You are on page 1of 5

I.

INHERENT POWERS OF THE STATE


A. Police Power
B. Eminent domain
-Power vested in
legislature
Of promoting public
welfare by retraining
and regulating the use
of liberty and property

Power of the state or


of those to whom the
power is delegated to
take or expropriate
private property for
public use upon
payment for just
compensation

C. Power of
taxation
The power of the
state to impose
charge or burden
upon persons or
property rights for
the use and
support of the
govt

Basic purposes:
promote
1. Promote General
welfare
2. preserve Public health
3. protect Public safety
4. protect Public morals
5. safeguard Peace and
order
6. promote Economic
security
Valid exercise:
Lawful subject
to all public
Lawful means
- Means employed
necessary; not
oppressive

I. A. Police Power
Discuss heightened immediate scrutiny in the case of White Light Corp v City of Manila, Jan. 2009 as a test of the validity of an ordinance on
substantive due process grounds laid down by the U.S. Supreme Court in U.S. v. Carolene Products.
Heightened or intermediate scrutiny applies when the government discriminates on the basis of gender or parental marital status. The government still has
to prove that it has an important state interest, and that the discrimination is "substantially related" to an "important government interest."
In the Whilte Light Corp case, the primary animus behind the ordinance is curtailment of sexual behavior in the establishments which are considered as
venue for prostitution and fornification. Whether or not there is depiction of people being engaged in illicit relationship, it cannot be denied that legitimate
sexual behavior among willing married or consenting single adults will be curtailed a well.
Supreme Court held that they cannot discount the legitimate activities which the ordinance would impair and therefore, it unconstitutional and not a valid
exercise of police power.

PRC V de Guzman effects of incompetence and ignorance

II. DUE PROCESS


Section 1NO PERSON SHALL BE DEPRIVED OF LIFE, LIBERTY OR PROPERTY WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW, NOR SHALL ANY PERSON
BE DENIED EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS.
5. Define due process.
Due process is a law which hears before it condemns, which proceeds upon inquiry and renders judgment only after trial (Per Daniel Webster in the
DARTMOUTH COLLEGE CASE)

a.
b.

6. What are the Kinds of Due Process?


substantive due process---requires the intrinsic validity of the law in interfering with the rights of the person to life, liberty or property. In short, it is to
determine whether it has a valid governmental objective like for the interest of the public as against mere particular class.
Procedural due process---one which hears before it condemns, or the procedure as pointed out by Daniel Webster.

7. What are the requisites of judicial due process?


As held in BANCO ESPANOL VS. PALANCA, 37 Phil. 921. The requisites are:
1. There must be an impartial court or tribunal clothed with judicial power to hear and decide the matter before it;
2. Jurisdiction
must
be
lawfully acquired over the person of the defendant or over the property subject of the proceedings;
3. The defendant must be given the opportunity to be heard;
4. Judgment must be rendered only after lawful hearing.
8. What are the requisites of due process before administrative bodies?
As held in TIBAY VS. CIR, 69 Phil. 635, the requisites are:
a. the right to a hearing which includes the right to present evidence;
b. the tribunal must consider the evidence presented;

c. the decision must have something to support itself;


d. the evidence must be substantial;
e. the decision must be based on the evidence presented during the hearing;
f. the tribunal or body must act on its own independent consideration of the law or facts;
g. the board or body shall in all controversial questions, render its decision in such a manner that the parties to the proceedings can know the various issues
involved.
10. What are the requisites of procedural due process in disciplinary actions against students?

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

As held in GUZMAN VS. NU, 142 SCRA 706, the requisites are:
the students must be informed in writing of the nature and cause of any accusation against them;
they shall have the right to answer the charges against them, with the assistance of counsel;
they shall be informed of the evidence against them;
they shall have the right to adduce
evidence in their own behalf;
the evidence must be duly considered by the investigating committee or official designated by the school authorities to hear and decide the case.
11. What are the requisites of due process before a private employee may be dismissed from his work?
The requisites of Due Process before the NLRC are:
1. Notice; and
2. Hearing

III. EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE


nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws.
Quinto v Comelec There is no violation of equal protection clause when the appointed/goernment officials were deemed resigned upon their filing of
candidacy while elected officials are not.
Most elected official have a fixed term under the Constitution and said term could not be shortened by means of a law.
Gutierrez v DBM there is no violation of equal protection clause when policemen and soldiers were given allowance in the GA while other govt workers
were not. There is real and substantial distinction because policemen and soldiers could be transferred to virtually anywhere. Their basic pay does not vary
on location and the grant is intended to help them offset the effects of living in higher cost areas.
Biraogo v Phil Truth Commission violative of equal protection clause because it singles out the office of the previous administration only even though there
are also alleged graft and corruption in other administrations before that of Pres Arroyo.
IV. SEARCH AND SEIZURE
Section 2. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature
and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally by
the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be
searched and the persons or things to be seized.
A. ISSUANCE OF WARRANTS

No search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except


1. upon probable cause
2. to be determined personally by the judge
Soliven v Makasiar - In Issuance of warrant arrest, the word personally does not require the judge to examine personally or face to
face. If the judge is convince of the existence of probable cause upon reading the affidavits or depos of witness is sufficient
3. after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly
4. describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized. (Section 2, Art. III)
5. must particularly describe the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.
6. Rule 126 of the Rules on Crim Pro no warrant shall be issue for one specific offense
Asian Surety v Herrera - No general warrant/ scatter-shot warrant

TAMBASEN VS. PEOPLE, July 14, 1995; PEOPLE VS. CA, 216 SCRA 101. A SCATTER-SHOT WARRANT is a search warrant issued for more than
one specific offense like one for estafa, robbery, theft and qualified theft)
\7. SC Circular No. 17 no warrant shall be implemented during the night, week-ends or holidays, except in exceptional cases

28.
1.

2.

15-a. What are the two (2) kinds of probable cause?


1. executive determination of probable cause by the Prosecutor where he determines whether to file a criminal case in court or not; and
2. Judicial determination of probable cause to be done by the judge for the purpose of issuing a warrant of arrest against the accused. (LEVISTE VS. JUDGE
ALAMEDA, August 3, 2010)
If the judge finds that there's probable cause, must he issue a warrant of arrest as a matter of course?
It depends:
SAMULDE VS. SALVANI, SEPTEMBER 26, 1988 (No because a warrant is issued in order to have jurisdiction of the court over the person of an accused and to
assure the court of his presence whenever his case is called in court. As such, if the court believes that the presence of the accused could be had even
without a warrant of arrest, then he may not issue said warrant. Note: This case involves a minor offense)
GOZO VS. TAC-AN, 300 SCRA 265. If the offense committed is a serious one like that obtaining in this case for murder, the Judge must issue a warrant of
arrest after determining the existence of probable cause)

John-doe warrant, whose true name of the person to be apprehended is unknown, is valid only
when it contain the best description of the person such as his personal appearance and
peculiarities. (Pp. v Veloso)

B. SEARCH WARRANT

Mata v Bayona the following must be attached for search warrant


1. depo
2. affi
3. testimony typewritten by a stenographer
-> without the three, search warrant is not valid

Valid warrantless search and seizures


1. search incidental to lawful arrest
2. customs searches
3. seizure of evidence in plain-view
4. consented search
5. searches of a moving vehicle
6. stop and frisk measures (Pp v Aruta)
7. Checkpoints under PD 705
8. Search of Hot logs under the Forestry code
Explanation: xpn because of the exigency of the situations and the circumstances
People v Belen Mariacos sufficiency of time to apply and might escaped
1. search incidental to lawful arrest
Nolasco v Pano search incidental to a valid arrest must be done
a. at the place where the accused is arrested or
b. its immediate vicinity or
c. the person of the accused.
2. customs search
Pp v Mago - Tariff and Customs Code can authorized persons having police authority of the TCC to conduct searches and make seizure
3. seizure of evidence in Plain view
People v Valdez search without warrant under plain view doctrine is valid only when the evidence have been inadvertently found
4. Consented search

consent of the person who could be put in jail


Bache v Ruiz - Must be personal
Pp v damaso Court abandoned Lopez v Commissioner. It was held that the land lady or caretaker cannot give the consent to allow the
enforcement to search the room of the person they intended to search.

Veroy v Layague consent given were not valid as the consent of search was not specified

Returning of illegally seized article


Must be returned if not prohibited
BOC: articles that can be confiscated and Alih v Castro
Illegally search articles: fruits of a poisonous tree
5. Moving vehicle

case search warrant shall be secured first in a moving vehicle if theres time to secure
7. Checkpoint pd 705

Warrantless searches in checkpoint are valid during abnormal times

In Re: Tulfo, searches in checkpoint are valid but limited only to visual search.
B. Warrant of Arrest
Valid warrantless arrest
(a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense;
(b) When an offense has in fact just been committed, and he has personal knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be arrested has committed it;
and
(c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal establishment or place where he is serving final judgment or temporarily
confined while his case is pending, or has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to another.
Continuing crime doctrine Umil v. Ramos:
Dural was validly arrested without warrant because after he was after all committing an offense
V. Right to privacy
Section 3. The privacy of communication and correspondence shall be inviolable except upon lawful order of the court, or when public safety or order
requires otherwise as prescribed by law.
Any evidence obtained in violation of this or the preceding section shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding.
Xpn: lawful order of the court, wen public safety or order requires otherwise as prescribed by law
RA 9372 Anti-Terrorism Law
Sec 7, interception and recording of communications of suspects or charged of terrorism
XPN: lawyers, doctor, journalist
Not exceed 30 days, in case no case was filed within 30 days, shall immediately notify subject of surveillance
Filing of cases

PO -> Ombudsman (charge) -> Sandigabayan (trial) / SG27 @ RTC


PO (election laws) -> COMELEC Law Dept ( charge and tried) Corpuz v Tanodbayan
BayanMuna v Exec Sec Ermita
EO 420 does not violate citizens right to privacy
VI. FREEDOM OF SPEECH, PRESS, EXPRESSION, ETC.
Section 4. No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and
petition the government for the redress of their grievances.
When can Sec 4 cannot be invoked
1. utterances are libellous
2. seditious
3. tendency to insult, degrade, embarrass the admin of justice
4. obscene/ pornographic
5. Sub judice
1. utterances are libellous
Elizalde v Gutierrez in order that news item will not be actionable, must be:
a. true and fair report of the actual proceedings
b must be done in good faith
c. no comments nor remarks shall be made by the writer
Disini v SOJ overbreadth doctrine states that the one who wrote libel will be the one who will be liable for libel
Notes:
Rules in criticism against govt official
1. PO should not be onion-skinned because the interest of government and society demands full discussion of public affairs had it not been for the
speech, some govt official would have enjoyed the corruption practices(US v bustos)
2. public figure doctrine
- Afable was not a government official but being an aspiring government official, he is considered a public figure, thus entitled to be validly criticized(BMC
v CA)
2. seditious
highly seditious, in that they
1.incite rebellious conspiracies and disturb and
2. obstruct the lawful authorities in their duty.
3. to induce people to resort to illegal methods other than those provided by the Constitution,
3. tendency to insult, degrade, embarrass the admin of justice
Zaldivar v Sandiganbayan the assertion of zaldivar that the act of court preventing him to prosecute rich and powerful person is not a valid exercise of
freedom of expression. The statements clearly degrade and debase the system of administration of justice
4. obscene/ pornographic
Test of obscenity
Miller v California;
a. Whether the average person appylying to contemporary community appeals to prurient interest,
b. whether the work depicts a patently offensive sexual conduct
c. whether the work as a whole lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value
5. Sub judice
Cases pending before Supreme Court as it would have the tendency to influence the decision of the court
Speech

Press

Expression

Dissenting opinion of
J. Cruz in the case
NPC v COMELEC
"the liberty to know,
to utter, and to argue
freely according to
conscience, above all
liberties expressing
ones idea through
words

Right to express ones


ideas and opinions
freely through writing,
publication, news and
other forms of
communication

means one can


express his/her mind
through non verbal
means. Such as
items,

CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER RULE/ DANGEROUS TENDENCY RULE/ BALANCING OF INTEREST RULE
Clear
and
present danger and dangerous tendency rule (whether the words used 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)

Reyes v Bagatsing application for rally permit, before denying the application there must be clear and present danger

De la cruz v Ela Mayor of Sta cruz can validly transfer the place of their religious meeting adopting the content-neutral policy because there is
existing clear and present danger rule

Dangerous tendency rule (If the words uttered create a dangerous tendency which the State has the right to prevent, then such words are punishable)
The balancing-of-interest test (When a particular conduct is regulated in the interest of the 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 2 conflicting interests demand greater protection under the circumstances
presented.)
Lagunzad v Gonzales as between the right to privacy invoke by the mother and the freedom of expression invoked bby the movie
producer, the state shall balance their respective interest. Since the movie produce is primarily after profits only, while the mother is
after the honor of his child, the right to privacy shall prevail.
Prior restraint - means official governmental restrictions on the press or other forms of expression prior to actual publication or dissemination
Newsounds Broadcasting Network Inc v Dy cannot validly close Bombo Radio Stations on the ground that their building was constructed on an
agricultural land. The act of the City of Cauayan, Isabela constitutes prior restraint against expression and just want to stop the station from operating.
NYT v US any act of State which constitute prior restraints presumes that the act constitute prior restraint
Ayer Production v Enrile As between the right to privacy invoked by Enrile and freedom of expression on the part of movie producer, freedom of
expression shall prevail. To exclude Enrile as an integral part fo the film would distort the history.
I. Police Power
PRC v de Guzman - effects of incompetence and ignorance, preserve pub health
II. Due Process
1. White Light Corporation v City of Manila
heightened or immediate scrutiny
2. Banco Espanol v Palanca 37 Phil 921 judicial due process
3. Ang Tibay v CIR
69 Phil 635
admin due process
4. Guzman v NU
142 SCRA 706 due process on students
III. Equal Protection Clause
1. People v Cayat
2. Quinto v COMELEC
2. Gutierrez v DBM
3. Biraogo v Phil Truth Comm
4. Phil Judges Assoc v Prado
IV. Search and Seizure
A. ISSUANCE OF WARRANTS
1. Soliven v Makasiar
2. Asian Surety v Herrera &
Tambasen v People
3. Samualde v Salvani &
Gozo v Tac-An
B. SEARCH WARRANT
1. Mata v Bayona
2. People v Aruta
3. People v Mengote
4. Pp v Andre Marti
5. Silahis Hotel Intl v Soluta
(1) Search incidental to lawful arrest
Nolasco v Pano
(2) customs searches
Papa v Mago
(3) seizure of evidence in plain view
Pp. v Valdez
(4) consented searches
Pp. v Damaso
Veroy v Layague
(5) search of a moving vehicle
Belen v Mariacos/ Pp. v Lo Ho wing
(7) checkpoint pd 705
In Re Tulfo
Umil v Ramos

valid classification
appointive official deemed resigned
military officers in GA
not valid: other prev admin
not valid: removing franking privilege

personally
no general warrant/scatter-shot warrant
could be had even
offense: serious

depos in writing must be attached in the records of the case before issuing warrant
warrantless search and probable cause
Operation Kap-Kap bulging tummy
Art III, Sec 3, Par (2) government and its agencies; Not apply to private person
Marti does not apply, government must be free from participation

Aip
TCC can authorized persons subject to forfeiture
inadvertently found
valid waiver of warrantless search must be given by the person affected
there was no consent to warrantless search

visual search; (abnormal times)