- DUE PROCESS -
forfeited for commision of a heinous crime.
Art. III, Sec.1, Consti
“No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or
property without due process of law.”
“Law which hears before it condemns” - Daniel
Webster
No precise definition because it might be
constricting and prevent the judiciary from
adjusting it to the circumstances of cases and to
the ever-changing conditions of society.
It applies to all persons regardless of race, age,
or creed; extended to aliens.
Corporations and partnership are also covered
by the protection but only in so far as their
property is concerned.
Natural persons include both the citizen and
alien on equal footing.
DEPRIVATION
To deprive is to take away forcibly, to prevent
from possessing, enjoying or using something.
A person’s life may be validly taken/claimed by
the law as when he is required to render services
in defense of the State or when it is declared
There is no unlawful deprivation of liberty
where a person afflicted with a communicable
disease is confined in a hospital or quarantined.
Private property may be validly taken it is
offensive to the public (e.g. a building on the
verge of a collapse, which may be demolished
under the police power in the interest of public
safety.
Life - completeness of the human body. The
State cannot deprive an individual of any part
of his body.
Liberty - freedom to act in a manner that will
not injure others.
Property - anything that can come under the
right of ownership and be subject of contract.
Public office is not regarded as a property. It
may be abolished by the legislature at any time.
But when salary has already been earned, it
cannot be withdrawn by a retroactive law -
already a property right.
Franchise granted to a Telecom network is a
privilege and not a property. The State can take
it away without due process.
 inquiry and renders judgement only after trial” ;
notice and hearing.
Mere privileges like a license to operate a
cockpit or liquor store are not property rights
and revocable at will.
(1) JUDICIAL DUE PROCESS (Judicial
Hearing) - Requirements:

SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS - an inquiry A. IMPARTIAL AND COMPETENT

of whether or not the law is valid or not. This COURT
serves as a restriction on the government’s law
A court that has no bias.
and rule-making powers.

Every litigant is entitled to the cold neutrality of

Laws must be published first (Official Gazette
an impartial judge. The judge will only reach
or Newspaper of General Circulars) so people
his conclusions only after all evidence is in and
will know and cannot reason out ignorance in
all arguments are filed, on the basis of the
the future.
established facts and the pertinent law.

The SC ruled “Retail Nationalization Law is a

No judge or judicial officer shall sit in any case
valid exercise of police power. Nothing at that
in which he or his wife or child is pecuniarily
time, the retail trade was controlled by aliens.
interested as heir… or in which he is related to
The disputed law is deemed necessary to bring
either party within sixth degree of
about the desired legislative objective - to free
consanguinity or affinity. (Rule 137, Sec. 1,
the national economy from alien control and
ROC)
dominance.

The speed in the determination of the case

Tests for Substantive Due Process:
depends on the circumstances and on how
1. Lawful Subject - public interest complicated the case or not.
2. Lawful Means - means employed

3. Passed within the power of law - Mere allegations are not equivalent to proof.
making body The mere suspicion of partiality will not suffice
to invalidate the action.

PROCEDURAL PROCESS - the one “which

hears before it condemns, which proceeds upon B. JURISDICTION
In actions in personam, such as a complaint for
recovery of a loan, jurisdiction over the
defendant is acquired by the court on his
voluntary appearance or through service of
summons upon him.
Service of pleadings and court processes can be
made only upon counsel on record.
One may be heard also through pleadings.

In actions in rem or quasi in rem, such as land
registration proceedings, jurisdiction is derived
from the power it may exercise over the
property( where the property is situated).
Defects on the observance of due process is
cured by filing of Motion for Reconsideration.
Due process does not only require notices, it
also demands an opportunity to be present at
such proceedings; to be represented.

1.) Appeal

C. HEARING As long as the law allows him to appeal, denial

of that remedy is a denial of due process.
Every litigant has a right to be notified of every
incident of the proceeding and to be present at
every stage.
Article VIII, Section 5(2), Consti -

A decision rendered without a hearing is null

(1) All cases which the constitutionality of
and void.
any treaty, international or executive
agreement, law, presidential decree,
proclamation order, instruction,
When petitioners deliberately avoided
ordinance, or regulation is in question.
acknowledgement of summons or notice, it’s
waiver of their right to be heard.

(2) All cases involving the legality of any

tax, impost, assessment, or toll, or any
Mere notice by publication of a hearing
penalty imposed in relation thereto.
conducted by an administrative agency was
held insufficient and violative of due process.

(3) All cases in which the jurisdiction of

any lower court is in issue.
  Preventive suspension of a civil servant
facing administrative charges;
(4) All criminal cases in which the penalty
imposed is reclusion perpetua or higher.  Distraint of properties for tax
delinquency;

 Padlocking of restaurants found to be

(5) All cases in which only an error or
insanitary;
question of law is involved.
 Theaters showing obscene movies;
 Issuance of temporary protection orders;
If the appeal is based on pure question of law, it
is rejected.  Writs of possession
 Abatement of nuisances
Violation of due process is a PERSONAL
DEFENSE; no one can assert it but YOU!
A. Nuisances

A judge can call a hearing even in summary

Article 704, Civil Code - A nuisance per se is
proceedings for clarificatory purposes.
objectionable under any and all circumstances
because it presents an immediate danger to the
welfare of the community, may be abated
without judicial authorization. (e.g. a mad dog
running loose, which can be killed on sight
because of the threat it poses).

A nuisance per accidens is objectionable only

under some but not all circumstances;

“The right thing in the wrong place”. It may be

2.) Exceptions abated only upon judicial authorization.

There are cases in which the essential req, of

notice and hearing may be omitted violation of
Only courts of law have the power to determine
due process:
whether a thing is a nuisance.

 Cancellation of passports of persons

B. Presumption
sought for the commision of a crime;
Provided there is a rational or natural
connection between the fact proved and the fact
ultimately presumed from such fact, Statutory
presumption would not deny the right to a
hearing as long as the person affected is
precluded from introducing evidence; based
from human experience.
D. VALID JUDGMENT
Article VII, Sec.14,Consti
“No decision shall be rendered by any court
without expressing therein clearly and
distinctly the facts and the law on which it is
based”.
Evidence must be enough to support the
decision.
Decisions must have legal bases.
(2) Administrative Due Process (Quasi-
judicial bodies)
Requisites:
(1) Right to a hearing; right to present one’s
case and submit the evidence in support
thereof.
(2) Tribunal must consider the evidence
presented.
(3) The decision must have something to
support itself.
(4) Evidence must be substantial.
(5) Decision must be rendered on the
evidence presented at the hearing.
(6) The tribunal must act on its own
independent consideration of the law
and facts.
(7) The board should render the decision in
a manner that the parties can know the
issues involved, and the reason for the
decision.
Preponderance of Evidence - evidence greater
in value( not in quantity).
The difference is that in Administrative
Proceedings, only substantial evidence is
required; notice and hearing is not essential.
A re-evaluation is a continuation of the original
case and not a new proceeding.
The denial of one’s right to preliminary
investigation, in the absence of a waiver, is a
denial of due process.
- EQUAL PROTECTION -
Equal protection requires that all persons
similarly situated should be treated alike, both
as to rights conferred and responsibilities
imposed.
The equal protection clause erects no shield
against private conduct, however
discriminatory or wrongful.
Classification - grouping of persons or things
similar to each other in certain particulars and
different from all others in these same
particulars.
Requirements of Classification:
(1) It must be based upon substantial
distinctions
(2) It must be germane to the purposes of
the law
(3) It must not be limited to existing
conditions only
(4) It must apply equally to all members of
the class
SUBSTANTIAL DISTINCTIONS
Congress is allowed a wide leeway in providing
for a valid classification.
Valid Substantial distinctions between:
 HUC and component cities
 Barangay officials and other local
elective officials
 Filipino female domestics working
abroad and other female workers
There is no discrimination against persons
convicted by the Sandiganbayan in giving them
only the remedy of certiorari with the SC as
distinguished from those convicted by other
trial courts.
Persons who work with substantially equal
qualifications, skill, effort, and responsibility,
under similar conditions should be paid similar
salaries.
RA 9262 is not violative of the equal protection
clause.
No substantial distinctions between those who
are convicted of offenses which are criminal in
nature under military courts and the civil courts.
The LGBTQ community is a class.
RELEVANCE TO PURPOSE OF LAW

The classification even if based on substantial

distinctions, will still be invalid if it is not
germane to the purpose of the Law.

If a class is germane to the purpose of the law,

concerns all members of the class, and applies
equally to present, and future conditions, it does
not violate the equal protection guarantee.

DURATION

Classification must be enforced not only for the

present but as long as the problem sought to be
corrected continues to exist.

The continued enforcement of Moratorium Law

is unconstitutional as a consequence of
significant changes in circumstances.

APPLICABILITY TO ALL

A classification is invalid if all members of the

class are not similarly treated, both as to rights
and obligations imposed.
- SEARCHES AND SEIZURES - (4) Must particularly describe the place to
be searched and persons or things to be
seized.
Article III, Sec.2, Constitution
“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 (1) EXISTENCE OF PROBABLE CAUSE
inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of
arrest shall issue except upon probable cause
to be determined personally by the judge after
Probable cause - such facts and circumstances
examination under oath or affirmation of the
which would lead a reasonably discreet and
complaint and the witnesses he may produce,
prudent man to believe that an offense has been
and particularly describing the place to be
committed and that the object being sought in
searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
connection with the offense are in the place
sought to be searched.
Artificial persons like corporations are also
entitled to the guaranty but their books of
The determination of probable cause must not
accounts for taxes. However, their premises
be based on mere suspicion.
may not be searched nor may their papers and
effects be seized except by virtue of a valid
warrant.
The warrant must refer to only one specific
offense.
This right is personal and may be invoked only
by the person entitled to it.
Computer data produced or created may be
constitute personal property and is protected
from unreasonable searches and seizures.
Requisites of a Valid Warrant:
(1) Must be based on probable cause

(2) DETERMINATION OF PROBABLE

(2) Probable cause must be personally
CAUSE
determined personally by the judge

Determination of probable cause is to be made

(3) Determination must be made after
“personally by the judge”.
examination under oath or affirmation
of the complainant and the witnesses
The word “judge” is interpreted in the generic
sense and includes judges of all levels.
While he could rely on the findings of the
prosecutor, he was nevertheless not bound
thereby.
Rule 112, Section 6, ROC
“A judge may issue a warrant of arrest only if
he is satisfied from the investigation conducted
by him or the prosecutor there is probable
cause.”
What the Constitution underscores is the
exclusive and personal responsibility of the
issuing judge to satisfy himself of the existence
of probable cause.
Following established doctrine and
procedure he shall;
(1) Personally evaluate the report and the
supporting documents submitted by the
fiscal regarding the existence of
probable cause and on the basis thereof,
issue a warrant of arrest.
(2) If on the basis thereof he finds no
probable cause, he may disregard the
fiscal’s report and require the
submission of supporting affidavits of
witnesses to aid him in arriving at a
conclusion as to the existence of
probable cause.
Once the information is filed with the court
and the juge proceeds with his primordial
task of evaluating the evidence on record, he
may either:
(a) Issue a warrant of arrest, if he finds
probable cause
(b) Immediately dismiss the case, if the
evidence on record clearly fails to
establish probable cause
(c) Order the prosecutor to submit
additional evidence, in case he doubts
the existence of probable cause.
The prosecutor determines whether there is
reasonable ground to believe that the accused is
guilty and should be held for trial. On the other
hand, the judge determines if a warrant of arrest
should be issued to place the accused in
immediate custody so as not to frustrate the
ends of justice.
Preliminary inquiry - which determines
probable cause for the issuance of warrant.
Preliminary Investigation proper - which
ascertains whether the offender should be held
for trial or be released.
In a preliminary investigation, the public
prosecutor merely determines whether there is
probable cause or sufficient ground to engender
a well-founded belief that a crime has been
committed, and that the respondent is probably
guilty thereof and should be held for trial.
A preliminary inquiry made by a Prosecutor
does not bind the Judge
The report, the affidavits, the transcripts of
stenographic notes (if any), and all other
supporting documents behind the Prosecutor’s
certification which are material in assisting the
Judge in making his determination.
The determination of probable cause to
charge a person of a crime is the sole function
of the prosecutor.
It is only when he or she finds that the evidence
on hand absolutely fails to support a finding of
probable cause that he or she can dismiss the
case.
On the other hand, if a judge finds probable
cause, he or she must not hesitate to proceed
with arraignment and trial in order that
justice may be served.
Executive Determination of Probable Cause
- is made by public prosecutor, during a
preliminary investigation, where he is given
broad discretion to determine whether probable
cause exists for the purpose of filing a criminal
information in court.
Judicial Determination of Probable Cause -
is one made by the judge to ascertain whether a
warrant of arrest should be issued against the
accused. The judge must satisfy himself that, on
the basis of the evidence submitted, there is a
necessity for placing the accused under custody
in order not to frustrate the end of justice.
Warrants of arrest may be issued by
administrative authorities only for the purpose
of carrying out a final finding of a violation of
law, like an order of deportation or an order of
contempt, and not for the sole purpose of
investigation or prosecution.
Note: Requirement of probable cause is not
applicable in deportation proceedings, which
are not criminal in nature. It’s purpose being
not punishment.
We reiterate that the Secretary of Labor, not
being a judge, may no longer issue search or
arrest warrants. Hence, the authorities must go
through the judicial process. To that extent, we
declare Article 38, paragraphs © , of the Labor
Code, unconstitutional and of no force and
effect.
In deportation cases, an arrest ordered by the
President or his duly authorized representatives,
in order to carry out a final decision of
deportation is valid.
(3) EXAMINATION OF APPLICANT
Rule 126, Section 4, Rules of Court
“The judge must personally examine in the
form of searching questions and answers, in
writing and under oath the complainant and
any witnesses he may produce on facts
personally lnown to them, and attach to the
record their sworn statements together with any
affidavits submitted”
“that the complainant and his witness, of their
own personal knowledge obtained from the
personal investigations conducted by them,
both declared under oath that the petitioner was
engaged in usurious activities.” -Yee Sue Koy
v Almeds
The judge must take depositions in writing and
attach them to the record as these are necessary
to enable the court to determine the existence of
probable cause.
The evidence offered by the complainant and
his witnesses (at least 2) should be based on
their own personal knowledge and not on mere
information or belief. Hearsay is not allowed.
The Constitution requires no less than personal
knowledge by the complainant or his witnesses
of the facts upon which the issuance of a search
may be justified.
PROPOUND SEARCHING QUESTIONS
“Allegations in these affidavits are far from the
proof needed to indict Beltran for taking part in
an armed public uprising against the
government”.
A finding of probable cause may be set aside
and the search warrant may be set aside and the
search warrant may be quashed if the person
against whom the warrant is issued presents
clear and convincing evidence that the
applicants and their witnesses “committed a
deliberate falsehood or reckless disregard for
the truth on matters that are essential or
necessary to showing of probable cause. Not
must be positive statement of particular facts
within their personal knowledge.
A search warrant proceeding is not one against
any person, but is solely for the discovery and
to get possession of personal property.
Search Warrant - as an order in writing issued
in the name of the People of the Philippines
signed by a judge and directed to a peace officer,
commanding him to search for personal
property and bring it before the court.
“An application for a search warrant is a
judicial process conducted either as an
incident in a main criminal case already filed
in court or in anticipation of one yet ti be
filled.”
WORLDWIDE WEB CORPORATION v.
People - when an application for a search
warrant is instituted as a principal proceeding
and not as an incident to a pending criminal
action, its subsequent quashal should be
considered as a final order, and not
interlocutory and an appeal may be properly
taken therefrom.
(4) PARTICULARITY OF DESCRIPTION
- the placed to be searched or the persons or
things to be seized be described with such
particularity as to enable the person serving the
warrant to identify them.
It will satisfy the constitutional requirement if
there is some descriptio personae that will
enable the officer to identify the accused.
People v. Veloso - it was shown that he was
described as occupying and in control of a
building at a specified address. *the one in
control of the building is only one*
*Must be very specific*
A search warrant fulfills the requirement of
particularity in the description of the things to
be seized when the things described are limited
to those that bear a direct relation to the offense
for which the warrant is being issued.

“The Court invalidated the warrant,

observing that, “obviously, the warrant gives Technical precision of description is not
the police officers unbridled and thus illegal required.
authority to search all the structures found
inside the PICOP compound.”

The warrants sanctioned the seizure of all

records of the petitioners and the
aforementioned corporations, whatever their
nature. Thus openly contravening the explicit
command of our Bill of Rights--that the things
to be seized be particularly described--as well
as tending to defeat its major objective: tho
elimination of general warrants.

It does not specify what the subversive books

and instructions are; what the manuals
otherwise available to the public contain to
make them subversive or to enable them to be
used for the crime of rebellion. There is absent
a definite guideline to the searching team as to
what items might be lawfully seized, thus
giving the officers of the law discretion
regarding what articles they should seize as, in
fact, taken also were a portable typewriter and
2 wooden boxes.

The Court found the subject search warrants as

“not general warrants because the items to be
seized were sufficiently identified physically
and were also specifically identified by stating
their relation to the offenses charged which are
Theft and Violation of Presidential Decree No.
401 through the conduct of illegal ISR
activities.”
ADMISSIBILITY OF ILLEGALLY
SEIZED EVIDENCE
Article III, Section 3(2),
Such evidence “shall be inadmissible for any
purpose in any proceeding.”
Paper Industries Corporation of the
Philippines v. Asuncion - was declared void
because the witnesses who testified in support
of the application for the same either were not
subjected to proper questioning by the judge or
had no personal knowledge of the allegations
specified in the same. If the said property is the
subject of litigation, like a prosecution for
illegal possession of firearms, it will remain in
custodia legis until the case is terminated.
Consent - to a search is not to be lightly
inferred, but shown by clear and convincing
evidence.
A waiver of an illegal warrantless arrest does
not, however, mean a waiver of the
inadmissibility of evidence seized during the
illegal warrantless arrest.
It has been held though that where the accused
did not raise the issue of the admissibility of the
evidence against him on the ground that it had
been illegally seized, such omission constituted
a waiver of the protection granted by this
section, and the illegally seized evidence could
then be admitted against him. Such objection
should be made before arraignment, according
to People v. Zaspa.
Even if an accused seasonably objects to the
admissibility of the evidence seized pursuant to
the search warrant after the prosecution
formally offers its evidence. If his objection is
not based on constitutional grounds, but rather
on the ground that he was not in actual
possession of the premises at the time the search
was conducted, he is still to be considered as
having waived his right to question the
lawfulness of the same.
To constitute a valid consent or waiver of the
constitutional guarantee against obtrusive
searches, it must be shown that:
(1) The right exist
(2) That the person involved had
knowledge, either actual or constructive,
of the existence of such right
(3) The said person had an actual intention
to relinquish the right.
“The constitutional guaranty against
unreasonable searches and seizure is applicable
only against government authorities and not to
private individuals such as the barangay tanod
who found the folded paper containing packs of
shabu inside the nipa hut.
Thus, the search conducted was unreasonable
and the confiscated items are inadmissible in
evidence.
Luz v. People
WARRANTLESS SEARCHES AND
SEIZURES
Searches of vessels and aircraft for violation of
immigration, customs, and drug laws; searches
of moving vehicles; searches of automobiles at
borders or constructive borders; where the
prohibited articles are in “plain view”, searches
of buildings and premises to enforce fire,
sanitary and building regulations; and “stop and
frisk” operations or the so-called Terry search;
customs searches; and searches conducted
under exigent and emergency circumstances.
Military checkpoints
Searches based on tipped information in buy-
bust operations or cases involving drugs in
transit have likewise been sustained. When the
accused did not raise any protest, were
considered to have consented to be searched.
A peace officer or even a private person may,
without a warrant, arrest a person:
(1) When such person has in fact just
committed, is actually committing, or is
attempting to commit an offense in his
presence;
(2) When an offense has in fact just been
committed and he has personal
knowledge of facts indication that the
person to be arrested has committed it;
(3) When the person to be arrested is a
prisoner who has escaped from a penal
establishment.
Warrantless search was sustained having been
done after the accused was caught in flagrante
delicto.
Rule 126, Section 13 of the Rules of Court, if
the search is an incident of a lawful arrest,
seizure may be made of dangerous weapons or
anything that may have been used or many
constitute proof in the commission of an
offense.
To constitute a valid in flagrante delicto
arrest, two requisites must concur:
(1) The person to be arrested must execute
an overt act indication that he has just
committed, is actually committing, or is
attempting to commit a crime.
(2) Such overt act is done in the presence or
within the view of the arresting officer.
The non-participation of or non-coordination
with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency
(PDEA) in a buy-bust operation would not
render the arrest illegal and the evidence
obtained therein inadmissible considering that
the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized
prohibited substances and dangerous drugs
have been properly preserved.
Seizures covered by search warrants, the
physical inventory and photograph must be
conducted in the place of the search warrant, in
warrantless seizures such as a buy-bust
operation, the physical inventory and
photograph shall be conducted at the nearest
police station or office of the apprehending
officer/team.

Rule 126, Sec. 13 of the Rules of Court
“A person lawfully arrested may be searched
for dangerous weapons or anything which may
have been used or constitute proof in the
commission of an offense without a search
warrant.”
The rule requires, in addition that the accused
perform some overt act that would indicate that
he has committed, is actually committing, or is
attempting to commit an offense.
The warrantless arrests of the accused which
were based solely on a report from a civilian
asset, or mere information were also declared as
unlawful by the Supreme Court in People v.
Tudtud and People v. Nuevas.
Peace officer or a private person may, without
a warrant, arrest a person when, in his
presence,the person to be arrested has
committed, is actually committing or is
attempting to commit an offense. (in flagrante
delicto)
A waiver of an illegal warrantless arrest does
not carry with it a waiver of the inadmissibility
of the evidence seized during the illegal
warrantless arrest.
“Hot pursuit” - this type of warrantless
arrest “necessitates two stringent
requirements before a warrantless arrest
can be effected:
(1) An offense has just been committed
(2) The person making the arrest has
personal knowledge of facts indicating
that the person to be arrested has
committed it.
Espano v. Court of Appeals - marijuana seized
from the house of the accused after his arrest on
the street was held inadmissible evidence
because it was unlawfully obtained.
But evidence obtained in an airport security
procedure is admissible in court.
No waiver is presumed where the person
merely submits to the arresting officer in
manifestation of his respect for authority or
where he allows entry into his home as a sign of
hospitality and politeness.
“There must first be a lawful arrest before a
search can be made – the process cannot be
reversed”
The plain view doctrine applies when the
following requisites concur:
(a) the law enforcement officer in search of the
evidence has a prior justification for an
intrusion or is in position from which he can
view a particular area or is in a position from
which he can view a particular area
(b) the discovery of the evidence in plain view
is inadvertent
(c) it is immediately apparent to the officer that
the item he observes may be evidence of a crime,
contraband or otherwise subject to seizure.
However, if the package proclaims its contents,
whether by its distinctive configuration, its
transparency, or if its contents are obvious to an
observer, then the contents are in plain view and
may be seized.

The inherent right of the State to protect its

existence and promote public welfare shall
prevail over individual’s rights against
warrantless search.

What constitutes a reasonable or unreasonable

warrantless search or seizure is purely a judicial
question, determinable from the uniqueness of
the circumstances involved, including the
purpose of the search or seizure, the presence of
absence of probable cause, the manner in which
the search and seizure was made, the place or
thing searched and the character of the articles
procured.

Objections with respect to any irregularity in a

warantless arrest are considered waived if not
raised before arraignment or entering a plea.

The illegality of the warrantless arrest cannot

deprive the State of its right to prosecute the
guilty when all other facts on record point to
their culpability.
- PRIVACY OF The use of the records through wire-tapping is
invalid except on specified offenses, mainly
COMMUNICATION AND those affecting national security.
CORRESPONDENCE -

Tests whether a person has a reasonable

Article III, Section 3(1)
“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”.
expectation of privacy and whether the
expecttion has been violated:
-whether by his conduct, the individual has
exhibited an expectation of privacy
-this expectation is one that society recognizes
as reasonable

Article III, Section 3(2)

The right of privacy is not absolute. Intrusion to
“Any evidence obtained in violation of this or privacy is valid on public figures and those
the preceding section shall be inadmissible for information sought are public in character.
any purpose in any proceeding.

A confirmation of drugs via urine test cannot be

The right to privacy is: used to charge you with RA 9165. The
-the right to be free from unwarranted possession, selling, and using (caught in the act)
exploitation of one’s person or from intrusion of drugs constitute the crime.
into one’s private activities in such a way as to
cause humiliation to a person’s ordinary
sensibilities.
-the right of an individual to be free from
unwarranted publicity
-to live without unwarranted interference by the
public in matters in which the public is not
necessarily concerned.

In short, the right to privacy is the right to

be let alone.

Exceptions:
-upon lawful order of the court
-when public welfare requires it
- LIBERTY OF ABODE AND
TRAVEL -
Article III, Section 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 the right to travel be impaired except
upon the interest of national security, public
safety or public health, as may be provided by
law.”
Section 10 of Article XIII
“urban or rural poor dwellers shall not be
evicted nor their dwellings demolished, except
in accordance with law and in a just and
humane manner. No resettlement of urban or
rural dwellers shall be undertaken without
adequate consultation with them and the
communities where they are to be relocated.”
It is the right to choose one’s residence, to leave
it whenever he pleases, and to travel wherever
he wills.
Philippine penal law specifically punishes any
public officer who, not being expressly
authorized by law or regulation, compels any
person to change his residence.
It is valid when a petition to travel is dismissed
on the grounds that the condition of the bail
bond that he would be available at any time the
court should require his presence.
In the case Arroyo v. De Lima, petitioner’s
right to travel has been violated. She is not yet
given a final judgment yet she’s been restricted
to travel.
A member of the judiciary or court staffs cannot
travel unless they get a permit from the
government. Court officials must be always
available to implement justice and they cannot
uphold their duties if they can go out of the
country at their own will. The law of the courts
merely regulates the right to travel of court
officers/employees and not completely restrict
them from travelling.

Exceptions:
-person facing criminal charges may be
restrained by the court from leaving the country
or if abroad, compelled to return
-A lessee may be judicially ejected for violation
of his contractual duties

It is not a violation of the clause when members

of certain non-Christian tribes reside in a
reservation, for their better education,
advancement and protection.
- FREEDOM OF RELIGION -
Every one has the right to freedom of thought,
conscience and religion; this right includes
freedom to change his religion or belief and
freedom, either alone or in community with
others and in public or private, to manifest his
religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship
and observance.
Religion is any specific system of belief,
worship, and conduct involving a code of ethics
and a philosophy. It embraces matters of faith
and dogma, as well as doubt, agnoticism and
atheism.
Article III, 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.”
Article II, Section 6
“The separation of Church and State shall be
inviolable”
Article VI, Section 29(2)
“No public money or property shall be
appropriated, applied, paid, or employed,
directly or indirectly, for the use, benefit, or
support of any sect, church, denomination,
sectarian institution, or system of religion, or of
any priest, preacher, minister, or other
religious teacher, or dignitary as such, except
when such priest, preacher, minister, or
dignitary is assigned to the armed forces, or to
any penal institution, or government orphanage
or leprosarium.”
Article VI, Section 28(3)
“Charitable institutions, churches and
parsonages or convents appurtenant thereto,
mosques, non-profit cemeteries, and all lands,
buildings, and improvements, actually, directly,
and exclusively used for religious, charitable,
or educational purposes shall be exempt from
taxation.”
Article XIV, Section 4(2)
“Educational institutions, other than those
established by religious groups and mission
boards, shall be owned solely by citizens of the
Philippines or corporations or associations at
least sixty per centum of the capital of which is
owned by such citizens. The Congress may,
however, require increased Filipino equity
participation in all educational institutions.”
Article XIV, Section 3(3)
“At the option expressed in writing by the
parents or guardians, religion shall be allowed
to be taught to their children or wards in public
elementary and high schools within the regular
class hours by instructors designated or
approved by the religious authorities of the
religion to which the children or wards belong,
without additional cost to the Government.”
Article XV, Section 3(1)
“The State shall defend the right of spouses to
found a family in accordance with their
religious convictions and the demands of
responsible parenthood.”
 No funds or books are given to private schools
because the ones who benefit from the free
Article III, Section 5
books are not the school but the students and the
“No law shall be made respecting and parents.
establishment of religion or prohibiting the free
exercise thereof.”
Any benefit indirectly enjoyed by a religious
institution, as long as such benefit was only
The purpose of “Separation of Church and State” incidental to a legitimate secular objective,
is for them not to quarrel and encroach upon the would not violate the prohibition.
activities of one another.

A public street may be used in a procession by

Our Constitution and laws exempt from a Catholic group as long as other non-religious
taxation properties devoted exclusively to groups can use it too.
religious purposes.

Priests who served in the Constitutional

There will be no violation of establishment
clause if:
-the statute has a secular legislative purpose
-its principal or primary effect is one that
neither advances nor inhibits religion
-it does not foster an “excessive government
entanglement with religion”
Commission were entitled to be paid from
public funds not for their ecclesiastical services
but as members of the Commission.
The establishment clause restricts what the
government can do with religion, it also limits
what religious sects can or cannot do with the
government.

The establishment clause prohibits the (1) Intramural Religious Disputes

establishment of a state religion and the use of
public resources for the support or prohibition
of a religion.
It is also settled that whatever dogma is adopted
by a religious group cannot be binding upon the
State if it contravenes its valid laws.
Freedom of religion includes freedom from
religion; the right to worship includes the right
not to worship.
The civil courts cannot try a case where the
main topic is about the internal belief of that
specific religion. But in case that has a civil
Government employees must not use aspect, the courts can only try the same.\\
government time to conduct or cooperate with
church activities.
Religious Profession of Worship
The right to religious profession and
worship has a twofold aspect:
-freedom to believe
-freedom to act on one’s belief
(1) Freedom to Believe
A person is free to believe or disbelieve as he
pleases.
(2) Freedom to Act on One’s Beliefs
This aspect is subject to regulation because the
belief has been translated into external acts that
affect the public welfare.
The inherent police power can be exercised to
prevent religious practices inimical to society.
If a certain religious practice is against the law,
it can be regulated.
The constitutional guaranty of free exercise and
enjoyment of religious profession and worship
carries with it the right to disseminate religious
information.
The test to determine which shall prevail as
between religious freedom and the powers of
the State is, as always, the test of
reasonableness.
Free Exercise clause prohibits government
from inhibiting religious beliefs with penalties
for religious beliefs and practice, while the
establishment clause prohibits government
from inhibiting religious beliefs with rewards
for religious beliefs and practices.
If the government fails to show the seriousness
and immediacy of the threat, State intrusion is
constitutionally unacceptable.
It was a grave violation of the non-
establishment clause for the COMELEC to
utilize the Bible and the Koran to justify the
exclusion of Ang Ladlad Partylist.
The constitutional prohibition against religious
tests is aimed against clandestine attempts on
the part of the government to prevent a person
from exercising his civil or political rights
because of his religious beliefs.
If a person is compelled to act contrary to his
religious belief and conviction, it would be
violative of “the principle of non coercion”
enshrined in the constitutional right to free
exercise of religion.
Benevolent neutrality – accommodation of
religion may be allowed, not to promote the
government’s favored form of religion but to
allow individuals and groups to exercise their
religion without hindrance.
Compelling state interest test – free exercise is
a fundamental right and the laws burdening it
should be subject to scrutiny.
If the law is for the betterment of the public,
even thought it’s against the religious belief of
acertain group, it must be upheld. Only a
compelling interest of the State can prevail over
the fundamental right to religious liberty.
FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION
“at once the instrument and the guaranty and the
bright consummate flower of all liberty”
-Wendell Philips
The other rights, in addtition to freedom of
speech are:
- freedom of the press
- freedom of assembly
- freedom of petition
- freedom of religion
- the right to association
- the right to access information on matters of
public concern
- the right not to be detained solely by reason of
one’s political beliefs and aspirations
The ultimate good desired is better reach 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. (Abrams v. U.S.)
Notes:
- the extra-marital affairs of the president can be
talked abut because he is the number 1 public
figure in the country and he must be a role
model for the citizens. Also applicable to other
public official like the mayor.
- But if it curtails a private information of a
private individual, we cannot talk about it.
Diocese of Bacolod v. Commission on
Elections:
There are several theories and school of
thoughts that strengthen the need to protect the
basic right to freedom of expression:
1. Deliberative democracy which would include
the right of the people to participate in public
affairs, including the right to criticize
government actions
2. Free speech as being “under the concept of a
market place of ideas”, and should therefore be
encouraged.
3. Free speech likewise “involves self-
expression that enhances human dignity. The
right means of assuring individual self-
fulfillment among others.
4. Free expression as “a marker for group
identity”.
5. The Bill of Rights, free speech included, is
supposed to protect individuals and minorities
against majoritarian abuses perpetrated through
the framework of democratic governance.
6. Free speech must be protected under the
safety valve theory. This provides that
nonviolent manifestations of dissent reduce the
likelihood of violence.

In order to prevent people from resorting to
violence, there is a need fr peaceful methods in
making dissent.
This includes “free expression and political
participation” in that they can vote for
candidates who share their view, petition their
legislature to make or change laws...distribute
literature alerting other citizens of their
concerns, and conduct peaceful rallies.
Equality-based approach
Politically disadvantaged speech prevails over
regulation but regulation promoting political
equality prevails over speech. This view
acknowledges that there are dominant political
actors who, through authority, power, resources,
identity, or status, have capabilities that may
drown out messages of others.
To be really meaningful, it should permit the
articulation of even unorthodox view, though it
be hostile to or derided by others, or induces a
condition of unrest, creates dissatisfaction, with
conditions as they are, or even stirs people to
anger.
Voltaire was grandiloquent: “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 be
silent. The State cannot prohibit the people
from hearing what a person has to say, whatever
be the quality of his thoughts.
Our democracy precludes using the religious or
moral views of one part of the community to
exclude from consideration the values of other
members of the community.
The requirements of the Constitution regarding
equality in opportunity must provide limits to
some expression during electoral campaigns.
Notes:
-We cannot expose information unless it of
public interest.
MODES OF EXPRESSION
Freedom of expression is usually exercised
through language, oral, symbolisms. and
written.
Diocese of Bacolod v. Commission on
Elections:
Speech is not limited to vocal communication.
Conduct is treated as a form of speech
sometimes referred to as symbolic speech such
that when speech and non speech elements are
combined in the same course of conduct.
Form of expression is just as important as the
information conveyed that it forms part of the
expression.
Large tarpaulins, therefore, are not analogous to
time and place. They are fundamentally part of
the expression protected under Article III,
Section 4 of the Constitution.
We evaluate restrictions on freedom of
expression from their effects. We protect both
speech and medium because the quality of this
freedom in practice will define the quality of
deliberation in our democratic society.
The tarpaulin exaggerate. Surel, “Team Patay”
does not refer to alist of dead individuals nor
could the Archbishop of the Diocese of Bacolod
have intended it to mean that the entire plan of
the candidates in his list was to cause death
intentionally.
Disini v. Executive Secretary – free
expression can also come in the forms .
commercial speech which does no more than
propose a commercial transaction and also
political speech presented as satire.
Placards, graffiti, slogans and battlecries,
poems and song lyrics, speeches and orations,
movies, stage plays, and television and radio
presentation – all these and more can be
effective media for the discussion of public
issues.
ELEMENTS
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 peaceably to assemble and
petition the Government for redress of
grievances.”
Article III, Section 18(1)
“No person shall be detained solely by reason
of his political beliefs and aspirations.”
The elements of freedom of expression are:
(1) freedom from previous restraint or
censorship
(2) freedom from subsequent punishment
Restraint upon these freedom may be either
(extent of regulation):
Content-based regulation or censorship – the
restriction is based on the subject matter of the
utterance or speech. (e.g. a speaker is controlled
in his actual speech or what he may actually say)
It bears a heavy presumption of invalidity and
is measured against the clear and present danger
rule.
A governmental action that restricts freedom of
speech or of press based on content is given the
strict scrutiny in the light of its inherent and
invasive impact.
It has been held that under this rule, the evil
consequences sought to be prevented must be
substantive, extremely serious and the degree of
imminence extremely high.
Content neutral – it is merely concerned with
the incidents of the speech or one that merely
controls the time, place, and manner, and under
well defined standards. (e.g. if the speaker were
told when or where he may speak)
Only a substantial governmental interest is
required for its validity.
Void-for-Vagueness - a penal statute is always
involved; encroaches the freedom of speech.
Intermediate test - this only regulates things
unrelated to the content you’ll publish.
Penera v. COMELEC - a statute can be
impermissibly vague for either two independent
reasons:
Diocese of Bacolod v. Commission on
Elections - “while the tarpaulins may influence
the success or failure of the named candidates
and political parties, this does not necessarily - if it fails to provide people of ordinary
mean it is election propaganda. The tarpaulin intelligence a reasonable opportunity to
was not paid for or posted in return for understand what conduct it prohibits;
consideration by any candidate, political party,
or party-list group”.
- if it authorizes or even encourages arbitrary
and discriminatory enforcement.
In the same case, SC declared “ There is no
compelling and substantial state interest
endangered by the posting of the tarpaulin as to
justify curtailment of the right of freedom of
expression. There is no reason for the State to
minimize the right of non-candidate petitioners
to post the tarpaulin in their private property.
(1) FREEDOM FROM PRIOR
The size of the tarpaulin does not affect anyone
RESTRAINT/CENSORSHIP
else’s constitutional right.

Censorship conditions the exercise of freedom

Soriano v. Laguardia - the court finds that
of expression upon the prior approval of the
petitioner’s statement can be treated as obscene,
government. Only those ideas acceptable to it
at least with respect to the average child. With
are allowed to be disseminated; all others are
respect to the young minds, said utterances are
restricted or suppressed.
to be treated as unprotected speech.

(e.g. Before you publish the news article, the

B.P. No. 880 is not an absolute ban of public
government will tell you to not publish the
assemblies but a restriction that simply
racist statements he delivered and only publish
regulates the time, place and manner of the
the ones which will make him people-loving)
assemblies. It is as a “content-neutral”
regulation of the time, place, and manner of
holding public assemblies.
Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union - as
a matter of constitutional tradition, in the
absence of evidence to the contrary, we
Overbreadth Doctrine - it just doesn’t violate
presume that governmental regulation of the
freedom of expression but also other rights.
content of speech is more likely to interfere
with the free exchange of ideas than to
encourage it. The interest in encouraging
freedom of expression in a democratic society
outweighs any theoretical but unproven benefit
of censorship.
It is not lawful to require the obtention from the
authorities of a speaker’s permit before a person
may deliver a speech, or the previous
submission of the speech for their approval.
Neither can it be provided that no work may be
published unless it is first cleared by a
government censor and all the parts he objects
to are deleted.
Grosjean v. American Press Co., - a statute
imposing tax upon all periodicals publishing
more than 20,000 copies per issue was declared
invalid because it tended to limit the circulation
of any such periodical seeking to avoid the
payment of tax.
Iglesia ni Cristo v. CA - the majority of the
Court held for the Board on the first issue but
found that it should not have banned the telecast
of the programs because they did not attack but
merely criticized the other religions in the
exercise by the INC of its freedom of
expression and religion.
Primicias v. Fugoso - the SC ordered the
permit issued, holding that the respondent could
only regulate, not absolutely prohibit, the use of
public places for the purpose indicated.
Mutuc v. COMELEC - the SC declared an
action of the respondent to prohibit the use of
taped jingles in the mobile units
unconstitutional.
Burgos v. Chief of Staff - the government can
only confiscate subversive evidence but you
cannot padlock and prevent them from
publishing again.
Adiong v. COMELEC - the prohibition on
posting decals and stickers on mobile places
whether public or private except in authorized
areas designated by the COMELEC becomes
censorship which cannot be justified by the
Constitution.
Diocese of Bacolod v. COMELEC - applying
the standards under the intermediate approach,
the Court noted that “it is not within the
constitutional powers of the COMELEC to
regulate the tarpaulin” and considered the
messages featured in the same as “protected
speech by the petitioners who are non-
candidates”.
It is unconstitutional to regulate speech in the
context of electoral campaigns made by persons
who are not candidates or who do not speak as
members of a political party which are, taken as
a whole, principally advocacies of a social issue
that the public must consider during elections.
But the regulation is constitutional if its
principal objective is to endorse a political
candidate.
Freedom of expression can be intimately related
with the right to property. There may be no
expression when there is no place where the
expression may be made.

It must also acknowledge a private individual’s
right to exercise property rights. Otherwise, the
due process clause will be violated.
It is also a violation of the freedom of the press
where on the basis of a new ordinance
converting the location of its radio station into
a commercial area, thereby preventing it from
continuing operation a government office
denies a renewal of permit to operate.
(2) FREEDOM FROM PUNISHMENT
Freedom of speech includes freedom after the
speech.
If the law instills fears to the people and
prevents them from speaking out, it violates
freedom of punishment.
If it creates hesitation to express your speech,
it’s also a violation of freedom of speech.
Lewd words, obscene words, seditious words,
and slanderous words will not enjoy immunity
from prohibition and punishment.
Tests to determine the liability of the
individual for ideas expressed by him:
(a) The clear and present danger rule
(b) The dangerous tendency doctrine
(c) The balancing test
Concerned Boholanos for Law and Order v.
Calibo - respondent judge cannot be held to
answer administratively simply because he was
only exercising his constitutional right to be
heard in a petition fr grievances. As a consumer
and as a member of the body politic, it was his
right, nay his duty to air what he honestly
relieved to be an incipient irregularity.
GSIS v. Villaviza - Government workers,
whatever their ranks, have as much right as any
person in the land to voice out their protests
against what they believe to be violation of their
rights and interests.
It would be unfair to hold that by joining the
government service, the members thereof have
renounced or waived this basic liberty. This
freedom can be reasonably regulated only but
can never be taken away.
GSIS v. Kapisanan nang mga Manggagawa
sa GSIS - but when their rallies and protests
provokes work stoppage and disrupts service-
delivery, it can be regulated by the State.
Any collective activity undertaken by
government employees with the intent of
effecting work stoppage or service disruption in
order to realize their demands or force
concessions, economic or otherwise, is a
prohibited concerted mass action and doubtless
actionable administratively.
A. THE CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER
RULE
The question in every case is whether the words
of your speech can cause imminent danger. (e.g.
falsely shouting Fire! Fire! In a crowded theater
and causing panic)
The rule is that the danger created must not only
be clear and present but also traceable to the
ideas expressed.
Heckler’s veto - restriction imposed by the
government upon a person’s exercise of his
freedom of speech for purposes of maintaining
the peace or preventing unlawful or violent
reactions to the same.
Violent picketing would create a clear and
present danger to the safety of persons and the
public order and is therefore not entitled to the
protection of the Constitution.
Ruiz v. Gordon - The applicants for a permit to
hold an assembly should inform the licensing
authority of the date, the public place, where
and the time when it will take place. If it were a
private place, only the consent of the owner or
the one entitled to its legal possession is
required.
B. THE DANGEROUS TENDENCY TEST
Cabansag v. Fernandez - if the words uttered
create a dangerous tendency which the State has
a right to prevent, then such words are
punishable.
It is sufficient if the natural tendency and
probable effect of the utterance be to bring
about the substantive evil which the legislative
body seeks to prevent.
C. THE BALANCE-OF-INTEREST TEST
When a 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 particular circumstances presented.
The court has the discretion whether to uphold
freedom or regulate it.
CRITICISM OF OFFICIAL CONDUCT
Public figure - a candidate for public office;
exercise governmental function.
Public official - elected officials.
US. v. Bustos - A public official must be open
for criticism. The official acts, and now even
the private life, of a public servant are
legitimate subjects of public comment. But the
criticism must only be related to official
functions and matter of public interest.
Rosenbloom v. Metromedia - a private
individual may still be subject to public
comment even if he is not a public official or at
least a public figure, as long as he is involved in
a public issue.
Ayer Production Pty. Ltd. V. Judge
Capulong - the production of the movie “Four
Days of Revolution” where Enrile is included
does not violate his right to privacy because he
is still a public figure and the movie talks about
the history of people power revolution and
those events directly related to the public facts
of the EDSA revolution. It must not enter into
matters of essentially private concern.
In re Sotto - a senator was punished for
contempt for having attacked a decision of the
Supreme Court, which he called incompetent
and narrow-minded, and announcing that he
would file a bill for its reorganization.
In re Tulfo - while respecting his right to
criticize, the Court nevertheless found him
guilty of contempt for his disrespectful
language that was obviously intended to
ridicule the Court and insult its members.
Malicious speech or conduct directed against a
court or judicial officer, if committed by a
member of the Bar, may likewise subject the
offender to disciplinary proceedings under the
Code of Professional Responsibility, which
prescribes that lawyers observe and promote
due respect for the courts.
In such disciplinary cases, the sanctions are not
penal but administrative such as, disbarment,
suspension, reprimand or admonition.
Two Kinds of relating to court which can
warrant the exercise of the power to punish
for contempt:
(1) that which tends to impede, obstruct,
embarrass or influence the courts in
administering justice in a pending suit or
proceeding;
(2) that which tends to degrade the courts and
to destroy public confidence in them or that
which tends to bring them in any way into
disrepute.
Making contemptuous statements directed
against the Court is not an exercise of free
speech; rather, it is an abuse of such right.
ART AND OBSCENITY
Case to case basis.
When a form of expression goes beyond “art”,
the State can regulate it.
People v. Go Pin - accused was convicted for
exhibiting nude paintings and pictures. Noting
that he had charged a fee for admission to his
exhibition, SC held that his purpose was merely
commercial and not artistic.
PD 969, Section 2 - the forfeiture and
destruction of pornographic materials involved
in the violation of Article 201 of the RPC may
be done even if the accused is acquitted.
ASSEMBLY AND PETITION
Must be peaceful!
The right o assembly is important to freedom of
expression because public issue are better
resolved after an exchange of views among
citizens meeting with each other for the purpose.
It should be noted, however, that if the
assembly is intended to be held in a public place,
a permit for the use of such place, and not for
the assembly itself, may be validly required.
Redress of Grievances - petition to the
government of your concerns and questions, etc.
Navarro Case - mayor was sustained when he
denied the use of Plaza Miranda by the student
activists, suggesting that their rally be held at a
less sensitive area in the city.
Tanada v. Bagatsing - SC concurred to
mayor’s decision to refuse the rally at Liwasang
Bonifacio because it is well-known that the
latter has a history of losing lives, rambles, and
fights after dark.
B.P. 880 or Public Assembly Act - a permit for
the holding of a public assembly shall not be
necessary where the meeting is to be held in a
private place, in the campus of a government-
owned and operated educational institution, or
in a freedom park.
Written application must be filed with the
mayor’s office 5 days before the scheduled
meeting and shall be acted upon 2 days.
Otherwise, the permit shall be deemed granted.
Denial may be justified only if it presents clear
and present danger to public order. Action on
the application shall be communicated within
24 hours to the applicant.
(1) Tests/Purpose
De Jonge v. Oregon - whether their utterances
transcend the bounds of the freedom of speech
which the Constitution protects.
Untoward incidents arising during a public
assembly will not make the assembly unlawful
for that reason alone.
Malabanan v. Romento - it is a violation when
a school suspends students who held a
demonstration in the university premises
outside the permitted area.
SC added, the rally will be ineffective if during
a rally, they speak in a guarded and judicious
language of the academe.
The rally did not show clear and present danger.
RIGHT OF ASSOCIATION
Everybody has the right to join association,
public or private.
Article III, Section 8
“The right of the people, including those
employed in the public and private sectors, to
form unions, associations or societies for
purposes not contrary to law shall not be
abridged.”
Public employees can rally to negotiate with the
government for their benefits as employees.
Individuals may group themselves in
supporting divorce, and such purpose may not
be declared contrary to law by the legislative.
Article IX-B, Scetion 2(5)
“the right to self-organization shall not be
denied to government employees.”
Members of civil service may not declare a
strike because the provision is silent whether
such recognition of employees’ association
have the right to strike.
Victoriano v. Elizalde Roper Workers’
Union - the right to associate included the right
not to associate and that this particular
exemption was intended for the benefit of
laborers who were inhibited from joining labor
unions because of their religious beliefs.
The right of association was also held not
violated where political parties were prohibited
from participating in the barangay elections to
insure the non-partisanship of the candidate.
In re Edillon - To compel a lawyer to be a
member of the Integrated Bar is not violative of
his constitutional freedom to associate.
Under our system of laws, every group has the Article III, Section 7
right to promote its agenda and attempt to
“The right of the people to information on
persuade society of the validity of its position
matters of public concern shall be recognized.
through normal democratic means.
Access to official records, and to documents
and papers pertaining to official acts,
transactions, or decisions, as well as to
You have the right to demand information from
government research data used as basis for
public officials as long as it is of public interest.
policy development, shall be afforded the
citizen subject to such limitations as may be
provided by law.”

ACCESS TO INFORMATION
The authority to regulate the manner of
examining public records does not carry with it
The right to access public documents has been the power to prohibit.
recognized as a self-executory constitutional
right.
Restrictions:

The right to information guarantees the right of

the people to demand information, while (1) national security matters and intelligence
section 28 recognizes the duty of the information
officialdom to give information even if nobody
(2) trade secrets and banking transactions
demands.
(3) Criminal matters
(4) Confidential information
The duty to disclose covers only transactions
involving public interest, while the duty to
allow access has a broader scope of information
Pending the enactment of an enabling law, the
which embraces not only transactions involving
release of information through postings in
public interest, but any matter contained in
public bulletin boards and government websites
official communications and public documents
satisfies the constitutional requirement.
of the government agency.

Case law instructs that the proper remedy to

invoke the right to information is to file a
petition for mandamus.
THE IMPAIRMENT CLAUSE A public office is not a property right and
therefore cannot be the subject of a contract
(FREEDOM OF CONTRACT)
between the incumbent and the government.

“No law impairing the obligation of contracts

Landbank of the Philippines v. Republic of
shall be passed.”
the Philippines - the constitutional guarantee
of non-impairment contracts may not be used
by the petitioner to validate its interest over the
Its purpose is to safeguard the integrity of valid
land mortgagee.
contractual agreements against unwarranted
interference by the State.
The State’s restraint upon the right to have an
interest or ownership over forest lands does not
The will of the obligor and the obligee must be
violate the constitutional guarantee of contracts.
observed; the obligation of their contract must
not be impaired.
Law - includes statutes enacted by the national
legislature, executive orders and administrative
Contract - any lawful agreement on property or
regulations promulgated under a valid
property rights, whether real or personal,
delegation of power, and municipal ordinances
tangible or intangible.
passed by the local legislative bodies.

The parties may be private persons only, natural

To impair, the law must retroact so as to affect
or artificial, or private persons on one hand and
existing contracts concluded before its
the government or its agencies on the other
enactment.
hand.

Obligation (vinculum juris) - the tie that binds

A franchise has been held as partaking of the
the parties to peform their undertaking or
nature of a grant and is beyond the purview of
agreement according to its terms and intent.
the non-impairment clause.

Impairment - anything that diminishes the

But it DOES NOT cover licenses of liquor
efficacy of the contract
stores, cockpit, license agreements, etc.
As long as the original rights of either of the
parties are changed to his prejudice, there is an
impairment of the obligation of the contract.
There will be no impairment as long as a
substantial and efficacious remedy remains.
And this rule holds true even if the remedy
remains. And this rule holds true even if the
remedy retained is the most difficult to employ
and it is the easier ones that are withdrawn.
LIMITATIONS
A subsequent law can invalidate the contract
through a proper exercise of police power; all
rights and contracts are subject to police power.
Police power legislation prevail not only over
future contracts but even over those already in
existence.
Stone v. Mississippi - a franchise for the
operation of a lottery by a private corporation
was revoked when legislature subsequently
imposed a prohibition on all kinds of gambling.
Norman v. Baltimore (Gold Clause Cases) -
the subject of the contract being currency,
which was within the exclusive power of the
legislature to control, the agreement was
subject to modification by the State in the
exercise of the police power.
Ilusorio v. Court of Agrarian Relations - the
prohibition contained in constitutional
provisions against impairing the obligation of
contracts is not an absolute one and is not to be
read with literal exactness like a mathematical
formula.
Ortigas & Co. v. Featu Bank - the zoning
resolution had been adopted in the exercise of
the police power, which was superior to the
impairment clause and so could modify the
provisions of the contact of sale.
While acknowledging that “the subject property,
though declared as an institutional lot,
nevertheless lies within a residential
subdivision and is surrounded by residential
lots..
BP 22 (act penalizing the making or drawing or
issuance of a check without sufficient funds)
does not contravene the impairment clause
because checks forms part of the banking
system and therefore not entirely free from the
regulatory power of the State.
Ganzon v. Inserto - the clause would be
violated by the substitution of a mortgage with
a surety bond as security for the payment of a
loan as this would change the terms and
conditions of the original mortgage contract
over the mortgagee’s objection.
Article XII, Section 11
“No franchise to operate public utility shall be
granted except under the condition that it shall
be subject to amendment, alteration, or repeal
by the Congress when the common good so
requires”.

It has also been held that a lawful tax on a new

subject, o an increased tax on an old one, does
not interfere with a contract or impair its
obligation within the meaning of the
Constitution.

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.

Notes:
- The Executive department can abrogate a
contract invoking police power.

- Congress impairs through revisions,

amendments of law declaring a contact valid or
invalid.
- the contract will yield to the regulation of the
State.

- Like the police power, the other inherent

powers of eminent domain and taxation may
validly limit the impairment clause.
EX POST FACTO LAWS
Article III, Setion 22
“No expost facto law or bill of attainder shall
be enacted”
The equivalent of the impairment clause in
criminal matters is the prohibition against the
passage of the ex post facto law.
The following are ex post facto law:
1. Every law that makes criminal an act done
before the passage of the law and which was
innocent when done, and punishes such an act.
2. Every law that aggravates a crime, or makes
it greater than what it was when committed.
3. Every law that changes punishment and
inflicts greater punishment than the law
annexed to the crime committed.
4. Every law that alters the legal rules of
evidence, and receives less or different
testimony than the law required at the time of
the commission of the offense, in order to
convict the offender.
5. Every law which, assuming to regulate civil
rights and remedies only, in effect imposes a
penalty or the deprivation of a right for
something which when done was lawful.
6. Every law which deprives persons accused of
crime of some lawful protection to which they
have become entitled, such as the protection of
a former conviction or acquittal, or of a
proclamation of amnesty.
CHARACTERISTICS
The law must:
(1) Refer to criminal matters
(2) Be retroactive in its application
(3) Prejudice of the accused
The prohibition applies only to criminal or
penal matters and not to laws which concern
civil matters or proceedings generally, or which
affect or regulate civil or private rights.
Bayot v. Sandiganbayan - the amendment was
not ex post facto even if applied retroactively
because the suspension was not punitive but
merely preventive. P.D. No. 1606 itself,
creating the Sandiganbayan, was held to be not
a penal law and therefore not ex post facto.
A law can never be considered ex post facto as
long as it operates prospectively since its
strictures would cover only offenses committed
after and not before its enactment.
 Bureau of Customs Employees Association v.
Teves - R.A. No. 9335 does not possess the
Republic v. Eugenio - an application of a bank
elements of a bill of attainder. It does not seek
inquiry order under the provisions of the Anti-
to inflict punishment without judicial trial. It
Money Laundering Act as a means of inquiring
merely lays down the ground for the
into records of transactions prior to its passage
termination of a BIR or BOC official or
would be violative of the ex post facto clause.
employee and provides for the consequences
thereof.

People v. Vilo - SC sustained the retroactive

application to the accused of an amendatory law
Disini v. Executive Secretary - the act of non-
allowing affirmation of the death sentence by
compliance for it to be punishable, must still be
only eight justices although unanimity was
done “knowingly or willfully” There must still
required when the crime was committed by the
be a judicial determination of guilt, during
defendant.
which, as the Solicitor General assumes,
defense and justifications for non-compliance
may be raised.
It has been held that remedial laws may b given
retroactive effect. The reason is that a remedial
statute or a statute relating to remedies or modes
of procedure does not create new rights or take
away vested rights but only operates in
furtherance of the remedy or the confirmation
already existing rights.

Adonis v. Tesoro - but when the case has

become final and executory; and he had already
commenced serving his sentence a law cannot
be given retroactive effect anymore.

However, penal laws that favor a guilty person,

who is not a habitual delinquent shall be given
retroactive effect.

Bill of Attainder - infliction of punishment

without trial.
NON-IMPRISONMENT
DEBT
Article III, Section 20
“No person shall be imprisoned for debt or
non-payment of a poll tax.”
OF Lozano v. Martines - BP 22 is not a violation
of non-imprisonment for debt clause because it
punished the act of making and issuing
worthless checks and not the nonpayment of an
obligation. The law punishes the act not as an
offense against property, but an offense against
public order.

People v. Merillo - the law that requires

Debt - refers to any civil obligation arising from employers to pay their employees every 2
contract, expressed or implied. It includes even weeks and punishes those who don’t follow the
debts obtained through fraud since no regulation is not a violation of this clause. Hat
distinction is made in the Constitution. is being punished is the fraud or deceit of the
employer who, being able to make payment,
shall abstain or refuse to do so without
Sura v. Martin - the defendant in a civil action justification.
was ordered arrested for contempt of court
because of his failure, owing his insolvency, to
pay the plaintiff past and future support. The SC
held that such arrest was invalid as it would in
effect authorize his imprisonment for debt in
violation of the Constitution.

Crime

But although the debtor cannot be imprisoned

for his failure to pay his debt, he can be validly
punished in a criminal action if he contracted
his debt through fraud.

The responsibility of the debtor in the situation

arises not from the contract of loan, but ex
delicto/commission of the crime.
INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE
Article III, Section 18
(1) No person shall be detained solely by
reason of his political beliefs and aspirations.
(2) 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 - the condtiion of one
who is compelled by force, coercion, or
imprisonment and against his will, to labor for
another, whether he is paid or not.
The introduction of this subsection was
intended against the recurrence of the much-
abhorred practice, employed to excess by the
past dictatorship, of arresting political critics
and dissenters and indefinitely detaining them
without prior conviction and sometimes even
without filing of charges against them, as a
means of punishing them for their opposition to
the administration.
Exceptions
“punishment for a crime whereof the party shall
have been duly convicted”
Article II, Section 4
“all citizen may be required, under conditions
provided by law, to render personal military or
civil service”.
Naval enlistment is also not coveredby the
constitutional prohibition. A person who enlists
in the service of a merchant vessel may be
compelled to remain in such service until the
end of the voyage for which he contracted.
Article 311, Civil Code
“unemancipated minors come under the patria
potestas and so are obliged to obey their
parents so long as they are under parental
power, and to observe respect and reverence
towards them always.”
Caunca v. Salazar - penalties are imposed
upon any person who, in order to require or
enforce the payment of debt, shall compel the
debtor to work for him, against his will as
household servant or farm-laborer.
Pollock v. Williams - the US Supreme Court
declared unconstitutional a statute providing
that any person who receives an advance
consideration of his promise to perform some
work but subsequently fails or refuses to do so
shall be presumed prima facie to have induced
the advance with intent to defraud. The effect of
such presumptio would be to compel him to
perform the work for fear of criminal
prosecution, in violation of the prohibition
against involuntary servitude.
THE WRIT OF HABEAS imprisoned without sufficient legal basis. It is
not issued when the person is in custody
CORPUS
because of a judicial process or a valid
judgment.

The writ of habeas corpus is a prerogative writ

of liberty employed to test the validity of a
Mangila v. Judge Pangilinan - resorting to the
person’s detention.
writ is not to inquire into the criminal act of
which the complaint is made, but into the right
of liberty, notwithstanding the act and the
This action shall take precedence in the
immediate purpose to be served is relief from
calendar of the court and must be acted upon
illegal restraint.
immediately.

The inquiry in a habeas corpus proceeding is

Obviously, mere delay in the resolution of this
addressed to the question of whether the
issue will by itself constitute an invalid
proceedings and the assailed order are for any
derogation of his right against unlawful
reason null and void.
restraint.

Habeas corpus should not be granted in advance

The writ directed to the person detaining
of a trial, this must be the last resort.
another, commanding him to produce the body
of the prisoner at a designated time and place,
with the day and cause of his caption and
This writ cannot be used in legal detention or
detention, to do, to submit to, and receive
restraint.
whatever the court or judge awarding the writ
shall consider in his behalf. It is a high
prerogative common law writ of ancient origin
The write of habeas corpus does not act upon
the great object of which is the liberation of
the prisoner who seeks relief, but upon the
those who may be in prison without sufficient
person who hold him in what is alleged to the
cause.
unlawful authority. The only parties before the
court are the petitioner (prisoner) and the
person holding the petitioner in custody, and the
The ultimate purpose of the writ of habeas
only question to be resolved is whether the
corpus is to relieve a person from unlawful
custodian has authority to deprive the petitioner
restraint.
of his liberty.

It is issued only for the lone purpose of

When Available
obtaining relief for those illegally confined or
 The liberty of an individual may be restored by
habeas corpus where he is subjected to physical
restraint, such as arbitrary detention.
Even moral restraint is a ground for the issuance
of this writ, as where a housemaid is prevented
from leaving her employ because of the
influence of the person detaining her.
The remedy of the writ of habeas corpus is
available not only in cases of illegal
confinement or detention by which any person
is deprived of his liberty, but also in cases
involving the rightful custody over a minor.
But the State has the right to intervene where
the parents, rather than care for such children,
treat them cruelly and abusively, impairing
their growth and well-being and leaving them
emotional scars.
Habeas corpus may also be resorted to in case
of unlawful denial of bail.
If the decisions are tainted with only errors of
law, a petition for habeas corpus will not lie.
But if the error alleged denies the right to a
speedy trial, the same is considered
jurisdictional and so may be corrected on
habeas corpus.
Procedure
It is the privilege and not the writ itself that can
be suspended.
When an application for habeas corpus is filed
and the court finds the petition in proper form,
it will issue the writ as a matter of course,
ordering the production of the person allegedly
detained and requiring the respondent to justify
the detention.
Suspension of the privilege itself is the
exception and not the rule, the rule being the
affirmation and not the limitation of liberty.
Article III, Section 15
“the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall
not be suspended except in cases of invasion or
rebellion, when the public safety requires it.”
In the absence of the exceptional conditions
mentioned, the privilege of the writ of habeas
corpus may not be suspended and the individual
shall be entitled to the full protection of the writ
against any attempt to restrain him.
Grounds for Suspension
The power to suspend the privilege of the writ
of habeas corpus (only in case of invasion or
rebellion) but maybe revoked by the Congress
or the SC in proper cases.
Article III, Section 18
The President shall be the Commander-in-
Chief of all armed forces of the Philippines and
A state of martial law does not suspend the
whenever it becomes necessary, he may call out
operation of the Constitution, nor supplant the
such armed forces to prevent or suppress
functioning of the civil courts or legislative
lawless violence, invasion or rebellion. In case
assemblies, nor authorize the conferment of
of invasion or rebellion, when the public safety
jurisdiction on military courts and agencies
requires it, he may, for a period not exceeding
over civilians where civil courts are able to
sixty days, suspend the privilege of the writ of
function, nor automatically suspend the
habeas corpus or place the Philippines or any
privilege of the writ of habeas corpus.
part thereof under martial law. Within forty-
eight hours from the proclamation of martial
law or the suspension of the privilege of the writ
The suspension of the privilege of the writ of
of habeas corpus, the President shall submit a
habeas corpus shall apply only to persons
report in person or in writing to the Congress.
judicially charged for rebellion or offenses
The Congress, voting jointly, by a vote of at
inherent in, or directly connected with, invasion.
least a majority of all its Members in regular or
special session, may revoke such proclamation
or suspension, which revocation shall not be set
During the suspension of the privilege of the
aside by the President. Upon the initiative of the
writ of habeas corpus, any person thus arrested
President, the Congress may, in the same
or detained shall be judicially charged within
manner, extend such proclamation or
three days, otherwise he shall be released.
suspension for a period to be determined by the
Congress, if the invasion or rebellion shall
persist and public safety requires it.
Lansang v. Garcia - The Supreme Court has
the power to inquire the factual basis of the
suspension.
The Congress, if not in session, shall, within
twenty-four hours following such proclamation
or suspension, convene in accordance with its
President’s military power authority:
rules without need of a call.

(1) He may call out the armed forces to prevent

The Supreme Court may review, in an
or suppress lawless violence, invasion or
appropriate proceeding filed by any citizen, the
rebellion only.
sufficiency of the factual basis of the
proclamation of martial law or the suspension
of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus or
(2) The grounds for the suspension of the
the extension thereof, and must promulgate its
privilege of the writ and the proclamation of
decision thereon within thirty days from its
martial law are now limited to invasion or
filing.
rebellion when the public safety requires it.
(3) The duration of such suspension or
proclamation shall not exceed sixty days,
following which it shall be automatically lifted.
(4) Within forty-eight hours after such
suspension or proclamation, the President shall
personally or in writing report his action to the
Congress.
(5) If not in session, Congress shall convene
within 24 hours following the proclamation or
suspension.
(6) The Congress may, by a majority vote of all
its members voting jointly, revoke his action to
the Congress.
(7) By the same vote and in the same manner,
the Congress may, upon the initiative of the
President, extend his suspension or
proclamation for a period to be determined by
the Congress if the invasion or rebellion shall
continue and the public safety requires the
extension.
(8) The action of the President and the
Congress shall be subject to review by the
Supreme Court, which shall have the authority
to determine the sufficiency of the factual basis
of such action. This matter is no longer
considered a political question and may be
raised in an appropriate proceeding. Moreover,
the Supreme Court must decided the challenge
within thirty days from the time it is filed.
(9) The challenge may be filed by any citizen.
(10) Martial law does not automatically
suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas
corpus or the operation of the Constitution. The
civil courts and the legislative bodies remain
open. Military courts and egencies are not
conferred jurisdiction over civilians where the
civil courts are functioning.
(11) The suspension of the privilege of the writ
of habeas corpus shall apply only to persons
facing charges of rebellion or offenses inherent
in or directly connected with invasion.
(12) Any person arrested for such offenses must
be judicially charged therewith within three
days. Otherwise he shall be released.
Writs of Amparo and Habeas Data
In habeas data proceeding, the usual defense of
the respondent that he does not have custody of
the person alleged to be detained, or any
information concerning his whereabouts, is
enough justification for the dismissal of the
petition by the court.
Under the writ of amparo, the courts will be
more diligent in the protection of the life, liberty,
and security of the desaparecido and can order
the respondent to exert more and actual effort in
locating the missing person and showing that he
is in good condition and has not been maltreated
by the authorities.
(b) That it be carried out by, or with the
authorization, support or acquiescence of, the
State or a political organization
The petition for a writ of amparo is a remedy
available to any person whose right to life,
liberty, and security is violated or threatened
(c) That it be followed by the State or political
with violation by an unlawful act or omission of
organization’s refusal to acknowledge or give
a public official or employee, or of a private
information on the fate or whereabouts of the
individual or entity. Mere substantial evidence
person subject of the amparo petition
is required.

(d) That the intention for such refusal is to

A writ of amparo is a special proceeding. It is a
remove subject person from the protection of
remedy by which a party seeks to establish a
the law for a prolonged period of time.
status, a right or particular fact. It may be filed
by any concerned citizen if there is no known
member of the immediate family of the
Even if a writ of amparo may lie against a
aggrieved party.
private individual under Section 1 thereof, “still
government involvement in the disappearance
remains an indispensable element.
In the writ of amparo, quantum proof is required
that their disappearance was carried out by or
with the authorization, support or acquiescence
Secretary of National Defense v. Manalo - the
of the government or a political organization,
alleged threat to life, liberty and security must
followed by a refusal to acknowledge the same
be actual, and not merely one of supposition or
or give information on the fate or whereabouts
with the likelihood of happening. Only actual
of said missing persons.
threats, as may be established from all the facts
and circumstances of the case, can qualify as a
violation that may be addressed under the Rule
In writ of habeas corpus, petition may be filed
on the Writ of Amparo.
by any person on behalf of the aggrieved party.

Burgos v. Esperon - the SC declared that its

Elements of Enforced Disappearances (Sec.3,
role “in a writ of amparo proceeding is merely
RA 9851):
to determine whether an enforced
disappearance has taken place; to determine
who is responsible or accountable; and to define
(a) That there be an arrest, detention, abduction
and impose the appropriate remedies to address
or any form of deprivation of liberty
the disappearance.
 The writ of habeas data is intended to insure the
human right to privacy by requiring the
Rodriguez v. Macapagal-Arroyo - the
repondent to produce the necessary information
President can be held responsible o accountable
to locate the missing person or such data about
for EJK and enforced disappearances in the
him that have been gathered in secret to support
context of amparo proceedings on the basis of
suspicion that he has been taken into custody in
the doctrine of command responsibility.
violation of his constitutional rights or, worse,
has been salvaged without benefit of lawful trial.

Requisites are:
(a) The existence of a superior-subordinate
relationship between the accused as superior
and the perpetrator of the crime as his
subordinate;
The writ may also be sought to secure
destruction of such secret information gathered
in violation of the person’s right to privacy to
justify summary action against him by the
government or any private entity.

(b) The superior knew or had reason to know

that the crime was about to be or had been
committed;
(c) The superior failed to take the necessary and
reasonable measures to prevent the criminal
acts or punish the perpetrators thereof.
The writ of habeas data operates to protect a
person’s right to control information regarding
himself, particularly in the instances where
such information is being collected through
unlawful means in order to achieve unlawful
ends.

The SC has held that the writ of amparo may

not be issued in favor of persons merely in the
“custody” of the police and allegedly “under
threat of deprivation of liberty.”

Sps. Pador v. Brgy. Captain Bernabe

Arcayan - the privilege of writ of amparo must
be issued upon showing the existence of
substantial evidence that their life, liberty, or
property are being violated by an unlawful act.
SPEEDY DISPOSITION OF
CASES Even the Ombudsman may be compelled by
mandamus to resolve both administrative and
criminal cases expeditiously.
Article III, Section 16

“all persons shall have the right to a speedy

Fixed-Time Period Rule - there is a considered
disposition of their cases before all judicial,
delay if proper resolution of a case is not done
quasi-judicial or administrative bodies.”
within a specified time period.

Article VIII, Section 5(3) - the SC is expressly

Demand-Waiver Rule - a defendant is
permitted to temporarily assign a judge from
considered to have waived any consideration of
one station to another when the public interest
his right to a speedy trial for any period prior to
so requires.
which he has not demanded trial.

Paragraph 5 of the same article states “shall

Balancing Test - applicable in our jurisdiction,
provide a simplified and inexpensive procedure
for purposes of determining whether or not
for the speedy disposition of cases.”
there has been inordinate delay, the conduct of
both the prosecution and defendant are weighed.

Supreme Court - 24 months

Lower collegiate courts - 12 months Factors may be considered and balanced
whether a defendant has been denied of his
Lower courts - 3 months
right to a speedy disposition:

Article IX-A, Section 7 - each Constitutional

Commission shall decide by a majority of vote
of all its Members any case or matter brought
before it within sixty days from its submission
for decision or resolution.
This constitutional right is not limited to the
accused in criminal proceedings but extends to
all parties in all cases, be it civil or
administrative in nature, as well as all
proceedings, either judicial or quasi-judicial.
(1) The length of delay
(2) The reasons for the delay
(3) The assertion or failue to assert such right
by the accused
(4) The prejudice caused by the delay
A deliberate attempt to delay the trial in order
to hamper or prejudice the defense should be
weighed heavily against the State.
It is not the petitioner’s duty to follow up on the
prosecution of their case.