CONSTI 2 REVIEWER SECOND EXAM BY MANUEL ALAMEDA
Section 3, Article 3
(1) The privacy of communication and
correspondence (communication by
exchanging letters with someone) shall
be inviolable(absolute) except upon
lawful order of the court, or when
public safety or order requires
otherwise, as prescribed by law.
(2) Any evidence obtained in violation of
this or the preceding section shall be
inadmissible for any purpose in any
proceeding.
The Constitution is silent on the grounds of
justifiable intrusion, but the courts may
determine it by probable cause (Probability
of guilt of a specific offender need not be
established in search)
warrants
Tangible Only Rule
 Tangible objects : letters,
telegrams, signals, cables,
telephone, client’s files
 Intangible objects : Private
Communication (RA 4200)
Section 1 of R.A. 4200 Wiretapping Law "An
Act to Prohibit and Penalized Wire Tapping and
Other Related Violations of Private
Communication and Other Purposes,"
provides:
Sec. 1. It shall be unlawfull for any
person, not being authorized by all the parties to
any private communication or spoken word, to
tap any wire or cable, or by using any other
device or arrangement, to secretly overhear,
intercept, or record such communication or
spoken word by using a device commonly known
as a dictaphone or dictagraph or detectaphone
or walkie-talkie or tape recorder, or however
otherwise described.
It shall be unlawful for any persons, not
being authorized by all the parties to any private
communication or spoken words, to :
TDS–IRS(D3 WTH)
1. Tap any wire or cable
2. Using any other device or
arrangement
3. To secretly overhear
4. Intercept
5. Record such communication
6. Spoken word by using a device
known as:
a. Dictaphone or
b. Dictagraph or
c. Detectaphone or
d. Walkie-talkie or
e. Tape recorder or
f. However otherwise
describe.
"even a (person) privy to a communication who
records his private conversation with another
without the knowledge of the latter (will) qualify as
a violator" under this provision of R.A. 4200
Exception: Recording may be allowed
1. Civil or Criminal Cases involving
national security
2. Authorization by the Court
Note:
 The use of telephone extension in order
to listen to private does not constitute
wiretapping as it is not among the
devices covered by RA 4200 because
the extension is not for the purpose of
deliberately tapping the line.
 Tap means physical interception through
wire or deliberate installation of a devise
or arrangement in order to overhear,
intercept, record spoken words.
Case:
In Re: Wenceslao Laureta:
“The letter was no longer private
since it had became part of the judicial
1
 CONSTI 2 REVIEWER SECOND EXAM BY MANUEL ALAMEDA
record and have become a matter of the
entire Supreme Court”
Garcillano vs House of
Representatives:
SC denied the injuction by
Garcillano to prohibit the playing of the
tape (Hello Garci) because (1) The act
complained of has already been
accomplished, (2) the reports on the tape
has already been completed and
submitted to the House in Plenary
People v. Marti:
Package bound for Switzerland –
The Bill of Rights is not meant to be
invoked against act of private individuals.
It is directed against the government and
its agencies tasked with the enforcement
of the law. The constitutional against
unreasonable searches and seizures
cannot be extended to acts committed by
a private individual.
Zulueta vs Martin
SC held that the documents from
the drawers of her husband are
inadmissible. The right to privacy
communication and correspondence
may apply against the wife. The only way
to allow this is there must be a lawful
order from the Court and when it is a
matter of national sercurity.
Marti Case vs Zulueta Case:
In Zulueta, the SC applied
Section 3 or constitutional right against
private person while in Marti states that
Bill of Rights may only be invoked against
the state. Section 3 is not covered by the
Marti Rule and Marti Rule will not apply
as to spouses
Ople vs Torres
National ID system violates the
right to privacy. The potential for misuse
of the data to be gathered under A.O. No.
308 cannot be underplayed as the
dissenters do. The data may be gathered
for gainful and useful government
purposes; but the existence of this vast
reservoir of personal information
constitutes a covert invitation to misuse,
a temptation that may be too great for
some of our authorities to resist. the
computer linkage gives other
government agencies access to the
information. Yet, there are no controls to
guard against leakage of information.
When the access code of the control
programs of the particular computer
system is broken, an intruder, without
fear of sanction or penalty, can make use
of the data for whatever purpose, or
worse, manipulate the data stored within
the system.
Exclusionary Rule
Any evidence obtained in
violation of Sec 3 and 2 shall be
inadmissible for any purpose in any
proceeding.
That is the absolute prohibition of
Article III, Section 3(2), of the
Constitution. This is the celebrated
exclusionary rule based on the
justification given by Judge Learned
Hand that "only in case the prosecution,
which itself controls the seizing officials,
knows that it cannot profit by their wrong
will the wrong be repressed."
Stonehill vs Diokno
Two points must be stressed in
connection with this constitutional
mandate, namely: (1) that no warrant
shall issue but upon probable cause, to
be determined by the judge in the
manner set forth in said provision; and (2)
that the warrant shall particularly
describe the things to be seized. None of
these requirements has been complied
with in the contested warrants
2
 CONSTI 2 REVIEWER SECOND EXAM BY MANUEL ALAMEDA
(1) that no warrant shall issue
but upon probable cause,
to be determined by the
judge in the manner set
forth in said provision;
and (2) that the warrant
shall particularly describe
the things to be seized.
None of these
requirements has been
complied with in the
contested warrants.
No specific offense had been
alleged in said applications. The
averments thereof with respect to the
offense committed were abstract. As a
consequence, it was impossible for the
judges who issued the warrants to have
found the existence of probable cause,
for the same presupposes the
introduction of competent proof that the
party against whom it is sought has
performed particular acts, or committed
specific omissions, violating a given
provision of our criminal laws. As a
matter of fact, the applications involved in
this case do not allege any specific acts
performed by herein petitioners.
Things seized
If the thing seized is contraband it would not be
returned, and only it’s suppression can be asked
for. If it’s legal thing, the party can ask for its
return even if no crim prosecution has yet been
filed.Stonehill Case
Application of Exclusionary Rule
It is must be raised by the accused during the trial
the issue of admissibility of the evidence against
him on the ground that it is illegally seized. Failure
to do so constitute waiver of protection granted by
Sec 3.
Civil case for damages under Art 32 of Civil
Code
Aberca vs Ver Case
Rule: The decisive factor in this case, in our view,
is the language of Article 32. The law speaks of
an officer or employee or person "directly or
indirectly" responsible for the violation of the
constitutional rights and liberties of another.
Thus, it is not the actor alone (i.e., the one directly
responsible) who must answer for damages
under Article 32; the person indirectly responsible
has also to answer for the damages or injury
caused to the aggrieved party. [N]either can it be
said that only those shown to have participated
"directly" should be held liable. Article 32 of the
Civil Code encompasses within the ambit of its
provisions those directly, as well as indirectly,
responsible for its violations.”
Ayer vs Capulong and Enrile ( Freedom of
Expression and Right to Privacy)
Petitioners' claim that in producing and "The Four
Day Revolution," they are exercising their
freedom of speech and of expression protected
under our Constitution. Private respondent, upon
the other hand, asserts a right of privacy and
claims that the production and filming of the
projected mini-series would constitute an
unlawful intrusion into his privacy which he is
entitled to enjoy.
Ruling: The production and filming by petitioners
of the projected motion picture "The Four Day
Revolution" does not, in the circumstances of this
case, constitute an unlawful intrusion upon
private respondent's "right of privacy." The
subject matter of "The Four Day Revolution"
relates to the non-bloody change of government
that took place at Epifanio de los Santos Avenue
in February 1986, and the train of events which
led up to that denouement. Clearly, such
subject matter is one of public interest and
concern. Indeed, it is, petitioners' argue, of
international interest. The subject thus relates to
a highly critical stage in the history of this country
and as such, must be regarded as having passed
into the public domain and as an appropriate
subject for speech and expression and coverage
by any form of mass media. The subject matter,
as set out in the synopsis provided by the
petitioners and quoted above, does not relate to
the individual life and certainly not to the private
life of private respondent Ponce Enrile.
3
 CONSTI 2 REVIEWER SECOND EXAM BY MANUEL ALAMEDA
Lagunzad vs Sotto
Petitioner Manuel Lagunzad, a newspaperman,
began the production of a movie entitled "The
Moises Padilla Story" portraying the life of Moises
Padilla, a mayoralty candidate of the Nacionalista
Party The emphasis of the movie was on the
public life of Moises Padilla, there were portions
which dealt with his private and family life
including the portrayal in some scenes, of his
mother, Maria Soto, private respondent herein,
and of one "Auring" as his girl friend. Padilla’s half
sister, for and in behalf of her mother, Vda.de
Gonzales, objected to the "exploitation" of his life
and demanded in writing for certain changes,
corrections and deletions in the movie. After
some bargaining as to the amount to be paid
Lagunzad and Vda. de Gonzales, executed a
"Licensing Agreement" whereby the latter as
LICENSOR granted Lagunzad authority and
permission to exploit, use, and develop the life
story of Moises Padilla for purposes of producing
the picture for consideration of
P20,000.00.Lagunzad paid Vda. de Gonzales the
amount of P5,000.00. Subsequently, the movie
was shown indifferent theaters all over the
country. Because petitioner refused to pay any
additional amounts pursuant to the Agreement,
Vda. de Gonzales instituted the present suit
against him praying for judgment in her favor
ordering petitioner 1) to pay her the balance of
P15,000.00, with legal interest from of the
Complaint; and 2) to render an accounting of the
proceeds from the picture and to pay the
corresponding 2-1/2% royalty there from, among
others. Petitioner contended in his Answer that
the episodes in life of Moises Padilla depicted in
the movie were matters of public knowledge and
occurred at or about the same time that the
deceased became and was a public figure; that
private respondent has no property right over
those incidents; that the Licensing Agreement
was without valid cause or consideration and
constitutes an infringement on the constitutional
right of freedom of speech and of the press; and
that he paid private respondent the amount of
P5,000.00 only because of the coercion and
threat employed upon him. As a counterclaim,
petitioner sought for the nullification of the
Licensing Agreement, Both the trial court and the
CA ruled in favor of Vda. deGonzales.
Issue: Whether or not the fictionalized
representation of Moises Padilla is an intrusion
upon his right to privacy notwithstanding that he
was a public figure. Whether or not Vda. de
Gonzales., the mother, has any property right
over the life of Moises Padilla considering that the
latter was a public figure. Whether or not the
Licensing Agreement constitutes an infringement
on the constitutional right of freedom of speech
and of the press.
Ruling:
YES, being a public figure ipso facto does not
automatically destroy in toto a person's right to
privacy. The right to invade as person's privacy to
disseminate public information does not extend to
a fictional or novelized representation of a
person, no matter how public a figure he or she
may be. In the case at bar, while it is true that
petitioner exerted efforts to present a true-to-life
story of Moises Padilla, petitioner admits that he
included a little romance in the film because
without it, it would be a drab story of torture and
brutality.
Section 4, Article 3
No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of
speech, of expression, or of the press, or the right
of the people peaceably to assemble and petition
the government for redress of grievances.
Rights covered: S E P P P
1. Speech - oral
2. Expression – in between
3. Press - Published
4. Peaceful - Assemby
5. Petition
Notes:
The nature of SEPPP is the right to freely utter,
print and publish any statement without previous
censorship of the government. US vs Sotto
This guarantee only includes core speech as
those that advance religious, political and social
ideal. It excludes commercial speech.
4
 CONSTI 2 REVIEWER SECOND EXAM BY MANUEL ALAMEDA
Nobody has the monopoly in the marketplace of
idea. “your freedom ends where my freedom
begins", freedom in society can never be
absolute.
Restrictions to Free Speech P S A C
1. Freedom from Prior Restraint,
2. Freedom from Subsequent punishment
3. Freedom of Access to Info
4. Freedom of Circulation
FREEDOM FROM PRIOR RESTRAIN
 Restrictions or conditions in advance of
actual publication or dissemination
 Refers to governmental restrictions on
the press or other forms of expression.
 Freedom from governmental censorship
(Chavez vs Gonzales)
 E.g. prior permit, submission of copy of
speech, submission of clearance before
publication
 Enrile Case: Injunction against showing
of the four day Revolution
 In Alexander v. U.S ,petitioner’s
complaint was that the RICO forfeiture
provisions on businesses dealing in
expressive materials constituted "prior
restraint" because they may have an
improper "chilling" effect on free
expression by deterring others from
engaging in protected speech.The
Government “thus carries a heavy
burden of showing justification for the
enforcement of such restraint.” There is
thus a reversal of the normal
presumption of validity that inheres in
every legislation."
FREEDOM FROM SUBSEQUENT PUNISHMENT
 a threat to legitimate expression
 There is logic in the proposition that the liberty
of the press will be rendered a "mockery and
a delusion" if, while every man is at liberty to
publish what he pleases, the public authorities
might nevertheless punish him for harmless
publications. In this regard, the fear of
subsequent punishment has the same effect
as that of prior restraint
 Case: The Trial Court upheld the denial of the
issuance of the sought after mayor’s permit
unless Petitioners were duly satisfied that the
subject property where their radio stations
were operated has been classified as
commercial in nature
 There is to be no previous restraint on the
communication of views or subsequent
liability whether in libel suits, prosecution for
sedition, or action for damages, or contempt
proceedings unless there be a clear and
present danger of substantive evil that
Congress has a right to prevent.
 Petitioners have taken great pains to depict
their struggle as a textbook case of denial of
the right to free speech and of the press. In
their tale, there is undeniable political color.
They admit that in 2001, Bombo Radyo " was
aggressive in exposing the widespread
election irregularities in Isabela that appear to
have favored respondent Dy and other
members of the Dy political dynasty
 These actions have ranged from withholding
permits to operate to the physical closure of
those stations under color of legal authority.
While once petitioners were able to broadcast
freely, the weight of government has since
bore down upon them to silence their voices
on the airwaves
 Without taking into account any extenuating
circumstances that may favor the
respondents, we can identify the bare acts of
closing the radio stations or preventing their
operations as an act of prior restraint against
speech, expression or of the press. Prior
restraint refers to official governmental
restrictions on the press or other forms of
expression in advance of actual publication or
dissemination. While any system of prior
restraint comes to court bearing a heavy
burden against its constitutionality, not all
prior restraints on speech are invalid.
CONTENT-NEUTRAL RESTRICTIONS
 Imposed on time, mode, manner of the
expression. In contrast, content-based is
imposed on the content or substance of
the expression.
 Case: Osmenia vs Comelec The
purpose of law is regulatory to balance
the opportunity between rich and poor
candidates.
 There was substantial government
interest justifying the regulation. The
5
 CONSTI 2 REVIEWER SECOND EXAM BY MANUEL ALAMEDA
restriction of speech is merely
incidental. The restriction is merely
limted as to the time and scope.
General Rule: Prior Restraints are invalid
Exceptions:
1. Content-Neutral Regulation
 Merely concerns with incidents of the
speech, or one that merely controls the
time, place or manner, and under well
defined standards
 Not to suppress any particular message
 Only a substantial government interest is
required for its validity.
 It is sufficient to show some legitimate
state interest
A GOVERNMENT REGULATION IS JUSTIFIED
TESTS:
A. If it is within the Constitutional power
of the government
B. If it furthers an important substantial
government interest
C. If the government interest is
unrelated to the suppression of free
expression
D. If the restriction is merely incidental
2. Content-based Regulation
 A government action that restricts
freedom of speech or the press based on
the content or substance and is given the
strictest scrutiny in the light of its inherent
and invasive impact
 This can only be invoked when the
challenged act has overcome the clear
and present danger test with the
government with the burden of
overcoming the presumed
constitutionality.
Cases:
 Eastern Broadcasting vs Dans - This
petition was filed to compel the
respondents to allow the reopening of
Radio Station DYRE which had been
summarily closed on grounds of national
security.
 Ruling: Broadcasting has to be licensed.
Airwave frequencies have to be allocated
among qualified users. A broadcast
corporation cannot simply appropriate a
certain frequency without regard for
government regulation or for the rights of
others.
 All forms of communication are entitled to
the broad protection of the freedom of
expression clause. Necessarily,
however, the freedom of television and
radio broadcasting is somewhat lesser in
scope than the freedom accorded to
newspaper and print media.
 The broadcast media have also
established a uniquely pervasive
presence in the lives of all Filipinos,
Newspapers and current books are found
only in metropolitan areas and in the
poblaciones of municipalities accessible
to fast and regular transportation. Even
here, there are low income masses who
find the cost of books, newspapers, and
magazines beyond their humble means.
Basic needs like food and shelter
perforce enjoy high priorities.
 The clear and present danger test,
therefore, must take the particular
circumstances of broadcast media into
account. The supervision of radio
stations-whether by government or
through self-regulation by the industry
itself calls for thoughtful, intelligent and
sophisticated handling.
 The government has a right to be
protected against broadcasts which
incite the listeners to violently overthrow
it. Radio and television may not be used
to organize a rebellion or to signal the
start of widespread uprising. At the same
time, the people have a right to be
informed. Radio and television would
have little reason for existence if
broadcasts are limited to bland,
obsequious, or pleasantly entertaining
utterances. Since they are the most
convenient and popular means of
disseminating varying views on public
issues, they also deserve special
6
 CONSTI 2 REVIEWER SECOND EXAM BY MANUEL ALAMEDA
protection.
 The interest of society and the
maintenance of good government
demand a full discussion of public affairs.
Complete liberty to comment on the
conduct of public men is a scalpel in the
case of free speech. The sharp incision
of its probe relieves the abscesses of
officialdom. Men in public life may suffer
under a hostile and an unjust accusation;
the wound can be assuaged with the
balm of a clear conscience. A public
officer must not be too thin-skinned with
reference to comment upon his official
acts. Only thus can the intelligence and
dignity of the individual be exalted.
Viva Productions vs CA and Hubert Webb
 The injunction issued by the court was
declared illegal for lack of any clear and
present danger
Comelec’s Power
Mutuc vs Comelec
 All of the protections expressed in the Bill
of Rights are important but we have
accorded to free speech the status of a
preferred freedom.
 Prohibition against taped jingles is invalid
for being in the nature of censorship
 Supreme Court ruled that there was
absence of statutory authority on the part
of respondent to impose such ban in the
light of the doctine of ejusdem generis.
The respondent commission failed to
manifest fealty to a cardinal principle of
construction that a statute should be
interpreted to assure its being
consonance with, rather than repugnant
to, any constitutional command or
prescription. The Constitution prohibits
abridgement of free speech or a free
press. According to the Supreme Court,
this preferred freedom calls all the more
for the utmost respect when what may be
curtailed is the dissemination of
information to make more meaningful the
equally vital right of suffrage. What the
respondent Commission did was to
impose censorship on petitioner, an evil
against which this constitutional right is
directed.
Sanidad vs Comelec
 RA 2167 is void restricting journalist
to publish about plebiscite. Void for
having no justification. Content-
based
Adiong vs Comelec
 Prohibiting the public exhibition of
propaganda in any place private or
public except the common poster
area. Free speech has a status of
preferred freedom. Balancing of
interest between individual freedom
on the one hand and public interest
on the other. The posting of
decalsand stickers in mobile places
does not endanger any substantial
government interest
 The posting of decals and stickers in
mobile places like cars and other
moving vehicles does not endanger
any substantial government interest.
There is no clear public interest
threatened by such activity so as to
justify the curtailment of the
cherished citizen's right of free
speech and expression.
National Press Club vs Comelec
 Prohibition from selling or giving of print
space or airtime except to comelec was
declared valid.
TELEBAP vs Comelec
 Procurement of airtime free of charge to
Comelec was declared valid as the
franchise is always subject to alteration,
amendment or repeal by the Congress
 All broadcasting, whether by radio or by
television stations, is licensed by the
government. Airwave frequencies have
to be allocated as there are more
individuals who want to broadcast than
there are frequencies to assign. 9 A
franchise is thus a privilege subject,
among other things, to amended by
Congress in accordance with the
constitutional provision that "any such
7
 CONSTI 2 REVIEWER SECOND EXAM BY MANUEL ALAMEDA
franchise or right granted . . . shall be
subject to amendment, alteration or
repeal by the Congress when the
common good so requires."
SWS vs Comelec
 Prohibition of publication of surveys of
national position 15 days before election
and local position 7 days before election
was invalid prior restraint
 The power of the COMELEC over media
franchises is limited to ensuring equal
opportunity, time, space, and the right to
reply, as well as to fix reasonable rates of
charge for the use of media facilities for
public information and forms among
candidates.
OVERBREADTH DOCTRINE
 assumes that individuals will understand
what a statute prohibits and will
accordingly refrain from that behavior,
even though some of it is protected.
 Decrees that a governmental purpose to
control or prevent activities
constitutionally subject to state
regulations may not be achieved by
means of sweep unnecessarily broadly
and thereby invade the area of
protected freedoms.
VOID-FOR-VAGUENESS DOCTRINE
 Holds that the law is facially invalid if
men of common intelligence must
necessarily guess at its meaning
ABS-CBN VS COMELEC
 Exit polls were prohibited as it might be
in conflict with the official results. Not a
valid regulation. Exit polls are random
samples that cannot be at par with the
official results.
Kapunan vs De Villa
 Kapunan was detained due to his alleged
involvement in a coup attempt and
subjected to court martial. He was
prohibited from making press statement
or press con. Said regulation is valid
when military officers are facing court
martial because of the necessity to
observe Military discipline to follow
orders without questioning. While it its
true military officers have freedom of
expression, they may not give interviews
if facing court martial.
3 TYPES OF RESTRICTIONS:
1. Prosecution
2. Damages
3. Contempt
Test on Restrictions
a. Dangerous Tendency Doctine
This permits limitations on speech once a rational
connection has been established between the speech
and restrained and danger contemplated.
b. Balancing Interest Test
Used as a standard when the courts need to balance
conflicting social values and individual interests, and
requires a conscious and detailed consideration of the
interplay of the interest observable in a given type of
situation.
Laguna vs Sotto
 Licensing agreement for the movie where
Mrs Soto was givent the right to delete,
change and alter scenes. Licensing
Agreement is upheld in order to protect
the right to privacy.
c. Clear and Present Danger Rule
 Speech may be retrained because there is
substantial danger in the speech will
likely lead to an evil the government has
a right to prevent. This rule requires the
evil consequences sought to be serious
and the degree of imminence is
extremely high.
Libel- a public and malicious imputation of a
crime