You are on page 1of 7

II.

REQUIREMENTS OF FAIR PROCEDURE


A. Arrests, Searches and Seizures, Privacy of Communications
Article III, Section 2, 1987 Constitution
Article III, Section 3, 1987 Constitution

1. Requirements for Search Warrants


See Rule 126 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure
CASES:
In Re Morales (571 SCRA 361, 2008)
People vs. Nuez (591 SCRA 394, 2009)
Del Rosario vs. Donato Sr. (614 SCRA 332, 2010)
People vs. Tuan (628 SCRA 226, 2010)
People vs. Mamaril (632 SCRA 369, 2010)
Tan vs. De Jemil (638 SCRA 671, 2010)
Pollo vs. Constantino-David (659 SCRA 189, 2011)

ANNOTATION:
Search and Seizure (291 SCRA 418)
Warrantless Search and Seizure of Prohibited Drugs (610 SCRA 670,
2010)
Search and Seizure (643 SCRA 637, 2011)
Law and Jurisprudence on Search Warrants and Warrantless
Searches (664 SCRA 450, 2012)

2. Valid Instances of Warrantless Searches and Seizures

a. Search of Moving Vehicles


CASES:
Epie vs. Ulat-Marredo (518 SCRA 641, 2007)
People vs. Tuason (532 SCRA 152, 2007)
People vs. Mariacos (621 SCRA 327, 2010)

b. Search Incident to a Valid Arrest


See Rule 126, Section 12, Rules on Criminal Procedure
CASES:
Del Castillo vs. People (664 SCRA 450, 2012)
Luz vs. People (667 SCRA 421, 2012)
Ambre vs. People (678 SCRA 552, 2012)
People vs. Belocura (679 SCRA 318, 2012)
Martinez vs. People (690 SCRA 656, 2013)

c. When things seized are within plain view of a searching party


CASES:
Abenes vs. CA (515 SCRA 690, 2007)
Esquillo vs. People (629 SCRA 370, 2010)
People vs. Martinez (637 SCRA 791, 2010)

ANNOTATION:
Plain View Doctrine (609 SCRA 434, 2009)

d. Stop and Frisk


CASES:
Posadas vs. CA (188 SCRA 288, 1990)
People vs. Mengote (210 SCRA 14, 1992)
Manalili vs. CA (280 SCRA 400, 1998)
Esquillo vs. People (629 SCRA 370, 2010)

e. Express Waiver
CASES:
Veroy vs. Layague (210 SCRA 92, 1992)
People vs. Nuevas (516 SCRA 463, 2007)
People vs. Dequina (640 SCRA 111, 2011)
People vs. Uyboco (640 SCRA 146, 2011)

f. Search of Warehouse in Violation of Customs and Tariff Code or to


Enforce Customs Laws
CASES:
Bureau of Customs vs. Ogario (329 SCRA 289, 2000)
Rieta vs. People (436 SCRA 237, 2004)
Salvador vs. People (436 SCRA 489, 2005)

g. Exigency
CASE:
People vs. De Gracia (233 SCRA 716, 1994)

h. Search and Seizure by Private Persons


CASES:
People vs. Marti (193 SCRA 57, 1991)
Waterous Drug Corp vs. NLRC (280 SCRA 735)
People vs. Mendoza (301 SCRA 66, 1999)
People vs. Bongcarawan (384 SCRA 525, 2002)

i. Airport Security
CASES:
Martinez vs. People (690 SCRA 656, 2013)
Sales vs. People (690 SCRA 141, 2013)
People vs. Cadidia (707 SCRA 494, 2013)

j. Jail Safety
CASE:
People vs. Conde (356 SCRA 525, 2002)

3. Constitutionality of checkpoints and "areal target zonings"


CASES:
Valmonte vs. De Villa (170 SCRA 256, 1989)
Valmonte vs. De Villa (185 SCRA 665, 1990)
People vs. Exala (221 SCRA 494, 1993)
Guanzon vs. De Villa (181 SCRA 623, 1990)
Abenes vs. CA (515 SCRA 690, 2007)

4. Wire Tapping
Republic Act No. 4200
CASE:
Gaanan vs. IAC (145 SCRA 112, 1986)

5. What may be seized


Rule 126, Section 2

6. Remedies in Cases of Violation

a. Exclusionary Rule
Article III, Section 3, Paragraph 2
CASE:
Stonehill vs. Diokno (20 SCRA 383, 1967)

Waiver
CASE:
Pastrano vs. CA (281 SCRA 254, 1997)

b. Civil Action for Damages (Article 32, NCC)


CASES:
Aberca vs. Ver (160 SCRA 590, 1988)
Forbes vs. Chuoco Tiaco (16 Phil. 534, 1910)

c. Criminal Cases Under Revised Penal Code


Articles 128, 129 & 130

7. Requirements for Issuance of Warrants of Arrest


Section 6, Rule 112, Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure
Compare with Section 4, Rule 126
CASES:
People vs. Martinez (637 SCRA 791, 2010)
Luz vs. People (667 SCRA 421, 2012)
People vs. Mariano (685 SCRA 592, 2012)

8. When arrest may be made without a warrant


Rule 113, Section 5

a. Strict enforcement of rule


CASES:
People vs. Uyboco (640 SCRA 146, 2011)
Ambre vs. People (678 SCRA 552, 2012)
People vs. Villareal (693 SCRA 532, 2013)
People vs. Collado (698 SCRA 628, 2013)

ANNOTATION:
Warrantless Arrest (283 SCRA 190)
Warrantless Arrest and Warrantless Search in Buy Bust (607
SCRA 830, 2009)

b. Exceptions to strict enforcement


i. Illegal possession of guns or drugs
CASES:
People vs. Peaflorida (551 SCRA 111, 2008)
People vs. Sembrano (628 SCRA 328, 2010)

c. Waiver of Illegality of Arrest


CASE:
People vs. Racho (626 SCRA 633, 2010)

d. Effects of Declaration of Illegal Arrest


CASES:
People vs. Biyoc (532 SCRA 528, 2007)
Valdez vs. People (538 SCRA 611, 2007)
People vs. Santos (555 SCRA 578, 2008)

9. Immunity from arrest of members of Congress


Article VI, Section 11, 1987 Constitution

10. Privacy
Article III, Section 2
CASES:
Ople vs. Torres (293 SCRA 201, 1998)
In Re: Camilo Sabio (504 SCRA 704, 2006)
SJS vs. DDB (570 SCRA 410, 2008)
Lee vs. CA (625 SCRA 66, 2010)
Manila Electric vs. Lim (632 SCRA 195, 2010)
Fernando vs. St. Scho (693 SCRA 141, 2013)
In Re: Noriel Rodriguez (696 SCRA 390, 2013)
Hing vs. Choachuy (699 SCRA 667, 2013)

ANNOTATION:
Right to Privacy (293 SCRA 201)
Concept of Privacy Zones of Privacy

11. Privacy of Communicaations


Article III, Section 3, 1987 Constitution
CASES:
Zulueta vs. CA (253 SCRA 699, 1996)
Ople vs. Torres (293 SCRA 141, 1998)
In Re: Alejano (468 SCRA 188, 2005)
KMU vs. Director (487 SCRA 623, 2006)
In Re: Sabio (504 SCRA 214, 2006)

III. FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION


Article III, Section 4
Id., Section 18(1)

A. Philosophic Basis of Guarantee


1. For the discovery of political truth
2. For self-government
3. For individual perfection

B. Prior Restraints/Subsequent Punishment


CASES:
Chavez vs. Gonzales (545 SCRA 441, 2008)
Newsound Broadcasting vs. Dy (583 SCRA 333, 2009)
Soriano vs. Laguardia (587 SCRA 79, 2009)
(615 SCRA 254, 2010)
Ang Ladlad vs. COMELEC (618 SCRA 32, 2010)
Garcia vs. Manrique (683 SCRA 491, 2012)

C. Content-based Restrictions
1. Some Tests of Validity of Contest-based Restrictions

Dangerous tendency: When the legislative body has determined generally


that utterances of a certain kind involve such danger of substantive evil that
they may be punished, the question whether any specific utterance coming
within the prohibited class is likely, in and of itself, to bring about the
substantive evil is not open to consideration. In such cases, the general
provision of the statute may be constitutionally applied to the specific
utterance if its natural and probable effect was to bring about the substantive
evil that the legislative body might prohibit. (Gitlow vs. New York, 268 U.S.
652, [1952])

Clear-and-present danger: The question in every case is whether the words


are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear
and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evil that the
state has a right to prevent. (Schenck vs. United States, 249 U.S. 47
[1919])

Balancing of interest: The court must undertake the delicate and difficult
task of weighing the circumstances and appraising the substantiality of the
reasons advanced in support of the regulation of the free enjoyment of rights.
(American Communication Association vs. Doubs, 339 U.S. 383, cited
in Gonzales vs. COMELEC, 27 SCRA 835 [1969])

Direct incitement: The guarantees of free speech and free press do not
permit a state to forbid or prescribe the advocacy of the use of force or of law
violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing
imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.
(Brandenburg vs. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 [1969], cited in Salonga vs. Cruz
Pano, 134 SCRA 438 [1985])

Grave-but-improbable danger: Whether the gravity of the evil, discounted


by its improbability, justifies such an invasion of speech as is necessary to
avoid the danger. (Dennis vs. U.S., 341 U.S. 494 [1951])

2. Applications of tests in various contexts

a. Freedom of expression and national security

b. Freedom of expression and criticism of official conduct: The Test of


"Actual Malice" Read Revised Penal Code, Articles 353-354 & 361-362
Compare Act No. 2928 [March 26, 1920], Commonwealth Act No. 382
[September 6, 1938]
CASES:
Soliven vs. Makasiar; Beltran vs. Makasiar (167 SCRA 393,
1988)
Borjal vs. CA (301 SCRA 1, 1999)
Vasquez vs. CA (314 SCRA 460, 2000)
Tulfo vs. People (565 SCRA 283, 2008)

ANNOTATION:
(301 SCRA 34)

c. Freedom of expression and the right of privacy


CASES:
Ayer Productions vs. Capulong (160 SCRA 861, 1988)
Philippine Journalists, Inc. vs. Theonen (477 SCRA 482, 2005)

d. Freedom of expression and the administration of justice (contempt of


court)
CASES:
In Re: Published . . . (385 SCRA 285, 2002)
In the Matter - Macasaet (561 SCRA 395, 2008)
Lejano vs. People (638 SCRA 104, 2010)
Re: Letter of the UP Faculty (644 SCRA 543, 2011)

e. Symbolic Expression The Flag-burning case


CASE:
Texas vs. Johnson (491 U.S. 109 S. Ct. 2533, 1989)

Cf. Act No. 2928, 26 March 1920;


Com. Act. No. 382, 5 September 1938
Adm. Code of 1987, Book 1, Chapter 4, Sections 12-13

f. Assembly and Petition


CASE:
Dela Cruz vs. CA (305 SCRA 303, 1999)

D. Content-neutral restrictions
O' Brien Test: A government regulation is sufficiently justified if it is within the
constitutional power of the government; if it furthers an important or substantial
governmental interest; if the governmental interest is unrelated to the suppression
of free expression; and if the incidental restriction on alleged freedom of
expression is no greater than is essential to the furtherance of that interest.
(United States vs. O'Brien, 391 U.S. 367 (1968), adopted, in Adiong vs.
COMELEC, 207 SCRA 712 [1992])

1. Regulation of political campaign/election activity


CASES:
Omea vs. COMELEC (288 SCRA 447, 1998)
ABS-CBN vs. COMELEC (323 SCRA 811, 2000)
SWS vs. COMELEC (357 SCRA 497, 2001)

2. Freedom of Assembly
BP Blg. 880 (Public Assembly Act of 1985)
CASES:
Bayan vs. Ermita (488 SCRA 226, 2006)
Supreme Court Circular A.M. 98-7-02-SC
IBP vs. Atienza (613 SCRA 518, 2010)

3. Freedom of association and the right to strike in the public sector


Article III, Section 8
Article IX, Section 2
Article XIII, Section 3, Paragraph 2
CASES:
GSIS vs. Kapisanan ng mga Manggagawa (510 SCRA 622, 2006)
GSIS vs. Villariza (625 SCRA 669, 2010)

4. Movies Censorship
CASES:
Gonzales vs. Kalaw Katigbak (137 SCRA 356, 1985)
Iglesia ni Cristo vs. CA (259 SCRA 52

5. Radio Broadcast
CASE:
Eastern Broadcasting Corp. (Dyre) vs. Dans (137 SCRA 647, 1985)

g. Freedom of Information
Article III, Section 7
CASES:
Neri vs. Senate (564 SCRA 152, 2008)
CPEG vs. COMELEC (631 SCRA 41, 2010)
Re: Request for Copy of 2008 SALN (672 SCRA 27, 2012)

ANNOTATION:
(299 SCRA 782)

IV. FREEDOM OF RELIGION


Article III, Section 5

A. Non-establishment Clause
The establishment clause prohibits (1) excessive governmental entanglement
with religious institutions and (2) government endorsement or disapproval of religion.

CASES:
Re: Request of Muslim (477 SCRA 648, 2005)
Taruc vs. Dela Cruz (453 SCRA 123, 2005)
Estrada vs. Escritur (408 SCRA 1, 2003)
(492 SCRA 1, 2006)
Soriano vs. Laguardia (587 SCRA 79, 2009)
(615 SCRA 254, 2010)

1. Operation of Sectarian Schools


Article XIV, Section 4, Paragraph 2

2. Religious Instructions in Public Schools


Article XIV, Section 3, Paragraph 3
Section 928, Revised Administrative Code
Article 359, Paragraph 1, Civil Code

3. Tax Exemption
Article VI, Section 28, Paragraph 3
CASES:
Bishop of Nueva Segovia vs. Provincial Board (51 Phil. 352, 1927)
Tolentino vs. Secretary (235 SCRA 632, 1994)

4. Public Aid to Religion


Article VI, Section 29, Paragraph 2
CASES:
Aglipay vs. Ruiz (64 Phil. 201, 1937)
Ignacio vs. Ela (99 Phil. 346, 1956; Concepcion, J., dissenting)

B. Free Exercise Clause

1. Flag Salute
CASE:
Ebralinag vs. Division Sup't of Schools (219 SCRA 256, 1993)

2. Freedom to Propagate Religious Doctrines


CASES:
American Bible Society vs. City of Manila (101 Phil. 386, 1957)
Centeno vs. Villalon (236 SCRA 197, 1994)
Iglesia ni Cristo vs. CA (259 SCRA 529, 1996)

3. Exemption from Union Shop


CASE:
Victoriano vs. Elizalde Rope Workers Union (59 SCRA 54, 1974)