it. Any death penalty
already disposed shall be reduced to reclusion perpetua.
(2)
DOUBLE JEOPARDY
SEC. 21
No person shall be twice put in jeopardy of punishment for the same offense. If an
act is punished by a law and an ordinance, conviction or acquittal under either shall constitute
a bar to another prosecution for the same act.
-
The right against double jeopardy prohibits the prosecution again of any person for a crime
of which he has previously been acquitted or convicted.
REQUISITES:
1)
2)
3)
4)
CRIMES COVERED
-
If the four above-stated elements of double jeopardy are present, the accused may not be
prosecuted anew for the original offense charged, or for any attempt to commit the same or
frustration thereof, or for any offenses which necessarily includes or is necessarily included
in the offense charged in the original complaint or information.
The accused may be prosecuted for another offense if a subsequent development changes the
character of the first indictment under which he may have already been charged or convicted.
People v. Adil
-
The accused was first prosecuted for slight physical injuries, but after he had pleaded not
guilty, the charge was changed to serious physical injuries when it appeared that the wounds
inflicted on the victim, after healing, had left permanent scars on his face. The Supreme Court
held there was no double jeopardy as the deformity did not exist and could not have been
apprehended at the time the first information was filed.
14
1) The graver offense developed due to supervening facts arising from the same act or omission
constituting the former charge;
2) The facts constituting the grave charge became known or were discovered only after the filing of
the former complain or information;
3) The plea of guilty to the lesser offense was made without the consent of the prosecutor and of the
offended party except as provided in Section 1(f) of Rule 116.
INSEPARABLE OFFENSES
-
Where one offense is inseparable from another and proceeds from the same act, they
cannot be the subject of separate prosecutions.
However, if it is possible for one act to give rise to several crimes, in which case separate
prosecutions for each crime may be filed, provided the elements of the several crimes are
not identical.
If an act is punished by a law and an ordinance, conviction or acquittal under either shall constitute
a bar to another prosecution for the same act. Example: A person convicted of jueteng under a
municipal ordinance may not again be charged with the same act under the provisions of Art. 195
of the RPC punishing the same act.
15
1973 CONSTITUTION
Art. III. Sec. 1. The following are citizens of the Philippines:
(1) Those who are citizens of the Philippines at the time of the adoption of this Constitution;
(2) Those whose fathers or mothers are citizens of the Philippines;
(3) Those who elect Philippine citizenship pursuant to the provisions of the Constitution of nineteen
hundred and thirty-five; and
(4) Those who are naturalized in accordance with law.
1935 CONSTITUTION
The following are citizens of the Philippines:
(1) Those who were citizens of the Philippine Islands at the time of the adoption of the Commonwealth
Constitution on November 15, 1935;
(2) Those born in the Philippine Islands of foreign parents who, prior to the adoption of the
Commonwealth Constitution, had been elected to public office in the Philippine Islands;
(3) Those whose fathers were citizens of the Philippines;
(4) Those whose mothers were citizens of the Philippines, upon attaining majority age, elected
Philippine citizenship; and
(5) Those who were naturalized in accordance with law.
16
Revocation on the grounds affecting the intrinsic validity of the proceedings shall divest the wife
and children of their derivative naturalization.
But if the ground was personal to the denaturalized Filipino, as where he permanently resides in a
foreign country after his naturalization, his wife and children shall retain their Philippine citizenship.
17
Republic of the Philippines during the period of his service to, or commission in, the armed
forces of said foreign country. Upon his discharge from the service of the said foreign country,
he shall be automatically entitled to the full enjoyment of his civil and political rights as a
Filipino citizen;
5. By cancellation of the certificate of naturalization;
6. By having been declared by competent authority, a deserter of the Philippine armed forces in time
of war, unless subsequently, a plenary pardon or amnesty has been granted; and
7. In case of a woman, upon her marriage, to a foreigner if, by virtue of the laws in force in her
husbands country, she acquires his nationality.
REPATRIATION
-
The act of repatriation allows him to recover or return to his original status before he lost his
Philippine citizenship.
DUAL CITIZENSHIP
-
is now recognized in this country and allows natural-born Filipinos to enjoy the rights they used to
enjoy here before they acquired a new citizenship abroad.
NATURAL-BORN CITIZENS
Sec. 2
Natural-born citizens are those who are citizens of the Philippines from birth without
having to perform any act to acquire or perfect their Philippine citizenship. Those who elect
Philippine citizenship in accordance with paragraph (3), Section 1 hereof shall be deemed
natural-born citizens.
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9225
- Otherwise known as the Citizenship Retention and Reacquisition Act of 2003
- provides for the restoration or retention of the original citizenship of any natural-born Filipino who has
acquired citizenship in a foreign country through naturalization proceedings, provided he takes the oath.
18