WARRANTLESS ARREST Who enjoys the right to search and seizure? Citizens and aliens.

. This is against any government agency or law enforcer. You cannot invoke this against private person who touches you or military unless they are delegated to do so (policeman, NBI agent, baranggay tanod.) In a SW, there is no need of a pending case in court before the court issues a SW. The warrant of arrest presupposes the pendency of a criminal case. As a consequence of which, the court issues the warrant of arrest in order so that the accused will be placed immediately under the custody of law so that the prosecution can start. Right against unreasonable S&S is addressed only against law enforcers or the State and general.

c. d.

e.

f.

Accused submits himself to lawful authority. When the person who is to be arrested was committing, is about to commit, or has committed a crime in the presence of the officer. Accused arrested in a hot pursuit. Crime has committed and the arresting officer has sufficient facts that the accused committed the crime. Accused is an escapee from jail.

What would be the span of time between the arrest and search? Immediately. Simultaneously, if possible. It should be within the area of control of the accused. The requirement of incidental search must be made within the premises of the control of the accused. This is to prevent the planting of evidence. Bano case - Accused was arrested. He alleged that he was arrested without a warrant. Arresting office requested accused to bring him to accusers house where he found firearms. Are the firearms admissible in evidence having

Is it necessary to always have a SW to have a valid search? There

are exceptions provided by decisions of the SC. Case: WON there was a valid waiver when the policeman asked the accused to open his hands. The accused voluntarily opened his hands. It was found that his hands contained shabu. The mere act of silence does not constitute a valid waiver of the right to unreasonable search and seizure. Valid Warrantless Search & Seizures 1. Waiver of the right to unreasonable S&S - giving of consent Actual knowledge of the fact that you have that right. You relinquish that right. 2. Stop & Frisk (body search) Terry Doctrine - refers to the stop and frisk doctrine; if the police officer has the reasonable ground or suspicion that the accused may be committing a crime or may be into an illegal activity, he can be stopped. For the protection of the law enforcer, he may do a limited protected search (limited on the outer garments). The policeman cannot put his hands into the pockets of the accused. He cannot make an extensive search. The search is limited to patting. This is to check if the accused is concealing deadly weapons that may be used against the law enforcer. In the event the law enforcer will find contraband, can he be arrested without a warrant? YES. The arrest doesnt fall under the stop & frisk. It falls under Sec. 5, Rule 113 of the ROC. The accused was caught in flagrante delicto, that the accused is committing a crime in his presence. What comes first is the search which may result to an arrest. 3. Search incidental to a lawful arrest Arrest must be lawful and immediately after the arrest, you make a search. Assess if the arrest is lawful. If unlawful, search will also be unlawful. Evidence obtained through unlawful searches is deemed inadmissible to court. (Doctrine of the fruit of the poisonous tree) Reasons: a. Make sure no deadly attack will made upon the law enforcer. b. Prevent accused to destroy evidence that may be used against him. When is there a lawful arrest? When there is a warrant of arrest. There are exceptions:

been ceased incidental to a lawful arrest? Can they be considered as incidental? No, the seizure was invalid because

it wasnt made within the premises of control of the accused. Case - Accused after he was arrested if he had more of the drugs. Accused said yes therefore arresting officers accompanied him to his home. There they found more drugs. Are the drugs considered incidental? No. Case - Man was simply standing. Police thought he was suspicious. Police arrested him and searched him where the police found grenades. Was the arrest lawful? No. He wasnt committing a crime while he was arrested. Looking at the sky isnt a crime. Was the search of the grenades incidental? No. There was no lawful arrest. Guy was arrested while driving his motorcycle carrying with him a rooster. He was plugged down by the police officer asking him who owned the rooster. He was searched and the officers found an unlicensed firearm. Was there a lawful arrest? No. He wasnt committing a crime. Its not a crime to carry a rooster at early dawn. Therefore the search wasnt incidental. The firearm cannot be admissible to evidence. Hot pursuit cannot be claimed by the policemen because there was no prior report that the guy committed or will commit a crime. Accused was acquitted because there was an intrusion to his privacy. A violation of his constitutional right he gets away with a violation of law. People vs. Momstead - there was a dissenting opinion that was more logical. There was a person reported to watch out for a Caucasian. Authorities searched the bus and asked the Caucasian for his passport which he couldnt produce. Authorities searched the man and found hashish. Was the search incidental to a lawful arrest? In the dissenting opinion, it was stated that you cannot use hashish as the evidence because it wasnt a search incidental to a lawful arrest. The search preceded the arrest. On the other hand, majority of the opinion of the SC stated that the moment he was asked for identification papers, he failed to produce it and violated the law. Therefore he was committing a crime that will justify the arrest. The circumstances would appear that the arrest was made first then the arrest. This shouldnt be so. The arrest should occur first prior the arrest.

University of San Carlos / LLB 1 / RM 410 1

Other exceptions: 1. Search of moving vehicles - For practical reasons. The vehicle can easily move away. Search is limited to visual search. Body search cannot be made upon the driver and passengers of the vehicle. (People vs. Padilla - they saw the firearms on the floor of the vehicle w/o further search; there was a valid search but limited only to visual search) Exception: Where probably caused is established that the thing their looking for is in the vehicle and that the passengers are involved in a crime, an extensive search can be made by the law enforcers in the vehicle as well as the passengers and drivers. Initial determination of probable cause belongs the police officers. Subsequent and final determination belongs to the judge. Bagalihog vs. Fernandez - Motorcycle parked near a Nipa hut was used in the commission of the crime. The motorcycle was seized by the policeman. Is the motorcycle admissible or inadmissible? It is inadmissible because there was no search warrant when it was seized. There was no urgency. It cant be considered a moving vehicle because it was just parked. Case - Guy was disembarking from a vessel wherein he was searched. Contraband was found. He was arrested thereafter. Was the search valid and is the contraband considered admissible evidence? No. The search doesnt fall under the exception of search of moving vehicles. Search wasnt done in a moving vehicle because the vessel already docked and the accused has already disembarked. As to the passengers, they may be asked to step down or go out of the vehicle but body searches cannot be done upon them unless the passenger consents. Checking at airports/seaports Limited to visual search unless probable cause is proved then extensive search may be done. RA6245 - It has to be stated as one of the conditions that should you refuse to have yourself searched or luggage searched, that could be a ground for refusal.

search warrant list. If is apparent to the eye and is prohibited, it can be seized. Ex. In a search for illegal possession of firearms and in the course of the search, you find shabu on the table, can you seize the shabu and charge the person for illegal possession of drugs? Yes, as long as the following requisites are present: There has to be a prior valid intrusion into the premises. Item is apparent to the authorities. Ex. Search warrant orders the S&S of unlicensed firearms. In the course of the search, found inside a teacup were sachets of shabu. Can the sachets be seized? Yes, because they are prohibited by law. Can they be used against the accused for the illegal possession of drugs? No. They cant be considered as evidence of plain view. Finding of the evidence must be accidental. If you directly look for it, it cant be considered evidence in plain view. Ex. They were looking for drugs. In the course of looking for drugs, they saw something on the table wrapped in a newspaper. They unwrapped it and found marijuana. Can it be considered evidence in plain view? No. It is not immediately apparent to the eye. Can the marijuana be seized? Yes, since it is prohibited. People vs. Go - Counterfeiting of Chinese visa. They raided the office with a search warrant and confiscated some documents. The dry seal and the rubber stamp were seized even if they werent part of the search warrant. It was later found out that both were used in the counterfeiting. Are both items considered evidence in plain view? Yes. They were simply taken from the table. Are the stamp and dry seal admissible evidence? No. It wasnt immediately apparent that the items were used in the counterfeiting. It was only after the confirmation of the DFA. 5. Reasons of exigency or emergency. Armed conflict or civil war. Crimes committed on occasion of a disaster or calamity. Search and seizures can be made without a warrant.

2.

People vs. Canton - one of the exceptions to do a search without a warrant conducted at the airport. People vs. Suzuki - involved a foreigner to a Bacolod/Iloilo flight. When they opened a box of piayaya was a box of shabu. He complained that the search was invalid. The court ruled that the passenger consented and that the search was done in an airport therefore, no search warrant was needed. GR: Smuggled goods can be searched without a warrant. Except, if smuggled goods are inside the dwelling house, it cannot be searched without a warrant. People vs. Johnson 3. Border checkpoints - There is no need for probable cause in order to make a search. Evidence in plain view - evidence which is directly apparent to the eye of the searching party even if it is not listed in the

Common denominator - because it is without a warrant, the search is limited as to not harass the person being searched.

What is the remedy if there was a violation of this right? (There

was no warrant and does not fall under exceptions.) - You can sue the person who did that for damages. This is a civil liberty. Secondly, the evidence obtained even if it will established the truth, if illegally obtained cannot be used as evidence against the accused. You can use the evidence against the violator to file an administrative case. Thirdly, apply for an application for a writ of replevin for recovery of goods unless items are prohibited. If prohibited, items will remain under the custody of the courts. Valid Warrantless Arrests 1. In flagrante delicto. - the accused is committing or has committed or is about to commit a crime in the presence of the arresting officer. The arresting officer even if not policemen can make the arrest even if without the warrant. When you make an arrest, you must consider Art. 125 of the RPC on illegal detention or arbitrary detention. If it is an ordinary citizen who makes an arrest, he must surrender him

4.

University of San Carlos / LLB 1 / RM 410 2

to the nearest police station immediately. If light offense, within 12 hours; if less grave offense, 18 hours; for grave offenses, 36 hours. This should be done from the time of the arrest. Reason: It takes time for a warrant of arrest to be issued. The criminal may be able to escape. Continuing offenses by the accused even if the elements constituting the crime was not witnessed by the arresting officer -- can be arrested without warrant. (Ex. Rebellion, kidnapping) Larranaga case - Arrested in Manila without a warrant. Arrest was valid because the victim was not found yet. Kidnapping is considered a continuing offense. In the presence of the arresting officer, as long as the commission of the crime is within the ear shock of the arresting officer and when he went to the crime scene, he saw somebody dead or injured and the accused was about to run away, can the accused be arrested? Yes. He was committing a crime in the presence of the arresting officer. 2. Hot pursuit. - A crime was in fact committed but however in this case, the arresting officer is not present but (1) he must personal knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be arrest committed the crime. (2) There must be immediacy from the commission of the crime to the time the accused was actually arrested.

Ex. If you think the arrest was irregular and never questioned it and was arraigned and entered a plea of not guilty. Can you question the validity of arrest.? No. Can you question the validity of the S&S? Yes. Damages - file an administrative case against the police for damages PRIVACY OF COMMUNICATION & CORRESPONDENCE It should be inviolable unless there is a lawful order of the Court. Lawful order refers to a search warrant. Privacy of communication & correspondence - any form of communications; mass media, telecommunications, letters, electronic communications Nobody can just open your letters without your knowledge and consent. Nobody can just listen into conversation or record them. There are several laws to implement communication and correspondence: the privacy of

Go case - Atenean was shot because he stole the parking slot of Go. The accused went the police station asking if he was the person alluded as the shooter. A witness saw him and said that he was the person who shot the victim. Go was arrested right there and then. Robin Padilla case - arrest in hot pursuit 3. Escapee from jail.

Anti Wire Tapping Act - RA 4200; it is not allowed to record conversations especially from telephone calls. The only exception is if it made through an extension line. If you record it from an extension line, it may be inadmissible. There is no expectation of privacy from an extension line. Publication by transcribing the illegal conversation (Hello Garci case) is prohibited. The only exception to the publication is that there must be a warrant and that public interest or national security are affected by it. The Hello Garci case was only disclosed after the elections therefore it no longer involved public interest.

What will be the remedy of the accused arrested without a warrant? If he is arrested with no case file din court, he can apply

for a writ of habeas corpus or writ of amparo to question the validity of his arrest and detention OR he can post bail. As long as he is deprived of his physical liberty, he can avail of bail. Before filing the case in court, remedies are: 1. Writ of habeas corpus 2. Writ of amparo 3. Post bail 4. Sue for damages

If somebody is harassing you by calling your number, can you ask the telecommunication station to bug your landline so that it can be recorded and you can trace the caller? No. That would be

violation of the privacy of communication and correspondence. The remedy would be to apply for a warrant in court. The warrant must state the violation and who the person could be. The thing to be searched here is the conversation (communication.) Human Security Act - The government or military can bug any conversation involving terrorism activity without need of a court order as long as it refers to terrorist activities. Zulueta vs. CA - Wife was suspecting that the husband was playing fire with somebody else. Husband was a doctor. What the wife did was to ransack the table of the husband and found all the love letters. Are they admissible in evidence against the husband? No. It violated the privacy of communication and correspondence. Can it be used against the wife for violating? Yes. Ramirez vs. IAC - Two persons were fighting. Without the knowledge of the other, she recorded the argument. Is the recording admissible? No. It was a violation of the privacy of

If the case has already been filed, can you still post bail or avail of the writ of habeas corpus? No. Once the case is filed in court
and a warrant of arrest is issued, it will cure the defect of the illegal arrest. The habeas corpus will become moot and academic. The posting of bail is considered a provisional liberty. It is a matter of right before conviction. On the other hand, the writ of amparo will still prosper. The threat to life, liberty, and property can sill subsist even if a case has already been filed. When do you question the validity of your arrest? You must raise the issue before entering a plea. Once you allowed yourself to be arraigned, you have allowed yourself to be arrested.

University of San Carlos / LLB 1 / RM 410 3

communication and correspondence. Can the recording be used against the person who recorded it? Yes. Letters of prisoners - Routine inspection of jail warden and found under the pillow was a letter of the accused admitting that he committed the crime. Can it be used as evidence against the accused? If the letter isnt labeled personal and confidential, then it can be opened or read. Prisoners dont enjoy the same privileges. If it was a random inspection then the prisoner can claim that his privacy to communication was violated. But since this case involved a routine inspection, his claim cannot prosper. Without an order from the court, you cannot intrude into the privacy of communication and correspondence. Any information obtained in violation of said privacy is considered as inadmissible evidence. Exceptions to the right of communication & correspondence: 1. When there is a lawful order from the court - Apply for a warrant. Comply with the requisites of acquiring a valid warrant. Subject of the search is the communication (Ex Telephone call - conversation). You can only estimate what could be the subject matter of the conversation. 2. When public safety or public order requires otherwise - Public safety and public order are determined by law. The law provides from the basis and for the President to implement it. Ex. Human Security Act - law that provides for that provides authority to the President to determine when to interfere into the privacy of communication and correspondence. A letter is opened by a private courier. Can that be done? As long as it was not the law enforcer who did it, it is admissible evidence. The right to search and seizure only covers law enforcers. On the other hand, it makes more sense if this is considered a violation of the right to privacy of communication and correspondence. The private individual can sue the private courier for violation of privacy of communication and correspondence. LIBERTY OF ABODE & RIGHT TO TRAVEL Liberty of abode - Right to choose where you want to live. Includes the right to change the same as long it is within the limits prescribed by law. Right to travel - Right to go wherever you want to go within the country or outside of the country. There is no provision that if you go out of the country, you can return. It is not impliedly provided or embodied in the provision.

Limitations: 1987 Constitution Lawful order of the court. There should be an order from the court before this right to choose on where to live is availed. The court follows what the law says. It may also be regulated by the exercise of the police power of the State. Cuenca vs. Salazar - House helper who was homesick. She wanted to go home. The employee wouldnt allow her because she didnt complete the payment of her cash advancements. Can she leave her employer? Yes, because of the liberty of abode. Case - The SC sustained the liberty of abode. The women still enjoy the rights. How about if the mayor orders the evacuation of the residents due to danger from a landslide that may be caused by the eruption of the Mayon Volacano? Or those caught in cross fire due to the MILF rebels? Can they be compelled by the Mayor or military commander to leave their residences? They cannot be compelled because the only limitation to the liberty of abode is lawful order of the court. The circumstances do not fall under this limitation. (Alternative answer Yes, it can be justified by the States ability to exercise police power.)

RIGHT TO TRAVEL
Limitation - National security, public safety or public health, AND lawful order of the court (for those who have posted bail.) Does not include the right to return to ones country. Another limitation is when one posts bail. Right to travel may be limited. The right to travel is not absolute. It is not the court that limits the right to travel. It is the administrative officer or agency. (Ex. DFA) It must be authorized by law.

If DFA denies your passport, would that be a violation to your right to travel? No, if it curtails public safety, public health, and
national security. Miriam Defensor case - Wasnt allowed to leave the country for a scholarship in Harvard. She made an undertaking stating that whenever she would be needed, she would be present. If not followed, bail bond will be cancelled and a warrant of arrest will be issued. SC ruled that the matter of right to travel can be limited or regulated by an order of the court. Manotoc vs. CA - Departure was held because there were cases filed in court against them. SC ruled that the right to travel isnt an absolute right. *Landmark case of Salonga vs. Hermosa - Salonga was refused to go abroad because he had a pending rebellion case. SC ruled that the government shouldnt impress upon the people that the right to travel can be subjected to inconvenience. The right to travel does not guaranty that you will be allowed to return to the country after. Marcos case - When they left for the US, there were no

LIBERTY OF ABODE
Limitations: 1973 Constitution 1. Lawful order 2. When public safety/order, public health or national security as may be determined by law requires it

University of San Carlos / LLB 1 / RM 410 4

documents that documented it. They wanted to return to the Philippines but was refused by the Secretary of Foreign Affairs. This situation involves a political question. Even if it is a political prerogative of the President, it can still be looked into by the judiciary if it curtails abuse of the power of the President. Under the declaration of human rights, the SC stated that there is a provision there that guarantees that a citizen can return to his country of origin. Therefore, the Marcoses were allowed to return, GAPIL -- part of the legal system. It should be applied as if they are existing statutes in the Philippines. FREEDOM OF RELIGION Non-establishment of Religion - take note of the requisites Freedom of Religion - take note of the limitations Religious Tests - clear and present danger rule; no religious test Law guarantees that the State doesnt have any religion because of the separation or the church and State. How should the State treat other religions? The State must remain neutral. It should neither promote or discriminate any other religion. Estrada vs. Escritor - benevolent neutrality accommodation. One is allowed to freely exercise ones religion even if the State doesnt have any religion. Exceptions to the free exercise of religion: 1. Tax exemptions to properties that are actually directly and exclusively used for religious purposes. Limited only on property tax. 2. Religious instruction. This does not apply to private entities. The provisions of the law only apply to public institutions. (Exceptions (1) there must be written consent from the parents (2) done during regular hours in school (3) doesnt cause damage to the State) 3. Ownership and administration of educational institutions administrators must be Filipinos (Exception if the school is established by a religious mission or board who are managed by foreigners as administrators) 4. Appropriation of public funds Public funds are only to be used for public purpose and shouldnt be used for the support of any religion, religious sect, or religious individual except if the person is assigned in the military, AFP, penal institution, government orphanages, or leprosarium Celebration of holidays - it is not for the purpose of celebrating of the birth of Jesus Christ. It is so that people can use these days to meet with family and relaxation time thus resulting to the promotion of general welfare. Requisites WON there is a violation of the establishment of religion: 1. Purpose must be secular and legislative benefit to the religion should only be incidental

purpose of the stamp was not to promote religion but promote the Philippines as the venue of the said Eucharistic Congress. The purpose here is secular. 2. 3. It neither advances nor inhibits religion. There shouldnt be any excessive entanglement or involvement of the State as far as the benefit of religion is concerned. Blue Sunday Law - unconstitutional because it tends to establish a particular religion Estrada vs. Escritor take note of this case Intramural Disputes - religious disputes; resolution of the conflict can only be made by the rules and regulations of a particular church; the State cannot interfere. Case If the issue is on property rights, then the Court has jurisdiction but if the issue hinges on the validity of the appointment of the new priest, his entitlement to the property depends on WON the appointment is valid, then the courts dont have jurisdiction. Marriages - Rule in the church is that a person cant remarry in the same church if the church hasnt annulled your marriage. Is this binding on the State? No, there is no establishment of religion. Even if you were married in the church, in the eyes of civil law, you are married. You can remarry in the church only after the court declares your previous marriage null and void or after the court declares your marriage null and void, you can marry in another church. For as long they do not involve property rights or civil rights, the State must not interfere conflicts within a particular church or religion. TWO ASPECTS 1. Freedom to believe - absolute; no limitations as long as they remain in the State of your mind, you will not be enduring anybodys rights. 2. Freedom to exercise ones belief - not absolute; it shouldnt be contrary to law or against public morals and interest Estrada vs. Escritor - Escritor quarrelling with the judge and led to the slapping of each other and resulting to the dismissal of the judge. The judge instigated another person to file a case against Escritor on the ground of gross immoral conduct. Escritor belongs to the religion of Jehovahs witness and in their religion it is okay to get involved in a relationship asides from their marriage. One is free to exercise his beliefs so long as he doesnt impair national security and public interest. Halal case - for as long as it will not cause danger to the community, the Muslims can declare whatever food as Halal. (take note of this case) Gerona case - Salute flag case. There is no religious significance with regards to the flag. It symbolizes love of country. The students were expelled. 10 years after, the decision was

Aglipay vs. Ruiz - Postal stamps and what was reflected was

the Eucharistic symbol of the Catholic Church. The primary

University of San Carlos / LLB 1 / RM 410 5

reversed. The Jehovas witnesses were very persistent in not saluting the Filipino flag. The SC this time sustained the freedom of religion. For as long as there is no imminent danger and clear and present danger to national security and public interest, if allowed to exercise his freedom of religion then by all means the person is allowed to enjoy his freedom of religion. Baranggan case - limitation on the freedom of religion. Every Thursday, people go to St. Judes church for a novena. A group of people were not allowed to enter the church. They were all wearing yellow and carrying placards. They invoked freedom of religion. SC ruled that there was a presence or imminent danger if they were allowed to enter the premises of the Church. Tolentino vs. Sec. of Finance - imposition of finances on religious articles that had been sold. Religious sect alleged that by imposing taxes on the articles will limit the freedom of religion. SC ruled that imposing taxes there is no violation of freedom of religion. They are not prohibited to sell the religious articles. The imposition of taxes is to defray the cost of registration. TEST Clear and present danger to national security, public health, public morale, public order, public interest. Religion should not be a qualification in order for one to exercise his civil or political right. Pamel case - Fr. Gonzaga ran for mayor and won. However he was disqualified because of a certain provision in the Administrative Code. Fr. Gonzaga invoked that religion should not be a qualification in order for one to exercise his civil or political right. SC ruled in Fr. Gonzagas favor.

Central Hudson Gas vs. Public Service Commission commercial speech can be regulated if government has substantial interest to protect (protection of minors); they can only enjoy the protection if they are not false or misleading and dont propose an illegal transaction Libel - what constitutes libel cannot be protected by law. Although good faith is a defense. (1) placing a person in embarrassment or public contempt Seditious speeches - if a person would instigate people to rise and go against the government Obscenity - obscene speeches are not protected by law; Censorship 1. Control based regulation - extent of the restraint is 2. Regulation ??? Freedom of Press - any mass medium of communication/all forms of publication or mass media is covered by the freedom of press. Includes printed publications, movies and films, etc. It includes the right to information on matters of public concern and the freedom of circulation. The press has the right to access of information. It is a political right. It is only enjoyed by Filipino citizens/media. On top of the corollary rights there is also the freedom of circulation and right to information on matters of public concern. Includes the freedom to publish ones materials. Media criticizing the government/government officials - what would be the extent of the exercise of the freedom of press? The guaranty is that they are free to say whatever they want to say and express it the way they like however, libelous, seditious, and obscene press is not protected by law. Criticisms are all right as long as they are accurate, specific, must not be personal. It should refer to official acts and not personal acts. As long as the report is fair, true, and honest, libel may be defeated. Borjal vs. CA - take note of this case This doesnt apply to the administration of justice. Includes proceedings, decisions, and the SC. Proceedings Estrada vs. Sandiganbayan - SC said in so far as proceedings are concerned, in order not to subject the court and accused undue or prejudicial publicity, there is a limitation to it. The justices of the Sandiganbayan are human as any other person. They get affected by the taking of pictures much more the broadcasting of the proceedings or taking a video of their actions inside the Court. They will, like other people, no longer act natural and be conscious. It violates of due process of law. What would be the extent of media in the exercise of freedom of press in covering proceedings? They can take videos and pictures

If USC required its enrollees to be Catholics, is this a violation of the freedom to religion? No, because USC is a private entity.
FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION For as long as it is not libelous and seditious, you are protected by law. Freedom of religion is actually part of freedom expression. Freedom of speech - not limited to oral utterances. It also includes any act conveying a message to the public.

Can you picket an establishment to express your sentiments without establishing your relationship with the establishment?
Yes. Picketing is part of your freedom of speech. Picketing belongs to the right of freedom of speech. The no need of the establishment of the employer-employee relationship refers to ones freedom of speech. Ordinary speech - you can say whatever you want to say and the only limitation is that it shouldnt be obscene, libelous, or seditious Commercial speech - refers to advertisements; (1) shouldnt be false or misleading (2) shouldnt propose illegal transactions (3) government should have substantial interest

University of San Carlos / LLB 1 / RM 410 6

limited to the Court, judicial personnel, and the lawyers. If the parties will agree, they can take photos or videos of them as well. This all should be done before the proceedings will begin. If they violate this, they can be cited for contempt. Reporting what would be the extent of the reporting? It is only limited to the factual accounts of the proceedings. They cant make personal comments regarding the proceedings.

They have the power to screen all TV programs. Whether it is religious public affairs or news documentary, they are under the jurisdiction of MTRCB and they are subject to review. Soriano vs. La Guardia - MTRCB may not suspend TV personalities for such is beyond their jurisdiction. They are only limited to reviewing TV programs. They dont have jurisdiction over the artists or the performs in the said TV programs. 2. Freedom from subsequent liability

After the proceedings have been terminated and judgment has been rendered, can the media comment? Media can only make a

factual account of the proceedings or else it will constitute contemptuous act. If the case is already terminate, they can now make comments as long as it will not embarrass or insult the dignity of the Court especially if it is the SC. One can criticize a government official for as long as a fair and honest comment. This has a different view when it involves the courts. Freedom of Assembly - freedom to meet with friends and countrymen to discuss public concerns. It may done privately or publicly. Freedom of high restraint and censorship - you cannot hold rallies without a permit Bayan vs. Ermita - they wanted to use the public streets and they werent given a permit and they complained and alleged that it is tantamount to censorship. The Batas Pamabansa 880 invokes the requirement of a permit. Common denominator on all types of freedom expression The freedom from high restraint and censorship, freedom from subsequent liability.

Chavez vs. DOJ Secretary - Garci tapes aired on TV several times. The DOJ Secretary, an ally of the President, threatened the TV station that their license would be revoked. SC ruled that this threat is a violation of freedom of speech. The tapes pertain to the content of the speech itself and that there was no clear and present danger, therefore they should be allowed to practice their freedom of expression. **SWS vs. COMELEC - Results of election surveys should be published 15 days before the date of the election. COMELEC alleged that it is an infringement of the freedom of expression particularly the freedom of press. SC ruled that Sec. 5 of RA 9006 is invalid. It will infringe ones freedom of expression. This includes surveys, exit polls - they may be published even 1 day before the election date. (OBrien test was applied) OBrien test - there are certain requisites that must be complied with for the State to regulate the freedom of expression. Absolute privilege communication - cant be held criminally liable. However it is delivered, there is no liability except for administrative liability or disciplinary action by the House. (Parliamentary immunity even extends to their staff in the performance of legislative function) Qualified privilege communication - Borjal vs. CA It must be fair and true comments, must be based on a true comment. It must be for some moral or legal obligation. As long as there is no malice and is made in good faith, there is no liability. Constitutional speeches and expressions - Media reporter criticized the Roxas administration. He was charged with sedition. Martial Law - apply the dangerous tendency rule Obscenity - Miller vs. California presence of determination WON it is a work of art or if is obscene is the contemporaneous community standard Only the court can determine WON the material is obscene. The police cannot just seize a particular item that they think is obscene. They must secure a search warrant. FREEDOM OF ASSEMBLY Freedom to meet any of your friends or countrymen to discuss matters of public concern. You may meet publicly or privately.

COROLLARY RIGHTS TO FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION

1. Freedom of high restraint and censorship - You can say anything you want to say as long as it is not obscene or libelous.

Can the MTRCB censor or cut any portion of the film if they think its too violent or obscene? No. They can only classify the film.
They dont have the power to delete any scenes from a film. go to court.

Can MTRCB stop the showing of a film? Yes but they will need to
MTRCB can suspend the program but not he performers. Because of the guaranty of freedom of high restraining and censorship, MTRCB is only limited to classifying films and movies. However, they dont have any control on the actors or performs. They can only regulate the program or film.

If government asks for a copy of your speech before you speak to the public? This is a violation of the freedom of high restraint and
censorship. MTRCB vs. ABSCBN - The MTRCB was created through PD1986.

Do you need a permit to hold a rally? No. You dont need a

permit. There shouldnt be any advanced regulations before this right is exercised. For as long as the rally is not tumultuous, it is expected that it is a peaceful assembly.

University of San Carlos / LLB 1 / RM 410 7

school to enforce discipline among its students. BP 880 - requires a permit if you are to use a public place. According to the SC (Bayan vs. Ermita) this particular law merely requires a permit for the Court to regulate the manner, place, and time of the use of a public place. WON you have a permit or not, you have the right to rally or hold a public meeting. David et. al vs. Executive Secretary - They walked to EDSA to hold a rally. In the course of going there, they were asked for a permit. They were arrested. Is there a violation of their freedom of assembly? Yes. They werent using the public streets. They were merely passing by. Reyes vs. Bagatsing - Merely regulates the time, manner, and place of the use of the public place. BP 880 Exceptions: (No permit is needed even if the rally is held in a public place) 1. Holding a rally in a freedom park. It has to be declared a freedom park by the State. 2. Holding a rally in a State University of school campus. However, you will need to ask the permission of the school administration. 3. Holding a rally or meeting in ones own private place. When a permit is required the basis of the LGU in determining if it should be granted or not: 1. Purpose Test - What is the purpose of the rally or meeting? 2. Auspices Test - They have to determine who are the organizers of the assembly or meeting. They will also follow the test on clear and present danger. Regulation of the government to require a permit: When they regulate your freedom of assembly, they do it in installment basis. Applying the CPR principle (Calibrated, pre-emptive, regulation) Bayan vs. Ermita - The CPR has no place in this country. As much as possible, since the prevailing principle in so far as the enjoyment of freedom of assembly is maximum tolerance, as long as there is no clear and present danger, the State should practice maximum tolerance. Freedom of subsequent liability - Organizers of the rally cannot be liable for any death that will happen. Holding them liable is tantamount to the violation of the freedom of assembly. Only those who are directly responsible of the injury should be liable. Case - Teachers attending a rally in the MP. The MP ordered the teachers to go back to school because students were missing their class. The teachers didnt listen. Teachers were dismissed from service. Teachers alleged there was violation of the freedom of assembly. SC ruled that there was no violation to their freedom of assembly. They were dismissed due to insubordination by not following the order of a superior. With regards to students rights Just because you enrolled in a school, doesnt mean you stop exercising your freedom of expression. Although you must balance it with the power of the RE-DRESS OF GRIEVANCES You shouldnt be afraid to complain about the government. RIGHT TO INFORMATION ON MATTERS OF PUBLIC CONCERN & ACCESS TO OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS Sovereignty resides in the people thus government authority emanates from them. The only way they would know what is happening in the government is to give them access to official records and documents pertaining to government activities. This is a political right therefore, aliens dont enjoy this right. The discretion as to WON the information is a matter of public concern or WON how it should be accessed by the public is a discretion of the government. Once it is considered by the government as a public concern, then the matter becomes ministerial Government has no choice but to allow the people to access information regarding the matter. EXCEPTIONS: 1. Information pertaining to national security. 2. Intelligence reports - Investigative reports of law enforcers. They are not to be disclosed to the public. Premature disclosure to the public can result to ones criminal liability. 3. Trade secrets - Cannot be disclosed to the public especially those registered by the government. 4. Banking transactions - Under the secrecy law on bank accounts, they cannot be disclosed unless there is a case involving the bank account. 5. Diplomatic correspondence and negotiations - AKBAYAN vs. Aquino Agreement between Japan and the Philippines that Japan may dump their waste in our country. This was still under negotiation. AKBAYAN demanded that the negotiation should be disclosed to the public. The DTI secretary refused to disclose the negotiations. The justification was because it was still in the stage of negotiation, therefore it was still confidential. 6. Contracts - Chavez vs. Public Estate Authority there was a question of certain lots. These lots were negotiated for sale. The people wanted to know about the negotiations because these were government properties. The government refused to disclose the negotiations. SC ruled that even if it is still in the negotiation stage, as long as there are definite provisions in the contract, they may be disclosed to the public. 7. Executive privilege of the President - Neri vs. Senate Neri was asked to disclose the conversation he had with the President. Neri refused to divulge to the Senate regarding the conversation. Because of his refusal a warrant of arrest was issued against him. Neri asked for an injunction for the SC questioning the constitutionality of the issuance of the warrant of arrest. SC sustained Neri. 8. Closed door Cabinet meetings - any information cannot be leaked out. The media can be excluded from the meeting. 9. Executive sessions of Congress - media are excluded from the session of Congress. 10. Deliberations of the SC - Before any case is assigned to a

University of San Carlos / LLB 1 / RM 410 8

justice to write the decision, they will vote on it during a deliberation. It will be then assigned to a junior justice to write the decision. Limkaichong case - there was an accusation made by Congressman Paras that there was already a decision rendered however it was promulgated in favor of Limkaichong. 11. Cases involving adoption - as not to prejudice the interest of the minor child subject to adoption 12. Information regarding minors Legaspi Case - SC sustained the right of Atty. Legaspi to the right of information of matters of public concern. Qualifications of government officials is a matter of public concern. Valmonte vs. Belmonte - has reference to the people borrowing money from the GSIS. The loans were borrowed from the IMF through the government and the money went to these Congressmen. Valmonte wanted to know who these Congressmen were. Belmonte refused on the ground that the information is confidential. SC sustained Valmonte because the loans were partly paid by the public. Bara vs. COMELEC - questioning the non disclosure of the nominees of the party lists. They were afraid because they were all relatives of the President. COMELEC Chair refused to disclose the nominees. The SC said that it is very clear that the prohibition is with respect to the names of the nominees in the list that will be posted at the polling place on the day of the election. There is no prohibition of the disclosure of the list of the nominees in any other manner. Before election, they may be disclosed in the newspaper. SC said that there was a violation of a right to information since the COMELEC Chair refused to disclose the list of nominees. RIGHT TO FORM UNIONS AND ASSOCIATIONS Article 3. Section 8. Emphasis is made on the public sector. They can form, organize, join a union. The only difference between a union in a public sector and a union private sector is the right to strike. The right of association includes also the right not to be compelled to be a member of a union or association. You cannot be compelled by law to join an association if you dont want to. IBP - Once you become a lawyer, you automatically become a member of the IBP. It is mandatory to pay the dues. (Edillon case) Justification - police power in order that the administration of justice is protected. There are certain instances by way of an exception that you may not be allowed to join an association: 1. Supervisors are not allowed to form unions. 2. Unions that do acts contrary to law. 3. Security guards - for obvious reasons. They are armed and if they form a union, it would be easy to threat the employers to get what they want. 4. Political parties in participating in baranggay elections. - The

5.

purpose of the law is to have a grass root participation. The grass roots would be actively participating in the elections in the baranggay. Closed shop agreement

**Iglesia ni Christo/Elizalde Case - There was a close shop agreement in order to be a member of the union. The close shop agreement is an exception. For an employee to enjoy the privilege of the union, the employee must be a member of the union. The only exception to this is the invocation of the freedom of religion. Government employees can form unions but they dont have the right to join in any concerted activities. They have the right to strike but if theres a law that is against it, they are not allowed to join/organize a strike. **Pepsi Cola Union vs. Laguesma - Art. 125 of the Labor Code INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE Article 3. Section 18. No one can be forced to render service in favor of another. General Exception: When there is a lawful order of the court. When part of the sentence or judgment is to render forced labor. Even if there is a contract, you cannot be forced to render service if you no longer want to work for the company. Other Exceptions: 1. Can you be compelled by your parents to do household chores? Yes, if you are still under parental authority and still a minor. (Patria potestas) 2. Military service for the State - this is an obligation because if this becomes voluntary, nobody will voluntary to fight for the State 3. When working in a vessel for a contract or enlisted in the Navy - for as long as you are in the vessel, you are compelled to finish our contract. (port of origin - destination - port of origin) 4. Posse comitatus - where one can be compelled to render service to the community (ex. safeguarding the community, roving patrol services) 5. When the Department of Labor will order the return of the striking employees back to work. If they refuse, they can be dismissed from employment. NON IMPRISONMENT FOR NON PAYMENT OF DEBTS Article 3. Section 20. For as long as the obligation arises from a contract (contractual obligation) there is no imprisonment for non payment of debts. This becomes a civil obligation payable when able. The debt referred to here is arising from contracts. If it a results from a commission of a crime, the person can be put to jail. Trust receipts - violation of the trust receipt agreement results

University of San Carlos / LLB 1 / RM 410 9

from a commission of a crime BP 22 (Bouncing Checks Law) - If it was an evidence of debts or proof of the existence of the debts, no criminal liability. If it was a mode of payment and presumed to be funded, there is criminal liability. Qualified Theft - Youre a cashier and you borrowed money from the cash register directly. You failed to pay therefore you are indebted to the amount you took. Can you be imprisoned? Yes, because you committed the crime of qualified theft and not because you failed to pay a debt. Vergara vs. Gregorio - Debt refers to a civil debt, one not arising from a criminal offense. You cannot be imprisoned for non payment of rentals. You can only be ejected. Failure to pay hotel fees - Can you be imprisoned for failure to pay? Yes. You can be charged for estafa and be put to jail. Failure to give support - you can be imprisoned. If judgment was rendered for you to pay support and you failed to pay support - you cannot be imprisoned because it arises from a civil obligation. Non payment of poll tax/residence tax/community tax - Can you be put to jail? You cannot be imprisoned. Failure to pay income tax - You can be put to jail. WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS Protection of your civil liberty particularly your physical liberty. Can only be suspended in the ff cases: 1. When there is actual rebellion or invasion 2. When public safety requires it There must to be an actual rebellion or invasion for the writ of habeas corpus to be suspended.

aside by the President) What may the SC do? If the Congress does not revoke such proclamation or suspension, the SC can nullify it for the reason of insufficiency of factual basis for the declaration of martial law or suspension of the writ. The SC must have to decide on the case within 30 days from its filing. Such case may be filed by an ordinary citizen. Effects of Declaration of Martial Law: The Constitution is silent on what will happen but provides what should not happen when there is Martial Law. The following cannot be done when there is Martial Law: i. Suspend the operation of the Constitution. ii. Supplant the functioning of the civil courts and the legislative assemblies. iii. Confer jurisdiction upon the military courts and agencies over civilians, where civil courts are unable to function. iv. Automatically suspend the privilege of habeas corpus. What could obviously happen is that the President, with the military, will take over some government agencies that cannot function because of the threat/cause/rebellion or invasion. Writ - order of the court Habeas - to produce Corpus - body It applies to anyone who is deprived of his physical liberty. Ex. Those who have been hospitalized but however refused to be released from the hospital because they havent paid their hospital bills. The remedy of the patient is to apply for a writ of habeas corpus. The payment of undue bills becomes a civil liability of the patient.

Can you apply writ for habeas corpus for custody of children?

Yes. Generally under the law, if the child is under 7 years old, custody goes to the mother. Writ of amparo - broader compared to WHC. In WHC, scope is only deprivation of physical liberty. WAs scope is liberty in general - threat to right to life, security, and liberty; or threat of violation to your right. There should detention or deprivation of physical liberty before you can file for a WA. The mere threat of the violation to ones right to life, liberty or security can be a basis for a person to apply for a WA. In WHC, the moment the military denies that they dont have the subject or person, the court cannot go beyond that. They will dismiss the case. In WA, the mere denial of the military is not enough. The burden of proving that they dont have the body of the detainee is in the military.

Declaring Martial Law (based on old notes)

When may the President declare Martial Law? i. When there is rebellion or invasion ii. If public safety requires the declaration How to declare ML? i. Within 48 hours from the proclamation, the president shall submit a report in person or writing to Congress ii. When the president proclaims martial law or suspends the privilege of the writ, it shall be effective for 60 days unless sooner revoked by Congress iii. Upon such proclamation, Congress shall convene at once iv. The Congress shall then vote jointly, by an absolute majority. It has two options: To revoke such proclamation or suspension To extend it beyond the 60 day period of its validity What can Congress do? Congress can either revoke or extend such declaration or suspension. (such revocation cannot be set

Can WHC and WA go simultaneously? Yes.

On a matter of suspension In the constitution what can be suspended is the privilege of the WHC not the WA. Not the writ itself but only the privilege of the WHC. What is this privilege? privilege of the court to inquire the legality of the detention

University of San Carlos / LLB 1 / RM 410 10

Accused was arrested without a warrant charged with rape on the occasion where there was a suspension of the WHC. Accused now questions the validity of his arrest. He applies for WHC. Can the court issue the writ? Yes. Can the court through the WHC inquire to the legality of the detention? Yes. Rape has nothing to do with rebellion neither has it anything to do with invasion. The suspension of privilege relates only to offenses with regards to rebellion or invasion. 1987 Constitution - You cannot be detained for more than 3 days without being charged in court. Otherwise, you should be released. The suspension of the privilege of WHC is only good for 60 days. The actual detention though should not be more than 3 days.

(Following sections are based from Graces notes since I was absent when Judge discussed these parts.) When can that privilege be suspended?
When there is actual rebellion and invasion, when public safety requires it. Example: Rape on the occasion of suspension of writ of habeas corpus. Caught in the act, arrested and detained. He now questions and applies for writ of habeas corpus. The court can issue the writ because it is not suspended. The court can inquire because rape has nothing to do with rebellion or invasion. The suspension of the privilege relates only to offenses relating to either rebellion or invasion. Example: charged with rebellion. Can apply for writ, court can issue but will desist in hearing the case because it has no jurisdiction. The suspension has only the effect of extending the period of detention from 36 to 72 hours, otherwise arbitrary detention. Suspension is good only for 60 days but in reality you cannot be detained because you must be charged within 3 days. Rebellion now is bailable so you can always apply for bail while case is still pending. Failure to charge otherwise, arbitrary detention Persons who were detained without warrant of offenses relating to invasion or rebellion Suspension does not mean that you cannot post bail - if you do not avail of the writ of habeas corpus. Whether or not the case has already been filed in court. Ask the court to for the price of bail. Bail is not suspended by martial law During the 1973 constitution, the moment martial law is declared, automatically there is suspension. In 1987- there has to be declaration of the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus. It is also possible that only parts of the country will be declared under martial law or the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus If no case has been filed within 3 days, the court can issue writ of habeas corpus. What if warrant of arrest is issued? The writ becomes moot and academic. Extending period of custodial investigation Release if they cannot establish the offense charged What are the safeguards?

(1) You still avail of civil liberties because they are not suspended, the civilian courts are still open such as application of writ of habeas corpus or right to bail- not barred from questioning the validity of arrest. It is good only for 60 days, if not revoked earlier or no extension. It is automatically lifted by operation of law. The president is mandated to report to congress immediately within 48 hours after declaration. Congress will decide whether to revoke or let it be. How many votes needed? Majority votes, joint session (2) If not revoked, you can always challenge the constitutionality to the Supreme Court. even ordinary citizen can have legal standing (3) The SC is to review the decisions of lower court whether there is grave abuse of discretion or error of law. This is an exception that the court may inquire into the factual basis, both questions of facts and laws through judicial review. If no factual basis, the declaration may be declared unconstitutional or invalid Under (1) (2) (3) (4) what circumstances can it be lifted? By operation of law automatically lifted When the president lifts before the lapse of 60 days When congress revokes When the suspension of the writ is declared a nullity by the Supreme Court

Can you have simultaneous remedies without waiting for the decision of Congress, go immediately to SC? Yes, the SC must
make categorical interest whether the facts would justify suspension.

University of San Carlos / LLB 1 / RM 410 11