Reviewer in Consti Exam

A.Section 1
No person shall be deprived of life, liberty and property without due process of law, nor anyone be
denied of equal protection of the laws

*This limit the police power:

1. Lawful Subject- The interest of the public generally as distinguished from a particular class, requires
the exercise of police power
2. Lawful means- The means employed is reasonable necessary for the accomplishment of the
purpose and not unduly oppressive (less intrusive means)

Basic elements:
1. Notice
2. Hearing
3. Competent jurisdiction

In Administrative proceeding the opportunity to be heard is sufficient

Academic and disciplinary proceeding

- The members of the academic institution are bound to the rules of academic requirements and
standards of behavior to the education institution.

Substantive due process- when it comes to law interfering the life,liberty and property of the private
persons.

Procedural- mode of procedure which the government follows for the execution of laws.
Basic elements:
1.Notice
2.Hearing
3.Competent jurisdiction

Void for vagueness rule- when the law is susceptible of different interpretation of men with common
intelligence.
Over-breadth Doctrine-when the law is encompassing including subjects different from the purpose of
the law.

Equal protection clause

All persons or things similarly situated should be treated alike, both to the rights conferred and
responsibilities imposed. It does not guarantees equality but not identity of rights.

Plessy Vs. Ferguson - a law may be valid initially but due to the changing conditions and circumstance
become invalid for violation of equal protection of laws. (blacks are discriminated but eventually
recognized.Thus, the valid substantial distinction of the past are now invalid by reason of the
prevailing change with regards to the LGBT community.

Requisite of valid classification (S-G-Ex-A)

1. Substantial distinction
2. Germane to the purpose of the law
3. Not to limited in existing condition
4. Apply to all members of the same class.

Limitation- police power

Searches and Seizure

The rights of the people to be secured in their persons, houses, papers and other effects against
unreasonable search and seizure in whatever nature or for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no
search warrant or warrant of arrest shall be issued except upon probable cause determined
personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation the complainant and the
witnesses he may provide, and particularly describing the place to be search, or person or things to be
seized.

Stonehill Vs Diokno- No general warrant shall be issued.

Probable cause- is the facts or circumstances that would lead a reasonably prudent man to believed
that the crime has been committed and the object sought in connection with that offense are in the
place that will be search.
*based only on probability and not certainty

Warranttless Search
1. Accidental to the valid arrest.
2. Visual search in vehicles and checkpoints
3. Paint View
4. Waiver
5. Stop and frisk- requires reasonable ground

Doctrine of Plain View-

1. There must be a prior justification
2. The discovery is inadvertent (Not deliberate)
3. Apparent

Warrantless Arrest
1. In Flagrante delicto- the offender is committed, actually committing or about to commit a crime
2. Hot pursuit- that the offense has in fact committed and there is cause to believe based on the
personal knowledge that the person to be arrested is the offender.
3. Escaping prisoner
4. Continuing crime

Section 3.
(1)The privacy of communication or correspondence shall be inviolable except upon lawful order of
the court or public safety or order requires otherwise as prescribe by law.
(2) any evidence obtain in violation of this section and the preceding section shall be inadmissible for
any purpose or any proceeding

Reasonable expectation of privacy (Ople Vs Torres)

1. Subjective- through the conduct
2. Objective- what society recognize as reasonable

Writ of Habeas Data- remedy to any person whose right to privacy is violated by government engage
in the collection of data and information.

GREAT FREEDOMS
Section 4
No law shall be pass abridging the freedom of speech, expression,or of the press or of the right of
the people to peaceable assembly and petition the government for redress of grievances.

Unprotected speech
1. Pornography
2. False or Misleading advertisement
3. Advocacy of imminent lawless action
4. Danger to National Security

Prohibited Chilling Effect- Caused by penal laws affecting free speech and accordingly imposes penalty
that is so discouraging thus impeding the exercise of speech and expression
Elements of Freedom of Expression
1. Freedom from censorship or prior restraint
Prohibition in advance of actual publication or dissemination
2. Freedom from subsequent punishment
Curtails the expression by reason of probability of punishment

Test:
Clear and Present Danger Rule with regards to the regulation of the content
- If the words used in such circumstances and such nature that will create a clear and present danger
that they will bring about the substantive evils that the Congress has a right to prevent.

Freedom of Assembly and petition should not be subject to prior restraint (content). It may not be
conditioned upon the prior issuance of a permit or authorization of public authorities. The right,
however, must be exercised in such a way as will not prejudice the public welfare.
Exemption:
Public place- need for permit
Exemption to the exemption
Private place- consent of the owner
Freedom Parks.

Regulation provided by law though permits are constitutional as long as:

1. Concerned only to the time, place and manner of assembly
2. Not discriminatory

Freedom of Religion
Section 5
No law shall be made respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise
thereof. The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination
or preference shall be forever be allowed. No religious test shall be required for the exercise of civil or
political rights.

Non- establishment clause- State should adopt a “position of neutrality” when it comes to religious
matter. Therefore:
1. No establishment of specific religion
2. No discrimination or preference
3. Secular morality rather than religious morals

Compelling State Interest Vs Benevolent Neutrality

In the absence of compelling state interest which justify the curtailment of religious freedom then the
court will adopt the Benevolent Neutrality which allows accommodation of religion in certain
circumstance.
Rules to determined the compelling state interest
1. Sincerity of the religious belief ( not only for the purpose of invading the law)
2. Is there a legitimate purpose that is compelling to infringe freedom of religion
3. Is this the least intrusive means
*If none then benevolent neutrality will apply

Liberty of Abode and freedom to travel

Section 6: The liberty of abode and of changing the same within the limits prescribed by the law
shall not be impaired except upon lawful order of the court. Neither the right to travel be impaired
except in the interest of national security, public safety, public health as may be prescribed by the
law.
Section 7
The right of the people to information on matters of public concern shall be recognized. Access to
official records, documents and papers pertaining to official acts, transaction or decision, as well as
to government research data used as basis for policy development, shall be afforded the citizen,
subject to such limitation as may be provided by law.

Mandatory senatorial debates- Constitutional right for information.

Section 8. The right of the people including those employed in private and public sectors, to form
union, association, or societies for purpose not contrary to law shall not be abridged.

Section 9: Private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation

Section 10. No law impairing the obligation of contracts shall be impaired

Section 11: Free access to courts and quasi judicial bodies and adequate legal assistance shall not be
denied to any person by reason of poverty.

Section 12: (1) Any person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have the right
to be informed of his right to remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel
preferably of his own choice. If the person cannot afford the services of counsel, he must be
provided with one. These rights cannot be waived except upon writing and in the presence of
counsel.

(2) No torture,force, intimidation, threat, violence or any other means which vitiate the free will
shall be used against him. Secret detention places, solitary in communicado or other similar forms
of detention are prohibited
(3) Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this or section 1 shall be inadmissible in
evidence against him
(4) The law shall provide for penal and civil sanctions for violation of this section as well as
compensation to and rehabilitation of victims of torture or similar practices and their families.
Applicability:
1. Custodial investigation
2. When the investigation ceases to be a general inquiry and the direction is aimed upon a particular
person.

Galman Vs Pamaran these rights are applicable notwithstanding that the person is not yet arrested or
under detention at the time.

* In every custodial investigation there must be a warning declaring that the accused has the right to
remain silent and (consequence) everything that he will say may be used against him. Failure to
disclose this right will render the evidence gained in the extrajudicial investigation void.

Section 13: All person, except those charged with offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua when
evidence of guilt is strong, shall before conviction, be bailable by sufficient sureties, or be released
on recognizance as may be provided by law. The right to bail shall not be impaired even when the
privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is suspended. Excessive bail shall not be required.

Rationale:
To secure the attendance of the accused.

When evidence of guilt is strong is upon the discretion of the court.

Section 14: (1) No person shall be held to answer a criminal offense without due process of law.
(2) In all criminal prosecution, the accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proven,
and enjoy the right to be heard by himself and counsel, to be informed of the nature and cause of
the accusation against him, to have a speedy, impartial and public trial, to meet the witness face to
face, and to have compulsory process to secure the attendance of witnesses and the production of
evidence in his behalf. However, after arraignment, trial may proceed notwithstanding the absence
of the accused provided that he has be duly notified and his failure to appear is unjustifiable.

Presumption of innocence will be rebutted only by proof beyond reasonable doubt

Right to be Heard- meaning right to testify and present evidence.

Right to be informed of the nature and cause of accusation

Purpose:
1. Furnish the accused with such a description of the charge against him to enable him to make his
defense
2. Protection against double jeopardy

Right to speedy, impartial and public trial

To determine if there is violation of speedy disposition of case the following should be take in
consideration
1. Duration of delay
2. Reason thereof
3. Assertion of the right or failure to assert it
4. Prejudice caused.

Right for examination is applicable only in the trial not in the administrative proceeding.

Section 15: the privilege of writ habear corpus shall not be suspended except in cases of invasion or
rebellion when public safety requires it.

Writ of habeas corpus is a writ directed to the person detaining another, commanding him to produce
the body of the detainee at a designated time and place, and to show the cause of detention

*Illagan vs enrile
The subsequent filing of information against the accused will cure the unlawful detainment and the
remedy of habeas corpus is no longer available.

Writ of amparo covers only extralegal killings and enforced disappearance and not applicable to
childd custody case.

Writ of kalikasan- applicable to people or juridical person whose constitutional right for a balanced
and healthful ecology is violated

Section 16
All persons shall have the right to a speedy disposition of cases before all judicial, quasi-judicial and
administrative body.

Section 17
No person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself

Available in:
1. criminal
3. Civil
4. Administrative
5. Impeachment
6. Legislative investigation
But not to private investigation done by private individual

Right for self-incrimination is not a self-executing right. It must claimed. Failure to claim it will be
considered as waiver of such right

Section 18
(1) No person shall be detained solely by reason of his political belief and aspirations.
(2) No involuntary servitude in any form shall exist except as punishment for a crime whereof the
party shall have been duly convicted.

Section 19
(1) Excessive fines shall not be imposed, nor cruel, degrading or inhuman punishment inflicted.
Neither shall death penalty be imposed, unless, for compelling reasons involving heinous crimes,
the congress hereafter provides for it. Any death penalty already imposed shall be reduced to
reclusion perpetua
(2) The employment of any physical, psychological, or degrading punishment against any prisoner
or detainee or use of substandard or inadequate penal facilities under subhuman condition shall be
dealt by the law.

Exam death penalty

I am not in favor of death penalty by reason that people even Justices are capable of mistake seen in
many of our jurisprudence where people was punished by death even though they have not
committed any crime but on the other hand was also a victim, with death penalty wrongs cannot be
undone. Moreover, it is worth noting that in the year 1993 the Philippines reintroduced death
penalty through R.A 7659 however, it was proven to ineffective in eliminating crimes by reason that
the crime rate only increased to15.3.%. Lastly, the Philippines is one of the signatories of International
Covenant of Civil and Political Rights and also ratified the Second protocol to ICCPR the complete
abolishment of death penalty without any reservation. Thus, not only that the Philippines will violate
its own national law by reintroducing death penalty by reason that it is a form of torture, the
Philippines will also tarnish its image in the international law as a violator.

The proper remedy as running candidate Chel Diokno said is an efficient justice system that will
punish the violators efficiently, not leaving any chance to the violators to escape.

Death penalty should be reintroduced by reason that it will offer not only deterrence but also
retribution to those third party victim. Without death penalty, family of the victims will put in their
hands the law and will only result to the endless revenge of each side and more violence and disorder
will result. Moreover, deterrence to the commission of the crime will provide for a more safe country.

Section 20
No person shall be imprisoned for debt or non payment of poll tax
Section 21
No person shall be twice put in jeopardy of punishment for the same offense. If an act is punished
by a law and an ordinance, conviction or acquittal under either shall constitute a bar to another
prosecution for the same act.

Requisite:
1. Valid complaint or information
2. Filed before a competent court
3. The arraignment of the accused (formal reading of charge)
4. To which he had pleaded
5. The defendant was previously acquitted or convicted or the case dismissed or otherwise
terminated without express consent.
Section 22
No ex post facto law or bill of attainder shall be enacted

Ex post facto
-is any law that makes an action done before the passage of the law, and which innocent when done,
criminal, and punishes such action.

Bill of attainder
- a legislative act that inflicts punishment without trial, its essence being substitution of legislative fiat
for a judicial determination of guilt.

Answer in legal arguments

Leila de lima

Rights violated:
Right to be presumed innocent and fair trial
Right to be presumed innocent by reason that the evidence presented in the Department of Justice
was the same evidence as that presented by the Secretary of Justice during the congressional hearing
in the Bilibid drug trade. Meaning the Secretary of Justice and Department of justice acted as the
prosecutor of Leila De lima prejudging that Senator Leila De Lima was guilt. Of course, this is an effect
of intervention of higher officials in the current administration especially the President who declared
publicly the guilt of the said senator, destroying the independence and impartiality of all courts. Thus,
the same facts constitute violate the impartiality of courts where in fact many judges recused
themselves from the case may be for the reason that they cannot stand the savagery of the given
case.

No body of the crime (corpus delicti) which are the drugs needed in the prosecution of drug cases was
provided. Therefore there is no prima facie evidence connecting Leila De Lima to the drug trade
except the Drug Lords witnesses which under our jurisprudence are not favored. In the case of
Salonga Vs Pano, the complaint was dismissed by reason that there is no prima facie evidence
connecting Leila de Lima to the allege commission of the crime. Thus, even the evidence is not strong
against Leila De lima however the complaint and warrant of arrest was not dismissed and much more
she was denied the right to bail which is contrary to the Constitution

Right to be informed against the nature and cause of the accusation against her.
In October 10, 2017, the court had a diverging opinion with regards to the charges against Leila De
Lima by which 5 justices stated that the relevant crime was illegal drug trading, 3 other justices
believe that it was conspiracy to commit illegal drug trading, one justice stated it should be neither of
the two. The remaining 6 justices believes that the charge should be bailable by reason of the
possibility of the fabricated evidence. Here the right to be informed to the charges against her was
violated by reason that she was not given an opportunity to defend himself by reason that she does
not know what she is defending against.

Due process and equal protection

The House of Representative violated due process and equal protection of Leila by investigating her
under the pretext of proliferation of illicit drugs in the national penitentiary but in truth it was only
directed against her. Moreover, the attack not only against his political belief but also her
womanhood and private life. Sadly, Ms Leila De Lima is still making a laughing matter in the social
media through the video of Jonel his private drive where in fact deeply the senator is suffering from
uncorroborated charges.

Reportedly, a legal officer from the Bureau of Corrections attested

to the fact that inmates who had testified against Ms. De Lima were
now housed at the Armed Forces of the Philippines Custodial Centre
and enjoyed increased prison privileges
Section 18
Was also violated by reason that he is detained for his political
belief and aspiration. Moreover, the detention is primarily done to
impair the freedom of speech and expression of the senator against
the administration. This was proven first by ousting the senator as
the Chair of the Senate Committee on Justice and Human Rights upon
declaring that she will investigate the Duterte’s administration and
now her detention not supported by concrete evidence.

No, the constitutional rights of Leila de Lima was not violated

because a proper warrant of arrest was issued against her with a
prima facie evidence that he is in conspiracy to commit illegal drug
trading supported by testimonies of her co- conspirator declaring the
existence of the anomalies, it is well noting that the court only
requires probability and not certainty in issuing a warrant of
arrest. The fact that they are convicted violators of the law does
not negate the credibility of their testimonies, the court are only
obliged to have great caution in dealing with them. Moreover, the
Regional Trial Court has jurisdiction over the issue and not the
Office of the Ombudsman

Section 14: (1) No person shall be held to answer a criminal offense without due process of law.
(3) In all criminal prosecution, the accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proven,
and enjoy the right to be heard by himself and counsel, to be informed of the nx`ature and cause of
the accusation against him, to have a speedy, impartial and public trial, to meet the witness face to
face, and to have compulsory process to secure the attendance of witnesses and the production of
evidence in his behalf. However, after arraignment, trial may proceed notwithstanding the absence
of the accused provided that he has be duly notified and his failure to appear is unjustifiable.

Same Sex Marriage

Article 1 of the family code is unconstitutional because it violates:
1. Due process:
It prohibits the marriage of same sex couple, which deprived a person of his liberty in his/her
interpersonal relationship with another. In Obergefell v. Hodges, the court stated that due process
clause extends to certain personal choices central to individual dignity and autonomy, including
intimate choices defining personal identity and beliefs. Thus, there is an abiding connection between
marriage and liberty, that is why ban to interracial marriage is invalidated.
1. Right of privacy
Article 1 of the FC violates the right of privacy of persons against interference of the government
against personal choices including decision whom to marry which is one of the most intimate choices
that person could make. And the right to have happiness in life is within the personal choice of the
people and not of the government. Marriage is one of the vital rights essential to the pursuit of
happiness by free men, as stated in the same case, marriage responds to the universal fear that a
lonely person might call out only to find no one there. It offers the hope of companionship and
understanding and assurance that while both still live there will be someone to care for the other.

Equal protection clause

In Plessy vs Ferguson the court declared that a law may be valid initially but due to the changing
conditions and cirtumances it become invalid for violation of equal protection clause. Thus, although
Art 1 of FC is a valid classification of the past it does not follow that it cannot be challenge today. As
declared in Oberbergefell Vs Hodges, Due process and equal protection clause are connected in a
profound way and may converge in the identification and definition of right. As due process is
violated, Equal protection clause is also violated by article 1 of the FC with the same cause, by
prohibiting ones liberty of choice, it also provides inequality tending to disrespect and subordinate
gays and lesbians. Although the past may not recognized the same sex couple, today is another story,
a valid classification of the past can be invalidated in the present therefore we need to reclassify. As
my professor in constitutional 2 ones said the more we classify the people and give them rights, the
more unity prosper in the society just like what the state did with regards to the indigenous people.

Against same sex marriage

Article 1 of Fc does not violate the due process clause it does not deprive a same sex couple for
something that they have which the privilege of marriage. The main purpose of marriage is
procreation which same sex couple cannot achieve. Moreover, the classification marriage between a
man and a woman is reasonable in its application in order to safeguard the general welfare of the
people.

It does not violate the equal protection clause because a marriage between a man and a woman is a
valid distinction. Equal protection clause does not demand absolute equality, it merely requires that
all person or things similarly situated, shall be treated alike both in the rights conferred and
responsibilities devolve.
Elements:
Substantial distinction
Germane to the purpose of the law
Not limited to the existing condition
Applies to all member of the class

There is substantial distinction within the capacity to procreate

The classification of marriage of man and woman is germane to the purpose of the law which is to
protect family and marriage
It is not limited in the existing condition because procreation is a continued propagation of life on
earth
It applies to all member of the class

Freedom of Religion Estrada vs Escritor

Three steps basis of the compelling state interest
1. Sincerity of belief
2. Is there are burden
3. if proven then the burden shift to the government to demonstrate that the law or practices
justifies a compelling secular objective and that is the least restrictive means of achieving that
objective.
Issue: whether or not acts presented constitute grave abuses , endangering paramount interest which
could limit or override respondent fundamental right to religious freedom.
Whether or not it is less intrusive
*state interest involve must be compelling

It must not be state broad interest, but the states narrow interest in refusing to make an exemption
for the cohabitation which respondent faith finds moral
 Also, the Declaration is not a blanket authority to cohabit without
marriage because once all legal impediments for the couple are lifted, the
validity of the Declaration ceases, and the congregation requires that the
couple legalize their union.

Answer:
Our court adopts a benevolent neutrality with regards to the free exercise of religion
in the absence of compelling state interest. In determining whether or not there is a
need to apply the compelling state interest it must be first determined whether the
respondent are burdened. The answer here is affirmative the burden is to choose
between his employment against losing his family and his religious belief. The second
test is to determined his sincerity. The respondent is sincere in his belief by reason
that he filed a motion not be included in the flag ceremony by reason of his belief.
Moreover, the “declaration of Pledging faithfulness” was acquired before the he was
employed. With this the burden is now shift to the government to prove a particular
compelling secular objective that will override the respondents fundamental right of
religious freedom. Here, the government failed to provide a particular state interest to
invalidate the application of benevolent neutrality, mere abstract or symbolic
prohibition cannot override ones right for freedom of religion

What if the wife filed the administrative charge?

The circumstance would be different by reason that there would be a specific
compelling state interest that will invalidate the accommodation of such religious act
because it affected a third person whose right must be protected by the state. Simply
putting it the pledge is not a form of marriage but only for the purpose of cohabitation
that is recognized by their supreme being meaning it is not a form of marriage and
does not constitute bigamy. Moreover, adultery is a private crime that can be
prosecuted only by the state through the complaint of the wife. Thus, assuming that
the complainant is the wife, the state has the compelling state interest to protect the
victim and prosecute the offender.