ACADEMIC FREEDOM (Art. XV, Sec. 5) individuals. 4. Judgment 4.

No all-embracing test of reasonableness exists, for its

(Lawful means) rendered upon determination rests upon human judgement applied to
Four Essential Freedoms of a University lawful hearing and the facts and circumstances of each particular case
based on evidence
1. Who may teach adduced.
2. What may be taught
3. How it shall be taught EQUAL PROTECTION (Art. III, Sec. 1)
4. Who may be admitted to study 2. Void-for-Vagueness Doctrine
1. Requisites for valid classification
Three Aspects of Academic Freedom A law is vague when it lacks comprehensive standards that men of a. The classification rests on substantial
common intelligence must necessarily guess at its common distinctions – should not be superficial
1. Institution meaning and differ as to its application. b. It is germane to the purposes of the law – it
2. Members of the faculty must be connected, related to the
3. Students The test in determining whether a criminal statute is void for objectives of the law
uncertainty is whether the language conveys a sufficiently definite c. It is not limited to existing conditions only –
warning as to the proscribed conduct when measured by common classification must also be applicable to
understanding and practice. It must be stressed, however, that future conditions and not just the present
DUE PROCESS IN GENERAL (Art. 3, Sec. 1)
the "vagueness" doctrine merely requires a reasonable degree of d. It applies equally to all members of the
1. Procedural and Substantive Due Process certainty for the statute to be upheld - not absolute precision or same class
a. Procedural due process – requires two basic mathematical exactitude 2. Rational Basis, Strict Scrutiny, and Intermediate
requirements: notice and hearing. It is the Scrutiny Tests
3. Hierarchy of Rights
guarantee of being heard by an impartial
and competent tribunal RATIONAL BASIS INTERMEDIATE STRICT SCRUTINY
There is a hierarchy of constitutional rights. While the Bill of
b. Substantive due process – requires the TEST SCRUTINY TEST TEST
Rights also protects property rights, the primacy of human rights
intrinsic validity of the law. This refers to Those that are not Solely on gender, Involves suspect
over property rights is recognized. Property and property rights covered in the illegitimacy, sex classes (race,
the law itself and its substance can be lost through prescription; but human rights are two other tests discrimination religion, alienage,
imprescriptible. In the hierarchy of civil liberties, the rights of free national origin
SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCEDURAL DUE
expression and of assembly occupy a preferred position as they Does not involve Does not involve Involves
PROCESS PROCESS
are essential to the preservation and vitality of our civil and fundamental fundamental fundamental
Purpose This serves as a Serves as a
political institutions. rights rights rights
restriction on the restriction on
government’s law actions of judicial
and rule-making and quasi-judicial
a. Rational Basis Test
powers. agencies of the DUE PROCESS AND POLICE POWER
government.  Requires only the government must
Requisites 1. The interests of 1. Impartial court not impose differences in treatment
Limits of Police Power
the public in or tribunal clothed except upon some reasonable
general, as with judicial 1. Though vast and plenary, this State power also carries differentiation fairly related to the
distinguished from power to hear and limitations, specifically, it may not be exercised object of regulation
those of a determine the arbitrarily or unreasonably.  Merely demands that the classification
particular class, matters before it. 2. Otherwise, it defeats the purpose for which it is in the statute reasonably relates to
require the exercised, that is, the advancement of the public good the legislative purpose
intervention of 2. Jurisdiction  Classification is presumed
the state. (Lawful properly acquired Reasonableness as Standard constitutional
subject) over the person of
b. Intermediate Scrutiny Test
the defendant and 1. The tendency is to extend rather than to restrict the  Requires that the classification or the
2. The means over property use of police power.
employed are which is the means must serve an important
2. The sole standard in measuring its exercise is governmental objective or end and is
reasonably subject matter of reasonableness. substantially related to the
necessary for the the proceeding.
3. What is “reasonable” is not subject to exact definition achievement of such objective
accomplishment t
or scientific formulation.
of the purpose 3. Opportunity to  It is enough that the means employed
and not unduly be heard. is conceptually the less restrictive
oppressive upon
 mechanism that the government may
apply
 Classification is presumed
unconstitutional
c. Strict Scrutiny Test
 Requires classification must serve
compelling state interest rather than
substantial and is necessary to achieve
such interest
 The government has the burden of
proof that the classification serves
compelling state interest
 Classifications are presumed
unconstitutional
ARRESTS, SEARCHES AND SEIZURES, PRIVACY OF
COMMUNICATIONS (Art. III, Sec.2; Art. III, Sec. 3)
REQUIREMENTS FOR SEARCH WARRANTS (Rule 126)
Section 1. Search warrant defined. — A search warrant is 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 described therein and bring it
before the court. (1)
Section 2. Court where application for search warrant shall be
filed. — An application for search warrant shall be filed with the
following:
a) Any court within whose territorial jurisdiction a crime was
committed.
b) For compelling reasons stated in the application, any court
within the judicial region where the crime was committed if the
place of the commission of the crime is known, or any court
within the judicial region where the warrant shall be enforced.
However, if the criminal action has already been filed, the
application shall only be made in the court where the criminal
action is pending.
XXXXXXXXX
Section 4. Requisites for issuing search warrant. — A search
warrant shall not issue except upon probable cause in connection
with one specific offense to be determined personally by the
judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the
complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly
describing the place to be searched and the things to be seized
which may be anywhere in the Philippines. (3a)
Section 5. Examination of complainant; record. — The judge must,
before issuing the warrant, personally examine in the form of
searching questions and answers, in writing and under oath, the
complainant and the witnesses he may produce on facts
personally known to them and attach to the record their sworn
statements, together with the affidavits submitted. (4a)
Section 6. Issuance and form of search warrant. — If the judge is
satisfied of the existence of facts upon which the application is
based or that there is probable cause to believe that they exist, he
shall issue the warrant, which must be substantially in the form
prescribed by these Rules. (5a)
Section 7. Right to break door or window to effect search. — The
officer, if refused admittance to the place of directed search after
giving notice of his purpose and authority, may break open any
outer or inner door or window of a house or any part of a house
or anything therein to execute the warrant or liberate himself or
any person lawfully aiding him when unlawfully detained therein.
(6)
Section 8. Search of house, room, or premise to be made in
presence of two witnesses. — No search of a house, room, or any
other premise shall be made except in the presence of the lawful
occupant thereof or any member of his family or in the absence of
the latter, two witnesses of sufficient age and discretion residing
in the same locality. (7a)
Section 9. Time of making search. — The warrant must direct that
it be served in the day time, unless the affidavit asserts that the
property is on the person or in the place ordered to be searched,
in which case a direction may be inserted that it be served at any
time of the day or night. (8)
Section 10. Validity of search warrant. — A search warrant shall
be valid for ten (10) days from its date. Thereafter it shall be void.
(9a)
Section 11. Receipt for the property seized. — The officer seizing
property under the warrant must give a detailed receipt for the
same to the lawful occupant of the premises in whose presence
the search and seizure were made, or in the absence of such
occupant, must, in the presence of at least two witnesses of
sufficient age and discretion residing in the same locality, leave a
receipt in the place in which he found the seized property. (10a)
Section 12. Delivery of property and inventory thereof to
court; return and proceedings thereon. — (a) The officer must
forthwith deliver the property seized to the judge who issued the
warrant, together with a true inventory thereof duly verified
under oath.
(b) Ten (10) days after issuance of the search warrant, the issuing
judge shall ascertain if the return has been made, and if none,
shall summon the person to whom the warrant was issued and
require him to explain why no return was made. If the return has
been made, the judge shall ascertain whether section 11 of this
Rule has been complained with and shall require that the
property seized be delivered to him. The judge shall see to it that
subsection (a) hereof has been complied with.
(c) The return on the search warrant shall be filed and kept by the
custodian of the log book on search warrants who shall enter
therein the date of the return, the result, and other actions of the
judge.
A violation of this section shall constitute contempt of court.(11a)
XXXXXXXXX
Section 14. Motion to quash a search warrant or to suppress
evidence; where to file. — A motion to quash a search warrant
and/or to suppress evidence obtained thereby may be filed in and
acted upon only by the court where the action has been
instituted. If no criminal action has been instituted, the motion
may be filed in and resolved by the court that issued the search
warrant. However, if such court failed to resolve the motion and a
criminal case is subsequent filed in another court, the motion
shall be resolved by the latter court. (n)
VALID INSTANCES OF WARRANTLESS SEARCHES AND SEIZURES
A. Search of a Moving Vehicle (Domingo Agyao Macad vs
People)
A search of a moving vehicle may either be a mere routine
inspection or an extensive search
Routine Inspection
1. Where the officer merely draws aside the curtain of a
vacant vehicle which is parked on the public fair
grounds
2. Simply looks into the vehicle
3. Flashes a light therein without opening the car’s doors
4. Where the occupants are not subjected to a physical or
body search
5. Where the inspection of the vehicles is limited to visual
search or visual inspection
6. Where the routing check is conducted in a fixed area
Extensive Inspection
As long as the officers conducting the search have reasonable or
probable cause to believe before the search that they will find the
instrumentality or evidence pertaining to a crime in the vehicle to
be searched
B. Search Incident to a Valid Arrest
Section 13. Search incident to lawful arrest. — 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. (Rule 126)
 Generally, arrest must precede the search
 Search substantially contemporaneous with an
arrest can precede the arrest if the police have
probable cause to make the arrest at the outset
of search
 Legality of the arrest is questioned in a large
majority of these cases
C. When things seized are within plain view of a
searching party
Plain View Doctrine
Objects falling in the plain view of an officer who has a right to be
in the position to have that view are subject to seizure and may
be presented as evidence
Requisites:
1. A prior valid intrusion based in the valid
warrantless arrest in which the police are legally
present in the pursuit in which the police are
legally present in the pursuit of their official
duties
2. The evidence was inadvertently discovered by
the police who had the right to be where they are
3. The evidence must be immediately apparent
4. “Plain view” justified mere seizure of evidence
without further search
D. Stop and Frisk
A police officer approaches a person who is acting suspiciously for
the purpose of investigating possible criminal behavior, in line
with the general interest of effective crime prevention and
detection
Scope of Search and Frisk – limited to a “protective search of
outer clothing for weapons/contraband”
Law Enforcers must have a genuine reason to believe, based on prohibition against a warrantless search. In the first place, the
their experience and the particular circumstances of each case, military operatives, taking into account the facts obtaining in this
that criminal activity may be afoot case, had reasonable ground to believe that a crime was being
committed. There was consequently more than sufficient
E. Express Waiver/Consented Warrantless Search probable cause to warrant their action. Furthermore, under the
situation then prevailing, the raiding team had no opportunity to
Consent given must be:
apply for and secure a search warrant from the courts. The trial
1. Voluntary judge himself manifested that on December 5, 1989 when the
2. Unequivocal raid was conducted, his court was closed. Under such urgency and
3. Specific exigency of the moment, a search warrant could lawfully be
4. Intelligent dispensed with.”
When one voluntarily submits to a search/consents to have it H. Search and Seizure by Private Persons
made of his person or premises, he is precluded from later
“On the other hand, the case at bar assumes a peculiar character
complaining thereof
since the evidence sought to be excluded was primarily
discovered and obtained by a private person, acting in a private
Relevant to this determination are the following
capacity and without the intervention and participation of State
characteristics of the person giving consent:
authorities. Under the circumstances, can accused/appellant
1. Age of the defendant validly claim that his constitutional right against unreasonable
2. Whether he was in a public or a secluded location searches and seizure has been violated? Stated otherwise, may an
3. Whether he objected to the search or passively act of a private individual, allegedly in violation of appellant's
looked on constitutional rights, be invoked against the State?
4. The education and intelligence of the defendant
5. The presence of coercive police procedures We hold in the negative. In the absence of governmental
6. The defendant’s belief that no incriminating interference, the liberties guaranteed by the Constitution cannot
evidence will be found be invoked against the State.” – People vs Marti (1991)
7. The nature of the police questioning
I. Airport Security
8. The environment in which the questioning took
place Air transportation is imbued with public interest
9. The possibly vulnerable subjective state of the
person consenting Persons may lose the protection of the search and seizure clause
by exposure or their persons or property to the public in a manner
reflecting a lack or subjective expectation of privacy, which
expectation society is prepared to recognize as reasonable. Such
F. Customs Search
recognition is implicit in airport security procedures.
Requisites:
J. Jail safety
1. The person’s conducting the search
“On the other hand, we find in order the search of the bag of
was/were exercising police authority under
Felicidad Macabare, at the time she was visiting her husband who
customs law
was a detainee. PO3 Sevillano testified, this search is part of
2. The search was for the enforcement of
police standard operating procedure, and is recognized as part of
customs law
precautionary measures by the police to safeguard the safety of
3. The place searched is not a dwelling place
the detainees as well as the over-all security of the jail premises.
or a house
However, the weapons confiscated from Felicidad Macabare,
were not formally offered as evidence by the prosecution, hence
probatively valueless.” – People vs Conde (2001)
G. Exigency (People vs De Gracia)
K. Constitutionality of “check-points”
“Under the foregoing circumstances, it is our considered opinion
that the instant case falls under one of the exceptions to the
“This Court has ruled that not all checkpoints are illegal. Those
which are warranted by the exigencies of public order and are
conducted in a way least intrusive to motorists are allowed. For,
admittedly, routine checkpoints do intrude, to a certain extent, on
motorists’ right to "free passage without interruption," but it
cannot be denied that, as a rule, it involves only a brief detention
of travelers during which the vehicle’s occupants are required to
answer a brief question or two. For as long as the vehicle is
neither searched nor its occupants subjected to a body search,
and the inspection of the vehicle is limited to a visual search, said
routine checks cannot be regarded as violative of an individual’s
right against unreasonable search. In fact, these routine checks,
when conducted in a fixed area, are even less intrusive.” – Abenes
vs CA (2007)
WHAT MAY BE SEIZED (Rule 126, Section 2)
Section 3. Personal property to be seized. — A search warrant may
be issued for the search and seizure of personal property:
(a) Subject of the offense;
(b) Stolen or embezzled and other proceeds, or fruits of the
offense; or
(c) Used or intended to be used as the means of committing an
offense. (2a)
REMEDIES IN CASES OF VIOLATION
A. Exclusionary Rule (Art. III, Sec. 2)
“Any evidence obtained in violation of the Constitution shall be
inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding. However, in the
absence of governmental interference, the protection against
unreasonable search and seizure cannot be extended to acts
committed by private individuals” – People vs Marti (1991)
B. Civil Action for Damages (Art. 32, NCC)
C. Criminal Cases (Arts. 128, 129, 130)
REQUIREMENTS FOR ISSUANCE OF WARRANT OF ARREST (Rule
112, Sec. 6)
Section 6. When warrant of arrest may issue. — (a) 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. He may
immediately dismiss the case if the evidence on record clearly fails
to establish probable cause. If he finds probable cause, he shall
issue a warrant of arrest, or a commitment order if the accused
has already been arrested pursuant to a warrant issued by the
judge who conducted the preliminary investigation or when the
complaint or information was filed pursuant to section 7 of this
Rule. 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 of
information.
(b) By the Municipal Trial Court. — When required pursuant to the
second paragraph of section 1 of this Rule, the preliminary
investigation of cases falling under the original jurisdiction of the
Metropolitan Trial Court, Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Municipal
Trial Court, or Municipal Circuit Trial Court may be conducted by
either the judge or the prosecutor. When conducted by the
prosecutor, the procedure for the issuance of a warrant or arrest
by the judge shall be governed by paragraph (a) of this section.
When the investigation is conducted by the judge himself, he shall
follow the procedure provided in section 3 of this Rule. If the
findings and recommendations are affirmed by the provincial or
city prosecutor, or by the Ombudsman or his deputy, and the
corresponding information is filed, he shall issue a warrant of
arrest. However, without waiting for the conclusion of the
investigation, the judge may issue a warrant of arrest if he finds
after an examination in writing and under oath of the complainant
and his witnesses in the form of searching question and answers,
that a probable cause exists and that there is a necessity of
placing the respondent under immediate custody in order not to
frustrate the ends of justice.
(c) When warrant of arrest not necessary. — A warrant of arrest
shall not issue if the accused is already under detention pursuant
to a warrant issued by the municipal trial court in accordance with
paragraph (b) of this section, or if the complaint or information
was filed pursuant to section 7 of this Rule or is for an offense
penalized by fine only. The court shall then proceed in the
exercise of its original jurisdiction. (6a)
WHEN ARREST MAYBE MADE WITHOUT A WARRANT (Rule 113,
Sec. 5)
Section 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful. — A peace officer
or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person:
(a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has
committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an
offense; (In flagrante delicto)
(b) When an offense has just been committed, and he has
probable cause to believe based on personal knowledge of facts
or circumstances that the person to be arrested has committed it;
and (Hot pursuit)
(c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped
from a penal establishment or place where he is serving final
judgment or is temporarily confined while his case is pending, or
has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to
another. (Escaped prisoner or detainee)
In cases falling under paragraph (a) and (b) above, the person
arrested without a warrant shall be forthwith delivered to the
nearest police station or jail and shall be proceeded against in
accordance with section 7 of Rule 112. (5a)
A. Strict enforcement of rule
B. Exceptions to strict enforcement
C. Waiver of Illegality of Arrest
 A person may waive any objection of an
illegal arrest when he voluntarily submits
himself to the jurisdiction of the court when
he entered a plea of not guilty
D. Effects of Declaration of Illegal Arrest
E. When to Raise Illegality of Arrest
 An accused is estopped from assailing the
legality of his arrest if he failed to move to
quash the information
IMMUNITY FROM ARREST OF MEMBERS OF CONGRESS (Art. VI,
Sec.11)
SECTION 11. A Senator or Member of the House of
Representatives shall, in all offenses punishable by not more than
six years imprisonment, be privileged from arrest while the
Congress is in session. No Member shall be questioned nor be
held liable in any other place for any speech or debate in the
Congress or in any committee thereof.
PRIVACY (Art. III, Sec.2)
“The right to privacy is enshrined in our Constitution and in our
laws.  It is defined as “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.”  It is the right of an individual “to be free
from unwarranted publicity, or to live without unwarranted
interference by the public in matters in which the public is not
necessarily concerned.”  Simply put, the right to privacy is “the
right to be let alone.”47

The Bill of Rights guarantees the people’s right to privacy and

protects them against the State’s abuse of power.  In this regard,
the State recognizes the right of the people to be secure in their
houses.  No one, not even the State, except “in case of overriding
social need and then only under the stringent procedural
safeguards,” can disturb them in the privacy of their homes.” –
Hing vs Coachuy (2013)

PRIVACY OF COMMUNICATIONS (Art. III, Sec. 3)

“Communication and correspondence” – used in the Constitution

in a general sense, so that the protection is not limited only to
written communication

Limitations of the privacy:

a. Upon lawful order of the court, or

b. When public safety or order requires others, as
prescribed by law

The reasonableness of a person’s expectation of privacy depends

on a two-part test: (Ople vs Torres)

1. Whether, by his conduct, the individual has exhibited

an expectation of privacy; and
2. This expectation is one that society recognizes as
reasonable.”
3. Customs, community norms, and practices may,
therefore, limit or extend an individual’s “reasonable
expectation of privacy.” Hence, the reasonableness of
a person’s expectation of privacy must be determined
on a case-to-case basis since it depends on the factual
circumstances surrounding the case