Mendiola, Manila

Compilation of Case Doctrines
In Constitutional Law II

In Partial Fulfillment
Of the Requirements
In Constitutional Law II

January 21, 2017

Introduction: The Fundamental Powers of the State and the Protection of
Individual Rights.

1. Philippine Blooming Mills Employees Organization vs. Philippine Blooming Mills Co.,

In a democracy, the preservation and enhancement of the dignity and worth of the human
personality is the central core as well as the cardinal article of faith of our civilization. The
inviolable character of man as an individual must be "protected to the largest possible
extent in his thoughts and in his beliefs as the citadel of his person."

The Bill of Rights is designed to preserve the ideals of liberty, equality and security "against
the assaults of opportunism, the expediency of the passing hour, the erosion of small
encroachments, and the scorn and derision of those who have no patience with general
principles." The purpose of the Bill of Rights is to "withdraw subjects from the vicissitudes

of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials, and to
establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts..."

2. Simon, Jr. vs. Commission on Human Rights

The Commission on Human Rights was created by the 1987 Constitution. It was formally
constituted by then President Corazon Aquino via Executive Order No. 163, issued on 5
May 1987, in the exercise of her legislative power at the time. It succeeded, but so
superseded as well, the Presidential Committee on Human Rights.

It can hardly be disputed that the phrase “human rights” is so generic a term that any
attempt to define it, albeit not a few have tried, could at best be described as inconclusive.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, or more specifically, the International
Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights, suggests that the scope of human rights can be understood to include those
that relate to an individual’s social, economic, cultural, political and civil relations. It thus
seems to closely identify the term to the universally accepted traits and attributes of an
individual, along with what is generally considered to be his inherent and inalienable
rights, encompassing almost all aspects of life.

Police Power

1. Philippine Association ofService Exporters, Inc. vs. Drilon

The concept of police power is well-established in this jurisdiction. It has been defmed
as the "state authority to enact legislation that may interfere with personal liberty or
property in order to promote the general welfare." As defined, it consists of (1) an imposition
of restraint upon liberty or property, (2) in order to foster the common good. It is not capable
of an exact definition but has been, purposely, veiled in general terms to underscore its all-
comprehensive embrace. "Its scope, ever-expanding to meet the exigencies of the times, even
to anticipate the future where it could be done, provides enough room for an efficient and
flexible response to conditions and circumstances thus assuring the greatest benefits."

It constitutes an implied limitation on the Bill of Rights. According to Fernando, it is
"rooted in the conception that men in organizing the state and imposing upon its
governxnent limitations to safeguard constitutional rights did not intend thereby to enable
an individual citizen or a group of citizens to obstruct unreasonably the enactment of such
salutary measures calculated to ensure communal peace, safety, good order, and welfare."
Significantly, the Bill of Rights itself does not purport to be an absolute guaranty of
individual rights and liberties "Even liberty itself, the greatest of all rights, is not
unrestricted license to act according to one's will." It is subject to the far more overriding
demands and requirements of the greater number.

2. Ichong, etc., et al. vs. Hernandez, etc., and Sarmiento

Police power is far-reaching in scope, and it is almost impossible to limit its sweep. It
derives its existence from the very existence of the State itself, and does not need to be
expressed or defined in its scope. It is said to be co-extensive with self-protection and
survival, and as such it is the most positive and active of all governmental processes, the
most essential, insistent and illimitable. Especially is it so under a modern democratic

framework where the demands of society and of nations have multiplied to almost
unimaginable proportions; the field and scope of police power has become almost boundless,
just as the fields of public interest and public welfare have become almost all-embracing
and have transcended human foresight.

3. Lutz vs. Araneta

As the protection and promotion of the sugar industry is a matter of public concern, the
Legislature may determine within reasonable bounds what is necessary for its protection
and expedient for its promotion. Here, the legislative discretion must be allowed full play,
subject only to the test of reasonableness; and it is not contended that the means provided
in section 6 of Commonwealth Act No. 567 bear no relation to the objective pursued or are
oppressive in character. If objective and methods arealike constitutionally valid, no reason
is seen why the state may not levy taxes to raise funds for their prosecution and attainment.
Taxation may be made the implement of the state’s police power

It is inherent in the power to tax that a state be free to select the subjects of taxation, and it
has been repeatedly held that “inequalities which result from a singling out of one
particular class for taxation or exemption infringe 110 constitutional limitation

4. Association of Small Landowners in the Philippines, Inc. vs. Secretary of Agrarian

In addition, the Constitution itself lays down stringent conditions for a declaration of
unconstitutionality, requiring therefor the concurrence of a majority of the members of the
Supreme Court who took part in the deliberations and voted on the issue during their
session en banc. And as established by judge-made doctrine, the Court will assume
jurisdiction over a constitutional question only if it is shown that the essential requisites of
a judicial inquiry into such a question are first satisfied. Thus, there must be an actual case
or controversy involving a conflict of legal rights susceptible of judicial determination, the
constitutional question must have been opportunely raised by the proper party, and the
resolution of the question is unavoidably necessary to the decision of the case itself.

5. Lozano us, Martinez

The police power of the state has been described as "the most essential, insistent and
illimitable of powers" which enables it to prohibit all things hurtful to the comfort, safety
and welfare of society. It is a power not emanating from or conferred by the constitution, but
inherent in the state, plenary, "suitably vague and far from precisely defined, rooted in the
conception that man in organizing the state and imposing upon the government limitations
to safeguard constitutional rights did not intend thereby to enable individual citizens or
group of citizens to obstruct unreasonably the enactment of such salutary measures to
ensure communal peace, safety, good order and welfare."

6. Department of Education, Culture and Sports vs. San Diego

We see no reason why the rationale in the Tablarin case cannot apply to the case at bar. The
issue raised in both cases is the academic preparation of the applicant. This may be gauged
at least initially by the admission test and, indeed with more reliability, by the three-flunk
rule. The latter cannot be regarded any less valid than the former in the regulation of the
medical profession. There is no need to redefine here the police power of the State. Suffice it
to repeat that the power is validly exercised if (a) the interests of the public generally, as
distinguished from those of a particular class, require the interference of the State, and (b)
the means employed are reasonably necessary to the attainment of the object sought to be
accomplished and not unduly oppressive upon individuals.

7. Ynot vs. Intermediate Appellate Court

To sum up then, we find that the challenged measure is an invalid exercise of the police
power because the method employed to conserve the carabaos is not reasonably necessary to
the purpose of the law and, worse, is unduly oppressive. Due process is violated because the
owner of the property conf iscated is denied the right to be heard in his defense and is
immediately condemned and punished. The conferment on the administrative authorities of
the power to adjudge the guilt of the supposed offender is a clear encroachment on judicial
functions and militates against the doctrine of separation of powers. There is, finally, also
an invalid delegation of legislative powers to the of ficers mentioned therein who are
granted unlimited discretion in the distribution of the properties arbitrarily taken.

8. City Government of Quezon City vs. Ericta

An ordinance of Quezon City requiring memorial park operators to set aside at least six
percent (6%) of their cemetery for charity burial of deceased persons is not a valid exercise
of police power, and one that constitute taking of property without just compensation.—
There is no reasonable relation between the setting aside of at least six (6) percent of the
total area of all private cemeteries for charity burial grounds of deceased paupers and the
promotion of health, morals, good order, safety, or the general welfare of the people. The
ordinance is actually a taking without compensation of a certain area from a private
cemetery to benefit paupers who are charges of the municipal corporation. Instead of
building or maintaining a public cemetery for this purpose, the city passes the burden to
private cemeteries.


1.City of Manila vs. Chinese Cemetery of Manila

The courts have the power of restricting the exercise of eminent domain to the actual
reasonable necessities of the case and for the purposes designated by the law. The moment
the municipal corporation or entity attempts to exercise the authority conferred, it must
comply with the conditions accompanying the authority.

2.Moday vs. Court of Appeals

The power which the Municipality of Bunawan exercised in the instant case, is a
fundamental State power that is inseparable from sovereignty. It is government’s right to
appropriate, in the nature of a compulsory sale to the State, private property for public use
or purpose. Inherently possessed by the national legislature the power of eminent domain
may be validly delegated to local governments, other public entities and public utilities.


1.Republic vs. Castelvi

The essential elements of the taking are: (1) Expropriator must enter a private property, (2)
for more than a momentary period, (3) and under warrant of legal authority, (4) devoting it
to public use, or otherwise informally appropriating or injuriously affecting it in such a way
as (5) substantially to oust the owner and deprive him of all beneficial enjoyment thereof.

2.City Gov’t of Quezon City vs. Ericta

State's exercise of the power of expropriation requires payment of just compensation.
Passing the ordinance without benefiting the owner of the property with just compensation
or due process, would amount to unjust taking of a real property. Since the property that is
needed to be taken will be used for the public's benefit, then the power of the state to
expropriate will come forward and not the police power of the state.

3.Napocor vs. Jocson

PD No. 42 provides that upon filing in court complaints on eminent domain proceeding and
after due notice to the defendants, plaintiff will have the right to take possession of the real
property upon deposit of the amount of the assessed value with PNB to be held by the bank
subject to orders and final disposition of the court.

4.Napocor vs. San Pedro

The constitutional limitation of "just compensation" is considered to be the sum equivalent
to the market value of the property, broadly described to be the price fixed by the seller in
open market in the usual and ordinary course of legal action and competition or the fair
value of the property as between one who receives, and one who desires to sell it, fixed at
the time of the actual taking by the government.

5.US vs. Causby

Superjacent space is not part of private property because being a public domain, ownership
of the same is vested in the State. However, if flying or occupying over it so low and frequent
as to create a direct and immediate interference with the enjoyment and use of the land
underneath it, then a taking is considered, entitling the owner for a just compensation.

Public Use

1.Heirs of Juancho Ardona vs. Reyes

Section 13, Article XIV states that the Batasang Pambansa may authorize upon payment of
just compensation the expropriation of private lands to be subdivided into small lots and
conveyed at cost to deserving citizens.
2.Sumulong vs. Guerrero

The "public use" requirement for a valid exercise of the power of eminent domain is a
flexible and evolving concept influenced by changing conditions. The term "public use" has
acquired a more comprehensive coverage. To the literal import of the term signifying strict
use or employment by the public has been added the broader notion of indirect public
benefit or advantage.

3. Province of Camarines Sur vs. CA

Local government units have no inherent power of eminent domain and can exercise it only
when expressly authorized by the legislature. In delegating the power to expropriate, the

and that anything which tends to enlarge the resources. Once the first order becomes final and no appeal thereto is taken. Gozun Didipio failed to show that the law is invalid. Court of Appeals Eminent domain is generally so described as "the highest and most exact idea of property remaining in the government" that may be acquired for some public purpose through a method in the nature of a forced purchase by the State.Barangay vs.Estate of Jimenez vs. and “public convenience”. or benefit. convenience. including in particular. 9. and promote the productive power of any considerable number of the inhabitants of a section of the state. or which leads to the growth of towns and the creation of new resources for the employment of capital and labor. CA The more generally accepted view sees public use as public advantage. 5. 6.Manosca vs. [which] contributes to the general welfare and the prosperity of the whole community. increase the industrial energies. urban land reform and housing. PEZA This is an expropriation case which involves two (2) orders: an expropriation order and an order fixing just compensation.legislature may retain certain control or impose certain restraints on the exercise thereof by the local governments. It is a right to take or reassert dominion over property within the state for public use or to meet a public exigency. Indeed there is taking involved but it is not w/o just compensation. the authority to expropriate and its public use cannot anymore be questioned.Didipio vs Earth Savers v. Sec 76 of RA 7942 provides for just compensation as well as section 107 of the DENR RR to wit. inasmuch as public use now includes the broader notion of indirect public benefit or advantage. Just Compensation . Court of Appeals If the property is less than -hectare and that only a few would actually benefit from the expropriation does not diminish its public use character. 8. “public benefit”. “public welfare”.Manapat v. The act of NHA in entering a contract with a real estate developer for the construction of low cost housing cannot be taken to mean as a deviation from the stated public purpose of their taking. 4.Reyes vs NHA The “public use” is synonymous with “public interest”. 7.

While section 1 of Act No. than just compensation." 2. 778. after the deposit thus fixed has actually been made by the railway corporation. 1592 clearly empowers the court wherein expropriation proceedings are pending to fix the amount of the required deposit and to give possession of the land upon the making of the deposit. it as clearly denies. "Compensation" means an equivalent for the value of the land taken. We find the valuation determined by the Court of Appeals to be just. According to this view. or to disturb the possession of the railway." (15 Cyc. Anything beyond that is more and anything short of that is less. which is the measure of the indemnity. 1969 as prayed by private respondent. .) In this jurisdiction the constitutional prohibition against the taking of property without just compensation contains no express provision requiring prepayment and. the power of the court to change or modify the amount thus fixed. we are of opinion that there is no prohibition against the legislative enactment of a form of pro 3. Export Processing Zone Authority vs. not whatever gain would accrue to the expropriating entity.1. and cases there cited. following the weight of authority. and does not prohibit the legislature from authorizing a taking in advance of payment. the usual constitutional provision that private property shall not be taken for a public use without just compensation does not require that compensation shall be actually paid in advance of the occupancy of the land taken. at the time judgment was rendered on December 2. City of Manila vs. fair and reasonable.. The word "just" is used merely to intensify the meaning of the word "compensation. Anything beyond that is more and anything short of that is less than compensation. Municipality of Daet vs. and it will be sufficient if a certain and adequate remedy is provider! by which the owner can obtain compensation without any unreasonable delay. 4. It means a fair and full equivalent for the loss sustained. at least. "According to the weight of authority.00 per square meter is in conformity with doctrinal rulings hereinabove cited that the value should be fixed as of the time of the taking of the possession of the property because firstly. by necessary implication. as of the date of the rendition of the judgment on December 2. actual payment or tender before taking is unnecessary. Estrada. Dulay Just Compensation means the equivalent for the value of the property at the time of its taking. petitioner had not actually taken possession of the property sought to be expropriated and secondly. Paredes. Court of Appeals The decision of the Court of Appeals fixing the market value of the property to be that obtaining. 1969. which the Court fixed at P200. Manila Railroad Company vs. if the constitution or statutes do not expressly require it.

Manila Electric Company vs. following the applicable decrees. Ansaldo vs. Hence. 7. there is a "taking" when the owner is actually deprived or dispossessed of his property. where the institution of the action precedes entry into the property. It tends to render this Court inutile in a matter which under the Constitution is reserved to it for final determination. its task would be relegated to simply stating the lower value of the property as declared either by the owner or the assessor. Normally. 5. the time of the taking coincides with the filing of the complaint for expropriation. Maddumba vs. Government Service Insurance System “The preamble of PD 251 eloquently articulates government intent to implement the state policy of ‘diverting landlord capital in agriculture to industrial development’ by ‘mobilization and harnessing properly all available government resources for the realization of the desired agrarian reform program. Jr. the just compensation is to be ascertained as of the time of the filing of the complaint. It is only with the full support and active assistance of the government principally through its financial institutions that payment of just compensation to the landowner may be realized. although in an expropriation proceeding the court technically would still have the power to determine the just compensation for the property. when there is a practical destruction or a material material impairment of the value of his property or when he is deprived of the ordinary use thereof. Court of Appeals The general rule in determining “just compensation” in eminent domain is the value of the property as of the date of the filing of the complaint. So too. Thus. the tenant by himself does not have and cannot afford the wherewithal to defray the cost of the land tranferred to him. National Power Corporation vs. x x x” 6. 8.’ For agrarian reform cannot be fully realized without the intervention of the government particularly in the payment of just compensation. Tantuico. There is a "taking" in this sense when the expropriator enters private property not only for a momentary period but for a more permanent . a trial before the Commissioners is indispensable to allow the parties to present evidence on the issue of just compensation. The method of ascertaining just compensation under the aforecited decrees constitutes impermissible encroachment on judicial prerogatives. Surely. In the context of the State's inherent power of eminent domain. many rulings of this Court have equated just compensation with the value of the property as of the time of filing of the complaint consistent with the above provision of the Rules. Pineda In an expropriation case such as this one where the principal issue is the determination of just compensation. Respondent judge’s act of determining and ordering the payment of just compensation without the assistance of a Board of Commissioners is a flagrant violation of petitioner’s constitutional right to due process and is a gross violation of the mandated rule established by the Revised Rules of Court.

et al. But judicial notice is not judicial knowledge. Mactan-Cebu International Airport Authority vs. the value of the property at the time of the filing of the complaint on November 20. Wycoco vs Judge Caspillo Inasmuch as the valuation of the property of Wycoco is the very issue in the case at bar.. the trial court should have allowed the parties to present evidence thereon instead of practically assuming a valuation without basis. as well as the tax declarations thereon. National Power Corporation vs. Urgello Contrary to petitioners DPWH’s and ATO’s undertakings in the January 17. Hence. a remand of the case for determination of just compensation is necessary. The mere personal knowledge of the judge is not the judicial knowledge of the court. in this case. we ruled: Normally. and every reasonable doubt on the subject should be promptly resolved in the negative. In eminent domain cases.g. National Housing Authority . So too.—In eminent domain cases. there was undoubtedly a taking of the Ansaldo's property when the Government obtained possession thereof and converted it into a part of a thoroughfare for public use.duration. While market value may be one of the bases of determining just compensation. the time of taking is the filing of the complaint. Where the owner is deprived of the ordinary and beneficial use of his property or of its value by its being diverted to public use. So it is that in National Power Corporation v. after all. 913-E-3 to respondent despite her return of the purchase price therefor. For ownership. Since these factors were not considered. "is nothing without the inherent rights of possession. To say that a court will take judicial notice of a fact is merely another way of saying that the usual form of evidence will be dispensed with if knowledge of the fact can be otherwise acquired. This is because the court assumes that the matter is so notorious that it will not be disputed. location.Manotok vs." Under these norms. Hence. if there was no actual taking prior thereto. control and enjoyment. Tiangco Eminent Domain. for the purpose of devoting the property to a public use in such a manner as to oust the owner and deprive him of all beneficial enjoyment thereof. 11. 254 SCRA 577 (1996). Care must be taken that the requisite notoriety exists. there is taking within the Constitutional sense. Such failure amounts to expropriation without just compensation Judicial Review 1. 10. Court of Appeals. they failed to reconvey Lot No. the just compensation is to be ascertained as of the time of the filing of the complaint. if there was no actual taking prior thereto. Just Compensation.. where the institution of the action precedes entry into the property. the basis of his action. the same cannot be arbitrarily arrived at without considering the factors to be appreciated in arriving at the fair market value of the property e. The power to take judicial notice is to be exercised by courts with caution especially where the case involves a vast tract of land. and he is not authorized to make his individual knowledge of a fact. not generally or professionally known. the time of the taking coincides with the filing of the complaint for expropriation. the cost of acquisition. 1990 Compromise Agreement. 1990 should be considered in determining the just compensation due the respondents. 9. shape. the time of taking is the filing of the complaint. its size. many rulings of this Court have equated just compensation with the value of the property as of the time of filing of the complaint consistent with the above provision of the Rules. the current value of like properties.

the present expropriation is no longer arbitrary.City of Baguio vs. echoing the Solicitor General’s warning. could give rise to legal and social complications. The Act does not confiscate. they must fail the test of constitutionality. De Knecht While the ponencia is plain enough. therefore. 2." This became more evident when the NHA wrote the Register of Deeds and requested her to cancel the certificate of titles of the petitioners. municipalities and municipal districts in the Philippines be transferred to the NAWASA for the purpose of placing them under the control and supervision of one agency with a view to promoting their efficient management. this Court in Alfonso v. . This is hardly the due process of law which the state is expected to observe when it exercises the power of eminent domain. which was decided under a different set of facts. Republic vs. This ruling was reiterated in other cases and is now the settled doctrine on this matter. 1315. it did not deem it necessary because of the enactment of the questioned decrees which rendered. Militante vs. Pasay City already ruled that if property is taken by the government without the benefit of expropriation proceedings and is devoted to public use. by their very passage. argues that to allow petitioner to question the validity of P. it is not because we concede that the lawmakers can nullify the findings of the Court in the exercise of its discretion. No. NAWASA epublic Act No. Blg. It merely directs that all waterworks belonging to cities. 340 is not a legislative reversal of our finding in De Knecht v. As far back as 1960. Obviously. they refer to the fact that other lots have been acquired by the government by virtue of P. the Government should have filed an expropriation case under Rule 67 of the Revised Rules of Court but it did not do so. we find P. 100 SCRA 660.D. I do not share this dire and apocalyptic view. Landed Estates and Municipal Properties 1. the properties. moot and academic. Expropriation of Utilities. destroy or appropriate property belonging to a municipal corporation. under the decrees were "automatically expropriated. In effect. If we are sustaining that legislation. supervening events have changed the factual basis of that decision to justify the subsequent enactment of the statute. provide for any form of hearing or procedure by which the petitioners can question the propriety of the expropriation of their properties or the reasonableness of the just compensation.D. I must add that this decision is not a reversal either of the original De Knecht case. that the expropriation of the petitioner’s property was arbitrary.P. Apparently. I wish to make it even plainer that B. any questions with regard to the expropriation of the properties. It is simply because we ourselves have found that under the changed situation. The decrees. Court of Appeals The majority. the property owner may no longer bring an action for recovery of his land but may simply demand payment of just compensation for his land. Nos.D. 1315 many years after its promulgation. Having failed to provide for a hearing. No. do not by themselves. As Justice Gancayco clearly points out. such as a road. but in so doing it does not confiscate them because it directs that they be paid with an equal value of the assets of the NAWASA. 3. Bautista. furnishing said Register of Deeds only with copies of the decrees to support its request. 1669 and 1670 to be violative of the petitioners' right to due process of law and. 1383 does not constitute a valid exercise of police power. after many years.After a careful examination of the questioned decrees.

2. * * * It is the essential character of the direct object of the expenditure which must determine its validity as justifying a tax and not the magnitude of the interests to be affected nor the degree to which the general advantage of the community. park. Incidental advantage to the public or to the state. and. then it is patrimonial and Congress has no absolute control. 3. Power of Taxation 1. The exemption is only from the payment of taxes assessed on such properties enumerated. the property is public and Congress has absolute control over it. and all lands. no appropriation of state funds can be made for other than a public purpose.The Baguio Waterworks System is not like any public road. does not justify their aid by the use of public money. it being widely recognized that there is nothing inherently obnoxious in the requirement that license fees or taxes be enacted with respect to the same occupation. Being patrimonial property of a municipal corporation. public funds may be used only for a public purpose. 2. VI of the Constitution of the Philippines. There is double taxation where one tax is imposed by the state and the other is imposed by the city. The right of the legislature to appropriate public funds is correlative with its right to tax. vs. et al. and improvements used exclusively for religious purposes. Municipal Board of Manila. Art. Lladoc vs. as contra-distinguished from excise taxes. et al. Secretary of Public Works "It is a general rule that the legislature is without power to appropriate public revenues for anything but a public purpose. may be ultimately benefited by their promotion. and thus the public welfare. waterworks cannot be taken away except for public use and upon payment of just compensation. under the express or implied provisions of the constitution. under constitutional provisions against taxation except for public purposes and prohibiting the collection of a tax for one purpose and the devotion thereof to another purpose. street or other public property held in trust by a municipal corporation for the benefit of the public but is a property owned by the city in its proprietary character. That matter is peculiarly within the domain of the political departments and the courts would do well not to encroach upon it. It is not for the courts to judge what particular cities or municipalities should be empowered to impose occupation taxes in addition to those imposed by the National Government. calling or activity by both the state and the political subdivisions thereof. Punsalan. buildings." Generally.Pascual vs. Province of Zamboanga del Norte vs. But if the property is owned in its private or proprietary capacity. appurtenant thereto. City of Zamboanga If the property is owned by the municipality in its public and governmental capacity. and the prosperity of private enterprises or business. which results from the promotion of private interests. as property taxes. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Section 22(3). . exempts from taxation cemeteries. churches and parsonages or convents. The municipality cannot be deprived of it without due process and payment of just compensation.

4. It is a rule of law that before a person may be bound by law. Collector of Internal Revenue. and are mere licenses or privileges. 1. Aquino The test of exemption from taxation is the use of the property for purposes mentioned in the Constitution. it is entitled to be exempted from taxation. Angeles This does not imply however. shall have no force and effect. but an institution used exclusively for religious. charitable and educational purposes. Abra Valley College. in YMCA of Manila vs. have put the question as to whether the Court’s declaration of invalidity apply to P. The original Administrative Order issued on August 30. Publication Requirements 1. these must yield to legislation safeguarding the interest of the people. Baxter Bank. Philippine International Trading Corporation vs. does not constitute an impairment of the Constitution. still these do not constitute business in the ordinary acceptance of the word.. The Court therefore declares that presidential issuances of general application.Metropolitan Manila Development Authority vs. Viron Transportation Co. The past cannot always be erased by a new judicial declaration x x x that an all-inclusive statement of a principle of absolute retroactive invalidity cannot be justified. it need only to be stated that respondents’ certificates of public convenience confer no property right. Some members of the Court. he must first be officially and specifically informed of its contents. this Court ruled that while it may be true that the YMCA keeps a lodging and a boarding house and maintains a restaurant for its members. Tuvera It is needless to add that the publication of presidential issuances “of a public nature” or “of general applicability” is a requirement of due process. II. the imposition of which on property used exclusively for religious purposes. and as such. Inc.” 2. that the subject Administrative Order is a valid exercise of such quasi-legislative power. .s which had been enforced or implemented prior to their publication. Tañada vs. Similarly. Section 1. Due Process and Equal Protection Clause Art III. quite apprehensive about the possible unsettling effect this decision might have on acts done in reliance of the validity of those presidential decrees which were published only during the pendency of this petition. As early as 1916. 217 [1916].O.A gift tax is not a property tax. In similar situations in the past this Court had taken the pragmatic and realistic course set forth in Chicot County Drainage District vs. Due Process Procedural Due Process a. the implementation/enforcement of presidential decrees prior to their publication in the Official Gazette is “an operative fact which may have consequences which cannot be justly ignored. The answer is all too familiar. 1989.. Inc. which have not been published. As such.D. 33 Phil.. vs. but an excise tax imposed on the transfer of property by way of gift inter vivos. As to the alleged confiscatory character of the E.

which implements Section 29 of the Public Service Act (C. Publication in the Official Gazette or a newspaper of general circulation is a condition sine qua non before statutes. 146. any disposition of the case. through the Secretary of the Commission. Congress. SOCPEC 89-08-01 were filed with. is invalid within the context of Article 2 of Civil Code. and published by the UP Law Center in the National Administrative Register. due process of law implies that there must be a court or tribunal clothed with power to hear and determine the matter before it. There is nothing in the Administrative Code of 1987 which implies that the filing of the rules with the UP Law Center is the operative act that gives the rules force and effect.under which the respondents filed their applications for importation. 200. as explicitly mentioned in the case Tañada v. Express Telecommunication Co. The absence of publication. Respondent Extelcom. rules or regulations can take effect. The fact that the amendments to Administrative Order No. Palanca As applied to judicial proceedings. 2. the NTC has been applying the 1978 Rules. 1993. the National Library. issued a certification to the effect that inasmuch as the 1993 Revised Rules have not been published in a newspaper of general circulation. and to other persons at a price sufficient to cover publication and mailing or distribution costs. Republic vs. b. legally. In answer to this argument. and that judgment shall be rendered upon lawful hearing. The questioned Administrative Order. Judicial Proceedings 1.A. The fact that the 1993 Revised Rules were filed with the UP Law Center on February 3. These Revised Rules deleted the phrase “on its own initiative”. as amended). unless it is otherwise provided. This is explicit from Executive Order No. coupled with the certification by the Commissioner of the NTC stating that the NTC was still governed by the 1978 Rules. that jurisdiction shall have been lawfully acquired. contends that the NTC should have applied the Revised Rules which were filed with the Office of the National Administrative Register on February 3. Galvez vs. other public offices or agencies as the Congress may select.. until it is published. all appellate courts. accordingly. Inc. fall squarely within the scope of these laws. The Rules of Practice and Procedure of the NTC. Banco Español-Filipino vs. does not cure the defect related to the effectivity of the Administrative Order. which repealed Article 2 of the Civil Code. however. Tuvera. clearly indicate that the 1993 Revised Rules have not taken effect at the time of the grant of the provisional authority to Bayantel. x x x The National Administrative Register is merely a bulletin of codified rules and it is furnished only to the Office of the President. 3. and which states that: Laws shall take effect after fifteen days following the completion of their publication either in the Official Gazette or in a newspaper of general circulation in the Philippines. the NTC. that the defendant shall have an opportunity to be heard. a provisional authority may be issued only upon filing of the proper motion before the Commission. Court of Appeals The rule is now well settled that once a complaint or information is filed in court. whether as to its dismissal or the conviction or the acquittal of the . was not published in the Official Gazette or in a newspaper of general circulation. 1993 is of no moment.

(2) it must be well and authoritatively settled and not doubtful or uncertain. It is also implicit in section (3) (a) of Rule 112 which requires during the preliminary investigation the filing of a sworn complaint which shall “x x x state the known address of the respondent and be accompanied by affidavits of the complainant and his witnesses as well as other supporting documents x x x. and he did present three. he forfeited his right to take the witness stand. and every reasonable doubt on the subject should be promptly resolved in the negative. once the case had already been brought therein any disposition the prosecutor may deem proper thereafter should be addressed to the court for its reconsideration and approval. the NBI. State Prosecutors vs. The essence of due process is the opportunity to be heard. 4. De Leon We uphold the legal basis of the right of petitioners to demand from their prosecutor.accused. The principal guide in determining what facts may be assumed to be judicially known is that of notoriety. and (3) it must be known to be within the limits of the jurisdiction of the court. matters of judicial notice have three material requisites: (1) the matter must be one of common and general knowledge. In any event. The only qualification is that the action of the court must not impair the substantial rights of the accused or the right of the People to due process of law. we are not persuaded by his allegation that his own counsel hardly participated in the proceedings. petitioner was afforded an opportunity to present witnesses. the client is generally bound by the acts of his counsel. In this case. Because he acquiesced to the termination of the case. For while it is true that the prosecutor has the quasi-judicial discretion to determine whether or not a criminal case should be filed in court. However. We disagree. he cannot impose his opinion upon the tribunal. Webb vs. and hence. 1995 sworn statement of Alfaro and the FBI Report during their preliminary investigation considering their exculpatory character. petitioner did not invoke his right to take the witness stand even when the trial court ordered the submission of the parties’ memoranda which signified the termination of the proceedings. Muro The doctrine of judicial notice rests on the wisdom and discretion of the courts. Likewise. It is the denial of this opportunity that is repugnant to due process. 3. Hence. 5. unquestionable materiality to the issue of their probable guilt. Carvajal vs. rests in the sound discretion of the court.” . Although the prosecutor retains the direction and control of the prosecution of criminal cases even when the case is already in court. Petitioner has not shown at all that his previous counsel had acted in such grossly negligent manner as to deprive him of effective representation. The right is rooted on the constitutional protection of due process which we rule to be operational even during the preliminary investigation of a potential accused. it can be said that judicial notice is limited to facts evidenced by public records and facts of general notoriety. or of due process. the original copy of the April 28. Court of Appeals Petitioner claims that he was denied due process because he was unable to take the witness stand. The records show that said counsel did cross-examine Engineer Silverio Perez by propounding clarificatory questions to the latter. The power to take judicial notice is to be exercised by courts with caution. care must be taken that the requisite notoriety exists. Generally speaking.

the evidence against him should be competent and should be derived from direct knowledge. The Judiciary to which respondent belongs demands no less. the Memorandum of the respondent. Office of the Court Administrator vs.. Jr. demand that. Pascual We note that the only bases for the Report and Recommendation submitted by Executive Judge Natividad G. 6. (2) the witness’ degree of attention at that time. This lapse in due process is unfortunate. the Answer. Before any of its members could be faulted. Petitioners cannot just rely on the subliminal effects of publicity on the sense of fairness of the DOJ Panel. (3) the accuracy of any prior description given by the witness. therefore. The respondent was. (6) the suggestiveness of the identification procedure. Thus. Since corruption of out-of-court identification contaminates the integrity of in-court identification during the trial of the case. we find nothing in the records that will prove that the tone and content of the publicity that attended the investigation of petitioners fatally infected the fairness and impartiality of the DOJ Panel. c. Court oh Industrial Relations etc. especially since the charge is penal in . Out-of-court identification is conducted by the police in various ways. et al. vs. Their long experience in criminal investigation is a factor to consider in determining whether they can easily be blinded by the klieg lights of publicity. by the barrage of publicity. In resolving the admissibility of and relying on out-of-court identification of suspects. if the respondent judge should be disciplined for grave misconduct or any graver offense. 2. It is done thru show- ups where the suspect alone is brought face to face with the witness for identification. Dizon consist of: The Complaint. Adminstrative and Quasi Judicial Proceedings 1. The Rules. and. In the case at bar. it should be only after due investigation and after presentation of competent evidence. The nature of the Court of Industrial Relations and of its power is extensively discussed in the decision. It is done thru mug shots where photographs are shown to the witness to identify the suspect. not afforded the right to open trial wherein respondent can confront the witnesses against him and present evidence in his defense. People vs. To be sure. courts have adopted the totality of circumstances test where they consider the following factors. even in an administrative case. viz: (1) the witness’ opportunity to view the criminal at the time of the crime. et al. Ang Tibay vs. It is also done thru line-ups where a witness identifies the suspect from a group of persons lined up for the purpose. not simply that they might be. We recognize that pervasive and prejudicial publicity under certain circumstances can deprive an accused of his due process right to fair trial. we held that to warrant a finding of prejudicial publicity there must be allegation and proof that the judges have been unduly influenced. courts have fashioned out rules to assure its fairness and its compliance with the requirements of constitutional due process. for these are basically unbeknown and beyond knowing. (4) the level of certainty demonstrated by the witness at the identification. the DOJ Panel is composed of an Assistant Chief State Prosecutor and Senior State Prosecutors. and the transcript of stenographic notes of the hearing of the bribery case of respondent judge at the Sandiganbayan. Alejandro. (5) the length of time between the crime and the identification. Teehankee. in Martelino.

Meriam Colapo. (3) a tribunal vested with competent jurisdiction and so constituted as to afford a person charged administratively a reasonable guarantee of honesty as well as impartiality. The employment or profession of a person is a property right within the constitutional guaranty of due process of law. complainant did not adduce enough evidence to prove his charges. to corroborate complainant’s allegations and submission. As already observed. The issue is not whether private respondents may be punished for engaging in a prohibited action but whether.character. The above-quoted Report and Recommendation of the investigating judge had fallen short of the requirements of due process. In administrative proceedings. before they can be investigated and meted out any penalty. not on the right of government workers to strike. in the course of the investigation of the alleged proscribed activity. and (4) a finding by said tribunal which is supported by substantial evidence submitted for consideration during the hearing or contained in the records or made known to the parties affected 5. to present witnesses and evidence in one’s favor. the case against the respondent judge cannot prosper. however. to support the charge that Sans the testimony of witness Meriam Colapo. 4. his right to due process would be infringed. Meriam Colapo. and to defend one’s rights. (2) a real opportunity to be heard personally or with the assistance of counsel. due process must first be observed. the resolution of this case revolves around the question of due process of law. the issue is not whether the private respondents engaged in any prohibited activity which may warrant the imposition of disciplinary sanctions against them as a result of administrative proceedings. Court of Appeals In the present case. In short. Fabella vs. their right to due process has been violated. Bellosillo Apart from his testimony and affidavit-complaint. otherwise. 3. due process has been recognized to include the following: (1) the right to actual or constructive notice of the institution of proceedings which may affect a respondent’s legal rights. He did not even present his primary witness. Lantion . Respondent judge cannot therefore be adjudged guilty of the charges against him without affording him a chance to confront the said witness. Valenzuela vs. Secretary of Justice vs.

Inquisitorial power. 1993 ed. citing Morgan vs. His guilt or innocence will be adjudged in the court of the state where he will be extradited. (b) determining facts based upon the evidence presented. Government of the United States of America vs. all relevant and basic rights in the criminal proceedings that will take place therein. and that both accept and trust. of persons or entities coming under its jurisdiction (Ibid. Phil. 26). Administrative Law: Text and Cases. production of documents. the process of extradition does not involve the determination of the guilt or innocence of an accused. the constitutional rights of the accused are at fore. That signature signifies our full faith that the accused will be given. Lantion. our duly authorized representative’s signature on an extradition treaty signifies our confidence in the capacity and the willingness of the other state to protect the basic rights of the person sought to be extradited. United States. or otherwise 6. Olalia. reports.” We further note that Section 20 allows the requesting state “in case of urgency” to ask for the “provisional arrest of the . testimony of witnesses. p. which is also known as examining or investigatory power. Hence. In criminal proceedings. 1).In administrative law.D. But while extradition is not a criminal proceeding. or to require disclosure of information by means of accounts. or would have been directly attacked for its unconstitutionally. Administrative Law. is one of the determinative powers of an administrative body which better enables it to exercise its quasi-judicial authority (Cruz. as a rule.” This is shown by Section 6 of P. each other’s legal system and judicial process. the treaty would not have been signed.S. 1069 (The Philippine Extradition Law) which mandates the “immediate arrest and temporary detention of the accused” if such “will best serve the interest of justice. 27). 304 U. records. and (c) rendering an order or decision supported by the facts proved (De Leon. This power allows the administrative body to inspect the records and premises. extradition proceedings are not criminal in nature. 198.. It is not a criminal proceeding which will call into operation all the rights of an accused as guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. and investigate the activities. constitutional rights that are only relevant to determine the guilt or innocence of an accused cannot be invoked by an extraditee x x x. No. Purganan An extradition treaty presupposes that both parties thereto have examined. otherwise. Government of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region vs. To begin with... p. As pointed out in Secretary of Justice v. in extradition which is sui generis—in a class by itself—they are not. p. it is characterized by the following: (a) it entails a deprivation of liberty on the part of the potential extraditee and (b) the means employed to attain the purpose of extradition is also “the machinery of criminal law. “An extradition [proceeding] is sui generis. 1996 ed. a quasi-judicial proceeding involves: (a) taking and evaluation of evidence. Jr. More pointedly. 7. upon extradition to the requesting state.

Alcuaz vs.” Obviously. d. to a prolonged restraint of liberty. the pendency of a civil case for damages and a criminal case for malicious mischief against petitioner Guzman. citing: Castro vs. conducted without prior permit from school authorities. Such being the case. it is provided in the Manual. Academic Discipline 1. slander. and forced to transfer to the demanding state following the proceedings. It is a time-honored principle that contracts are respected as the law between the contracting parties (Henson vs. 1987.accused. noise barrage and other acts showing disdain for and defiance of University authority. coercion and intimidation. without more. bears all earmarks of a criminal process. 100 SCRA 197). the charge of denial of due process is untenable.—Immediately apparent from a reading of respondents’ comment and memorandum is the fact that they had never conducted proceedings of any sort to determine whether or not petitioners-students had indeed led or participated “in activities within the university premises. that disturbed or disrupted classes therein” or perpetrated acts of “vandalism. PSBA. National University No disciplinary action may be imposed on students without abiding by the requirements of due process. there is no more contract to speak of.R. A potential extraditee may be subjected to arrest.” It is thus evident that after the close of the first semester. the PSBA-QC no longer has any existing contract either with the students or with the intervening teachers. It is provided in Paragraph 137 Manual of Regulations for Private Schools. February 19. Likewise. an extradition proceeding. “Temporary detention” may be a necessary step in the process of extradition. that when a college student registers in a school. Court of Appeals. Also apparent is the omission of respondents to cite this Court to any duly published rule of theirs by which students may be expelled or refused re-enrollment for poor scholastic standing. Court of Appeals. pending receipt of the request for extradition”. G. that the “written contracts” required for college teachers are for “one semester..” Parenthetically. 99 SCRA 722. it is understood that he is enrolling for the entire semester. Intermediate Appellate Court. but the length of time of the detention should be reasonable. No. Escano vs. cannot. while ostensibly administrative. furnish sufficient warrant for his expulsion or debarment from re-enrollment.Guzman vs. The contract having been terminated. 2. 72456. et al. and that release from provisional arrest “shall not prejudice re-arrest and extradition of the accused if a request for extradition is received subsequently. The school cannot be compelled to enter into another contract with said . QC Branch It is beyond dispute that a student once admitted by the school is consid-ered enrolled for one semester.

Capulong Respondent students may not use the argument that since they were not accorded the opportunity to see and examine the written statements which became the basis of petitioners’ February 14.Lao Gi vs. An administrative proceeding conducted investigate students’ participation in a hazing activity need not be clothed with the attributes of a judicial proceeding. . 1993 BOR meeting to respondent. University of the Philippines Board of Regents vs.” e.” 3. This is not exclusive of students whose disciplinary cases have been appealed to the Board of Regents as the final review body. A closer examination of the March 2. 1991 order. 1993 meeting for it was “supposed to reconsider the decision made on March 28. Deportation Proceedings 1. 4.students and teachers. Ligot-Telan In any event. He would make an exception of the March 29. the same may not be said to detract from the observance of due process. Ateneo de Manila University vs. “The courts. University rules do not require the attendance in BOR meetings of individuals whose cases are included as items on the agenda of the Board. it is gross error to equate due process in the instant case with the sending of notice of the March 29. At no time did respondent complain of lack of notice given to him to attend any of the regular and special BOR meetings where his case was up for deliberation. reveals that this is but a reiteration of our previous ruling in Alcuaz. Granting that they were denied such opportunity. 1993 exonerating respondent Nadal from all administrative charges against him. for disciplinary cases involving students need not necessarily include the right to cross examination. Court of Appeals There can be no question that the CID has the authority and jurisdiction to hear and determine the deportation case against petitioners and in the process determine also the question of citizenship raised by the petitioners. they were denied procedural due process. be they the original trial court or the appellate court. have no power to make contracts for the parties. 1991 hearing which characterized the rules on the investigation as being summary in nature and that respondent students have no right to examine affiants-neophytes.

Scheer The settled rule is that the authority to exclude or expel aliens by a power affecting international relation is vested in the political department of the government. National Telecommunications Commission empowered to approve provisionally rates of utilities without the necessity of a prior hearing (Republic v. 131 SCRA 260 [1984]). as amended (CA No. can fix a provisional amount for the subscriber’s investment to be effective immediately. or is required by the Constitution to intervene. Under the Public Service Act. except in so far as the judicial department has been authorized by treaty or by statute. Thus.Although a deportation proceeding does not partake of the nature of a criminal action. now the NTC. Alcuaz While respondents may fix a temporary rate pending final determination of the application of petitioner. Domingo vs. 41 SCRA 643 [1971]). supra). NTC. such rate-fixing order. however. 16. and is to be regulated by treaty or by an act of Congress. it may not exercise the same in an arbitrary and confiscatory manner. Inc. without hearing (par. until the Commission approves them (Republic v. Philippine Communications Satellite Corporation vs. Philippine Consumers Foundation. Assuming that such power is vested in NTC. Further. and to be executed by the executive authority according to the regulations so established. 2. 146). Radio Communications of the Philippines vs. These rates are necessarily proposed merely. Fixing of Rates and Regulations of Professions 1. Medina. CA 146. the constitutional right of such person to due process should not be denied. Categorizing such an order as temporary in nature does not perforce entail the applicability of a different rule of statutory procedure than would otherwise be applied to any other order on the same matter unless otherwise provided by the applicable law. 2. as well as the requirement of reasonableness. the Public Service Act makes no distinction between initial or revised rates. as amended. the provisions of the Rules of Court of the Philippines particularly on criminal procedure are applicable to deportation proceedings. the Board of Communications then. considering that it is a harsh and extraordinary administrative proceeding affecting the freedom and liberty of a person. The judicial department cannot properly express an opinion upon the wisdom or the justice of the measures executed by Congress in the exercise of the power conferred on it. Moreover. v. temporary though it may be. 3 of Sec. f. by statute or as required by the Constitution. Medina. the Commission can hear and . is not exempt from the statutory procedural requirements of notice and hearing.

under prior laws. g. November 3. such as issuing rules and regulations. For example. Energy Regulatory Board. Neither does the fact that the pilots themselves were not consulted in any way taint the validity of the administrative order. notice and hearing. Corona vs. as the fundamental requirements of procedural due process. 83931. John Osmeña. En Banc. Globe Telecom. 3. United Harbor Pilots Association of the Phils. replace government control on price and income with market instruments. the government regulated the entry of pricing and operation of all public telecommunications entities. vs. Towards this goal. 1988. National Telecommunications Commission Yet with the advent of rapid technological changes affecting the telecommunications industry. choosing instead to let go of the reins and rely on market forces to govern pricing and service terms. Section 8 of the PTA sets forth the regulatory logic.” 4.approve revised rates without published notices or hearing. Closure Proceedings . with the end in view of encouraging their financial viability while maintaining affordable rates. are essential only when an administrative body exercises its quasi-judicial function. efficient and responsive market to stimulate growth and development of the telecommunications facilities and services. and shift the focus of government’s intervention towards ensuring service standards and protection of customers. G. As noted by one of the law’s principal authors. the United States Federal Communications Commission has chosen not to impose strict common regulations on incumbent cellular providers. As a general rule. supra. Minute Resolution) and it was so stated in the case at bar. one in which telecommunications carriers are free to make business decisions and to interact with one another in providing telecommunications services.R. 1984. The new law proposed to dismantle gradually the barriers to entry. In the performance of its executive or legislative functions. Cordero v. Inc. there has been a marked revaluation of the traditional paradigm governing state regulation over telecommunications. mandating that “a healthy competitive environment shall be fostered. The reason is easily discerned from the fact that provisional rates are by their nature temporary and subject to adjustment in conformity with the definitive rates approved after final hearing (Republic v. a similar paradigm shift can be discerned with the passage of the Public Telecommunications Act of 1995 (“PTA”).” The statute itself defines the role of the government to “promote a fair. Medina. in the National Telecommunications Commission’s order of January 25. Sen. Article II. an administrative body need not comply with the requirements of notice and hearing. In the Philippines. No.

vs. Court of Appeals Set against the records of the case. petitioner was duly notified. hence. Thus. or conservatorship for that matter. Termination Proceedings. h. (b) report by said department to the Monetary Board. may only be annulled after a determination has been made by the trial court that its issuance was tainted with arbitrariness and bad faith. Inc. On the contrary. 1. Inc.1. the assertion of petitioner that it was deprived of its right to a hearing and any opportunity whatsoever to correct the alleged deficiencies readily collapses. an MB resolution placing a bank under receivership. They are: (a) an examination made by the examining department of the Central Bank. Agabon vs. Consequently. We rule that Sec. Court of Appeals ln sum. warned and given several opportunities to correct its deficiencies and to comply with pertinent orders and regulations. the status quo shall be maintained. Rural Bank of Buhi.. 3. National Labor Relations Commission . Philippine Merchant Marine School.Central Bank of the Philippines vs. 2. Until such determination is made. The absence of prior notice and hearing cannot be deemed acts of arbitrariness and bad faith. 265 is a sound legislation promulgated in accordance with the Constitution in the exercise of police power of the state. i. vs.A. that a hearing be first conducted before a banking institution may be placed under receivership.e. the bank shall continue to be under receivership. appeal to procedural due process cannot just outweigh the evil sought to be prevented. Court of Appeals It will be observed that there is no requirement whether express or implied. the absence of notice and hearing is not a valid ground to annul a Monetary Board resolution placing a bank under receivership. 29 of R. and (c) prima facie showing that the bank is in a condition of insolvency or so situated that its continuance in business would involve probable loss to its depositors or creditors. The earlier narration of facts clearly demonstrates that before the DECS issued the phase-out and closure orders. the law is explicit as to the conditions prerequisite to the action of the Monetary Board to forbid the institution to do business in the Philippines and to appoint a receiver to immediately take charge of the bank’s assets and liabilities.

Churchill and Tait vs." 2. first. Pacot “Where the dismissal is for a just cause. However. or render it illegal. has been upheld by the United States Supreme Court. and (2) if the dismissal is based on authorized causes under Articles 283 and 284. and not unduly oppressive upon individuals.’ which we sought to deter in the Serrano ruling. Jaka Food Processing Corporation vs. the lack of statutory due process should not nullify the dismissal. Substantive Due Process 1. 2. National Labor Relations Commission. the employer must give the employee and the Department of Labor and Employment written notices 30 days prior to the effectivity of his separation. that the interests of the public generally. Rafferty. both Federal and State. The sanction should be in the nature of indemnification or penalty and should depend on the facts of each case. 3.United States vs. as distinguished from those of a particular class. pay later. A provision in an internal revenue law prohibiting the courts from enjoining the collection of an internal revenue tax is not invalid as opposed to the "due process" and "equal protection of the law" clauses of the bill of rights of' the Organic Act. The indemnity to be imposed should be stiffer to discourage the abhorrent practice of ‘dismiss now. Toribio. taking into special consideration the gravity of the due process violation of the employer. and. the employer should indemnify the employee for the violation of his statutory rights. People vs Fajardo . or ineffectual.If the dismissal is based on a just cause under Article 282 of the Labor Code. second. the employer must give the employee two written notices and a hearing or opportunity to be heard if requested by the employeebefore terminating the employment. that the means are reasonably necessary for the accomplishment of the purpose. Such legislation. as ruled in Reta vs. require such interference. "To justify the State" in the exercise of its sovereign police power "it must appear. Failure to observe due process in a dismissal for just or authorized cause does not invalidate the dismissal but makes the employer liable for non- compliance with the procedural requirements of due process. as in the instant case.

Inc. therefore. 4. The ordinance should have established a rule by which its impartial enforcement could be secured. the two applying for precisely the same privileges under the same circumstances. to refuse the application of one landowner or lessee and to grant that of another. in the very nature of things. Where there was no factual foundation laid for overthrowing an ordinance which is not void on its face. it is enforced according to regular methods of procedure. having been enacted by coun-cilors who must. be familiar with the necessities of their particular municipality or city and with all the facts and circumstances which surround the subject and necessitate action. and which may be exercised in the interest of a favored few. the necessity for evidence to rebut its validity is unavoidable. Due process of law and the equal protection of the laws are not violated by section 2145 of the Administrative Code of 1917 since there exists a law. are unreasonable and invalid. when for all material purposes. Ynot vs. Rubi vs. Unless. depending upon no conditions or qualifications whatever. The pledge that no person shall be denied the equal protection of the laws is not infringed by a statute which is applicable to all of a class. the law seems to be reasonable. and it applies to all of a class. Ordinances which thus invest a city council with a discretion which is purely arbitrary. Provincial Board of Mindoro. 5. 6. Ermita-Malate Hotel and Motel Operators Association. The danger of such an ordinance is that it makes possible arbitrary discriminations and abuses in its execution. Thus the city is clothed with the uncontrolled power to capriciously grant the privilege to some and deny it others. It prescribes no uniform rule upon which the special permission of the city is to be granted. the presumption of constitution-ality must prevail. "Due process of law" is defined and analyzed in the opinion.The ordinance in question in no way controls or guides the discretion vested thereby in the respondents. must be presumed to be valid and should not be set aside unless there is a clear invasion of personal or property rights under the guise of police regulation. Intermediate Appellate Court . All of the authorities cited above sustain this conclusion. other than the unregulated arbitrary will of the city authorities as the touchstone by which its validity is to be tested. City Mayor of Manila An ordinance. vs. the ordinance is void on its face. Fundamental rights under our government do not depend for their existence upon such a slender and uncertain thread.

we sustained its constitutionality as an exercise of the police power of the state and further ruled that since appeal is a privilege of statutory origin. which took effect on 21 March 1989. Maranaw Hotel Resort Corporation vs. No. one side is only one-half of the question. is tainted with the vice of bias or intolerance or ignorance. Edu Letter of Instruction No. NLRC This paragraph was inserted by Section 12 of R. vs. Agustin vs. in repressive regimes. 7.. Gambling is not illegal per se. as unto the bow the arrow. the insolence of power.The closed mind has no place in the open society. In the exercise of its own discretion. While it is generally considered inimical to the interests of the people. Conjectural claims of petitioner as to number of nighttime vehicular collisions cannot be a basis for setting aside a requirement of law that was promulgated after a careful study by the Executive Department. Pryce Properties Corp. the legislature may prohibit gambling altogether or allow it .A. or worst of all. 229 requiring the installation of early warning devices to vehicles is not repugnant to the due process clause. on the pretext that a hearing is unnecessary or useless. even mentioning it at all. It is part of the sporting idea of fair play to hear "the other side" before an opinion is formed or a decision is made by those who sit in judgment. in leading to the correct ruling after examination of the problem not from one or the other perspective only but in its totality. In Aris (Phil. It is indispensable that the two sides complement each other. Obviously. It is left to Congress to deal with the activity as it sees fit. 6715. there is nothing in the Constitution categorically proscribing or penalizing gambling or. the law may validly prescribe limitations or qualifications thereto or provide relief to the prevailing party in the event an appeal is interposed by the losing party. 9. the other half must also be considered if an impartial verdict is to be reached based on an informed appreciation of the issues in contention. National Labor Relations Commission. for that matter. The morality of gambling is not a justiciable issue. Inc. Magtajas vs. A judgment based on less that this full appraisal.) Inc. 8.

They were. to which the function belongs in our scheme of government. it has prohibited jueteng and monte but permits lotteries. respondents aver that petitioner has no legal interest to uphold and that the implementing rules of A. or practicibility of statutes are not addressed to the judiciary but may be resolved only by the legislative and executive departments. petitioner is possessed of the requisite standing to bring suit raising the issue that the issuance of A. . and not to the courts of justice. Thus. 12.O. cockfighting and horse-racing. assuming facts or theories for which there is no foundation in the evidence. vs.O.O. No. But cross- examination is the exclusive function of the advocate. It has been said that purely abstract questions. are not admissible as a matter of right. 308 is a usurpation of legislative power. they are answerable only to their own conscience and the constituents who will ultimately judge their acts. much less reverse. which this Court has no authority to review. These submissions do not deserve our sympathetic ear. Whichever way these branches decide. respondents raise the threshold issues relating to the standing to sue of the petitioner and the justiciability of the case at bar. As taxpayer and member of the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS). Petitioner Ople is a distinguished member of our Senate. queries that have no basis on the records. That is the prerogative of the political departments. People The court questions were far from being clarificatory. No. Ople vs. Torres As is usual in constitutional litigation. 308 have yet to be promulgated. Opida” has admonished that: “x x x the judge must not only be impartial but must also appear to be impartial. It is settled that questions regarding the wisdom.” 11. Corona vs. Well has it been said that courts do not sit to resolve the merits of conflicting theories. That function is exclusive. More specifically. As a Senator. No. Jr. Thus.without limitation or it may prohibit some forms of gambling and allow others for whatever reasons it may consider sufficient. in the main. to give added assurance to the parties that his decision will be just. The parties are entitled to no less than this. In making such choices. as a minimum guaranty of due process. although such questions may be permitted on cross-examination for the purpose of testing the knowledge of the witness as to the subject on which he has testified. Congress has consulted its own wisdom. 308. morality. any trend of court questioning which shows even a slight semblance of cross-examination is already offensive to fundamental requirements of due process. 10. for this Court in “People v. Dans. United Harbor Pilots Association of the Phils. petitioner can also impugn the legality of the misalignment of public funds and the misuse of GSIS funds to implement A.

et al. (2) must be germane to the purposes of the law. whether he is casual . Hernandez. Cayat It is an established principle of constitutional law that the guaranty of the equal protection of the laws is not violated by a legislation based on reasonable classification. In the performance of its executive or legislative functions.People vs. and reasonable grounds exist for making a distinction between those who fall within such class and those who do not 3. Villegas vs. and (4) must apply equally to all members of the same class. and Sarmiento The equal protection of the law clause is against undue favor and individual or class privilege... Equal Protection of the Law 1. such as issuing rules and regulations. As a general rule. which is limited either in the object to which it is directed or by territory within which it is to operate. to be reasonable. 2. it merely requires that all persons shall be treated alike. And the classification. if it applies alike to all persons within such class. Although the equal protection clause of the Constitution does not forbid classification. etc. It does not demand absolute equality among residents. as well as hostile discrimination or the oppression of inequality.00 is being collected from every employed alien.00 fee is unreasonable not only because it is excessive but because it fails to consider valid substantial differences in situation among individual aliens who are required to pay it. The same amount to P50. Hiu Chiong Tsai Pao Ho The P50.Ichong. notice and hearing. (3) must not be limited to existing conditions only. an administrative body need not comply with the requirements of notice and hearing. are essential only when an administrative body exercises its quasi-judicial function. it is imperative that the classification should be based on real and substantial differences having a reasonable relation to the subject of the particular legislation. It is not intended to prohibit legislation. under like circumstances and conditions both as to privileges conferred and liabilities enforced. vs. (!) must rest on substantial distinctions. The equal protection clause is not infringed by legislation which applies only to those persons falling within a specified class. etc.Neither does the fact that the pilots themselves were not consulted in any way taint the validity of the administrative order. as the fundamental requirements of procedural due process.

a hypothetical issue. drug trafficking and other vices” (p.” Petitioner Dumlao’s case is clearly within the primary jurisdiction (see concurring Opinion of now Chief Justice Fernando in Peralta vs. 96 [1978]) of respondent COMELEC as provided for in section 2. Treasurer of Ormoc City The equal protection clause a only to persons or things identically situated and does not bar a reasonable classification of the subject of legislation. Dumlao has not been adversely affected by the application of that provision. while most gambling are outlawed together with prostitution. We. Dumlao vs. and seeks to prohibit respondent COMELEC from implementing said provision.or permanent. 52. Inc. A classification is reasonable where (1) it is based on substantial distinctions which make real differences. which this Court is being asked to review on Certiorari. (2) these are germane to the purpose of the law. COMELEC Petitioner Dumlao assails the constitutionality of the first paragraph of section 4 of Batas Pambansa Blg. No petition seeking Dumlao’s disqualification has been filed before the COMELEC. XII-C. Ormoc Sugar Co.D. as being contrary to the equal protection clause guaranteed by the Constitution. (3) the classification applies not only to present conditions but also to future conditions which are substantially identical to those of the present. Basco vs. and in effect. part time or full time or whether he is a lowly employee or a highly paid executive. Rollo). 4. (4) the classification applies only to those who belong to the same class. 1869 violates the equal protection clause of the Constitution. Comelec. 82. Hernandez. 6. Yet. Phil.. 101 . This is a question posed in the abstract. because “it legalized PAGCOR—conducted gambling. quoted earlier. likewise. 5. Amusements and Gaming Corporation Petitioners next contend that P. of the Constitution. a petition for an advisory opinion from this Court to be “rendered without the benefit of a detailed factual record.” The clause does not preclude classification of individuals who may be accorded different treatment under the law as long as the classification is not unreasonable or arbitrary (Itchong v. find no valid ground to sustain this contention. The petitioners’ posture ignores the well-accepted meaning of the clause “equal protection of the laws. 82 SCRA 30. Art. vs. There is no ruling of that constitutional body on the matter.

P. 8. unconstitutional.D. (2) It must be germane to the purpose of the law. 2847). No. Palomar. lotteries and races (RA 1169 as amended by B. Palomar. “If the law presumably hits the evil where it is most felt. The test for this is reasonableness such that it must conform to the following requirements: (1) it must be based upon substantial distinctions. 306 as amended by RA 983). housing the urban poor. A law does not have to operate in equal force on all persons or things to be conformable to Article III.G. The legislative intent to classify the INP in such manner that Section 89 of R. etc. Paupers may be reasonably classified. De Guzman. The mere fact that some gambling activities like cockfighting (P. 6975 is applicable only to the local police force is clear. Precious to the hearts of our legislators. P. 42) are legalized under certain conditions. 449) horse racing (R. emancipating the tenant-farmer from the bondage of the soil. Domingo There is no violation of the equal protection clause in classifying paupers as subject of legislation. 43 O. Section 1 of the Constitution (DECS v. is the welfare of the paupers. The Constitution does not require situations which are different in fact or opinion to be treated in law as though they were the same (Gomez v. 1869 in legalizing gambling conducted by PAGCOR is violative of the equal protection is not clearly explained in the petition. Just how P. 1989). The question now is whether the classification is valid.A. Thus. 1155). the state may do what it can to prevent which is deemed as evil and stop short of those cases in which harm to the few concerned is not less than the harm to the public that would insure if the rule laid down were made mathematically exact.D. San Diego. The “equal protection clause” does not prohibit the Legislature from establishing classes of individuals or objects upon which different rules shall operate (Laurel v.A. Different groups may receive varying treatment. statutes have been passed giving rights and benefits to the disabled. 7. National Police Commission vs. Misa. 89572. People . down to our local councilors. Himagan vs. December 21.R. 1869 for one. Jr. and (4) It must apply equally to all members of the same class.Phil. 25 SCRA 827). sweepstakes. it is not to be overthrown because there are other instances to which it might have been applied. G.. Binay vs. does not render the applicable laws. (3) It must not be limited to existing conditions only. while others are prohibited.D. 9.” (Gomez v. 25 SCRA 827) “The equal protection clause of the 14 th Amendment does not mean that all occupations called by the same name must be treated the same way.

the average score attained during the current year. 10. Different cutoff scores for different school years may be dictated by differing conditions obtaining during those years. far from being arbitrary or capricious. 1987 Constitution). The franchise is a contract solemnly entered into between the City of Manila and the private respondent.A. and so forth. Article III. 11. The imposition of preventive suspension for over 90 days under Section 47 of R. No. leaves the Board of Medical Education with the measure of flexibility needed to meet circumstances as they change. Prado The equal protection of the laws is embraced in the concept of due process. 12. 52. as every unfair discrimination offends the requirements of justice and fair play. The above language in MECS Order No. otherwise. To establish a permanent and immutable cutoff score regardless of changes in circumstances from year to year. the number of places available in medical schools during the current year. 6975 does not violate the suspended policeman’s constitutional right to equal protection of the laws. If a suspended policeman criminally charged with a serious offense is reinstated to his post while his case is pending. of the Constitution to provide for a more specific guaranty against any form of undue favoritism or hostility from the government. Thus. 7065 and the franchise granted therein are concerned. the appropriate cutoff score for a given year may be a function of such factors as the number of students who have reached the cutoff score established the preceding year. . It has nonetheless been embodied in a separate clause in Article III. Sec. P. however. as succinctly brought out in the legislative discussions. and to that extent. In all other respects. Philippine Judges Association vs. Lim vs. the decree would be unconstitutional under the non-impairment of contract clause (Section 10. the level of difficulty of the test given during the current year. 1. Pacquing I agree that insofar as Ordinance No. the said decree is valid and binding.The reason why members of the PNP are treated differently from the other classes of persons charged criminally or administratively insofar as the application of the rule on preventive suspension is concerned is that policemen carry weapons and the badge of the law which can be used to harass or intimidate witnesses against them. his victim and the witnesses against him are obviously exposed to constant threat and thus easily cowed to silence by the mere fact that the accused is in uniform and armed. Gutierrez The force of this argument is more apparent than real. may well result in an unreasonable rigidity. 771 cannot validly revoke them.Tablarin vs.D.

As a matter of fact. This might in fact sometimes result in unequal protection. as well as realism. Commission on Elections Indeed. Araneta. 2050 cannot divest the Commission of its duty to resolve disqualification cases under the clear provision of section 6 of R. regardless of age.’ ” 14. however. a law prohibiting mature books to all persons.B. Jr. clings to the view that “Resolution No.Arbitrariness in general may be challenged on the basis of the due process clause. Blanco’s contention that he was denied equal protection of the law is off-line. According to a long line of decisions.A. in a leading case of Lutz V. of course. He was not the object of any invidious discrimination. B and C. through Justice J. But if the particular act assailed partakes of an unwarranted partiality or prejudice. even Commissioner Maambong who dissented from the majority ruling. addressed to the attainment of specific ends by the use of specific remedies. this Court. 13. but are expressions of policy arising out of specific difficulties. the sharper weapon to cut it down is the equal protection clause. Ancheta The equal protection clause is. went so far as to hold “at any rate. COMELEC assumed direct jurisdiction over his disqualification case not to favor anybody but to discharge its constitutional duty of disposing the case in a fair and as fast a manner as possible. 6646. and it has been repeatedly held that ‘inequalities which result from a singling out of one particular class for taxation.’ and laws are not abstract propositions. Reyes. inspired by the noble concept of approximating the ideal of the laws’s benefits being available to all and the affairs of men being governed by that serene and impartial uniformity. for example.” Clearly too. There is. No. so as to give undue favor to some and unjustly discriminate against others. By classification is meant the grouping of persons or things similar to each other in certain particulars and different from all others in these same particulars. in other words. What the clause requires is equality among equals as determined according to a valid classification. The Fourteenth Amendment enjoins ‘the equal protection of the laws. in these words of Justice Frankfurter: “The equality at which the ‘equal protection’ clause aims is not a disembodied equality. both as to rights conferred and responsibilities imposed. The equal protection clause does not require the universal application of the laws on all persons or things without distinction. The Constitution does not require things which are different in fact or opinion to be treated in law as though they were the same. Similar subjects. wisdom. vs. would benefit the morals of the youth but violate the liberty of adults. as where. or exemption infringe no constitutional limitation.L. should not be treated differently. equal protection simply requires that all persons or things similarly situated should be treated alike. which is of the very essence of the idea of law. Nolasco vs. it is inherent in the power to tax that a state be free to select the subjects of taxation. Sison. . They do not relate to abstract units A.” Hence the constant reiteration of the view that classification if rational in character is allowable.

Commission on Elections The fact that one needs a franchise from government to establish a radio and television station while no license is needed to start a newspaper should not be made a basis for treating broadcast media any differently from the print media in compelling the former to “donate” airtime to respondent Comelec. Lacson vs. 17. Thus. 8249 violate their right to equal protection of the law because its enactment was particularly directed only to the Kuratong Baleleng cases in the Sandiganbayan. Court of Appeals The fundamental right of equal protection of the laws is not absolute. No concrete evidence and convincing argument were presented to warrant a declaration of an act of the entire Congress and signed into law by the highest officer of the co-equal executive department as unconstitutional. If the groupings are characterized by substantial distinctions that make real differences. While no franchises and rights are granted except under the condition that it shall be subject to amendment. but is subject to reasonable classification. In . alteration. then perhaps there might be some basis to petitioner’s assertion that only moneyed convicts may avail of the benefits of probation. If it were. Every classification made by law is presumed reasonable. vs. is a contention too shallow to deserve merit. Soriano vs. 16. Executive Secretary Petitioner and intervenors’ posture that Sections 4 and 7 of R. one class may be treated and regulated differently from another. 14 this provides no license for government to disregard the cardinal rule that corporations with franchises are as much entitled to due process and equal protection of laws guaranteed under the Constitution.15. Tiu vs. 18. or repeal by the Congress when the common good so requires. Note that payment of the civil liability is not made a condition precedent to probation. Inc. the party who challenges the law must present proof of arbitrariness.A. The classification must also be germane to the purpose of the law and must apply to all those belonging to the same class. Telecommunications and Broadcast Attorneys of the Philippines. Court of Appeals Contrary to his assertion. this requirement is not violative of the equal protection clause of the Constitution.

and 4. . give everyone his due. To hold a special election only for the position of Governor will be discriminatory and will violate the right of private respondent to equal protection of the law. “in the exercise of his rights and in the performance of his duties. The classification must rest on substantial distinctions.this case. but was a condition for his continued enjoyment of the same. Private respondent’s election cannot be singled out as invalid for alikes cannot be treated unalikes. however. Commission on Elections The Court is not persuaded by petitioners’ arguments. These officials were proclaimed on the basis of the same manually counted votes of Sulu. vs. 3. and observe honesty and good faith.” 21. International School Alliance of Educators vs. Our Constitution and laws reflect the policy against these evils. 20. two (2) congressmen. The classification must be germane to the purpose of the law. The classification must not be limited to existing conditions only. and political inequalities. If manual counting is illegal. The Constitution in the Article on Social Justice and Human Rights exhorts Congress to “give highest priority to the enactment of measures that protect and enhance the right of all people to human dignity. [to] act with justice. economic. Quisumbing That public policy abhors inequality and discrimination is beyond contention. 2. their assumption of office cannot also be countenanced. reduce social. The “equal protection clause” of the 1987 Constitution permits a valid classification under the following conditions: 1. a vice-governor. Satisfaction of his civil liability was not made a requirement before he could avail of probation. Loong vs. The classification must apply equally to all members of the same class. numerous vice-mayors and municipal councilors are now serving in their official capacities. 19. Commission on Elections There is another reason why a special election cannot be ordered by this Court. Jr. eight (8) members of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan and eighteen (18) may-ors. petitioner’s application for probation had already been granted. Thus. The records show that all elected officials in Sulu have been proclaimed and are now discharging their powers and duties. De Guzman.” The very broad Article 19 of the Civil Code requires every person.

not identity of rights. Inc. As held in Victoriano v. 24. Dimayuga vs. in order to avoid the constitutional prohibition against inequality. and reiterated in a long line of cases: The guaranty of equal protection of the laws is not a guaranty of equality in the application of the laws upon all citizens of the state. 23. as a rule. The equal protection clause does not forbid discrimination as to things that are different. its varying treatment of similarly situated investigations cannot by itself be considered a violation of any of the parties’ rights to the equal protection of the laws. House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal We are not prepared to conclude that the assailed Resolutions of the HRET offend the equal protection clause. for every particular investigation. It is not. but on persons according to the circumstances surrounding them. It does not prohibit legislation which is limited either in the object to which it is directed or by the territory within which it is to operate. therefore. In another case with similar factual antecedents. Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas It is settled in constitutional law that the “equal protection” clause does not prevent the Legislature from establishing classes of individuals or objects upon which different rules shall operate—so long as the classification is not unreasonable. Elizalde Rope Workers’ Union. vs. . it may pursue the investigation because it realizes that the decision of COA is irrelevant or unnecessary to the investigation and prosecution of the case. Office of the Ombudsman The Office of the Ombudsman has been granted virtually plenary investigatory powers by the Constitution and by law. decide how best to pursue each investigation. woman and child should be affected alike by a statute. Since the Office of the Ombudsman is granted such latitude. Thus. that every man. Equal protection simply means that all persons and things similarly situated must be treated alike both as to the rights conferred and the liabilities imposed. Central Bank Employees Association. the Office of the Ombudsman may. The Constitution does not require that things which are different in fact be treated in law as though they were the same. Equality of operation of statutes does not mean indiscriminate operation on persons merely as such. a requirement.22. It follows that the existence of a valid and substantial distinction justifies divergent treatment. It guarantees equality. whether instigated by a complaint or on its own initiative. This power gives the Office of the Ombudsman the discretion to dismiss without prejudice a preliminary investigation if it finds that the final decision of COA is necessary for its investigation and the future prosecution of the case. Dimaporo vs.

Secretary of Education . and that there is no conceivable basis which might support it. The presumption of constitutionality can be overcome only by the most explicit demonstration that a classification is a hostile and oppressive discrimination against particular persons and classes. Camacho We have held that “in our jurisdiction. (3) not be limited to existing conditions only. A legislative classification that is reasonable does not offend the constitutional guaranty of the equal protection of the laws. It is an established principle of constitutional law that the guaranty of the equal protection of the laws is not violated by a legislation based on a reasonable classification. a legislative classification. must (1) rest on substantial distinction. all things being equal. British American Tobacco vs. No rule that will cover every case can be formulated. Beltran vs. Class legislation. (c) must not be limited to existing conditions only. the rational-basis test thus finds application. and (4) apply equally to all members of the same class. Torres Petitioners’ contention cannot be sustained.” Within the present context of tax legislation on sin products which neither contains a suspect classification nor impinges on a fundamental right. and. Inc. Since every law has in its favor the presumption of constitutionality. discriminating against some and favoring others is prohibited but classification on a reasonable basis and not made arbitrarily or capriciously is permitted. Coconut Oil Refiners Association. however. the burden of proof is on the one attacking the constitutionality of the law to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the legislative classification is without rational basis.25. and (4) it applies equally to all those belonging to the same class. (b) must be germane to the purpose of the law. the standard and analysis of equal protection challenges in the main have followed the ‘rational basis’ test. Classification. to be reasonable: (a) must be based on substantial distinctions which make real differences. Secretary of Health What may be regarded as a denial of the equal protection of the laws is a question not always easily determined. 27. coupled with a deferential attitude to legislative classifications and a reluctance to invalidate a law unless there is a showing of a clear and unequivocal breach of the Constitution. must be shown to rationally further a legitimate state interest. Under this test. 26. to both present and future conditions. (2) it is germane to the purpose of the law. (3) it applies. The classification is considered valid and reasonable provided that: (1) it rests on substantial distinctions. (d) must apply equally to each member of the class. (2) be germane to the purpose of the law. to survive an equal protection challenge. The classification. vs. The classifications must be reasonable and rest upon some ground of difference having a fair and substantial relation to the object of the legislation. to be valid. Brown v. 28.

A reasonable search is not to be determined by any fixed formula but is to be resolved according to the facts of each case. 2.Guazon vs De Villa It is not the police action per se which should be prohibited rather it is the procedure used or the methods which "offend even hardened sensibilities. When a private individual violates another person’s right to privacy.People vs Andre Marti The constitutional proscription against unlawful searches and seizures therefore applies as a restraint directed only against the government and its agencies tasked with the enforcement of the law. Those which are reasonable are not forbidden. Purpose and Importance of Guaranty 1. Education in public schools is a right which must be made available to all on equal terms. Between the inherent right of the state to protect its existence and promote public welfare and an individual's right against a warrantless search which is however reasonably conducted. who had voluntarily given aid and comfort to the enemy. the evidence obtained therefrom is admissible. c. the former should prevail. ARREST. however the violator could be held civilly liable under Article 32 of the Civil Code .Alvero vs. When is a search a “search”? 1. Also. as Commander in Chief of the United States of Army. SEARCH AND SEIZURE a. in violation of the allegiance. It is not meant to be invoked against acts of private individuals. To Whom Directed 1. proclamation of General Douglas McArthur. b. III. Dizon The right of the officer and men of the United States Army to arrest the petitioner as a collaborationist suspect. declaring his purpose to remove certain citizens of the Philippines.Valmonte vs General de Villa Not all searches and seizures are prohibited.Segregation of children in the Public schools solely on the basis of race denies to black children the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth 'amendment. even though the physical facilities and other may be equal. and to seize his personal papers is unquestionable.

People vs. not the individual making the affidavit and seeking the issuance of the warrant. 2. The true test of sufficiency of an affidavit to warrant issuance of a search warrant is whether it has been drawn in such a manner that perjury could be charged thereon and affiant be held liable for damages caused. to wit: (1) arrests in flagrante delicto. of the existence of probable cause. the Constitution requires no less than personal knowledge by the complainant or his witnesses of the facts upon which the issuance of a search warrant may be justified.Alvarez vs CFI The oath required must refer to the truth of the facts within the personal knowledge of the petitioner or his witnesses. The prosecution and the defense painted extremely divergent versions of the incident. CA The real and ultimate test of the independence and integrity of this court is not the filing of the aforementioned motions [to suspend proceedings and issuance of warrants of arrest and to defer arraignment] at that stage but the filing of a motion to dismiss or to withdraw the information on the basis of a resolution of the petition for review reversing the Joint Resolution of the investigating prosecutor. Chief of Staff In mandating that “no warrant shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined by the judge.Bache and Co. and (3) arrests of escaped prisoners. but the . 4. e. because the purpose thereof is to convince the committing magistrate. after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce”. Ruiz The Constitution and the rules require a personal examination by the judge. (2) arrests effected in hot pursuit.Stonehill vs.Burgos vs. 3.Roberts vs. vs. Diokno Only the party whose rights has been impaired can validly object the legality of a seizure--a purely personal right which cannot be exercised by a third party. It was precisely on account of the intention of the delegates to the Constitutional Convention to make it a duty of the issuing judge to personally examine the complainant before issuing a search warrant 2. The Rules of Court recognize permissible warrantless arrests. d. Conditions for a valid warrant Existence of Probable Cause 1. Who May Invoke the Right? 1. Chua Ho San Enshrined in the Constitution is the inviolable right to privacy of home and person.

Probable cause is determined in the light of conditions obtaining in a given situation.People vs. or whether it was recovered on Salanguit's person or in an area within his immediate control. Partially Valid Warrant 1. He shall: 1) personally evaluate the report and the supporting documents submitted by the fiscal regarding the existence of probable cause and on the basis thereof. (3) search in violation of customs laws. No formula or fixed rule for its determination exists. whether prior to. Microsoft Corp.Lim Sr. preliminary examination (judge) . With respect to. vs. Salanguit The fact that there was no probable cause to support the application for the seizure of drug paraphernalia does not warrant the conclusion that the search warrant is void. vs.. the shabu subject of the warrant.investigation for the determination of a probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest. Drilon . 2. are sufficient to establish the existence of probable cause. No law or rule states that probable cause requires a specific kind of evidence. issue a warrant of arrest OR 2) if on the basis thereof." the police failed to allege the time when the marijuana was found. i.Soliven vs. Preliminary inquiry – determines probable cause for the issuance of a search warrant (prosecutor). Makasiar The judge is not required to personally examine the complainant and his witnesses. coupled with the object and documentary evidence they presented. 3. Felix Certification by the fiscal of the existence of probable cause does not bind the judge. 5. (4) seizure of evidence in plain view. or contemporaneous with.Court is certain that Chua was arrested and his bag searched without the benefit of a warrant.People vs. Molina Search and seizure may be made without a warrant and the evidence obtained therefrom may be admissible in the following instances: (1) search incident to a lawful arrest.e. Personal Determination by Judge 1. This fact would be material only if drug paraphernalia was in fact seized by the police.Paderanga vs. (5) when the accused himself waives his right against unreasonable searches and seizures. he may disregard the fiscal’s report and require the submission of supporting affidavits of witnesses to aid him in arriving at a conclusion of the existence of probable cause 2. and in light of the "plain view doctrine. he does not find probable cause. Maxicorp The testimonies of the two witnesses. (2) search of a moving motor vehicle. preliminary investigation proper – ascertains whether the offender should be held for trial or be released. and (6) stop and frisk situations.

People vs.Pasion Vda. 4. is lending money without license. Probable cause for a search has been defined as such facts and circumstances which would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed and that the objects sought in connection with the offense are in the place sought to be searched. otherwise. (3) in the determination of probable cause. they become unreasonable and subject to challenge. the complainant and such witnesses as the latter may produce. of Article III of the Constitution and of section 97 of General Orders 58 was followed. (2) the probable cause must be determined by the judge himself and not by the applicant or any other person. Almeda. The applicant Mariano G. (1) it must be issued upon probable cause. absent any overt act indicative of a felonious enterprise in the presence and within the view of the arresting officers. valid or invalid. and (4) the warrant issued must particularly describe the place to be searched and persons or things to be seized. .Abdula vs. paragraph 3. Mamaril The issuance of a search warrant is justified only upon a finding of probable cause.People vs. The quantum of evidence now required in preliminary investigation is such evidence sufficient to "engender a well founded belief" as to the fact of the commission of a crime and the respondent's probable guilt thereof. De los Reyes Reliable information alone. 6. Locsin Freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures is declared a popular right and for a search warrant to be valid. Almeda Strict observance of the formalities under section 1. under oath or affirmation.Yee Sue Kuy vs. The Court finds greater reason to reprobate the questioned raid. Guiani It is basic that searches and seizures may be done only through a judicial warrant. charging usurious rate of interest. and should be held for trial. are not sufficient to constitute probable cause that would justify an in flagrante delicto to arrest Examination of Witnesses 1. swore that "he made his own personal investigation and ascertained that Sam Sing & Co. 5. De Garcia vs. the judge must examine.A preliminary investigation is defined as an inquiry or proceeding for the purpose of determining whether there is sufficient ground to engender a well founded belief that a crime cognizable by the Regional Trial Court has been committed and that the respondent is probably guilty thereof. in his application. in the complete absence of a warrant. 2.

2. without any specification of the particular sections thereof that were alleged to have been violated out of the hundreds of prohibitions contained in such codifications. Section 2208 provides that "For the more effective discharge of his official duties.20th Century Fox Film Corp. Coll of Customs Sections 2208 and 2209 of the Tariff and Customs Code provide when a search may be made without a warrant and when a warrant is necessary.Mata vs. paragraph 3. 4. there is no similar ambiguity herein. and that objects sought in connection with the offense are in the place sought to be searched.Alvarez vs..Prudence vs Judge Dayrit The "probable cause" for a valid search warrant. has been defined "as such facts and circumstances which would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed. pass through or search any land or inclosure or any warehouse.Chia vs. rewinders and tape cleaners are articles which can be found in a video tape store engaged in the legitimate business of lending or renting out betamax tapes.3. there was a bare reference to the laws in general. not being a dwelling house. CFI Section 1. of Article III of the Constitution and Section 97 of General Orders 58 require that there be not only probable cause before the issuance of a search warrant but that the search warrant must be based upon an application supported by oath of the applicant and the witnesses he may produce. may at any time enter. 5. People vs Choi . these articles and appliances are generally connected with. or related to a legitimate business not necessarily involving piracy of intellectual property or infringement of copyright laws. 4. People The search warrant issued does not come under the strictures of the Stonehill doctrine.Olacs vs. CA Television sets. While in the case cited. Particularity of Description 1. In short. any person exercising the powers herein conferred. Bayona Under the Constitution "no search warrant shall issue but upon probable cause to be determined by the Judge or such other responsible officer as may be authorized by law after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce". vs. video cassette recorders. store or other building." 3.

Cruz Pano It is at once evident that the Search Warrant authorizes the seizure of personal properties vaguely described and not particularized.People vs.PICOP vs. The reviewing court can overturn such findings only upon proof that the judge disregarded the facts before him or ignored the clear dictates of reason 6.Del Rosario v. (2) such presence is determined personally by the judge. 7.Unilab vs. (3) the complainant and the witnesses he or she may produce are personally examined by the judge. Asuncion The requisites of a valid search warrant are: (1) probable cause is present. Francisco A search warrant is not a sweeping authority empowering a raiding party to undertake a fishing expedition to seize and confiscate any and all kinds of evidence or articles relating to a crime Objects of Seizure 1. CA Exclusion of unlawfully seized evidence is the only practical means of enforcing the constitutional injunction against unreasonable searches and seizures. 8. Section 3 of the 1973 Constitution.Nolasco vs. It is an all-embracing description which includes everything conceivable regarding the Communist Party of the Philippines and the National Democratic Front.Since probable cause is dependent largely on the opinion and findings of the judge who conducted the examination and who had the opportunity to question the applicant and his witnesses.Yousef Al Ghoul vs. the findings of the judge deserve great weight. (4) the applicant and the witnesses testify on facts personally known to them. People On this stable foundation. in writing and under oath or affirmation. Isip . and (5) the warrant specifically describes the place to be searched and the things to be seized. 9. 10. the warrantless seizure did not violate Article IV. which finds origin in the Fourth Amendment of the American Constitution.

3. Layague The Constitution guarantees the right of the people to be secure in their persons. A . Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution).Lopez vs. Veroy vs.Katz vs.People vs. The State must adduce evidence to prove that the elements for the doctrine to apply are present. Damaso The constitutional immunity from unreasonable searches and seizures.It is true that things not described in the warrant may be seized under the plain view doctrine." and therefore applies as much to the citizen on the streets as well as at home or elsewhere. 2. 2. Valid Warrantless Searches Valid Waiver 1. United States The Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures. However. Ramos In law. made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment. stop and frisk – probable cause is not required to conduct stop and frisk but mere suspicion or a hunch will not validate it. houses. New Hampshire – no search warrant needed. Coolidge. the rule that searches and seizures must be supported by a valid warrant is not an absolute one. CA – valid waiver – must be made in writing and in the presence of counsel. search incidental to a lawful arrest v. papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures (Article III. 5. possession necessary for conviction of the offense of possession of controlled substances with intent to distribute may be constructive as well as actual. In criminal law. actual possession exists when the thing is in the immediate occupancy and control of the party. therefore. People vs. being a personal one cannot he waived by anyone except the person whose rights are invaded or one who is expressly authorized to do so in his or her . 4. But this is not to say that the law requires actual possession. However. Malacat v. "protects people. not places. f. it can readily be concluded that there was consent sufficient in law to dispense with the need for a search warrant. People v. Under all the circumstances. seized things not described in the warrant cannot be presumed as plain view. Coolidge v. Comm of Customs Common courtesy alone would have precluded them from inquiring too closely as to why she was there. Evaristo – Evidence in plain view – Harris v.

CA The exclusionary rule under Section 3(2). People vs. is committing.People vs Correa One effectively waived his constitutional right against the search and seizure by their voluntary submission to the jurisdiction of the trial court. Incident to Lawful Arrest 1.People vs Tangliben Rule 113 sec. He is precluded from later complaining thereof right to be secure from unreasonable search may. . If the accused believes that the testimony of said witness is important to his cause.People vs. 8. be waived and such waiver may be made either expressly or impliedly. Nevertheless. when they entered a plea of not guilty upon arraignment and by participating in the trial. like every right. 5 provides the a peace officer or a private person may w/o a warrant arrest a person when in his presence the person to be arrested has committed.genuine reason must exist.People vs Tudtud Arrest must precede the search. de la Cruz It is settled that the non-presentation of a certain witness by the prosecution is not a sufficiently plausible defense. otherwise such search and seizure becomes "unreasonable" within the meaning of Section 2. 9. he should avail thereof. 11. appellants argument of illegal search and seizure cannot simply be brushed aside. 6. 7. People vs. 10. considering the guarantee so sacredly enshrined in our Constitution. The constitutional proscription against warrantless searches and seizures is not absolute but admits of certain exceptions. 2. Omaweng Omaweng waived his right against unreasonable searches and seizures when he voluntarily submitted to a search or consents to have it made in his person or premises.People vs Asis In any event.Caballes vs. a search substantially contemporaneous with an arrest can precede the arrest if the police have probable cause to make the arrest at the outset of the search. Article III of the 1987 Constitution. or is attempting to commit an offense. Article III of the Constitution bars the admission of evidence obtained in violation of such right. Barros The general rule is that a search and seizure must be carried out through or with a judicial warrant. even by compulsory judicial process if necessary. the process cannot be reversed.

Searches and seizures are as a rule unreasonable unless authorized by a validly issued search warrant or warrant of arrest. thus the search made upon his personal effects falls squarely under paragraph 1 of the foregoing provision of law. authorizing a warrantless arrest of any person actually committing a crime 4. arrest a person: When. or is attempting to commit an offense .3. Rule 113 of the Rules of Court.People vs. Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution) is not a blanket prohibition against all searches and seizures as it operates only against "unreasonable" searches and seizures. in the presence. during the trial. Plain View Doctrine . 7. time and place of the arrest.Espano vs CA Section 5 Rule 113 of the Rules of Court provides: “Arrest without warrant.People vs Che Chun Ting The lawful arrest being the sole justification for the validity of the warrantless search under the exception. The accused- appellant was arrested in flagrante delicto as a result of the entrapment and so came under Section 5. the appellant is deemed to have waived his right to object to the legality of the search and the admissibility of the evidence seized through that search because. A crime was actually being committed by the accused and he was caught in flagrante delicto. Kalubiran The defense posture that Kalubiran's arrest and search violated the Bill of Rights demonstrates an unfamiliarity with the applicable rules and jurisprudence.People vs. he did not raise these issues. is actually committing. when lawful – a peace officer or a private person may. Malmstedt Accused was searched and arrested while transporting prohibited drugs.People vs Libnao The constitutional guarantee (in Article III. “ 6. . the person to be arrested has committed.People vs. without a warrant. the same must be limited to and circumscribed by the subject. 5. . 8. which allows a warrantless search incident to a lawful arrest. Estrella According to the OSG.

11 An officer. 6. Otherwise. therefore. Article III of the 1987 Constitution are safeguards against reckless. 47 J v.People vs. CA A warrantless search is constitutionally permissible when. seized things not described in the warrant cannot be presumed as plain view. that either the motorist is a law-offender (like Padilla with respect to the hit and run) or the contents or cargo of the vehicle are or have been instruments or the subject matter or the proceeds of some criminal offense. Huang Rule 113 Sec. the officers conducting the search have reasonable or probable cause to believe. or witho ut a warrant as provided by Section 5. as in this case. Huang Zhen Hua Rule 113 Sec.People vs. The State must adduce evidence to prove that the elements for the doctrine to apply are present. 11 An officer.People vs. malicious and unreasonable invasion of privacy and liberty. . or witho ut a warrant as provided by Section 5.People vs. such search and seizure becomes "unreasonable" within the meaning of the constitutional provision.Padilla vs. 5. Musa Warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest authorizes the arresting officer to make a search upon the person of the person arrested. 3.Veronia School District.Valdez The Constitution lays down the general rule that a search and seizure must be carried on the strength of a judicial warrant.Unilab vs. may break into any building or enclosure person is to be arrested." 4. Isip It is true that things not described in the warrant may be seized under the plain view doctrine." 7. may break into any building or enclosure person is to be arrested. 2. otherwise. in order to make an arrest either by virtue of a warrant. the search and seizure is deemed "unreasonable. Compacion Sections 2 and 3 [2]. However.1.People vs. in order to make an arrest either by virtue of a warrant. must be carried out through or with a judicial warrant. before the search. Acton The reasonableness of a search is judged by "balancing the intrusion on the individual's Fourth Amendment interests against the promotion of legitimate governmental interests. A search and seizure. 8.

to the detriment of society. Suzuki To simply refuse passengers carrying suspected illegal items to enter the pre-departure area is to deprive the authorities of their duty to conduct search." and therefore applies as much to the citizen on the streets as well as at home or elsewhere. an international practice of strict observance. Ohio The Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures.People vs. hence it is not practicable to require a search warrant before such search or seizure can be constitutionally effected 2. 2. an individual may choose between invoking the constitutional protection or waiving his right by giving consent to the search or seizure. Manalili vs CA . "protects people. thus sanctioning impotence and ineffectivity of the law enforcers. Area Search and seizure without search warrant of vessels and air crafts for violations of the customs laws have been the traditional exception to the constitutional requirement of a search warrant. 5. made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment. because the vessel can be quickly moved out of the locality or jurisdiction in which the search warrant must be sought before such warrant could be secured. not places. Stop and Frisk 1. Gatward While no search warrant had been obtained for that purpose. 3.Roldan vs. when Gatward checked in his bag as his personal luggage as a passenger of KLM Flight 806 he thereby agreed to the inspection thereof in accordance with customs rules and regulations.People vs.Enforcement of Fishing Customs and Immigration 1. the government agents could not possibly have procured a search warrant first.Terry vs. Under the circumstances. 3. Canton Whenever the right against unreasonable search and seizure is challenged. People vs Solayao There was justifiable cause to "stop and frisk" Solayao when his companions fled upon seeing the government agents.People vs. and waived any objection to a warrantless search.People vs. Johnson Inspection at airports – Persons may lose the protection of the search and seizure clause by exposure of their persons or property to the public in a manner reflecting lack of subjective expectation of privacy 4.

the interest of effective crime prevention and detection allows a police officer to approach a person. V." while that under Section 5(b) has been described as a "hot pursuit" arrest.Malacat vs.In allowing a search. dwelling house or other immobile structure. But it is impracticable to obtain a warrant when the search is . 3) seizure of evidence in plain view 4. of any cargo.People v. and it was his duty to make seizure. A search warrant may readily be obtained when the search is made in a store. and arrests. Court of Appeals As regards valid warrantless arrests. effect searches. Ricardo G.Papa vs Mago The Chief of the Manila Police Department. among others. seizures. Rule 113 of the Rules of Court. CFI of Rizal Search of moving vehicle – Carroll doctrine – search of moving vehicles or automobiles – no search warrant needed 3. for the purposes of the enforcement of the customs and tariff laws. these are found in Section 5. 2) search of moving vehicle. articles or other movable property when the same may be subject to forfeiture or liable for any fine imposed under customs and tariff laws. 2. having been deputized in writing by the Commissioner of Customs. 4. Papa. A warrantless arrest under the circumstances contemplated under Section 5(a) has been denominated as one "in flagrante delicto. Such exception is easy to understand.People. Lo Ho Wing Exception to the issuance of search warrant: 1) search incidental to a lawful arrest. in appropriate circumstances and manner. Search of Moving Vehicles 1. for purposes of investigating possible criminal behavior even though there is insufficient probable cause to make an actual arrest. could. Salvador vs People The search of a moving vehicle is recognized in this jurisdiction as a valid exception to the requirement for a search warrant.

People v. De Gracia Eurocar Sales Office – crime was in fact being committed – search incidental to lawful arrest valid Checkpoints 1. to a certain extent. or where the lives and safety of the people are in grave peril. that when the situation clears and such grave perils are removed. Emergency Circumstances 1. it ." but it cannot be denied that. Aniag vs Comelec Aside from a search incident to a lawful arrest. Implicit in this proposition is. a warrantless search had been upheld in cases of moving vehicles and the seizure of evidence in plain view.People vs. as a rule.conducted in a mobile ship. admittedly. 3. checkpoints may be allowed and installed by the government. Those which are warranted by the exigencies of public order and are conducted in a way least intrusive to motorists are allowed. as where the survival of organized government is on the balance. For. and the inspection of the vehicle is merely limited to a visual search. Valmonte Under exceptional circumstances.Gen. and stressed that the warrantless search is not violative of the Constitution for as long as the vehicle is neither searched nor its occupants subjected to a body search. as well as the search conducted at police or military checkpoints which we declared are not illegal per se. on motorists' right to "free passage without interruption. routine checkpoints do intrude. De Villa vs. checkpoints will have absolutely no reason to remain. Usana The Court has ruled that not all checkpoints are illegal. aircraft or other motor vehicle since they can quickly be moved out of the locality or jurisdiction where the warrant must be sought. 2.

and the inspection of the vehicle is limited to a visual search. without warrant.Umil v.People vs. If the accused believes that the testimony of said witness is important to his cause.Peoplve vs. For as long as the vehicle is neither searched nor its occupants subjected to a body search. even by compulsory judicial process if necessary. said routine checks cannot be regarded as violative of an individuals right against unreasonable search. arrest a person: (a) When in his presence. the person to be arrested has committed.arrest without a warrant is justified if the person arrested in caught in flagrante delicto Committed in the Presence of Police Officers 1. 4. Valid Warrentless Arrests 1. he should avail thereof. g.People vs. dela Cruz It is settled that the non-presentation of a certain witness by the prosecution is not a sufficiently plausible defense. is actually committing. (b) When an offense has in fact just been .involves only a brief detention of travelers during which the vehicle's occupants are required to answer a brief question or two. Sucro The rule states that "A lawyer peace officer or private person may. 2. or is attempting to commit an offense. Veneracio Searches conducted in checkpoints are valid for as long as they are warranted by the exigencies of public order and are conducted in a way least intrusive to motorist. Ramos Subversion a continuing offense .

5. he may move to quash the information. the person to be arrested has committed. and he has personal knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be arrested has committed it. Among these are when. alibi will not hold much water. or when an offense has in fact just been committed. CA Even on the assumption that no warrant was issued at all. we find that the trial court still lawfully acquired jurisdiction over the person of the petitioner. . and the arresting officer has personal knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be arrested has committed it.committed. or when an offense has in fact just been committed. Mengote The Supreme court held that par(a) section 5 Rule 113 of rules of court requires that a person be arrested 1 After he has committed or while he is actually committing or is at least attempting to commit an offense 2 In the presence of the arresting officer. but only on that ground. is actually committing. 6." 3. and the arresting officer has personal knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be arrested has committed it. The rule is that if the accused objects to the jurisdiction of the court over his person. Luisito The Rules of Court and jurisprudence recognize exceptional cases where an arrest may be effected without a warrant. or is attempting to commit an offense. or is attempting to commit an offense. Bongalon The Rules of Court and jurisprudence recognize exceptional cases where an arrest may be effected without a warrant. in the presence of a peace officer. the person to be arrested has committed.People vs. Among these are when.People vs. in the presence of a peace officer.Larranaga vs. is actually committing. The bare evidence given by appellants to vouch their individual claims and establish alibi is far from being iron-clad against the possibility of their having been at the crime scene.People vs. 7.People vs. Recepcion Where there is the least chance to be present at the locus criminis. 4.

is actually committing or is attempting to commit and offense. Cubcubin It has been held that "personal knowledge of facts' in arrests without a warrant must be based upon probable cause. when it is made on automobiles for the purpose of preventing violations of smuggling . when it is made on vessels and aircraft for violation of customs laws. CA A peace officer or a private person may arrest a person: (a) when the person has committed.People vs.Padilla vs.People vs. the arrest itself must have to be effected under the circumstances enumerated by law." 5. Aside from a search incident to a lawful arrest.People vs. which means an actual belief or reasonable grounds of suspicion.People vs. when the search is incidental to a lawful arrest. Sinoc The law provides that an arrest without warrant may be licitly effected by a peace officer. 4. and he has personal knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be arrested has committed it. this had been justified on the ground that the mobility of motor vehicles makes it possible for the vehicle to be searched to move out of the locality or jurisdiction in which the warrant must be sought. With regard to the search of moving vehicles.People vs Bagista The constitutional proscription against warrantless searches and seizures admits of certain exceptions. a warrantless search had been upheld in cases of a moving vehicle. and the seizure of evidence in plain view. and the peace officer has personal knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be arrested has committed it. (b) when an offense has in fact just been committed. inter alia.People vs. Rodrigueza When the owner of the premises waives his right against such incursion. 6. Gerente A person lawfully arrested may be searched for dangerous weapons or anything which may be used as proof of the commission of an offense. 2." Time of Arrest 1. Baula In a warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest. 3." The frisk and search of Gerente's person upon his arrest was a permissible precautionary measure of arresting officers to protect themselves. and he has personal knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be arrested has committed it.Personal Knowledge of the Offense 1. without a search warrant. for the person who is about to be arrested may be armed and might attack them unless he is first disarmed. One such case is when an offense has in fact just been committed. "When an offense has in fact just been committed.

in his presence. Vinalon a warrantless arrest may be made by police officers based on their personal knowledge culled from the victim herself who pointed to the suspect as the assailant at the time of the arrest. or is attempting to commit an offense. These procedural lapses clearly indicate that the police had shut its mind off to the possibility that other parties might have committed the crime. houses. Calimlim The failure of the accused to assert any ground of a motion to quash before he pleads to the complaint or information. Lack of Urgency 1. and he shall be proceeded against in accordance with Rule 112. (b) When an offense has in fact just been committed.People vs. a search may be validly made even without a search warrant. Enrile Under Rule 113. 2. the person to be arrested has committed. either because he did not file a motion to quash or failed to allege the same in said motion. Pasudag The Constitution provides that "the right of the people to be secure in their persons. of the Rules of Court. papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable. 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. and he has personal knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be arrested has committed it. (b). Mendez The fact that these irregularities were never raised before arraignment." ." 4. 5. sanitary and building regulations.Go vs. (g) and (i) of section 3 of this Rule. or in cases of inspection of buildings and other premises for the enforcement of fire.People vs. does not justify the short cuts. and were therefore considered waived when accused-appellants entered their pleas. or has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to another.People vs. Marked Money 1.People vs. Section 7.People vs. a peace officer or a private person may make a warrantless arrest only under any of the following circumstances: (a) When. CA The person arrested without a warrant shall be forthwith delivered to the nearest police station or jail. is actually committing. when it involves prohibited articles in plain view." 3.or immigration laws. Section 5. shall be deemed a waiver of any objections except those based on the grounds provided for in paragraphs (a).

A. Thus. 2. However. Aminudin M/V Wilcon. evidence inadmissible IV. the detainee knowingly exposes his letter to possible inspection by jail officials. Court of Appeals The contention that the phrase “private communication” in Section 1 of R. Intermediate Appellate Court An extension telephone is an instrument which is very common especially now when the extended unit does not have to be connected by wire to the main telephone but can be moved from place to place within a radius of a kilometer or more. when a detainee places his letter in an envelope for non-privileged mail. 3(1) 1. Ramirez vs.Gaanan vs. marijuana – not caught in flagrante delicto. search was unreasonable. A pre-trial detainee has no reasonable expectation of privacy for his incoming mail. Privacy of Communication and Correspondence Art III. The inspection of privileged mail is limited to physical contraband and not to verbal contraband. People v. A person should safely presume that the party he is calling at the other end of the line probably has an extension teiephone and he runs the risk of a third party iistening as in the case of a party line or a telephone unit which shares its line with another. incoming mail from lawyers of inmates enjoys limited protection such that prison officials can open and inspect the mail for contraband but could not read the contents without violating the inmates’ right to correspond with his lawyer. Cabuay American cases recognize that the unmonitored use of pre-trial detainees’ non-privileged mail poses a genuine threat to jail security. Alejano vs. Hence. The inspection of the folded . Sec.2. The letters were not in a sealed envelope. we do not agree with the Court of Appeals that the opening and reading of the detainees’ letters in the present case violated the detainees’ right to privacy of communication. 4200 does not include “private conversations” narrows the ordinary meaning of the word “communication” to a point of absurdity 3.

However. 2. en consulta and so that the Court en banc could pass upon the judicial acts of the Division. The petitioner who received the letters from detainees Trillanes and Maestrecampo was merely acting as the detainees’ personal courier and not as their counsel when he received the letters for mailing. If the letters are marked confidential communication between the detainees and their lawyers. since the letters were not confidential communication between the detainees and their lawyers. i. Gutang vs. when it may be material. Such right is guaranteed by the Constitution and cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of counsel. the detention officials should not read the letters but only open the envelopes for inspection in the presence of the detainees. when the investigating officer starts to ask questions to elicit information and/or confession or admissions from the accused. In the present case.In Re: Wenceslao Laureta Respondents' reliance on the "privacy of communication" is misplaced.letters is a valid measure as it serves the same purpose as the opening of sealed letters for the inspection of contraband. It was only in the exercise of forbearance by the Court that it refrained from issuing immediately a show cause order in the expectancy that after having read the Resolution of the Court en banc of October 28. 3. The contumacious character of those letters constrained the First Division to refer the same to the Court en banc. – Gen. Dir.e. KMU vs. Sec 3(2) 1. of NEDA . People The right to counsel begins from the time a person is taken into custody and placed under investigation for the commission of a crime. The letters alleged to have been read by the ISAFP authorities were not confidential letters between the detainees and their lawyers. 1986. the officials of the ISAFP Detention Center could read the letters. in connection with the performance of their judicial functions become part of the judicial record and are a matter of concern for the entire Court. what the Constitution prohibits is the use of physical or moral compulsion to extort communication from the accused. respondents would realize the unjustness and unfairness of their accusations. Letters addressed to individual Justices. Exclusionary Rule Art III. but not an Inclusion of his body in evidence..

EO 420 is simply an executive issuance and not an act of legislation. the President did not make.Legislative power is the authority to make laws and to alter or repeal them. alter or repeal any law but merely implemented and executed existing laws. reliability. . compatibility and user-friendliness in the implementation of current ID systems of government entities under existing laws. EO 420 reduces costs. In issuing EO 420. as well as insures efficiency. Thus.