Due Process

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 forfeited for commision of a heinous crime.

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But when salary has already been earned, it cannot be withdrawn by a retroactive law - already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.

Mere privileges like a license to operate a cockpit or liquor store are not property rights and
revocable at will.

SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS - an inquiry of whether or not the law is valid or not. This serves as
a restriction on the government’s law and rule-making powers.

Laws must be published first (Official Gazette or Newspaper of General Circulars) so people will
know and cannot reason out ignorance in the future.

The SC ruled “Retail Nationalization Law is a valid exercise of police power. Nothing at that time,
the retail trade was controlled by aliens. The disputed law is deemed necessary to bring about
the desired legislative objective - to free the national economy from alien control and dominance.

Tests for Substantive Due Process:

1. Lawful Subject - public interest
2. Lawful Means - means employed
3. Passed within the power of law - making body

PROCEDURAL PROCESS - the one “which hears before it condemns, which proceeds upon inquiry
and renders judgement only after trial” ; notice and hearing.

(1) JUDICIAL DUE PROCESS (Judicial Hearing) - Requirements:

A. Impartial and Competent Court - court with no bias.

Every litigant is entitled to the cold neutrality of an impartial judge. The judge will only reach his
conclusions only after all evidence is in and all arguments are filed, on the basis of the established
facts and the pertinent law.

No judge or judicial officer shall sit in any case in which he or his wife or child is pecuniarily
interested as heir… or in which he is related to either party within sixth degree of consanguinity
or affinity. (Rule 137, Sec. 1, ROC)
The speed in the determination of the case depends on the circumstances and on how
complicated the case or not.

Mere allegations are not equivalent to proof. The mere suspicion of partiality will not suffice to
invalidate the action.

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.

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).

C. HEARING
Every litigant has a right to be notified of every incident of the proceeding and to be present at
every stage.

A decision rendered without a hearing is null and void.

When petitioners deliberately avoided acknowledgement of summons or notice, it’s waiver of

their right to be heard.

Mere notice by publication of a hearing conducted by an administrative agency was held

insufficient and violative of due process.

Service of pleadings and court processes can be made only upon counsel on record.

One may be heard also through pleadings.

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

As long as the law allows him to appeal, denial of that remedy is a denial of due process.
Article VIII, Section 5(2), Consti -

(1) All cases which the constitutionality of any treaty, international or executive agreement,
law, presidential decree, proclamation order, instruction, ordinance, or regulation is in
question.

(2) All cases involving the legality of any tax, impost, assessment, or toll, or any penalty
imposed in relation thereto.

(3) All cases in which the jurisdiction of any lower court is in issue.

(4) All criminal cases in which the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua or higher.

(5) All cases in which only an error or question of law is involved.

If the appeal is based on pure question of law, it is rejected.

Violation of due process is a PERSONAL DEFENSE; no one can assert it but YOU!

A judge can call a hearing even in summary proceedings for clarificatory purposes.

2.) Exceptions

There are cases in which the essential req, of notice and hearing may be omitted violation of due
process:

⚫ Cancellation of passports of persons sought for the commision of a crime;

⚫ Preventive suspension of a civil servant facing administrative charges;
⚫ Distraint of properties for tax delinquency;
⚫ Padlocking of restaurants found to be insanitary;
⚫ Theaters showing obscene movies;
⚫ Issuance of temporary protection orders;
⚫ Writs of possession
⚫ Abatement of nuisances

A. Nuisances
Article 704, Civil Code - A nuisance per se is 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 abated only upon judicial authorization.

Only courts of law have the power to determine whether a thing is a nuisance.

B. Presumption
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

Article III, Sec.2, Consti - “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers,
and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose
shall be inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable
cause to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of
the complaint and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be
searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Artificial persons like corporations are also entitled to the guaranty but their books of accounts
for taxes. However, their premises may not be searched nor may their papers and effects be
seized except by virtue of a valid warrant.

This right is personal and may be invoked only by the person entitled to it.

Requisites of a Valid Warrant:

(1) Must be based on probable cause

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

(3) Determination must be made after examination under oath or affirmation of the
complainant and the witnesses

(4) Must particularly describe the place to be searched and persons or things to be seized.

(1) EXISTENCE OF PROBABLE CAUSE

Probable cause - such facts and circumstances which would lead a reasonably discreet and
prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed and that the object being sought in
connection with the offense are in the place sought to be searched.

The determination of probable cause must not be based on mere suspicion.

The warrant must refer to only one specific offense.

Computer data produced or created may be constitute personal property and is protected from
unreasonable searches and seizures.

(2) DETERMINATION OF PROBABLE CAUSE

Determination of probable cause is to be made “personally by the judge”.

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 - 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.

Section 5(a) of Rule 112 of the Rules of Court - by the Regional Trial Court. Within ten (10) days
from the filing of the complaint or information, the judge shall personally evaluate the resolution
of the prosecutor and its supporting evidence. In case of doubt on the existence of probable
cause, the judge may order the prosecutor to present additional evidence within five(5) days
from notice and the issue must be resolved by the court within thirty (30) days from the filing of
the complaint or information.

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. In resolving the second question, the judge should not rely on the recommendations
alone of the prosecutor but must independently arrive at his own conclusions based not only on
the bare report of the prosecutor but also on other relevant documents.

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. The preliminary investigation proper -- whether or not there is reasonable ground
to believe that the accused is guilty of the offense charged -- is the function of the investigating
prosecutor.

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.

But the judge is not required to personally examine the complainant and his witnesses.
Following established doctrine and procedure, he shall

(1) Personally evaluate the report and the supporting documents submitted by the
prosecutor regarding the existence of probable cause, and on the basis thereof, he may
already make a personal determination of the existence of probable cause

(2) If he is not satisfied that probable cause exists, he may disregard the prosecutor’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.
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 - 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 - 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.

We reiterate that preliminary investigation should be distinguished as to whether it is an

investigation for the determination of a sufficient ground for the filing of the information or it is
an investigation for the determination of the probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of
arrest.
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.

⚫ 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.
Yee Sue Koy v Almeds, - 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.

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.

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*

“The Court invalidated the warrant, observing that, “obviously, the warrant gives the police
officers unbridled and thus illegal 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.”

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.

Technical precision of description is not required.

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 commited, 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 commision 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 - provides that a person lawfully arrested may be searched
for dangerous weapons or anything which may have been used or constitute proof in the
commision 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 constitututes a reasonable or unreasonable warrantless search or seizure is purely a judicial

question, determinabe 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 Communication and Correspondence

Article III, Section 3(1)

“The privacy of communication and corespondence shall be inviolable except upon lawful order
of the court or when public safety or order requires otherwise as prescribed by law”.

Article III, Section 3(2)

“Any evidence obtained in violation of this or the preceding section shall be inadmissible for any
purpose in any proceeding.

The right to privacy is:

-the right to be free from unwarranted exploitation of one’s person or from intrusion 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

The use of the records through wire-tapping is invalid except on specified offenses, mainly those
affecting national security.

Tests whether a person has a reasonable 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

The right of privacy is not absolute. Intrusion to privacy is valid on public figures and those
information sought are public in character.

A confimation of drugs via urine test cannot be used to charge you with RA 9165. The possession,
selling, and using (caught in the act) of drugs constitute the crime.
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.

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.

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 peition 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/employyes and not completely restrict them from
travelling.
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
therof. The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without
driscrimination 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.
Article III, Section 5
No law shall be made respecting and establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise
thereof.

The purpose of “Separation of Church and State” is for them not to quarrel and encroach upon
the activities of one another.

Our Constitution and laws exempt from taxation properties devoted exclusively to religious
purposes.

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”

The establishment clause prohibits the establishment of a state religion and the use of public
resources for the support or prohibiton of a religion.

Freedom of religion incudes freedom from religion; the right to worship includes the right not to
worship.

Government employees must not use government time to conduct or cooperate with church
activities.

No funds or books are given to private schools because the ones who benefit from the free books
are not the school but the students and the parents.

Any benefit indirectly enjoyed by a religious institution, as long as such benefit was only
incidental to a legitimate secular objective, would not violate the prohibition.

A public street may be used in a procession by a Catholic group as long as other non-religious
groups can use it too.

Priests who served in the Constitutional 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.
(1) Intramural Religious Disputes

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.

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 aspect, the courts can only try the same.\\

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 prohibiton 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 – accomodation of religion may be alowed, not to promote the

government’s favored form of religion but to allo 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.