Dave Umeran – Block 1D

Atty. Edwin Sandoval Notes

Philippine Bill of Rights Lecture Notes:

Fundamentals of the Bill of Rights:

 Bill of Rights has 22 sections

o Sections 1-11: Right to the people in general
o Sections 12-22: Has narrowed to the right of the accused
o Sections 2, 3, 12, 17: Exclusionary rule on evidence
 Evidence obtained under these sections cannot be used for any purpose for any proceeding (becomes incompetent
evidence)  Fruit of the Poisonous tree doctrine.
 [SANDOVAL] These sections are common questions to be asked under remedial and political laws for bar exams.
 Important parts of Written Constitution (Political Law)
o Constitution of gov’t
o Constitution of liberty (refers to bill of rights)
o Constitution of sovereignty
 Without the bill of rights, the government can do anything without you being able to complain
o EX: Section 9 provides that the taking of public property must be coupled with just compensation and due process to challenge
the expropriation
 In other words, it becomes the limitation on eminent domain of the state
o Section 2 limits power of authorities to search and arrests persons
 Requires probable cause upon the personal inspection of the judge.
 Bill of rights is not strictly about personal rights but a limitation on the unlimited powers of the state.
o Right to appeal is not a constitutional right but a statutory one.
 A/N: Though the right to be heard is constitutional – where appeal is related.
 Is there a right to privacy?
o There is privacy of correspondences but this is a limited application on privacy.
o However, the right to privacy is constitutionally protected as its essence it the right to be left alone (Ople vs. Torres)
 Grisswold vs. Connecticut, right to privacy has a constitutional foundation. It is found in the penumbras of the 3 rd, 4th ,
and 5th amendments
 In the case of Morfe vs. Mutuc (1968), the Griswold doctrine was adopted.
 The PH SC even furthered this stating that the right to privacy is foundational in Philippine bill of rights
o Section 1: has a strong element of privacy where life liberty and property are protected
Dave Umeran – Block 1D
Atty. Edwin Sandoval Notes

o Section 2: Where the right of privacy of persons in their homes from searches shall be inviolable
o Section 6: Liberty of abode and right to travel.
 Gov’t should not be able to monitor your movements easily
o Section 8: Freedom of associations
 Freedom of associations involves the freedom not to associate
o Section 17: The right against self-incrimination
 It has an element of privacy where you are free not to testify against yourself.
 Privacy is also protected by our laws (i.e. Art. 26 Civ Code, RA 4200, etc.).

Article III, Section I

No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the
laws.

 A catch all provision.

 This provision includes:
o Due Process – Invoked when there is an unreasonable act of government
 No person may be deprived of life, liberty and property
 Two types (Corona vs. UHPAP – There must be a distinction between procedure and substance):
 Procedural: On the manner of how the law is enforced
o Important essence:
 Opportunity of Notice – Receipt is not necessary. Only the delivery/publication of notice.
 Opportunity of Hearing
o Procedural due process is different in courts and in administrative proceedings.
 The evidence required in administrative hearing is only substantial evidence (Ang Tibay vs. CIR)
 “Evidence to a reasonable mind will be adequate to sustain a conviction.”
 Ang Tibay presents the 7 cardinal rights in administrative proceedings. These are:
 Right to a hearing;
 Tribunal must consider the evidence presented;
 The decision must have something to support its decision;
Dave Umeran – Block 1D
Atty. Edwin Sandoval Notes

 Evidence must be substantial;

 The decision must be rendered on the evidence presented at the hearing, or at least
contained in the record and disclosed to the parties affected;
 The Court or any of its judges must act on its or his own independent consideration of
the law and facts of the controversy, and not simply accept the views of a subordinate in
arriving at a decision;
 The Court should render its decision in such a manner that the parties to the proceeding
can know the various issues involved, and the reasons for the decisions rendered.
o Procedural Rights on Extradition (SEE: Mark Jimenez Cases & Gov’t of HK vs. Olalia)
 (Mark Jimenez Cases -Initial Ruling) Extradition proceeding is similar to a criminal proceeding.
The initial evaluation in an extradition proceeding is similar to a preliminary investigation in a
criminal case
 To deny Mark Jimenez copies for documents in his defense is a denial of due process
 Dissenting: This is not a question of due process but a question of pacta sunt servanda –
the responsibility of the state to fulfill an extradition treaty.
 Ruling on Reconsideration: An extradition proceeding is not a criminal proceeding but is
a sui generis suit. Procedural safeguards on due process on preliminary investigations
does not necessarily apply on initial evaluation.
o Criminal Proceeding is different because
 Criminal proceeding determines the guilt or innocence of an accused. In
an extradition proceeding, guilt or innocence of the accused in not
determined. That shall be determined by the court of the country that
requested extradition.
 Extradition under PD 1069 is summary in nature. A criminal Proceeding
involves an adversarial full-blown trial
 Criminal Proceedings require a strict adherence in the rules of evidence.
Extradition proceedings involve a liberal interpretation rule.
 Quantum of Proof in criminal proceeding is Beyond Reasonable Cause.
Extradition proceedings involve prima facie evidence.
 In a criminal proceeding, judgement is executory upon finality. In
extradition, courts may proclaim a person extraditable but the president
has the last say on the matter.
Dave Umeran – Block 1D
Atty. Edwin Sandoval Notes

 According to the supreme court a different standard on procedural due process apply.
Procedural due process is determined through [SANDOVAL – ruling used a balancing of
interest approach  2 interests: right to due process & obligation under extradition
treaty]
o the precise nature of government function involved
o the private interest that has been affected by the government action
 It must be clarified that Mark Jimenez still has the rights to such documents to prepare
for his defense, but not at the stage of initial evaluation. It is only upon when an
extradition case is filed from the RTC and that he is arrested that he can request such
documents.
o The reason as to why he must be denied access to such documents early on is
based on the assumption that he is a flight risk. Knowing the evidence that the
extraditing authorities have against him may result to an extraditee to flee.
 No violation on due process if fundamental fairness is assured. Soft restraints in due
process is allowed.
 [Government of Hong Kong vs. Olalia – April 19, 2007] Extradition consists of deprivation to
liberty. Thus, it is bailable. For extradition to apply, what is criminal here must only be criminal in
the country seeking extradition. To be granted, it must be shown through clear and convincing
evidence that the accused is not a flight risk.
 Though this is only applicable on a petition of bail in extradition. So, in general, the Mark
Jimenez Cases are still the controlling doctrine in due process on extradition.
o Void for Vagueness Doctrine: What should be declared void? The law or act of government.
 It lacks comprehensible standard where men of ordinary intelligence would have to guess its
meaning or differ in its application.
 Repugnant to the constitution in 2 respects:
 Lacks fair notice of conducts to avoid
 Allows law enforcement unbridled discretion to flex its muscles.
 [Coates vs City of Cincinnati] An ordinance made it illegal 3 or more people from gathering in the
sidewalk conducting themselves as annoying for people to pass by.
 No standard as annoyance is subjective. One act may annoy one and not annoy the
other. Ordinance is therefore vague.
Dave Umeran – Block 1D
Atty. Edwin Sandoval Notes

 The court however clarified that the law must be vague on its face. So, if there is a
saving clause or a statutory construction doctrine that managed to clarify its vagueness,
then it cannot be considered vague
o A law is not vague on the account of its construction.
o Doctrine of Overbreadth/Overbroad: A statute may be overbreadth when it seeks to inhibit individual
freedoms positively guaranteed by the constitution such as freedom of speech and religion
 Generally worded statute that punishes a conduct that cannot be constitutionally punished is
vague because it fails to give adequate warning on the boundary of constitutionally permissible
and impermissible actions.
 The law is not vague but the law inhibits individual freedoms. It is sweeping. It fails to give
adequate warning on the boundary of constitutionally permissible and impermissible act of the
statute
 Adiong vs. COMELEC: In connection with the 1992 elections, there was a political ad ban law
(inhibits political ad in media – not existing anymore due to the fair elections act). COMELEC
issued an ordinance where political paraphernalia are prohibited except in designated areas.
 SC ruled for the unconstitutionality of the ordinance. Ordinance is sweeping because
you are prevented from posting paraphernalia even in your private property. It is in
contravention of free speech where you are prevented from expressing your support
towards a particular candidate.
 Is there a substantive evil that justifies the inhibition of such expression in this case? No.
It inhibits a fundamental freedom that is positively guaranteed by the constitution.
 Estrada vs. Sandiganbayan: Argued that the Plunder law is void for being vague and being
overbroad
 SC did not agree. Act must be utterly vague in its face. That it cannot be clarified by
saving clause or construction. And that this doctrine is a strong medicine and it must be
used sparingly. In this case, Estrada claims that the statute is void because the law failed
to define terms in the law
 Overbreadth is not applicable because it only applies to freedom of speech cases.
o Dissenting however states that a criminal statute involves a deprivation of
liberty. And liberty is a right that is guaranteed by the constitution.
 Substantive: Requires that the law itself must be fair, reasonable and just
o Example: A law where jaywalking is punished by reclusion perpetua
Dave Umeran – Block 1D
Atty. Edwin Sandoval Notes

 Violation of substantive due process. A violation of right to liberty

o Tanada vs. Tuvera: On the publication of laws
 Even if the law says that it shall take effect immediately, publication is nonetheless
indispensable. To be punished by a law that is unknown strikes deep against due process. “That
it would be the height of injustice”
 Article 3 (“Ignorance does not excuse no one from the law”) of the Civil Code presupposes that
the law has been published.
o Equal Protection – Invoked when there is a discriminatory act of government
 Is a guarantee against any discriminatory actions of the government or its agents.
 So how is it formulated?
 In its simplest formulation, persons or things similarly situated in terms of rights conferred and obligations
imposed are treated similarly.
 Equal protection does not guarantee absolute equality. What it merely guarantees is equality among equals.
 There can be a valid classification if:
o Based on substantial distinction
o Germane to the purpose of the law
o Not depend on existing conditions only
o Must equally apply to all members of the class.
 Quinto vs. COMELEC: Is there substantial distinction between appointed officials and elected officials that
justifies a differential treatment?
o During elections, those appointed officers who filed a COC is ipso facto resigned and elected officers are
not. Is there a substantial distinction to merit such difference of treatment?
o SC ruled that there is. First, those holding elective office has a mandate from the people. Appointive
office does not have the mandate of the people but only that of the appointing authority.
o Second, security of tenure for elective officials are limited, whereas appointed officials are longer even
up to his retirement age.
o This merits a different treatment. And it is germane to the rule of law.
 Is there a substantial distinction between print and broadcast media to warrant a difference in treatment
(TELEBAP vs. COMELEC)? Cuz broadcast stations are mandated to provide free airtime to COMELEC for the
purpose of fair elections and publishers are not under PPI vs. COMELEC (where the providing of such is a
violation of eminent domain).
Dave Umeran – Block 1D
Atty. Edwin Sandoval Notes

o There is. EPC does not guarantee absolute equality. Only equality among equals. In this case, there is
substantial distinction between print and broadcast media.
 Print media makes use of newspaper spaces for publication which constitutes property as it is
their source of income. To require them by COMELEC to give their source of income free of
charge during elections constitutes unjust taking.
 Broadcast media on the other hand use airwaves which is classified as public property (res
commones) regulated by the state. No unlawful taking of property in this case.
 In addition, broadcast media is more pervasive than that of print media. As a result, freedom of
speech in broadcast media is subjected to heavier regulation.