CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II
(Notes from the book of Isagani Cruz)
I. NATURE OF THE CONSITITUTION
Purposes of the Constitution
1. To prescribe the framework of a system of
government
2. To assign to the several departments their
respective powers and duties
3. To establish certain fixed principles on which
government is founded
Classification of the Constitution [WCR]
1. Written - it is embodied in a document or set of
documents;
2. Conventional or Enacted – formally struck off
at a definite time and place, following a
conscious deliberation by a body;
3. Rigid – can be amended only by formal and
usually difficult process
Essential Qualities of the Written Constitution
[BBC]
1. Broad – it is supposed to embody the past, to
reflect the present, an anticipate the future.
2. Brief – it must confine itself to basic principles
to be implemented with legislative details which
are more adjustable to change.
3. Clear – lest ambiguity in its provisions results in
confusion and divisiveness among people.
Essential Parts of the Written Constitution [LGS]
1. Constitution of Liberty – fundamental civil and
political rights of the citizens and setting
limitations on the power of the government.
2. Constitution of Government – organization of
the government, enumerating its powers, and
defining the electorate.
3. Constitution of Sovereignty – mode or
procedure in accordance with which formal
II. THE CONSTITUTION AND THE COURTS
 Voting on en banc cases − majority of the
members who actually took part in the
deliberation on the issues in the case and voted
thereon
 Doctrine of Purposeful Hesitation - symbolic
function of the court - the court would not decide
on matters which are considered political
questions
ELIXIR C. LANGANLANGAN
–
changes in the fundamental law may be brought
about.
Two Steps in the Amendment or Revision of our
Constitution
1. Proposal
a. Constituent Assembly – vote of 3⁄4 of
Congress
b. Constitutional Convention – call by 2/3
vote of Congress or thrown to people by
majority vote of Congress. This would
better address an overhaul of the
Constitution.
c. People's Initiative (Amendment only) –
12% of registered voters with 3% of
registered voters in each legislative district
2. Ratification – majority of the votes cast in the
plebiscite which should be held within 60 or 90
days.
NOTES:
 Judicial Review of Amendments: The amending
process, both as to proposal and ratification,
raises a judicial question (Sanidad v. COMELEC)
 Doctrine of Proper Submission: Amendments
cannot be submitted to the people in a piecemeal
fashion wherein the other amendments are to
follow. The people should have a frame of
reference from which to read the amendments
being proposed. (Tolentino v. COMELEC)
 Proposal must be embodied in a petition. People
must author and sign the petition.
 Read about Quantitative and Qualitative Test
Requisites of Judicial Inquiry: [APE-N]
1. Actual Case - there must be an actual case or
controversy. A conflict of legal rights, an
assertion of opposite legal claims susceptible
of judicial adjudication
2. Proper Party - the question of
constitutionality must be raised by the proper
party. One who has sustained or is in
 immediate danger of sustaining an injury as a
result of the act complained of.
3. Earliest Opportunity - the constitutional
question must be raised at the earliest possible
opportunity. What is not alleged cannot be
proven. If question is not raised in the
pleadings, it could not be raised at the trial.
XPN:
a. in criminal case – can be raised any time
in the discretion of court
b. in civil case – can be raised at any stage if
necessary to the determination of the case
c. in every case (except when there is
estoppel) - can be raised at any stage if it
involves
jurisdiction of the court
4. Necessity of Deciding Constitutional
Question – the decision of the constitutional
question must
be necessary to the determination of the case
itself. As long as there is some other basis that
can be used by the courts for its decision, the
constitutionality of the challenged law will not
be touched and the case will be decided on
other available grounds.
2 Views on the Effects of Declaration of
Unconstitutionality
1. ORTHODOX VIEW – an unconstitutional act is
not a law; it confers no rights, imposes no
duties, and affords no protection. Thus, a total
nullity.
2. MODERN VIEW [OPERATIVE FACT
DOCTRINE] – the court does not annul or
repeal the statute it finds in conflict with the
Constitution; it simply refuses to recognize it;
the decision affects the parties only and there
is no judgment against the statue; the actual
existence of the statute prior to its declaration
of unconstitutionality was an operative fact and
might have consequences which could not justly
be ignored. This is considered a more realistic
approach.
Partial Unconstitutionality, when valid (2
conditions)
1. The legislature is willing to retain the valid
portions even if the rest of the statute is
declared illegal;
2. The valid portions can stand independently as
a separate statute.

III. THE FUNDAMENTAL POWERS OF THE STATE

1. Police Power – regulate liberty and property Limitations: Bill of Rights

for the promotion of the general welfare
2. Power of Eminent Domain – power to
forcibly acquire private property for public
purpose and upon payment of just
compensation.
3. Power of Taxation – able to demand from the
members of the society their proportionate
share for the maintenance of the government.
Similarities
1. They are inherent in the State
2. They are necessary and indispensable
3. They are methods by which the State interferes
with private rights
4. They presuppose an equivalent compensation
5. They are exercised primarily by the legislature

Differences

DIFFERENCES POLICE POWER EMINENT DOMAIN TAXATION

Both liberty and
As to regulation Property rights only Property rights only
property
Government and some
As to who may exercise Only the Government Only the Government
other private entities
Destroyed because it is
noxious or intended for  Wholesome  Wholesome
As to the property
noxious purpose.  Taken for a public use  Taken for a public use
taken
or purpose or purpose

ELIXIR C. LANGANLANGAN
–
 Intangible altruistic
Full and fair equivalent Protection and public
feeling that the person
As to compensation of the property improvements for the
has contributed to the
expropriated taxes paid.
general welfare.

IV. POLICE POWER

Definition: It is defined as the power of promoting the
welfare by restraining and regulating the use of liberty and
property
Characteristics: It is the most pervasive, least limitable and
most demanding of the 3 powers.
Tests (Limitations)
Justifications:
 Salus populi est suprema lex – the welfare of the
people is the supreme law.
 Sic utere tuo ut alienum non laedas – a person
must use his own property so as not to injure
another.
Scope
4. Lawmaking bodies on all municipal levels,
including barangay (By delegation)
5. Municipal Governments/LGU's (Conferred by
statute thru the General Welfare Clause of RA
7160)
1. LAWFUL SUBJECT – interests of the public
generally, as distinguished from those of a
particular class, require the exercise of police
power
2. LAWFUL MEANS – the means employed are
reasonably necessary for the accomplishment of
the purpose and not unduly oppressive upon
individuals.

1. Cannot be bargained away through the medium of
a treaty or contract (Stone v. Mississippi)
2. May use taxing power as its implement (Tio v.
Videogram Regulatory Board)
3. May use eminent domain as its implement (Assoc.
of Small Landowners v. Sec. of Agrarian Reform)
4. Could be given retroactive effect and may
reasonably impair vested rights or contracts (Note:
Police Power prevails over contract.)
5. Dynamic, not static, and must move with the
moving society it is supposed to regulate.
Who May Exercise Police Power
1. The Legislature (Inherent)
2. President (By delegation)
3. Administrative Boards (By delegation)
Additional Limitations When Exercised by Delegation
1. It must be through an express grant by law (e.g. RA
7160)
2. It must be within territorial limits (for LGU's)
3. It must not be contrary to law (City Government of
Quezon City v. Ericta)
4. For Municipal Ordinances:
a. must not contravene the Constitution or
any statute
b. must not be unfair and oppressive
c. must not be partial and discriminatory
d. must not prohibit, but may regulate, trade
e. must not be unreasonable
f. must be general in application and
consistent with public policy

V. POWER OF EMINENT DOMAIN

Definition: It is also known as Expropriation or Who May Exercise

Condemnation. It is the use of the government of its
coercive authority, upon just compensation, to forcibly 1. The Congress (Inherent)
acquire the needed property in order to devote the same to 2. President
public use. (see Rule 67, Rules of Court and Sec. 9, Art III, 3. Various Local Legislative Bodies
Constitution) 4. Certain Public Corporations (e.g. National Housing
Authority)
It is characterized as the highest most exact idea of property 5. Quasi-Public Corporations (e.g. PLDT)
remaining in the government. Moreover, it is in the nature
of compulsory sale to the Government.

ELIXIR C. LANGANLANGAN
–
Eminent Domain v. Destruction from Necessity, 3. Entry must be under the warrant of legal
Distinguished authority
4. Entry is for public use
EMINENT DESTRUCTION FROM NECESSITY 5. The owner is deprived of enjoying his property
DOMAIN
• It is a public right • It is a private right vested in Taking under Eminent Domain v. Police Power,
• Arises from the every individual with which Distinguished
laws of society the right of the State or state
and vested in of necessity has nothing to do. POLICE POWER EMINENT DOMAIN
the State or • Comes under the right of The prejudice suffered by The individual suffers
grantee, acting necessity or of self- the individual property more than his aliquot part
under the right preservation owner is shared in of the damages, i.e. a
and power or • It arises under the laws if common with the rest of special injury above that
benefit of the society or from the society the community. sustained by the rest of the
State. itself. community.
• It cannot require the
conversion of the property NOTE: Where there is taking in the constitutional sense, the
taken to public use, nor there property owner need not file a claim for just compensation
is any need for payment of with the Commission on Audit. He may go directly to the
Just Compensation. court to demand payment. Arbitrary action of the
government shall be deemed a waiver of its immunity from
suit (Amigable v. Cuenca)
Jurisdiction Over a Complaint for Eminent Domain:
Regional Trial Court (RTC) 4. PUBLIC USE
 Whatever may be beneficially employed for the
Requisites of Eminent Domain [NP-TPJ] general welfare (Heirs of Ardona v. Reyes)
 Includes both direct or indirect benefit or
1. NECESSITY OF EXERCISE advantage to the public
• It must be of genuine necessity, and must be of
public character. 5. JUST COMPENSATION
• When exercised by legislature – political question
 It is the full and fair equivalent of the property
• When exercised by a delegate – justiciable question
taken from the property owner by the expropriator
• The following should be determined
 The sum of money which a person, desirous but not
a. adequacy of compensation
compelled to buy, and an owner, willing but not
b. necessity of taking
compelled to sell, would agree on as a price to be
c. public use character
given and received therefor
2. PROPERTY
Where Only Part of the Property is Expropriated
• GR: It is anything that can come under the
dominion of man is subject to expropriation  Entitlement to consequential damages, if any, and
• XPNs: Money and Chose in Action (Personal right consequential benefits must be deducted from the total
not reduced into possession, i.e. the right to bring compensation provided consequential benefits does
an action to recover debt, money or thing) not exceed consequential damages.
• Any private property that is already devoted to  It must be the payment of the correct amount and
public use cannot be expropriated by a delegate within a reasonable time.
acting under a general grant of authority (City of
Manila v. Chinese Community) Form of Compensation

3. TAKING  Generally, it is in the form of Money. However, in Assoc.

• It is the physical dispossession of the owner or
when he is deprived from the enjoyment of his
property.
• If the taking is under police power, it is not
compensable.
• Requisites (Republic v. Castellvi) [EM-LPD]
1. Expropriator must enter a private property
2. Entry must be for more than a momentary
period
of Small Landowners v. Sec. of Agrarian Reform,
payment is allowed to be made partly in bonds
because it deals with a revolutionary kind of
expropriation.
Transfer of Title: Payment of just compensation before
title is transferred. In other words, full payment should be
satisfied first before the title is transferred.

ELIXIR C. LANGANLANGAN
–
Reckoning Point of Market Value of Property: Either as
of the date of taking or filing of the complaint, whichever
comes first.
Entitlement to Interests
GR: When there is delay, there must be interest by way of
damages (Art. 2209, Civil Code)
XPN: When waived by not claiming the interest.
Payment of Taxes
Taxes paid from the time of the taking until the transfer of
the title, during which the owner did not enjoy any
VI. POWER OF TAXATION
Definition: It is the method by which contributions are
exacted from persons and property for the support of
government and for all public needs. The obligation to pay
taxes is a duty. It is the unavoidable obligation of the
government to protect the people and extend benefits in the
form of public services and projects.
Taxes and Licenses, Distinguished
Tax License
Its purpose is It is only for regulatory purposes,
to raise justified under the Police Power of the
revenues State. The amount of fees that is usually
required is limited to the cost of
regulation.
Scope
All income earned in the taxing state, whether by citizens or
aliens, and all immovable and tangible personal properties
found in its territory, as well as tangible personal property
owned by persons domiciled therein.
Power to Tax Includes Power to Destroy
When used validly as an implement of the police power in
discouraging and in effect ultimately prohibiting certain
things or enterprises inimical to public welfare.
Power to Tax Does Not Include Power to Destroy
Where the tax is used solely for the purpose of raising
revenues
Who May Exercise
1. Legislature / Congress (inherent)
2. President (by delegation / tariff powers [Sec. 28 (2),
Art. VI, Consti])
3. Local legislative bodies (conferred by direct
authority [Sec. 5, Art. X, Consti])
ELIXIR C. LANGANLANGAN
–
beneficial use of the property, are reimbursable by the
expropriator.
Right of Landowner in Case of Non-Payment
GR: Landowner is not entitled to recover possession of the
property, but only to demand payment.
XPN: When the government failed to pay just compensation
within 5 years from the finality of judgment in
expropriation proceedings, there is a right to recover
property.
Limitations of Taxation [DEP]
1. DUE PROCESS
a. Substantive: Tax should not be confiscatory
except when used as an implement of police
power.
b. Procedural: Due process does not require
previous notice and hearing before a law
prescribing specific taxes on specific articles
may be enacted. * However, where the tax to be
collected is to be based on the value of the
taxable property, the taxpayer is entitled to be
notified of the assessment proceedings and to
be heard therein on the correct valuation of the
property.
2. EQUAL PROTECTION
 It is embodied in Sec. 28 (1), Art. VI, 1987
Constitution which states that the rule of
taxation shall be uniform and equitable. The
Congress shall evolve a progressive system of
taxation.
A. Uniformity – persons or things belonging to
the same class shall be taxed at the same
rate.
 Requisites (Tan v. Del Rosario) [SCAE]
1. Standards that are used are
substantial and not arbitrary;
2. Categorization is germane to achieve
the legislative purpose;
3. The law applies, all things being
equal, to both present and future
conditions;
4. Classification applies equally well to
all those belonging to the same class.
B. Equitable – based on the capacity to pay.
C. Equality in Taxation – tax shall be strictly
proportional to the relative value of the
property
 D. Progressive System of Taxation – the rate
increases as the tax base increases.
3. PUBLIC PURPOSE
 Whatever may be beneficially employed for the
general welfare.
Double Taxation or Direct Duplicate Taxation
When additional taxes are laid on the same subject by the
same taxing jurisdiction during the same taxing period and
VII. DUE PROCESS OF LAW
Definition: There is no precise definition because it might
prove constricting and prevent the judiciary from adjusting
it to the circumstances of particular cases. It shall be
responsive to the supremacy of reason, obedience to the
dictates of justice. It is the embodiment of sporting idea of
fair play. It is the guaranty against any arbitrariness on the
part of the government.
Protection of Person
This covers both Natural (citizen and alien) and Artificial
Persons. As to the latter, with respect only to property
because its life and liberty are derived from and subject to
control of legislature.
Deprivation (in Sec. 1, Art. III)
This connotes a denial of right to life, liberty or property. To
take away forcibly, to prevent from possessing, enjoying or
using something. This not unconstitutional because what is
prohibited is deprivation without due process of law.
Life
It connotes the integrity of the physical person, not mere
animal existence. It embraces the enjoyment by the
individual of God-given faculties that can make his life
worth living.
Liberty
The freedom to do right and never wrong (Mabini). It is the
right to be free from arbitrary personal restraint or
servitude. It is the opportunity to do those things which are
ordinarily done by free men.
Property
It is anything that can come under the right of ownership
and be the subject of contract − all things within the
commerce of man.
ELIXIR C. LANGANLANGAN
–
for the same purpose. − despite the lack of specific
prohibition, double taxation will not be allowed if it results
in a violation of the equal protection clause.
Tax Exemptions may either:
1. Constitutional - Art. VI, Sec. 28 (3) provides that
when lands, buildings and improvements are
actually, directly and exclusively for religious,
charitable or educational purposes it is entitled to
exemption.
2. Statutory – under the discretion of legislature.
NOTES:
• However, one cannot have a vested right to a public
office as this is not regarded as property. If created by
statute, it may be abolished by the legislature at any
time.
• Mere privileges are not property rights and are
therefore revocable at will
Substantive Due Process
This requires intrinsic validity of the law in interfering with
the rights of the person to his life, liberty or property.
• REQUISITES
1. Lawful Subject
2. Lawful Means
Procedural Due Process
It is the restriction on actions of judicial and quasi-
judicial agencies of government. It shall give notice and
hear. In other words, it hears before it condemns,
which proceeds upon inquiry and renders judgment
only after trial.
1. Judicial Due Process
Requisites: [IJHJ]
a. Impartial and Competent Court – the
entitlement to the cold neutrality of an
impartial judge;
b. Jurisdiction lawfully acquired over the person
of the defendant and/or property;
c. Hearing – it is not necessarily trial-type
hearing. Submission of position papers is
enough.
NOTE: The right of a party to cross-examine the
witness against him in a civil case is an
indispensable part of due process. Moreover,
the filing of a motion for reconsideration cures
the defect of absence of a hearing.
 Cases in which notice and hearing may be
dispensed with without violating due process:
1. Abatement of nuisance per se – it must
present an immediate danger to the
welfare of the community.
2. Preventive suspension of a civil servant
facing administrative charges;
3. Cancellation of passport of a person
sought for the commission of a crime;
4. Statutory presumptions
d. Judgment rendered upon lawful hearing -
every judgement should be based on facts.
VIII. EQUAL PROTECTION
The principle of equal protection is embraced in the
concept of due process. It is embodied in a separate clause
to provide for a more specific guaranty against undue
favoritism or hostility from the government.
The Due Process Clause attacks arbitrariness in general.
While the Equal Protection Clause attacks unwarranted
partiality or prejudice.
Substantive Equality
It states that all persons or things similarly situated should
be treated alike, both as to rights conferred and
responsibilities imposed.
Equality in Enforcement of the Law
The law must be enforced and applied equally. “A law which
denies equal protection is the same with a law which
permits such denial.” (Read: People vs Vera)
IX. SEARCHES AND SEIZURES
Section 2, Article III
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,
papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and
seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be
inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall
issue except upon probable cause to be determined
personally by the judge after examination under oath or
affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may
produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched
and the persons or things to be seized.”
ELIXIR C. LANGANLANGAN
–
2. Administrative Due Process
Requisites [HEDSPIK]:
a. Right to a hearing
b. Tribunal must consider the evidence
presented
c. Decision must have something to support
itself
d. Evidence must be Substantial
e. Decision must be rendered on the evidence
presented at the hearing, or at least contained
in the record and disclosed to the parties
affected
f. Tribunal, body, or any of its judges must act
on its or his own independent consideration
of the facts and law of the controversy
g. Decision is rendered in such a manner that the
parties to the proceeding can know the
various issues involved, and the reason for the
decision rendered
Requisites:
1. It must be based on substantial distinctions.
Certain physical differences can be a basis of a valid
classification;
2. It must be germane to the purposes of the law. One
class may be treated differently based on reasonable
and real distinctions;
3. It must not be limited to existing conditions only.
It must be enforced as long as the problem sought to
be corrected exists;
4. It must apply equally well to all members of the
class. Both as to rights conferred and obligations
imposed.
This provision deals with tangibles. Embodies the “castle”
doctrine” which states that a man's house is his castle; a
citizen enjoys the right against intrusion and is master of
all the surveys within the domain and privacy of his own
home.
Section 3 (1), Article III
“The privacy of communication and correspondence shall be
inviolable except upon lawful order of the court, or when
public safety or order requires otherwise, as prescribed by
law.”
This provision deals with intangibles. 1. Searches incidental to lawful arrest (Rule 126, Rules
of Court) – for dangerous weapons or anything that
Section 3 (2), Article III may have been used or constitute in the commission
of an offense;
“Any evidence obtained in violation of this or the preceding Requisites:
section shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any a. the item to be searched was within the
proceeding.” arrestee's custody or area of immediate
control
This is also known as the “Exclusionary Rule”, which b. the search was contemporaneous with
embodies the Doctrine of the Fruit of the Poisonous Tree. the arrest
2. Searches of moving vehicles;
NOTES: 3. Searches of prohibited articles in plain view;
 This right is available to natural and artificial Requisites:
persons, but the latter's books of accounts may be a. prior valid intrusion to a place
required to open for examination by the State in b. evidence was inadvertently discovered by
the exercise of police power or power of taxation. the police who has the right to be there
 The right is personal (Stonehill v. Diokno) c. evidence is immediately apparent
 It may be invoked only against the State (People v. d. there is no further search
Marti) 4. Enforcement of customs law;
 GR: Only a judge may issue a warrant. 5. Consented searches;
 XPN: Orders of arrest may be issued by 6. Stop and frisk (limited protective search of outer
administrative authorities but only for the purpose clothing for weapons);
of carrying out a final finding of a violation of a law. 7. Routine searches at borders and ports of entry;
8. Searches of businesses in the exercise of visitorial
Right to Privacy powers to enforce police regulations.
The right to be left alone. The right to be free from Valid Warrantless Arrest
unwarranted publicity; to live without unwarranted
interference by the public in matters which is public is not 1. in flagrante delicto;
necessarily concerned. 2. hot pursuit;
3. the offender escaped from the penal establishment
Valid Warrantless Searches
Each of these requires probable cause, except stop and
frisk

Requisites of a Valid Warrant:

REQUISITES ARREST WARRANT SEARCH WARRANT

1. Probable Cause – it Such facts and circumstances which would lead a
must refer to one (1) reasonably prudent man to believe that an
specific offense offense has been committed and the person
sought to be arrested had committed it
Such facts and circumstances which
would lead a reasonably prudent man
to believe that an offense has been
committed and the objects sought in
the connection of the offense are in the
place sought to be searched

2. Personal The judge personally determines the existence of
determination of probable cause; it is not necessary that he
probable cause by the should personally examine the complainant and
judge his witnesses (Soliven vs Makasiar)
PROCEDURE:
1. personally evaluate the fiscal's report;
2. if the fiscal’s report is insufficient, disregard it
and require the submission of supporting
affidavits of witnesses.
The judge must personally examine in
the form of searching questions and
answers, in writing, and under oath
xxx The complainants and his
witnesses on facts personally known
to them and attach to the record their
sworn statements and affidavits.
(Silva vs Presiding Judge)

ELIXIR C. LANGANLANGAN
–
 PRELIMINARY INQUIRY: This a task of the judge.
The determination of probable cause for the
issuance of warrant of arrest

PRELIMINARY IVESTIGATION PROPER: This is

the task of the prosecutor. The ascertainment
whether the offender should be held for trial or be
released.

3. After examination Not merely routinary but must be probing and Not merely routinary but must be
under oath or exhaustive probing and exhaustive
affirmation of the
complainant and the
witnesses he may
produce

4. Particularity of GR: It must contain the name/s of the persons to be
description arrested.
XPN: If there is some descriptio personae which
will enable the officer to identify the accused.
GR: When the description therein is as
specific as the circumstances will
ordinarily allow.
XPN: When no other more accurate
and detailed description could have
been given.

X. LIBERTY OF ABODE AND TRAVEL

Purpose of the Provision (Art. III, Sec. 6)
“The liberty of abode and of changing the same within the
limits prescribed by law shall not be impaired except upon
lawful order of the court. Neither shall the right to travel be
impaired except in the interest of national security, public
safety, or public health, as may be provided by law.”
Its purpose is to further emphasize the individual's liberty
as safeguarded in general terms by the due process clause.
Liberty under that clause includes the right to choose one's
residence.
Limitations
1. Liberty of Abode - “upon lawful order of the court”
2. Right to Travel - “national security, public safety or
public health as may be provided by law”
Related Jurisprudence
1. In Caunca v. Salazar (82 Phil 851) whether a maid
had the right to transfer to another residence even if
she had not paid yet the amount advances by an
employment agency: Yes. The fortunes of business
cannot be controlled by controlling a fundamental
human freedom. Human dignity and freedom are
essentially spiritual – inseparable from the idea of
eternal. Money, power, etc. belong to the ephemeral
and perishable.
2. In Rubi v. Provincial Board of Mindoro (1919), the
respondents were justified in requiring the members
of certain non-Christian tribes to reside in a
reservation, for their better education, advancement
and protection. The measure was a legitimate
exercise of police power.
3. In Villavicencio v. Lukban (1919), prostitutes,
despite being in some sense lepers, are not chattels
but Philippine citizens, protected by the same
constitutional guarantee of freedom of abode. They
may not be compelled to change their domicile in the
absence of a law allowing such.
4. In Salonga v. Hermoso (97 SCRA 121), the case
became moot and academic when the permit to
travel abroad was issued before the case could be
heard.
5. In Lorenzo v. Dir. of Health (1927), laws for the
segregation of lepers have been provided the world
over and is supported by high scientific authority.
Such segregation is premised on the duty to protect
public health.
6. In Manotok v. CA (1986), bail posted in a criminal
case, is a valid restriction on the right to travel. By its
nature, it may serve as a prohibition on an accused
from leaving the jurisdiction of the Philippines where
orders of Philippine courts would have no binding
force.

ELIXIR C. LANGANLANGAN
–
 7. In Marcos v. Manglapus (1989), the liberty of abode
and the right to travel includes the right to leave,
reside and travel within one’s country but it does not
include the right to return to one’s country. NOTE:
Court warned that this case should not create a
precedent because Marcos was a class in himself.
XI. FREEDOM OF RELIGION
Religion, Defined
According to Isagani Cruz, it is “any specific system of belief,
worship, conduct, etc., often involving a code of ethics and
philosophy”. The aforesaid definition is comprehensive
than that given in Aglipay v. Ruiz, which states that it is a
profession of faith to an active power that binds and
elevates man to his Creator. This is because there are
religions, which do not make reference to a God. (e.g
Buddhism, Atheism, etc.)
However, the definition is too vague. It is too broad that it
can even cover systems of belief that we do not consider as
religions. If we are to accept the definition, it would be
tantamount to calling different schools of thought – e.g.
Analytic tradition, Existentialism – as religions.
Two Guarantees Contained in Section 5
”Section 5. No law shall be made respecting an establishment
of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The free
exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship,
without discrimination or preference, shall forever be
allowed. No religious test shall be required for the exercise of
civil or political rights.”
1. Non-establishment Clause (1st
paragraph)
2. Free Exercise of Religious Profession and Worship
(2nd paragraph)
THE NON-ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE
There is no violation of this clause if:
1. The statute has a secular purpose
2. Its principal effect is one that neither advances nor
inhibits religion; and
3. It does not foster an excessive government
entanglement with religion.
Supporting Provisions
1. Section 6, Art. II – The Separation of Church and
State;
2. Section 2(5), Article IX-C – A religious sect or
denomination cannot be registered as a political
party;
ELIXIR C. LANGANLANGAN
–
8. In Philippine Association of Service Exporters v.
Drilon (1988), right to travel may be impaired in the
interest of national security, public health or public
order, as may be provided by law. An order
temporarily suspending the deployment of overseas
workers is constitutional for having been issued in
the interest of the safety of OFWs, as provided by the
Labor Code.
3. Section 5(2), Article VI – No sectoral
representative from the religious sector;
4. Section 29 (2), Article VI – Prohibition against the
use of public money or property for the benefit of
any religion, or of any priest, minister or
ecclesiastic;
5. Section 28 (3), Article VI – Exemption from
taxation of properties actually, directly and
exclusively used for religious purposes;
6. Section 4(2), Article XIV – Citizenship
requirement of ownership of educational
institutions except those owned by religious
groups; and
7. Section 29(2), Article VI – Appropriation allowed
where the minister is employed in the armed
forces, penal institution or government-owned
orphanage or leprosarium.
Scope
The state cannot set up a church, nor pass laws which aid
one religion, aid all religion, or prefer one religion.
Rationale
To delineate boundaries between the two (2) institutions
and to avoid encroachment by one against the other. As the
saying goes by, strong fences make good neighbors; Render
unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and unto God the
things that are God's.
A union of Church and State would either:
It tends to destroy government and to degrade religion; or
result in a conspiracy because of its composite strength. It
shall, however be kept in mind that, separation of church
and state is not a wall of hostility. The Government is
neutral. It protects all, but prefers none and disparages
none. Freedom of religion includes freedom from religion;
the right to worship includes right not to worship.
Two Values Sought to be Protected by the Non-
Establishment Clause
1. Voluntarism – the growth of a religious sect as a
social force must come from the voluntary support of
its members because of the belief that both spiritual
 and secular society will benefit if religions are
allowed to compete on their own intrinsic merit
without benefit of official patronage.
2. Insulation of the political process from interfaith
dissension – voluntarism cannot be achieved unless
the political process is insulated from religion and
unless religion is insulated from politics.
Related Jurisprudence
1. In Engel v. Vital, recitation by students in public
schools in New York of a prayer composed by the
Board of Regents was unconstitutional.
2. In Everson v. Board of Education, the US Supreme
Court sustained the law providing free transportation
for all schoolchildren without discrimination,
including those attending parochial schools.
3. In Board of Education v. Allen, the US Supreme Court
sustained the law requiring the petitioner to lend
textbooks free of charge to all students from grades 7-
12, including those attending private schools. In
Everson and Allen, the government aid was given
directly to the student and parents, not to the church-
related school.
4. In Adong v. Cheong Seng Gee, in line with the
constitutional principle of equal treatment of all
religions, the State recognizes the validity of marriages
performed in conformity with the rites of
Mohammedan Religion.
5. In Rubi v. Provincial Board, the expression “non-
Christian” in “non-Christian tribes” was not meant to
discriminate. It refers to degree of civilization, not to
the religious belief.
6. In Islamic Da'wah Council of the Philippines v. Office
of Executive Secretary, by arrogating to itself the task
of issuing halal certifications, the State has, in effect,
forced Muslims to accept its own interpretation of the
Qur'an and Sunna on halal food.
Intramural Religious Dispute
It is outside the jurisdiction of the secular authorities. It is
based on mutual respect of the Church and State. Therefore,
such disputes may be resolved only by the religious
authorities themselves and among themselves.
In Gonzales v. Archbishop of Manila, where a civil right
depends upon some matter pertaining to ecclesiastical
affairs, the civil tribunal tries the civil right and nothing
more.
Moreover, in Fonacier v. Court of Appeals, where the dispute
involves the property rights of the religious group, or the
ELIXIR C. LANGANLANGAN
–
relations of the members where the property rights are
involved, the civil courts may assume jurisdiction.
FREE EXERCISE CLAUSE
1. FREEDOM TO BELIEVE
• absolute
• includes not to believe
• “everyone has a right to his beliefs and he may not
be called to account because he cannot prove
what he believes” 2. 2.
2. FREEDOM TO ACT ACCORDING TO ONE'S BELIEFS
1. happens when the individual externalizes his
beliefs in acts or omissions
2. subject to regulation; can be enjoyed only with
proper regard to rights of others
3. Justice Frankfurter: the constitutional provision
on religious freedom terminated disabilities, it
did not create new privileges... its essence is
freedom from conformity to religious dogma, not
freedom from conformity to law because of
religious dogma
Related Jurisprudence
• In German v. Barangan, the SC found that petitioners
were not sincere in their profession of religious
liberty and were using it merely to express their
opposition to the government.
• In Ebralinag v. Division Superintendent of Schools of
Cebu, the SC reversed Gerona vs Sec. of Education and
upheld the right of petitioners to refute to salute the
Philippine flag on account of their religious scruples.
• In People v. Zosa, invocation of religious scruples in
order to avoid military service was brushed aside by
the SC.
• In Victoriano v. Elizalde Rope Workers Union, the SC
upheld the validity of RA 3350, exempting members
of a religious sect from being compelled to join a
labor union.
• In American Bible Society v. City of Manila, the
constitutional guarantee of free exercise carries with
it the right to disseminate information, and any
restraint of such right can be justified only on the
ground that there is a clear and present danger of an
evil which the State has the right to prevent; Hence,
City ordinance imposing license fees to on sale is
inapplicable to the society.
• In Tolentino v. Sec. of Finance, the free exercise clause
does not prohibit imposing a generally applicable
sales and use tax on the sale of religious materials;
the registration fee is not imposed for the exercise of
a privilege, but only for the purpose of defraying part
of the cost of registration
Compelling State Interest Test (Estrada v. Escritor)
• The constitution's religion clause's prescribe not a
strict by a benevolent neutrality --- which recognizes
that government must pursue its secular goals and
interests, but at the same time, strive to uphold
religious liberty to the greatest extent possible within
flexible constitutional limits. In other words, it gives
room for accommodation of religious exercises as
required by the Free Exercise Clause.
• Benevolent neutrality could allow for
accommodation morality based on religion provided
it does not offend the compelling state interest test.
• Two steps (as regards the test):
1. Inquire whether respondent's right to religious
freedom has been burdened; and
XII. FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION
Freedom of Speech, Defined: “At once the instrument and
the guaranty and the bright consummate flower of all
liberty.” (Wendell Philips)
Scope:
• Freedom of Expression is available only insofar as it is
exercised for the discussion of matters affecting the
public interest. Purely private interest matters do not
come within the guaranty. The invasion of privacy is
not sanctioned by the Constitution.
• It covers ideas that are acceptable to the majority and
the unorthodox view. According to the US Supreme
Court: One of the functions of this freedom is “to invite
dispute”. Moreover, as Voltaire described it, “I may not
agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death
your right to say it.”
• The freedom to speak includes the right to silent.
Socrates said that, this freedom was meant not only to
protect the minority who want to talk but also to
benefit the majority who refuse to listen.
Importance
“Sovereignty resides in the people.” The ultimate good
desired is better reached by a free trade in ideas – that the
best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself
accepted in the competition of the market; and that truth is
the only ground upon which their wishes safely can be
carried out.
Modes of Expression
• Oral and written language
• Symbolisms (e.g. bended knee, salute to the flag,
cartoons)
ELIXIR C. LANGANLANGAN
–
2. Ascertain respondent's sincerity in her religious
belief.
• Solicitations for religious purposes requires not a
prior permit from DSWD as it is not included in
solicitations for “charitable or public welfare
purposes.” (Centeno v. Villalon- Pornillos)
RELIGIOUS TESTS
Purpose: To stop government's clandestine attempts to
prevent a person from exercising his civil or political rights
because of his religious beliefs. According to the case of
People vs Zosa, invocation of religious scruples in order to
avoid military service was brushed aside by the SC.
ELEMENTS
1. FREEDOM FROM PREVIOUS RESTRAINT OR
CENSORSHIP
• This is embodied in Article III, Section 4: “No law
shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of
expression, or of the press, or the right of the people
peacefully assemble and petition the government
for redress of grievances.”
• CENSORSHIP conditions the exercise of freedom of
expression upon the prior approval of the
government. Only those ideas acceptable to it are
allowed to be disseminated.
• CENSOR, therefore, assumes the role of arbiter for
the people, usually applying his own subjective
standards in determining the good and the not. Such
is anathema in a free society.
Related Jurisprudence
In Grosjean v. American Press Co., there need not be total
suppression; even restriction of circulation constitutes
censorship.
In Burgos v. Chief of Staff, the search, padlocking and sealing
of the offices of Metropolitan Mail and We Forum by
military authorities, resulting in the discontinuance of
publication of the newspapers, was held to be prior
restraint.
In Mutuc v. COMELEC, the COMELEC prohibition against the
use of taped jingles in the mobile units used in the
campaign was held to be unconstitutional, as it was in the
nature of censorship.
In Sanidad v. COMELEC, the Court annulled the COMELEC
prohibition against radio commentators or newspaper
columnists from commenting on the issues involved in the
scheduled plebiscite on the organic law creating the
Cordillera Autonomous Region as an unconstitutional
restraint on freedom of expression
But...
In Gonzales v. COMELEC, the Court upheld the validity of the
law which prohibited, except during the prescribed election
period, the making of speeches, announcements or
commentaries for or against the election of any party or
candidate for public office.
JUSTIFICATION: The inordinate preoccupation of the
people with politics tended toward the neglect of the other
serious needs of the nation and the pollution of its suffrages.
In Iglesia ni Cristo v. CA, the Board of Review for Motion
Pictures and Television (BRMPT) has the authority to
review the petitioner's television program. However, the
Board acted with grave abuse of discretion when it gave an
“X-rating” to the TV program on the ground of “attacks
against another religion.” Such a classification can be
justified only if there is a showing that the TV program
would create a clear and present danger of an evil which the
State ought to prevent.
In Primicias v. Fugosos, the respondent mayor could only
reasonably regulate, not absolutely prohibit, the use of
public places for the purpose indicated.
In National Press Club v. COMELEC, the Supreme Court
upheld the validity of Sec. 11(b), RA 6646, which
prohibited any person making use of the media to sell or to
give free of charge print space or air time for campaign or
other political purposes except to the COMELEC. This was
held to be within the power of the COMELEC to supervise
the enjoyment or utilization of franchises for the operation
of media of communication and information, for the
purpose of ensuring equal opportunity, time and space, and
the “right to reply,” as well as uniform and reasonable rates
of charges for the use of such media facilities.
In Osmeňa v. COMELEC, the SC reaffirmed validity of RA
6646 as a legitimate exercise of police power. The
regulation is unrelated to the suppression of speech, as any
restriction on freedom of expression occasioned thereby is
only incidental and no more than is necessary to achieve the
purpose of promoting equality.
NOTE: This is not inconsistent with the ruling in PPI v.
COMELEC, because in the latter, SC simply said that
COMELEC cannot procure print space without paying just
compensation.
In Adiong v. COMELEC, COMELEC's resolution prohibiting
the posting of decals, and stickers in mobile units like cars
and other moving vehicles was declared unconstitutional
ELIXIR C. LANGANLANGAN
–
for infringement of freedom of expression. Besides, the
constitutional objective of giving the rich and poor
candidates' equal opportunity to inform the electorate is
not violated by the posting of decals and stickers on cars and
other vehicles.
Overbreadth Doctrine – prohibits the government from
achieving its purpose by means that weep unnecessarily
broadly, reaching constitutionally protected as well as
unprotected activity; the government has gone too far; its
legitimate interest can be satisfied without reaching so
broadly into the area of protected freedom.
In Gonzales v. Katigbak, the petitioner questioned the
classification of the movie as “for adults only.” The petition
was
dismissed because the Board did not commit grave abuse of
discretion.
2. FREEDOM FROM SUBSEQUENT PUNISHMENT
• Embodied in Article III, Section 18 (1), “No person
shall be detained solely by reason of his political
beliefs and aspirations.”
• Without this assurance, the individual would hesitate
to speak for fear that he might be held to account for
his speech, or that he might be provoking the
vengeance of the officials he may have criticized.
• Not absolute; subject to police power and may be
regulated (freedom of expression does not cover
ideas offensive to public order)
Obscenity
In US v. Kottinger, the SC acquitted accused who was
charged of having offered for sale pictures of half- clad
members of non-Christian tribes, holding that he had only
presented them in their native attire.
In People v. Go Pin, the accused was convicted for exhibiting
nude paintings and pictures, notwithstanding his claim that
he had done so in the interest of art. The SC, noting that he
has charged admission fees to the exhibition, held that his
purpose was commercial, not merely artistic.
In Pita v. CA, the SC declared that the determination of what
is obscene is a judicial function.
In Miller v. California, a Test of Obscenity was provided:
• Whether the average person, applying contemporary
community standards, would find that the work,
taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest;
• Whether the work depicts, in a patently offensive
way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the
applicable law; and
• Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious
literary, artistic, political or scientific value.
Justice Douglas, dissent: I do not think we, the judges, were
ever given the constitutional power to make definitions of
obscenity. Obscenity is a hodgepodge. The Courts should
not apply a national standard but the standard of the
community in which the material is being tested.
Criticism of Official Conduct
In Lagunzad v, Sotto Vda. de Gonzales, the Court granted the
petition to restrain the public exhibition of the movie
“Moises Padilla Story,” because it contained fictionalized
embellishments. Being a public figure does not destroy
one's right to privacy.
In Ayer Productions v. Judge Capulong, the tribunal upheld
the primacy of freedom of expression over Enrile's “right to
privacy,” because Enrile was a public figure and a public
figure's right to privacy is narrower than that of an ordinary
citizen. Besides, the movie “Four Days of Revolution (Cruz)”
/ “A Dangerous Life (Nachura)” / “The Four Day Revolution
(According to the Case)” would not be historically faithful
without including therein the participation of Enrile in the
EDSA revolution.
In US v. Bustos, the SC compared criticism of official conduct
to a “scalpel that relieves the abscesses of officialdom”
In People v. Alarcon, newspaper publications tending to
impede, obstruct, embarrass or influence the courts in
administering justice in a pending suit or proceeding
constitutes criminal contempt which is summarily
punishable by the courts.
In re Jurado, a publication that tends to impede, embarrass
or obstruct the court and constitutes a clear and present
danger to the administration of justice is not protected by
the guarantee of press freedom and is punishable by
contempt. It is not necessary that publication actually
obstructs the administration of justice, it is enough that it
tends to do so.
In re Sotto, a senator was punished for contempt for having
attacked a decision of SC which he called incompetent and
narrow-minded, and announcing that he would file a bill for
its reorganization.
In re Tulfo, Tulfo's “Sangkatutak na Bobo” column was held
contumacious. Freedom of the press is subordinate to the
decision, authority and integrity of the judiciary and the
proper administration of justice.
In re Laureta, a lawyer was held in contempt and suspended
from the practice of law for writing individual letters to
members of the SC division that decided a case against his
client, arrogantly questioning their decision.
In Zaldivar v. Sandiganbayan, a member of the Bar who
imputed charges of improper influence, corruption and
ELIXIR C. LANGANLANGAN
–
other misdeeds to members of the Supreme Court was
suspended from the practice of law as “neither the right of
free speech nor the right to engage in political activities can
be so construed or extended as to permit any such liberties
to a member of the bar.”
Right of students to free speech in school premises NOT
ABSOLUTE
GENERAL RULE: A student shall not be expelled or
suspended solely on the basis of articles he has written.
EXCEPTION: When the article materially disrupts class
work or involves substantial disorder or invasion of rights
of others, the school has the right to discipline its students.
In such a case, it may expel or suspend the student.
Tests of Valid Governmental Interference
A criterion in determining the liability of the individual for
ideas expressed by him.
1. Clear and Present Danger Rule
 Most libertarian;
 Whether the words are used in such circumstances
and of such a nature as to create a clear and present
danger that they will bring about the substantive
evils that the State has the right to prevent;
 The substantive evil must be extremely serious and
the degree of imminence extremely high before
utterances can be punished;
 It is CLEAR, when there is a causal connection with
the danger of the substantive evil arising from the
utterance;
 It is PRESENT, when time is an element; when there
is an imminent and immediate danger, the danger
must not only be probable but also inevitable.
Related Jurisprudence
In Terminiello v. City of Chicago, a speech inside an
auditorium with 800 persons. Speech is often provocative
and challenging. Hence, “fighting words” are not sufficient
to convict a person absent a clear and present danger of a
serious substantive evil.
In Primicias v. Fugosos, the respondent mayor could only
reasonably regulate, not absolutely prohibit, the use of
public places for the purpose indicated. The condition of
Manila at that time did not justify the mayor's fears. There
was no clear and present danger. Said case was decided in
194.
In Navarro v. Villegas, as compared with Primicias case, the
SC sustained respondent mayor's act of refusing to issue a
permit enabling students to hold a public rally. Mayor
feared the rally would result to public disorder. The case
was decided in 1970.

In Reyes v. Bagatsing, the denial of a permit to hold a public
rally was invalid as there was no showing of the probability
of a clear and present danger of an evil that might arise as a
result of the meeting. The burden of proving such eventually
rests on the Mayor.
2. Dangerous Tendency Doctrine
 If the words uttered create a dangerous tendency
of an evil which the State has the right to prevent,
then such words are punishable.
 According to Justice Holmes, a critique of this
doctrine: “Every idea is an incitement. If believed, it
is acted on unless some other belief outweighs it, or
some failure of energy stifles the movement at its
birth.”
Related Jurisprudence
In Bayan v. Executive Secretary Ermita, the Calibrated Pre-
emptive Response Policy is null and void. Respondents are
enjoined from using it and to strictly observe the
requirements of maximum tolerance.
In Cabansag v. Fernandez, it is not necessary that some
definite or immediate acts of force or violence be advocated.
It is sufficient that such acts be advocated in general terms.
A mere tendency toward the evil was enough.
In People v. Perez, the accused declared: “The Filipinos like
myself must use bolos for cutting off (Governor-General)
Wood's head for having recommended a bad thing for the
Filipinos, for he has killed our independence.” He was
sentenced to jail.
3. Balance of Interest Test
 When particular conduct is regulated in the interest
of public order, and the regulation results in an
indirect, conditional, partial abridgment of speech,
the duty of the courts is to determine which of the
two conflicting interests demands the greater
protection under the circumstances presented.
 Justice Black, critiqued: In effect, it allows the courts
to decide that this freedom may not be enforced
unless they believe it is reasonable to do so.
3 Tests, as Distinguished
a. Clear and Present Danger Rule – liberty is
preferred;
b. Dangerous Tendency Rule – authority is preferred;
c. Balance of Interest Rule – the issue is resolved in
the light of the peculiar circumstances obtaining in
each particular case.
ELIXIR C. LANGANLANGAN
–
Assembly and Petition
 Public issues are better resolved after an exchange of
view among citizens meeting with each other for the
purpose.
 Not subject to previous restraint or censorship;
 Regulated by BP 880 (Public Assembly Act)
Related Jurisprudence
In Tanada v. Bagatsing, the SC sustained the petitioner's
motion compelling the mayor of Manila to issue a permit to
hold a rally, but changed the meeting place to Ugarte Field,
a private park.
In Malabanan v. Ramento, where several students were
suspended for 1 year for conducting demonstration in the
premises of a university outside the area permitted by the
school authorities. The SC emphasized that the students did
not shed their constitutional rights to free speech at the
schoolhouse gate, and permitted the students to re-enroll
and finish their studies.
In Villar v. TIP, where several students were barred from re-
enrollment for participating in demonstrations. While the
Court upheld the academic freedom of institutions of higher
learning, which includes the right to set academic standards
to determine under what circumstances failing grades
suffice for expulsion of students, it was held that this right
cannot be utilized to discriminate against those who
exercise their constitutional rights to peaceful assembly.
In Non v. Dames, the SC abandons its ruling in Alcuaz vs
PSBA - that enrolment of a student is a semester-to-
semester contract and the school may not be compelled to
renew the contract – upholding the primacy of freedom of
expression, because the students do not shed their
constitutionally protected rights at the school gate.
In PBM Employees Association v. PBM, the right to free
assembly and petition prevails over economic rights.
Tests of a Lawful Assembly
 Purpose Test - ideally, the test should be the
purpose for which the assembly is held, regardless of
the auspices under which it is organized;
 Auspices Test - Evangelista v. Earnshaw: the mayor
of Manila prohibited the members of the Communist
Party from holding any kind of meeting, revoking all
permits previously granted by him on the ground
that the party had been found (by the fiscal's office)
to be an illegal association.
 Right of Association
 Provided in Article III, Section 8 which states that:
“The right of the people, including those employed in
the public and private sector, to form unions,
associations, or societies for purposes not contrary
to law shall not be abridged.”
 Deemed embraced in freedom of expression
because the organization can be used as a vehicle
for the expression of views that have a bearing on
public welfare.
 ‘self-preservation is the ultimate value of the
society.”
Related Jurisprudence
In SSS Employees Association v. CA, the right to organize does
not carry with it right to strike to enforce their economic
demands.
In Victoriano v. Elizalde Rope Workers' Union, the right to
associate includes the right not to associate and particular
exemption was intended to benefit the laborers who were
inhibited from joining labor unions because of their religious
beliefs.
In Occena v. COMELEC, the right of association was not
violated where political parties were prohibited from
participating in the barangay elections to insure the non-
partisanship of the candidates.
In re Edillon, Bar integration does not compel the lawyer to
associate with anyone. Integration does not make a lawyer
a member of any group of which he is not already a member.
Access to Information
 The citizenry has a right to know what is going on in
the country and in his government so he can express
his views thereon knowledgeably and intelligently.
XIII. THE IMPAIRMENT CLAUSE
Article III, Section 10 of the Constitution: “No law
impairing the obligation of contracts shall be passed.”
Purpose
To safeguard the integrity of valid contractual agreements
against unwarranted interference by the State. Contracts
shall be respected by the legislature and shall not be
tampered with by subsequent laws that will change the
intentions of the parties or modify their rights and
obligations.
ELIXIR C. LANGANLANGAN
–
 An informed citizenry is essential to the existence and
proper functioning of any democracy.
Related Jurisprudence
In Valmonte v. Belmonte (1989), the people have a right to
access official records but they cannot compel custodians of
official records to prepare lists, abstracts, summaries and
the like, such not being based on a demandable legal right.
In Baldoza v. Dimaano (1976), Judges cannot prohibit access
to judicial records. However, a judge may regulate the
manner in which persons desiring to inspect, examine or
copy records in his office, may exercise their rights.
In Legaspi v. Civil Service Commission (1987), a personal
interest is not required in asserting the right to information
on matters of public concern. What matters constitute
“public concern” should be determined by the court on a
case to case basis.
In Chavez v. PCGG (1998):
 Public concern – writings coming into the hands of
public officers in connection with their official
functions.
 Ill-gotten wealth is, by its nature, a matter of public
concern.
 Privileged communication: (The following are
certain recognized restrictions on the right to
information)
a. National security matters and intelligence
informations;
b. Trade secrets;
c. Criminal matters pending in court;
d. Banking Transactions
In Echegaray case, the SC held that making the Lethal
Injection Manual inaccessible to the convict was
unconstitutional
Contract, Defined
Any lawful agreement on property or property rights,
whether real or personal, tangible or intangible. It does NOT
cover:
a. License – merely a permit or privilege to do what
otherwise would be unlawful and is not a contract
with the government;
b. Marriage Contract – regarded as social institution
subject at all times to regulation by the legislature
and to change of the original conditions;
c. Public Office – generally, a public office is a public
trust. However, this holds some EXCEPTION: where
the salary has already been earned, in which case it
 will be deemed a vested property right that cannot
be withdrawn or reduced.
Obligation – The vinculum juris or the legal tie that binds
the parties with each other.
Impairment
 It is when a law is given a retroactive effect;
 Anything that diminishes the efficacy of the
contract. The degree of diminution is immaterial;
 Right of a party is changed to his prejudice; and
 When a law:
a. Changes the terms of a contract between
parties;
b. Imposes new conditions;
c. Dispenses those expressed;
d. Authorizes for its satisfaction something
different from that provided in its terms.
NOTE: A mere change in PROCEDURAL REMEDIES which
does not change the substance of the contract, and which
still leaves an efficacious remedy for enforcement does NOT
impair the obligation of contracts.
Limitations
a. Police Power - when a contract suffers from
congenital infirmity, i.e. a contract which affects the
public welfare. Furthermore, it should always be
considered that the ”Police Power is superior to the
Non-Impairment Clause.” Thus, freedom to enter into
a contract is not absolute.
b. Eminent Domain
c. Power of Taxation - Tax exemptions are not
contractual and so may be revoked at will by the
legislature.
EXCEPTION: where a law grants a tax exemption in
exchange for valuable consideration, such exemption
is considered a contract and cannot be repealed
because of the impairment clause.
Related Jurisprudence
In Clemons v. Nolting (1922), it provides the following
impairment of obligation of a contract:
1. A law which changes the terms of a legal contract
with respect to:
a. Time or mode of performance;
b. Conditions – that which imposes new or
dispenses with expressed conditions.
2. A law which authorizes for the satisfaction of a
contract something different from that provided in
its terms.
A law which compels a creditor to accept Philippine pesos
when a debt in US currency is owing impairs the obligation
of the contract.
ELIXIR C. LANGANLANGAN
–
In Charles River Bridge v. Warren Bridge (1873), the state is
never presumed to surrender its police power. A franchise
granted to a company to collect tolls from a bridge is subject
to the duty and power of the state to provide for the
improvement of an important line of travel.
In Home Building & Loan Assoc. v. Blaisdell (1934), the
legislature can’t bargain away public health, morals &
safety. The police power is considered a reserved power.
The legislature may not impair the obligation of a contract
but may modify, according to its wisdom, the remedy with
which the obligations may be enforced.
 Remedy – modes of proceeding and forms to enforce
the contract provided it does not seriously impair the
value of the right The reservation of state authority
is read into and deemed part of contracts.
In Stone v. Mississippi (1879), a statute which subsequently
outlaws gambling does not impair the obligation of contract.
A lottery charter is only a privilege which may be revoked
by the exercise of the police power of the state, gambling
being an appropriate subject of regulation.
In Manila Trading v. Reyes (1935), there is no vested right in
remedies or modes of procedure. The legislature may
modify particular remedies for the enforcement of a
contract without interfering with the obligation of the
contract.
In Rutter v. Esteban (1953), it provides that Police Power
may only be invoked against the impairment of contracts if:
1. Justified by an emergency – furnished the proper
occasion for the exercise of the reserved power of the
state;
2. Temporary in nature – operation limited to the
exigency which called it forth, which period may be
reduced by the court;
3. Exercised upon reasonable conditions;
4. Impairment refers only to remedy and not to
substantive right;
5. Addressed to a legitimate purpose – the protection of
the basic interests of society.
In Ilusoria v. CAR (1966), the prohibition in the Constitution
refers only to contracts with respect to property. It does not
apply to statutes relating to public subjects within the
domain of the general legislative powers of the state and
involving the right and public welfare of the entire
community affected by it. A law which allows tenants to
change their contracts from tenancy to leasehold system
does not impair the obligation of contracts because it was
enacted pursuant to social justice precepts of the
constitution.
In Ortigas v. Feati Bank (1979), zoning laws, promulgated in
the exercise of police power, justify nullification of
contractual obligations.

In Conference of Maritime Manning Agencies v. POEA (1995),
contracts of labor are explicitly subject to the police power.
XIV. EX POST FACTO LAWS
 Article III, Section 22 of the Constitution provides:
“No ex-post facto laws or bill of attainder shall be
enacted.”
 Prohibition against Ex-Post Facto Laws - the
equivalent of the impairment clause in criminal
matters.
 In other words, these are Criminal Laws that
operates retroactively to the prejudice of the
accused.
Kinds
1. One which makes an action done before the passing
of the law, and which was innocent when done,
criminal, and punishes such action.
2. One which aggravates the crime or makes it greater
than when it was committed.
3. One which changes the punishment and inflicts a
greater punishment than that which the law annexed
to the crime when it was committed.
4. One which alters the legal rules of evidence and
receives less testimony than the law required at the
time of the commission of the offense in order to
convict the accused. (e.g. From proof beyond
reasonable doubt to mere preponderance of
evidence.)
5. One which assumes to regulate civil rights and
remedies only BUT, in effect, imposes a penalty or
deprivation of a right, which, when done, was lawful.
6. One which deprives a person accused of a crime of
some lawful protection to which he has become
entitled such as the protection of a former conviction
or acquittal, or a proclamation of amnesty.
XV. NON-IMPRISONMENT FOR DEBT
 Article III, Section 20 of the Constitution provides
that: “No person shall be imprisoned for debt and non-
payment of poll tax.”
 For HUMANITARIAN reasons, this is an added
guaranty of the liberty of persons against their
incarceration for the enforcement of purely private
debts because of their misfortune of being poor.
Debt, defined
 Any civil obligation arising from a contract;
 Expressed or implied;
 Resulting in any liability to pay in money.
ELIXIR C. LANGANLANGAN
–
CC1700: Relations between capital and labor are not merely
contractual but are impressed with public interest and must
yield to the common good.
Characteristics
 It must refer to criminal matters;
 It is prejudicial to the accused;
 It is retroactive in application.
BILL OF ATTAINDER
 A legislative act that inflicts punishment without
trial.
 Essence is the substitution of legislative fiat for a
judicial determination of guilt.
 An instrument of tyranny. Essentially an
usurpation of judicial power by the legislature.
Elements of Bill of Attainder
1. There must be law;
2. The law imposes a penal burden on a named
individual or easily ascertainable members of a
group;
3. There is a direct imposition of penal burden
without judicial trial.
Bill of Pains & Penalties
 If the penalty being imposed was less than death.
 Its prohibition seeks to prevent acts of violence and
injustice brought about by the passage of such bill.
Scope or guaranty against imprisonment for non-
payment of debt
If an accused fail to pay the fine imposed upon him, this may
result in his subsidiary imprisonment because his liability
is ex-delicto and not ex-contractu. This applies to liabilities
arising from contractual obligations or ex-contractu.
Furthermore, a fraudulent debt may result in the
imprisonment of the debtor if:
1. The fraudulent debt constitutes a crime such as
estafa; and
2. The accused has been duly convicted.
Poll Tax
GR: Non-payment of taxes is punishable with
imprisonment.
XPN: Failure to pay a poll tax.
XVI. INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE
 Section 18 (2), Article III of the Constitution
provides that: “No involuntary servitude in any form
shall exist except, as a punishment for a crime
whereof the party shall have been duly convicted.”
Involuntary Servitude, defined
 The condition of one who is compelled by force,
coercion, or imprisonment, and against his will, to
labor for another, whether he is paid or not.
 Includes:
1. Slavery –civil relation in which one man has
absolute power over the life, fortune and
liberty of another;
2. Peonage – a condition of enforced servitude
by which the servitor is restrained of his
liberty and compelled to labor in liquidation of
some debt or obligation, real or pretended,
against his will.
Exceptions
1. Punishment for a crime for which the party shall have
been duly convicted (Sec. 18, Art. III)
2. Personal military or civil service in the interest of
national defense (Sec. 4, Art. II)
3. Naval enlistment – remain in service until the end of
voyage so that the crew would not desert the ship,
XVI. THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
 Section 15, Article III of the Constitution provides:
“The privilege of writ of habeas corpus shall not be
suspended except in cases of invasion or rebellion,
when public safety so requires.”
Writ of Habeas Corpus, defined
 A writ issued by a court;
 Directed to a person detaining another;
 Commanding him
– to produce the body of the prisoner;
– at a designated time and place;
ELIXIR C. LANGANLANGAN
–
Poll Tax, Defined
A specific sum levied upon every person belonging to a
certain class without regard to his property or occupation.
Such as a Basic Community Tax Certificate or Cedula.
making it difficult for the owners to recruit new
hands to continue the voyage (Robertson v. Baldwin)
4. Posse comitatus – in pursuit of persons who might
have violated the law, the authorities might
command all male inhabitants of a certain age to
assist them (US v. Pompeya)
5. Return to work order in industries affected with
public interest (Kapisanan ng Manggagawa sa Kahoy
v. Gotamco)
6. Patria Potestas – unemancipated minors are obliged
to obey their parents so long as they are under
parental power and to observe respect and
reverence to them always (Art. 311, Civil Code)
Related Jurisprudence
In US v. Pompeya, an Act providing for the method by which
the people of the town may be called upon to render
assistance for the protection of the public and the
preservation of peace and good order is constitutional. It
was enacted in the exercise of the police power of the state
and does not violate the constitutional prohibition on
involuntary servitude.
In Pollock v. Williams, no indebtedness warrants a
suspension of the right to be free from compulsory service,
and no state can make the quitting of work any component
of a crime, or make criminal sanctions available for holding
unwilling persons to labor.
– with the day and cause of his caption and
detention;
– to do, to submit to, and receive whatever the
court or judge awarding the writ shall
consider in his behalf.
NOTE:
 The writ is a prerogative writ employed to test the
validity of detention.
 To secure the detainee’s release.
 The action shall take precedence in the calendar of
the court and must be acted upon immediately.
  Mere delay in the resolution of this issue will by
itself constitute an invalid derogation of his right
against unlawful restraint.
When Available (enumeration not exclusive)
 Restoration of liberty of an individual subjected to
physical restraint
 May be availed of where, as a consequence of a
judicial proceeding:
1. there has been deprivation of a
constitutional right resulting in the restraint
of the person
2. the court has no jurisdiction to impose the
sentence, or
3. an excessive penalty has been imposed,
since such sentence is void as to the excess.
 May be extended to cases by which rightful custody
of any person is withheld from the person entitled
thereto
 When moral restraint is exerted (Caunca v.
Salazar)
 Right was accorded a person was sentenced to a
longer penalty than was subsequently meted out to
another person convicted of the same offense.
(Gumabon v. Director of Prisons)
 Unlawful denial of bail
NOTE: Usual defense of respondent that he does not have
the custody or any information of his whereabouts, is an
enough justification for the dismissal of the petition.
When NOT Available (enumeration not exclusive)
 the person alleged to be restrained is in the
custody of an officer under a process issued by the
court which has jurisdiction to do so.
 Desaparecidos (disappeared persons) – persons
could not be found; remedy is to refer the matter
to Commission on Human Rights
Procedure: Need to comply with writ; disobedience
thereof constitutes contempt
Who may suspend the privilege?
The President. However, it may be revoked by the Congress
of the Supreme Court in proper cases.
XVII. SPEEDY DISPOSITION OF CASES
Section 16, Article III of the Constitution provides that:
“All persons shall have a right to a speedy disposition of their
cases.”
ELIXIR C. LANGANLANGAN
–
Grounds for Suspension of the Privilege
1. Invasion or rebellion;
2. When public safety requires it
Elements of Enforced Disappearances
1. There be an arrest, detention, or any form of
deprivation of liberty;
2. It was carried out without the authorization of the
State of a political organization;
3. Followed by the refusal to acknowledge on the fate
or whereabouts;
4. For the purpose of removing him under the
protection of law for a prolonged time.
Doctrine of Command Responsibility
a. Existence of a superior-subordinate relationship
between the accused and the perpetrator;
b. Superior knew that the crime was about to be
committed or already committed;
c. The superior failed to take the necessary and
reasonable means to prevent it or punish the
perpetrator.
Writ of Habeas Data
Ensure the human right to privacy by requiring the
respondent to produce the necessary information to locate
the missing person.
Writ of Amparo
A remedy available to any person whose right to life ot
liberty and security is violated or threatened with a
violation of an unlawful act or omission of a public official
or employee. (e.g. Extralegal Killings and Enforced
Disappearances)
NOTE: Refer to Article VII, Section 18 of the Constitution.
Lansang Doctrine (Lansang v. Garcia)
 The Supreme Court has the power to inquire into the
factual basis of the suspension of the privilege of the
writ.
 Constitutionalized in Article VII, Sec. 18 of the
Constitution.
RELATED CONCEPTS AND PROVISIONS Factors considered in determining whether the right is
violated
Right to Speedy Trial (Sec. 14, Art. III)
1. Length of delay
Speedy Disposition of 2. Reason of delay
Speedy Trial 3. Assertion of the right or failure to assert it
Cases
Refers to trial phase Refers to the disposition 4. Prejudice caused by delay
only of cases (All phases)
Remedy in case there has been unreasonable delay in
Criminal cases only Judicial, Quasi-judicial, or
resolution of a case – Dismissal through mandamus
Administrative
Proceedings
Fixed-Time Period Rule: There is delay when the
resolution of a case is not done within a specified period.
Periods for decision for courts (Sec. 15, Art. VIII)

 Supreme Court: 24 months from submission;
 All lower collegiate courts: 12 months unless
reduced by SC;
 All other lower courts: 3 months
Periods for decision for Constitutional Commissions (Sec
7, Art. IX-A)
Demand-Waiver Rule: Defendant considered waived any
consideration for a period prior which he has not
demanded trial.
Balancing Test: The conduct of both the defendant and the
prosecution are weighed.

 60 days from date of submission for decision or

resolution

XVIII. RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED

Criminal Process includes: B. SELF-INCRIMINATION

a. Investigation prior to the filing of charges;
b. Preliminary examination and investigation after
charges are filed;
c. Period of trial
A. CRIMINAL DUE PROCESS
Provided in Section 14, Paragraph 1 of Article III of the
Constitution which states that: “No person shall be held to
answer for a criminal offense without due process of law.”
Requisites:
1. Impartial and competent court in accordance with
procedure prescribed by law
2. Proper observance of all the rights accorded the
accused under the Constitution and the applicable
statutes (Example of statutory right of the accused:
right to Preliminary Investigation)
Provided in Section 17, Article III of the Constitution the
“No person shall be compelled to be a witness against
himself.”
It is based on:
1. Humanitarian Reasons – it is intended to prevent
the State, with all its coercive powers, from
extracting from the suspect testimony that may
convict him
2. Practical Reasons – a person subjected to such
compulsion is likely to perjure himself for his own
protection
Available to:
 Criminal prosecutions;
 Government proceedings, including civil actions and
administrative or legislative investigations.

NOTES: May Be Claimed by:

 Mistrial may be declared if shown that proceedings
were held under circumstances as would prevent the
accused from freely making his defense or the judge
from freely arriving at his decision.
 When a law not published and a person is impleaded
for violation of such law --- violation of due process
 When appeal is permitted by law but there is denial
thereof --– violation of due process
1. Accused – at all times; there is a reasonable
assumption that the purpose of his interrogation will
be to incriminate him;
2. Witness – only when an incriminating question is
asked, since the witness has no way of knowing in
advance the nature or effect of the question to be put
to him

ELIXIR C. LANGANLANGAN
–
Self-Incrimination CANNOT be invoked when:
a. The question is relevant and otherwise allowed even
if the answer may tend to incriminate him or subject
him to civil liability
b. The question relates to past criminality for which the
witness can no longer be prosecuted
c. He has been previously granted immunity under a
validly enacted statute - Only natural persons can
invoke this right. Judicial persons are subject to the
visitorial powers of the state in order to determine
compliance with the conditions of the charter
granted to them.
Scope:
 Testimonial Compulsion
 Production of Documents, Papers and Chattels.
Exception: When books of accounts are to be
examined in the exercise of police power and power
of taxation.
NOTE: Hence, a person may be compelled to submit to a
physical examination of his body to determine his
involvement of an offense.
What is PROHIBITED?
The use of physical or moral compulsion to extort
communication from the witness or to otherwise elicit
evidence which would not exist were it not for the actions
compelled from the witness.
The right does NOT PROHIBIT
The examination of the body of the accused or the use of
findings with respect to his body as physical evidence.
Hence, the fingerprinting of an accused would not violate
the right against self-incrimination. However, obtaining a
sample of the handwriting of the accused would violate this
right if he is charged for falsification.
The accused cannot be compelled to produce a private
document in his possession which might tend to
incriminate him. However, a third person in custody of the
document may be compelled to produce it.
Waiver of Rights
: these rights are inadmissible as evidence
a) Directly; or
b) By failure to invoke it. Provided, that the waiver is
certain and unequivocal and intelligently and
willingly made.
C. CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION
 Also known as the “Miranda Doctrine” as provided
in the case of Mirande v. Arizona.
ELIXIR C. LANGANLANGAN
–
 In our Constitution, this is provided in Section 12,
Article III.
Custodial Investigation, Defined
 Any questioning initiated by law enforcement
officers after a person has been taken into custody or
otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any
significant way.
 BEGINS as soon as the investigation is no longer a
general inquiry unto an unsolved crime, and
direction is then aimed upon a particular suspect who
has been taken into custody and to whom the police
would then direct interrogatory questions which
tend to elicit incriminating statements.
 Shall include the practice of issuing an INVITATION
to a person who is investigated in connection with an
offense he is suspected to have committed, without
prejudice to the liability of the inviting officer for any
violation of law.
 It may not be invoked when a suspect voluntarily
went or surrendered to the station.
Extrajudicial Confession, When Admissible
a) Voluntary;
b) With assistance of counsel;
c) In writing, and
d) Express
Rights Under Custodial Investigation
a) To be informed of right to remain silent and to
counsel;
b) To be reminded that if he waives his right to remain
silent, anything he says can and will be used against
him;
c) To remain silent;
d) To have competent and independent counsel
preferably of own choice;
e) To be provided with counsel if the person cannot
afford the services of one;
f) No torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation or
any other means which vitiate the free will shall be
used against him;
g) Secret detention places, solitary, incommunicado, or
other similar forms of detention are prohibited;
h) Confessions or admissions obtained in violation of
(Exclusionary Rule)
What Rights May Be Waived
In order these rights can be waived, it must be done in
writing and in the presence of a counsel:
a) Right to remain silent;
b) Right to Counsel
What Rights Cannot be Waived Bail, defined

a) Right to be informed of his right to remain silent and Security given for the release of a person in custody of law,
to counsel; furnished by him or a bondsman, to guaranty his
b) Right to counsel when making the waiver of the right appearance before any court as may be required
to remain silent or to counsel
Forms of Bail
NOTES:
 Right to counsel de parte is not unlimited. Accused a. Corporate Surety;
cannot repeatedly ask for postponement. He must be b. Property Bond;
provided with counsel de officio. c. Cash Deposit;
 RA 7309: Victims of unjust imprisonment may file d. Recognizance.
their claims with the Board of Claims under DOJ
Who May Invoke Bail
Hearsay Exception A person under detention even if no formal charges have
Any of several deviations from the hearsay rule; allowing yet been filed (Rule 114, Rules of Court)
the admission of otherwise inadmissible statements
because the circumstances surrounding the statements Who May Not Invoke Right to Bail
provide a basis for considering the statements reliable. a. Persons charged with offenses PUNISHABLE by
RECLUSION PERPETUA or DEATH, when evidence of
Res Getae guilt is strong;
The declaration of the accused acknowledging guilt made to b. Persons CONVICTED by the trial court. Bail is only
the police desk officer after the crime was committed may discretionary pending appeal;
be given in evidence against him by the police officer to c. Persons who are members of the AFP facing a court
whom the admission was made, as part of the res gestae. martial.

Termination of Rights Under Custodial Investigation Other Rights in Relation to Bail

1. The right to bail shall NOT be impaired even when
 When Charges are filed against the accused;
the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is
 In such case, Sections 14 and 17 come into play.
suspended.
2. Excessive bail shall not be required.
Out-of-Court Identifications
Factors in Fixing the Amount of Bail
This is done thru show-ups where the suspect alone is
brought face-to-face with the witness for identification.
The following factors are provided in Rule 114, Section 9 of
the Rules of Court.
Totality of Circumstances Test
a. The witness’ opportunity to view the criminal at the 1. Ability to post bail
time of the criminal; 2. Nature of the offense
b. Witness’ degree of attention; 3. Penalty imposed by law
c. Accuracy of any prior description of the witness; 4. Character and reputation of the accused
d. Level of certainty demonstrated by the witness at the 5. Health of the accused
identification; 6. Strength of the evidence
e. Length of time between the crime and the 7. Probability of appearing at the trial
identification; 8. Forfeiture of previous bail bonds
f. Suggestiveness of the identification procedure. 9. Whether accused was a fugitive from justice when
arrested
10. If accused is under bond in other cases
D. BAIL
Implicit Limitations On the Right to Bail
Section 13, Article III of the Constitution provides that: 1. The person claiming the right must be in actual
“All persons except those charged with reclusion perpetua detention or custody of the law.
when evidence of guilt is strong, shall before conviction, be 2. The constitutional right is available only in
bailable by sufficient sureties, or be released….” criminal cases, not, e.g. in deportation and
extradition proceedings.

ELIXIR C. LANGANLANGAN
–
NOTES:
1. As a general rule, bail is a matter of right. However,
it is a matter of discretion pending an appeal after
being convicted in the lower court when being
charged below Reclusion Perpetua.
2. Bail may not be granted on mere ex-parte motion,
particularly not on the same day that it is filed on
the court.
3. Presence of bail negating conditions mandates the
denial or revocation of bail pending appeal.
4. Right to bail is not available in the military.
5. Apart from bail, a person may attain provisional
liberty through recognizance.
E. PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE
 As provided in Section 14 (a), Article III of the
Constitution: “In all criminal prosecutions, the
accused shall be presumed innocent until contrary is
proved…”
 Burden of proof to establish the guilt of the accused
is with the prosecution.
 Conviction depends on the strength of prosecution,
not on the weakness of the defense.
 The presumption may be overcome by contrary
presumption based on the experience of human
conduct. (e.g. unexplained flight may lead to an
inference of guilt, as “the wicked flee when no man
pursueth, but the righteous are as bold as a lion.”)
 According to Cooley: The constitutional
presumption will not apply as long as there is some
rational connection between the fact proved and
the ultimate fact presumed, and the inference of
one fact from proof of another shall not be so
unreasonable as to be a purely arbitrary mandate.
 No inference of guilt may be drawn against an
accused for his failure to make a statement of any
sort.
EQUIPOISE RULE – evidence of both sides are equally
balanced, in which case the constitutional presumption of
innocence should tilt the scales in favor of the accused.
F. RIGHT TO BE HEARD BY HIMSELF AND
COUNSEL
 Indispensable in any criminal prosecution where the
stakes are the liberty or even the life of the accused.
 This right includes the right to present evidence in
one’s defense.
 Also, this includes the right to be present and defend
one’s self in person at every stage of the proceedings.
Assistance to Counsel
 This begins from the time a person is taken into
custody and placed under investigation for the
commission of a crime.
 This is NOT subject to waiver.
ELIXIR C. LANGANLANGAN
–
 Right to counsel means the right to EFFECTIVE
REPRESENTATION.
 If the accused appears at arraignment without
counsel, the judge must:
a. Inform the accused that he has a right to a
counsel before arraignment;
b. Ask the accused if he desires the aid of
counsel;
c. If the accused desires counsel, but cannot
afford one, a counsel de officio must be
appointed;
d. If the accused desires to obtain his own
counsel, the court must give him a reasonable
time to get one.
G. NATURE AND CAUSE OF ACCUSATION
This right was also provided in Section 14.
Purposes of The Right
1. To furnish the accused with a description of the
charge against him as will enable him to make his
defenses.
2. To avail himself of his conviction or acquittal
against a further prosecution for the same cause.
3. To inform the court of the facts alleged.
Controlling Factor
 The description and not the designation of the offense
is controlling. The real nature of the crime charged is
determined from the recital of facts in the information.
It is not determined based on the caption or preamble
thereof nor from the specification of the provision of
law allegedly violated.
 If the information fails to allege the material elements
of the offense, the accused cannot be convicted thereof
even if the prosecution is able to present evidence
during the trial with respect to such elements.
Void for Vagueness Rule
The accused is denied the right to be informed of the charge
against him and to due process as well, where the statute
itself is couched in such indefinite language that it is not
possible for men of ordinary intelligence to determine
therefrom what acts or omissions are punished and hence,
shall be avoided.
In Estrada v. Sandiganbayan, the doctrine merely requires a
reasonable degree of certainty and not absolute precision or
mathematical exactitude.
NOTE: The accused cannot be convicted of a crime, even if
duly proven, unless the crime is alleged of necessarily filed
in the information.
An Information or Complaint is Sufficient When:
The following information are reflected:
a. The name of the accused;
b. Designation of the offense given by the statute;
c. Acts or omissions complained of as constituting the
offense;
d. Name of the offended party;
e. Approximate date of the commission;
f. Place where it was committed.
H. THE TRIAL
 The right of the accused to a public trial is not
violated if the hearings are conducted on Saturdays,
either with the consent of the accused or if failed to
object thereto.
Right to Be Present at Trial
 The right to be present covers the period from
ARRAIGNMENT to PROMULGATION of sentence.
 Trial may proceed notwithstanding absence of
accused, provided 3 requisites are met. Note, that
TRIAL IN ABSENTIA is allowed only if the accused
has been validly arraigned.

Factors in Determining Whether There is Violation a. Accused has already been arraigned;
b. Accused has been duly notified of the trial;
1. Time expired from the filing of the information and
2. Length of delay involved c. His failure to appear is unjustifiable.
3. Reasons for the delay
4. Assertion or non-assertion of the right by the  The accused may waive the right to be present at the
accused trial by not showing up. However, the court can still
5. Prejudice caused to the defendant. compel the attendance of the accused if necessary for
identification purposes.
Effect of Dismissal Based On Violation of This Right  EXCEPTION: If the accused, after arraignment, has
stipulated that he is indeed the person charged with
If the dismissal is valid, it amounts to an acquittal and can the offense and named in the information, and that
be used as basis to claim double jeopardy. This would be the any time a witness refers to a name by which he is
effect even if the dismissal was made with the consent of known, the witness is to be understood as referring
the accused to him.
 Trial in Absentia is mandatory upon the court
Remedy If the Right is Violated whenever the accused has been arraigned.
 There is also Promulgation in Absentia (only in
1. He can move for the dismissal of the case.
cases of light offenses)
2. If he is detained, he can file a petition for the issuance
of writ of habeas corpus.  While the accused is entitled to be present during
promulgation of judgment, the absence of his
NOTE: Every trial requires the cold neutrality of an counsel during such promulgation does not affect its
impartial judge. Not only be impartial but must also appear validity.
to be impartial.  The trial in absentia does not abrogate the
provisions of the Rules of Court regarding forfeiture
Speedy Trial of bail bond if the accused fails to appear at his trial.
 A court has the power to prohibit a person admitted
 Free from vexatious, capricious and oppressive to bail from leaving the Philippines as this is a
delays. necessary consequence of the nature and function of
 To relieve the accused from needless anxieties a bail bond
before sentence is pronounced upon him.
I. THE RIGHT OF CONFRONTATION
Impartial Judge
To meet the witnesses, face-to-face. This insures that the
 The accused is entitled to the “cold neutrality of an witness will give his testimony under oath. Thus, deterring
impartial judge”. It is an element of due process. lying by the threat of being charged with perjury.

Purposes of The Right

Public Trial • To afford the accused an opportunity to cross-

examine the witness
 The attendance at the trial is open to all irrespective • To allow the judge the opportunity to observe the
of their relationship to the accused. However, if the deportment of the witness
evidence to be adduced is “offensive to decency or
public morals”, the public may be excluded.
ELIXIR C. LANGANLANGAN
–
 Failure of the Accused to Cross-Examine a Witness
If the failure of the accused to cross-examine a witness is
due to his own fault or was not due to the fault of the
prosecution, the testimony of the witness should be
excluded.
When the Right to Cross-Examine is Demandable
It is demandable only during trials. Thus, it cannot be
availed of during preliminary investigations.
NOTE: Right to confrontation may be done by the counsel;
accused need not to have a face-to-face confrontation with
their adversaries.
Principal Exceptions to this Right
1. The admissibility of “dying declarations”
2. Trial in absentia under Section 14(2)
With respect to child testimony
• Testimony of witness who was not cross-examined
is not admissible as evidence for being hearsay.
• If a prosecution witness dies before his cross-
examination can be completed, his direct
testimony cannot be stricken off the record,
provided the material points of his direct
testimony had been covered on cross.
• The right to confrontation may be waived.
J. COMPULSORY PROCESS
• The accused is entitled to the issuance of subpoena
ad testificandum and subpoena duces tecum for the
purpose of compelling the attendance of witness
and the production of evidence that he may need
for his defense.
• This is to secure the attendance of the witnesses
and the production of evidence in his behalf.
• Failure to obey is punishable as contempt of court.
• There are exceptional circumstances when the
defendant may ask for conditional examination,
provided the expected testimony is material of any
witness under circumstances that would make him
unavailable from attending the trial. (e.g. So sick to
attend or he live hundred kilometers away.
• The right is not available to proceedings under
Court of Tax Appeals.
K. PROHIBITED PUNISHMENTS
When is a penalty “cruel, degrading and inhuman”?
1. A penalty is cruel and inhuman if it involves torture
or lingering suffering. Example: Being drawn and
quartered.
ELIXIR C. LANGANLANGAN
–
2. A penalty is degrading if it exposes a person to
public humiliation. Example: Being tarred and
feathered, then paraded throughout town.
NOTE: It could be any punishment which involves: Physical,
psychologically degrading punishment or inadequate penal
facilities which are under subhuman conditions.
Standards Used
1. The punishment must not be so severe as to be
degrading to the dignity of human beings.
2. It must not be applied arbitrarily.
3. It must not be unacceptable to contemporary society
4. It must not be excessive, i.e. it must serve a penal
purpose more effectively than a less severe
punishment would.
Excessive Fine
A fine is excessive, when under any circumstance, it is
disproportionate to the offense.
NOTE: Fr. Bernas says that the accused cannot be convicted
of the crime to which the punishment is attached if the
court finds that the punishment is cruel, degrading or
inhuman.
REASON: Without a valid penalty, the law is not a penal law.
L. DOUBLE JEOPARDY
2 Kinds of Double Jeopardy
1. When a person is put twice in jeopardy of
punishment for the same offense
1. 1st sentence of Section 21: “No person shall
be put twice in jeopardy of punishment for the
same offense.”
2. When a law and an ordinance punish the same act
2. 2nd sentence of Section 21: “If an act is
punished by a law or an ordinance, conviction
or acquittal under either shall constitute a
bar to another prosecution for the same act.”
SAME OFFENSE
Requisites for a Valid Defense of Double Jeopardy
1. First jeopardy must have attached prior to the
second.
2. The first jeopardy must have terminated.
3. The second jeopardy must be for the same offense
as that in the first.
Res Judicata in Prison Grey What are considered to be the “Same Offense”:

Shall not thereafter be subjected to the dangers and anxiety 1. Exact identity between the offenses charged in the
of a second charge against him for the same offense. first and second cases.
2. One offense is an attempt to commit or a
When Does Jeopardy ATTACH: (1st requisite) frustration of the other offense.
3. One offense is necessarily included or necessary
1. A person is charged includes the other.
2. Under a complaint or information sufficient in
form and substance to sustain a conviction NOTE: Where a single act results in the violation of
3. Before a court of competent jurisdiction different laws or different provisions of the same law, the
4. After the person is arraigned prosecution for one will not bar the other so long as none of
5. Such person enters a valid plea. the exceptions apply.

When does jeopardy NOT attach Exceptions of Double Jeopardy

1. If information does not charge any offense 1. Where there has been a deprivation of due process
2. If, upon pleading guilty, the accused presents and there is a finding of mistrial.
evidence of complete self-defense, and the court 2. Grave abuse of discretion under exceptional
thereafter acquits him without entering a new plea circumstance.
of not guilty for accused.
3. If the information for an offense cognizable by the SAME ACT
RTC is filed with the MTC.
4. If a complaint filed for preliminary investigation is  Double jeopardy will result if the act punishable
dismissed. under the law and the ordinance are the same. For
there to be double jeopardy, it is not necessary that
When does first jeopardy TERMINATE: (2ND REQUISITE) the offense be the same.
1. Acquittal
Supervening Facts
2. Conviction
3. Dismissal without the express consent of the 1. Under the Rules of Court, a conviction for an offense
accused will not bar a prosecution for an offense which
4. Dismissal on the merits. necessarily includes the offense charged in the
former information where:
Examples of termination of jeopardy:
a. The graver offense developed due to a
1. Dismissal based on violation of the right to a speedy
supervening fact arising from the same act or
trial. This amounts to an acquittal.
omission constituting the former charge.
2. Dismissal based on a demurrer to evidence. This is
b. The facts constituting the graver offense
a dismissal on the merits.
became known or were discovered only after
3. Dismissal on motion of the prosecution, subsequent
the filing of the former information.
to a motion for reinvestigation filed by the accused.
c. The plea of guilty to the lesser offense was
4. Discharge of an accused to be a state witness. This
made without the consent of the fiscal and the
amounts to an acquittal.
offended party.
When can the PROSECUTION appeal from an order of
2. Under (1)(b), if the facts could have been discovered
dismissal:
by the prosecution but were not discovered because
 If dismissal is on motion of the accused. of the prosecution’s incompetence, it would not be
Exception: If motion is based on violation of the considered a supervening event.
right to a speedy trial or on a demurrer to evidence.
 If dismissal does NOT amount to an acquittal or Effect of appeal by the accused:
dismissal on the merits
 If the question to be passed upon is purely legal. − If the accused appeals his conviction, he WAIVES his right
If the dismissal violates the right of due process of to plead double jeopardy. The whole case will be open to
the prosecution. review by the appellate court. Such court may even increase
 If the dismissal was made with grave abuse of the penalties imposed on the accused by the trial court.
discretion. (Certiorari is applicable only when
correcting errors of jurisdiction, but not in order to
correct findings or conclusions of the court)
ELIXIR C. LANGANLANGAN
–
Inseparable Offenses
XIX. FREE ACCESS TO THE COURTS
 Sec. 11, Art. III provides that “Free access to the courts and quasi-judicial bodies and adequate legal assistances shall not be
denied to any person by reason of poverty.”
 Social Justice Provision, implemented by the Rules of Court provision allowing “pauper suits”
 Additional guarantee: Adequate legal assistance
XX. CITIZENS OF THE PHILIPPINES
Who are citizens of the Philippines?
1. Those who are citizens of the Philippines at the time
of the adoption of the 1987 Constitution
2. Those whose fathers or mothers are citizens of the
Philippines.
3. Those born before January 17, 1973 of Filipino
mothers, who elect Philippine citizenship upon
reaching the age of majority.
4. Those who are naturalized in accordance with law.
Modes of Acquiring Citizenship:
1. Jus Soli – acquisition of citizenship on the basis of
place of birth
2. Jus Sanguinis – acquisition of citizenship on the basis
of blood relationship
3. Naturalization – the legal act of adopting an alien and
clothing him with the privilege of a native-born
citizen.
NOTE: The Philippines follows (2) and (3).
Election of citizenship under the 1987 Constitution:
Prior to the 1973 Constitution, if a Filipina married an alien,
she lost her Filipino citizenship. Hence, her child would have
to elect Filipino citizenship upon reaching the age of majority.
Under the 1973 Constitution, however, children born of
Filipino mothers were already considered Filipinos. Therefore,
the provision on election of citizenship under the 1987
Constitution only applies to those persons who were born
under the 1935 Constitution. In order for the children to elect
Filipino citizenship, the mothers must have been Filipinos at
the time of their marriage. So, if your mother was a Filipina
who married an alien under the 1935 constitution and you
were born before January 17, 1973, you can elect Filipino
citizenship upon reaching the age of majority.
When must the election be made:
The election must be made within a reasonable period after
reaching the age of majority.
Effects of naturalization:
 The legitimate minor children of the naturalized
father become Filipinos as well.
ELIXIR C. LANGANLANGAN
–
When one offense is inseparable from another and
proceeds from the same act, they cannot be subjected to
separate prosecutions.
 The wife also becomes a Filipino citizen, provided
that she does not have any disqualification which
would bar her from being naturalized.
Natural-born citizens:
1. Citizens of the Philippines from birth who do not need
to perform any act to acquire or perfect their Philippine
citizenship.
2. Those who elect Philippine citizenship under Art. IV,
Sec. 1(3) of 1987 Constitution.
Marriage of Filipino with an alien:
 General Rule: The Filipino RETAINS Philippine
citizenship.
 Exception: If, by their act or omission they are
deemed, under the law, to have renounced it.
Examples of renunciation of Philippine citizenship:
1. Voluntarily obtaining foreign passport;
2. Pledging allegiance to another country (ex. by
becoming a naturalized citizen of another country)
Re-acquisition of citizenship
Natural-born Filipinos who are deemed to have lost their
citizenship may re-acquire the same via repatriation
proceedings. This involves taking an oath of allegiance and
filing the same with the civil registry.
How may one lose citizenship?
1. By naturalization in a foreign country
2. By express renunciation of citizenship
3. By subscribing oath of allegiance to a foreign
Constitution
4. By serving in the armed forces of an enemy country
5. By being a deserter of the armed forces of one’s
country
How may one reacquire citizenship?
1. By direct act of Congress
2. By naturalization
3. By repatriation
ELIXIR C. LANGANLANGAN
–